Prev
Next

Body image crusaders must avoid normalising obesity

Tammy Lovett

by Tammy Lovett

06 Sep 05:55am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Body Image, Eating Disorders, Fashion, Health, Obesity

89 comments

The Melbourne Spring Fashion Festival is now in full swing.  In a few days it will coincide with the start of the National Body Image and Eating Disorder Awareness week.

Problems with skinny models are well-aired, but could the industry go too far in the other direction too? Pic: File

The fashion industry has always come under fire for its use of super-skinny models, raising issues about healthy body images.  In Australia, 45 per cent of women and 23 per cent of men in a healthy weight range believe they are overweight.  Being in a healthy weight range doesn’t make your image perception healthy.

But this argument isn’t new.  And overtime little has been done to correct these issues.  We have heard the calls to ban skinny models from the world’s fashion runways, but they are still walking down the catwalk.

And the super-skinnies are far from out of fashion.  Nevertheless, we’re seeing a new body image slowly being pushed into society by some manufacturing companies, retail outlets and some government-funded health promotion bodies.

Earlier this month, for example, underwear company Berlei introduced plus-size mannequins into the mainstream retail market.

The introduction of plus-size mannequins has been applauded by industry groups and the general public.  However, this may be a slippery slope.  Just because these dummies reflect the size of our population, doesn’t mean it is healthy.

These mannequins are supposed represent the woman of today.  Apparently the woman of today is a curvy size 16. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures from 1995 — the latest years for which figures are available — show that the average Australian woman is in the overweight category as measured by Body Mass Index (BMI) guidelines.

In the 15 years since the ABS survey was taken, Australia’s obesity epidemic has only worsened. In 2004-5 almost half of the adult Australian population was considered overweight or obese. 

The World Health Organisation predicts that 75.7 per cent of males and 66.5 per cent of females in Australia will be overweight and almost one-third of adults will be obese by the end of this year.

The fashion industry has borne the brunt of much criticism for promoting unhealthy and unrealistic body shpaes.  However, some sections of the industry are pushing a new type of unhealthy image into the spotlight.

There is no doubt that images of super-skinny models strutting down the fashion runways promote unhealthy dietary and lifestyle habits. 

At the same time, it is vital that in our attempts to re-balance the scales, we don’t rush to the opposite extreme and normalise overweight and obesity as legitimate lifestyle choices. In the midst of an ongoing obesity epidemic we should continue to raise awareness about the health risks associated with being overweight and obese.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

89 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Bob H says:

      07:53am | 06/09/10

      If catwalk models are so influential in what we aspire to, why are we, as a nation, so fat.  Ladies and men walking up and down with some clothes on maybe an amazing spectacle to the fashion industry but it is just media spacfiller to most of the population.

      Reply

    • Jamie Diamond says:

      12:10pm | 06/09/10

      Completely agree Bob. I am sick to death of hearing overweight women trying to justify that they are normal yet calling any slim woman a “stick creature” and suggesting they eat properly.

      Girls - if you are bigger than a size 12, put down the box of KFC and go for a long walk each day. With women carrying less muscle then men there is really no healthy justification for them to be larger than a size 12 no matter how tall they are.

      I have no doubt that someone is going to say “Marylin Monroe was a size 16 etc etc”. She wasn’t a size 16 in modern standards at all - do some research, she was between a 10 - 12.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:24pm | 06/09/10

      Seconded, Jamie.

      And to be fair, same goes for guys.  If you’re under 50, never had a major knee reconstruction or serious back injury and you can’t play 20 mins of touch footy with the kids - step away from the barbecue.

    • Jane says:

      12:50pm | 06/09/10

      Jamie,  you need to do some research, Marylin was a US size 10-12 which automatically makes her an Australian 14-16.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      12:50pm | 06/09/10

      Size isn’t the decider, muscle tone is, I’ve seen girls who are at least size 14, very fit, playing international level lacrosse, conversely, I’ve seen very unfit size 10 girls too. For me, a very fit, healthy, athletic woman is dead sexy! ! !

    • Me says:

      03:05pm | 06/09/10

      I think you need to do some maths revision before you make stupid comments like “there is really no healthy justification for them to be larger than a size 12 no matter how tall they are”, Jamie. BMI is calculated using height and weight so of course your height is going to have an effect on your BMI.

      I’m very tall and in the healthy range for BMI yet I’m usually a size 14 for trousers (because I have hips) and a 16 for shirts (because I have breasts). You need to understand that the size of clothes women wear has little to do with their weight and everything to do with their shape.

    • GreekSnake says:

      04:54pm | 06/09/10

      @Jane, actually you are wrong.

      The size conversions by today’s standard could have put her in any size from 8 to 12 Australian. Definitely not a size 16.

      Take at look at her measurements as quoted by her dressmaker, taken from: http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe

      “But if people demand numbers? They’re certainly out there. According to measurements from Marilyn Monroe’s dressmaker:
      Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
      Weight: 118-140 pounds
      Bust: 35-37 inches
      Waist: 22-23 inches
      Hips: 35-36 inches
      Bra size: 36D”

      The thing about her is that she was (like many women) not fitting to a set size off the shelf. She had a dramatically hourglass figure that often required custom made dresses.

      The thing to note is that she is 5 foot 5 and never weight more than 63 kilo’s. Also she had massive breasts for her frame and a tiny waist. A dream figure for most, but definitely not a size 16 in today’s standards.

    • Jane says:

      08:11am | 07/09/10

      I have to agree with “Me”. I have to wear size 14 pants because of my hips. My 65cm waist clearly says I am not obese or even overweight. Likewise I wear a size 14 top because of my boobs,  you can count my ribs below the boobs so definately no “second set” there.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:06am | 06/09/10

      Obesity is a far greater problem than anorexia. The only difference is , as Chris Lilley in Summer Heights High showed, for some bizzare reason, anorexia has a pity the victim glamor attached to it, a sentiment not extended to obeses people.
      .

