Erik asks, "Patriarchy still gets blamed! Why would patriarchy favor an apparently masculinized model (note fake breasts; woman likely close to being naturally flat-chested)?" Everything is patriarchy's fault. Patriarchy might not favor masculinized female models, but it supposedly indoctrinates Tom Ford to oppress women. Patriarchy moves in mysterious ways.
Within a feminist framework, virtually anything goes if it involves blaming heteropatriarchy, and by extension, straight men. However, that framework is not a rational or coherent one. As Erik argues, if gay fashion designers were trying to please straight men, they would use models that typical straight men find most attractive.
Although images used by gay fashion designers aren't optimal for pleasing heterosexual men, would it really be so wrong if they did? To say so would imply that by preferring feminine-looking and beautiful women, straight men are committing an injustice, or that the process that leads them to prefer such women is unjust. Yet a man's body is his property, and he has the right to use it to mate with or date women who fit whatever criteria he has. If men's preferences were "socially constructed," then it might be possible to blame "patriarchy" for the fact that most men prefer feminine women. Yet since femininity appearance is related to health and fertility, a more likely explanation is that men's preferences for femininity are hardwired. If there is nothing unjust about men's preferences in women, then there is nothing unjust about advertising catering to men's preferences in women.
Erik is correct about which oppressions are considered real in a feminist view. Feminists discuss a few of the possible examples of oppression (male-on-female, straight-on-gay, white-on- people of color), and deny the existence of other oppressions (female-on-male, gay-on-straight, and people of color on white). Yet feminists have provided no non-circular or non-obviously-self-serving definitions of "oppression" that justify that denial. Female-male oppression or gay-straight oppression are not mirror images of male-female oppression and straight-gay oppression, but they do exist.
As Erik has observed, one of the most striking examples of gay-on-straight oppression is the oppression of straight women by gay male fashion designers. However, such oppression is difficult to conceptualize with a feminist framework which denies that gays can oppress straights.
I would like to know what feminist theories and views that you are referencing Eric. You never implied anywhere in your post that you were talking about the acceptability of notions of oppression. You may have been thinking this in your stupid little head but you did not type it. I can't read your twisted mind through a computer screen Eric. I wonder where you learned all this surprising information about the views of feminists.
My point was that oppressed people (straight men of color) still have power over others and still have the ability to oppress others (women of color, gay people of color). Most feminists are quite comfortable with that notion. You said that feminists should not blame the patriarchy when gay men make these nasty ads and I say that EVERYONE lives under the patriarchy. We get our ideas about gender from the patriarchy. Many feminists argue that images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren't planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy. What is so hard to understand? Are you thrown off by the supposedly "masculine" looks of the female models? "Masculine" women can still be sexualized and brutalized Eric. The ad wasn't made so that the world could appreciate feminine beauty Eric. The ad was made so that it could sell a product with shocking, sexually provocative imagery.
Rich, white men are at the top of the totem pole Eric. Minorities and white women couldn't "take" white male jobs if rich, white men didn't appoint them. Who made John Rocker pay the fines Eric? Who let Shaquille O’Neal off he hook Eric? Minorities? Wrong!!! It’s the rich white men that control Major league baseball and the NBA. Don’t try and pull any poor little rich, white guy bullshit.
You don't have any artistic pictures on your site Eric. There are no artistic nudes in your attractive women section. The picture of that girl isn't particularly vulgar. She isn't bending over to show her crotch or anything but the image was created to make men horny. What do you consider artistic Eric? Those are just pictures. Most of them are very vulgar. The others are just pictures of nude women. I can take pictures with a disposable camera Eric. It does not make my pictures artistic. There is no creative photography, use of lighting, color contrasting or story telling in these images. No impressive skill or talent was involved with the creation of any of those shots. None of these pictures have any shallow or complex messages to convey. They are just “sexy” pictures.
I brought up classical western art because way more skill is involved in the creation of these images than the pinups in your art section. A lot of the art on your page is as vulgar as your nude model pictures. I thought that including classical nude images would help remedy your sleaze problem. I also wondered if any of the widely praised classical nude images met your "feminine" standards. Maybe I should have clarified that when I said classical art I was not only referring to Greek and Greco-roman art. I was referring primarily to the female nude paintings, sculptures, drawings and engravings from the renaissance to the 19th century. Classical art was a bad label.
Everyone is affected by hetero-patriarchy you bozo. Yes, even the evil gays are affected by the gender roles and sexual roles created by the patriarchy. Try actually reading some feminist texts about the issue instead of pulling things out of your ass. I don't agree with your definition of feminine. I will never agree with you so don't ask me why gay men don't use feminine models. I think that they do. You wonder why the patriarchy would approve of the “masculine” models in these ads. The patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look. You may not think these high fashion models are attractive but unattractive women can be and are sexualized as well. All women can be degraded and sexually objectified under the patriarchy.
I thought you didn't want these models doing Victoria's Secret. If they look "masculine" on the job then that is your concern. I don't see how the way that they look in other shows or editorials has any relevance. There are TONS of images of each individual girl at the VS show. It shouldn't be hard for you to find one that shows body shape. I didn't have to look hard to find those pictures of Gisele.
I don't know why you put up pictures of unattractive women and try to use them to convince people. People will laugh at your ideal if you keep putting up women like these. Why don't you find these so- called lifetime exclusive heteros and ask them yourself. I don't think you would be pleased with the answer.
Not all white people are naturally ghostly. Many white people do not tan and they still don't look like Casper's slutty sister. If Grace went outside when the sun is out she could blind people.
Bron, lily-white skin is considered unattractive by many people and it has been out of fashion for a while now.
some people get sore eyes at a glance of a glare of lilly-white skin; The ONLY nice thing about Grace is her skin, and eye color; besides, if soft, feminine skin is equivalent with flabbiness, than that is still my choice, there is only so many things I detest on female body , like tonus, seen on fashion models, or women who exercise too much: visible muscles, no fat layer, tough look ...sordid, even though I dislike anything but fragile, delicate figure, but little fat, that is my choice. Just to give a notion.
About tanning:
One man wrote this, and I could not agree more: "This is just as confusing to me as white women tanning themselves to death. Nothing is sexier and more arousing than the scars from having precancerous moles removed, that SunKist orange glow created by tanning beds, and the LEATHERY, tanned-animal-hide quality of a diehard sun worshiper."
Danielle: I try to post pictures that clearly reveal physique shape. Pictures taken of VS models at odd angles or when they are widely swinging their hips, swinging their shoulders (making them look narrower, depending on moment of photography) or are wearing stuffed bras don't help.
I don't believe that Grace is beautiful enough to be put into the attractive women section, but you have ignored why I posted her pictures:
Quote:
Grace doesn’t have large breasts, an hourglass figure, well-rounded hips, a tiny waist or a well-developed, feminine backside. However, there is nothing transsexual/eunuchoid about her looks.
Find some lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men or even heterosexual women and see how many believe Giselle looks overall better than Grace.
All white people are naturally ghostly pale or pink, and some cannot tan. Grace is Northwestern European and possibly cannot tan. Therefore, there is no point in critiquing paleness.
Danielle: I have not argued that “high fashion models look like trannies.” I have shown plenty of pictures of high-fashion models that look like women. I have only described some high-ranked fashion models as women with the looks of male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites, explained this in terms of the necessity of saying that the “Emperor has no clothes” and said that there is no pleasant way to say this. I would not use these descriptions to describe the looks of ordinary women.
When one uses “low class” in reference to behavior, one will be assumed to refer to behavior mostly found among people with low socioeconomic status (SES). Therefore, your label doesn’t make any sense. Among white women, those coming from a lower SES background tend to be more obese and less attractive, and you could tell just by looking at the attractive women section that most of them are unlikely to have come from a low SES background.
