Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Women should have
Hourglass figures 24%
Boyish, coquettish appeal 7%
Emaciated, supermodel figures. 5%
Lovely retrousse noses and porcelain skin 3%
Wierd hair and Fiesty attitude 12%
Enormous Hips! 1%
Enormous Eyes fringed with beautiful dark hair 5%
A tanned, fit. lithe and hard body 16%
Lilting accents and soft, motherly appeal! 3%
They should just all look like Natalie Portman - a race of clones 18%

Votes: 54

 Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 25, 2001
 Comments:
If you switch on your television, pick up a magazine or browse through a newspaper, the chances are that within a few seconds you will be appreciatively considering the tanned and unusually slim body of a young woman employed in the modeling industry. But before you flip the page or turn the channel, take a moment to consider that young woman. Is she the picture of beautiful joy she appears?

Lets have a closer look.

conspiracy

More stories about Conspiracy
The Gay Tax
The AIDS Hoax
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Saluting American Heroes on Flight 93
Once again, blame Microsoft!
Crazy, Like Me
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
The Evil of M*A*S*H
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
The Hidden Threat
Was the fourth plane shot down during an attack on 9/11?
Looking For A Few Good Crusaders
The Boy Scouts of America, and the Threat To American Values

More stories by
bc

Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
The British Empire - Why it was so good.
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Kill Yr Idols: Tiger Woods
Don't look at me.
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
Football & Fascism -- Prima Donnas and the Superman
A Day on the Town
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
Real Men use Realdolls?
George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns
Why I want to be an American Citizen
The first thing you may notice is her emaciated appearance. Perhaps you will find this attractive. Perhaps you are a modern man, the sort of man who has been hoodwinked by the media into thinking that the figure of a woman should be indistinguishable from that of a boy.

The modeling industry is responsible for the wholescale perversion of the ideals of feminine beauty. Where once women had big beautiful hips and a fulsome, curvy figure, and were proud of these endowments (oh how I would prefer a woman of the Regency period, one with Rubenesque delights!), they now aspire to have unhealthy, thin, stick insect bodies with ridiculously long limbs and big heads perched on the top. These risible, revolting, repugnant ectomorphs are a Godless assault on what it is to be a woman, and I can only wonder if the rising tide of 'feminism' - the most defeminising force the 20th century saw - is at the root of this modern malaise.

Some misguided fools might argue that the modeling industry merely reflects the desires of society back at it, but of course this is utter rot. The fashion industry takes its lead from women's magazines, television, film, and the entire media establishment, which is dominated by liberal deviants and feminists. As such, they have an agenda: to make women our masters. They do this by trying to make women as masculine as possible, by promoting the image of woman as thin hipped (& lipped), vulgar and agressive. Such manly traits grafted onto the modern woman will, they hope, allow this Medusa to reign supreme over man.

Women are suffering from the carnage. Lets tally the damage:

  • Drug use. As well as dieting drugs, they take cocaine and sometimes even worse (heroin chic anyone?). All thanks to the trickle down effect of Parisian sophisticates and supermodels taking these devices of the Devil everyday, and making a fashion statement of it!
  • Eating disorders. With the endless pressure to look like a pin, women have increasingly erratic eating habits. Anorexia Nervosa, bulimia, you name it millions of women have it.
  • Depression. Most women have rejected beauty for am unattainable standard, and so suffer mentally when they can't reach that standard. This makes them give up on acheiving ambitions. Is it any wonder unemployment is high in America when the fashion industry is encouraging people to be depressed layabouts?
  • Cancer. The industry is responsible for massive amounts of cancer. Smoking is promoted by models - the coolest 'chicks' all do it. Models all have mahogony skin, and so are knowingly forcing millions of young girls to risk their lives on the beaches.
  • Sprained joints and broken bones. Lets face it, modeling is an extremely dangerous activity. Every year, thousands of models break their legs and sprain ankles - from walking in high heels on slippery catwalks. Normal women wear all sorts of dangerous and constrictive clothing and footwear - and they pay the consequences.
A classic example of these ravages can be seen with Princess Diana. This sweet, normal and feminine girl was sacrificed on the altar of fashion. When she was a young girl, she was a normal, shy and pretty commoner. After 20 years suffering from the privations of the fashion industry, she was dead. Bulimia, depression, and high heels had taken their toll. Whilst the modeling industry destroys normal women, it is nothing compared to what it does to the models themselves. They suffer from all the problems above, but in a much more intense and extreme way. They become psychological and emotional wrecks, which forces them to retire at age 25. Poor models are sucked into the industry and then spat out half digested and fully corrupted onto the scrapheap of life.

