Erik, It’s funny that you are using my "status" argument, which you tried to shrug off earlier in this post. You have not proven that these supermodels deviated from the high fashion norm of the eighties and early nineties. Every woman there, with the exception of Cindy Crawford, is an example of a typical high fashion model body in that era.
You cannot prove that the public became more accepting of homosexuality in the late nineties when the models started to get emaciated. There was no big difference between how gay men were viewed in 1998 and how they are viewed now. Your hypotheses are still ridiculous.
Those close ups you provided only show that the homosexuals have a much better idea of what a beautiful woman looks like than you do.
Compare:
with the sloppy hoes from your “attractive women” section:
You really think you can criticize anyone’s aesthetic? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Luckily, all the above pics were taken when I was 18. I was trying to get money for an apartment while still going to school, so I could move out of a neighbor's basement :-) (My mom was really religious and bipolar and I got kicked out...)so, money was essential, and of all the applications I put in jobs, I only got one response, from a "fashion photographer" in LA who saw some of my fashion shots. I was actually lied to and told I'd be posing for Playboy. God was I dumb!! (I did eventually make it to the mansion though, that place is awesome!!!)
I'm in agreeance that most of the Victorias Secret models look boyish in the face and body, but I like Adriana's face... It's beautiful to me... I am an even bigger fan of my own girlfriend Robyn Chance. She's a knockout. her face and figure are extremely feminine to me. She's almost entirely of European descent and has 5% Cherokee Indian and models for men's appeal (FHM, Maxim) and is known for being petite and all natural (no surgeries not even fake lashes... believe me I know, she's perfect). I thought I knew what feminine looked like until you said Adriana's face was mannish.... so you tell me?? am I corrupted by the magazines? lol
If you're interested, read the full article and learn how the study controlled for variables. Here, I will quote key points:
Quote:
Three decades of research on men's sexual arousal show patterns that clearly track sexual orientation -- gay men overwhelmingly become sexually aroused by images of men and heterosexual men by images of women...
But a new Northwestern University study boosts the relatively limited research on women's sexuality with a surprisingly different finding regarding women's sexual arousal.
In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern...
the scant research on the subject does hint that, compared with men, women's sexual arousal patterns may be less tightly connected to their sexual orientation...
The Northwestern researchers measured the psychological and physiological sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men and women as they watched erotic films. There were three types of erotic films: those featuring only men, those featuring only women and those featuring male and female couples. As with previous research, the researchers found that men responded consistent with their sexual
orientations. In contrast, both homosexual and heterosexual women showed a bisexual pattern of psychological as well as genital arousal. That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women...
"The fact that women's sexual arousal patterns are not all predicted by their sexual orientations suggests that men's and women's minds and brains are very different," Bailey said.
Pornographic films are a MUCH stronger sexual stimulant than photographs or film footage of women in clothes or lingerie, so the corresponding sexual arousal would have to be MUCH weaker. In other words, heterosexual women looking at women in pornographic films get clearly gentially aroused, while heterosexual women looking at women in clothes or lingerie get only subliminally/subconsciously aroused. No, I'm not claiming straight women get wet looking at fashion magazines. Please try to understand what I am saying.
Bron: You wrote: "But I don’t lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn’t I?"
The conscious mind does not know most of the content of the subconscious mind. For instance, every moment of your life is recorded in your subconscious memory. Your conscious mind cannot possibly store that much information. Hypnosis has proven successful in unearthing verifiable, accurate subconscious memories that had been totally lost to the conscious mind.
Subliminal advertising works because it triggers subconscious responses of which we are not even aware.
Bron, I am not accusing you of lying. It is not dishonesty; it is simply unawareness. I am not accusing you, or any other heterosexual woman, of wanting to have sex with women. The study makes it clear that, as I said, arousal and desire are two different things.
"I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn’t necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO... I am only repulsed after watching them."
In this context, by arousal I mean not overt genital arousal but mild, extremely slight, subliminal arousal. You may very well be repulsed by androgynous women, but repulsion and arousal are not entirely mutually exclusive. Repulsion is an *emotional* reaction; arousal is a *physiological* phenomenon.
"Androgynous fashion models don’t convey to me message of “sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE” .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN."
Image vs Reality. You are not fooled by the image because you have seen the reality. Most women have not.
You know many androgynous fashion models so you know that their image - sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, promiscuous and undiscriminating. Those who know many female porn stars know that their image - sexually voracious and unable to get enough - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, low libido, sometimes even totally frigid women who regard sex as business, not pleasure.
