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 23

post #331 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
The New American Beauty: The Oven Stuffer

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

By Tom Junod (ESQUIRE MAGAZINE)

Interesting article! Thanks for sharing it.

















got an itch, honey? here, let me scratch it... with my nose...
post #332 of 408
you didn't understand anything from my earlier post, so i'm going to have to spell this out so even you can't possibly claim "stupidity made me do it". and that's a pretty low bar to climb.

i'm going to put this up front so we know from the get-go where you've gone wrong. the fundamental mistake you're still making, slim, is thinking in terms of particular women or body types. my interest is in the principles that govern beauty, and to the extent i discuss particular women (like sms) it is from the pov of whether and how they embody some of these principles.

j lo, for example, has curvy hips. curvy hips, as i've already explained, are nature's signal to men of a woman's sexual maturity, her ability to concieve, carry and give birth. it is THIS aspect of j lo that interests me, because it is precisely this aspect of j lo that has universal appeal to men, and NOT j lo herself or her "body type". in other words, virtually all men will agree that hips that stand out from the waist is an attractive feature in women, even if they don't like j lo's body type or how far her hips stick out. it's the underlying principle of "shapely hips" that is germane, not the individual women, type, or hips.

the other thing you fail to understand is that to the extent i think there are any body types that have a "universal" appeal, it is NOT a body type that is "universally attractive" - because there are many body types that have widespread appeal (see my list) - but rather body types that are universally UNATTRACTIVE. the excessively skinny chick is, i believe, universally unattractive. yes, there will be some men who have a fetish for this kind of thing and there may be the odd culture which appreciates it because it has survival value in their unique environment; but by and large the vast majority of men will find this body type repugnant. why? because they violate the principle of insufficient body mass that i laid out earlier. ditto for the "morbidly obese" body type.

reread this if you have to. i am interested in the underlying principles of beauty, the reasons why we find some women beautiful and not others. i'm not interested in particular women or types except insofar as they do or do not represent these principle(s).
post #333 of 408
now, to answer your points in detail.


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.

but you said i claimed there was "one universally attractive body type". so now you admit you were wrong, and you're backtracking to cover up your mistake. shame on you, slim!

Quote:
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.

see what i mean: you're still fixated on individual women or body types.

what i said was this:

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.

"women built more like j lo than ms lima" is a reference to the many real women around the world who men find appealing, and NOT to j lo herself. and the emphasis on "built like" is no accident. the point wasn't that j lo is a "real woman" who has universal appeal. it is that j lo embodies some qualities that many real women share and that many men appreciate.

Quote:
What you meant to say was, SOME PEOPLE prefer women build more like J Lo.

not only is that what i meant to say, that is what i did say:

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky
your average guy around the world prefers women built more like j lo than ms lima.

the "average" guy doesn't represent "every" guy, slim. if the average japanese guy is 5'5", that doesn't mean that all japanese guys are 5'5"!

"average guy" simply means "many", and sometimes even "most", guys.

this is so obvious, only someone playing with words would bring it up.

Quote:
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.

huh?! so if the average japanese guy is 5' 5", that means the 5'7" or 5'1" guys are "deviants"?!

well, if you say so, pee wee. you're japanese, not me.

Quote:
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.

do you have a point?

so long as "universal", when speaking about "body types", is not misinterpreted to mean "everyone", then i've ALWAYS maintained that some women have widespread appeal. just look at my list.

Quote:
Wait a minute... now you are contradicting yourself again. See Below.

no. you're still confused. see above and below.

Quote:
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???

yes. and like i said off the top, you missed it entirely.

let me put it this way. any particular woman or "type" is not going to be appealing to EVERYONE. but the more principles a woman or type embodies, the wider her appeal will be.

the only things that are truly "universal" and appeal to (virtually) everyone are the underlying principles. and these are based on the time-tested survival value of evolved human qualities and attributes.

get it, now?


Quote:
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.

it would be a lot easier if you could read AND think.

i've been consistent from the get-go, saying that it is the underlying principles that are germane. you continue to miss this point. see above.


Quote:
But you have yet to address the point I raised eariler that only a small minority of Supermodels have been "uber-thin", 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.

compare a sm to the average woman of that height, and you will find she is alarmingly slight. compare a sm to the average woman with those measurements, and you will find she is amazingly tall. this size chart for women from bb will make my point:

size\tbra\twaist\thips
0\t32\t24.5\t35
2\t33\t25.5\t36
4\t34\t26.5\t37

and so on. the size 0 woman is typically 5'4". yet she has the same hips as a much taller sm!

sms are freakishly skinny by the standards of the average woman. they lie way out on the end of the distribution. if they are a little bigger than some models, well, that's great. but most models (at that level) are uber thin. so being a little bigger than uber thin is like the guy with the 75 iq saying that he isn't dumb at all because the guy next to him is a 65!

