or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Supermodels -- Who's the hottest?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supermodels -- Who's the hottest? - Page 22

post #316 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em. the oldest (and cheapest) trick in book. used by despots and tyrants the world over from time immemorial. and that was not an "attack". simply an observation about what goldie does for a living. and evidently, a good one.
I'm pretty sure you're used to it, the banning.
post #317 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
simply an observation about what goldie does for a living. and evidently, a good one.
How is that a "good observation"? You read my posts - I wrote about a hundred times that worked in i-banking. So you can read... big deal. For some reason that escapes me, you tried to guess where I work. You were wrong. Even if you guessed right, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?? Likewise, the fact that you pick up trash in your big green truck for a living has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Now, you can go back to drooling over all the fat chicks you want for all I care. I just don't understand why you keep ruining this thread and advancing your case for the ultimate douchebag of all SF times... Why don't you start your own thread on how much you like fat chicks because you're so big you need a lot of lard around you? Your own thread where you can post 100% of the posts if you want, not just 75% like this present thread.

Definitely my last post arguing with this 12 year old trolling champion.
post #318 of 408
Someone please, pleeaase lock this thread
post #319 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
i presume goldman pays you more than a living wage. perhaps you can do them the courtesy of not using their time to pursue your hobbies.

I mean this is the nicest way possible, but can you please seriously shut the fuck up?

Like big hipped curvey women?

Fine, then post pictures. A picture's worth a thousand words, so instead of rambling on, just post some pictures really.
post #320 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
Someone please, pleeaase lock this thread