Whipped Honey :
I have something to say about that, I posted my comment in
Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny! entry, if you are interested.
Must correct myself: 'You really should have produced the proof.....'
And, yeah, some of them look manly to pass as man, facialy, but then they are too ugly for me to make me aroused.
Whipped Honey :
I know you won't take a second thought about my comment, but really, I don't believe you. You should really have to produced proof for that theory.The unconscious arousal of hetero woman by androgynous one. Some brain detector examination, maybe. I know people lie, but brains don't, and it would show, if it is true, what you say. But I don't lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn't I? I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn't necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO. They don't even look masculine enough, just ugly, deformed, sometimes like cute boys, but not enough to make me aroused.I am only repulsed after watching them.
Androgynous fashion models don't convey to me message of "sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE" .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN. THEY CHASE THEM, NOTHING LADYLIKE.BUT MEN CHASE THOSE LADYLIKE FEMININE ONES, AND THEY ARE VERY PICKY ABOUT MEN, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
funny, Sonia had much prettier face, for my eyes, this one I would never have for myself. Sonia was only too fat, for my taste, this one has fine body, nice proportions
But as for her body, I don't understand how someone would think that's sexually appealing. Looking at her photos, especially the one of her backside, makes me cringe in the same way I cringe when I look at anorexics. It's just not attractive to me to have such a long, skinny torso, feminine or not. It's not even human-like.
It's not only the fact that her cheekbones are high and that her lips are small that makes her masculine-looking; it's her overall appearance. Duh. Apparently you're the only one that thinks she's cute, Erik. You keep contradicting your theory of feminine beauty when you showcase all these unattractive women.
Barely anyone likes pastey skin nowadays; that was only considered attractive up to the beginning of the 19th century. Whereas in the past, having pastey skin showed a sign of wealth and luxury (the lower class had to slave away in the sun all day), now it's considered sickly looking.
There's also a difference between pastey skin and light-colored skin. I'm naturally light-skinned myself but it's not to the point of me looking like a sick ghost.
Danielle honey I am not nuts.
I just happen to have the guts
to dig up some of the muck,
in a manner that does not suck,
that most people would not see
unless they were to pay a fee.
It is not easy to use much tact
if you are addressing a sordid fact,
but this does not an opinion make
unless you show the premises are fake.
Hugh Ristik: On a serious note, I do not favor minimum BMI standards. I favor legislation that forces the industry to prove that models below a certain BMI are healthy and not starving. This option gives the homosexuals maximal freedom of choice while reducing the likelihood of them forcing models to starve, allows naturally very thin women to model, and as far as their negative influence on impressionable girls and women goes, I will be taking care of this problem. In case anyone is wondering why I favor this approach, I am generally averse to government regulation of people’s affairs, and hence favor solutions that are the best compromise between minimal government regulation and maximal public welfare.
Sarah: Do not use multiple aliases, and especially not my name. I didn’t say there is anything wrong with helping those with AIDS. I myself donated money to an AIDS patient in the past week. The charities Rich and Rains are involved in simply confirm what you can infer from the video. And, the “Human Rights Campaign” group is a homosexual activist group that hides behind an euphemism.
Danielle: Do not confound supermodels with regular high-fashion models. Supermodels have attained enough status to afford to somewhat deviate from the norm. It is true that the 1990s supermodels weren’t as thin as regular high-fashion models today, but high-fashion models in the 1990s were generally thinner than the supermodels, and the homosexual influence is still obvious in the general skeletal proportions of the 1990s supermodels. See face close-ups of the five women you mentioned, in the same order. I have already addressed the fact that with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the latter half of the twentieth century, the influence of homosexuals in the industry became more obvious in terms of high-fashion models becoming thinner and more masculine. So it isn’t that the homosexuals have developed their aesthetic tastes recently, but they have been able to make it more obvious with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public.
Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t, Part III
Quote:
"Don't accuse me of faulty statistical analysis. If you have a background in science, then you should realize that a 3% deviation cannot just be dismissed as statistically irrelevant. The relevance is decided by the matter under consideration."
In the manner under consideration, waist to hip ratio, the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is not huge or even big.
Quote:
"It is also interesting to note that in spite of an apparently decent background in science/statistics, you have interpreted a difference between a WHR of 0.68 and 0.71 as one of 3%. 0.71 is 4.4% higher than 0.68 (taking 0.68 as base)."