What has this effect on them? Widespread and sinful exploitative sexual predation is certainly a factor. And this is from such a young age - the modeling industry has a core of paedophilia, because models typically enter the trade at tender ages, sometimes as young as 5 or 6 years old, but more typically 12 or so. Girls as young as 14 have been sexually exploited by the fashion industry, dehumanised by the terrible pressures of an impossible beauty standard.

And what about men? They are the real victims here. Now they have impossible standards of beauty too, causing chaos. Men can't find the women they want because they just don't exist outside the salons of Paris, London, and New York. These congregations of urban depravity are responsible for the rising divorce rates and broken homes of 21st century America. Think of that next time you pass the defoliation boutique!

Another problem is the sheer idolatory of the whole business. Worshipping young women and raising them to the stratified heights of Mount Olympus, above all mere mortals, is a Sin, for it clearly contradicts these words:

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
Exodus 20:16

The social chaos caused by all this is mind boggling. In proper civilisations, such as ancient Sparta, everyone knew their place and position in society, as everything was marked out for you before you were even born. But in these uncertain times, we just don't know who we are supposed to be, because we lack the comforting womb of a stable and rigid society. The fashion industry and modeling is the ultimate expression of this flux, and so it is worthy of total incrimination and destruction.

If you doubt what I say, ask yourself this: Would you want your daughter to be a model? To live the life of a walking corpse, devoid of even primitive moral maxims? Do you want her, or your sons, to have beastly and unnatural bodyforms? If the answer is no, then you must surely agree that the time has come to take steps to destroy this race of catwalk zombies, and bring back the Venus of Willendorf.

       
Tweet

I learned something new! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 02:15:38 PM PST
After 20 years suffering from the privations of the fashion industry, she [Princess Diana] was dead.

Incredible! I'd heard lots of conspiracy theories into why Princess Diana died, but I never imagined that it was the fashion industry that rigged her car to crash! Thank you, bc, for bringing enlightenment to us!


A troll's true colors.

That's too much (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 03:04:45 PM PST
Oh, so as long as fashion doesn't bloody its hands directly, everything is okay?

The simple fact is that fashion is responsible for the terrible, insane state of mind Diana was in. If it weren't for her psychological problems, she'd never have went out with that loon Dodi in the first place.

Responsibility is shared widely for tragedies like this, the buck doesn't just stop at the first person on the scene.


You know, I would not be so sure about that. (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 05:08:00 PM PST
There is some evidence to suggest that Di was offed by a combination of Saudi special forces, and the shadowy British intelligence organization MI6.

The concept of a member of the British royal family consorting with a Muslim was too much for the racists at Buckingham Palace to bear.

The idea of a high profile Muslim man marrying a 'kaffur' (nonbeliever) was likewise too much for the international Muslum power structure to contemplate.

You do not have to look too closely into Royal affairs to find out that people who fuck with the House of Windsor tend to come to very sticky ends.

Mark my words. Fergie will one day be involved in an 'accident'.

The British royal family is descended from Germans, and as such must be suspected of Naziism. Is it any wonder then, that they get away with murder of the British public's most adored princess ?


Get real (none / 0) (#9)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 05:18:16 PM PST
The British royal family is descended from Germans, and as such must be suspected of Naziism.

No they mustn't. Any more than I, as a descendant of Americans, must be suspected of hating blacks or wanting to crush American Indian tribes. And I'm sure that many German citizens would have something to say about this logic as well.


Suspicion != Accusation (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 05:29:00 PM PST
There is a big difference. Suspicion is a laudable virtue. Given that Nazism is rife in Germany, it is reasonable to suspect Germans unknown to you of Nazism.

This is also true with Americans and crushing native tribes. But suspicion is a long way from action - for action you need evidence. Suspicion is not a value judgement.

Suspicion is merely a pleasant guardian, useful for keeping atrocities at bay and stopping criminals and dictators.

Trusting people are always the first to be hoodwinked.


Dut bist ein geschlossener gekümmerter Ruck. (none / 0) (#12)
by opalhawk on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 05:55:43 PM PST
Sie haben guienaschweine in Ihrem Kopf mein Freund, und ihr kleines Rad wird verrostet, also dreht sich es nicht.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.