What do you mean that you haven’t seen a single artistic nude within this site? There are plenty. Just consider this page, which shows 5 nudes from 4 sources, and three of these sources (Met Art, Playboy magazine and Domai) feature artistic nudes; feel free to go to the sites and see samples for yourself. Met Art shows genitals, but Domai and Playboy magazine display very little of genitals. In addition, in the attractive women section at present, there are 60 women; six of them do not pose/haven’t posed nude; another woman has been a tease in photos but hasn’t gone beyond exposing nipples/breasts in a translucent dress. Therefore, there is non-nude artistic stuff there, too.
My response to your statement beginning, “You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty...” has been addressed in this entry on a Tom Ford ad, which you have already read, and this comment at the link addresses your comment on Classical Western art. In case you are wondering about my not using early nude photographs, the nude women were often prostitutes and prostitutes tend to be masculinized. Therefore, searching through old photos will not be productive. When stigma against nudity lessened, the prostitutes were replaced by regular women posing nude because the regular women looked better (more feminine).
Danielle: So many non-whites refer to themselves as “people of color” but most will be offended if referred to as “colored”? This is ridiculous.
The point of stating that feminists don’t have a problem with the notion of female oppression...was to illustrate the difference between acceptability/acknowledgment of the existence of a form of oppression (what was implied) and the acceptability of the given oppression (what was not implied). When replying to people as bright as you, it is apparently necessary to elaborate like this.
None of your examples of the oppressed being oppressors go against the forms of oppression that feminists acknowledge. For instance, you implicitly refer to the oppression of non-whites by whites but give an example of non-white males engaging in oppression by oppressing non-white women, the possibility of which is acknowledged within the domain of feminist thought since this a simple case of male on female oppression. In other words, in your example, the oppressed are victims of ethnic oppression, but the oppressed oppress in the form of gender oppression against their co-ethnics, not oppress against other ethnicities, especially white. If, for instance, you acknowledge non-white males oppressing white males, then you are outside the domain of feminist theoretical underpinnings, and you have not provided any such example. So you have not even made a point about the oppressed being oppressors in reference to feminist thinking that needs to be refuted. You have acknowledged that “the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites.”
Quote:
"No one oppresses rich, white, straight men. They have the power. The western world is built to keep them on top."
Tell this to John Rocker (white Baseball player), fined for making a politically insensitive comment whereas Shaquille O’Neal didn’t get into trouble after making a political insensitive comment about the Chinese language in reference to Yao Ming. Tell this to the Duke Lacrosse players. Also tell this to all the white men who have lost jobs to less qualified non-whites and women.
Where have I stated that all of fashion imagery is devoid of artistic merit? You have assumed that I don’t appreciate any of it and then ask me whether I can appreciate some of their work. Your assumption is groundless. I have seen well done fashion ads and have appreciated them.
There are plenty of pictures of artistic nudes within this site, but you either have no appreciation for them or will not acknowledge it. For instance, what is trashy about this? Why do you bring up Classical Western art? The Church ruled Europe for a long time, suppressed art and whatever little art was allowed by it had to deal with Biblical themes; art that could incite lust (feminine beauty) was forbidden. Before the advent of Christianity there was no paper so you wouldn’t see ultra-realistic female nudes on paper, and many paintings from such a long time ago would be lost anyway. The form of ancient art you would expect to survive the ravages of time would be sculptures, and it takes great skill to come up with very realistic human forms in stone if you are limited to using a chisel and hammer. There is sketchy evidence that the development of very sophisticated artistic skills requires that some parts of the brain be shaped by high amounts of androgens, and there is evidence that many homosexual men owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone exposure. Therefore, you would expect homosexual men to be sharply overrepresented among the great ancient artists as in Classical Greece. So these homosexuals would come up with masculinized female forms in their sculptures and an influential one could easily have established an art school where students had to produce art consistent with this individual’s taste. So don’t bring up the dearth of feminine beauty in Classical art.
So when the homosexuals use “degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products,” it is still heterosexual men’s fault presumably because the imagery caters to heterosexual men’s interests/the staple of gendered norms they have created? Why the hell don’t the homosexuals then use feminine women as fashion models? What has made the homosexuals affected by heteropatriarchy when it comes to the imagery in fashion ads but not in the choice of the female models? Stop posting nonsense.
Exclusively homosexual men obviously want men, not masculinized women, but the great majority of self-identified homosexual men are not lifetime-exclusive homosexuals; most have gone through a bisexual phase. There are plenty of people with some level of bisexual interests in the fashion business. In addition, homosexual designers couldn’t get away with using boys in their early adolescence as male models and come up with the best substitute: masculinized thin teenage girls.
These ads can certainly be blamed on hetero-patriarchy. You think you understand feminism better than feminists. You are so full of shit that you have no place calling anyone foolish. These ads are sexually degrading. They could be created by and marketed by women but they would still be degrading to women. Homosexuality doesn't give anyone a free pass to degrade women. We all live in a hetero-patriarchal society. Tom Ford and Dolce and Gabbana are using degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products. The images they are using are reinforcing harmful gender norms that are a staple of the patriarchy. Who do you think Tom Ford's ad is targeting? Straight men! I don't care how "masculinized" the models chest supposedly looks. It is a woman with a cologne bottle between her breasts. A lot of straight men respond favorably to sexualized images of women. If he wanted gay men to buy it he would have used homoerotic imagery. Designers have never been known to shy away from homoeroticism. Gay men would respond favorably to attractive men. You don't seem to understand that fundamentally gay men want the cock and they don't need to use "masculinized" pussy as a replacement.
Oh and the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites. It means that white women can turn around and oppress people who are poorer, less educated and less anglo than they are. Oppressed groups will turn to the people lower on the totem pole and oppress them. gay men are oppressed but they can oppress other that have less power than they do. This was my entire point. No one oppresses rich, white, straight men. They have the power. The western world is built to keep them on top.
McSushi: I haven't been talking about brainwashing; more like many people being fooled by tricks, which is facilitated by the dearth of feminine beauty in the media.
I personally don't find the looks of Eva Mendez and Jennifer Lopez appealing. These women do not have feminine faces, especially Eva, and Jennifer has apparently undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures (example 1, example 2).
Most people of color would be offended by the term "colored" but would not take issue with the term "people of color" Many people of color use that term to describe themselves. I have never heard modern black, latino, native or asian people describe themselves as "colored". "Colored" is an outdated term that was used to describe blacks during a period of heavy oppression. It is not used now, dickhead. What is the point of stating that feminists don't have a problem with the notion of female oppression? It should be very obvious that they don't have a problem with the notion since all of them feel that female oppresion exists and believe that it should be done away with. If it is the notions that they are fine with then how does that refute my earlier points that the oppressed can be oppressors. You just threw out some bullshit arguments. It is NOT clear that you were talking about which notions of oppression that feminists find "acceptable".
I have praised the artistry in the fashion industry becuase there is artistry there which you don't seem to appreciate. I have said over and over again that many designers use sex to sell their products, fool. READ some of my posts. I questioned why you put up these two images. Are they examples of how fashion ads can be vulgar and distasteful? I agree that many fashion ads are distasteful but how does that refute my point about you not appreciating the beauty in high fashion editorials and clothes? I have NEVER defended the subject matter or degrading poses in these ads. I HAVE stated that they are not deviod of artistry. Of course anyone with lots of money can hire a good photographer and stylist but do you actually appreciate the photography in high fashion editorials? Good photographers and stylists and designers don't fall out of sky. Can you actually appreciate the SOME of the work they create?