Or flood it with more pictures of supermodels. Not overweight tubbies, nor Japanese women who all look like boys and are bowlegged from sitting in the lotus position all the time.
post #321 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
principles, slim. not "body types". indeed, nowhere have i even implied, much less said, that there is "one universally attractive body type". in fact, i acknowledged that there are several. for example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky
your average guy around the world prefers women built more like j lo than ms lima. latin guys, black guys, arab guys - they all like da big booty. it's only the skinny white guys in the us and europe that lust after skinny adolescent chicks. the rest prefer real women.
Well, actually, what you did was throw out sweeping generalizations as to what "cultures" and "average guys" find attractive. And you also stated that there is such a thing as a "real woman" which everyone in the world outside of the US and Europe who is not skinny and white find attractive. Which is patently untrue, because I am an average guy, and so are most of the other people here. (nor am I skinny OR white) What you meant to say was, SOME PEOPLE prefer women build more like J Lo. Because what you are otherwise implying with the above statement is that anyone who disagrees with you is not normal or has deviant tastes, which is untrue to the extreme. If your "average guy" around the world prefers women "built like J Lo" then you are obviously arguing that J Lo has a universally appealing body. The fact that you often contradict yourself, backtrack, and change your position has no bearing on the fact that you have been wrong from the get-go, and have not gotten any closer to being right over the course of 16+ pages.
Quote:
do these women all have the same body type? NO! yet they all have wide appeal to many men.
Wait a minute... now you are contradicting yourself again. See Below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky
some well known gals who are built like real women
What you meant was that "real women" aren't built like anything. A real woman has female reproductive organs. As I have offered evidence (believe it or not, its more proof than you've offered on anything) that the women you posted have extremely varying body types, you can have NO POSSIBLE POINT with the post you made. You might as well throw Adrianna Lima on you list, because she also has wide appeal to many men. DO YOU HAVE A POINT???
Quote:
like you said, slim: first, learn to read; then argue.
It would be a lot easier to read your posts and respond to them if you had a discernible point that didn't change every five minutes.
Quote:
i said that there are principles specific to individual cultures, and i believe models are an example of this. they are a recent cultural phenomenon and a direct result of the unusual affluence of our times. however, the widespread aversion to the uber-thin profiles of models is the result of principles laid down by evolution that have obtained since man's earliest steps on this blessed planet.
But you have yet to address the point I raised eariler that only a small minority of Supermodels have been "uber-thin", which is a subjective measurement anyways, seeing as what is "thin" to you may be "normal" to someone else, therefore the whole "history of the world" crap you keep bringing up is meaningless. Supermodels are not for the most part malnourished looking, nor are they generally unhealthy looking to most people. We are not discussing "models", BTW as you keep referring to. We are discussing the 30 or 40 women (and two men) in the history of the modern world classified as SUPERMODELS.
Quote:
proportion is one principle. but it isn't the only one, as you seem to think, or even the overiding one. there are times when it is superceded by more important ones.
I know, this is what I've been trying to tell you for like 18 pages now. I'm glad you finally agree. Good lord.
Quote:
also, i said there are principles specific to individual cultures. for example, many cultures prefer women with curvy hips and butts. kim k would be considered very attractive to those people. the japanese culture, otoh, prefers women who look like boys (with short, stocky, crooked legs). and so they don't find kim k attractive.
Here you go again with "many cultures". A meaningless and incorrect stereotype, it has no bearing on our conversation at all, and yet you keep coming back to it. We are not discussing your broad over generalizations of the "many cultures" that you think you know about. Each individual person has a different idea of what he finds attractive. There are doubtless as many people in the world who find Kim Kardashian's butt grotesque as those who would find it attractive. There is certainly a split opinion in our own little microcosm of the forum. There are Africans, Cubans, Mexicans, Americans, Asians, Europeans, and etc. who like a variety of different body types, sizes, hair colors, cup sizes, facial features and etc.
Quote:
sure. and that would explain why YOU spent $$ and at least 40 minutes of your time watching that kim k video, right? care to explain that little contradiction?
Actually, I spent exactly $0 on it, allow me to introduce the concept of the internet. Things that other people pay for are available free here, for people like me who choose to violate copyright laws which generally are not enforced or enforcable rather than support the inane spending habits of spoiled D list celebrities and porn distributors that buy the rights to the videos for a couple million bucks. (even though it usually works) And one doesn't have to subject himself to all 40 whatever minutes of boredom, its called a "slider" it resides at the bottom of most electronic video viewing applications and allows you to fast forward, reverse, jump ahead or back, and occasionally watch things at high speed.
Quote:
the golden rule would be one example of the principle of proportion. but, like i said, there are other principles that can and do supercede it. in this case, it is the principle that there should not be so much (or so little) body mass that it impairs an individual's chances for survival and reproduction.
Purely subjective. Supermodels obviously have no such impairment They survive, have children, and etc. just like (or perhaps better) than many other women. Your point?
Quote:
in the types of environments in which we evolved, "morbid obesity" would have done just this, affecting not only a person's mobility, but also his ability to secure enough food to sustain his larger body mass. in warmer climes, a large body mass would have hindered heat transfer and significantly increased the chances of heat related death. and then there are the health issues associated with being too fat, especially for women and its effects on childbearing. "morbid obesity" did not have positive survival value; therefore, it was not considered physically attractive.
Yes, as we've scientifically determined, morbidly obese women are generally not considered attractive in this day and age. Thanks for the update.
Quote:
now, most of us don't live in the conditions that our ancestors did, but nevertheless we've inherited their "prejudices" because they proved to be so reliable for so many years. hence, the common aversion to very fat people. the same principle and a similar argument apply to people who are too thin. up until this century, the struggle to secure food has been a perennial problem. most people lived on the verge of starvation and famines were not at all uncommon. (this situation still exists in some parts of the world.) people who were too thin did not have the bodily resources (ie, fat, etc) to survive the inevitable episodes of scarcity. they were literally one step removed from death. therefore, an AVERSION to thinness evolved as as a natural defense against this vulnerability. (the fact that thin people tended to die more quickly and in larger numbers also helped to prune their representation in human populations.) in short: people found an excessive thinness UNATTRACTIVE because it had negative survival value.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You present this stuff as if its FACT when in FACT it is not. It is relatively common (provable!) knowledge that throughout known history the body type presented as the ideal in art, literature, and etc. (whether personal taste was different or not) by these "cultures" you are so fond of generalizing varies as much (or more) than the current opinions on this thread. How can "evolution" explain the fact that the idealized female body in Europe went from exceedingly obese in 10,000 b.c., to lithe and even muscular in the second century b.c., to emphasis on the shapely buttocks and waist with a modest bosom in 100 b.c., to being extremely thin and boyish and lithe in the 800's to the voluptuous ideal of the 1400's to being portly again in the 1600s, to extremely thin again in the 1700's (women went so far as to surgically remove some of their ribs to try and meet the physical ideal of the time), back to curvaceous at the end of the 1700's, back to voluptuous,portly, heavy and rotund in the mid 1800's? Should I continue? Europe is easy because of the excellent preservation of art, literature, and documents that surpasses that of almost any other culture on earth. Although to some extent he case can also be made for what is currently the Middle East and Africa. Look at the women depicted in terracotta reliefs from Sumer, Babylon and Mesopotamia. Curvaceous. And yet, the body types found in hieroglyphs, statues, and reliefs throughout Egypt and Africa during the time of the Pharaohs? Thin. Damn near all of them.
Quote:
now, turn the clock forward to modern times. the industrial revolution has pretty much solved the food supply problem in the west. people here no longer face the specter of starvation as a real threat. and being skinny, therefore, no longer represents a health risk. hence, the emergence of the modern, uber skinny model as the new ideal of feminine beauty.
See above.
Quote:
but you can't erase thousands of years of famine and disease. this is etched into our dna, and our cultural and (if you're into jung) our collective consciousness. hence, the persistent and widespread aversion to skinny models.
See above.
Quote:
you'll never be accused of writing elegantly, thinking concisely, or arguing cogently, slim. i can guarantee you that.
You'll never be accused of being able to grasp fundamental concepts of history, art, or science. You will also never be accused of making sense, having a cohesive argument (or knowing one when it hits you in the head), or knowing when you are wrong and should shut up before digging a hole you can't talk your way out of.
Quote:
you're trying too hard, slim. the last time you got this worked up you walked right into a trap and told everyone about your wee wee thing. you don't wanna repeat that mistake again, now, do you?
Actually, this is your poor reading comprehension at work again. I never said anything about the size of my penis other than that I was comfortable with it. It was you who first insinuated it was smaller than yours, regardless of your protestations to the contrary, you have proven your true intentions with your continued attempts at provocation. You continue to assert that yours is bigger, which I said I had no problem with you doing because it obviously makes you feel better about your annoying personality, lack of any discernible intelligence, and poor grasp of reality.
Quote:
stating something is not the same thing as proving it. you've done none of the latter, and far too much of the former.
Perhaps you need reading glasses. I have provided at least 100% more solid evidence to support my position than you have yours. If ANYONE reading this thread disagrees, please draw my attention to anything I may have missed.
Quote:
no. in their case, it's because they've been out-argued. in yours, it's because you've been out-argued AND outclassed. that's why you can't accept defeat gracefully and keep inventing silly excuses for your inadequate performance. oh, and then there's also that "little thing". you need to keep up this charade to SAVE FACE, an uber japanese thing.
You make me laugh. You keep deluding yourself like that (and making judgments on my motives) and you make yourself look like more of a fool than you already have. A: You have out-argued nobody except in MAYBE your own mind. I have a hard time thinking that even YOU really believe that. B: I am not really concerned about "saving face". I may look like a Jap, but I sure as hell don't think like one. Remember, I'm the guy who doesn't give a crap that you keep insulting my penis? I'm just having an extremely enjoyable time exposing you as an annoying buffoon, a troll, and a fraud. (I feel like I'm having extraordinary success here!) Plus I just like to win. I'm a big, hairy American winning machine! Yee Haw!
Quote:
if you're rhetorical ability is any indication, you don't have the talent, either.
Oh, I'm not sure about that. I think that at least 99.999% of the people in this thread think you are an idiot, just like I do. I'm just waiting until you realize it... then... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Quote:
well, it is annoying to lose an argument, isn't it?
I'm not sure, I'll let you know if it ever happens.
Quote:
especially when it's a sacred cow that's been sacrificed...
Sacred cow? Whew. Thats a stretch. Are you meaning to say that you think that Supermodels are immune to criticism? Or that the modern feminine body image is? Or maybe just that you think that I'm immune to criticism? Any way you cut it, none of the above are accurately described as a 'sacred cow'. Plenty of criticism has been leveled at all three things. Many times, by people MUCH smarter than you, and occasionally even with an actual point to make.
Quote:
another excuse: so everyone who disagrees with you must be a "troll"?. hmm, how droll.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Quote:
now i can see why the imperial navy was able to recruit kamikazes. enjoy your mission, slim. cause you're going up in flames, pee wee...
Hey everyone, look how big lightsky's penis is! God gave him that huge penis because he forgot to give him brains, personality, manners, a positive role model, good looks, parents that loved him, grooming habits, common sense, a pleasant or neutral body odor, taste, humility, or any other positive characteristics ! Do you see how utterly juvenile and retarded that sounds? Unfortunately this is what every single argument you make devolves into. Talking about my penis. The only possible reason you keep bringing that up is because its the only thing you can say at that I won't instantly logically refute or prove false. Why? Because honestly, the size of my penis is none of your business, no matter how badly you want to see it.
post #322 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
How is that a "good observation"? You read my posts - I wrote about a hundred times that worked in i-banking. [So you can read... big deal. For some reason that escapes me, you tried to guess where I work. You were wrong. Even if you guessed right, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?? Likewise, the fact that you pick up trash in your big green truck for a living has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.