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      12:53pm | 06/09/10

      being a “little overweight” is no where near as dangerous as anorexia. Anorexic women usually can’t even menstrate

    • Sam says:

      01:06pm | 06/09/10

      Obese women usually can’t either and the point I think he was trying to make is that there is a much higher rate of obese people compared to anorexic people.

    • Geoff says:

      01:12pm | 06/09/10

      @Robert Smissen, rural SA, God’s own country
       
      Your not making a fair comparison there mate

      anorexic is to obese as “little overweight” is to “little underweight”

    • T.Chong says:

      01:17pm | 06/09/10

      Two points RS.  1) Yur correct . Extreme anorexia like obesity is life threatening. I was reffering to overall numbers.
      2) Big claim that rural SA is gods own.  Every impartial observer recognises that New South Wales, and only New South Wales can make such a claim about being Gods Own. The obvios facts speak for themselves. Just ask any True Blue.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:51pm | 06/09/10

      Re Weight:
      Anorexia is indeed worse than being a ‘little’ overweight, but then again being a little underweight is not as bad as being morbidly obese.  Geoff hit the nail on the head.
      On the whole though, Australia could really lose some weight.

      Re God’s Own:
      As an agnostic atheist from Queensland, I disagree on all fronts.

    • HT says:

      04:37pm | 06/09/10

      Correct - people pity anorexics and anorexia/bulemia is viewed as an eating disorder and is seen sympathetically. Obesity/overeating isn’t viewed as sympathetically at all. People who overeat are usually battling some serious emotional problems (just like anorexics) and instead of targeting them we should be trying to work out the root cause of the issue. I don’t really think countless articles like the one above are particularly helping either, all Miss Lovett is doing is inciting a bunch of angry trollish young men to (once again) attack obese people. Everyone has their cross to bare, a fat persons is just an easy and obvious target.

    • KH says:

      08:07am | 06/09/10

      I find it amusing that the response to the use of ‘too skinny’ models is to produce size 16 dummies.  Why the extremes?  What the hell is wrong with a nice normal size 8-10 model?  That isn’t too skinny, but it isn’t fat either (and yes, size 16 is fat, unless you are over 6 feet tall).  Its still ‘thin’ but not unhealthily so, and it is something that most people can aspire to (note I said most, not all).  Producing the overweight dummies is a nice way to draw attention away from the underweight models, and leave people thinking these are the only choices.  Well, they aren’t.  There is a middle ground - normal sized women who are not dangerously underweight, but still ‘thin’.  Why does it have to be so hard to get this?

      Reply

    • Karner says:

      09:23am | 06/09/10

      Brilliantly said, KH.

      Size 16 isn’t a healthy area to be in. Fat does not equal curves. Fat rolls aren’t sexy or normal and it should never be accepted.

      Lean and fit should be the aspiration.

      Moreover, we should be taking the focus off BMI and putting it on other, more specific areas such as body fat %, bone density, max heart rate, average heart rate, cholesterol readings etc

    • BT says:

      11:38am | 06/09/10

      Why the nastiness to size 16 people KH, they keep cutting you off at the KFC or MacDonald’s drive-thru?  Agree that average size models would be more representitive and more achievable than the coat hanger models currently strutting the catwalk.

    • Jane says:

      12:54pm | 06/09/10

      Actually the dummies where not size 16. They were plus size dummies but plus size in modelling circles is size 12 and based on the measurements those dummies where size 12. The confusion has occured because journalists read plus size and thought it was what is deemed plus size in the shops, ie size 16 and upwards.

      The main difference with these “plus size”  and normal dummies is they had boobs and surely if you are trying to sell bras to well endowed ladies they should be shown on dummies that can fill those bras?

    • Wazza says:

      08:15am | 06/09/10

      Recent studies show that 47% of women and 63% of men are overweight or obese. Australians are at the point where it is “normal” to have a weight problem, and the problem is starting during childhood. Childhood obesity is on the rise as a result of the sedentary lifestyle of today’s children. It doesn’t help when their parents think size 16 is “normal”. It is not.

      I was waiting on the corner of New South Head Rd recently when I noticed a stream of kids puffing and wheezing as they waddled up the hill to the school gates. It was pitiful. One chap had to pause for a rest, leaning with one chubby hand against a lamp post, the other clutching a jumbo sized packet of peanut M&Ms;. He was gasping like a fish out of water as he gathered his strength for a final mighty effort; the last twenty odd metres to the top of the rise.

      A series four wheel drives stopped & unloaded their cargo, the suspension visibly rising as the children disembarked; their parents prodding them with ski poles & golf clubs, encouraging them to walk the last few meters into the school yard, where small groups of pink faced children quietly sat or lay around.

      Preventing kids from becoming overweight means adopting new habits. Less time spent in sedentary pursuits and more time in exercising.

      Reply

    • BK says:

      08:18am | 06/09/10

      Exactly right. Obesity contributes to alot more deaths than anorexia and bulimia. The latter conditions are only indirectly related to fashion anyway.

      Reply

    • proudly thin though not starving says:

      08:21am | 06/09/10

      Tammy, you put your head inside the mouth of the lion… and pulled out an excellent article.

      If cigarrettes and alcohol have high taxes to (in part) support those who use them and will need higher costs of healthcare, so should Maccas and KFC and the rest.

      Addit - “Eating disorders awareness week” Doesn’t mean anorexia awereness week - it also includes obese binging people awareness week.

      Reply

    • FB4ME says:

      09:39am | 06/09/10

      Really? Why?

      I’m overweight and I couldn’t tell you the last time I went to a fast food place. However on the rare times I do go I remember seeing plenty of normal sized people there. If you’re not overweight then why should you have to pay a “fat tax” when I am overweight and I wouldn’t pay a cent on any fast food tax.

      If you eat too much of any food you’ll put on weight. I myself am living proof of that.