You know damn well I was not taking 0.68 as a base and determining what percentage 0.03 is of 0.68. You know damn well I was looking at the whole 100 point range and seeing that the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is 0.03. Anybody who passed 7th grade math and thinks about it for twenty seconds knows what I meant. If you are going to try to discredit my knowledge of statistics you better try much harder than a simple and obvious arithmetic trick.
Quote:
"If you were to sample, say, female college students, a good baseline reference for fashion vs. glamour model comparisons, you may get something like a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84 with a mean of 0.74 and standard deviation of 0.04 (example here), which would make a 0.3 WHR difference equal 0.75 standard deviations. Don't you think a 0.75 S.D. difference matters?"
Erik meant a 0.03 WHR difference, not a 0.3 WHR difference, for the benefit of anyone who reads this.
Whether a 0.75 standard deviation "matters" is entirely subjective; it depends whether you personally care. What is objective, and what you yourself have explicitly admitted, is that a 0.75 standard deviation is still well within the normal range. Quote from you: "a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84".
ERIK, YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THE "MASCULINIZED" 0.71 WHR (WAIST-HIP RATIO) IS WELL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE! IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE HIGHEST END OF THE NORMAL RANGE, 0.84, LET ALONE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL RANGE!
EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION: ERIK SCREWED UP AND ADMITTED THAT ONE OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS HE CALLS "MASCULINIZED" IS WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE!
ALMOST ALL OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS ERIK CALLS "MASCULINIZED" ARE WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.
How it is possible for women to turn on straight women
"Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?"
Heterosexual women are sexually aroused by the physical signs of masculinity. The physical signs of masculinity can exist in both men and (to a much lesser extent) women.
Arousal and desire are two different things. Arousal is the state of feeling turned on, to whatever degree, great or small. Desire is the longing for actual sexual contact. A heterosexual woman feels desire only for men. A heterosexual woman can feel arousal by both men and women. The difference between arousal and desire may be hard for men to understand because men automatically feel desire for anyone who arouses them.
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that there was a study that proved women are more turned on by music than by pornography. Only a man would be surprised by that. Most women have at least one experience of becoming sexually aroused while listening to music, without sex or masturbation, without another person present, without looking at a photograph of another person, aroused by the music itself. It's not even possible for a woman to have sex with a song. Women can be turned on by things they cannot or do not want to have sex with.
The effect that androgynous women have on heterosexual women is so subliminal, so under the radar, that most of them do not even recognize it for what it is. They are much more aroused by men, but being heterosexual women, with very rare exceptions they do not want to see men in women's clothes because they are repulsed by or at best indifferent to men wearing the accoutrements of femininity. An androgynous female model in beautiful women's clothes gives them both aesthetic pleasure and subliminal sexual stimulation.
Proof? Nobody will do a real scientific study of this subject since the standard line in academia is that fashion and lingerie models are to be blamed for making women feel bad about their bodies or for encouraging the "objectification" of women.
"What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range?"
One more time: What sells may not have anything to do with the aesthetic preference of the buyer. Women in the elite belong to a socioeconomic culture that, in general and with the exception of anomalous places like Los Angeles, regards public displays of overt sexuality as socially unacceptable lower-class behavior. Elite women, and middle class women who want to think of themselves as part of the elite, pride themselves on being more ladylike in public than working class women, regardless of how they behave behind closed doors. Elite and aspiring-elite women want lingerie models who reflect their preferred sexual self-image: sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE.
The kind of lingerie models you want lingerie catalogues to use project the polar opposite of those qualities. Their *invitation* to the male viewer, their overt sexuality, is exactly what women buy Victoria's Secret and La Perla to feel different from.
Women in the elite do not necessarily find women in the "masculine range" more attractive, but they do find them far more acceptable for lingerie catalogues, because their moderate, not-extreme female secondary sex characteristics makes their sexuality subtle enough for genteel women to be comfortable with seeing them semi-nude.
Many heterosexual women feel a visceral reaction to the signs of masculinity in a man, and a weaker, more subliminal reaction to those same signs in a woman.
Erik, get this through your head: The ONLY measure of good marketing is whether the product sells and makes a profit!
If designers sell and make a profit while "they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people", then that IS "an example of good marketing".
Your silly idea that marketing is supposed to make people "like" it makes it clear that you have never worked in sales. Anyone who has worked in sales can tell you that sometimes the most effective advertising actually makes the viewer uncomfortable.