i missed those posts. i picked it up from a couple of msgs about the "secondary watch market". as for gs, we hired them to do some work for us - hauling "green" trash, so to speak; they're good at that kind of stuff. as for guessing your employer (and rightly, i believe), it was just to personlize the msg to drive home the point that you were wasting company time pursuing cheap thrills on a supermodel thread. evidently, it worked.
post #323 of 408
Ha...

Just because I posted half a novel there, here are some NSFW pictures of my fav.

Beware, the following images contain boobs.


Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here
post #324 of 408
I am starting to think that Lightsky is actually Kim Kardashian; really pissed that we called her a fat ass.

Ummmm...sorry, Kim! You do have great hooters! There, now can you please stop being such a dickhead. Thanks!
post #325 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter View Post
I am starting to think that Lightsky is actually Kim Kardashian; really pissed that we called her a fat ass.

Ummmm...sorry, Kim! You do have great hooters! There, now can you please stop being such a dickhead. Thanks!

Well if thats the case, she shouldn't have anything to be mad about. She just got two million bucks from Vivid to distribute her home porno.

What would she care that a poor forklift driver thinks her ass is cartoonishly large.
post #326 of 408
Ji-Ae Im (임지애)







although #15, #23 and #6, while not pure beauties, do give her a run for the money.





post #327 of 408
how did i miss thiss thread?! Jesus you guys arhjaodnasdoasd
post #328 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Well, actually, what you did was throw out sweeping generalizations as to what "cultures" and "average guys" find attractive. And you also stated that there is such a thing as a "real woman" which everyone in the world outside of the US and Europe who is not skinny and white find attractive. Which is patently untrue, because I am an average guy, and so are most of the other people here. (nor am I skinny OR white)

i will respond to this gibberish later when i have time, pee wee, but i gotta tell ya you're not just a little rhetrorical tease, you are freakin IMPOTENT. but i guess that follows from the little brain and...
post #329 of 408
The New American Beauty: The Oven Stuffer

The American definition of beauty is changing for the first time in a generation.

By Tom Junod (more from this author)

12/1/2004, 12:00 AM\tESQUIRE MAGAZINE\t\t\t\t



Everybody now is beautiful or in the process of becoming so. Beauty, which previously provided an American alternative to aristocracy, is being made available to anyone who wants it enough. The model as paragon is passe'. With the almost anachronistic exception of the Victoria's Secret posse, models are strictly specialty items, and most men would gladly pass on the cubist waifs haunting the pages of, say, W for a chance at any of the healthy streaked blonds lining up for the services of The Bachelor. In response to sheer demand, the American definition of beauty is changing, or about to change, for the first time in at least a generation.

