I've just done something I've never done before...

[CUNextTuesday]

I have been moved to complain to Next about one of the models they have used in the Autumn/Winter catalogue (from page 2 onwards if you want to see). Now I know they use slender girls, but this one her knees are wider that her thighs .

I have put it too them that this does not represent their customer base in the slightest and is almost taking things a step too far as far as thinness is concerned. I hope they do not see this as aspirational, and if they have airbrushed her to look like this, then shame on them.

This is not a debate on thinness/fatness, and I appreciate some women look like this naturally, but a tiny minority and I would expect a large retailer like Next to at least choose a model who was a bit closer to the norm? Or AIBU?

YANBU to expect a range of models, but to expect them to use one which is close to the 'norm' still alienates loads of women.

Also, the 'norm' implies that if you do not look like that you are abnormal, be it in a perceived good or bad way.

YANBU to voice your opinion, YABU to expect a different model to be used who will equally not relate to everybody.

Have you a link as I don't have a Next catalogue

here

no probably 'norm' was the wrong word... average? With at least a little bit of meat on her bones?

She's very slim but not exceptionally thin for a model.

No, YANBU she's a very unusual shape and size. I don't think she makes the clothes look good (the usual argument about the use of thin models - actually when I see pics of catwalk models I often think the clothes would look better on someone with shape)

And that is not meant to offend thin people - we all try and choose clothes which suit our shape.

The second photograph smacks of Photoshop Disasters. Note that her hand is on her left hip, which then curves as though she's pushing her hips to the left, but her right hand is dangling by, well, what is is dangling next to? Either she's only got one buttock, or someone has photoshopping that picture catastrophically badly.

The photograph on the left is also badly photoshopped. Look at the way the line of the dress wiggles just above her right (our left) hand, with the line of the dress tracking the line of the sleeve. And in that picture, her left shoulder is dropped below the level of her right, but the wrists are level. Something odd has happened.

Perhaps I'm easily shocked It's the first thing I noticed when I opened the catalogue and to me it looks extreme...

I think she looks great

I agree, there are a couple of photos that look very badly photoshopped. But apart from that, I wonder why you are choosing to complain about her and not all the other thin models in the fashion world?

Maybe you think she looks extreme because the average woman in the UK is overweight?

It was the same last year. A number of Mumsnetters complained to Next and got a very non-committal response from a PR. All our models are healthy, blah blah. Infact, I think it was the Spring/Summer catalogue so the pictures were more shocking because the clothes were more revealing.

It will be interesting to see what sort of response you get.

oh the same response I expect. It was the knees to be honest. And the waistline. I don't know - maybe the averge woman is overweight, including myself, but this isn't haute couture and catwalk stuff where they use one sample product in a size 0. This is a high street retailer catering for people in their 20's, 30's 40's...

Looks photolopped to me-her legs and torso really look odd.

I see exactly what you see op.

Even if we forget for a moment that most women in this country are a size 12 - 16, it would be great to see models who look healthy and are a 10 or even an 8.

Am going to look for that other Next thread - the pictures in there were awful and yet there were still posters saying "she looks great".

I agree - I was questioning my sanity at the weekend - two ads in ther Graun/Observer - one selling evening dresses (I think it was House of Fraser) modelled on girls who LOOKED about 15 (not just 'WERE 15, but older looking')...WTF A) Where are they going in the 'evening' to need such garments, and B) how could they afford them C) Are they really 'sepaking' to the type of person in the market for evening dresses?

There is another one for some high street clothes shop with a girl looking like 12 years old jailbait modelling hotpants and super-high healed ankle boots...give it a rest, advertisers!

I agree OP and tbh I thought the same of the summer catalogue.

I am a size 8 but there is no way I look like that and I have no bones showing - we are in size zero land here I'm afraid.

Shame on them...

She is this thin - she's on their TV advert as well.

She looks like a size eight to me. But then sizes have changed over the years anyway, size zero didn't use to exist, it refers to an old size 6 or size 8 I think.

I agree sizes have got bigger.

Size zero is An American size. The UK equivalent is a 4.

I'm sure sizes have changed over the last decade or so. I'm sure Elle McPherson in her hayday was known as the perfect size 10. I bet she'd be refered to as a size 6 now?

She looks teeny.

I think she looks really good. And that clothes look better on thin people. So it makes sense for them to use a thin model even if she isn't "the norm".

Most people in adverts are uncharacteristically beautiful. It's how advertising works.

There is confusion becausesize zero refers to US sizes, but UK sizes are bigger. Pre-DCs I was a size 8, and can now occasionally fit into an 8, despite the fact I'm a stone heavier and have a wider waist. Flattering to think I'm still an 8, but I'm not fooled!

These "plus size" models are often a 12 or 14, but they are tall as well, so they aren't huge, are they?