No, I did not go against my argument in my third point, because both are true: the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations, AND there are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences. There is no contradiction between the two because sometimes the best way to appeal to marketing considerations is to go against customers' aesthetic preferences. Sometimes customers respond more to being shocked or jarred than to being aesthetically pleased.
College students may have only slightly higher than average or even lower than average socioeconomic status in America where 40% of the population has college degrees. College students in general are not the elite to which the high fashion industry caters; most of them cannot afford the clothes.
Your insistence that "most people" should be the focus of the marketing of products that "most people" can't even afford is seriously irrational.
Erik, It is really lame to say that models are getting skinnier because gay designers are making their presence more obvious. Fashion insiders have known about the sexualities of various prominent designers since the beginning of the industry. The supermodels of the early 80s and early to mid 90s look nothing like the girls of today. You are saying that, for some reason, gay designers developed an appetite for pubescent boys in the late nineties. Your explanations suck, Erik. You can manipulate your collected data to serve your purposes but when the time comes to apply them to the high fashion industry you fail miserably. You know nothing about high fashion or the people who design it so your hypotheses are always ridiculous.
from left to right: Nadja Auermann, Christy Turlington, Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Stephanie Seymour
Sarah: A woman who knows what is feminine when she encounters it does not need to bother skimming through scientific studies to understand what it is about, let alone fail to understand the scientific literature. Whereas masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones, high cheekbones by themselves are not masculine, and Gabrielle does not have high cheekbones; her cheekbones are horizontally prominent. Also, small lips are not a sign of masculinity. Women have fleshier lips, but men have wider lips. Gabrielle has lips that are non-fleshy but they are not wide. So what makes her lips masculine?
Very few women in the attractive women section are pasty, and they can’t help it; some Europeans cannot tan or barely can, and the feminine beauties among them certainly belong in a section showcasing European women. You apparently dislike pasty white skin, and this is your problem.
Erik, It’s funny that you are using my "status" argument, which you tried to shrug off earlier in this post. You have not proven that these supermodels deviated from the high fashion norm of the eighties and early nineties. Every woman there, with the exception of Cindy Crawford, is an example of a typical high fashion model body in that era.
You cannot prove that the public became more accepting of homosexuality in the late nineties when the models started to get emaciated. There was no big difference between how gay men were viewed in 1998 and how they are viewed now. Your hypotheses are still ridiculous.
Those close ups you provided only show that the homosexuals have a much better idea of what a beautiful woman looks like than you do.
Compare:
with the sloppy hoes from your “attractive women” section:
You really think you can criticize anyone’s aesthetic? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
By the way Danielle, that girl in the red and white striped bikini, Michelle? Is gorgeous!!
Luckily, all the above pics were taken when I was 18. I was trying to get money for an apartment while still going to school, so I could move out of a neighbor's basement :-) (My mom was really religious and bipolar and I got kicked out...)so, money was essential, and of all the applications I put in jobs, I only got one response, from a "fashion photographer" in LA who saw some of my fashion shots. I was actually lied to and told I'd be posing for Playboy. God was I dumb!! (I did eventually make it to the mansion though, that place is awesome!!!)
I'm in agreeance that most of the Victorias Secret models look boyish in the face and body, but I like Adriana's face... It's beautiful to me... I am an even bigger fan of my own girlfriend Robyn Chance. She's a knockout. her face and figure are extremely feminine to me. She's almost entirely of European descent and has 5% Cherokee Indian and models for men's appeal (FHM, Maxim) and is known for being petite and all natural (no surgeries not even fake lashes... believe me I know, she's perfect). I thought I knew what feminine looked like until you said Adriana's face was mannish.... so you tell me?? am I corrupted by the magazines? lol
Anna S. is pretty, but her close-up photo above should really be replaced. She looks stoned there.
Sarah:
If you watch "Pink Flamingos" because of my post, it's not my fault.
I'm warning you.
PROOF THAT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN ARE AROUSED BY OTHER WOMEN
"A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal" by J. Michael Bailey, professor and chair of psychology at Northwestern University
If you're interested, read the full article and learn how the study controlled for variables. Here, I will quote key points:
Quote:
Pornographic films are a MUCH stronger sexual stimulant than photographs or film footage of women in clothes or lingerie, so the corresponding sexual arousal would have to be MUCH weaker. In other words, heterosexual women looking at women in pornographic films get clearly gentially aroused, while heterosexual women looking at women in clothes or lingerie get only subliminally/subconsciously aroused. No, I'm not claiming straight women get wet looking at fashion magazines. Please try to understand what I am saying.