(btw, i'll let you and your brother decide who is the 75 and who is the 65.)

Quote:
I know, this is what I've been trying to tell you for like 18 pages now

but you have no clue why this is true. that's why you continue to argue.
post #334 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by amerikajinda View Post



Omg I love that pic. There are hotter models than Adriana Lima, but so much personality shines through in her photos that it's impossible not to her.
post #335 of 408
Quote:
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...Each individual person has a different idea of what he finds attractive.

so you're saying there are no differences at all between cultures? that, for example, japanese men prefer the same things as black men in america?

everyone knows this is nonsense.

in fact, just to give you one example, i read the summary of a study that looked at the preferences of black and white men in the states. there was a measurable and statistically significant difference between these racial groups. not surprisingly, the black guys preferred bigger women than the white guys, confirming the common stereotypes.

despite wide invididual variation, culture, in the main, has predictable effects on individual preferences and choices.

Quote:
Each individual person has a different idea of what he finds attractive.

of course, "every individual is different, etc". but does the fact that every individual in japan doesn't look the same mean that there is no such thing as a uniquely japanese "look"? or a japanese race?

culture shapes us. true, not entirely as there is individual variation. but the influence is there and will stamp everyone to some degree.

Quote:
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.

and you think the distributions of africans, cubans, mexicans, asians would be exactly the same within each of these groups?

you think just as many japanese as africans will find her butt attractive?

you're insane.


Quote:
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)

i see. so you're a principled thief? how salutory.

and if you feel so strongly about these "scum", why do you even bother to WATCH THE VIDEO? or talk about these people on public boards (which only generates more buzz)?

is that based on "principle", too.

Quote:
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.

but WTF are YOU even watching this in the first place??? you think her butt is "grotesque"! why are you watching a PORN video of a chick with a "grotesque butt"?

you're a f*&$&) holier-than-thou hypocrite, slim.

at least i don't look at sms. i've never even seen these girls before this thread.

sheesh!


Quote:
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?

no it's not "purely subjective". if sms types have no problems surviving, why the hell aren't there many, many more of them? why hasn't evolution selected for this type if they are so beautiful and healthy?

you have never answered this question.


Quote:
Yes, as we've scientifically determined, morbidly obese women are generally not considered attractive in this day and age.

there's no need to do any studies. everyone knows instinctively this is true. why? because of our common evolutionary heritage.

Quote:
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.

but i thought you didn't believe culture had any influence?!

you can't even keep your sad story straight.

and if we humor you and consider this point, then the images that come to mind are nude paintings from europe and classical greek sculptures, and the figures of feminine beauty there were NOT thin at all, but actually quite fat by our modern standards.

but since this is your claim, go ahead and prove it. go and fetch the citations that show everything you're claiming here.

Quote:
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?

you never got started, slim.

when exactly do you think human evolution started, slim? in 10,000 bc?!

the first humans appeared about 100,000 years ago, pee wee. but the evolution of our ancestors had been going on for millions of years before that.

you are so stupid, slim. no wonder you don't get the evolution point.

as for this purported recent history, i believe i did say there are cultural factors, too, such as the one that has brought us the modern uber thin model. you would have to study each of these periods to see what the prevailing conditions were. but since the fortunes of different peoples is highly variable, ranging from boom to bust, it is no surprise that there would be some variation in ideals of beauty as well. that's how CULTURE works.

nevertheless, this would not vitiate the lessons learned over the millions of years of evolution. that is in our genes, and it ain't going anywhere.

Quote:
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.

this is easy to explain. people adapt to the environments in which they find themselves. sumer, babylon, etc lie in cooler climes where a larger body helps preserve precious body heat. conversely, egypt and africa lie in warmer climes where smaller bodies assist in heat dissipation. thin is better in warmer climates. but TOO thin is not good anywhere.
post #336 of 408
Quote:
You'll never be accused of being able to grasp fundamental concepts of history, art, or science.

coming from someone who thinks evolution started in 10k bc and has no influence on human nature or our behavior, that is high praise, indeed.

