She’s gorgeous, if emaciation is your thing

There’s a model out there named Karlie Kloss who is being hailed as “the new Body” because the fashion world adores her figure so. You can see her pictures here, but be warned that they’re NSFW, as there’s some partial nudity.  I have three comments:

I bet her legs would look great even if they weren’t so heavily photoshopped.

Is it just me, or is there something appalling about lauding a woman as the most beautiful body in the world when you can count her ribs and cut yourself on her jutting hip bones?  It may be the standard in the fashion industry, but it’s scary to think that our daughters look at that emaciated woman and think “If I don’t look like her, I’m not beautiful.”

In becoming “the new Body,” Kloss supplanted Elle Macpherson, who once held that spot in the fashion world.  Scanning images of Elle (probably NSFW either) reveals that Elle is a woman of flesh, not bones.  Our beauty culture has transitioned from slender to skeletal.

Guys, I’m especially interested in hearing from you.  I’ll take it as given that Kloss is beautiful, but is she your idea of what a woman’s body should be?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • sterlace

    The fashion industry has a huge disconnect from straight men.  It doesn’t speak to straight men, it’s not for men, it doesn’t advertise to men.  The industry ideal is a body type that displays clothing well, and that’s not the same criterion men rank highest.

    Study after study shows that men do not like obese women, but do want curves.  Most of the studies show that men want a woman who is a size 10-12, if I remember correctly.  That’s going to fall off of a girl like Karlie Kloss, whom many men would blow right past if they had a Beyonce or a J-Lo or a Kate Hudson nearby.

    Elle managed to have a gorgeous face, curves, athleticism, broad shoulders and long legs–sort of the Venn Diagram overlap of what men want and what the fashion industry wants.  Karlie Kloss is no Elle Macpherson.


    The observation …the dress looked better on the hanger DOES NOT mean you should be built like one.

  • neocon hippie

    Doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest.

  • Libby

    My husband’s theory:(mostly gay) male designers hate women and prefer models built like young boys.

  • jj

    I hate to be the dissenting voice here, but I have been in the same room with the young lady, and I’ll tell you: she isn’t skeletal.  She’s healthy as a horse.  She doesn’t have an inch to pinch but, you know, neither do Formula 1 drivers, (Michael Schumacher in his prime had about 4% body fat, now that he’s pushing forty he’s up to about 6%), jockeys, soccer players, distance runners, Broadway and Las Vegas dancers; most elite athletes.  (Which a noticeable percentage of football players and many baseball players really are not.)  But she’s much more along the lines of that athletic type: she’s a walking lean muscle.  There isn’t much photo-shopping in that middle, frontal picture, either, her body position is awkward and ugly, and the flaws are all there – but take a close look at her.  She’s not emaciated or starving, that’s not a walking wisp.  She has her torso twisted into an awkward and unattractive position – it’s an ugly picture –  but that’s a twist of muscle.  Sculpted muscle.
    The Iron Butterfly has done aerobics all her life, has fourteen certifications to teach – all of which mean zip to me – and knows what she’s looking at.  (Story: for years as a VP of Affiliate Relations she hit Las Vegas for regular visits, plus various conventions, meetings, seminars, etc. Las Vegas four, sometimes five times a year.  Anyway, every morning, wherever she was, she hit the gym.  After about two visits to this particular gym in LV, during both of which she ended up calling the classes and ran the instructor into the ground, the gym told her she could come for free when in town, on one condition: she’d teach a morning class.  To a roomful of showgirls.  Which, for fourteen years, four times a year, she did, despite her initial misgivings that they’d kill her.)  So: point is, she knows what she’s looking at.  She was with me, and she’s looked at Karlie Kloss.  Ms. Kloss is fine, and probably strong as an ox.

  • Ymarsakar

    The fashion world appears to be full of people I could snap in half, it seems.

  • Bookworm

    I’m glad to hear that Ms. Kloss is strong and healthy.  Frankly I was that skinny (although not even close to that gorgeous) when I was her age.  I had an amazingly efficient metabolism and could eat anything

    That she’s healthy, though, doesn’t detract from my original point, which is that the message she sends to young women, few of whom enjoy her figure, is that being tall with all your bones showing is the most beautiful look there is.  That she was selected as “the Body” isn’t an indictment of her health, beauty or strength, but of a system that glorifies that rare body that’s just skin and bones, even if healthily so.

  • Ymarsakar

    Our beauty culture has transitioned from slender to skeletal.

    That’s what happens when you let the Left take control. The Left’s aesthetics are peculiar. They worship death. So why would anyone think they would hate skeletons?


  • Mike Devx

    I agree (somewhat) with jj in #5.  There is a broad range of “normal”.  I think she is a shade under normal.  I do think she is underweight, but not skeletal, and not emaciated.

    Don’t you all remember the “heroin chic” look?  About ten years ago, maybe more.  Maybe it’s still going on; I don’t pay attention.  But the “heroin chic” models – now THEY looked terribly skinny, emaciated and skeletal.  Compared to those heroin chic models, this woman seems, to me, muscular but a few pounds underweight.

    I think she’d be more appealing with that extra weight, with a little more softness and curves.  But I’m not exactly a proper judge of what straight guys should like.



     But I’m not exactly a proper judge of what straight guys should like.
    Neither am I 😉
    I’ve always been curious thought about men who find skinny attractive. It just seemed to signal that curves threw them for one.

