We'll call it "research"
I'm not a huge fan of his show, but I find some things from Mind of Mencia pretty funny.
Woman: Does this dress make me look fat?
Man: No, you being fat makes you look fat!
Woman: Oh my god. That's is horrible. Why would you say this?
Man: Wait, hold on, I am the one stuck with a fatty and you are the one complaining?
Woman: (crying) You don't love me!
Man: That's not true, I love you and I can prove it. Where were we going right now?
Woman: We were going out to dinner.
Man: Exactly. You are fat, and I am still with you, and I am also taking you out to eat, and you are saying I don't love you? If that's not love, I don't know what love is!
And this works both ways ladies, so no complaining about the insensitivity. I am flat out sick and tired of hearing that men are shallow and women aren't. Men may be shallow about looks, but women are shallow about looks and money. I think everyone knows that. I just thought this was funny.
I could have gone off on a rant here, but I didn't. You may now mourne at you're loss of my genus.
Here's an interesting article (NWS) that argues that the reason supermodels are so skinny and tall is because the industry is run by gay men (fashion designers), and skinny tall women most resemble young adolescent boys. I thought that was nuts until they pointed out how supermodels tend to have masculine looking faces, with a strong jawline, no breasts, no butt, and such. Interesting. And those who like to see semi-naked female models, don't forget to follow the various links for more, um, research (none are worksafe).
And while I'm at it, it's the 60th anniversary of the bikini. Hubba hubba! (if a girl in a bikini is worksafe, then this is worksafe)
UPDATE: After actually reading through most of the article, I have to say that I don't endorse all of what this person is saying. It's linked only because it's an interesting perspective (and the pictures don't hurt).
He says alot of stuff about how some women aren't attractive because their hips are too narrow and their ribcages are too large. Um... do I really care if that means that woman developed under higher androgen levels than a more feminine hourglass looking woman? He (I'm assuming it's a straight guy) seems to have a phobia of any masculine trait in a woman. I'll agree that super tall skinny girls aren't the epitome of sexiness, but I don't have the patience to judge women's looks so critically like this.
In conclusion: I like women.
And not to be accused of neglecting male beauty, here's an article on that. For some reason, I'm not as inclined to opine on this subject. But I did learn one thing: I'm overusing colons. No wait, I already knew that.
Apparently I'm attracted to women this article refers to as "women who rated themselves as more attractive", women who make over $30,000 and have a positive self-image. There's a "duh" factor there for sure, but according to the research done for this article, that group of women places alot more importance on male beauty than other women. Other women value personality more.
Depending on the amount of alcohol consumed that night, I tend to go after women who are either well employed or are in school to be so. And any woman with a low self esteem gets "friended" right off the bat. Maybe that's why I'm so interested in dieting and working out lately, health reasons aside.
posted by RWBB @ 5/03/2006 06:51:00 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
wow, that bikini chick was smokin.
I have no idea what I was watching, but I remember on some show (probably mtv in the middle of the night) that fashion models have disdain for swimsuit models. They said it was because it wasn't real modeling. I say it's because swimsuit models are actually attractive.
The heels and the pop just put the picture over the top.
About the models, I imagine the cattiness of women at that level of self-congratulation must be legendary. And I've seen the inner working of highschool cheerleaders (my sister was a cheerleader -- I was, sadly, too young to take advantage of this fact).
Honestly, I had never really thought about it before, but I always wondered what was so hot about girls like Kate Moss. I mean, it's not like I wouldn't have sex with her given the chance, but now I think it's just because she's a status symbol. Like saying you had sex with Condi.
I would totally do Condi, and then brag about it later.
I embedded some more links to, um, aid everyone in their research.
That may be work safe, but it ain't safe. Ug.
While mourning the loss of your genus, shall I also mourn the loss of your kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and species?
I'll be here all week folks.
"You may now mourne at you're loss of my genus."
Three mispellings in one sentence? At the same time I'm claiming genius? Come on RCR.
True. But we half expect the question to come at some point. And of course, we all know it's just a compliment fishing exercise, but we say "no" anyway. Most women are compliment bots (I would say "all" given my experience).