      I recently had to stay overnight in Hospital for a minor procedure. My first time in a hospital and I’m over 50. There were hardly any patients I saw there that were significantly overweight. In fact if you asked me I’d say most of the people there were rather skinny.

      Frankly I don’t know why people are concerned that some of us are overweight. I personally think it’s just to feed their innate need to feel a sense of superiority. It’s now politically incorrect to disparage just about anyone else so fatties seem to be the only group people can criticise without retribution. See today’s article on Stephanie Rice as an example of what I mean.

      Frankly I’d rather spend time with somebody who enjoys a good meal then most of the judgemental arseholes commenting here today.

    • GS says:

      10:26am | 06/09/10

      The bulk of high calorie, high fat so called junk food comes from supermarkets not takeaway food outlets. It’s time the salt, fat and carb content of food was put on the front of products in a large font. Not hidden under a flap on the back of the pack in the tiny serving size chart.

    • AdamC says:

      11:13am | 06/09/10

      GS, why? People will still manage to ignore it.

      It is not at all hard to get nutritional and ingredient information on products in the supermarket. Now, you even get proportions of RDI, so there is no excuse. The people who make unhealthy eating choices are not doing it out of unintentional ignorance but an act of free will.

      Most people who are fat are fat because they freely decide to eat too much. 

      The reason why this obesity question is so vexed is that, by definition, it involves some sort of personal responsibility. But we live in a society in which government regulation is perceived as the only response to any problem.

    • Jane says:

      12:58pm | 06/09/10

      Fast food si taxed an extra 10% more than fresh food already. If paying an extra 10% tax isnt enough to discourage people from buying it, I dont know what will make them change the habit.

    • rob says:

      08:26am | 06/09/10

      looking at this model i must say that any designer that thinks she does justice to their garment has to have rocks in their head

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:08am | 06/09/10

      Agreed.  How that was supposed to sell stuff I’ll never know. 

      But I’m getting sick of that photo being used everytime the term ‘weight’ and ‘fashion’ get brought up.  Maybe the fashion industry is full of underweight models - I’m not remotely fashionable, so I wouldn’t know.  But the frequent use of that one particular file photo tells me that either a) nobody in Australian media is updating their file photos anymore, or b) that photo isn’t representative of runway models at all.

    • James1 says:

      01:46pm | 06/09/10

      Much like Dan, I could not name even one model, mainly because I don’t care, but also because I stopped finding underdeveloped teenage girls attractive when I stopped being an underdeveloped teenager myself.

      As far as I can see though, fashion types might as well use overweight models, because the underweight ones are just as hard on the eye.  At least to those of us who are not attracted to twelve year olds.

    • Maxie says:

      03:23pm | 06/09/10

      @james1 - let’s keep things on topic here mate. Fashion models are not there for your titilation. That’s what Zoo Weekly is for. I find it highly amusing when men say they don’t find “underdeveloped teenage girls” attractive. Newsflash sailor: no one in the industry gives a toss what you think, because you’re not buying women’s clothing, are you?
      Newsflash #2 - it doesn’t take a genius to work out that women subcosciously are drawn to things that remind them of their youth… like skinny underdeveloped teenage girls in pretty clothes, perhaps?

    • James1 says:

      04:19pm | 06/09/10

      If you had perhaps left out the condescension and general rudeness of your response, I might thank you for enlightening me Maxie.  I had never thought of it that way.  I thought women dressed up and stuff in an effort to impress men, much as men make such efforts to impress women.

      Point of order though - “fashion” never looks pretty, it just looks retarded.

    • James1 says:

      04:25pm | 06/09/10

      Another point of order: I would sooner die than read Zoo Weekly.  I do not like reading material that leaves me stupider afterward. 

      Either way, I apologise if my ignorance of things I do not think important offends you.  Perhaps I should refrain from commenting when I do not even understand who these ugly images of femininity are directed toward.

    • Kyle says:

      04:37pm | 06/09/10

      James1,

      I am conducting a study to see if the level of spite in a comment relates to the degree of obesity.  I suspect the greater of the first indicates the greater of the second.

    • Bob H says:

      04:48pm | 06/09/10

      @maxie - very few buy the catwalk clothes, the shallow theatre of catwalk exists to show a general style to force into the shopping malls for easily led fools. 
      Newsflash#3 No one with an ounce of intellect gives a toss for the superficial fashion industry and its valueless worship of what is purely on the outside.

    • Bitten says:

      05:05pm | 06/09/10

      I don’t get why people try to attribute some subversive agenda to the fashion industry in using skinny models. They’re not that deep, kids. It’s actually just cheaper to produce a sample garment for the runway to fit a tiny tiny girl, than a larger girl. Less material/beading/whatever = less $$.

    • James1 says:

      05:43pm | 06/09/10

      As it happens, Kyle, I am underweight and have been for a long time - its why I became an academic rather than a trademan.  Even beer doesn’t help.  My spite is driven by the superficiality and general airheadedness of so many of my contemporaries (so amply displayed in the “fashion” industry), and the resultant cynicism on my part.

      Also, your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, in that it contains two measures: one objective (obesity), the other subjective (level of spite).  What kind of methods do you propose to address this?  There is one thing that completely undermines your premise, leading me to think your proposed study would be rejected by any institution of reputation - if your correlation holds true, why then do so many apparently not overweight teenagers relentlessly pursue and bully fat teenagers?

    • jf says:

      06:28pm | 06/09/10

      ” I’m not remotely fashionable, so I wouldn’t know”

      You are to modest SD. I’ve read a lot of your posts and your political views are the height of fashion.

      In fact, you are so fashionable that you are both agnostic and an atheist. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    • Kyle says:

      06:53pm | 06/09/10

      James1,

      Aww the poor overwhelmed blogger, battling on in Punch.  I was actually on your side, my comments were directed at those bashing you here (ie. those who are overweight are the ones attacking you - the point you missed). 