Bron: You wrote: "But I don’t lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn’t I?"
The conscious mind does not know most of the content of the subconscious mind. For instance, every moment of your life is recorded in your subconscious memory. Your conscious mind cannot possibly store that much information. Hypnosis has proven successful in unearthing verifiable, accurate subconscious memories that had been totally lost to the conscious mind.
Subliminal advertising works because it triggers subconscious responses of which we are not even aware.
Bron, I am not accusing you of lying. It is not dishonesty; it is simply unawareness. I am not accusing you, or any other heterosexual woman, of wanting to have sex with women. The study makes it clear that, as I said, arousal and desire are two different things.
"I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn’t necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO... I am only repulsed after watching them."
In this context, by arousal I mean not overt genital arousal but mild, extremely slight, subliminal arousal. You may very well be repulsed by androgynous women, but repulsion and arousal are not entirely mutually exclusive. Repulsion is an *emotional* reaction; arousal is a *physiological* phenomenon.
"Androgynous fashion models don’t convey to me message of “sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE” .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN."
Image vs Reality. You are not fooled by the image because you have seen the reality. Most women have not.
You know many androgynous fashion models so you know that their image - sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, promiscuous and undiscriminating. Those who know many female porn stars know that their image - sexually voracious and unable to get enough - is very often different from their reality - often, not always, low libido, sometimes even totally frigid women who regard sex as business, not pleasure.
Advertising is about image, not reality.
Whipped Honey :
I have something to say about that, I posted my comment in
Karl “models have skinny bones” Lagerfeld rejects three models for being too skinny! entry, if you are interested.
Must correct myself: 'You really should have produced the proof.....'
And, yeah, some of them look manly to pass as man, facialy, but then they are too ugly for me to make me aroused.
Whipped Honey :
I know you won't take a second thought about my comment, but really, I don't believe you. You should really have to produced proof for that theory.The unconscious arousal of hetero woman by androgynous one. Some brain detector examination, maybe. I know people lie, but brains don't, and it would show, if it is true, what you say. But I don't lie to myself, if I was subconsciously aroused, I would know somehow, wouldn't I? I know a woman can be aroused by many attractive men, but then she doesn't necessary desire them, and as far as music goes, that is sooooo true, I give you credit for that, but androgynous women, NO. They don't even look masculine enough, just ugly, deformed, sometimes like cute boys, but not enough to make me aroused.I am only repulsed after watching them.
Androgynous fashion models don't convey to me message of "sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE" .....BOLONEY, I know so many of them, women with such ANDROGYNOUS looks, and THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE LEAST PICKY ABOUT DISPOSABLE MEN. THEY CHASE THEM, NOTHING LADYLIKE.BUT MEN CHASE THOSE LADYLIKE FEMININE ONES, AND THEY ARE VERY PICKY ABOUT MEN, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
funny, Sonia had much prettier face, for my eyes, this one I would never have for myself. Sonia was only too fat, for my taste, this one has fine body, nice proportions
Much better than Sonia Blake.
But as for her body, I don't understand how someone would think that's sexually appealing. Looking at her photos, especially the one of her backside, makes me cringe in the same way I cringe when I look at anorexics. It's just not attractive to me to have such a long, skinny torso, feminine or not. It's not even human-like.
It's not only the fact that her cheekbones are high and that her lips are small that makes her masculine-looking; it's her overall appearance. Duh. Apparently you're the only one that thinks she's cute, Erik. You keep contradicting your theory of feminine beauty when you showcase all these unattractive women.
Barely anyone likes pastey skin nowadays; that was only considered attractive up to the beginning of the 19th century. Whereas in the past, having pastey skin showed a sign of wealth and luxury (the lower class had to slave away in the sun all day), now it's considered sickly looking.
There's also a difference between pastey skin and light-colored skin. I'm naturally light-skinned myself but it's not to the point of me looking like a sick ghost.
Danielle honey I am not nuts.
I just happen to have the guts
to dig up some of the muck,
in a manner that does not suck,
that most people would not see
unless they were to pay a fee.
It is not easy to use much tact
if you are addressing a sordid fact,
but this does not an opinion make
unless you show the premises are fake.