That wasn't a dig on you btw. Just blabbing. The nyquil must be kicking in.
ok, JB's brother and I had a conversation detailing the exact points in that article about 3 months ago at Buffalo Wild Wings. Except no one knew an article of such nature existed, and JB's brother was commenting on JB's mom's opinion that supermodels looked as such b/c of the gay men factor.
Ultimately, this turned out a very fun debate in which I take the antagonist philosophy. Mainly, in order for this to be correct, answer just one question:
Why tall girls? Young boys are well, young...and not 6 feet. And a small framed, skinny girl is small-framed and skinny whether she be 6 ft. or 5 ft. So why not pick small skinny girls of 5ft?
I can safely explain this phenomenon has nothing to do with sexual desire and everything to do with the #1 desire of humanity...money. (Power being number 2, b/c if you have both #1 and #2, you will ultimately be granted #3- sex).
You see, have you ever wondered why, say, the models for Fashion Bug look quite different than the models of Versace? Think of the target buyer. Fashion Bug's models are supposed to appeal to the value-conscious everyday woman who lives in any conceivable rural area. But Versace? Versace can only be "Versace" if they are exclusive- only able to be purchased by a select few who can purchase their high priced merch. This is their image- their business model- their way of making money. This is their industry- upscale, high class, 1% of the population. They are targeting celebrities- and rich people- and celebrities and rich people with anorexia and personal chef's. In short, the 1% of the population who buys their clothes happen to have a body type that only 1% of the adult female population has- 6 feet and 100 pounds.
Versace's image has to be exclusive-and hard to attain. That is why they are Versace and "better than your average housewife".
Gay men may be gay...but more importantly these men are rich. And that wasn't some accident.
-corthar
That's a good point. If you read through the article, the author addresses your argument directly, so I won't repeat it.
But you make a good counterpoint. Like I said, I'm not buying into it 100%. It's just interesting.
In response to anonymous, there is do doubt that the fashion industry is money driven. Have you ever watched a runway presentation? The articles presented have not practical application, and serve as templates for "mass" (code for the wealthy) marketed off the rack items.
However, with regard to the sexuality issue, anonymous misses the point. The claim is that the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual pederasts, not homosexual pedophiles. The former prefer gangly junior-high types, awkward, bony, and suddenly much taller than seems appropriate for their bodies. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the emaciated elite supermodels, and is unlikely an accident. I reject the claim that this look is intrinsically marketable. It is exclusive only because a certain class of people, who have come to dominate an industry, say that it is. I do not find a compelling argument in anonymous' response to rebut the point that this look is seen elsewhere without the fancy trappings.
In response to anonymous...
let me break it down one by one.
"The former prefer gangly junior-high types, awkward, bony, and suddenly much taller than seems appropriate for their bodies."
If this is indeed the case, why do the male runway models look differently? Wouldn't homosexual men get more thrills from say, men?Male runway models resemble nothing of the emaciated look of the female models. Ashton Kutcher was a successful male runway model, as was Tyson Beckford and that Marcus Shenk-whatever-whatever. And they are toned, athletic, sleek men. While they are not the bulky-steroids type, they definitely don't look malnournished.
Second...
"It is exclusive only because a certain class of people, who have come to dominate an industry, say that it is." Well, true, the industry chooses the 'look' and thus markets it. But that is irrelevant. What I was getting at is if they didn't choose that particular "look" for sexual reasons, why did they? And my argument still stands that it is because it is the rarest body form of all females. Most women are shorter, or fatter, or broader, or all three. Most women exhibit a pear shaped figure. This industry needed a look that was impossible to attain- therefore that is where the height, plus the emaciation, comes in.
In response to anonymous again, I must admit that I know little about male models, of which I am proud. As a result, your comment gave me pause. However, the solution is obvious. Male models do not resemble junior high age boys because they are mature. Child labor laws, in conjuction with hormones, prevent the mass presentation of childlike male models. And, despite your examples to the contrary, I believe that the overall male model look is one of sleekness, if not androgyny.
As for the notion that female models are chosen for the rarity of their forms, I know of a few other potential groups who are similarly unusual. How about persons with Down's syndrome? They have a distinctive and unusual look? Sufferers of multipe sclerosis? Politically incorrect, perhaps, or perhaps not, but perfect candidates under your logic.
ok. "Male models do not resemble junior high age boys because they are mature." True enough. However, male models certainly resemble junior high age boys MUCH more than an adult woman, no matter how skinny. A penis is a penis. And a penis, my friend, is what puts the "gay" into the term "gay man".
