I'd like Fat Bottomed Girls, please.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. Designers use these girls as walking clothes-hooks and seem to ignore the fact that they are dealing with living human beings.
The fashion industry has to recognize the desastrous consequences of presenting such extremely thin girls as models. Although such "role models" are certainly not the reason for anorexia and other eating disorders - it also does not help to overcome this very frequent disease among young girls who are manipulated into thinking they need to be that thin to be attractive.
The fashion industry has to recognize the desastrous consequences of presenting such extremely thin girls as models. Although such "role models" are certainly not the reason for anorexia and other eating disorders - it also does not help to overcome this very frequent disease among young girls who are manipulated into thinking they need to be that thin to be attractive.
Thanks for the compliment,
and I totally agree with you! You can't fall into the trap of saying that all eating disorders come from this...but it certainly is a big factor.
and I totally agree with you! You can't fall into the trap of saying that all eating disorders come from this...but it certainly is a big factor.
I agree with CMUgirl also. I think Cindy Crawford always looked great and she still does. I don't think she is too thin or too heavy (certainly not). I think some designers go for the shock factor, with the overly thin, overly ugly, overly made up models and the clothing they are displaying. I mean look at the outfits they are modeling in these shows. I would never buy any of the outfits I see these girls modeling even if I had the money to buy them. I saw one model that was wearing something that made her look like a peacock. Feathers about five feet above her head. It was odd to say the least. Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. [/QUOTE]
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. [/QUOTE]
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything.
It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this.
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything.
It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. [/QUOTE]
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything.
It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this.[/QUOTE]
I agree with both Jingles and MusicMan. I'm not sorry for these women at all...they chose this "career" path, so they get no sympathy from me at all about their "problems". What I object to is the fact that they are projecting this image that isn't at all healthy as the "ideal". Anyone who is willing to base their entire life around how they look is going to have to prepare for a long, hard fall. That's why I hated the parents like the Ramseys, who basically taught their daughter Jon Benet that her looks were her life. What do you think would have happend to her when she hit 35 or so and her looks started to fade out? She'd have probably done what most of the models do...major plastic surgery addicts or nervous breakdowns. Anyone who chooses the path of modeling can't whine to me about their issues....I don't care. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it, and that's that.
I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits.
Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything.
It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this.[/QUOTE]
I agree with both Jingles and MusicMan. I'm not sorry for these women at all...they chose this "career" path, so they get no sympathy from me at all about their "problems". What I object to is the fact that they are projecting this image that isn't at all healthy as the "ideal". Anyone who is willing to base their entire life around how they look is going to have to prepare for a long, hard fall. That's why I hated the parents like the Ramseys, who basically taught their daughter Jon Benet that her looks were her life. What do you think would have happend to her when she hit 35 or so and her looks started to fade out? She'd have probably done what most of the models do...major plastic surgery addicts or nervous breakdowns. Anyone who chooses the path of modeling can't whine to me about their issues....I don't care. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it, and that's that.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Which auditorium where you in?
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Which auditorium where you in?
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...[/QUOTE]
Those types of outfits and the make-up are exactly what I'm talking about. What the hell??!! I wonder how much money that make-up "artist" got for putting that liptstick all over that model's face instead of on her lips. How much did the hair "stylist" get for teasing her hair up in to a rat's nest? Bleh.
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...[/QUOTE]
Those types of outfits and the make-up are exactly what I'm talking about. What the hell??!! I wonder how much money that make-up "artist" got for putting that liptstick all over that model's face instead of on her lips. How much did the hair "stylist" get for teasing her hair up in to a rat's nest? Bleh.
If I ever see Tyra Banks on the catwalk i would toss a fuckin' dolphin.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Which auditorium where you in?
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...[/QUOTE]
Sounds like Plachta....which would make sense. It's the bigger and fancier one. That's right in the middle of campus.
And the Victorian thing, yeah, it's true. It was also a piece of womanly advice that she should marry a guy with big hands for that very reason. But things were alittle screwy back then...like they had whole manuals on who you should marry and why.
Like me? I'm a red head, so I'm volitile in temper and should marry a man with black hair to balance me out. And I've got blue eyes, which means I'm fragile, so I should marry another man with blue eyes, according to the manual.
Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.[/QUOTE]
It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way).
And the Victorian England thing... *makes squinchy face* ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? [/QUOTE]
Church.