To figure out what that definition is changing to, we have to remember what it's changing from. "Natural beauty" was the ideal promoted in the '60s, and, amazingly, it was made to apply over the years to everybody from Katharine Ross to Christy Turlington. Madonna struck the first blow against it by putting beauty at the service not only of image but also of her will; the obesity epidemic and the acceptance of porn as an aesthetic finished it off. When beauty has become an elastic enough term to include the likes of Jenna Jameson and Britney Spears, it's safe to say that the whole concept has changed--but how?

Flesh goes off, flesh goes on--that's always been the measure of American cultural progress, and we have now entered an epoch of accretion. The new American beauty is busty rather than leggy. She is squat rather than tall. There is a kind of hardened voluptuousness to her. Her face is not angular; it is broad, almost swollen looking, for the American face, in general, has expanded along a horizontal axis. Her hair is streaked blond, and her teeth are unapologetically white. There is no better example of the new American beauty than the former child star Lindsay Lohan. It's not that Lohan, small of stature and yet almost ridiculously zaftig, is not a beauty; it's that she has made nature's role in the advancement of beauty moot.

And so now, when it comes time to name the new American beauties, we have to celebrate what makes them such a break from the past. The '60s and their idea of beauty gave us "chicks"; the new century gives us Oven Stuffers, after the eight-pound pullets straining against their shrink wrap in the meat section of your local supermarket. Nobody can look at one of those birds and think they look in any way "natural." They are so beyond the course of nature that their appeal becomes nearly patriotic; they are the SUVs of poultry. They have become the presiding metaphor for the new generation of American beauties, henceforth called the Oven Stuffer generation.

Britney Spears is an Oven Stuffer--the ur--Oven Stuffer. So is Christina. Beyonce' is an Oven Stuffer with talent. Jenna Bush is an Oven Stuffer. So is Julia Stiles. So is Erika Christensen. So is Jennie Finch, the pitcher for the U. S. women's softball team, which we were all advised to lust after during the Summer Olympics. Even the Olsen twins, who look as if they could use a few Oven Stuffers in their diet, have horizontally oriented Oven Stuffer faces. The last supermodel, Gisele Bundchen, is not an Oven Stuffer, but that's because she's Brazilian. She's tall and tan and young and lovely. We Americans are not that anymore. The American Century was also the century of American beauty--the century in which the American ideal of beauty touched every corner of the globe. We will probably not be able to sustain that kind of domination as we turn to the defense of our empire. But we need beauty more than ever. Our appetite for beauty is stronger than ever. We turn to the Oven Stuffers, because as a nation we never have been one to go hungry.
post #330 of 408


Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
To figure out what that definition is changing to, we have to remember what it's changing from. "Natural beauty" was the ideal promoted in the '60s, and, amazingly, it was made to apply over the years to everybody from Katharine Ross to Christy Turlington. Madonna struck the first blow against it by putting beauty at the service not only of image but also of her will; the obesity epidemic and the acceptance of porn as an aesthetic finished it off. When beauty has become an elastic enough term to include the likes of Jenna Jameson and Britney Spears, it's safe to say that the whole concept has changed--but how?

I love Junod as a writer and as a social critic, but the killer for this argument lies in the initial paragraph. The concept of what is beautiful is not universal, but a promoted ideal, in this case as a "natural"aestethic (unadorned, free of augumentation, lithe). But the average US woman is 5'4" and 140 lbs, and this size hasn't change all that much in 40 years. Marilyn Monroe would be a size 14 today, but she just predates his time frame of the natural beauty. The ideal fluctuates with time and the pendulum has swung away from the natural, which coincides nicely with the cultural zeitgeist that was the 1960s, to another perception of what makes for a beautiful woman. No mathematics or formulas will tell you. But the moment she opens her mouth will either enhance or diminish her beauty, for sure.

Now, more photos:
Linda Evangelista

Naomi Campbell
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Supermodels -- Who's the hottest?