Hugh Ristik: On a serious note, I do not favor minimum BMI standards. I favor legislation that forces the industry to prove that models below a certain BMI are healthy and not starving. This option gives the homosexuals maximal freedom of choice while reducing the likelihood of them forcing models to starve, allows naturally very thin women to model, and as far as their negative influence on impressionable girls and women goes, I will be taking care of this problem. In case anyone is wondering why I favor this approach, I am generally averse to government regulation of people’s affairs, and hence favor solutions that are the best compromise between minimal government regulation and maximal public welfare.
Sarah: Do not use multiple aliases, and especially not my name. I didn’t say there is anything wrong with helping those with AIDS. I myself donated money to an AIDS patient in the past week. The charities Rich and Rains are involved in simply confirm what you can infer from the video. And, the “Human Rights Campaign” group is a homosexual activist group that hides behind an euphemism.
Danielle: Do not confound supermodels with regular high-fashion models. Supermodels have attained enough status to afford to somewhat deviate from the norm. It is true that the 1990s supermodels weren’t as thin as regular high-fashion models today, but high-fashion models in the 1990s were generally thinner than the supermodels, and the homosexual influence is still obvious in the general skeletal proportions of the 1990s supermodels. See face close-ups of the five women you mentioned, in the same order. I have already addressed the fact that with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the latter half of the twentieth century, the influence of homosexuals in the industry became more obvious in terms of high-fashion models becoming thinner and more masculine. So it isn’t that the homosexuals have developed their aesthetic tastes recently, but they have been able to make it more obvious with increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the general public.
Oops, I meant the Vogue Paris, Sep. 2007 in the two photographs on the LEFT looks just like Prince William.
Anna S. is pretty IMO.
Erik's Statistical Analysis is 100% Bullsh!t, Part III
Quote:
In the manner under consideration, waist to hip ratio, the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is not huge or even big.
Quote:
You know damn well I was not taking 0.68 as a base and determining what percentage 0.03 is of 0.68. You know damn well I was looking at the whole 100 point range and seeing that the difference between 0.68 and 0.71 is 0.03. Anybody who passed 7th grade math and thinks about it for twenty seconds knows what I meant. If you are going to try to discredit my knowledge of statistics you better try much harder than a simple and obvious arithmetic trick.
Quote:
Erik meant a 0.03 WHR difference, not a 0.3 WHR difference, for the benefit of anyone who reads this.
Whether a 0.75 standard deviation "matters" is entirely subjective; it depends whether you personally care. What is objective, and what you yourself have explicitly admitted, is that a 0.75 standard deviation is still well within the normal range. Quote from you: "a normally distributed WHR range of 0.64-0.84".
ERIK, YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THE "MASCULINIZED" 0.71 WHR (WAIST-HIP RATIO) IS WELL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE! IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE HIGHEST END OF THE NORMAL RANGE, 0.84, LET ALONE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL RANGE!
EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION: ERIK SCREWED UP AND ADMITTED THAT ONE OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS HE CALLS "MASCULINIZED" IS WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE!
ALMOST ALL OF THE WOMEN'S CHARACTERISTICS ERIK CALLS "MASCULINIZED" ARE WELL WITHIN NORMAL RANGE.
How it is possible for women to turn on straight women
"Where is your evidence that women are subliminally aroused by androgynous women? How is it possible to “turn on straight women” by using women?"
Heterosexual women are sexually aroused by the physical signs of masculinity. The physical signs of masculinity can exist in both men and (to a much lesser extent) women.
Arousal and desire are two different things. Arousal is the state of feeling turned on, to whatever degree, great or small. Desire is the longing for actual sexual contact. A heterosexual woman feels desire only for men. A heterosexual woman can feel arousal by both men and women. The difference between arousal and desire may be hard for men to understand because men automatically feel desire for anyone who arouses them.
I read somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that there was a study that proved women are more turned on by music than by pornography. Only a man would be surprised by that. Most women have at least one experience of becoming sexually aroused while listening to music, without sex or masturbation, without another person present, without looking at a photograph of another person, aroused by the music itself. It's not even possible for a woman to have sex with a song. Women can be turned on by things they cannot or do not want to have sex with.
The effect that androgynous women have on heterosexual women is so subliminal, so under the radar, that most of them do not even recognize it for what it is. They are much more aroused by men, but being heterosexual women, with very rare exceptions they do not want to see men in women's clothes because they are repulsed by or at best indifferent to men wearing the accoutrements of femininity. An androgynous female model in beautiful women's clothes gives them both aesthetic pleasure and subliminal sexual stimulation.