No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women.
Like this : http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion1.jpg and http://www.morgenpost.de/specials/fashionshow/img/fashion20.jpg
Or : http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/26gaultier1.JPG
Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : http://lfoune.free.fr/imgs2/2488.jpg
Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...[/QUOTE]
Sounds like Plachta....which would make sense. It's the bigger and fancier one. That's right in the middle of campus.
And the Victorian thing, yeah, it's true. It was also a piece of womanly advice that she should marry a guy with big hands for that very reason. But things were alittle screwy back then...like they had whole manuals on who you should marry and why.
Like me? I'm a red head, so I'm volitile in temper and should marry a man with black hair to balance me out. And I've got blue eyes, which means I'm fragile, so I should marry another man with blue eyes, according to the manual.
I think if they are, in fact, very unhealthy they should be banned until they get the help they need. But not all thin girls should be banned. Some have fast metabolisms and their slim physique(?) has nothing to do with anorexia or bulimia. And if it was their dream to model, it seems mighty unfair to keep them from doing what they love because of the girls who want to look like that. They need to understand that a lot of the time, it's actually genetics doing the trick. But anyone can lose weight through healthy diet if they really want to. :-)
And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill.
And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill.
Okay... my honest opinion:
I know how is to be thin and be called unhealthy. I was in a mayor depression post break up last year. I lost 6Kg, and gone of 50Kg. to 44Kg. The main reason was the crying all day. But I gained weight, I have 48Kg. now and I eat 5 times a day. I have tried to reach my goal to have the weight I had before, but it's getting difficult. I talked with my personal doc about my health and it seems to be fine. I even thought I was becoming anorexic, but it seems I wasn't, it was my body who wasn't asimilating the food I was eating, and believe me I eat a lot of junk food I can find in the market out there :P.
I know how is to be thin and be called unhealthy. I was in a mayor depression post break up last year. I lost 6Kg, and gone of 50Kg. to 44Kg. The main reason was the crying all day. But I gained weight, I have 48Kg. now and I eat 5 times a day. I have tried to reach my goal to have the weight I had before, but it's getting difficult. I talked with my personal doc about my health and it seems to be fine. I even thought I was becoming anorexic, but it seems I wasn't, it was my body who wasn't asimilating the food I was eating, and believe me I eat a lot of junk food I can find in the market out there :P.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>12345678 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I think if they are, in fact, very unhealthy they should be banned until they get the help they need. But not all thin girls should be banned. Some have fast metabolisms and their slim physique(?) has nothing to do with anorexia or bulimia. And if it was their dream to model, it seems mighty unfair to keep them from doing what they love because of the girls who want to look like that. They need to understand that a lot of the time, it's actually genetics doing the trick. But anyone can lose weight through healthy diet if they really want to. :-)
And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill.[/QUOTE]
Exactly the point. Even though they are using BMI to indicate the health of the models, which has been outdated and is currently out of favor in the medical community as a measuring stick for this kind of thing, only the ones who have unhealthy levels are getting banned. If those models are told they are banned for that, that should spur them to get to the doctor and find out why. Granted genetics can have something to do with it, but if genetics is making them that skinny that it's unhealthy, then there is a major problem with their metabolism that needs to be fixed. I'd like to see them move to the waist hip ratio, because it's a better indicator of overall health than the BMI.
And the art....beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may not be as slim as I want to be (but I am by no means big), but if I can look at a girl or guy standing still and I can see ribs....that's not pretty. That's too skinny.
And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill.[/QUOTE]
Exactly the point. Even though they are using BMI to indicate the health of the models, which has been outdated and is currently out of favor in the medical community as a measuring stick for this kind of thing, only the ones who have unhealthy levels are getting banned. If those models are told they are banned for that, that should spur them to get to the doctor and find out why. Granted genetics can have something to do with it, but if genetics is making them that skinny that it's unhealthy, then there is a major problem with their metabolism that needs to be fixed. I'd like to see them move to the waist hip ratio, because it's a better indicator of overall health than the BMI.
And the art....beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may not be as slim as I want to be (but I am by no means big), but if I can look at a girl or guy standing still and I can see ribs....that's not pretty. That's too skinny.
Honestly. Who wants to see a Biafran on a catwalk? I don't know who says it's attractive to have so many bones showing, and I don't know how it sells clothes, but I'm baffled.