Triumph lingerie using very thin models for LFW

[showtunesgirl]

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151164694347342&set=a.10151164694147342.475140.129410907341&type=1&ref=nf

Why on earth are they using models that don't even look as though they could fill a bra?

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151164694347342&set=a.10151164694147342.475140.129410907341&type=1&ref=nf

Link enabled now.

I can't really see what size her boobs are in that picture, with the embellishment on her top and the way she's standing. I'm not wild about thin as an ideal but I think the whole issue is a minefield (you know, the whole 'real women are 'curvy' women' shite). But it does seem bizarre, yes.

I get what you mean LRD. The thing is for me, they make lingerie and it would make sense for the model to look as though she actually needs to wear it!

Oh, sure. Though I am not sure I've seen pictures of big-breasted women that seem much more representative to me. They all look as if they're so pert they don't need any support, so I end up with no idea how mine would look anyhow.

I mean, I don't like the 'here's how you should look, big breasted women, you should look smaller' thing going on here, but neither do I like the ones that show boobs 99% of us couldn't get naturally at all.

(I could moan for Britain this morning, sorry!)

Humph. I asked on that page why they are using such small women and they've now deleted the comments and blocked me.

Fuck. That's an overreaction and a half, isn't it? Why on earth would they do that?

I wonder if they have twitter and you can tweet them ...

I already tweeted about it earlier. I'm going to ask them why they've done this.

I mean come on!

In fact there were other women asking the same thing on here: www.facebook.com/triumphinternational and their comments have gone too.

I remember when Calvin Klein got Hillary Swank to be the face of their new big-boobs range, there was a bit of 'hmm' going on since she's famous for playing a transgender girl who's convincing as a boy. I don't recall them being especially acrimonious about it though. It seems an odd reaction since surely it would be better to come out with some guff about how they think she's beautiful and yada yada. Blocking you seems just plain odd.

They do get that it's women like us who'll be buying it?

I didn't catch the Hilary Swank thing but I can understand why CK would go with her. Their lingerie do tend to be more on the sporty / neutral side and I can imagine her wearing their range. My DH hates fuss and frills so much prefers this kind of look which is great as it's waaaaaaaay more comfortable.

I'm not sure what Triumph are doing. After all I believe one of their bestsellers is their Doreen bra which is more for the "well-endowed".

I don't really see why they should use larger breasted models for lingerie. After all, small breasted women wear it too.

Having said that, I would love it if models for all kinds of clothes came in a normal variety of heights and weights. I'm slim but short and don't feel represented at all.

Is this an fwr issue though? As far as I can see, male models are similarly unrepresentative (though arguably healthier looking).

Well seeing as its about bras, I'd say it was a feminist issue! And women constitute the majority of models and by far the most lucrative target market.

armed - triumph isn't for small breasted women, AFAIK? So isn't the issue that using a smaller woman implies that big-boobed women are somehow too big to be used, even on a product aimed at them?

It's like 'plus size' ranges used to be modelled by women who could never fit into the actual clothes and whose size was way smaller than the smallest size. And they're still usually modelled by someone at the very smallest end of the 'plus size' spectrum.

I do think it's a feminist issue, though I think male models with ridiculous stuffed-sock pants and pumped up bodies could possibly also be a feminist issue.

Anything which convinces women their body might be Wrong should surely be a feminist issue?

I'm not necessarily a feminist, perhaps a fellow-traveller on some issues, but this drives me potty. OK, not as much as the Corsadyl advert, but still pretty cross.

I agree with armed.

why not have a variety of shapes to show what they look like on "real" women, big, small, short, tall?

and 'plus size' models are usually a joke. they are not 'plus size', still within a healty bmi...

The problem is that the fashion industry is mostly male driven and they are the ones that tell us what they think a woman should look like.

Women come in all shapes and sizes but unfortunately things like London Fashion Week very rarely reflect that!

I think I would be happier if they had a range of shapes, so that is another problem with having just one and refusing to answer questions about why it's just one, IMO. I'm not sure this bit is feminist or anti feminist, but it's rude and daft to alienate your customer base when they're asking a pretty simple question like this, especially if it's clear several people wondered the same thing.

Well in the end, they tried to backtrack with me on Twitter and dodged the subject of deleting comments questioning their stance on types of models used.

Hmm. So not very good, then.

Unfortunately not but they do admit to deleting my comments from Facebook in our Twitter conversation.

I'll get on that.

Interesting. Triumph have tweeted:

Following a few negative comments about Triumph's sponsorship at #LFW to clarify Triumph do not advocate a model size zero mentality

What exactly is a szie zero mentality ? Theres nothing wrong with being a size zero but its hardly the choice i would make for selling bras for women with larger boobs. (Which i cant wear as a teeny weeny lady sadly)