Every single image on your site is tacky and trashy. I can come up with so MANY beautiful, tasteful images from high fashion. Can you come up with one picture from your nude model sites that is artistic? Can you find any images of "feminine" beauty in classical western art? Your site is dominated by nasty soft porn models and even your art page is filled with sleaze. Are there any pictures you can find that weren't created as wank material for losers? I haven't seen any indication on your site that you appreciate beauty that is not sleazy or degrading. If you present your ideal of "femininity" in this context then it becomes very unappealing.
Sarah: If you have the looks of Caroline Trentini's body except for having smaller breasts, I don't see what your problem with this site is. You should be sending me your pictures so that I can put them to good use.
Iekeliene Stange looks somewhat odd in some pictures only; she mostly looks fine.
Danielle: At first you wrote that "High sewing refers to the skill required to make haute couture garments." Then you wrote, "Basically high sewing or haute couture means extremely well crafted custom made clothes," which is what I said earlier. Then you wrote:
Quote:
"You have no proof to back up your ridiculous definition of haute couture. I am right and you are wrong."
Are you a nut?
Why do designers use bizarre clothing in their fashion shows if these are not part of the collection they offer to clients? To attract attention; break monotony.
Danielle: Foolish woman, when I mentioned what is acceptable, I obviously implied what notion is acceptable, not what form of oppression is acceptable. In other words, feminists do not have a problem with the notion of men oppressing women, but obviously object to this form of oppression.
In a previous reply, I stated, “There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.” So don’t accuse me of using the two examples to illustrate ads typical of the fashion world. You have tried to get out of your portrayal of my lack of artistic appreciation by praising the fashion industry in a comment elsewhere, which I reproduced above. There are a lot more than mere “two measly examples of nasty fashion ads”; feast your eyes. Defend these fine examples of fashion world artistry. Anyone with sufficient money can afford a good photographer and a good artist to airbrush pictures, so don’t bother with these variables.
I don’t have to defend myself against your charge that I am narrow minded. This doesn’t follow from anything that I have posted. I wouldn’t try to suppress or outlaw these ads; my problem is with feminists blaming heteropatriarchy for it.
You have used the phrase “people of color” but say that “colored” is unacceptable. Very bright! But what does one expect from someone who uses profanity and insults galore to make her points?
A lot of very prominent feminist groups and feminist theory contradicts your bullshit statements about "acceptable oppression" Eric. Here are some sources that call bullshit on your dumbass, made up "feminist" theories.
NOW and Racial and Ethnic Diversity
NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights.
The relation of women as a social group to the analysis of economic class has spurred political debates within both Marxist and feminist circles as to whether women's movements challenging male domination can assume a common set of women's interests across race, ethnicity, and class. If there are no such interests, on what can a viable women's movement be based, and how can it evade promoting primarily the interests of white middle class and wealthy women?
Felicity: Let us say that you have the task of advertising a skin rejuvenation/care cream. Which would be a better choice, a woman with spotless and smooth skin or a woman with blemished skin? This should be easy to answer: the woman with better skin. The idea is obviously to convey the message that if you were to buy this product, you can acquire what this woman has. When you are selling high-end clothing, you need to convey a similar message. Therefore, trying to threaten women less by using women who would not attract heterosexual men does not appear to explain the typical looks of high-fashion models.
You also mentioned the need to focus on clothes. Why then are there so many ultra-thin high-fashion models? Their skinniness disturbs many women. Why not use models with a normal amount of body fat so that women are not distracted by their thinness?
Women with above average femininity attract more men, but they are also less likely to be promiscuous or sleep with men without demanding commitment. Therefore, feminine models should not be too threatening to women in general. Additionally, heterosexual women generally have the same looks preference in women that heterosexual men have.
Why the hell do you think that any form of oppression is acceptable within a feminist outlook? Feminists tend to focus on sex-based oppression or sexism but many feminists are sensitive to other forms of oppression and acknowledge that oppression is experienced simultaneously for many people. Are you aware that black and chicana feminists exist? Where in gods name did you get the idea that most feminists think that class based oppression or homosexual oppression of straights is ok? Which feminist theories are you referring to? I don't think any feminist could ever make such ridiculous, callous arguments and ever be respected or taken seriously by most prominent feminists and feminist groups. You are so fucking ignorant that it is mind-boggling. You live in a world of your own creation. You make up definitions and make outlandish assumptions and interpretations when they suit your stupid arguments.
Why don't you contact those offended feminists or try any feminist blog and ask them if they think that those forms of oppression are acceptable. Those forms of oppression are very uncommon in western societies so you are only including them to set up a straw man argument. There is really no one feminist outlook anyway so your points are useless.
How the hell did I try to get out of any portrayals? Did I make these ads Eric? What do I have to get out of? You gave two measly examples of nasty fashion ads and then you used them to try and refute my point that you have no appreciation of artistry. If you did not intend for these images to be examples of typical high fashion ads then why did you post them? What point where you trying to make? You still did nothing to defend yourself against my accusation of narrow-mindedness. You don't know what artistry is. You are a dullard. You have bad taste. You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant asshat.
PS. No one uses the word "colored" to describe people of color anymore. Please try and describe people of color as coloreds within earshot of a black or Mexican gang.
Joe: I doubt that the large-breasted woman's picture is digitally manipulated because of the source of the picture; these individuals are unlikely to bother with airbrushing a set of pictures to ensure consistency across the set. The way she is posing could easily be responsible for the asymmetry.
In the picture, the woman looks like her physique is very feminine, but the way she is posing, her shoulders could be on the broad side and her bones and muscle mass are likely above average size. Her face doesn't look too feminine. Therefore, I doubt that she is extremely feminine.
A woman with an hourglass physique can still look masculine because of features such as broad shoulders, a masculine-looking face, larger bones and above average muscle mass. See a rough example.
Eric, you are rather lazy for someone who so badly wants to convince people that his opinion is fact. You can surely do much better than that Eric. Guinevere is pathetic. She really is. I don't give a shit about all of her fan (Eric Holland). "They" all have shitty taste but that's ok lots of people have shitty taste. There is no shortage of bad taste and stupidity in this world. I urge you to find some better examples of slender skinny-waisted models. These girls are infinitely more attractive than Guinevere (imo) and they are not even all that great. They are also thin enough and have unique enough features to be models. If you polled your beloved straight, white men on who they found more attractive then these girls would beat Guinevere by a landslide.
Pania Rose
Reka Ebergenyi
Michelle Buswell
Inguna Butane
How did women with bodies like these sneak past those dastardly homosexuals?!?!?!?!? How did they get signed to major modeling agencies!?!?!? I know you wanted to find suitable replacements fo "masculine" models on your own but you failed. You know in your heart of hearts that These models >>>>>>>> Guinevere. You also know that high fashion models >>>>>>> your lot lizard models. You won't admit it but its true. You have bad taste honey.
ps. I have two perfectly functioning eyes. Guinevere has pock marks or acne or sores on her ass cheeks. That's not hot.
John: What does this article argue? It argues that there is an upper limit to femininity that is attractive. I don't see why you didn't get this message. Starting from the average, a woman's beauty will increase with greater femininity -- as far as most are concerned -- but only to a point beyond which it will diminish. Slight masculinization of the face in a woman will usually not be an aesthetic problem.
Danielle: You have again shown why you got an F. Here is how the oppression stuff works according to feminism, which may not be clear to non-feminists in my previous terse statement. Colored men can oppress colored women, like you have said, but this is an example of male on female oppression, which is part of feminism; this is not an example of oppression involving ethnicity. In other words it isn’t that colored men are/were oppressed by colored women and have now turned out to be the oppressors of colored women.
