Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
jchapman@tnrltd.com (J. Chapman) wrote: >In message <4qohrv$g85@news0-alterdial.uu.net> - Gail Thaler <gthaler@cs.com> w >rites: >> >>Ken Smith <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote: >>>Organization: a2i network >>> >>>In article <4qfbli$m9a@news.kincyb.com>, <Tin_User@news.kincyb.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>>>moving into society again, the anorexic look is back (and this is >>>>not the creation of men, I don't know any men who think these women >>>>are attractive, and anyway they only model in women's magazines). >>>>Does anyone have a possible explenation for this? Theory? Is >>>>it related to why eating disorders have become a more noticable >>>>problem during the past twenty years? Or is there no >>>>correlation? >>> >>> >>>You may be on to something here. The "skin and bones" model does seem to >>>show up on the cover of "womens magazines". I havent checked a cover of >>>Play Boy to be sure, but I'd bet the woman on the cover has a higher body >>>fat content than the one on the cover of the "womens magazines". If the >>>size used for models was based on what is most physically attractive to >>>men you would expect the two covers to have the same sort of woman. >>>Obviously something other than physical attractiveness must be driving the >>>fashion. >>> >>>The changes in fashions for womens clothes are easier to understand. >>>Magazines get their income from advertizers and advertizers get their >>>income by selling the latest fashion. It is obviously in the self >>>interest of the magazine to tell women that they need to buy all new >>>clothes. I cant come up with a similar motivation for the cycles in body >>>weights. >>> >>>Perhaps clothing designers just run out of ideas for what looks good on >>>one type of women and switch models to ones they havent designed for in a >>>while. The fashion industry makes sheep look like independant thinkers >>>so they would all tend to move together from one ideal to a different one. >>> >>The only difference I see in men's magazines and women's magazines >>in regard to women's bodies is that the women in men's magazines >>have had breast implants. > >Really? You can tell this just by looking? How do you do that? > >>They are extremely thin but have big breasts. > >Actually they usually look quite robust and far from the anorexic look >that periodically shows up in womens fashions and is currently being >discussed in the news. Perhaps you aren't reading enough men's magazines. > Well, let me see. I happen to have a copy of Playboy right here. March 1966. Lovely cover of a "stripper" dressed in a child's school uniform. Throughout the issue, only Priscilla would be considered anywhere near the average women's size regarding fat ratio. And the breasts on most women certainly seem out of proportion to their size. As one cannot grow bigger breasts naturally... >>But then I heard a male designer complain that breasts got in the >>way of his designs. Ruined the line of this clothing!! >> >>