Model faces
I’ve noticed, on looking at photos of models and some starlets (is that still an acceptable word?), that you need to have a rather broad and almost triangular face to continue to be pretty while at the same time sporting a body that is close to being emaciated. That’s where someone like Sarah Jessica Parker breaks down—her face is as thin as her body, which is painfully scrawny. Her face doesn’t hide her state of starvation behind a facade of prettiness.
For many models, though, their faces do. It’s an interesting combo. See, for example, this photo taken during fashion week:
It’s not a combination that exists all that often in nature. But then, most of the attributes of models don’t exist all that often in nature. That’s what makes them models.
Yikes those gals look hungry!
neo, have you heard about the study that determined the more average a person’s features are (average sized nose, average shaped mouth, etc) the more beautiful they appear?
A few years ago my daughter was a buyer for an upscale store here in Dallas and she was on buying trip to New York. She was buying sportswear and she was interested in placing an order for a certain jacket and when she asked how the jacket actually fit they called the model over and had her take the jacket off so my 5’ 6” daughter who was a size one could try it on.
The jacket on the six foot model was way too tight for her to try it on. How does that work? Daughter’s take was that these women were kind of freaky and they used a lot of dietary supplement ‘stuff’ during fashion season to make their weight, she thought it was probably white and made them feel good.
Three words. Bobble head dolls.
Is that scene from NYC or Roswell, NM?
Oh, that some group of adventurous guys would “deprogram” these waif-thin girls by taking them to a major binge at Quiznos…
I’ve often thought that if we took some of the models from ads in Vanity Fair and Vogue, made the photo blacl and white, and covered up the clothing, they would look like survivors of the nazi camps and the soviet gulags.
Two words: Christina Hendricks.
Sadly, the poor girl appears to be blind. I had no idea.
I mean, Christ, I’m better looking than him, and believe me, I’m no prize.
Perhaps a model must have exaggerated cheekbones to hang the emaciated skin of her face off of in order to produce that triangle Neo refers to. Looking at these ladies’ facial expressions they probably need that white feelgood stuff to make fashion season tolerable. Can they expense it?
Do women do this to themselves? Or is it the influence of male homosexuals in the industry that pushes the industry to think that girls with young boy figures is somehow good?
I am reminded of those Boxing Nun puppets. I love those puppets.
I think we lose sight of the fact that these women are professionals who keep their body in the shape required for their job. Like actresses getting boob jobs, pro bicyclists with their thunderthighs, newscasters with the botox, sumo wrestlers and their massive weight…
Their chosen profession requires them to be clothes hangers, and that is what they wish to do. It’s not a profession for everyone and it’s also not a look that is going to be appealing to everyone. It’s just what they do, and I imagine they don’t have any problem finding boy(or girl)friends.
As for why they are required to be that thin, I think I would defer to the fashion industry and their own marketing findings. If the industry wants to sell to Latinos, they’re going to choose an entirely different body type for their ads and models. For the anglo market, I’m sure they’re choosing toothpicks for models because that is what the market wants. If they did not respond in that way, and Christina Hendricks is going to sell more clothing, then the fashion designers will change their behavior.
Daniel, I would strongly suspect that much of the fashion industry is so insular that they have no idea what would sell more clothes. I would strongly suspect many of the models at those high-end fashion shows are as unappealing to the average consumer as they are to me. I find a lot of them to look not just unpleasantly thin, but freakish, and since gaunt and angry- or pained-looking faces are typical at those kinds of things, it’s obvious there is some kind of weird aesthetic driving their decisions that is totally alien to most people. The clothes are often ridiculously gimmicky as well, often something you would never see except, well, on a high-end fashion show runway.
Regarding Ms. Hendricks, now there’s an example of the qualities that make for an attractive woman… that is if the photos were overexposed to the point where her skin looks grey. As Neo said, it’s very common to see a really beautiful face on a woman who is extraordinarily thin, but as a guy, I find that same pretty face on a woman with a body that could actually function in the real world… working hard at a real job (whether in the office, or raising kids, or both) is far more attractive.