  • Earl

    I’ve always liked “soft and round” as I tell my wife. 
    When I was growing up (and for years afterward, “Sophia” meant Miss Loren, whom I ogled at every opportunity. (Now it means my granddaughter!!)
    Anyhow, one birthday a while back, my wife bought me this book in appreciation:

  • jj

    Well – there is a difference between “lean” and “skinny.”  Kloss is lean, and hard muscle – she also dances, as the embedded story omits to mention.  Don’t forget: she’s nineteen, too.  When I was nineteen – up until about thirty, in fact – I could eat everything anybody’d put on a plate in front of me, plus whatever I could catch, and the difference it made couldn’t be spotted with a microscope.  My under-grad years featured an 11:30 PM pizza most nights watching Carson, and ice cream was consumed a pint at a time.  Plenty of days saw both.  Never gained an ounce.  And that seems pretty normal for that age – so she has that going for her, too.  Left to her own biological devices she might indeed carry a few more pounds, but she spends a couple of hours a day at the gym or the barre, so the chances of that go down from there.
    I think she’s pretty normal – which brings me to an interesting point.  Book remarks that there’s something appalling about lauding someone’s body as beautiful when you can count their ribs.  Ummm… (how to say this diplomatically)… when someone’s at their correct weight, (really their correct weight, no BS) and their perfect BMI, well, yeah:  you’re going to be able to spot those ribs and if it should occur to you to count ’em, you can.  There isn’t supposed to be a lot of meat over that rack of ribs.  You know, the sad reality is that 90% of us in this country could lose a few lbs, which makes those who don’t need to lose – but could perhaps gain a little – and work to stay around the low end of the range pretty rare, and maybe even a touch odd looking.
    And it changes in subtle ways, so your concept gradually adjusts – without you noticing – too.  The Iron Butterfly can barely get clothes to fit these days – she’s 5’5″ tall, goes around 115, and generally wore  zeros and twos.  She’ll tell you with no hesitation at all that today’s zeros and twos are a whole lot bigger than the zeros and twos of twenty years ago.  So when you find somebody who looks like a hunter-gatherer, she can hit our eye with a weird initial impression, until you look closer.  We’re all so fat that lean looks odd!  (Or – full disclosure – you can look fine, like me, but be perfectly aware that the waist has become 36 instead of 32, and I could really lose 25 lbs.  And, according to the medical charts of thirty years ago – though not today’s, they’ve changed too – I am absolutely overweight.)

  • Simplemind

    There should be some butter on the buns.

    0% body fat doesn’t look good on anybody.

  • Earl

    Please do not forget genetics when making judgments about how folks “should” look, at any age.
    I guaran-d**n-tee you that MOST 19 year olds CANNOT look like the young lady under discussion.  Her body conformation is a result, in part, of her genetic makeup.
    That is not to deny that most of us carry a bit more fat than necessary, and many a lot more.  Miss Kloss MIGHT be able to drape her taut musculature with flab by eating a lot more (not necessarily – we each also have a “set-point”), but most young women could starve and exercise as much as they wished and never look the way she does. And that’s the problem with holding one particular body conformation up as “the ideal”, especially to the female sex….they try, and a lot of really negative outcomes result.
    I have experience of this (though a male, to whom it seems to matter less, in general).  Still, it pained me to work as hard as I did in high school – running, eating ONE meal each day (breakfast) and drinking juice for the other two, plus working on the weights – and while I lost weight (down to 165) and ran a lot faster (mile in five and a half minutes), I never got the “six-pack abs”, or even lost the little fat roll around my waist.  In fact, when I was getting Cobalt-60 radiation at 19 and went clear down to 150 (I’m six feet tall), I STILL retained my little fat roll.  I will never look like Arnold S., regardless of what I eat or what workout regimen I faithfully use.  
    I have struggled to keep my weight down for as long as I can remember, including my teenage years.  The only respite was when we lived at altitude – between 5,000 and 13,000 feet – and were walking miles and working hard every day.  But my general body conformation was pretty much the same, just less sub-cutaneous fat and more muscle tissue – none of it showing very much, more’s the pity!
    So, if you are blessed, as is Miss Kloss and apparently the Iron Butterfly, count your blessings.  But don’t denigrate people as insufficiently self-controlled (or whatever) to look the way you do.  That’s just ridiculous.

  • Ymarsakar

    The picture is a result of extreme body conditioning. You can see it on her chest, where the fat makes her breasts look emanciated, but at the same time, because she wasn’t weight lifting or building muscles (gymnastics usually elongate muscle length not increase in size). This is a usual trait of people who do things to decrease their body fat, and it tends to have dramatic consequences more for women than men. Men who decrease body fat, increase definition of any muscles they have. Women don’t usually have such muscles unless they work on em.

     Irregardless, the aesthetics of the article is not designed to promote health, gymnastic, or anything else. It was designed to focus on lack of body fat leading to her. Approving of her, is approving of the article’s aesthetics. That’s how propaganda works, by conflating two similar or dissimilar elements, and transferring support/dislike from one subject to another.

    Another example of how Leftist propaganda works, no matter the target audience. 

  • Earl

    P.S. Any woman whose body fat falls below a certain percentage stop menstruating, as her body “knows” there aren’t enough reserves to care for the baby that might result if she continued to ovulate.  I haven’t read about this recently, but there are distinct downsides, in terms of future reproductive ability, in maintaining this condition for extended periods (no pun intended).

  • jj

    That’s the point, Earl.  There’s no particular “condition” there – she’s fine.

  • Ymarsakar

    The Left does not promote ethical or standards of aesthetics that are “fine”. People who have been too long in Hollywood may have diluted their senses to the point where tolerating such is useful, but the truth didn’t change.