originally, i believe the thin females were used because the designers wanted the audience attention on the clothes and not on the models, and attention would have gone to the models if the models had been voluptuous... hence thin models who form would be ignored by the audience and newspaper reader.
next came the entry of the gay designers who wanted female models to echo the gay understanding of form - male or androgynous... hence again female models who didn't have fuller form.
plus we must remember that modern western fashion industry was set during times of lesser economic means for most ( to buy food ) because of wars... hence not only were thinner females to be seen outside but also the designers were designing [Uto sell[/U] to those females who were seen outside.
and then the gay agenda was furthered in media and also the capitalists saw that they would earn a lot by creating a "thin is fashionable" propaganda.
and all this self-sustained for decades until a greater explosion in the 90's via the creation of the "health and wellness" industry... suddenly there was a madness for females to be "fit" and so many headed to the gym.
and then the younger people brainwashed themselves through peer pressure to become thin ( females ), force their friends to become thin ( these forcers could be female or male ).
this is madness... but capitalism is madness.
watch this vid to see a rough understanding of cultural presence of the aesthetics of female form down the ages... i have of course posted this vid before :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrp0zJZu0a4
not by fake-feminists certainly ( like the femen movement ).
and most thin models are not attractive of face at all - laila ali, for example.
and the below "plus size" models are pretty of face and appealing of form :
chloe marshall :
and wasn't nigella lawson so appealing in her prime?? aren't huma qureshi and sonakshi attractive??
