I wrote "externally-imposed arbitrary notions...".
Beauty, weight and physical attraction
- Thread starter parmalee
- Start date
Sorry, I misread that part of your post.
However, I contend that in the modeling world where very thin women, who may or may not be starving themselves, are found, it's not about what the ideal woman ought to look like, but rather, simply, the ideal shape for which features of the person beneath the garment do not distract from the garment itself.
IOW, that modeling world (fashion/runway modeling) exists entirely independent from the creepy, testosterone-fueled, heterosexual male gaze--very thin women tend not to have much in the way of breasts, hips, and buttocks. They're not the sort to be found in something like, say, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's changing.
Plus-sized supermodels is a meteoric rising industry. This is one of the first examples of plus-sized women of a cover of a fashion mag (Elle - 10 years ago).
And yes, the irony of calling these normal-sized women "plus-sized" is not lost on me.
That still continues circular. What's the purpose of the garments? If they were designed to be independent of female bodies, why use models at all - why not just display them on coat-racks? Who is expected to buy and wear the garments? To whom are they meant to appeal?
My guess: designer clothes are marketed to the vanity of women, who hope to be attractive to men (or women). When the models show the dresses, the unspoken assumption is that the potential customers will imagine themselves looking like that in that dress.
Designers are still selling the same illusion or the same ideal.
BTW - The same applies to those plus-size models. The plus-sized (chunky, overweight, plump, fat and obese) women to whom the actual clothes will be sold may imagine themselves looking like these models - but they won't.
Yeah, that's kind of an interesting development. "The industry," since it's inception on the late 50's/early 60's has always favored mostly shapeless, beanpole body types. Nico, who began modeling in the early 50's (1953?)--prior to the inception of the industry, proper, would never have made it in that world.
This is one of the first examples of plus-sized women of a cover of a fashion mag (Elle - 10 years ago).
And yes, the irony of calling these normal-sized women "plus-sized" is not lost on me.
I wouldn't describe any of them as "fat,"but they're all... biggish? Though, within William Sheldon's system*, they'd likely all be classified as mesomorphs. Again, this is with respect to body type, independent of any surplus or lack of weight.
* see William Sheldon's Varieties of Physique and Varieties of Temperament-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herbert_Sheldon <<< . Aldous Huxley borrows extensively from either volume in his Perennial Philosophy. They're most unscientific (pseudoscience, I guess), but quite amusing--seriously!
Mostly the exceedingly rich--until they get knocked-off and mass-produced, of course.
That pretty much describes a huge segment of the advertising industry, generally: selling an impossible ideal.
I seldom use ad-blockers because I'm highly entertained by slideshow clickbait. I don't click on them, mind, I'm just amused by the images and the taglines. Well... dammit. I couldn't find the one I was looking for, even though I must have seen it a dozen times over the past two days. Just one of those side-by-side images for "online shopping fails," or something along those lines. I probably ought to be ashamed that I am so amused by such things, but... well, I am.
Edit: In lieu of the image I was looking for, I offer this instead.
Last edited:
Trickle-down illusion. The rich and famous and glamorous have theirs custom-made, adjusted to flatter them -- insofar as that's possible with some of the outlandish costumes they don't seem embarrassed to wear in public: I guess the potency of illusion is directly proportional to its price.
The mass-produced will have the Size 12 dresses labelled Size 6; the actual sixes must have passed 0 by now. My slim - not skinny - daughter wore a Size 7 at age 18 when she dropped out of modeling school; at age 36, she was buying Size 2. No, she didn't disappear; she merely kept her figure reasonably well into middle age.
Of course, but knowing that doesn't get any closer to understanding the source of the ideal, or debunking it.
BTW, those plus-sized models, along with the ones lasciviously romping about in the ads beside my on-line puzzle game are not particularly overweight. But the customers for the mass-produced clothes are - many of them morbidly so.
Really? I just keep seeing the same illiterate who needs a grammar program, the same pathetic Ukrainian woman in need of a sugar-daddy, the same choochy furniture, the same offers of advice what to do with all the money I don't have. Bo-ring!
(But the super-giant Newfie is adorable. Having owned a normal-sized one, I'm sure glad I don't have to comb this guy. They can't half collect burrs!)
Last edited:
A lot of info can be gleaned from the markedly different sizing practices adopted by various manufactures/designers. Variation with men's clothing as well, but to a significantly lesser degree. On occasion I will buy women's pants--size 0 or 2. Yet, I am just over 6 foot in height! Something not quite right there. Yeah, no but and no hips, but still...
Most are classic endomorphs, with some degree of mesomorphy--they simply have broader, larger skeletal frames. But I am bothered somewhat by those who are carrying a fair bit of extra weight--how is that any more responsible than promoting the ones who are clearly undernourished? My sense is that in recent years we have moved from encouraging people to be mindful and vigilant about carrying too much extra weight, to simply throwing our hands in the air and just accepting that the vast majority of people (well, Americans particularly) are fat, unhealthily so, and will become even more so in the coming decade. We didn't give up on discouraging people from smoking.
You've gotta delve into what little they give you to go on. Do an image search, and you'll often find that the rightful owner of said image hasn't got anything to do with whatever these slideshows are pushing. There's a young woman from northern Ontario who crops up very often in many of the "Russian brides" ads--that's pretty damn unsettling
But the giant dog ones are the best--and they are totally not photoshopped! That Newfie stands nearly seven foot at the shoulders and has gotta weigh a ton/ton-and-a-half, at least. I spent months in Turkey searching for some of their famed giant dogs, like the Kangal Shepherd found in the easternmost part of the province of Van. And I spent a couple of weeks living in a cave in Kappadokia where every evening, just prior sun up, packs of feral dogs would run the streets. I ran with them, every night. One of the greatest things I've ever experienced.
To me, if someone has a nice smile, I almost instantaneously find the ability to find them attractive.
I also find facial features to be the most important thing in terms of attraction, rather than body size/weight. If a women looks pretty, and kind, in the face, I'm much more attracted than if I see a pretty women scowling, or looking 'too cool for school' and not acknowledging anyone they pass.
I find very slim unattractive, and very overweight unattractive, anything in between depends on the face imo
I also find facial features to be the most important thing in terms of attraction, rather than body size/weight. If a women looks pretty, and kind, in the face, I'm much more attracted than if I see a pretty women scowling, or looking 'too cool for school' and not acknowledging anyone they pass.
I find very slim unattractive, and very overweight unattractive, anything in between depends on the face imo
You're pretty much out of luck, then, for the next year or so!
I'm happily married to a beautiful lady, so I'm all in with the luck!