      The study was actually sarcastic, but if you would like we could work on it together and apply for government grant smile

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:11am | 07/09/10

      @ jf

      I was an agnostic atheist long before I knew what those labels meant, don’t even think of trying to paint me as some sort of philosophical fashionista.

    • Liz says:

      08:54am | 06/09/10

      It’s also important that we maintian a healthy weight for our build whatever the BMI says and that we don’t allow ourselves to be told we’re overweight or even obese when we’re not.

      Reply

    • shane says:

      09:05am | 06/09/10

      If you want to eat yourself to death, go for it. If you want to stave yourself to death, feel free. If you seek help for either, then it should be provided in as compassionate and effective way as possible.

      It’s all just a symptom of the human condition. How do we address the issue at its base? The almighty prevention goal that everyone’s always taking about regardless of the problem in question. Change society and human nature completely, that’s how.

      Obviously that’s not going to happen. As a society we talk about addressing obesity, addressing depression, addressing whatever. As individuals, most people are too busy dealing with their lives to give a **** if the guy/girl next door is morbidly obese or skeletally anorexic. Things won’t change until there is a fundamental change in our society, until people are valued above the various prods and carrots society herds us with.

      So that is to say, things won’t change. We can talk talk talk all we want about the horror of it all, but that’s all it is. Talk to ease our conscience. So….

      Be as happy as you can in whatever way you want, as long as it doesn’t hurt or hinder another’s right to do the same. If that means comfort eating to the point of death, it’s sad, but go for it.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:49am | 06/09/10

      @ shane

      I almost agree with you.  People have a right to do what they want to their bodies, so ‘go for it’ isn’t a bad motto at all. 

      However, in practice, I want to keep public hospitals, I pay taxes, and I can’t bear the thought of turning people away from hospitals - even if they are 100% to blame for their condition.  Obesity contributes to/causes all sorts of related illnesses and injuries, and by extension costs the taxpayer huge amounts of cash each year. 

      I’m not suggesting Big Brother outlaw McDonalds or tax people relative to their BMI, so the only solution I can see is for the govt to spend money on promoting healthy eating and exercise.

    • HT says:

      04:41pm | 06/09/10

      Very well put, this expresses how I feel as well. People are always up in each others grill about this stuff - I think that it shouldn’t concern anyone but the person affected. People who live too long are just as big of a drain on your taxes as people who die young due to obesity/smoking/drugs or whatever else.

    • AdamC says:

      09:31am | 06/09/10

      These are amazingly sensible comments - it is a shame that neither the meeja, the fashion industry or our pollies seem to get it.

      Incidentally, that picture accompanying the article is 15 or so years old. I remember the original furore about it. The Punch isn’t the only publication that trots out mid-nineties images from the ‘heroin chic’ era to illustrate supposedly contemporary skinny models. The fact is, with Gisele Bundchen, Miranda Kerr et al, fashion models aren’t as skinny as they used to be. Or maybe they are just as skinny but don’t get as much airtime, leaving the media profiles to the lingerie and swimwear set.

      In any event, the skinny model stuff is overplayed.

      Reply

    • kh says:

      07:01pm | 08/09/10

      have you ever seen miranda Kerr in real life? she’s actually quite thin… the cameras do add pounds… at school i could have sworn if i poked her in the arm it’d snap… :/

    • Clare says:

      09:35am | 06/09/10

      Wow…I wish there was a bit of actual real information in this article.

      Firstly, target BMI ranges have been adjusted downwards quite significantly in the last 10-15 years, so overnight you could go from normal weight range to overweight. See this link    
      http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/

      Secondly, by today’s standards Marilyn Monroe would be considered overweight, if not obese (she was a size 14 -16 throughout her career).

      Thirdly, get a copy of a woman’s weekly in the 1950s (or maybe watch Mad Men) and look at what was considered average in terms of the female body. Not ultra trim, muscular and athletic to the extreme as is today’s ideal.

      Fourthly, contemporary academic research shows that much of our obesity problem is CAUSED by dieting, (and this is in fact perpetuated by the weight loss industry which makes millions out of their products). See this link, and read some of her research:
      http://www.garvan.org.au/about-us/our-people/dr-amanda-sainsbury-salis

      The real reason Australians bang on about obesity is that as a culture we are obsessed with appearance, and fat people are now more despised than any other group. Read the studies where adolescent girls would rather be blind than fat? Don’t be fooled by people who frame their ‘disgust’ as primarily based on health…it is not….it is about being sexually attractive.

      Beauty comes in many shapes and sizes…about time people accepted that. It is with that level of acceptance that more people will actually be able to find a weight range which is healthy for THEIR bodies.

      Reply

    • magentamittens says:

      10:35am | 06/09/10

      Fantastic, couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • KH says:

      10:55am | 06/09/10

      Then look at some magazines from the 1920s.  Unsurprisingly, thin was in - the androgynous looking women of that time certainly did not look like the 1960s, which was bigger.
      Then we can start figuring in the food industry.  Once upon a time, most food was fresh, you had to shop just about every day.  Now you can get fatty fast foods at any time of day or night, packaged foods full of sugar and salt - sure, its easier, but at what cost?
      Don’t get me started on ‘size’ - what is that anyway?  What is a ‘size 10’ in one shop is a ‘size 12’ in another.  And then there is the ‘Marilyn’ argument.
      Read this - a woman who tried on clothes that Marilyn wore prior to an auction - verifying that she was no more than a 10, and was an 8 in her earlier career.  Even considering that is UK sizing, the max then is a 12 in Aus.  She was also only 5’5”, and had a large chest size.
      http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article6044724.ece

    • Hamish says:

      12:50pm | 06/09/10

      Clare, I think you’re wrong about Marilyn Munroe, but I agree that you’re probably right re the health thing. I’m not sure that being just overweight makes all that much difference health-wise, but being obese certainly does. However, complaining about fat people not being considered attractive is a bit silly. Fat people aren’t attractive, especially fat women. It’s just the truth. This is why most fashion brands don’t use fat models, because fat people look bad in clothes and it negatively affects brand perception to see fat people wearing your brand. I assume this is why so many women’s clothing brands don’t even produce clothes in large sizes.

