"The Era When 'Being Natural' Is the Most Unnatural - From 'Training' the Body to 'Manufacturing' It: The End of Body Positivity and the New Era of Body Sculpting"

The slogan "love yourself as you are" seems to have suddenly lost its luster in recent years. The reasons are not simple. Symbolically, however, the generalization of techniques to "lose" weight and the simultaneous return of "enhancing" clothing as cutting-edge fashion are notable. We shrink our bodies with slimming drugs and reshape our contours with corsets and pads. We are now transitioning from the sense of "training/toning" our bodies to "manufacturing" them. [1]

1) After the "shrunk body" comes the "remade body"

The NYT essay describes a "new era of reconstruction" born from the alliance of fashion, medicine, and technology. While GLP-1 drugs (such as Ozempic and Mounjaro) have made it possible to physically reduce oneself, panniers that exaggerate the waist and hips, bustles that enhance the back, and corsets that artificially shape the chest and waist have become prominent on runways and red carpets. [1]

The examples are striking. Huge panniers, bodysuits adding cartoon-like curves, and corsetry that seems to carve out the skeleton itself. Celebrity attire is also being drawn towards further "sculpting" of already slimmed bodies. The important point here is not just about increased or decreased exposure, but that clothing is shifting from being an "interpretation device" to a "manufacturing device" for the body. [1]

Moreover, this trend is not confined to high fashion. Shapewear brands are releasing products that "add" to the hips and waist, and even bras that deliberately make nipple details visible have appeared. From the perspective of search data, the direction of "wearing/representing the body" is being articulated as "the next big tide." [1][2][3]

2) Did a "natural body" ever really exist?

A striking point in the essay is the assertion that "the body is never 'natural'." Tattoos, high heels, dental work, bodybuilding, dieting—humanity has always treated the body as "fashion (something to be made)." [1]

However, now is decisively different from the past. Body modifications used to come with pain, effort, and time. Now, a single injection and a dress can give you a "plausible body." The perspective that the center of pain has shifted from the physical to the economic is sharp. As prices drop and formulations evolve, "easy and painless modifications" will increasingly become the norm. [1]

3) Conservatism and gender politics tighten the waist

Another axis is politics and culture. The essay states that the rise of right-wing gender politics runs parallel to the return to the "slim waist + curvy hourglass" ideal. As the ideal body converges into "slim but with 'traditionally recognizable shapes,'" clothing becomes a tool to mass-produce that ideal image. [1]

At the same time, as the struggle for control over bodies becomes more visible, paradoxically, the desire to "decide one's own body" also strengthens. Tight clothing can symbolize oppression, but it can also provide a sense of security and autonomy as a "cocoon" that envelops the body. Designers who reinterpret corsets from "cages" to "power" and expressions that deliberately emphasize fatty areas to "reframe the context of beauty" are extensions of this. [1]

When social media enters the scene, the debate further splits. Corsets are symbols of "the history of men binding women," but also devices for "self-styling one's body." The same item can appear as a cage or armor, depending on the viewer's experience and political consciousness.

4) A filter society drives the "real body"

The essay explains modern pressures with the term "mediated reality." Filters, face correction, editing apps—the self on the screen can always be adjusted. Naturally, one might think the body can also be "updated" in the same way. The problem is when the real self starts chasing the edited "virtual self". [1]

This anxiety of "having to catch up" spins as a business. The growth of searches, proliferation of products, and articulation of trend predictions further justify desires. The danger is that trends appear as "harmless play." The essay even uses a metaphor of applying mercury to baby bedding to express this—appealing now, but with unforeseeable side effects later. [1]

5) Will the end be "reaction" or "further acceleration"?

Unlike the era when body modifications were fixed signs of tribes or communities, today "consumption" and "visibility" drive identity. As the speed of trends increases, the meaning of the body becomes detached from stable affiliations. This can lead to the act of "changing bodies" itself creating instability and widening the gap between psychology and the physical. [1]

However, fashion always has a reaction. If the crafted body reaches its peak, the next direction might be towards "unraveling the artificial." Indeed, there are signs of a growing yearning for authenticity, as actress Kate Winslet expresses concerns about "chasing perfection for social media 'likes.'" [1][4]

Yet, the tricky part is that even "natural" is a "manufactured concept." We have been reshaping our bodies for so long with supplements, lasers, shapewear, lacing, and padding. So what is "natural"? In the end, isn't it just "making it look natural"? [1]

6) Reactions on social media: Praise, backlash, irony, and fatigue

This theme resonates on social media because, while it appears to be about "beauty," it is actually about "survival strategy," "class," and "recognition." Reactions broadly fall into the following categories.

A: Voices affirming it as aesthetic beauty and expression
The perspective that "clothes make the body a canvas," "corsets are armor," and "extreme silhouettes are art." There is a segment that enjoys it as the pinnacle of technology and craft.

B: Voices angry or saddened by the regression of body positivity
The backlash that "we're back to thin worship" and "forcing the 'correct body' with drugs and shapewear is violence." Especially the ideal of "being thin but keeping curves" is high-cost to achieve and easily stimulates self-denial.

C: Voices attempting feminist reinterpretation
Taking into account the history of constriction, the stance of "reclaiming meaning by deliberately wearing it." Attempts to shift values by "showing/emphasizing" body complexes also fall here. [1]

D: Class critique and Hunger Games perspective
Criticism that drugs, procedures, couture, and shapewear are all bundles of consumption, and that the "body updates" of the wealthy further distort the economy of visibility. [1]

E: Voices taking distance through memes and irony
Because serious discussion is exhausting, social media responds with irony. For example, regarding Kim Kardashian's "look covering even the face," there are simultaneous evaluations of "thorough and interesting" and ridicule as "like a paper bag," leading to polarized comment sections. [5]

Social media is cruel. Extreme bodies are easily spread. Spreading brings work and money. Then extremity is justified again. In that loop, the most neglected might be the "freedom not to edit."

7) So how should we face this?

It's easy to label this trend as "decadence" or to elevate it as "freedom." But reality lies in between. The body is expression, life, politics, labor, sometimes armor, and sometimes a cage.

What matters is the eye to see through the "blueprint" of trends.
Who benefits and who pays the cost?
For whom is that ideal image convenient?
And are we making our real selves chase the selves on the screen?

In the era of "manufactured bodies," what might be needed more than the body itself is a manual for handling desires.