Post: #1

I found this website a while back and I think it has a lot of valuable information on the fashion industry, feminine beauty, and masculinity. This particular page gives an explanation of the looks of high-fashion models and why they are so unfeminine compared to the norm:

http://www.femininebeauty.info/skinny-fashion-models

The main point of the article is to make it clear that that the central tendency of the looks of high-fashion models, which is to approximate the looks of adolescent boys, reflects the aesthetic preferences of the homosexual men who dominate the fashion business. Hence the wide shoulders, prominent cheekbones, anorexic body, near-flat breasts and ass, and tall stature that's found among so many of them.
Some women seeing this end up trying to emulate their looks, leading to an unhealthy lifestyle and become even more confused on how a woman should look. It's a bad role model and something has to be done about it.

Here's another page with information on masculinity vs femininity in facial features
http://www.femininebeauty.info/feminine-vs-masculine


"The similitude between the facial features of a number of high-fashion models and those of adolescent boys is so clear that only the blind will fail to observe it."

Post: #2

Quote:Some women seeing this end up trying to emulate their looks, leading to an unhealthy lifestyle and become even more confused on how a woman should look. It's a bad role model and something has to be done about it.

Post: #3

(07-06-2014 05:34 PM)deusmeister Wrote:  It's a bad role model and something has to be done about it.

Why?

Post: #4

I think there's some confusion here, did you guys take a look at the rest of the site?
You want women to look like this? http://www.femininebeauty.info/fashion-model-physique

I should also mention that when he says "skinny" as a negative, obviously he's not talking about normal, feminine, slim women, but the excessively skinny anorexic women with masculine physiques that I just posted a link to.

Post: #5

(07-06-2014 05:34 PM)deusmeister Wrote:  I found this website a while back and I think it has a lot of valuable information on the fashion industry, feminine beauty, and masculinity. This particular page gives an explanation of the looks of high-fashion models and why they are so unfeminine compared to the norm:

http://www.femininebeauty.info/skinny-fashion-models

The main point of the article is to make it clear that that the central tendency of the looks of high-fashion models, which is to approximate the looks of adolescent boys, reflects the aesthetic preferences of the homosexual men who dominate the fashion business.

That's an interesting claim, but I don't think I've seen much evidence for that being the reason high-end models resemble adolescent boys (which they might), or this being the preference of homosexual men.

Post: #6

Height and thinness are markers of class - over an entire population of women, you will find that the upper class women are taller and thinner. Secondly, taller women, as well as men, have far more presence - and presence is exactly what you're after when advertising your brand's wares. Same goes for broad shoulders - they draw attention. Haute couture is about nothing if not looking posh. Art these days is far from pretty - but it is eye catching. Perhaps fashion modeling is not so different.

So, the relevant comparison group is not average girls versus models, but TALL and THIN girls, and perhaps broad shouldered ones as well, versus models. The difference between those two groups is considerably smaller. I haven't yet read the author's essay.

Post: #7

Very interesting. I believe this may be because fashion models are meant to appeal to metrosexuals and people who aren't masculine or feminine.

I believe there is more evidence that men like women who are as feminine as they are masculine and vice-versa. Agree that many fashion models, both male and female, are androgynous.

What the site's author gets wrong is that its some sort of gay conspiracy. Its not. Closeted gay men are professionals at hiding their sexuality and almost certainly wouldn't get fashion models which look like young boys for the mere sake of converting people. Its because the men who watch these shows are not masculine. They like androgynous women whose lack of femininity fits in with the men's lack of masculinity.

The diagrams on that site are extremely accurate in determining what is perceived as masculine and what is perceived as feminine.

Post: #8

roissy/heartiste made the same claim.

I have never had one iota of a boner for a "model" like girl. I will take a thick white girl (thick - not fat) any day.

Post: #9

Everyone who spouts this "the gays did it!" conspiracy about modeling is willfully illiterate about fashion. They're like "bro these chicks aren't hot, what the fuck? Must be them fags fucking things up." Do you go into a church and ask why the male priest isn't a busty hooters waitress? A model isn't there to make your dick hard. She's there to sell the clothing, to make the brand look glamorous, to sell an envious lifestyle. Straight men are not the target demographic, rich women are. I'm as big an ass man as a man can be, but it's clear that thin rich women respond differently than horny straight men - the optimal aesthetic for branding depends on who your customers are. Are they rich thin women? White truck drivers? Educated black men or blue collar black men? There is no one ideal aesthetic.

Fashion is extremely competitive. In a highly competitive market, generally if the experienced players are all doing something, it's generally because it works on some level. I may not understand it, but chances there's a good reason for it.