As for:
"How about persons with Down's syndrome? They have a distinctive and unusual look? Sufferers of multipe sclerosis? Politically incorrect, perhaps, or perhaps not, but perfect candidates under your logic."
Does a giggle quantify that response? I must only guess that you don't expect a real debate regarding that.
However, I think one very important debate has been overlooked here. What makes one argue that just because a man in the fashion industry is gay, that he is also a
pederast? As the bff of a gay man, I must call this into serious question.
Ah anonymous, again I must pontificate on matters that I understand only intellectually (thanks genetic predisposition). You stated "male models certainly resemble junior high age boys MUCH more than an adult woman, no matter how skinny." My premise is that this claim is manifestly false. In support of your claim to the contrary, you state " A penis is a penis. And a penis, my friend, is what puts the "gay" into the term "gay man". Well, I am not sure how well versed you are in the art of homosexual sex, but there is only one penis necessary. Female models serve as proxys for the ideal form of the pederast's victim. Pederasts are predators, and to use a term of art, tend to be givers rather than takers. Thus, the role of the female model as form becomes clear, and the presence or non-presence of a penis is irrelevant. Finally, I did not claim that all gay men are pederasts. Rather, the claim is that for one reason or another pederasty is rampant in the fashion industry, in the same way that pedophilia is deeply rooted in the priesthood. Of course, this raises a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. However, "Pederasts dominate female fashion" and "All gay men are pederasts" are by no means logically equivalent statements.
"Well, I am not sure how well versed you are in the art of homosexual sex, but there is only one penis necessary."
Granted, I'm not as well versed as you on the art of homosexual (male) sex, but I'm pretty sure that the reason they are homosexual in the first place is that prefer a dick to be on the body. Just a hunch :)
Like you said, we are talking about pederasts, not pedophiles. Therefore, the only difference in victim choice is genitalia- there are both small prepubescent females and males- yet they prefer the males- which have one defining feature- PENIS. ok, I love capitalizing penis, ok?
"Female models serve as proxys for the ideal form of the pederast's victim." Except for, PENIS?
"the claim is that for one reason or another pederasty is rampant in the fashion industry, in the same way that pedophilia is deeply rooted in the priesthood."
How do you know this about the fashion industry? Unfortunately, both pederasty and pedophilia are rampant everywhere and deeply rooted in the general population. However, that does not mean the majority of men running the fashion industry are pederasts.
"However, "Pederasts dominate female fashion" and "All gay men are pederasts" are by no means logically equivalent statements."
Agreed, however, my question was:
What makes one argue that just because a man in the fashion industry is gay, that he is also a
pederast?
I believe that your affection for penis' is affecting your judgment lol. I will reiterate. Dominant male homosexuals, so called "givers", are not concerned with the penis of the "receivers". I opine that pederasts are largely among the former---predators tend to be "givers". Finally, you state "What makes one argue that just because a man in the fashion industry is gay, that he is also a
pederast?" THAT HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISCUSSION. Re-read the exchange. OK, this discussion has made me feel sufficiently dirty to require a shower. Thank god for the ability to choose "anonymous".
ok, anon. I understand the giver thing- which I am not debating. However, the whole reason they are pederasts is because they are attracted to males. Even though they may not actually touch the penis, the subject must have a penis in order to be the subject, otherwise they would just be pedophiles. That is all.
Oh, and PENIS, PENIS, PENIS. And I don't need a shower, cause I make like Christina and get drrrty. (Yes, that was a lame joke. Laugh now.)
Ah, anonymous, again I must reluctantly educate. Check your dictionary----the presence of a penis is an anatomical matter of fact for the victims of both pedophiles and pederasts. And, to borrow from Mr. Freud while throwing a barb your way, why capitalize and unnecessarily repeat the term penis? Your pen appears to be mightier than the available sword. . . (bad pun intended lol).
Yes, but...pederasts strictly are into males...which the last time I checked had...PENIS PENIS PENIS
ok, I truly will stop now
Post a Comment
<< Home