More examples of what is acceptable and what isn’t within a feminist outlook:
Quote:
Acceptable: White homosexuals oppressing colored homosexuals (straightforward white on colored oppression; sexual orientation not a factor).
Unacceptable: White homosexuals oppressing white heterosexuals (ethnicity not a factor).
Acceptable: Rich African-Americans oppressing poor African-Americans (straightforward class issue; ethnicity not a factor).
Unacceptable: African-Americans oppressing whites.
Some examples of possible oppression can be complex. You mention D&G being rich, white and male. So can they oppress? Feminist theories allows them to oppress the poor, non-whites and women provided that sexual orientation does not matter because none of these acts would be an example of the oppressed being the oppressor, but feminist theories do not allow them to oppress heterosexuals. So when you have a possible case of white homosexual men oppressing white heterosexual women, feminists will either ignore it or address it like Thomas to show that this is not an example of oppression by the homosexuals, and you have expressed something similar (ultimately blaming heterosexual men):
Quote:
"We all have to live and survive in this society so in many ways we are complicit with hetero-patriarchy. We may comply or act as agents of the patriarchy for power or comfort or basic survival."
I see you are again trying to get out of your earlier portrayal of the artistic fashion industry. I have never implied that all fashion ads are equivalent to the two above, and have for long maintained that the homosexual designers dominate the business because they often design very good looking clothes. But the fact is that when you talk about advertisers in Western societies heavily relying on sex and scandal to sell products, you need to note that if the advertisement is a product of the fashion industry, then this industry is dominated by homosexual men. Don’t blame heterosexual men for what these homosexuals do.
I haven't failed anything Eric. The term "oppressed" covers a very wide range of people. Poor people are oppressed but poor men can and do oppress poor women. People of color are oppressed but men of color can and do oppress women of color. Straight women can oppress gay women and they certainly have privilege over them. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is very simplistic and denies the layers of oppression and the existence of privilege with regards to race, class, gender, sexuality and sex in western society. There have been great rifts in feminist movement because of the reality that white, straight and middle to upper class people have privilege and many feminists who fit this description failed to recognize this or ignored the ways in which they may have used their privilege to oppress others. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is the kind of thinking that I expect from a narrow-minded dullard like you.
Tom Ford, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana are gay but they are also WHITE, RICH and MALE. They have more power than a lot of people and they are quite capable of using this power to oppress others. We all have to live and survive in this society so in many ways we are complicit with hetero-patriarchy. We may comply or act as agents of the patriarchy for power or comfort or basic survival. One feminist's view does not deny the views of thousands of other feminists and no one theory has really been proven to be more right than the other so Thomas' comment changes nothing. YOU are the one who would have failed Women’s Studies.
What the hell is the D&G ad about? What are all ads about? They want to sell a product. The D&G ad is trying to sell a product by being vulgar and provocative. You mentioned artistry and I replied that the ad is not devoid of artistry regardless of the unsavory poses and message. There have been millions of fashion ads in print and video. Will you find many racy or even vulgar fashion advertisements? YES! Are all fashion ads vulgar? NO!! Are most fashion ads vulgar? I don't think so but vulgar ads are common. Once again, I never said that the high fashion industry was a pure world of art and beauty. Like every other business, the high fashion industry has a dark side or a down side.
While many fashion houses or designers rely on vulgar tricks to help sell their products, not all or even most houses and designers do this. A lot of designers have made and still make stunningly beautiful clothes. They also manage to sell their products without shocking or disgusting images. Dolce and Gabbana and Tom Ford have made some stunning clothes, if you can believe that, but they rely on a shocking and racy image to sell their products. In western society, advertisers are heavily reliant on sex and scandal to sell their products. It is marketing 101. The fashion industry is no different than any other industry in that regard. If your product can be sold with sex then advertisers will probably try to sell it that way at least once. Like every other industry there are many people who use more ethical means of getting their products out there. I wouldn't use two ads or twenty ads or even two hundred ads to broad brush MILLIONS of fashion ads but then again, I'm not a narrow-minded dullard like you.
MV: I don’t have much of an interest in male attractiveness and do not have the time to come up with an equivalent site addressing men, which is less needed than this site. I agree that it will be fair to come up with a site on male attractiveness, and that this will offend many men, too. I remember teaching a class on exercise where I mentioned some facts about how to tell more masculine from less masculine men, and you could see some of the male students not being too pleased; one looked at me with hatred.
If some women wanted to set up a site like this on men, I will offer my help. Alternatively, if I get around to contributing to a site on women’s studies, then it will have a big section on what women find physically attractive in men, and this section will have plenty of data to offend many men.
Proportions are obviously important to attractiveness. Personality is important to mate choice and exerts a halo effect on how physically attractive someone is seen as. Media and culture influence what people find attractive, but there are many intrinsic preferences, too. It is true that some features people are attracted to are those seen among self and immediate family members, but this is a principle that applies to other sexually reproducing species in general, and increases the odds that one mates with not too genetically distant individuals so as to avoid negative outcomes in offspring. This influence is countered by other factors that make one attracted to features different from self and family members, which increase the odds that one does not mate with blood relatives so as to again avoid negative outcomes in offspring.
MV: Pedophilia involves sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. The great majority of heterosexual men are most strongly attracted to young adult women (18-29). In European populations, women attain their peak fecundity (probability of conception per act of intercourse) around age 22 and peak fertility (probability of successfully completing pregnancy) around age 28. Since one expects men to be most strongly attracted to women with an optimal combination of fecundity and fertility, you can see that the optimally preferred age range of women on the part of most men will be in the twenties. So the reason you are looking for comprises of the factors that have shaped men to recognize fecundity and fertility in women, not the naïveté factor.
The person who impersonated Der Wanderer (August 26, 2007 at 02:25 PM): Please do not impersonate others. Dasha doesn’t go beyond nude modeling and hence isn’t describable as a pornstar.
Der Wanderer: Great find! Especially the second link showing Alessandra washing her car. Someone even left a comment wondering whether the person shown was a boy.
Sarah: Alessandra a pretty girl? She doesn’t look like a girl or woman. I am not saying she looks ugly, but a pretty girl at least needs to look female. If you would rather look like Alessandra, you can figure out what kind of people you would be sexually attracting.
Sarah: Do you believe the D&G ad is about skin, make-up and background? Fashion photographs typically feature good looking skin and the photography is professional.
Danielle: LOL!
Quote:
"You don’t seem to think that gay men can be “agents of the patriarchy” which means that you apparently have a very rudimentary grasp of prominent feminist theory. Gay men and straight, gay, and bisexual women can both actively and passively participate in the oppression of women."
You got an F in Women’s Studies 101. Basic feminist premise: the oppressed cannot be oppressors. Read Thomas’ comment; heteropatriarchy is still blamed for a homosexual’s choice.
I have never portrayed you as a feminist, let alone a militant one. I have also not argued that feminists focus on a narrow range of issues or that there is not much diversity in feminist theorizing, but in order for someone to be designated a feminist, this person must either share some beliefs with other feminists but not with non-feminists or possess multiple beliefs disproportionately found in feminists such that the set of these beliefs separates very well the feminist cluster from the non-feminist one.
What kind of education do you think I am trying to impart to feminists? I am going to make it clear to them that none of their perspectives can blame heteropatriarchy for what the homosexuals in the fashion business are doing. They will hate this, but will not be able to argue against it.
Styling and photography are not what the D&G ad is about. You said that I am a narrow-minded dullard and hence can’t appreciate art or true beauty. So I decided to show some art samples from the fashion world. There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.