Proof? Nobody will do a real scientific study of this subject since the standard line in academia is that fashion and lingerie models are to be blamed for making women feel bad about their bodies or for encouraging the "objectification" of women.
What women want in a lingerie model
"What evidence is there that the elite prefer women in the more masculine range?"
One more time: What sells may not have anything to do with the aesthetic preference of the buyer. Women in the elite belong to a socioeconomic culture that, in general and with the exception of anomalous places like Los Angeles, regards public displays of overt sexuality as socially unacceptable lower-class behavior. Elite women, and middle class women who want to think of themselves as part of the elite, pride themselves on being more ladylike in public than working class women, regardless of how they behave behind closed doors. Elite and aspiring-elite women want lingerie models who reflect their preferred sexual self-image: sexually private, reserved, dignified, subtle, selective, rarified, UNAVAILABLE TO THE AVERAGE MALE.
The kind of lingerie models you want lingerie catalogues to use project the polar opposite of those qualities. Their *invitation* to the male viewer, their overt sexuality, is exactly what women buy Victoria's Secret and La Perla to feel different from.
Women in the elite do not necessarily find women in the "masculine range" more attractive, but they do find them far more acceptable for lingerie catalogues, because their moderate, not-extreme female secondary sex characteristics makes their sexuality subtle enough for genteel women to be comfortable with seeing them semi-nude.
Many heterosexual women feel a visceral reaction to the signs of masculinity in a man, and a weaker, more subliminal reaction to those same signs in a woman.
Erik, get this through your head: The ONLY measure of good marketing is whether the product sells and makes a profit!
If designers sell and make a profit while "they use models whose looks displease/fail to impress most people", then that IS "an example of good marketing".
Your silly idea that marketing is supposed to make people "like" it makes it clear that you have never worked in sales. Anyone who has worked in sales can tell you that sometimes the most effective advertising actually makes the viewer uncomfortable.
No, I did not go against my argument in my third point, because both are true: the looks of fashion models reflect marketing considerations, AND there are some scenarios where marketing need not cater to the customers’ aesthetic preferences. There is no contradiction between the two because sometimes the best way to appeal to marketing considerations is to go against customers' aesthetic preferences. Sometimes customers respond more to being shocked or jarred than to being aesthetically pleased.
College students may have only slightly higher than average or even lower than average socioeconomic status in America where 40% of the population has college degrees. College students in general are not the elite to which the high fashion industry caters; most of them cannot afford the clothes.
Your insistence that "most people" should be the focus of the marketing of products that "most people" can't even afford is seriously irrational.
Erik, It is really lame to say that models are getting skinnier because gay designers are making their presence more obvious. Fashion insiders have known about the sexualities of various prominent designers since the beginning of the industry. The supermodels of the early 80s and early to mid 90s look nothing like the girls of today. You are saying that, for some reason, gay designers developed an appetite for pubescent boys in the late nineties. Your explanations suck, Erik. You can manipulate your collected data to serve your purposes but when the time comes to apply them to the high fashion industry you fail miserably. You know nothing about high fashion or the people who design it so your hypotheses are always ridiculous.
from left to right: Nadja Auermann, Christy Turlington, Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Stephanie Seymour
Anna S. looks like a drugged out ladyboy.
Erik, your opinion is not fact. You're nuts. Your jokes suck.
Sarah: A woman who knows what is feminine when she encounters it does not need to bother skimming through scientific studies to understand what it is about, let alone fail to understand the scientific literature. Whereas masculinization results in a higher placement of the cheekbones, high cheekbones by themselves are not masculine, and Gabrielle does not have high cheekbones; her cheekbones are horizontally prominent. Also, small lips are not a sign of masculinity. Women have fleshier lips, but men have wider lips. Gabrielle has lips that are non-fleshy but they are not wide. So what makes her lips masculine?
Very few women in the attractive women section are pasty, and they can’t help it; some Europeans cannot tan or barely can, and the feminine beauties among them certainly belong in a section showcasing European women. You apparently dislike pasty white skin, and this is your problem.
Wow, that Vogue Paris model looks just like Prince William!
The Vogue Paris, Sep. 2007 model in the two photographs on the right looks so much like Prince William that I can't stop staring.
When it comes to sex, I would rather have Prince William.
When it comes to a women's clothing model, this one will do just fine!
Pages