English is the language of adequacy. (none / 0) (#14)
by dmg on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 06:07:59 PM PST
Please translate this, or I will be forced to delete your comment.

Note that there is no reason for preferring English to other languages, save for the practical fact that it is spoken by more people than any other language.

I'm guessing that this is some variation of 'the wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead' But I cannot be sure, since I, like most other non-Nazi adequacy readers, do not speak German.



time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

English is the language of inadequacy..... (none / 0) (#17)
by opalhawk on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:57:15 PM PST
I suppose it is only fair to provide a translation for the lynguisticaly impaired.

Basicaly the comment is addressed to "you closed minded fools"

Your assesment of the hamster analogy is fairly acurate, however in this case the hamster is not dead, it's wheel has just rusted so it won't turn. Which is to say, anyone who thinks all Germans are Nazis has still within them the capacity to think, but they must not have used it in so long that their "hamster" (in this literal translation guinea pig, but come on, we all know where the analogy is going.....) will probably die soon from lack of attention, or nutrition.

I would like to know.... is the previous poster -really- under the opinion that all Germans are of the jew-killing persuasion? or was that just troll bait? If you really belive that all Germans are Nazis, please explain to me this disfunctional thought process. I will gladly buy you some cotton to stuff in your ears so that your brain will once again be safe in your head, free from the fear it is going to accidntaly be expeled from your cranium if you sneeze.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.


Dearest Opalhawk, (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 04:33:30 AM PST
I most certainly did not say that all Germans are Nazis. Why, that would be absurd! I said that it is reasonable to suspect all Germans of Nazi-like tendencies.

Suspicion is not the same as accusation. Given the historical behaviour of the Germans (be it the primitive Germans the Romans dealt with - who, according to the Emperor Claudius, 'Must be lower than dogs, for if you punish a dog it will learn and not disobey you again, but a german must be brutally kept down all the time, and never allowed to get strong again for if he does he will attempt your life once more'* - or the Germans of Kaiser Wilhelm or Adolf Hitler or Helmut Scholl) it is not unreasonable to be wary of their future behaviour, and seek to guard against hurt.

Personally I can't believe you think the 150 million dead, entirely thanks to the barbarous tendencies of Germans, is not grounds to be suspicious and wary of their future behaviour. Is this not reasonable?

Yours,
An adoring anonymous admirer.

*-According to the 100% historically accurate work 'I, Claudius' by Robert Graves


supermodels? (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 06:32:28 AM PST
I this this was supposed to be about supermodels, I think we lost the thread...


Excuse me?? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by CaptainZornchugger on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 07:11:25 AM PST
Are you implying that you cannot see the strong and obvious relationships between supermodels and Naziism? Anre you implying that you were unaware that a discussion about Naziism is a discussion about supermodels? Your inability to draw the obvious parellels between the most obviously related of objects astounds me.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the rise of several influential German models lately. Do you truly think this is a coincidence? Have you not noticed the way they are trying to imply that being emaciated is beautiful? (the subject of this article) They want to make us think that the appearance one takes on in a concentration camp is the ideal image for a person to have! In that way, all stigma surrounding concentration camps will be erased, the shame surrounding the holocaust will be erased, and resultingly, civilisations anger at the Nazis will disappear, paving the way for them to return to power! Jesus Christ man, are your eyes completely closed??!



 
Hmmm (none / 0) (#21)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:41:35 PM PST
I suppose that innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that you despise?

Stereotypes are deceiving and useless. Take everyone on their own terms.


Can't you read? (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 10:47:05 AM PST
I suppose that innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that you despise?

WTF? Can't you read?

The point is simple: German ancestry is enough to suspect people of being Nazi, but not justification to make actual accusations or even less take action against them; that requires evidence.

You're setting up such a pathetic strawman (presumption of innoncence is a principle of the legal system, while the principle of suspicion you're attacking is a principle of individual action) that your moral character must be most seriously questioned

(Ah, and before you go on and apply the aformentioned fallacy as you are wont to do, no, I'm not advocating throwing you into jail for what I suspect of you, so don't even start with that line of "argument". You'll need a real argument.)