Erik asks, "Patriarchy still gets blamed! Why would patriarchy favor an apparently masculinized model (note fake breasts; woman likely close to being naturally flat-chested)?" Everything is patriarchy's fault. Patriarchy might not favor masculinized female models, but it supposedly indoctrinates Tom Ford to oppress women. Patriarchy moves in mysterious ways.
Within a feminist framework, virtually anything goes if it involves blaming heteropatriarchy, and by extension, straight men. However, that framework is not a rational or coherent one. As Erik argues, if gay fashion designers were trying to please straight men, they would use models that typical straight men find most attractive.
Although images used by gay fashion designers aren't optimal for pleasing heterosexual men, would it really be so wrong if they did? To say so would imply that by preferring feminine-looking and beautiful women, straight men are committing an injustice, or that the process that leads them to prefer such women is unjust. Yet a man's body is his property, and he has the right to use it to mate with or date women who fit whatever criteria he has. If men's preferences were "socially constructed," then it might be possible to blame "patriarchy" for the fact that most men prefer feminine women. Yet since femininity appearance is related to health and fertility, a more likely explanation is that men's preferences for femininity are hardwired. If there is nothing unjust about men's preferences in women, then there is nothing unjust about advertising catering to men's preferences in women.
Erik is correct about which oppressions are considered real in a feminist view. Feminists discuss a few of the possible examples of oppression (male-on-female, straight-on-gay, white-on- people of color), and deny the existence of other oppressions (female-on-male, gay-on-straight, and people of color on white). Yet feminists have provided no non-circular or non-obviously-self-serving definitions of "oppression" that justify that denial. Female-male oppression or gay-straight oppression are not mirror images of male-female oppression and straight-gay oppression, but they do exist.
As Erik has observed, one of the most striking examples of gay-on-straight oppression is the oppression of straight women by gay male fashion designers. However, such oppression is difficult to conceptualize with a feminist framework which denies that gays can oppress straights.
I would like to know what feminist theories and views that you are referencing Eric. You never implied anywhere in your post that you were talking about the acceptability of notions of oppression. You may have been thinking this in your stupid little head but you did not type it. I can't read your twisted mind through a computer screen Eric. I wonder where you learned all this surprising information about the views of feminists.
My point was that oppressed people (straight men of color) still have power over others and still have the ability to oppress others (women of color, gay people of color). Most feminists are quite comfortable with that notion. You said that feminists should not blame the patriarchy when gay men make these nasty ads and I say that EVERYONE lives under the patriarchy. We get our ideas about gender from the patriarchy. Many feminists argue that images like this could not EXIST or be CONCIEVED of it they weren't planted in our heads by the sexist patriarchy. What is so hard to understand? Are you thrown off by the supposedly "masculine" looks of the female models? "Masculine" women can still be sexualized and brutalized Eric. The ad wasn't made so that the world could appreciate feminine beauty Eric. The ad was made so that it could sell a product with shocking, sexually provocative imagery.
Rich, white men are at the top of the totem pole Eric. Minorities and white women couldn't "take" white male jobs if rich, white men didn't appoint them. Who made John Rocker pay the fines Eric? Who let Shaquille O’Neal off he hook Eric? Minorities? Wrong!!! It’s the rich white men that control Major league baseball and the NBA. Don’t try and pull any poor little rich, white guy bullshit.
You don't have any artistic pictures on your site Eric. There are no artistic nudes in your attractive women section. The picture of that girl isn't particularly vulgar. She isn't bending over to show her crotch or anything but the image was created to make men horny. What do you consider artistic Eric? Those are just pictures. Most of them are very vulgar. The others are just pictures of nude women. I can take pictures with a disposable camera Eric. It does not make my pictures artistic. There is no creative photography, use of lighting, color contrasting or story telling in these images. No impressive skill or talent was involved with the creation of any of those shots. None of these pictures have any shallow or complex messages to convey. They are just “sexy” pictures.
I brought up classical western art because way more skill is involved in the creation of these images than the pinups in your art section. A lot of the art on your page is as vulgar as your nude model pictures. I thought that including classical nude images would help remedy your sleaze problem. I also wondered if any of the widely praised classical nude images met your "feminine" standards. Maybe I should have clarified that when I said classical art I was not only referring to Greek and Greco-roman art. I was referring primarily to the female nude paintings, sculptures, drawings and engravings from the renaissance to the 19th century. Classical art was a bad label.
Everyone is affected by hetero-patriarchy you bozo. Yes, even the evil gays are affected by the gender roles and sexual roles created by the patriarchy. Try actually reading some feminist texts about the issue instead of pulling things out of your ass. I don't agree with your definition of feminine. I will never agree with you so don't ask me why gay men don't use feminine models. I think that they do. You wonder why the patriarchy would approve of the “masculine” models in these ads. The patriarchy approves of objectifying and degrading women no matter how they look. You may not think these high fashion models are attractive but unattractive women can be and are sexualized as well. All women can be degraded and sexually objectified under the patriarchy.
Omigod, you guys are right! Alessandra does look like a boy in those photos.
I thought you didn't want these models doing Victoria's Secret. If they look "masculine" on the job then that is your concern. I don't see how the way that they look in other shows or editorials has any relevance. There are TONS of images of each individual girl at the VS show. It shouldn't be hard for you to find one that shows body shape. I didn't have to look hard to find those pictures of Gisele.
I don't know why you put up pictures of unattractive women and try to use them to convince people. People will laugh at your ideal if you keep putting up women like these. Why don't you find these so- called lifetime exclusive heteros and ask them yourself. I don't think you would be pleased with the answer.
Not all white people are naturally ghostly. Many white people do not tan and they still don't look like Casper's slutty sister. If Grace went outside when the sun is out she could blind people.
Bron, lily-white skin is considered unattractive by many people and it has been out of fashion for a while now.
some people get sore eyes at a glance of a glare of lilly-white skin; The ONLY nice thing about Grace is her skin, and eye color; besides, if soft, feminine skin is equivalent with flabbiness, than that is still my choice, there is only so many things I detest on female body , like tonus, seen on fashion models, or women who exercise too much: visible muscles, no fat layer, tough look ...sordid, even though I dislike anything but fragile, delicate figure, but little fat, that is my choice. Just to give a notion.
About tanning:
One man wrote this, and I could not agree more: "This is just as confusing to me as white women tanning themselves to death. Nothing is sexier and more arousing than the scars from having precancerous moles removed, that SunKist orange glow created by tanning beds, and the LEATHERY, tanned-animal-hide quality of a diehard sun worshiper."
Danielle: I try to post pictures that clearly reveal physique shape. Pictures taken of VS models at odd angles or when they are widely swinging their hips, swinging their shoulders (making them look narrower, depending on moment of photography) or are wearing stuffed bras don't help.
I don't believe that Grace is beautiful enough to be put into the attractive women section, but you have ignored why I posted her pictures:
Quote:
Find some lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men or even heterosexual women and see how many believe Giselle looks overall better than Grace.
All white people are naturally ghostly pale or pink, and some cannot tan. Grace is Northwestern European and possibly cannot tan. Therefore, there is no point in critiquing paleness.
Danielle: I have not argued that “high fashion models look like trannies.” I have shown plenty of pictures of high-fashion models that look like women. I have only described some high-ranked fashion models as women with the looks of male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites, explained this in terms of the necessity of saying that the “Emperor has no clothes” and said that there is no pleasant way to say this. I would not use these descriptions to describe the looks of ordinary women.
