You are correct in thinking that one of the worst trends of the year was that, after a lot of talk about the importance of diversity of all kinds on the runway and in fashion ad campaigns, we saw a major case of backsliding this year — at least when it came to size. Which was actually a continuation of the backsliding that had begun in 2023.

According to the most recent inclusivity report from Vogue Business, of the 8,763 looks in 208 spring 2025 women’s wear shows (the ones that took place in September and October), 94.9 percent were shown on models who measure between a U.S. size 0 and 4. Of the rest, less than 1 percent of models were plus-size (and most of them were probably the same three women), and just over 4 percent were “midsize” (whatever that means).

Those are pretty terrible stats. They aren’t good for either those looking at the runways or those walking on them. Especially because my guess is that most of the non-teeny women were cast in the Ester Manas show, the Paris collection specifically, and wonderfully, dedicated to women of all sizes (including, yes, size 0).

Chioma Nnadi, the editor of British Vogue, partly blamed Ozempic for the trend, telling the BBC that it had skewed our perception of desirable body types. But of the seven models on the recent digital American Vogue cover, which featured the headline “Fashion Gets Real,” only one could possibly be categorized as midsize. And even that would be a reach in any world except fashion. So I don’t think we can simply chalk it up to the new semaglutides.

The truth is fashion has always loved a skinny model. The party line is that less flesh makes the clothes hang better and that is more aspirational, though increasingly I think that’s a false premise. Not surprisingly, however, when left to its own devices fashion will predictably revert to form.

This is especially true on the runway, where clothes are created in standard sample sizes and models cast at the last minute. The whole system would have to change to accommodate a variety of sizes; it would essentially have to reverse, to start with the woman. And it would have to be individualized, since it’s not having a barbell of body types on display (super skinny and very curvy) that is most effective, but having all of them, from 0 to 20.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

The answer? He wouldn’t.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.tayabet