Thursday, 15 October 2009

Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis.


I've been following this hilarious, and at the same time outrageous, female body manipulation story since it first surfaced a  couple of weeks ago. When the above picture of a vaguely humanoid alien first appeared it inspired hilarious comment and ridicule on sites like BoingBoing, PhotoshopDisasters and The Register.

In response, and in true Carter Ruck-esque Streisand Effect inducing style, Ralph Lauren served DMCA removal notices on BoingBoing and PhotoshopDisasters. BoingBoing and one Canadian ISP refused, pointing out this was copyright "fair use" and legitimately used.  Images copied for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research are fair game under DMCA.

Finally giving in to their paroxysms of embarrassment Ralph Lauren admitted that the model's pelvis had been shrunk, no shit?
"For over 42 years, we have built a brand based on quality and integrity," read the company's statement. "After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.
"We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the calibre of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
The penultimate twist came to light yesterday when the model Fillipa Hamilton admitted that she had been ditched by Ralph Lauren shortly after this shoot in April because she was "too large". She said: "They fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn't fit in their clothes anymore."

And they all lived happily ever after; the model fired - but with more publicity than she could ever pay for, Ralph Lauren admits their deception and apologises and the DMCA takedown notices are rescinded.

Dream on:

they keep on doing it and still no apology to PhotoshopDisasters


  1. The fact is the reason models are coerced to become thin is not to make them more feminine but to make them look childlike.

    and that is the unspoken truth

  2. Depressingly I think you're right. The key thing here is that a fashion house, targeting women, is using childlike masculinised images of models. What does that say, and why?

  3. I know what it says and why its a mans world unfortunately some are paedophiles now if you could relate those images with the reality.

    you might get a change in the models used to more normal women(with a small pot belly)

  4. the worlds worst cooo has just cooked his lunch all burnt.....Doh!

  5. The right question is: who are the target audience? These images are not targeted at men but at women. It is meant to make them feel old and inadequate I think. The cure for that existential condition is to buy their clothes.

  6. @ Mr M - hope you managed to get something for lunch. Do you remember the fuss over the picture of Lizzie Miller with a natural tummy?

    @scunnert - welcome back, missed you. I can assure you these pictures do alienate normal women, I am not fat, but have always felt I could afford to lose weight, a lot of weight. Even when I was really slim I felt the same way (a few years ago now, sigh). There is a sinister aspect to these pictures though, if the Art Directors are women they are condoning a ridiculous body image and should be ashamed - if they are men, who knows? I don't.

  7. Polaris - there are sick puppies running the capitalist machine - male and female. Time to make this shit a crime.

  8. You know - I am naturally averse to bans and the like, but I tend to agree scunnert - it would be nice if the publishing simply voluntarily agreed to stop it, in the name of truth. Yes I know, naive - but I can hope, or is that avenue no longer realistic.