      Also, if Australians are so obsessed with appearance, why are we so fat? Surely we must be a lot less obsessed with appearance than other countries or we’d be thinner. Have you ever been to Europe? The average Australian would be considered quite fat there, especially the average Australian woman. I think the fact is Australians lack the self-discipline to be thin and then cry to the government expecting them to do something.

    • Moby says:

      01:38pm | 06/09/10

      @ Clare Thank you, you hav basically put down in words what I hadn’t got to yet…...and a considerable amount more.  To expand a little bit more on BMI, when I completed year 12 in the late 90’s the healthy weight range for BMI was 25-30, with over 35 being obese and under 20 being significantly underweight, with the gaps filled in with relevant descriptions.

      BMI has got to be the worst possible way to measure peoples weight etc on anything but an individual basis.  If you walk into a doctor/physio/gym, then the BMI is a good indicator for you personally.  If there is a data set from 10 different people, all with an identical BMI of x then there are 10 different stories that can be told which you will never know about.  Case in point…....one of my previous jobs required you to be in a specific BMI range to take up employment….....one person failed as their BMI was too high, and ergo they were too overweight to be employed…......notwithstanding that they had just been a successful finalist in a state level fitness competition!!!!!!!!!!!  I admit I don’t have a better alternative, but using BMI for statistical purposes is pointless

    • Clare says:

      05:24pm | 06/09/10

      Just read the Marilyn article, UK sizing is smaller than ours (eg their 12 equals our 16) a 36 inch bust is Aus size 14, which is what I said. Sometimes Marilyn was bigger than that too. 
      As for the delightful comment that fat women are always unattractive, well, it’s just fashion, certainly not some objective truth…go to the Art Gallery and look at a few Rubens….go to countries like South Africa where being large and white is associated with wealth and therefore with beauty.  And sure, in the 1920’s skinny was the fashion….who knows why? About 20 years before that women contorted their bodies in whalebone and steel corsets. Historically, womens’ bodies have always been perceived as a kind of dangerous thing that had to be controlled and repressed and contained….probably more a fear of womens’ sexuality and power really.  Now women are expected to have the musculature of men….wonder why that is?
      Finally Australians are perhaps gaining weight due to the poison of the weight loss industry, please refer to my second link.

    • Freeman says:

      07:53pm | 06/09/10

      “Don’t be fooled by people who frame their ‘disgust’ as primarily based on health…it is not….it is about being sexually attractive.”
      you said it all right there, Clare. Fat is not attractive, you can’t change that. What we find attractive is human nature, you can’t manipulate it. Some people look ok with a bit of weight on but the vast majority look sad. No matter how you spin it, certain groups in society are fatter now than they used to be, largely because they are lazy and ill diciplined.  people Like you are all about lowering the standard instead of addressing the problem. certain groups attack models simply because they are envious. the article was about not embracing obesity and nor should we.

    • Brian says:

      08:15am | 07/09/10

      Exactly. People don’t care about the health of a fat person - they are just not sexually attracted to them to fat to them are vile, disgusting and ugly.  I’m sick of people pretending to “care” about the health of obese people - when if they did actually care they would actually take the time to find out why someone is overweight and obese - most of the time it is NOT due to lazyness.

      I am obese myself, and I love food. I know why too - it’s because I have no family, or friends, so food has indeed become my friend. The more people don’t want anything to do with me the more I turn to food. But in the end I tell myself I am fat, I am ugly, no one wants to know me so what is the point of losing weight and portioning my food size? Why don’t I just enjoy food, enjoy the feelingsI have when I eat? I work, Im a tax payer, I pay for private health insurance, so the whole “you will cost the health system millions” is a joke to me.

      Maybe if some of you judgemental wankers out there actually took the time to get to know a fat person, gave them your friendship and time, then in the end they might see that someone really wants to be friends with them and know them for them and not turn to food for comfort. You judgemental types are FUELLING the obesity epidemic, NOT helping cure it.

    • Freeman says:

      02:25pm | 07/09/10

      “Maybe if some of you judgemental wankers out there actually took the time to get to know a fat person, gave them your friendship and time”
      Brian, i would be surprised to meet anyone who does not have at least one obese friend or family member. In my experience, you could give them all the compassion and excuses in the world and it would do little to change their condition. of all the people I’ve observed who have turned it around for themselves and escaped obesity, they have all acheived this by facing the reality, taking ownership of the problem instead of making excuses for themselves and following a measured programme of diet and exercise.

    • Lucius says:

      08:23am | 08/09/10

      Freeman, I find it interesting how you ignored this part in Brian’s post:
      “You judgemental types are FUELLING the obesity epidemic, NOT helping cure it.”
      This is 100% correct. if berating, teasing, insulting or acting disgusted towards an obese or overwieght person actually worked, we wouldnt have the obesity epidemic we do now. We have the epidemic we do now because people refuse to wake up and realise that obesity isnt the problem - it is simply a symptom of a problem. The fact is human beings generally abuse themselves or pick up a bad habit to compensate when something is going wrong with their life, or to battle their emotions. Some people use alcohol, others use drugs and some people overeat. To battle obesity we need to battle the causes of obesity not just be lazy and claim “lazyness” is to blame.

    • David C says:

      09:56am | 06/09/10

      mmm in light of this discussion I guess we will all be letting Julia Gillard know we expect her to set an example? Maybe she could get some tips from Tony?