When one uses “low class” in reference to behavior, one will be assumed to refer to behavior mostly found among people with low socioeconomic status (SES). Therefore, your label doesn’t make any sense. Among white women, those coming from a lower SES background tend to be more obese and less attractive, and you could tell just by looking at the attractive women section that most of them are unlikely to have come from a low SES background.
What do you mean that you haven’t seen a single artistic nude within this site? There are plenty. Just consider this page, which shows 5 nudes from 4 sources, and three of these sources (Met Art, Playboy magazine and Domai) feature artistic nudes; feel free to go to the sites and see samples for yourself. Met Art shows genitals, but Domai and Playboy magazine display very little of genitals. In addition, in the attractive women section at present, there are 60 women; six of them do not pose/haven’t posed nude; another woman has been a tease in photos but hasn’t gone beyond exposing nipples/breasts in a translucent dress. Therefore, there is non-nude artistic stuff there, too.
My response to your statement beginning, “You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty...” has been addressed in this entry on a Tom Ford ad, which you have already read, and this comment at the link addresses your comment on Classical Western art. In case you are wondering about my not using early nude photographs, the nude women were often prostitutes and prostitutes tend to be masculinized. Therefore, searching through old photos will not be productive. When stigma against nudity lessened, the prostitutes were replaced by regular women posing nude because the regular women looked better (more feminine).
Danielle: So many non-whites refer to themselves as “people of color” but most will be offended if referred to as “colored”? This is ridiculous.
The point of stating that feminists don’t have a problem with the notion of female oppression...was to illustrate the difference between acceptability/acknowledgment of the existence of a form of oppression (what was implied) and the acceptability of the given oppression (what was not implied). When replying to people as bright as you, it is apparently necessary to elaborate like this.
None of your examples of the oppressed being oppressors go against the forms of oppression that feminists acknowledge. For instance, you implicitly refer to the oppression of non-whites by whites but give an example of non-white males engaging in oppression by oppressing non-white women, the possibility of which is acknowledged within the domain of feminist thought since this a simple case of male on female oppression. In other words, in your example, the oppressed are victims of ethnic oppression, but the oppressed oppress in the form of gender oppression against their co-ethnics, not oppress against other ethnicities, especially white. If, for instance, you acknowledge non-white males oppressing white males, then you are outside the domain of feminist theoretical underpinnings, and you have not provided any such example. So you have not even made a point about the oppressed being oppressors in reference to feminist thinking that needs to be refuted. You have acknowledged that “the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites.”
Quote:
Tell this to John Rocker (white Baseball player), fined for making a politically insensitive comment whereas Shaquille O’Neal didn’t get into trouble after making a political insensitive comment about the Chinese language in reference to Yao Ming. Tell this to the Duke Lacrosse players. Also tell this to all the white men who have lost jobs to less qualified non-whites and women.
Where have I stated that all of fashion imagery is devoid of artistic merit? You have assumed that I don’t appreciate any of it and then ask me whether I can appreciate some of their work. Your assumption is groundless. I have seen well done fashion ads and have appreciated them.
There are plenty of pictures of artistic nudes within this site, but you either have no appreciation for them or will not acknowledge it. For instance, what is trashy about this? Why do you bring up Classical Western art? The Church ruled Europe for a long time, suppressed art and whatever little art was allowed by it had to deal with Biblical themes; art that could incite lust (feminine beauty) was forbidden. Before the advent of Christianity there was no paper so you wouldn’t see ultra-realistic female nudes on paper, and many paintings from such a long time ago would be lost anyway. The form of ancient art you would expect to survive the ravages of time would be sculptures, and it takes great skill to come up with very realistic human forms in stone if you are limited to using a chisel and hammer. There is sketchy evidence that the development of very sophisticated artistic skills requires that some parts of the brain be shaped by high amounts of androgens, and there is evidence that many homosexual men owe their homosexuality to excess prenatal testosterone exposure. Therefore, you would expect homosexual men to be sharply overrepresented among the great ancient artists as in Classical Greece. So these homosexuals would come up with masculinized female forms in their sculptures and an influential one could easily have established an art school where students had to produce art consistent with this individual’s taste. So don’t bring up the dearth of feminine beauty in Classical art.
So when the homosexuals use “degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products,” it is still heterosexual men’s fault presumably because the imagery caters to heterosexual men’s interests/the staple of gendered norms they have created? Why the hell don’t the homosexuals then use feminine women as fashion models? What has made the homosexuals affected by heteropatriarchy when it comes to the imagery in fashion ads but not in the choice of the female models? Stop posting nonsense.
Exclusively homosexual men obviously want men, not masculinized women, but the great majority of self-identified homosexual men are not lifetime-exclusive homosexuals; most have gone through a bisexual phase. There are plenty of people with some level of bisexual interests in the fashion business. In addition, homosexual designers couldn’t get away with using boys in their early adolescence as male models and come up with the best substitute: masculinized thin teenage girls.
These ads can certainly be blamed on hetero-patriarchy. You think you understand feminism better than feminists. You are so full of shit that you have no place calling anyone foolish. These ads are sexually degrading. They could be created by and marketed by women but they would still be degrading to women. Homosexuality doesn't give anyone a free pass to degrade women. We all live in a hetero-patriarchal society. Tom Ford and Dolce and Gabbana are using degrading, gendered and sexualized imagery to sell their products. The images they are using are reinforcing harmful gender norms that are a staple of the patriarchy. Who do you think Tom Ford's ad is targeting? Straight men! I don't care how "masculinized" the models chest supposedly looks. It is a woman with a cologne bottle between her breasts. A lot of straight men respond favorably to sexualized images of women. If he wanted gay men to buy it he would have used homoerotic imagery. Designers have never been known to shy away from homoeroticism. Gay men would respond favorably to attractive men. You don't seem to understand that fundamentally gay men want the cock and they don't need to use "masculinized" pussy as a replacement.
Oh and the opressed becoming the opressor thing does not mean that women will turn around and oppress men and blacks will start oppressing whites. It means that white women can turn around and oppress people who are poorer, less educated and less anglo than they are. Oppressed groups will turn to the people lower on the totem pole and oppress them. gay men are oppressed but they can oppress other that have less power than they do. This was my entire point. No one oppresses rich, white, straight men. They have the power. The western world is built to keep them on top.
McSushi: I haven't been talking about brainwashing; more like many people being fooled by tricks, which is facilitated by the dearth of feminine beauty in the media.
I personally don't find the looks of Eva Mendez and Jennifer Lopez appealing. These women do not have feminine faces, especially Eva, and Jennifer has apparently undergone numerous cosmetic surgery procedures (example 1, example 2).
Most people of color would be offended by the term "colored" but would not take issue with the term "people of color" Many people of color use that term to describe themselves. I have never heard modern black, latino, native or asian people describe themselves as "colored". "Colored" is an outdated term that was used to describe blacks during a period of heavy oppression. It is not used now, dickhead. What is the point of stating that feminists don't have a problem with the notion of female oppression? It should be very obvious that they don't have a problem with the notion since all of them feel that female oppresion exists and believe that it should be done away with. If it is the notions that they are fine with then how does that refute my earlier points that the oppressed can be oppressors. You just threw out some bullshit arguments. It is NOT clear that you were talking about which notions of oppression that feminists find "acceptable".
I have praised the artistry in the fashion industry becuase there is artistry there which you don't seem to appreciate. I have said over and over again that many designers use sex to sell their products, fool. READ some of my posts. I questioned why you put up these two images. Are they examples of how fashion ads can be vulgar and distasteful? I agree that many fashion ads are distasteful but how does that refute my point about you not appreciating the beauty in high fashion editorials and clothes? I have NEVER defended the subject matter or degrading poses in these ads. I HAVE stated that they are not deviod of artistry. Of course anyone with lots of money can hire a good photographer and stylist but do you actually appreciate the photography in high fashion editorials? Good photographers and stylists and designers don't fall out of sky. Can you actually appreciate the SOME of the work they create?