To me, it seems the real marketing driving fashion isn’t those rarified, ivory-tower designers but places like Old Navy or Wal-Mart or (ugh!) Abercrombie and Fitch, etc, where 90% of consumers buy their clothes. No doubt the big names in fashion design have an influence in the trends, but the real influences are probably far more influenced in market departments of a much more mundane nature.
Of course, the strong negative effects that these almost-inhumanly thin models have on the body image of our girls and women is reason enough to support the idea of using models that actually appear to be the same species as the rest of us fat slobs in the real world. Some peoples’ ideals of feminine beauty have become totally disconnected with the physical traits of what makes a good mate and therefore I think is likely to be disconnected with what most of the populace finds attractive, and it’s at least true for me as a “typical guy”.
Not an attractive look. Of course, they aren’t trying to sell clothes to me. I actually prefer an athletic, vigorous look.
I imagine the fashion industry is even more insular than the movie industry. And as Michael Medved showed years ago, they deliberately refuse to make the kind of movies people want to see out of fealty to their bizarre notion of artistry (art requires obscenity).
not triangle. male jaws.
ie androgyny / a male prior to development
they generally are NOT emaciated, though a few are (those who are on the border of the body type and by playing can keep themselves on the side they want)
i have met so many my head spins. they are not just selected for their looks, quite the opposite. they are picked for a combination of looks and personality (and intelligence) – ergo their grooming.
ultimately they are not a common males idea of beautiful. to a common male they are haunting beauty clashed with un-beautiful qualities.
the ideal is the roman ideal minus half of the sexes
ie. there is no more ‘woman’ as a concept
feminism didn’t create a higher female woman they deconstructed woman, and left boyness in which we pretend they are men. And given its from envy of the few directed through the many, the selected representative qualities are the more extreme negative overt ones, not the more positive subtle ones
feminism finds the concept of female so abhorrent that it has sought to destroy all cultural reference to it.
From feminist womens magazines selecting what images women see and who they will blame for them (men as if they select it and women are forced)
to hollyweird creating what are hyper-masculine personalities in foxy bodies
shows and such like the view which have remolded the negative social idea of gossip into a kind of gender wisdom in which no other lesser input is allowed.
why did women select this? because this is what makes women more productive. being men. men are productive in excess of their needs, ergo they are ‘providers’. socially, women are generally consumers who will take ‘help’ to expand her ability, and generally shuns sharing or providing (a biological desire which protects her children over her neighbors).
the socialism (SOCIAL darwinISM – socialism) ideal is to move women from family industry into social industry. Ie, taxable work for all not her own. in this way becoming slaves to the women at the top (and their men).
they do not want men to become unproductive (to them) as women who work for their family using the resources of her mate… what they want is to free her from her femininity, and liberate her from the home so that she can toil for the collective, not her children
in this way, the ruling class of SOCIAL darwinISTS redefine woman in terms of what is most useful to them, as under Marx doctrine, they are expendable and usable by anyone who can.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx
“For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.” — Karl Marx
what the masses get taught is the culture of the slave, and so feel most comfortable when the society matches that which the culture wants.
dont believe me? then why all the hostility to the fertile middle class which produces new players to knock off the ones on the top of the hill?
Why so silently change all patent law?
while paying too much attention to a meaningless dog and pony pregame show, you missed they reformed the patent office negating the small inventor even more and the small company.
the US no longer celebrates the actual inventor, but now favors fascism and corporatism, and the transfer of IP to such.
they too love the fact that women have left their home and children and their special status in society of being supported, and climbed into the muddy trenches to enrich them and lower salaries.
not to mention exterminate their own family lines in favor of less smart, which insures the divide between the children of the top and the children of the middle who may unseat them.
if the game is dynasty, then the dynastic families first order of business is to destroy all other families.
