Male modelling

I'm sure the vast majority of us are familiar with the disgusting regimes female models have to endure in order to look skinny. We all know of anorexia.

Show of hands, though. How many people have heard of bigorexia?

This article is about the horrors male models put themselves through in order to look ripped.

Quote :

While female models are criticised for fuelling the rise in eating disorders by looking underweight, their male counterparts have largely escaped such adverse scrutiny. We have assumed those rippling abs represent the result of the kind of gym-dedication and healthy living to be admired.

You know what? Even I can tell that at least part of the underlying reason this happened was because people believe that women are ~*~delicate flowers~*~ to be protected, and men are HURR MANLY MEN who can PUNCH MOUNTAIN LIONS and can take care of themselves, unlike those girly-girl GIRLS!

Anyway, here is a male model's standard routine before a shoot:

Quote :

For days at a time he restricts fluid intake so severely that the resulting dehydration causes headaches, haziness and overwhelming fatigue. Having trained for weeks like an Olympian with high-intensity circuits, running and weightlifting, he then cuts out exercise for 48 hours and opens a bottle of red wine to drink alone. A six-day carbohydrate-depletion diet, in which he eats little more than chicken and broccoli, leaves his muscles weak and his brain so starved of ­glycogen that he feels dizzy and disorientated when he stands up. He can barely walk, let alone hit the gym.

Yeah, that's totally healthy and fit!

And so is being an alcoholic, apparently:

Quote :

Many male models drink ­alcohol – brandy and gin are favourites – to speed dehydration. “I open a bottle of red wine the night before and on the morning of a photoshoot I have another glass of wine and some wine gums,” Martin says. “The sugar in the sweets and the alcohol draw more water from the skin, leaving you looking as lean as possible.”

The depressing thing is, this isn't just one guy. This is the expected standard in the industry:

Quote :

James Fricker, 22, a sales executive from London who has modelled for several magazines including Men’s Health, agrees that the expectation to arrive at a shoot in a hypo­glycaemic haze is immense. ­“Everything you put in your body immediately before pictures are taken is aimed at making you look as lean and muscular as you can for the camera,” he says. “Before a shoot I would eat jelly beans as the sugar improves blood flow and vascularity. Having your veins stand out makes you look as if you are in the best shape you can be.”

Quote :

B ut taking the body to such extremes carries a risk. Lose as little as two per cent of body fluids after a workout and the result can be a drop in concentration and a rise in body temperature. More severe dehydration triggers electrolyte, or body salt, imbalances that can cause cramping, chills and nausea and strain on overworked kidneys.

The consequences are potentially fatal. “Any imbalances in sodium or potassium levels can cause heart arrhythmia,” says Dr Martin Sellens, director of sports science at the University of Essex. “If fluid levels drop too low for too long, then potassium becomes concentrated and that can cause the heart to stop.”

Do the people in charge care about the models? Hell no:

Quote :

Jon Lipsey, editor of Men’s Fitness magazine, says he is unaware of ­models going to such lengths: “That’s just not how the people we use do things. Everyone who appears in our magazine is in very good shape – they train hard and pay attention to their diet to achieve that look.”

ORLY, Mr. Lipsey?

Quote :

Any fitness gains are often aesthetic rather than functional, says Fricker. “I took part in a ‘survival of the fittest’ event with four of their cover models who looked really fit but they finished at the back behind ordinary members of the public.”

Quote :

The pursuit of that perfect six-pack shows no sign of abating. Research by the Harley Medical Group, the largest cosmetic surgery chain in the UK, found the number of men aged 35 and over choosing to have a tummy tuck has risen by 55 per cent this year, compared with 2009. A University of Florida study says changing perceptions of the ideal male physique has ­triggered a wave of body-image problems.

No surprises there, really.

Hey, it's the modelling industry. To get the perfect body image and be healthy is, it seems, impossible. The idea that these men's employers aren't aware of the sorts of things these guys do is dumb.

Perfect body? The girls are walking clothing racks and the men are like statues. That's not perfect, it's insane.

It's like pedigree dogs without the inbreeding.

Exodia's Right Leg wrote:

Perfect body? The girls are walking clothing racks and the men are like statues. That's not perfect, it's insane.

It does sort of explain why none of them look real, though. It's because they aren't.

As well as the damage models do to their own bodies, another reason it's impossible to get their physique and be healthy is because editors and artists make adjustments with photoshopping to pictures.

So people aren't just encouraged to obtain a body image that is unhealthy, they are also being encouraged to obtain one that is litterally impossible.

Nobody wants real. As Dove found out, you can't really sell "real," especially when it comes to fashion.

"You're perfect just the way you are! Don't buy our cosmetics or clothes!"

Been reading Cracked? I saw that, too.

I did not understand that, I thought Dove sold lotion and soap and stuff? That =/= make-up.

Then, there are those male models who really do look anorexic....like Matthew Gray Gubler. Boy howdy, as cute as I think he is, he used to look downright scary back in his modelling days.

It is kind of depressing: the look everybody wants but nobody can get.

grmblfjx wrote:

Been reading Cracked? I saw that, too.

Heheheh, yep.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I did not understand that, I thought Dove sold lotion and soap and stuff? That =/= make-up.

"Nothing's wrong with my complexion? Then I obviously don't need your facial moisturizers and other treatments!"

Penguin wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I did not understand that, I thought Dove sold lotion and soap and stuff? That =/= make-up.

"Nothing's wrong with my complexion? Then I obviously don't need your facial moisturizers and other treatments!"

Being naturally beautiful does not mean you should not wear deodorant. Or shampoo. Which is actually a thing Dove sells, as opposed to, you know, cosmetics.

