“Does this look flattering?” It’s one of the most common questions in fashion, yet we rarely stop to consider what the word actually means. On the surface, “flattering” sounds positive. But in fashion, it often serves as shorthand for making the body appear closer to an ideal: slimmer, taller, smaller, more toned, or more proportioned.

Menswear loves to act like it’s above body standards. It hides behind words like “tailoring” and “silhouette” while quietly shrinking the definition of who clothes are made for. Vogue Business’ latest size inclusivity reporting makes that pattern hard to deny.

Retail is shifting. Customers judge brands by what the in store experience signals, not what the brand claims online. Retailers can make thoughtful changes, but without an independent benchmark those changes are hard to communicate and easy to dismiss as performative. That gap is exactly what Index:MH is here to close.

Mannequins are often treated as background objects in shops. We walk past them, glance at them, and rarely question them. But their job goes beyond displaying clothes. In shop windows and store displays, mannequins quietly shape what our brains start to code as a “normal” body.

Feeling good in your skin isn’t the same as promoting a severely underweight frame and calling it a “healthy, toned physique.” In recent campaigns, Zara, Next, and M&S crossed that line. The 2025 M&S ad emphasised the model’s pointed shoes to draw attention to her thin legs, while Zara showcased a drawn, hollow face — a look that pushes unhealthy thinness as a criterion for style.

In 2025, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a Next product image for portraying an “unhealthily thin” model. The image showed a model sitting on a wooden block, legs stretched toward the camera, wearing black leggings and heels. The low camera angle elongated her legs, and the tight fit emphasised their slimness.

In 2025, the ASA banned a Marks & Spencer ad for portraying what it called an “unhealthily thin” model. On paper, it was a simple clothing shot. In practice, it was a visual gamble — and the regulator ruled that gamble crossed the line.