Why “Normal” Now Looks Like One Body Type

Turning a body type into a brand’s signature is standard beauty marketing, but advertising only one shape plays on our insecurities and tells us there is one look that counts as normal. When we only see one physique in shops and ads, our brains quietly turn it into the standard we compare ourselves to. Fit, slim, curvy is too often portrayed as the perfect measure when multiple body types exist. Showing one body type is not the problem. Making it the only template we see, and selling everything around that single look, trains the brain to treat it as the only “normal”.

What “normal” becomes

Ever felt a notch below the beauty standard after a shopping trip? If so, it is not your imagination.

Pictures in shops and ads help shape our idea of “normal”. The brain leans on what it sees most often and learns that this shape is desirable. Through repeated exposure, the young, toned body type becomes the default.

Here is how the single-fit norm takes hold. Images are processed in the brain areas that specialise in recognising bodies and faces. Over time, the frequently advertised look becomes a mental category of “what an attractive body looks like”. With enough repetition, that category strengthens and shifts from “this is what models look like” to “this is what bodies should look like”.

Commonly, frequency is confused with truth and visibility is mistaken for value. “Normal” becomes one image glued to our brain.

Beliefs settle in quietly. The heavily marketed standard begins to feel like a rule about what is desirable, expected and acceptable. The impossible ideal becomes a personal benchmark. Because it is often paired with images of success, confidence and happiness, the consumer is nudged into thinking there is one look that is positive and everything else falls short. Commonly, frequency is confused with truth and visibility is mistaken for value. “Normal” becomes one image glued to our brain.

The “aspirational” look

Shops often use “aspirational” images to push us toward a certain look, assuming that pictures of slim, young bodies are the most inspiring way to sell clothes.

Mango is one clear example of how brands shape our perception of beauty. In addition to endorsing celebrities like Kate Moss and Bella Hadid in their advertisements, Business of Fashion reports that Mango has recently incorporated AI avatars into their fashion ads, depicting the same slim, polished look in a youth dress. The background settings in these images add to the appeal of the overall look, selling the same “aspirational” body across different scenes, cultures and languages. The goal is to target customers globally and ensure the over-marketed look never loses appeal.

When we are surrounded by these images, it becomes easy to absorb the message that “this is what beautiful looks like”. Whether the images use real models or AI avatars does not change the effect. They keep pulling customers into comparison with an unrealistic ideal. The clothes fitted on that ideal become a way for consumers to feel a bit closer to that picture.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger emphasised that human self evaluation is tied to our comparisons with others. When the target is unattainable or unrealistic, the competitive brain asks “how low do I rank?”, which leads to self devaluation. If the same very narrow body type keeps appearing in ads, it is likely to leave people feeling a step below the ideal.

The Guardian reported that in 2024 over 94 per cent of the models in 208 shows measured between a US size 0 and 4, an extremely thin size. When those are the bodies we see in fashion shows and ads, it becomes easy to think that beauty is a single fit. You either “fit in” or you are out.

“Diverse” models vs the ideal

In response to criticism, some stores now use “diverse” models, including models of different sizes. In practice, that diversity often sits very close to the narrow ideal.

Brands may select models with only subtle differences so that the core aesthetic stays the same. As Bonnie Langedijk notes, we are seeing more skin tones, ethnicities and ages than before, but the accepted heights and weights have hardly shifted. This suggests that models may now be of any race or older age, but the slim, toned appearance still dominates fashion.

The message remains: “this is the body you should want”, and our real bodies will never be good enough.

The move towards “diverse” models is often symbolic. Many brands rely on tokenism and superficial inclusion: adding a few models from underrepresented groups to look progressive, without genuinely representing them. At the same time, many commentators are warning about the return of “heroin chic”, with the ultra thin look growing again in popularity. Superficial inclusion fits neatly with that trend. On the surface, the faces change. Behind the scenes, the industry still designs and sells primarily for thin bodies.

Because the changes are subtle, the underlying ideal can go unnoticed. The narrow standard remains, and brands keep lining up products that suggest we need those clothes and beauty products to close the gap between how we see ourselves and how we “should” look.

When the ideal is everywhere

When a narrow ideal is around every corner, appearing in store windows, adverts and feeds, ordinary bodies start to feel wrong. Normal features like stretch marks, skin texture or a soft stomach are easily misread. Every detail that does not match the “normal” look that follows us from screen to screen becomes a target for self shaming, body dysmorphia, anxiety and depression.

Image after image, the harm accumulates. Repeatedly seeing the same ideal rewires the brain into treating that unattainable look as the reference point and the real body we live in as the deviation. When these “perfect” models are everywhere, the “perfect look” quietly becomes the normal look.

Bodies we recognise

Feeling out of place in your own body is a predictable response to this kind of environment. It is natural to want to see bodies we recognise in shop photos. Unfortunately, many images leave people feeling worse about how they look. Many brands still act on the assumption that one narrow “aspirational” body sells best. In reality, shoppers are constantly evolving in their fashion choices, including their views on what a “good” body looks like.

Similarity and psychological wellbeing are closely linked. Research suggests that realistic looking models that reflect customers’ bodies help them feel included and seen, which can build both body image and brand loyalty. Instead of using their existing audience as the reference point, many brands still stick to the same slender model that few people can live up to.

According to Marielle Elizabeth, an advocate of ethical fashion and body inclusivity, there is a lot of real-world diversity, yet scrolling Instagram often means only seeing one body type. She argues that a business that treated all bodies as aspirational would be a genuinely welcoming space. Seeing bodies we recognise should not be an impossible demand. In the face of impossible standards, the right to be represented needs to be heard.

What we want to see

In order to learn and adapt, the beauty industry depends on our responses. That means our choices still matter.

Real variety in bodies is not a risk. It is what many consumers say they want. We can call for, and support, brands that protect body image and step away from those that rely on insecurity to sell. Every time we choose where to browse and spend, we send a message about what kind of standards we accept.

Beauty advertising needs guardrails. At Index:MH™ we are working to define clear standards so that beauty culture becomes more inclusive, respectful, honest and fair. If you are tired of an industry that designs for the same small fraction of bodies, add your name to the Index:MH™ pledge and help show brands that people want better representation.