Post: #10

(07-06-2014 06:32 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Height and thinness are markers of class - over an entire population of women, you will find that the upper class women are taller and thinner. Secondly, taller women, as well as men, have far more presence - and presence is exactly what you're after when advertising your brand's wares. Same goes for broad shoulders - they draw attention. Haute couture is about nothing if not looking posh. Art these days is far from pretty - but it is eye catching. Perhaps fashion modeling is not so different.

- There are less than 4,000 haute couture clients in the entire world. Fashion is for a tiny elite. Any women doing this to themselves are attempting to social climb into the elite lifestyle, and it is their free choice to do so.

- Judging by the health of the majority of women I see, the women who are emulating the tall and thin fashion model ideal are a tiny, tiny minority. I'd guess the majority of eating orders are bulimic or binge eating, and that's simply women who are making their own choice to avoid diet, exercise and self-control to try and cheat their way to a skinny body. Once again, a choice made of their own free will, when all they have to do is eat healthy food and exercise regularly. (Everything that tries to disprove eating healthy and regular exercise 'doesn't work' is simply differing female hamsterisation to avoid effort and sacrifice because it would mean practising self-control, and women are ruled by emotion and immediate indulgence of their base urges).

- Given that the USA is the 2nd fattest country in the world, anorexia is no real threat to the population, enough so that it's hard to find clear facts of the number of deaths a year, with a lot of corollaries from the organisations that 'deaths are underreported due to other causes of death being listed!', like doctors actually list 'heart failure' and not 'heart failure due to complications from anorexia', and since 53% of medical students are now female, they can't clearly explain why female doctors would be doing this. This resembles rape culture fact fudging enough that I recognise stating the simple facts would show the problem is a low-resilient privileged white girl problem to barely register in the national mortality stakes, and might threaten their government funding.

Check this out, have you ever read something more vague and avoidant of clearly-stating the issue? Still, it guarantees jobs for otherwise unemployable female middle manager types.

National Assocation of Eating Disorders

Basically, all this is dumb, lazy women making dumb, lazy choices, whilst trying to blame culture to excuse any personal responsibility. The ones with the more life-threatening disorders have mental issues, including depression and need psychiatric treatment, not supermodel culture being 'controlled'.

In the meantime, guys ignore 95% of emaciated fashion models and jack off over healthy, athletic girls in swimsuits or porn.

Post: #11

(07-06-2014 07:16 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Everyone who spouts this "the gays did it!" conspiracy about modeling is willfully illiterate about fashion. They're like "bro these chicks aren't hot, what the fuck? Must be them fags fucking things up." Do you go into a church and ask why the male priest isn't a busty hooters waitress? A model isn't there to make your dick hard. She's there to sell the clothing, to make the brand look glamorous, to sell an envious lifestyle. Straight men are not the target demographic, rich women are. I'm as big an ass man as a man can be, but it's clear that thin rich women respond differently than horny straight men - the optimal aesthetic for branding depends on who your customers are. Are they rich thin women? White truck drivers? Educated black men or blue collar black men? There is no one ideal aesthetic.

Fashion is extremely competitive. In a highly competitive market, generally if the experienced players are all doing something, it's generally because it works on some level. I may not understand it, but chances there's a good reason for it.

so then why is there so much perceived prestige in banging a model?

Post: #12

(07-06-2014 06:32 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Height and thinness are markers of class - over an entire population of women, you will find that the upper class women are taller and thinner. Secondly, taller women, as well as men, have far more presence - and presence is exactly what you're after when advertising your brand's wares. Same goes for broad shoulders - they draw attention. Haute couture is about nothing if not looking posh. Art these days is far from pretty - but it is eye catching. Perhaps fashion modeling is not so different.

So, the relevant comparison group is not average girls versus models, but TALL and THIN girls, and perhaps broad shouldered ones as well, versus models. The difference between those two groups is considerably smaller. I haven't yet read the author's essay.

But you're missing an important point , which is that they also look masculine, not just tall and skinny. The guy already addresses this, along with every other possible counterpoint in the article:

"Elite adopting style that others cannot afford

It may be pointed out that the elite need to distinguish themselves from the masses by adopting style that most people cannot afford; hence, the typical looks of high-fashion models. However, it is sufficient for women in elite society to be non-overweight and as attractive as they can afford to be. Why should the elite promote extreme skinniness and masculinization in women to distinguish themselves from the masses? Most women are not feminine and very attractive (two-thirds of American women at present are either overweight or obese) and if women in elite society wanted to distinguish themselves from the masses, they could very well achieve this goal by trying to be as feminine and attractive as they possibly could. Another way of looking at this issue is to consider the ease with which one can achieve a tall, skinny and masculine figure vs. a tall and very feminine figure with a healthy amount of body fat. Whereas there is not a whole lot one could do about one’s height, a woman could easily make herself more masculine and skinny as follows. First, a woman needs to start weightlifting to add muscle mass and bone mass. Unlike men, women who lift weights to make their musculoskeletal system more masculine will not return to their pre-weightlifting level of physique feminization after they stop weightlifting for good. Thus, a woman can achieve a more masculinized physique after one to two years of weightlifting. Thereafter, the woman could shift to excessive endurance training for a year in order to disturb her menstrual cycle and reduce her estrogen levels, making herself less feminine, and she will also lose excessive muscle mass in the process. After this, drastic dieting for a prolonged period, if necessary, will leave her with a skinny physique that is more masculine compared to baseline. On the other hand, exercise and/or dieting will not make a woman more feminine, and the few ways to achieve more feminine looks involve drastic and dangerous measures such as cosmetic surgery and some combination of estrogen plus anti-androgen supplementation, which are prescription drugs, and which altogether will nevertheless be of limited help. Therefore, it is obvious that the typical looks of high-fashion models cannot be explained in terms of the elite adopting standards that most people cannot achieve since the most difficult to achieve looks are those of tall and very feminine women with a healthy amount of body fat."

This guy doesn't hate gay men, he's just pointing out that if they have direct control over the the models' looks then it would make sense that they would be more masculine than the norm.

Post: #13

(07-06-2014 07:48 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  so then why is there so much perceived prestige in banging a model?

The type of model guys want to bang:



The type of model girls think guys want to bang:

Post: #14

(07-06-2014 08:04 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:48 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  so then why is there so much perceived prestige in banging a model?

The type of model guys want to bang:



The type of model girls think guys want to bang:

yes, the clarity i was looking for.

Is there a label distinction between the two? So that next time in convo, I can say "guys want to bang x models, but girls think we want to bang y models."

Post: #15

(07-06-2014 08:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:04 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:48 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  so then why is there so much perceived prestige in banging a model?

The type of model guys want to bang:



The type of model girls think guys want to bang:

yes, the clarity i was looking for.

Is there a label distinction between the two? So that next time in convo, I can say "guys want to bang x models, but girls think we want to bang y models."

The top is a glamour model, the bottom is a high-fashion model.

Post: #16

(07-06-2014 08:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:04 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:48 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  so then why is there so much perceived prestige in banging a model?

The type of model guys want to bang:



The type of model girls think guys want to bang:

yes, the clarity i was looking for.

Is there a label distinction between the two? So that next time in convo, I can say "guys want to bang x models, but girls think we want to bang y models."

I use the phrase hot sluts to describe glamour models. Even the most socially conditioned neutered guys instinctively understand that high fashion models lack the sexiness to be considered hot sluts

A friend of mines once told me he closed a model looking girl. I thought good shit. Then he showed me a photo, and I was unpleasantly surprised as I realized what his definition of model is, tall boobless women.

Post: #17

Found this study a couple of years ago.

It made me realize how strong the effect of social conditioning is. Lotta guys see high fashion models as the pinnacle. They are allowing men who specialize in being attracted to men tell them what's attractive in women. It blew my mind knowing that social conditioning can overshadow some men's biological wiring for tits and ass.

Post: #18

What The Fuck are you talking about?

Take a look at this for example:

http://formesdelabeaute.tumblr.com

You think i need "men who specialize in being attracted to men" to tell me they are fucking attractive?

Post: #19

(07-06-2014 09:41 PM)lalafufu Wrote:  Found this study a couple of years ago.

It made me realize how strong the effect of social conditioning is. Lotta guys see high fashion models as the pinnacle. They are allowing men who specialize in being attracted to men tell them what's attractive in women. It blew my mind knowing that social conditioning can overshadow some men's biological wiring for tits and ass.

I don't believe that. The models who 'cross over' into public conciousness- and there's thousands of high fashion models the average joe will never care to know the names of - are slim women with decent tits and of a healthy weight rather than emaciated: Christine Brinkley, Elle McPherson, even the overrated Kate Upton.

Kate Moss is probably considered too skinny, but, like Audrey Hepburn, she just strikes me as a naturally-thin, small-framed build.



That's not anorexia. Big difference between a small, thin frame and an eating disorder. Feminists just want people to think any woman without a FUPA is 'unhealthy' and 'starving herself', ie. not regularly eating deep-fried cake as a snack, like having an apple would poison them.

Post: #20

anorexia is much less of a problem in the western world than obesity. The models I have come across are extremely health conscious, eat a balanced diet, and spend a lot of time working out to keep the weight off. Their health is better than 45% or whatever percentage of western women who are overweight.

Tall and pale has aways been a mark of high class. Doesnt look like high fashion is trying to change that, and why should they?