      Reply

    • Lola says:

      10:11am | 06/09/10

      very true we shouldn’t be normalising obesity. people who are obese (me included) shouldn’t be told that it’s ok. it isn’t.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      11:37am | 06/09/10

      Hi Lola, I totally agree that being dangerously overweight is not ideal. But if I sat here and told you that you are a failure, you are a let down, you are not socially acceptable and you will die beacuse you are so fat after you drain taxpayers of millions due to your health - it is unlikely to have any positive impact on your life and lead you to reach your healthy weight range. Not to mention is is nasty, but as someone else pointed out above - socially acceptable to do so.

      I have in the past been 25kg heavier than I currently am (what I consider healthy) but according to BMI - overweight and closer to obese than healthy. I exercise five times a week and I eat a balanced diet. I am just bigger than what society tells me I need to be (size 8 to 10). I comfortably sit at a size 12 and honestly believe that I am healthier carting around 5kg more bodyfat than I should, over stressing about losing those pesky 5kg and prior to struggling to not put it back on.

      There is nothing anyone could have said, done or put in front of me to make me lose those 25kg a few years back. Something happened in my own mind that I could not tell you what it was. It was like a switch was flicked. It is the key to losing weight and if someone ever worked out how to communicate it to the masses - they would be very very wealthy. The answer to weightloss is in the mind of the individual - not a tax or tying someone to a treadmill against their will. The reason is different for all. Seeing a size 16 mannequin does not really worry me. I was looking at a regular mannequin the other day and it was dressed in size 6 clothing and that was pinned to fit. That is more of a concern to me than a doll that from a distance accurately represents a real person. It is all about scale and perception within a retail environment under fluerescent lighting. 

      People need to accept themselves for who they are and remain healthy and active as best they can. Diets don’t work and victimising and villifying people for their lifestyle is just as useless as cabbage soup and grapefuits.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:51am | 06/09/10

      Good point, Tammy.

      But I do want to add that obesity is ‘normal’.  As you pointed out the average Australian woman (and man, for that matter) is overweight.  A lot of people wanting to promote overweight models - to combat underweight obsession or to advertise to the average-sized consumer - are quick to point this out.  But ‘average’ isn’t good.  I’m a competitive athlete (elite, but not professional), I’m very fit and healthy by all the agreed standards and haven’t been underweight since I was 2 months old - but I’m ‘abnormal’.  I’m frequently referred to as ‘skinny’, although I could lose another 5-10kgs and still be in the healthy weight range.  My wife is in a similar position - she lost 5kgs or so several years ago through dietary illness, and even though she was fitter than her friends and never got underweight, her peers treated her like she had a psychological disorder until she put the weight back on.  She now avoids the level of exercise she used to enjoy because she was sick of the comments and people assuming that going to the toilet within an hour of eating was evidence of bulimia.

      I think it’s too late to avoid ‘normalising’ obesity.  I think the tactic should be to tell people that ‘normal’ doesn’t mean ‘healthy’.

      (Note: I apologise for using ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ as interchangable terms, I’m sure a health professional out there can explain the difference)

      Reply

    • Jon G says:

      12:31pm | 06/09/10

      BMI is a blunt tool, but it rarely lies when it’s over 30 (unless you are a bodybuilder/rugby player). A useful refinement test is the circumferential waist measurement:
      Increased risk  
      - Men: more than 94 centimetres
      - Women: more than 80 centimetres
      Greatly increased risk
      - Men: more than 102 centimetres
      - Women: more than 88 centimetres
      From the Australian Government’s Better Health Initiative (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/abhi/publishing.nsf/Content/factsheet-waist-measurement)

      Reply

    • Anita says:

      12:41pm | 06/09/10

      Can someone please tell me what ‘normal’ is? I’m quite curious.
      Surely a Size 16 person can be fit and healthy? Or is someone going to tell me that is beyone the realms of possibility?
      Why do we all have to look the same? Promote health and fitness and forget about judging people by their size.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:18pm | 06/09/10

      Well, if by ‘normal’ you mean average, it’s usually a size 16, and that’s usually overweight.  Given the average height of Australian women, it’s a safe generalisation to say that the average woman (and man, too) is overweight, and unhealthy.

      So of course there are always exceptions, and knowing your BMI isn’t a substitute for actually going to a doctor and having them assess your health.  But a size 16 woman who is told not to bother losing weight by their doctor is exceptional.  I know very healthy women who I’m sure are size 16 or even 18, but their body types are very atypical, and they also have twice the muscle mass of the average woman.  Regardless, I can’t see that anyone (author or commenters) has said that the current unregulated clothes sizing system is the best measure of health and fitness anyway.

      This isn’t about forcing conformity on anyone, this IS about promoting health and fitness.

    • Michael says:

      01:24pm | 06/09/10

      The only measurements you should be looking at to judge whether you’re a healthy size or not are your weight, your trigliceride levels, your cholesterol, and your insulin resistance.  Being unable to squeeze into a size 16 is depressing.  Going to a doctor and finding out you don’t squeeze into the safe ranges for these above measurements is a hell of a lot more frightening and a lot more motivating.

      Also: portion sizes.  Not discussed much, but crucial to the debate.  Most people don’t have the time to exercise enough to blast off the fat from the massive meals we’re accustomed to now.  As one comedian once said “You want a diet that works? Then stop eatin’, ya fat bastard!”

    • Anita says:

      03:38pm | 06/09/10

      Have you all assumed I’m a size 16?

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:45pm | 06/09/10

      @ Anita

      No, I didn’t.  Weren’t we talking about the hypothetical ‘average woman’, who is size 16?

    • Michael says:

      01:20pm | 06/09/10

      Industry groups and “the public” (whoever they might be) applauding plus-size mannequins is actually horribly misjudging the intent behind their introduction.  It has nothing to do with trying to empower women against anorexia nervosa.  It has everything to do with meeting their target demographic.