Every single image on your site is tacky and trashy. I can come up with so MANY beautiful, tasteful images from high fashion. Can you come up with one picture from your nude model sites that is artistic? Can you find any images of "feminine" beauty in classical western art? Your site is dominated by nasty soft porn models and even your art page is filled with sleaze. Are there any pictures you can find that weren't created as wank material for losers? I haven't seen any indication on your site that you appreciate beauty that is not sleazy or degrading. If you present your ideal of "femininity" in this context then it becomes very unappealing.
Sarah: If you have the looks of Caroline Trentini's body except for having smaller breasts, I don't see what your problem with this site is. You should be sending me your pictures so that I can put them to good use.
Iekeliene Stange looks somewhat odd in some pictures only; she mostly looks fine.
Danielle: At first you wrote that "High sewing refers to the skill required to make haute couture garments." Then you wrote, "Basically high sewing or haute couture means extremely well crafted custom made clothes," which is what I said earlier. Then you wrote:
Quote:
Are you a nut?
Why do designers use bizarre clothing in their fashion shows if these are not part of the collection they offer to clients? To attract attention; break monotony.
Danielle: Foolish woman, when I mentioned what is acceptable, I obviously implied what notion is acceptable, not what form of oppression is acceptable. In other words, feminists do not have a problem with the notion of men oppressing women, but obviously object to this form of oppression.
In a previous reply, I stated, “There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.” So don’t accuse me of using the two examples to illustrate ads typical of the fashion world. You have tried to get out of your portrayal of my lack of artistic appreciation by praising the fashion industry in a comment elsewhere, which I reproduced above. There are a lot more than mere “two measly examples of nasty fashion ads”; feast your eyes. Defend these fine examples of fashion world artistry. Anyone with sufficient money can afford a good photographer and a good artist to airbrush pictures, so don’t bother with these variables.
I don’t have to defend myself against your charge that I am narrow minded. This doesn’t follow from anything that I have posted. I wouldn’t try to suppress or outlaw these ads; my problem is with feminists blaming heteropatriarchy for it.
You have used the phrase “people of color” but say that “colored” is unacceptable. Very bright! But what does one expect from someone who uses profanity and insults galore to make her points?
A lot of very prominent feminist groups and feminist theory contradicts your bullshit statements about "acceptable oppression" Eric. Here are some sources that call bullshit on your dumbass, made up "feminist" theories.
NOW and Racial and Ethnic Diversity
NOW condemns the racism that inflicts a double burden of race and sex discrimination on women of color. Seeing human rights as indivisible, we are committed to identifying and fighting against those barriers to equality and justice that are imposed by racism. A leader in the struggle for civil rights since its inception in 1966, NOW is committed to diversifying our movement, and we continue to fight for equal opportunities for women of color in all areas including employment, education and reproductive rights.
source: National Organization for Women (NOW)
http://www.now.org/issues/diverse/
Feminist Perspectives on Class and Work
The relation of women as a social group to the analysis of economic class has spurred political debates within both Marxist and feminist circles as to whether women's movements challenging male domination can assume a common set of women's interests across race, ethnicity, and class. If there are no such interests, on what can a viable women's movement be based, and how can it evade promoting primarily the interests of white middle class and wealthy women?
source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-class/
Felicity: Let us say that you have the task of advertising a skin rejuvenation/care cream. Which would be a better choice, a woman with spotless and smooth skin or a woman with blemished skin? This should be easy to answer: the woman with better skin. The idea is obviously to convey the message that if you were to buy this product, you can acquire what this woman has. When you are selling high-end clothing, you need to convey a similar message. Therefore, trying to threaten women less by using women who would not attract heterosexual men does not appear to explain the typical looks of high-fashion models.
You also mentioned the need to focus on clothes. Why then are there so many ultra-thin high-fashion models? Their skinniness disturbs many women. Why not use models with a normal amount of body fat so that women are not distracted by their thinness?
Women with above average femininity attract more men, but they are also less likely to be promiscuous or sleep with men without demanding commitment. Therefore, feminine models should not be too threatening to women in general. Additionally, heterosexual women generally have the same looks preference in women that heterosexual men have.
Why the hell do you think that any form of oppression is acceptable within a feminist outlook? Feminists tend to focus on sex-based oppression or sexism but many feminists are sensitive to other forms of oppression and acknowledge that oppression is experienced simultaneously for many people. Are you aware that black and chicana feminists exist? Where in gods name did you get the idea that most feminists think that class based oppression or homosexual oppression of straights is ok? Which feminist theories are you referring to? I don't think any feminist could ever make such ridiculous, callous arguments and ever be respected or taken seriously by most prominent feminists and feminist groups. You are so fucking ignorant that it is mind-boggling. You live in a world of your own creation. You make up definitions and make outlandish assumptions and interpretations when they suit your stupid arguments.
Why don't you contact those offended feminists or try any feminist blog and ask them if they think that those forms of oppression are acceptable. Those forms of oppression are very uncommon in western societies so you are only including them to set up a straw man argument. There is really no one feminist outlook anyway so your points are useless.
How the hell did I try to get out of any portrayals? Did I make these ads Eric? What do I have to get out of? You gave two measly examples of nasty fashion ads and then you used them to try and refute my point that you have no appreciation of artistry. If you did not intend for these images to be examples of typical high fashion ads then why did you post them? What point where you trying to make? You still did nothing to defend yourself against my accusation of narrow-mindedness. You don't know what artistry is. You are a dullard. You have bad taste. You are also a racist, homophobic, sexist, ignorant asshat.
PS. No one uses the word "colored" to describe people of color anymore. Please try and describe people of color as coloreds within earshot of a black or Mexican gang.
PPS. You are a fucking moron!!!
Joe: I doubt that the large-breasted woman's picture is digitally manipulated because of the source of the picture; these individuals are unlikely to bother with airbrushing a set of pictures to ensure consistency across the set. The way she is posing could easily be responsible for the asymmetry.
In the picture, the woman looks like her physique is very feminine, but the way she is posing, her shoulders could be on the broad side and her bones and muscle mass are likely above average size. Her face doesn't look too feminine. Therefore, I doubt that she is extremely feminine.
A woman with an hourglass physique can still look masculine because of features such as broad shoulders, a masculine-looking face, larger bones and above average muscle mass. See a rough example.
Eric, you are rather lazy for someone who so badly wants to convince people that his opinion is fact. You can surely do much better than that Eric. Guinevere is pathetic. She really is. I don't give a shit about all of her fan (Eric Holland). "They" all have shitty taste but that's ok lots of people have shitty taste. There is no shortage of bad taste and stupidity in this world. I urge you to find some better examples of slender skinny-waisted models. These girls are infinitely more attractive than Guinevere (imo) and they are not even all that great. They are also thin enough and have unique enough features to be models. If you polled your beloved straight, white men on who they found more attractive then these girls would beat Guinevere by a landslide.
Pania Rose
Reka Ebergenyi
Michelle Buswell
Inguna Butane
How did women with bodies like these sneak past those dastardly homosexuals?!?!?!?!? How did they get signed to major modeling agencies!?!?!? I know you wanted to find suitable replacements fo "masculine" models on your own but you failed. You know in your heart of hearts that These models >>>>>>>> Guinevere. You also know that high fashion models >>>>>>> your lot lizard models. You won't admit it but its true. You have bad taste honey.
ps. I have two perfectly functioning eyes. Guinevere has pock marks or acne or sores on her ass cheeks. That's not hot.