Just what are you smoking? (none / 0) (#35)
by Art Tatum on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:20:35 AM PST
The point is simple: German ancestry is enough to suspect people of being Nazi

And my point is simple: no it isn't. And no, I wasn't referring to accusation. If that's what you think, you've misunderstood me.

You're setting up such a pathetic strawman (presumption of innoncence is a principle of the legal system, while the principle of suspicion you're attacking is a principle of individual action)

Yes, I know. It's just an example. But you clearly think nothing of suspecting someone of something because of their ancestry. Weird.

that your moral character must be most seriously questioned

My moral character must be seriously questioned because you're a dumbass?

(Ah, and before you go on and apply the aformentioned fallacy as you are wont to do, no, I'm not advocating throwing you into jail

I wasn't going to, actually. My argument is that you can't suspect someone of holding some viewpoint because their ancestors held to it.


 
Look, after WWII what happened to all the Nazis ? (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 06:10:59 PM PST
Did the allies kill them all ? No.

Did the allies round them all up and try them in a court of law ? No

So what did happen to all the Nazis in Germany after WWII ?

The answer is simple. Not a lot. They were left to get on with their lives. The direct result of this is that almost all Germans today have Nazi ancestors. There is no getting away from this simple fact.

You only have to look at the way they treat their ironically named gastarbeiters ('guest' workers) to see that the racial purity motif lives on in the daily lives of Germans.


Come again? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:51:06 PM PST
Most of them are dead already. The generations that arose after them have been cleverly (for once) socially engineered by American propagandists. The US even edited the Nazis out of "Casablanca" when shown in Germany, leaving audiences very confused about what was going on.

You also seem to labor under the delusion that everyone in Germany during the war was a Nazi (philosophically). A great many people were just trying not to be shot for treason, even if they didn't like what was going on. There was also a great deal of respect for authority in Germany society, lending legitimacy to the Nazi regime.

The direct result of this is that almost all Germans today have Nazi ancestors.

And? Do genetics determine behavior? That belief, in and of itself, is a racist idea.


 
you overlook an important fact... (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 10:36:38 AM PST
The US and the Soviets actually enlisted droves of Nazis in their intelligence services after the war.

So, what happened to the Nazis after the war was that a few top figures were executed as scapegoats, and the rest were hired by the superpowers. Nice, eh?


 
eh, I *do* suspect you of those... (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 10:56:31 AM PST
No they mustn't. Any more than I, as a descendant of Americans, must be suspected of hating blacks or wanting to crush American Indian tribes.

You sorely miss the point. As a USian, you must indeed be suspected of those defects to some degree unless some evidence to the contrary is seen. Note I said suspected and not convicted, before you apply the deliberate mislogic used elsewhere in this thread.


You're paranoid (none / 0) (#36)
by Art Tatum on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:24:27 AM PST
You sorely miss the point.

No, I get the point just fine. What you say next demonstrates this clearly.

As a USian, you must indeed be suspected of those defects to some degree unless some evidence to the contrary is seen.

Nope. People can only be suspected of holding a viewpoint if evidence has been presented that they *do* hold that viewpoint. Otherwise, we have no fucking idea *what* they believe. Genetics doesn't get you there. Sorry.

Note I said suspected and not convicted,

No, I'm talking about suspicion.


Stop this rhetorical dishonesty. (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 07:24:38 PM PST
People can only be suspected of holding a viewpoint if evidence has been presented that they *do* hold that viewpoint. Otherwise, we have no fucking idea *what* they believe. Genetics doesn't get you there. Sorry.

The fact that you somehow manage to drag "genetics" into this really illustrates how you don't know what you're talking about.

You are twisting the meaning of the ordinary English word "suspicion", in such a way that by your criteria it turns out to be justified belief. But fuck, no, there are two fucking millenia of western philosophical tradition that clearly attributes the content of what you have just said to the category of justified belief, which is precisely the category I'm saying suspicion is not.

So get it fucking straight. Evidence that a person X is a Y grounds for justified belief that person X is a Y. Evidence that persons which have some property Z have a much greater than chance likelihood of being Y, together with evidence that person X has property Z, are grounds for justified suspicion that X may be a Y.


 
Ease up a little bit (none / 0) (#7)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 03:16:06 PM PST
People like different things. Some people like women who weigh 90 pounds. Some find it disgusting. It's personal taste--get over it.

Furthermore, has it ever ocurred to you that some women have these figures naturally? Believe it or not, some women are naturally tall and thin. Do these women deserve to die because they aren't frumpy?