“The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” [Engels, p.67]
and where does it go?
well, equality and erasing of merit makes sure that there is no more social sorting so that those who can do better can rise up to oppose those, like buffet who occupy the top and like soros who want it to themselves
what race groups are the biggest threats and which are the ones whose outcomes can be affected and are within reach?
so how to get rid of the common high IQ peoples and their children and impose something else?
“All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” — Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
To them, we deserve what happens because we allow it to happen – which to them is moral as it is to them a form of permission. (the victim wanting to be what they are and realize themselves)
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. Tsun Tsu
which is why it always surprised me that no one wants to learn about the people who have declared a personal cold war
Well, no one but those on the side declaring war against the sleeping giant.
the question is, will Gulliver sleep long enough?
Do women do this to themselves? Or is it the influence of male homosexuals in the industry that pushes the industry to think that girls with young boy figures is somehow good?
no… its the feminist womens magazines who accept or declare what is pc.
the idea is to make an ideal that they can NEVER attain, and select those who are so rare that reflect this.
this causes a kind of social schism… a sense of unhappyness in the masses who are in that net.
by doing so, these people along with lots of other such games, feel they are missing something, that somethings wrong, that their life is not what it should be, and that everything they want, is unreachable.
ie. it breaks down hope… but since they almost NEVER EVER listen to others, just like other innocent club members in other nets, their concepts and blames are shaped by the same magazines who select ads, and pay for photo shoots.
it works in a kind of feedback loop in which they cut off outside commentary by talking for both sides, and so negate the negative feedback that would abrogate things.
this is why the push is constantly ot things that women dont want to do, like pole dancing at 12… and not the higher things that they promised to get into a position to betray the promise
once you create this malaise, you can then direct it.
once you encite the crowd, the crowd will look to you to tell them why they are angry. and the reason is MEN… particularly WHITE MEN who are genetically predisposed to being oppressors, and so on. (minority men are also oppressed by this group)
so in essence the malaise of the unattainable is then directed to hate the thing the leaders need hated. for if women decide that this all is bs, what happens to the women, their children and so on?
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
see… they need women to be away from their loved ones, and those that care about them. not to have good lives, but to have bad lives and feel so isolated and alone and away from the common group that they would have if they had the time from toil.
the patriarchy is the object to hate. its moriarty… its the formulation of the mysterious other we the cult oppose, that foils all the prophecies, and must be defeated before our gods grant us heaven on earth
the more miserable the women are, the more they hate that which would rescue them, their family, and so on… the mates that would truly love them not use them
“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” — Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman
do you really think the ruling class would put their kids in such, or is this a missive for consumption that is directed to the masses who are to be slaves and so need not waste their productive time working for masters by raising their own kids and playing favorites for them
once women abandoned their men and families to live a life dictated by socialist women who really hate them and what they want, they have been on this self extermination slow genocide in a happy labor camp trip.
so much so that the left demographically realized that withing a few years they will be inconsequential politically and so ingratiated themselves to the masses they have increased through redistributing the resources of the litters to the lessers.
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219.
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” — Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001
you realize that these women i am quoting are the leaders behind the magazines that women read, and even the new tween versions and pre teen ones!!!!!
dont believe me?
then read germaine greer
“If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” — Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 317
.
“The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be…. Most women…would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken.” –Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p.320
why dont i let ms magazine creator Gloria STEINEM clue you in?
“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole… patriarchy.” — Gloria Steinem
.
“By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” — Gloria Steinem, editor of ‘MS’ magazine. Letter to the Editor: “Women’s Turn to Dominate”
.
“Patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself… The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their home.” — Gloria Steinem
“Feminism starts out being very simple. It starts out being the instinct of a little child who says ‘it’s not fair’ and ‘you are not the boss of me,’ and it ends up being a worldview that questions hierarchy altogether.” — Gloria Steinem, in the two hour HBO special on the life of Gloria Steinem entitled, “Gloria: In Her Own Words.”
the women decided that the concept of woman must be erased from mankind.. and with it went motherhood, preservation of ALL life, individualism, grandmothers, families being together, children raised in a constant of love and protection, and so on…
The abuse that is probably one of the reasons why Jewish Law forbids women to be models.