Post: #21

The thin look was made fashionable by the supermodel Twiggy in the 1970s. She really made a huge impact on the culture. Before Twiggy, women were thicker and it was common to wear a girdle. Look at any playboy from the 50s and 60s to see the difference. I agree that the supermodels are chosen to look like boys. The pictures are self explanatory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiggy

Post: #22

I started reading the article, and the author raises a number of great, interesting points. But on some level, these models work. If fashion's target demographic didn't prefer these kinds of models, they wouldn't be so dominant.

He writes:

Quote:However, anyone who believes that high-fashion models look the way they do because there is some kind of public demand for their looks or that their looks increase sales has to be naïve. To clarify this statement, imagine that all companies manufacturing soap use unattractive models to sell soap. Will people stop using soap or even reduce their use of soap as a result? Obviously not. Clearly, if one is selling necessities and highly desirable items, then one has a broad license as to what kind of models one can use. It is important to be well-dressed, and even if unattractive women are ubiquitously used to model designer clothing, women are not going to stop desiring such clothing or patronizing fashion designers. Speaking of unattractive women, the skinniness typically seen in high-fashion models is considered socially unacceptable by most Western women, the great majority of whom also find feminine looks in women much more aesthetically appealing than masculine looks.

His analogy isn't very good. In his analogy, what would happen is one soap company experiments with using attractive models - and if those attractive models yielded higher sales, the other soap vendors would catch on and do the same, until the industry used it across the board except for some brands that for some reason did better with less attractive models or none at all. If fashion wasn't so competitive, this idea would be more plausible, but again it is, so I'd tend to assume that these models work on some level, and it's not just a gay conspiracy. I perused photos of legendary models from before the 1960's, a time when perhaps gay men had less hold on the industry (although admittedly, maybe not), and the models were less masculine, but there's still a strain of what he's discussing, although I could be getting an inaccurate impression.

Let's take a step higher. One thing I noticed when perusing clothing catalogues, usually for men but occasionally for women, was that the models they chose looked like an idealized version of their customer. Open J. Crew, and you'll see skinny, effeminate, ambiguously gay men. In Brooks Brothers, you'll see the kind of black dude who you just know, if you only heard his voice, you'd have no idea he's black. In Anthropologie, you see bohemian girls with distinctive facial features. Catalog models are not nearly as androgynous - wouldn't you figure that gay men are pretty powerful in those circles too, at least in the trendy catalogs?

Is it that fashion concentrates to an extreme on an idealized, androgynous beauty, known by some as 'the mask?'

Quote:Both men said that although Smalls does not fall into the "classically beautiful" category, her features nonetheless pull the viewer in -- exactly what a brand like Estee Lauder wants.

"She has great cheeks, beautiful eyes and beautiful brows," Marquardt said. "She is so striking."

Smalls:



Striking... pulls the viewer in... brand. That's why a girl like that is brought in, even if she does nothing for your dick. Estee Lauder is not PornHub, it's not out to make your dick hard. Who funds the fashion rags? Brands like Estee Lauder. That British blonde girl in the youtube video above? She is beautiful, but in a sense forgettable, unless you saw her in person I suppose.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow...tml#page=1

Post: #23

(07-06-2014 07:59 PM)deusmeister Wrote:  Whereas there is not a whole lot one could do about one’s height, a woman could easily make herself more masculine and skinny as follows. First, a woman needs to start weightlifting to add muscle mass and bone mass. Unlike men, women who lift weights to make their musculoskeletal system more masculine will not return to their pre-weightlifting level of physique feminization after they stop weightlifting for good. Thus, a woman can achieve a more masculinized physique after one to two years of weightlifting. Thereafter, the woman could shift to excessive endurance training for a year in order to disturb her menstrual cycle and reduce her estrogen levels, making herself less feminine, and she will also lose excessive muscle mass in the process. After this, drastic dieting for a prolonged period, if necessary, will leave her with a skinny physique that is more masculine compared to baseline.

I thought your theory was somewhat plausible until I got to this point. Really? This is the theory. How many chicks go to gyms? How many lift weights? How many lift heavy weights? How many do that and then go to the complete opposite extreme?

Post: #24

Do you even sew?

It is clear none of you do.

Muscle and curves have to be accommodated for when you sew. It's why your clothes never fit properly, and why your girlfriend has to try on a billion pairs of jeans.

It's much easier and simpler to sew for stick figures, . Especially for runway shows. Surprise, that's where you see the most models. In terms of faces, they go with beautiful as well as striking.

This is common knowledge. It's not some plot to force the gay agenda down your throat. Do none of you guys live in New York and run into these hectic freaks?

Sound like some conspiracy theory nuts

WIA

Post: #25

WIA has it correct in that having a shapeless frame to hang your sample and show pieces is part of the reason that androgynous women are used for fashion.