That could make sense. Why wouldn't the guy running the show pick the models that he finds the most attractive? So if he's a homosexual - he's going to pick a boyish model, right?
But then... why is that accepted by the (presumably heterosexual) consumer?
The gay thing was a fairly small bit of her larger writing. Heterosexual conservatives were given more prodding than gays, so the focus in the OP is a bit skewed. That said, it was an interesting article.
With fashion, designers prefer to create for thinner women. It's easier and presents less of an impediment to their aesthetic notion of line and use, often enough. Or, it's not so much about looking like boys as it is about looking like a clothes rack that won't alter their design. And, of course, our notions of beauty are driven by the social context. Once upon a time a tan and lean look meant you were a worker, not someone in the ruling class. And beauty was appraised accordingly, though I'd guess that most people have had a fairly wide variance in what they'd consider beautiful and find attractive personally.
Not as a rule, but how often have you heard someone suggest another person has a beautiful face, or a beautiful body, or was in spirit or personality after some fashion beautiful? I suspect that we're a bit more complicated than Milan or Paris has us down for and I think the smartest thing we can do is what I believe the writer of the article is suggesting, which is assert a broader model and change the nature of the evaluation. Beauty is complicated. People are complicated. We should avoid a cookie cutter notion and do a bit more thinking and reacting for ourselves...which I suspect is what we do more often than not. But wouldn't it be something to see that reflected at large?
Wouldn't it be lovely?