“All the honor of a king’s daughter is inward” (Psalms 45:14), i.e. in her personality, not in her beauty.
This is the look that the industry wants, not the public.
I think Hollywood is a better indicator of what sells – and while it’s still on the skinny side, it’s a much more feminine, voluptuous look than these twigs. Actresses like Sofia Vergara and Christina Hendricks are worshiped for their curves.
JilieB – I thought the same thing, but in this case we wouldn’t even have to cover the clothing.
Sadly, the poor girl appears to be blind. I had no idea.
I mean, Christ, I’m better looking than him, and believe me, I’m no prize.
A lot of women (subconsciously or otherwise) choose mates that aren’t better looking than the woman is. To some extent, that is because they want to be the attractive one, and to some extent it is a matter of his masculinity being a close match to her perception of masculinity.
Remember, women are not primarily visually driven.
Oh, that some group of adventurous guys would “deprogram” these waif-thin girls by taking them to a major binge at Quiznos…
Quizinos? please. BBQ and steak is called for, with all the fixin’s.
“Ladies, this is central Texas brisket. Over here, we have pulled pork from North Carolina. Those are Memphis ribs with a sweet sauce. And this here is called a prime rib. Beans, slaw, tater salad and cokecola to wash it down with.”
Forgive me, but I think Hendricks’s husband is kinda cute.
And Hendricks herself is an interesting example of the opposite principle than the one that illustrates this post: she does not look as though she’s starving, but her face is thinner than that of some of the models. Therefore, if (heaven forbid!) her body ever became very thin, her face would be ultra-thin. In other words, her face is somewhat thinner than what her pneumatic (a la Brave New World) body would dictate. I submit that if her face were heavier, her body would be perceived as heavier, and the contrast between her face and body as it is is part of her charm.
Of course, I’m not a man, so I’m not really an expert on this particular matter.
“BBQ and steak is called for, with all the fixin’s.
“Ladies, this is central Texas brisket. Over here, we have pulled pork from North Carolina. Those are Memphis ribs with a sweet sauce. And this here is called a prime rib. Beans, slaw, tater salad and cokecola to wash it down with.””
🙂
I would sure love that, and I live here in TX!
Nope, I’m not waif-thin. I’m quite overweight, but right now I’m on the South Beach Diet – but not to look like a toothpick on a skirt, but to avoid heart disease.
Years ago, I read a book titled The Fairy Conspiracy, by a female author, published around 1950. It was a humorous but tart-tongued expose of the male fashion designers’ aim of making their natural rival in the fight to get men, Woman, look as ridiculous and unfeminine as possible. She also chided women for being bird-witted enough to buy these outfits.
I just googled around for it, but it seems to have been stuffed down the Memory Hole, even on StartingPage. Thought Police!
Also: I met a woman named Ann H. many years ago who was a model-wrangler for Ford Modelling Agency (one of the biggest). She told me that all the models they tart up to look like women are, on average —
12 to 14 years old.
After they get to be 18 at the very oldest, she said, only the “superstars” were allowed to continue working. Because when you are 18, you start to get those ever so faint lines like parentheses at the corners of your mouth.
She also said that posh girls’ schools like Dalton would absolutely not allow the Ford or Wilhelmina (or any other) agency recruiters to talk to their girls: they protected them because of the insane sex and drugs and degeneracy culture of the fashion world.
So they get children from New Jersey public schools, etc. Ann said it was a real hoot to hear one of these moppets open her exquisite little mouth — and sound just like Fran Drescher.
Appreciate your each alternate superb write-up. The place in addition may perhaps any one obtain that form of info in that fantastic way of writing? I own a presentation pursuing week, using this program . on the seek out such information.