Please restrain your pedophilic impulses (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by suick on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 05:41:12 PM PST
In the modern world, women don't weigh 90 pounds. Period. Not the models on the strip, not the models in the magazines. In fact, the only people who weigh 90 pounds are children.

While there's always accounting for taste, when you begin to focus on children who are too young to consent, it's hardly laudable to bring up the "applause" line of "people like different things."

As for the main article, I felt that bc should have expanded on the feminist consipiracy aspect some more. My main problem with the whole "put our children on the runway" ideal being pushed by feminists is that, by effectively pulling women out of a life of work (while at the same time giving them a mystique of godlike untouchability) feminists are preparing the men of today for brute labor and menial taskwork in the future.

Assuredly you could argue that women of today are striving for equality in the business world as well, but that's simply not the case. Feminists aren't pushing for female construction workers or female janitors--they're pushing for female domination of the upper offices, which will open the doors for future unskilled women to rule upon the male working class.

c'mon, lower.

welcome to the real world (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 07:13:40 PM PST
I don't weigh 90 lbs, but I was 5'11" and 105 lbs up until I turned 20. No eating disorders, either - I ate about four good-sized meals a day, plus snacks,and I kept all of it down. What *did* cause it was my hyperactive thyroid. I went to my doctor about it, and he decided it wasn't serious enough to medicate - and rightly, as it turned out, because about six months after I went to him, my crazy metabolism straightened itself out, and I developed some hips, a bust and gained 35 lbs. The point is, though, that some of us *are* just that thin, for no good reason other than genes.

And screaming about how "unnatural" all us "emaciated" skinny girls look may be good for the body images of um...large girls, but what do you think it does for those of us who are thin? Let's just say binge eating doesn't have to end in purge, especially when everyone in your highschool is whispering about how you have bulemia...




Please clarify (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by suick on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 08:04:28 PM PST
I find your story completely ludicrous, and I don't appreciate you making light of both those with gland disorders and [indirectly] the chronically obese. To imply that you were too small at 20 months of age--yet filled out miraculously six months later--is wholly unbelievable, and simply adds to the sense of self-loathing underdeveloped women have (especially since they're often still underdeveloped after 20 to 26 years!). I personally have great sympathy for those who cannot help their petit size, and your callous story will simply alienate them further.

The next time you make a stab at these women, try to understand that they cannot help their own growth pattern, and not everyone filled out at such a young age as yourself.

c'mon, lower.

You really have a serious communication problem (none / 0) (#20)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:31:02 PM PST
I find your story completely ludicrous, and I don't appreciate you making light of both those with gland disorders and [indirectly] the chronically obese.

What the hell are you talking about? She did nothing of the kind.

To imply that you were too small at 20 months of age

She meant 20 years

--yet filled out miraculously six months later--is wholly unbelievable,

It isn't unbelieveable at all.

and simply adds to the sense of self-loathing underdeveloped women have (especially since they're often still underdeveloped after 20 to 26 years!). I personally have great sympathy for those who cannot help their petit size, and your callous story will simply alienate them further.

See subject line.

The next time you make a stab at these women, try to understand that they cannot help their own growth pattern, and not everyone filled out at such a young age as yourself.

WTF? Again, you're not making any sense at all. Are we even in the same thread? Geez...


Don't reply to me, ever (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by suick on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 08:06:04 AM PST
Since all you're resorting to is personal attacks, I'm going to have to stop this discussion--I'm too busy to waste my time arguing with someone who thinks "you're confused" is a valid rebuttal.

Furthermore, in the future it would be wise to read carefully the entire thread before you make baseless accusations about both me and the other contributors to this discussion.

c'mon, lower.

Uh-oh...guess I just did (none / 0) (#37)
by Art Tatum on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:51:22 AM PST
Since all you're resorting to is personal attacks, I'm going to have to stop this discussion--I'm too busy to waste my time arguing with someone who thinks "you're confused" is a valid rebuttal.

Sorry. Perhaps, "You can't read," would be a better rebuttal.

The original poster said, and I quote, "until I turned 20." You, for some inexplicable reason, thought she meant 20 months. You then proceded to claim that she was simply making fun of people.

Now, maybe English isn't your first language and you misunderstood what she was saying. If that's the case, then I apologize. Otherwise, my assessment stands: you have a serious communication problem.