Quote:
You will also never be accused of making sense, having a cohesive argument

many, many times actually. i'm a repeat offender, a serial rationalist.

Quote:
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.

WRONG. you were the one who interpreted "big guy" as referring to your penis. NOT ME. and judging by your defensiveness, it's clear to anyone who wasn't born yesterday that you have a little problem down there.


Quote:
Perhaps you need reading glasses. I have provided at least 100% more solid evidence to support my position than you have yours.

an electron microscope couldn't uncover your "evidence", slim.

all that comes to mind is some claim about fat chicks in 10,000 bc, which perplexes me because you say you like skinny chicks, yet you keep revealing that you spend your spare time checking out fat chicks...does anyone else find this strange?

Quote:
If ANYONE reading this thread disagrees, please draw my attention to anything I may have missed.

LOL. see above!

Quote:
You make me laugh.

like i said, they don't call me chubby chase for nothing.

Quote:
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.

good. then you don't mind being humiliated.

Quote:
Remember, I'm the guy who doesn't give a crap that you keep insulting my penis?

is that why you keep bringing it up?

Quote:
(I feel like I'm having extraordinary success here!)

when you wake up you might see things differently.

Quote:
Plus I just like to win. I'm a big, hairy American winning machine! Yee Haw!

is this what they call an "ugly american"?

Quote:
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!

if you're going to wait on me, then i'll take a martini, extra dry, pls...

Quote:
Sacred cow? Whew. Thats a stretch. Are you meaning to say that you think that Supermodels are immune to criticism?

can't speak for sms, but the people who fawn over them certainly aren't.

Quote:
Or maybe just that you think that I'm immune to criticism?

i know that criticism isn't immune to you.

Quote:
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.

it's always good to know that smart people agree with me.

answer: well,
Quote:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

question: why was slim checking out the black dude in that video?

Quote:
Hey everyone, look how big lightsky's penis is!

with enemies like this, who needs friends?

Quote:
God gave him that huge penis because he forgot to give him brains, personality, manners, etc

you like me! you really, really like me!

Quote:
Unfortunately this is what every single argument you make devolves into. Talking about my penis.

we can talk about bigger things if you want.

Quote:
Because honestly, the size of my penis is none of your business,

then you should never have mentioned it in the first place.
post #337 of 408
Geebus...stop the threadcrapping, please.
post #338 of 408
post #339 of 408
post #340 of 408
ok to Summarize, lightsky likes fat bitches, Slim likes skinny girls, but LS thinks that eveyone else should like girls with Grotesque asses/hips because its "naturally more attractive" because "big hips=Mature/fertile"

LS' dream girl:




My dream girl:




Slim's Dream girl



Thread OVER!
post #341 of 408
Leticia Casta's boobs are retarded.
post #342 of 408
eurasian model jessica michibata
post #343 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
j lo, for example, has curvy hips. curvy hips, as i've already explained, are nature's signal to men of a woman's sexual maturity, her ability to concieve, carry and give birth. it is THIS aspect of j lo that interests me, because it is precisely this aspect of j lo that has universal appeal to men, and NOT j lo herself or her "body type". in other words, virtually all men will agree that hips that stand out from the waist is an attractive feature in women, even if they don't like j lo's body type or how far her hips stick out. it's the underlying principle of "shapely hips" that is germane, not the individual women, type, or hips.
So what you are saying that "hips that stick out" is a completely subjective measurement. There are lots of guys who think Adrianna Lima's hips stick out enough to be attractive ( I don't think I've ever seen a non plus-size model who's waist and hips were the same dimension). Maybe you should just come right out and tell me what the whole point of putting down supermodels is, because its obvious that the above post has nothing to do with it. You just it yourself.
Quote:
the other thing you fail to understand is that to the extent i think there are any body types that have a "universal" appeal, it is NOT a body type that is "universally attractive" - because there are many body types that have widespread appeal (see my list) - but rather body types that are universally UNATTRACTIVE. the excessively skinny chick is, i believe, universally unattractive. yes, there will be some men who have a fetish for this kind of thing and there may be the odd culture which appreciates it because it has survival value in their unique environment; but by and large the vast majority of men will find this body type repugnant. why? because they violate the principle of insufficient body mass that i laid out earlier. ditto for the "morbidly obese" body type.
I wish you'd stop beating around the bush and give us what your HARD definition of excessively skinny is. In my, and many, many other people's minds, supermodels are not excessively skinny. In my opinion, Nicole Ritchie at one point was excessively skinny. And yet, someone still managed to impregnate her, leading one to believe that my version of excessively skinny isn't shared by at some people, and its not stopping her from bearing children. I have never seen an excessively skinny supermodel. You can say, "the vast majority of men" find excessively skinny women repugnant, but I am telling you that the vast majority of men have extremely divergent opinions on what excessively skinny looks like, and I'm willing to bet that at least half of them don't consider Supermodels to be excessively skinny. I don't find excessively skinny women attractive either, for the record.
Quote:
reread this if you have to. i am interested in the underlying principles of beauty, the reasons why we find some women beautiful and not others. i'm not interested in particular women or types except insofar as they do or do not represent these principle(s).
Thats the problem, your ideas regarding "underlying principals" are flawed by your assumption that everyone shares your values. They don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
now, to answer your points in detail. but you said i claimed there was "one universally attractive body type". so now you admit you were wrong, and you're backtracking to cover up your mistake. shame on you, slim!
You said that women built more like J-lo were considered more attractive than women built like Adrianna Lima everywhere except the US and Europe. That is what you said. If you weren't referring to her body type, your choice of the words "built like" were VERY POOR. If I were to say that a woman was built more like like Oprah Winfrey, what would you think that I meant? The "underlying principals" of physical beauty (at least the ones you've mentioned which all happen to be below the neck) and her "body type" in regards to any woman, are the SAME DAMN THING.
Quote:
"women built more like j lo than ms lima" is a reference to the many real women around the world who men find appealing, and NOT to j lo herself. and the emphasis on "built like" is no accident. the point wasn't that j lo is a "real woman" who has universal appeal. it is that j lo embodies some qualities that many real women share and that many men appreciate.
Oh, so now we are down to "many", not "normal", "regular", "all latin, black, and arab guys", "most" or "a vast majority" as before. I must be getting to you. You are becoming more realistic with every change in your position.
Quote:
not only is that what i meant to say, that is what i did say:
Its pretty clear what you said from the quote I posted. Everyone got it but you.
Quote:
the "average" guy doesn't represent "every" guy, slim. if the average japanese guy is 5'5", that doesn't mean that all japanese guys are 5'5"! "average guy" simply means "many", and sometimes even "most", guys. this is so obvious, only someone playing with words would bring it up.
Actually, using your analogy the way you are using it, it doesn't mean "many" or even "most". It just means that over the RANGE OF HEIGHTS RECORDED, you can add up the sum and divide by the total amount of numbers and get the height of 5'5". It is the rough median of a widely divergent group of numbers, hardly representative of any actual physical data more specific than that. I'm sure that many Japanese men are 5'5" - but due to the effect of standard deviation from the mean, there are going to be at least as many, if not more people that are over and under 5'5" than are exactly that height. It's a little different when you aren't measuring quantitative numbers. Which is why your opinion that "average" people like anything cannot possibly be true, considering that nobody has ever bothered to analyze or define what is considered "attractive" in that area on more than the most basic level. Yes, women with hips larger than their waists are considered attractive. BUT HOW MUCH LARGER is purely subjective, and to the best of my knowledge has never been measured on a person by person basis of any large and diverse control group by a credible source besides the extremely limited studies on the "golden ratio" of waist to hip proportion. Which most supermodels fall squarely into, (including Kate Moss and Adriana Lima), Marylin Monroe, Twiggy, Sophia Loren, Jennifer Lopez, and most other attractive women. The other study that you might want to look at is the various BMI attractiveness studies. From the preliminary indications, BMI has more precise bearing on attractiveness than the waist to hip ratio. The women found most attractive have a BMI index of 17 to 20. The average BMI of a Western supermodel is 18 which means that most people studied found them attractive, thus again disproving your argument that most people don't find them appealing.