      Consider: if indeed 65% of females are overweight, it is probably one of the stupidest marketing ploys in existence to continue to try and spruik clothes on mannequins that don’t reflect what is, statistically, the prevailing demographic.  Remember, the idea behind the mannequin is to get the shopper to look at it and think ‘Wow, so that’s how I could look in that top or that bra.’  It is an exercise in suspension of disbelief by the shopper.

      But all suspension of disbelief fails at certain limits, and I suspect the major clothing chains—or those that have started displaying these mannequins—have realised that limit has been reached.  You have to market to the majority when you’re selling a commodity, which is ultimately what these clothes are, regardless of attempts at branding certain lines.  Hence: size 16 mannequins, not because the industry has suddenly found Jesus, but simply because that’s where most of its target audience now are.

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      01:40pm | 06/09/10

      Anyone who pays taxes should stand up and pay attention to this.  Obesity-related illness costs the health system billions of dollars every year hence once of the reasons Health Budgets are exploding at both a State and Federal level.  It will be those of us in good health and able to work that will pay!

      Reply

    • Jane says:

      08:29am | 07/09/10

      Everyone who pays taxes should stand up and pay attention to the cost of fitnes related injuries! You will find fitness related injuries cost the tax payer more each year than the obseity related ones. Knee and ankle surgery is hitting all time highs and then throw in the cost of emergency assistance.

      My ankle, which occured while hiking, emergency rescue, ambulance, x-ray, ultrasound, catscan and finally surgery all subsidised by the tax payer through medicare. Mum’s knee from her 5km daily walk (she is 70) ambulance, many specialists and finally surgery all fully paid for by the taxpayer as she is a pensioner.

      Trust me, fitnes is costing the taxpayer more than obesity but no-one wants to report that.

    • Caitlin says:

      01:41pm | 06/09/10

      Michael: I agree, portion size is NOT addressed, and there are more calories in some fast food burger meals than the average person needs in an entire day.  The amount of protein, for example, that one needs is about what fits in the palm of your hand - it looks really REALLY small, but that’s what the nutritionists recommend.

      No wonder we struggle with overweight and obesity.

      What gets me though - if size 16 is “normal” (though not recommended) then WHY can I never find any clothes to fit? I’m much bigger than a size 16.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      05:43pm | 06/09/10

      The supreme irony is that it’s stereotypical for people to go to restaurants and complain about the (lack of) size of the meal they receive on their plates.  Odds are on those meals are a lot closer to a healthy meal size than the average McDonald’s burger.

      I understood that when you’re having something like a steak, the meat shouldn’t be much bigger than a deck of cards, or not any bigger than the palm of your hand.  That’s one quarter of your plate.  Another quarter is carbohydrates (potato) and the other half is meant to be vegetables.

      Don’t ask me about the sizing on women’s clothes, though.  I suspect half of it is the old ‘designed in the West, made in China’ syndrome: I’ve seen XXL T-shirts that barely fit me even when I’m closer to the weight I’m meant to be.

    • Lauren says:

      02:40pm | 06/09/10

      I don’t think skinny models cause annorexia or bullemia. They may be used as thinspiration, but that is not the cause of them actually developing the mental illness. My sister is a recovering annorexic, survived three heart attacks, and only became obsessed with thin models about a year after being diagnosed.

      So the images may have an impact, but you can’t just put out that skinny models = girls ‘deciding’ they will become annorexic, as it is more about the mental health not so much the image.

      I think the same goes for obesity. When my sister was in rehab at the RCH there was one obese girl with the group of annorexic girls that was receiving treatment and support. The girl wasn’t obese because she likes a good fed and loathes exercise, there was some underlying issues to do with that. Unfortunately I think tv shows like the Biggest Loser trvialises this, and people now tend to chuckle when they think of an annoying fat lump crying on camera.

      On a more selfish note, this raises the issue of lack of models that are not skinny, but are very healthy. The industry tells us you have to be tall and skinny, or plus sized and well proportioned. So what about sizes 8-10, don’t we deserve a go??!

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      02:57pm | 06/09/10

      Just another example of the disgusting cultural malaise humanity finds itself in this second decade of the 21st century.

      The body image debate is immaterial. Obesity is immaterial. It’s a symptom of a much worse disease - laziness. We are the first generation to have the opportunity to grow fat, and the first generation to lose the value of sustenance to such an extent teenagers end up with eating disorders.

      For tens of thousands of years, hunting for nutrients was the primary concern of humans. Only in the last 70 odd years has industrial food manufacturing provided us with easy, convenient access to the protein, fat and carbohydrates our body catabolises into energy.

      Man is free of the primary preoccupation of all living things. And without it, we’re bored. Like zoo animals, waiting for the cage to open each day for lunch. Only we’re more like the lion cubs born in the zoo, we don’t even remember what it was like to run barefoot after our meals.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      03:40pm | 06/09/10

      The more I read into it, the more I’ve been coming a similar conclusion myself.
      There appears to be a direct correlation between socio-economic status and mental illness.
      Is laziness diagnosed as a mental illness yet?

    • Michael says:

      05:32pm | 06/09/10

      Actually, the economist Tim Herford in his book “The Logic of Life” makes a counterintuitive and yet stunningly obvious conclusion about why we’ve got obesity in the West: it’s because human beings are rational - as in, able to weigh risks and benefits almost intuitively.

      And rationally we weigh up that the risk of overeating is low versus the benefit (pleasure) of overeating and come out that we can take the risk - because medical science is advanced in the West sufficiently that we think to ourselves we’ll be able to survive a heart attack or the various medical conditions that come from obesity.  In poor nations this same access does not exist, so as a population the tendency is towards less obesity (and that’s ruling out actual starvation or food levels, I might add.)

    • Clare says:

      05:07pm | 06/09/10

      Very selective images there….the first is UK size 16, not the same as Aus size 16 . The picture of Marilyn is an extremely young one, have a look at her in Some like it Hot, or How to Marry a Millionaire, or her last photo shoot. She was much larger than the photo you have chosen….she positively jiggled.