IDK, I do not understand why people keep implying Dove sells make-up when they do not, and the philosophy behind spa products and toiletries is completely different. Like, to sell make-up you convince customers they are ugly and will always be ugly and they have to cover up that ugliness just to look normal. To sell spa products you convince your customers they are pretty swans and with the right treatments their natural beauty will radiate through. At least, that is the sales pitch I have always gotten from spa product sellers. Most of them are pretty anti-make-up and push really hard that with the right treatments you do not need make-up. Also they push the fact that not cleaning your skin twice a day with all natural mineral infused wonder cream is unhealthy because you are letting your body re-absorb all the icky toxins you are exuding everyday and night etc etc. Also: washing and moisturizing is partially done to feel good (like, to eliminate dry, itchy skin, or oily, itchy skin, or calluses or whiteheads or whatever). So the promoting self esteem thing makes sence to me; if you think you can never be pretty because you have huge hips or whatever why would you care about face cream? This makes even more sence when you look at the models, who were not average model size but all were fit and had lovely skin and looked super great. It was the perfect way to say "you may not be proportioned like a model but you can still be smokin hot!" And yes, I realize they were still shopped and Dove pretty much straight-up lied about that and that was awful, but I think the core idea was a good one.

Honestly, I think the campaign ultimately failed because everyone wanted so badly to bask in the irony they all mistook a soap company for a cosmetics company.

Quote :

Like, to sell make-up you convince customers they are ugly and will always be ugly and they have to cover up that ugliness just to look normal. To sell spa products you convince your customers they are pretty swans and with the right treatments their natural beauty will radiate through. At least, that is the sales pitch I have always gotten from spa product sellers.

They're two different ways of saying the same thing:

"You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty."

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Like, to sell make-up you convince customers they are ugly and will always be ugly and they have to cover up that ugliness just to look normal. To sell spa products you convince your customers they are pretty swans and with the right treatments their natural beauty will radiate through. At least, that is the sales pitch I have always gotten from spa product sellers.

They're two different ways of saying the same thing:

"You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty."

Maybe you would have to be the one targeted to get the difference.

It's either "Make yourself look less ugly" or "Come on, it's not impossible to be this attractive, just use our shit."

It doesn't make a whole lot of difference apart from making as much money out of the average sucker as possible.

Penguin wrote:

They're two different ways of saying the same thing:

"You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty."

Not really. The difference is between "You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty." and "You're pretty. Use our shit so you don't become ugly (and/or physically uncomfortable) later." I personally don't have much use for the former, but I do buy the latter products, if only because I'm not all that much into chapped skin, oily hair or firepits.

Oh, and the obligatory mention: Harley, shut up.

Azzy wrote:

You know what? Even I can tell that at least part of the underlying reason this happened was because people believe that women are ~*~delicate flowers~*~ to be protected, and men are HURR MANLY MEN who can PUNCH MOUNTAIN LIONS and can take care of themselves, unlike those girly-girl GIRLS!

Or because no one pays attention to male models. Ever notice the wave of people in a rush to buy the Victoria's Secret catalogs and watch that "fashion show" or theirs for the attractive men? Of course you don't.

Or it might be because men are busy doing shit FAR more unhealthy than this. Boxing, hockey, football, military, firefighting, and triple bacon cheeseburgers cost far more years than being dehydrated for a day. Now yes, women do these things (or at least, they try to), but there aren't as many as men and they're no good at any of it so no one pays them any mind. They freak out about female models being Twigmode instead.

Oooh, Mikey, what a big mouth you have - oh, wait, that's your ass. It's kinda hard to tell the difference since you talk out of both.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Azzy wrote:

You know what? Even I can tell that at least part of the underlying reason this happened was because people believe that women are ~*~delicate flowers~*~ to be protected, and men are HURR MANLY MEN who can PUNCH MOUNTAIN LIONS and can take care of themselves, unlike those girly-girl GIRLS!

Or because no one pays attention to male models. Ever notice the wave of people in a rush to buy the Victoria's Secret catalogs and watch that "fashion show" or theirs for the attractive men? Of course you don't.

Except you kind do? In the (male) Fashion Week, Milan is always flooded with plenty of single(?) girls who're hoping to get frisky with a catwalk model in their downtime.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Maybe you would have to be the one targeted to get the difference.

We're talking about advertising. That's like saying you have to be the victim of two different con artists to understand which con artist really has a heart of gold.

Saleha wrote:

Penguin wrote:

They're two different ways of saying the same thing:

"You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty."

Not really. The difference is between "You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty." and "You're pretty. Use our shit so you don't become ugly (and/or physically uncomfortable) later." I personally don't have much use for the former, but I do buy the latter products, if only because I'm not all that much into chapped skin, oily hair or firepits.

You've never heard the ad, "Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline?"

Ergo, it's impossible to achieve the beauty portrayed by fashion magazines, partly because reality is unrealistic.

Penguin wrote:

Saleha wrote:

The difference is between "You're ugly. Use our shit to get pretty." and "You're pretty. Use our shit so you don't become ugly (and/or physically uncomfortable) later."

You've never heard the ad, "Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline?"

I'm not on either side of this argument, but, well, that's exactly what Saleha said. Maybelline is make-up, that is, the former.

Yes. The point is, their marketing tagline was about natural look... never mind.

The thing is, in both cases, the ads target the fear of ugliness. Dove/Neutrogina/Etc: "Without our moisturizers, your face will be a dried, cracked, blemished mess!" Makeup companies: "We can hide your blemished mess!" Two ways of addressing the same problem: If not us, then ugly.

Just remember; as long as you don't look and smell like a homeless bum, on average most people won't care what you look like so neither should you.

At least, that's on an every-day basis - going on dates and clubbing and stuff is a little different...