Quote:
huh?! so if the average japanese guy is 5' 5", that means the 5'7" or 5'1" guys are "deviants"?!
That is what you seem to be implying. What you implied was that people who didn't find large hips and asses attractive were not "average". (which we must assume that you just "made up" since to the best of my knowledge no such study exists)
Quote:
well, if you say so, pee wee. you're japanese, not me.
I'm as Irish as I am Japanese. And in reality I'm neither, I'm an American.
Quote:
do you have a point?
Do you?
Quote:
so long as "universal", when speaking about "body types", is not misinterpreted to mean "everyone", then i've ALWAYS maintained that some women have widespread appeal. just look at my list.
Yes, your list is quite convincing. I don't doubt that many men find J-Lo and Kim Kardashian attractive. That is not what we have been arguing. I personally think J-Lo is pretty hot, and Kim K horrible. But the fact remains that your list of women with widespread appeal is not complete. You are only listing the women with "widespread appeal" that YOU happen to agree with, and not the ones that actually happen to have widespread appeal. So your list is wrong. Every scientific study available proves my point (supermodels are indeed attractive) and disproves yours (that most people find supermodels unattractive) I could give a rats ass about your personal preferences. You are wrong about "most people".
Quote:
the only things that are truly "universal" and appeal to (virtually) everyone are the underlying principles. and these are based on the time-tested survival value of evolved human qualities and attributes. get it, now?
I have gotten it much better than you, apparently.
Quote:
i've been consistent from the get-go, saying that it is the underlying principles that are germane. you continue to miss this point. see above.
No, YOU see above.
Quote:
compare a sm to the average woman of that height, and you will find she is alarmingly slight. compare a sm to the average woman with those measurements, and you will find she is amazingly tall.
Again, your point is moot. They are Supermodels, not average women. They are also not "alarmingly slight" they have BMI's below the mean average, but within the category found "most attractive" by the most males studied.
Quote:
The size 0 woman is typically 5'4". yet she has the same hips as a much taller sm!
I'd like to see you come up with any REAL evidence to prove that this means anything or that it is anything other than made up nonsense. Women's clothes manufacturers do not have a standardized "0" size, and they lie like dogs in order to flatter their clients, so I have no idea how you can with a straight face, say "typically", an assertion which can not be accurately proven on a scale outside a particular store and may have nothing at all to do with what a supermodel wears. A person who wears a size 0 at Banana Republic or Old Navy is wearing what is probably a size 2, 4 or even 8 at another store.
Quote:
sms are freakishly skinny by the standards of the average woman. they lie way out on the end of the distribution. if they are a little bigger than some models, well, that's great. but most models (at that level) are uber thin. so being a little bigger than uber thin is like the guy with the 75 iq saying that he isn't dumb at all because the guy next to him is a 65!
You are freakishly obsessed with "average" which still actually means nothing in the context you are using it in. The "average" AMERICAN woman between the ages of 17 and 30 in various studies done in the past few years is static right around 23 on the BMI chart. (BMI is generally lower for tall people, higher for short) Which is within 2-3 point of the supermodel's average BMI of 18 considering that the average modern supermodel's height puts her amongst the top 5% of measured women. a 5'10" 125lb under 35 year old woman is quoted as "desirable" and "healthy" with a BMI of 18 on the US index chart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsky View Post
so you're saying there are no differences at all between cultures? that, for example, japanese men prefer the same things as black men in america? everyone knows this is nonsense.
Oh really? I'd like to see you prove that. Otherwise, I'll stick with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by North American Association For The Study Of Obesity
Participants were 801 women and 428 men: 23% Asian, 45% Hispanic, 17% black, and 15% white. The figure rating scale was used to rate: body dissatisfaction, attractive male and female shapes, acceptable female size, and perceptions of underweight to obese female figures. In summary, when controlling for age, BMI, and educational level, for men there were no ethnic differences in perceptions of attractive and acceptable figures, and for women there were very few ethnic differences. White women did think that men preferred a thinner figure, but this difference was small.
Quote:
in fact, just to give you one example, i read the summary of a study that looked at the preferences of black and white men in the states. there was a measurable and statistically significant difference between these racial groups. not surprisingly, the black guys preferred bigger women than the white guys, confirming the common stereotypes.
Find it. We'll see who's study is more credible.
Quote:
despite wide invididual variation, culture, in the main, has predictable effects on individual preferences and choices.
Yes, very predictable, just not necessarily in the way you mean.
Quote:
and you think the distributions of africans, cubans, mexicans, asians would be exactly the same within each of these groups?
Yep. As shown in the aforementioned study.
Quote:
you think just as many japanese as africans will find her butt attractive? you're insane.
Maybe, but since I have come up with proof, and you have come up with nothing but stereotype, supposition, bias, bullshit, and static for dozens of pages now, maybe YOU are the one who's insane.
Quote:
i see. so you're a principled thief? how salutory.
I think you misunderstand the point of my post. I didn't steal on principal, I steal because I have contempt for the principals.
Quote:
and if you feel so strongly about these "scum", why do you even bother to WATCH THE VIDEO? or talk about these people on public boards (which only generates more buzz)?
How do you know they are scum? I implied no such thing. I said that Kim Kardashian was a spoiled debutante who got paid 2 million dollars to sell her sex tape to people who would exploit her level of minor celebrity to try and get even richer than they already are. All of which is true.
Quote:
but WTF are YOU even watching this in the first place??? you think her butt is "grotesque"! why are you watching a PORN video of a chick with a "grotesque butt"? you're a f*&$&) holier-than-thou hypocrite, slim.
Really? I'm a hypocrite? Fascinating. You are an idiot. Have you ever eaten food that tasted so bad that you spit out? Why did you put it in your mouth if you didn't like the taste of it? Hypocrite!!! God, you are so dumb. How was I supposed to know her ass was faker than a 3 dollar bill before I watched the video? Its not like she was famous BEFORE that.. And if you are going to swear when you call me names, don't be such a pussy about it.
Quote:
at least i don't look at sms. i've never even seen these girls before this thread. sheesh!
Funny, you seem to be plenty famiiar with them. You mentioned Cindy Crawford, Kate Moss, and etc. by name and generally know what they look like. Are you just guessing about all this stuff or just making it up? That may explain why you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Quote:
no it's not "purely subjective". if sms types have no problems surviving, why the hell aren't there many, many more of them? why hasn't evolution selected for this type if they are so beautiful and healthy? you have never answered this question.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of evolution, genetics, and pretty much everything. I'm getting tired of explaining things to you which you ignore and move on to your next inane point (or repeat the same one several times, and then change it so that you don't look like an idiot when I get around to properly addressing it) If it makes you feel any better, humans HAVE been evolving to be taller over the course of history (which also means proportionately thinner and with longer extremities than, for example, our olde medieval ancestors.) Give it time, man, time. If things keep progressing along the same scale as they have in the past, a few hundred years or so, we will all be seven plus feet tall and some idiot will be bitching about how the 250lb models are way underweight and look like little boys. And you and I will likely still be having this argument.
Quote:
and if we humor you and consider this point, then the images that come to mind are nude paintings from europe and classical greek sculptures, and the figures of feminine beauty there were NOT thin at all, but actually quite fat by our modern standards. but since this is your claim, go ahead and prove it. go and fetch the citations that show everything you're claiming here.
You are so lazy you are going to make me do this myself aren't you. Well, not tonight pal. Look it up your damn self. Take the time periods I mentioned and examine the body shapes prevalent in the artwork of the period. You will see the ideal body shape portrayed in media go from fat to thin to fat to thin to fat to thin about a half dozen times, with stops on the way for curvaceous, and the strange "emaciated pregnancy" period, where you weren't considered feminine unless you were gravid and malnourished.
Quote:
you never got started, slim.
Not only did I start, I FINISHED ALREADY and am waiting for you to catch up. Obviously you are so convinced you are right, you refuse to acknowledge how overwhelmingly one sided my argument against you is. You have given me nothing to prove your points. I have given you at least half a dozen threads with at least a kernel of factual information in them to prove mine. When are you going to start backing up your position with more than bullshit and juvenile tactics?
Quote:
when exactly do you think human evolution started, slim? in 10,000 bc?!
Again, you are an idiot. No. This is when people started creating and storing lasting art, sculpture, and etc. specifically of the female form for future generations to peruse, which is the best indication we have of the idealized female form of the day, which WAS THE ENTIRE POINT of the post you just ignored, and this very reason for this thread!
Quote:
this is easy to explain. people adapt to the environments in which they find themselves. sumer, babylon, etc lie in cooler climes where a larger body helps preserve precious body heat. conversely, egypt and africa lie in warmer climes where smaller bodies assist in heat dissipation. thin is better in warmer climates. but TOO thin is not good anywhere.
Oh really? I hate to point out your further ignorance, but observe the following map: Look at Iraq. See Baghdad and Al Hillah. Ancient Sumeria was right near the present day Baghdad, Babylon was near present day Al Hillah. Most of the major seats of power of the Egyptian empire, which were only roughly 900 miles away on nearly the same latitude. There's a reason why all the cities in that area were built near rivers. THE WHOLE AREA IS A HOT ASS DESERT.
post #344 of 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron View Post
Leticia Casta's boobs are retarded.

How so?

post #345 of 408
Lightsky, I hadn't even looked in on this thread but I was hoping to find 23 pages of hot girl pictures, and you make me sad. Stop posting in this thread or you will be banned. Thanks.

Now, more Lima y/et Casta por favor/s'il vous plait!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Supermodels -- Who's the hottest?