 
Back off (none / 0) (#19)
by Art Tatum on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 09:25:47 PM PST
In the modern world, women don't weigh 90 pounds.

I just picked a number that sounded right to me. Forgive me if it wasn't accurate, your almighty highness.

At any rate, my intention was to inform those reading this thread that there are women who look very thin without abusing themselves.


 
my wife weighed 90 lbs. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by motherfuckin spork on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 06:09:25 AM PST
Your comment about 90 lbs is nonsensical. Please, next time, be sure to qualify your comments when appropriate, such as this instance. Perhaps you should have stated that 6 foot tall women should not weight 90 lbs., as this would seem more believable. My wife is a mere 5'2", and 90 lbs. was her weight throughout all of college (mind you she is slightly more than that now, but such is the price paid for bearing a child).


I am not who you think I am.

 
I am proven correct by the poll (none / 0) (#13)
by bc on Wed Jul 25th, 2001 at 06:03:44 PM PST
Since when have 'hard lithe bodies' been considered attractive on women? I myself voted for 'enormous hips', as my instincts told me too.

A good scientific example of what the fashion industry is doing to our men, the results of this poll.


♥, bc.

 
Dancing with the Devil (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by sventhatcher on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 03:00:58 AM PST
What you fail to understand here bc is the true intent of the industry in promoting the drawn out, sad, desperate, herion-girl look. The feminists are not at work here, but rather a secret underground network of chivalrists fighting against them.

Feminism would see an end to chilvary. To the pratice that I at least hold dear to my heart of open doors for women, buying food for them, and genreally lifting them on a pedestal to be protected and cared for at all costs. Feminists find this sort of female-worship degrading. They think they can take care of themselves. Chivalrists know that women are delicate and easy to break and thus must be protected at all costs.

How does this realte to the heroin-girl look? Simple!

These girls are in the pit of despair. Their lives have sunk so low, and they've been exploited by so many people that they desperately need someone, a man, to come rescue them from their hell. They need a knight in shining armor. They need, that's right, a man who believes in chivalry to make their dreams come true.

If the feminists were truly taking control, what we would see on the covers would be nothing but women in business suits. A true tragedy, but instead we have the heroin-girls. Inspiring males everywhere to protect their women!

--Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

fashion victims (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 26th, 2001 at 07:18:02 AM PST
They need a knight in shining armor. They need, that's right, a man who believes in chivalry to make their dreams come true.

Fuck that noise.

But you do have a point, as in fashion promoting the idea that women are "delicate and easy to break." The notions of the frail and fragile female have roots most recently in fashion. I present the corset as evidence.

If your ribs were bound up too tightly to actually breath, you'd be prone to fainting, too.

Heck, if you tried to wear even two inch heels, I doubt you'd make it to the bus.


 
parasite (none / 0) (#39)
by johnny ambiguous on Sat Jul 28th, 2001 at 06:59:15 AM PST
...Inspiring males everywhere to protect their women!

...maybe but there's this too:

Whenever I see one of those skeleton-shaped babes with the mascara all heavy around her glassy eyes, I'm not projecting myself into the role of proprietor ("their") slash knightly protector. I'm thinking, if I could somehow get close to this girl, ooh yeah she's got to have some terrific connections, maybe I could talk her into copping for me.

Yours Johnny "scumbag" A.


Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

 
models (none / 0) (#38)
by shren on Fri Jul 27th, 2001 at 12:37:28 PM PST
I just realize that I have something to add.

I have a friend. He played competitive soccer from a very, very young age, and his body fat/muscle ratio is absurd. He doesn't have any fat that I've noticed.

Before you think this is an ideal condition, it's seriously messed up his life. He has serious joint problems also springing from all of the constant exercise. Eventually he had to take a break from college because he couldn't use his arms to write or type. (He did some work building and contracting one summer and it aggrevated his problem.) (His degree areas he was working on were Biology and Chemistry. He wanted to be a Medical Researcher.)

So he went to stay with some relatives in New York for a while, and eventually got involved in the whole modeling thing. Hell, if you have a body like a Greco-Roman god, no use of your arms, and you're in the New York area already, it's a perfect job for you.

We had a conversation on the phone one day about the people he worked with - the other models. Between his work in New York and a trip to Europe, he had met a handful. He thought that they were, quite frankly, pitiful. Drug addicted, insecure, and aspiring to the body type that had messed up his life.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.