John: What does this article argue? It argues that there is an upper limit to femininity that is attractive. I don't see why you didn't get this message. Starting from the average, a woman's beauty will increase with greater femininity -- as far as most are concerned -- but only to a point beyond which it will diminish. Slight masculinization of the face in a woman will usually not be an aesthetic problem.
Danielle: You have again shown why you got an F. Here is how the oppression stuff works according to feminism, which may not be clear to non-feminists in my previous terse statement. Colored men can oppress colored women, like you have said, but this is an example of male on female oppression, which is part of feminism; this is not an example of oppression involving ethnicity. In other words it isn’t that colored men are/were oppressed by colored women and have now turned out to be the oppressors of colored women.
More examples of what is acceptable and what isn’t within a feminist outlook:
Quote:
Some examples of possible oppression can be complex. You mention D&G being rich, white and male. So can they oppress? Feminist theories allows them to oppress the poor, non-whites and women provided that sexual orientation does not matter because none of these acts would be an example of the oppressed being the oppressor, but feminist theories do not allow them to oppress heterosexuals. So when you have a possible case of white homosexual men oppressing white heterosexual women, feminists will either ignore it or address it like Thomas to show that this is not an example of oppression by the homosexuals, and you have expressed something similar (ultimately blaming heterosexual men):
Quote:
I see you are again trying to get out of your earlier portrayal of the artistic fashion industry. I have never implied that all fashion ads are equivalent to the two above, and have for long maintained that the homosexual designers dominate the business because they often design very good looking clothes. But the fact is that when you talk about advertisers in Western societies heavily relying on sex and scandal to sell products, you need to note that if the advertisement is a product of the fashion industry, then this industry is dominated by homosexual men. Don’t blame heterosexual men for what these homosexuals do.
I haven't failed anything Eric. The term "oppressed" covers a very wide range of people. Poor people are oppressed but poor men can and do oppress poor women. People of color are oppressed but men of color can and do oppress women of color. Straight women can oppress gay women and they certainly have privilege over them. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is very simplistic and denies the layers of oppression and the existence of privilege with regards to race, class, gender, sexuality and sex in western society. There have been great rifts in feminist movement because of the reality that white, straight and middle to upper class people have privilege and many feminists who fit this description failed to recognize this or ignored the ways in which they may have used their privilege to oppress others. To say that the oppressed can't be oppressors is the kind of thinking that I expect from a narrow-minded dullard like you.
Tom Ford, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana are gay but they are also WHITE, RICH and MALE. They have more power than a lot of people and they are quite capable of using this power to oppress others. We all have to live and survive in this society so in many ways we are complicit with hetero-patriarchy. We may comply or act as agents of the patriarchy for power or comfort or basic survival. One feminist's view does not deny the views of thousands of other feminists and no one theory has really been proven to be more right than the other so Thomas' comment changes nothing. YOU are the one who would have failed Women’s Studies.
What the hell is the D&G ad about? What are all ads about? They want to sell a product. The D&G ad is trying to sell a product by being vulgar and provocative. You mentioned artistry and I replied that the ad is not devoid of artistry regardless of the unsavory poses and message. There have been millions of fashion ads in print and video. Will you find many racy or even vulgar fashion advertisements? YES! Are all fashion ads vulgar? NO!! Are most fashion ads vulgar? I don't think so but vulgar ads are common. Once again, I never said that the high fashion industry was a pure world of art and beauty. Like every other business, the high fashion industry has a dark side or a down side.
While many fashion houses or designers rely on vulgar tricks to help sell their products, not all or even most houses and designers do this. A lot of designers have made and still make stunningly beautiful clothes. They also manage to sell their products without shocking or disgusting images. Dolce and Gabbana and Tom Ford have made some stunning clothes, if you can believe that, but they rely on a shocking and racy image to sell their products. In western society, advertisers are heavily reliant on sex and scandal to sell their products. It is marketing 101. The fashion industry is no different than any other industry in that regard. If your product can be sold with sex then advertisers will probably try to sell it that way at least once. Like every other industry there are many people who use more ethical means of getting their products out there. I wouldn't use two ads or twenty ads or even two hundred ads to broad brush MILLIONS of fashion ads but then again, I'm not a narrow-minded dullard like you.
MV: I don’t have much of an interest in male attractiveness and do not have the time to come up with an equivalent site addressing men, which is less needed than this site. I agree that it will be fair to come up with a site on male attractiveness, and that this will offend many men, too. I remember teaching a class on exercise where I mentioned some facts about how to tell more masculine from less masculine men, and you could see some of the male students not being too pleased; one looked at me with hatred.
If some women wanted to set up a site like this on men, I will offer my help. Alternatively, if I get around to contributing to a site on women’s studies, then it will have a big section on what women find physically attractive in men, and this section will have plenty of data to offend many men.
Proportions are obviously important to attractiveness. Personality is important to mate choice and exerts a halo effect on how physically attractive someone is seen as. Media and culture influence what people find attractive, but there are many intrinsic preferences, too. It is true that some features people are attracted to are those seen among self and immediate family members, but this is a principle that applies to other sexually reproducing species in general, and increases the odds that one mates with not too genetically distant individuals so as to avoid negative outcomes in offspring. This influence is countered by other factors that make one attracted to features different from self and family members, which increase the odds that one does not mate with blood relatives so as to again avoid negative outcomes in offspring.
MV: Pedophilia involves sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. The great majority of heterosexual men are most strongly attracted to young adult women (18-29). In European populations, women attain their peak fecundity (probability of conception per act of intercourse) around age 22 and peak fertility (probability of successfully completing pregnancy) around age 28. Since one expects men to be most strongly attracted to women with an optimal combination of fecundity and fertility, you can see that the optimally preferred age range of women on the part of most men will be in the twenties. So the reason you are looking for comprises of the factors that have shaped men to recognize fecundity and fertility in women, not the naïveté factor.
The person who impersonated Der Wanderer (August 26, 2007 at 02:25 PM): Please do not impersonate others. Dasha doesn’t go beyond nude modeling and hence isn’t describable as a pornstar.
Der Wanderer: Great find! Especially the second link showing Alessandra washing her car. Someone even left a comment wondering whether the person shown was a boy.
Sarah: Alessandra a pretty girl? She doesn’t look like a girl or woman. I am not saying she looks ugly, but a pretty girl at least needs to look female. If you would rather look like Alessandra, you can figure out what kind of people you would be sexually attracting.
Sarah: Do you believe the D&G ad is about skin, make-up and background? Fashion photographs typically feature good looking skin and the photography is professional.
Danielle: LOL!
Quote:
You got an F in Women’s Studies 101. Basic feminist premise: the oppressed cannot be oppressors. Read Thomas’ comment; heteropatriarchy is still blamed for a homosexual’s choice.
I have never portrayed you as a feminist, let alone a militant one. I have also not argued that feminists focus on a narrow range of issues or that there is not much diversity in feminist theorizing, but in order for someone to be designated a feminist, this person must either share some beliefs with other feminists but not with non-feminists or possess multiple beliefs disproportionately found in feminists such that the set of these beliefs separates very well the feminist cluster from the non-feminist one.
What kind of education do you think I am trying to impart to feminists? I am going to make it clear to them that none of their perspectives can blame heteropatriarchy for what the homosexuals in the fashion business are doing. They will hate this, but will not be able to argue against it.
Styling and photography are not what the D&G ad is about. You said that I am a narrow-minded dullard and hence can’t appreciate art or true beauty. So I decided to show some art samples from the fashion world. There are many other similar examples, which is not to say that such examples are the norm.
Pages