    • GreekSnake says:

      05:18pm | 06/09/10

      Win.

      Thanks for that. It works so much better for the idiots that need pictures.

    • Helski says:

      12:33pm | 12/10/10

      A UK size 16 is an Australian 14 so the UK model is actually smaller than the average Aussie - wow this is a BIG nation…

    • Hannah says:

      03:35pm | 06/09/10

      Sssssooooo, the fashion industry, after decades of being maligned for using models that are too skinny, are now being banished to the naughty chair for using models that are too fat? Why don’t we whittle it down to a half-kilo ‘safe’ range for models and anyone outside it should be subject to a public stoning, hey. How long before the models union comes out and ticks off the industry for discriminating against models who are unhealthily over or underweight? Don’t you see how ridiculous this sounds? No wonder fashion industry types do so much coke; how else could they silence the shrieking voices of discontent?

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:57pm | 06/09/10

      @ Hannah

      Calm down.  Recommending people be healthy is not oppression.

    • tas says:

      05:24pm | 06/09/10

      what is the prefect size for a women ? what is normal? and what is healthy?
      I would like to know matter in fact no one know they think they know but they don’t .
      We live in a world where we look at what media show us. maybe it time to not expose all the rubbish picture of model that are air brush and show a real person and maybe than you see something different.
      maybe fruit and veggies cost less and how to cook these things should be high on gender so that people can eat good food and enjoy cooking it . 
      Maybe we need to stop judge people who are different and there would be no problem of body image but it a dream and we have nasty fools that continue to judge women to make them something we are not .

      Reply

    • a d says:

      05:28pm | 06/09/10

      as you say suggest Tammy, it’s about balance. it doesn’t need to be one or the other. anorexia is a bad thing, low self esteem as a result of a negative body image is a bad thing, obesity is a bad thing. being healthy is a good thing. we shouldn’t present unhealthily fat or unhealthily skinny as normal or desirable. we should just encourage people to aim for a realistic, healthy (not too fat, not too skinny) weight and be happy with it.

      Reply

    • Amy says:

      05:30pm | 06/09/10

      You make a fantastic point, Tammy, and I appreciate the article, but advocating the use of the BMI is always going to get you into trouble.  It doesn’t take into account muscle tone, age, bone density and size of frame.  Muscle is significantly heavier than fat, and bone is denser than muscle.  Waist size is a far better indicator of health, and much easier to calculate (measuring tape+3 seconds.. BAM!).

      What I have a problem with is this… Why can’t we just accept that no one person will look the same in any outfit like another?  Model castings are notoriously hard to book for this very reason.  Despite precise measurements which models adhere to, which model is cast and which dress goes on which model is a long and arduous process, despite the fact that there is a very limited weight and size range for said models.  How clothing became this one size fits all, mass produced industry is entirely beyond me - and such a shame, I mean, we’d all be much more attractive if all of our clothes were made and tailored for us (there’s a reason why I spend my lunch hour drooling over men in immaculately tailored suits).

      Reply

    • TracyS says:

      12:31pm | 08/09/10

      The BMI has never been about appearance, it is about health. The BMI is basically a rough ratio (wieght / height squared) which can help to identify a healthy range of weights for a particular height across most of the population. It is actually quite useful in health care as part of the discussion about targets for better health.

      Of course, statistics being what they are, there will always be people outside the bell curve for specific reasons. The ones that are always quoted as an argument against using the BMI is muscular athletes who sit above the healthy weight range according to the BMI. Reality check… most people are not muscular athletes…

      ...oh, and waist size is a useful measure too but again also has limits in its usefulness…

    • NEFFA says:

      05:44pm | 06/09/10

      ” The World Health Organisation predicts that 75.7 per cent of males and 66.5 per cent of females in Australia will be overweight and almost one-third of adults will be obese by the end of this year. “

      “In Australia, 45 per cent of women and 23 per cent of men in a healthy weight range believe they are overweight. “

      So basically more men ARE overweight, but more women BELIEVE they are overweight.

      why are we all wasting so much time bad mouthing overweight women, when it is quite clearly the men who are living in denial. Who cares about skinny models. I think we need to move on to discuss male role models.

      Reply

    • KEFFA says:

      06:57pm | 06/09/10

      Yes NEFFA,

      Because its almost 7 out of 10 females are overweight, rather than 8 out of 10 males, we should direct our attention away from the females.  At 7 out of 10 they are obviously doing something right, aren’t they?

    • Jane says:

      08:46am | 07/09/10

      But if the 8 out of 10 overweight males got excercising instead of telling women that fat is ugly then you will find a strange thing happens, women would start to lose weight. Why? 1) Not comfort eating because we are getting told we are fat 2) If all the males are at the gym or out running well, you have to go to the gym or go out running to meet them 3) Like attracts like. Women know that thin men generally want thin women.

      Current problem is we have fat men wanting thin women, thin women rejecting fat men so men comfort eat. Non-thin women comfort eating because they cant attract a man. All round end result, everyone gets fatter

      Reply

    • TracyS says:

      12:21pm | 08/09/10

      hehehe - so true…

      Healthy = Attractive.

      Actual clothes size shouldn’t matter. The person (whichever gender a person is looking for) who is active and energetic, fit enough to enjoy doing fun things, strong enough to not need assistance with every little thing and well enough so that life doesn’t get them down… that’s attractive.

      BTW - I’m a 5’5” 55kg female with a size 6 waist and size 10 hips who can’t find a pair of jeans that fits for love or money…

    • Erin says:

      03:10pm | 07/09/10

      This is ridiculous. I’m slighty underweight, not by diet or anything, I’m just tall and scrawny and I have always been. Straight up and down.

      Being overweight is NOT normal or healthy. But what we do need is to distinguish weight for women IS different. Women DO have curves, and we need to estabish what is curves and what is TOO MUCH curves.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed