# Barbie's ankles are too fat!?



## Judge_Dre (Oct 13, 2009)

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyl...outin_showing_how_outoftouch_designers_c.html


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 13, 2009)

*Latest 'Barbie-fat' flap shows how out-of-touch fashion designers can be*

*Joanna Molloy
*
Tuesday, October 13th 2009, 6:24 AM

So now Christian Louboutin thinks Barbie has cankles.

The French stiletto maker is redesigning the classic American doll to come out here in May.

Considered a genius by Ciara and Angelina Jolie for slathering red lacquer on the bottom of 5-inch heels, Louboutin "found Barbie's ankles too fat," Women's Wear Daily reports.

Never mind that Louboutin's people now insist it's not the ankles, but the arches, that the designer is making Mattel change on his new stick-legged Barbie. This could be the biggest scandal for the toymaker since Pregnant Midge.

Does this mean Barbie's bff, "So In Style Trichelle," will soon get a tummy tuck? Will it be implants for "Fashion Fever Kira"?

This comes on the, um, heels of Louboutin's fellow Parisian Karl Lagerfeld's declaration that: "No one wants to see curvy women. You've got fat mothers with their bags of chips sitting in front of the television and saying that thin models are ugly."

Fat mothers. Nice. The Chanel designer, who just stopped carbo-loading a few years ago, was reacting to the decision of editors at the magazine Brigitte to replace skinny models with "real women" in fashion shoots.

Is Lagerfeld afraid his designs won't really work unless you're a size zero? How hard is it to make Lily Allen or Audrey Tautou, his spokesmodels, look good? Or Kate Moss or Nicole Kidman?

Since publication of the book "French Women Don't Get Fat," we've known that French women are thinner than American women - 9% overweight versus 60%.

If you find this Gauling, know that the contempt for women who don't have the bodies of girls - or even boys - isn't restricted to designers in France.

Last week, Ralph Lauren was forced to admit that his staff had severely Photoshopped model Filippa Hamilton in one of his ads after blogger Cory Doctorow humiliated him on boingboing.net

"Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis," Doctorow exclaimed - and the outcry went viral. Ditto when Self magazine airbrushed pounds off Kelly Clarkson.

Yet in August, readers exulted when Glamour featured the photograph of model Lizzi Miller. Yes, she looks like Grace Kelly, but the tall 20-year-old is 180 pounds. She was in the nude, and the flaws showed. Young women saw something familiar: themselves, and they were happy about it.

It matters.

This month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 25% of girls in American high schools and 11% of boys reported eating disorders.

Worse, a Mayo Clinic study found anorexia is spreading to young children, with Dr. Barton Blinder reporting patients as young as 4.

The new American role models aren't fashion models on the Tic Tac-and-cigarettes diet, but athletic women like Michelle Obama.

Any designer who doesn't recognize that will be left behind as the next generation gets healthier and stronger.

By the way, didn't Lagerfeld feature fur-covered helmets as an accessory at his latest runway show? Why do we listen to this guy?

[email protected] 

View attachment alg_split_model_barbie.jpg


View attachment amd_fashion_christian_louboutin.jpg


----------



## Jack Skellington (Oct 13, 2009)

Oh, good grief. Crap like this wouldn't have happened when Ruth was in charge. They really need to start designing Barbie for girls again and not male fashion designers.


----------



## kioewen (Oct 13, 2009)

It's very telling that after decades upon decades of customer complaints about Barbie being too thin, the company does nothing. Complaints from women; complaints from eating-disorder organizations. Nothing. Nada. No curvier Barbie, ever, let alone a plus-size Barbie.

But then, one single gay fashion designer dislikes one feature of the model, and the company can't change the doll fast enough.

There is something far more powerful than money involved here. I presume that most of the people who work on the Barbie line are women. There is something very telling that these women prioritize the opinion of one gay fashion designer over that of countless thousands of women who've complained about the doll's skinniness.

That leads to a question for a different thread: What the heck is it with women that they put SO much stock in what gay fashion designers think?


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 13, 2009)

Would it be better if it were "straight" fashion designers? What is so remarkable about Louboutin's gayness that you have to point it out as somehow being part of the issue here? Please, don't grind your personal axe on the stone of SA.


----------



## mossystate (Oct 13, 2009)

While I deplore the slicing and dicing, let's remember that Barbie has, since day one, looked like what was ' in '( according to a very narrow mindset ) at the time. Perhaps a group of heterosexual strip club fans had a hand in sculpting the first Barbies? 

View attachment 71531



How much of the outraged really give a shit what is forcefed little girls. Really.

Oh, and, what Fasc said.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Oct 13, 2009)

I need to vent a bit. Mattel has lost their way with Barbie. 

When Ruth Handler came up with the concept it was revolutionary. No one in the toy industry had ever asked girls what they wanted, what their hopes and dreams were. Ruth was told Barbie would never sell and girls only wanted baby dolls. Ruth knew better by watching her daughter and her friends play and actually _asking_ them what they would like instead of _telling _them. 

Barbie was all about letting girls live out their dreams and fantasies like boys had been doing with their toys. That really resonated with girls and mothers and Barbie was a instant smash hit much to the surprise of the men at Mattel as well as the retailers that were initially not interested in the doll. Through Barbie's heyday through the 60s to probably the mid 80s, Barbie's designs were always dictated by what girls wanted at the time. Charlotte Johnson was the fashion designer and created Barbie's iconic fashions. You know, back when they were still good. 

The last Barbie line Ruth actively worked on was Barbie and the Rockers in the mid 80s. There hasn't been a truly iconic or memorable Barbie since. 

What a male fashion designer wants should not even be taken into consideration in designing a Barbie. Mattel needs to go back to to it's roots and actually ask girls again.

Vent over. I feel a little better.


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 14, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Would it be better if it were "straight" fashion designers? What is so remarkable about Louboutin's gayness that you have to point it out as somehow being part of the issue here? Please, don't grind your personal axe on the stone of SA.



Yeah, it would, actually. Who do gay men find attractive? Men, and these gay men specifically find rail-thin men attractive. So female models are looking like the kind of men that these fashion designers find attractive. This is in direct contrast to what straight men normally find attractive. Straight men normally like a woman to have at least a few curves, maybe not BBWs, but a few.

If it were straight men or women who were fashion designers, we'd see normal-sized women as models, not rail-thin women. So yes, his homosexuality is actually a very big part of the issue.


----------



## Mini (Oct 14, 2009)

Son of Canklegate!


----------



## Wild Zero (Oct 14, 2009)

This just in over the Dims wire, THERE IS NO BEAR SUBCULTURE IN THE GAY COMMUNITY


----------



## Tooz (Oct 14, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> The last Barbie line Ruth actively worked on was Barbie and the Rockers in the mid 80s. There hasn't been a truly iconic or memorable Barbie since.



I absolutely loved those dolls.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 14, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> If it were straight men or women who were fashion designers, we'd see normal-sized women as models, not rail-thin women. So yes, his homosexuality is actually a very big part of the issue.



Those pesky gays, taking perfectly good fashion jobs away from straight men!


----------



## msbard90 (Oct 14, 2009)

I think if barbies "cankles" (hrmhrm BS) little girls would bite them off.
Its purely a safety issue


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Those pesky gays, taking perfectly good fashion jobs away from straight men!



You know darn well that's not the issue, and don't try to make that the issue. This is not about being anti-gay. This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that? If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive, which is thin men.

So as long as most fashion designers are gay men, models are going to look like teenage boys. That is just the way it is, because that is what these gay men find most attractive. If fashion designers were men from this site, models would look like the women on the paysite board. That's why his homosexuality is important to this, because it determines what he finds attractive.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 15, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> You know darn well that's not the issue, and don't try to make that the issue. This is not about being anti-gay. This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that? If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive, which is thin men.
> 
> So as long as most fashion designers are gay men, models are going to look like teenage boys. That is just the way it is, because that is what these gay men find most attractive. If fashion designers were men from this site, models would look like the women on the paysite board. That's why his homosexuality is important to this, because it determines what he finds attractive.



I've actually always believed this. Just look at what kind of body the "ideal" fashion model has. She is normally taller than 5'8". Has virtually no hips. Her chest is flat. Doesn't that sound like what a typical male body looks like? It never made much sense to me that not just gay men, but men in general were so dominate in woman's fashion. What the fashion word needs is a greater influx of women designers. At least they would know actually how it feels to try to fit into those kind of clothes.


----------



## BBW4Chattery (Oct 15, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> So as long as most fashion designers are gay men, models are going to look like teenage boys. That is just the way it is, because that is what these gay men find most attractive. If fashion designers were men from this site, models would look like the women on the paysite board. That's why his homosexuality is important to this, because it determines what he finds attractive.



I disagree with this in the big picture (but not with your reference to this being a key issue in finding Barbie's ankles appropriately attractive, etc). 

I'm a woman; a fat woman. I find beauty in tall, thin women as easily as I find beauty in overweight women. Some clothes will NEVER look good on my body type while they may look stunning on someone who is 5'11'' and 120 lbs. I won't buy something if it looks bad on someone else and that's my first exposure to it. With so many choices out there, why on earth would I waste my time?

Ask most overweight chicks and they will tell you that shopping is hard. Even with all of the options out there now for us, which are double what they were 10 years ago, it's still really super hard to find cute stuff to flatter our shape. Is it because no one designs for us or is it because round is just not easy to dress?

I think it's the latter of the two... what kind of present is easiest to wrap? A puzzle in a rectangle box or a basketball? Which will have the prettiest edges, take less creativity to create, and the least effort to complete? By nature of our shape, fitting us is just more difficult... 

I see it as an economic decision. Runway shows lead to consumer lines that lead to retail sales which is a BROAD market of multiple sizes. Basic math will tell you that you want to reach as many of that group as possible. 

So, hanging your clothes on a stick thin model who is practically nothing more than a hanger that walks, talks, and spins will show them off without the complication of trying to fit a particular body type. The models are the anti-body; no curves to fit or feature.

I think modeling gravitating to the tall, thin models not out of a warped sense of beauty, but out of convenience for the designer. The most basic part of all of human tangible structure is our skeleton, and those don't vary nearly as much as our tissues. The more thin, the closer to the natural skeletal shape, the more consistency among expectations and being able to predict how something will flow, hang, etc.

If models WERE the size of the ladies on this board, it still wouldn't represent us all. There would just be the same sentiments popping up from normal sized girls or stick thin girls (who do have a hard time finding reasonably priced clothes too because of their smaller size) or even those of us BBW's who weren't included in the newest group of socially lauded beauties.

Just my opinion; of course.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 15, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that? If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive, which is thin men.



Wank logic.

Wank. Wank. Fail.

Also, how many gay civil engineers design bridges that look like attractive men?

How many gay mathematicians work only with numbers that remind them of hot guys?

None.

Know why?



And if you're so eager to oust gay men from the fashion professions, how about you just start designing some fashions right now and launch your own line next spring, instead of wasting your time maligning gayness? 

Who, exactly, is going to categorically prohibit gay people from becoming fashion designers? The government? Or do you expect gay people to bow out of fashion design for the good of all else? 

How do you account for the many gay people who _are_ working, designing fashions for fat women?

You're talking nonsense and you need to stop bandying your homophobia around in the name of SA.


----------



## Friday (Oct 15, 2009)

BBW4Chattery said:


> I disagree with this in the big picture (but not with your reference to this being a key issue in finding Barbie's ankles appropriately attractive, etc).
> 
> I'm a woman; a fat woman. I find beauty in tall, thin women as easily as I find beauty in overweight women. Some clothes will NEVER look good on my body type while they may look stunning on someone who is 5'11'' and 120 lbs. I won't buy something if it looks bad on someone else and that's my first exposure to it. With so many choices out there, why on earth would I waste my time?
> 
> ...



The only problem with this theory is that there is no logical reason to design a product that will suit less than .01% of the population. Whether it's because they want their models to look like the men they lust after or just because they're arrogant, out of touch shitwads, their product isn't going to sell and people are losing interest so their response is to keep getting more and more extreme. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


----------



## Friday (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Wank logic.
> 
> Wank. Wank. Fail.
> 
> ...



Not every negative comment that contains the word gay is driven by homophobia. I have plenty of lesbian friends (both butch and lipstick) who have made the exact same comments about the current so-called fashions. Will you accuse them of homophobia too? Not to mention that neither bridges nor numbers have a gender, at least not in this world, so the analogy is both ridiculous and pointless.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 15, 2009)

Friday said:


> Not every negative comment that contains the word gay is driven by homophobia. I have plenty of lesbian friends (both butch and lipstick) who have made the exact same comments about the current so-called fashions. Will you accuse them of homophobia too? Not to mention that neither bridges nor numbers have a gender, at least not in this world, so the analogy is both ridiculous and pointless.



Since I happen to put stock in gender performativity theory (c.f. Judith Butler and others), and since I happen to speak languages that do assign genders to bridges and numbers, I'll disagree with you.

_Without_ calling your words ridiculous or pointless.

Regardless of what your friends say, my complaint stands. I don't any more believe that gay people aren't capable of homophobia than I believe that people of color aren't capable of racism. But attacking without thinking through and without engaging logically is always a good way to vent some general steam, isn't it?

Conflating a person's sexual orientation with the work they do, and then attacking the work they do as too driven by their sexual orientation _is_ gender-phobic.


----------



## BBW4Chattery (Oct 15, 2009)

Friday said:


> The only problem with this theory is that there is no logical reason to design a product that will suit less than .01% of the population. Whether it's because they want their models to look like the men they lust after or just because they're arrogant, out of touch shitwads, their product isn't going to sell and people are losing interest so their response is to keep getting more and more extreme. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.



True; but most of the runway collection is not what hits consumer retail markets... but rather a watered down; generic version. The complicated get-ups worn by the tall lanky models aren't necessarily meant to be worn by everyone. 

I see high fashion as an art form. The runway models (and fashion print) are the originals that were perfectly crafted with the intention of releasing to an audience and building a following and the clothes designed for the general public are the prints and various derivations of that original work.

I don't think the runway shows are the consumer product; they are merely the commercial showcase for the brand. I mean, like I said before, I don't know crap about fashion. The fashion ads in magazines are irrelevant since some marginalized group would complain no matter who stars in the ads. 

African American women... Latina women get mad. Fat girls... skinny girls get mad. Brunettes.... redheads get mad. One person will never (and in my opinion SHOULD never) represent anyone but themselves and their current situation. Let the thinking people use their brains to decide if that's an appropriate look for them and whether or not they like the style. 

Then again, I don't watch any of the fashion reality shows and I only halfway saw _The Devil Wears Prada_.. I know nada about fashion but I just refuse to believe in any conscious conspiracy to brainwash individuals into a certain beauty ideal. (not saying you said that... just saying that's my point with my whole rant)

I'm much more concerned with the much more overt and pressing discrimination issues such as healthcare, workplace discrimination, unfair treatment of obese children in schools, parental rights within households with obese children. I think who they choose to represent their art is within reasonable artistic discretion... even if it isn't my fave choice. 

I'm blessed with the ability to decide for myself how I feel about the way I look, want to look, and prefer others to look. Neither fashion model, celebrity, nor a designer has ever made me feel bad about my fat. However, I respect and appreciate that might not be the case for all and I support their right to protest as they feel appropriate. This is one battle, however, I'll sit out.


----------



## Friday (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Since I happen to put stock in gender performativity theory (c.f. Judith Butler and others), and since I happen to speak languages that do assign genders to bridges and numbers, I'll disagree with you.
> 
> _Without_ calling your words ridiculous or pointless.
> 
> ...



Except that sometimes things *are* gender driven and in case you haven't noticed sex is what motivates 99.99999% of advertising and sales. Trying to pretend that they aren't is both ridiculous and pointless. Besides, why would you even bother to pretend that a gay man would be terribly interested in what would make a curvy (read NORMAL) woman attractive? News flash! They aren't sexually interested in women nor are they expert in what would make them attractive obviously because they don't find women attractive to begin with. And while bridges and numbers may have gender in some esoteric made up language that you use, to the vast majority of people they don't so you may as well be speaking Latin and then wonder why no one gets it.

And 4chat, if health care and I assume health period are concerns for you, why would you not be concerned about a so called art form that contributes to 25% of girl children and what was it...11%? of boys being affected by eating disorders? The models keep getting more and more skeletal and the percentages keep climbing. To deny that the constant bombardment we get from Madison Avenue about thin being ideal and fat being disgusting must certainly seep into the consciousness of everyone subjected to it...basically everyone in America certainly. Ever see a 6 year old child upset because she thinks she's 'a fat pig'? I have, and she wasn't even chubby. Where do you suppose that came from?


----------



## mergirl (Oct 15, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that? If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive, which is thin men.
> .



but..wouldn't this mean that barbie would have broad shoulders and a square jaw too? Not to mention a detachable handlebar moustache! 

When i was young i had a cindy doll and frankly it just turned me into a chubby chaser.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 15, 2009)

Friday said:


> Besides, why would you even bother to pretend that a gay man would be terribly interested in what would make a curvy (read NORMAL) woman attractive? News flash! They aren't sexually interested in women nor are they expert in what would make them attractive obviously because they don't find women attractive to begin with.



You don't get it. Having a problem with the way an industry conducts itself, even with the way individual fashion designers conduct their business, and attributing those choices to the sexual orientation of gay designers in particular don't amount to the same thing. And the latter is homophobia.

For proof that you aren't getting it, look at Darren Trentacosta and at any number of gay designers that ARE designing for fat women and trying to make clothes that make fat women look attractive.

Saying that one must be "sexually interested" in one's market in order to serve that market puts your logic in all kinds of "interesting" positions. For example, do straight people who design petwear need to be sexually interested in a sector of the pet population in order to produce appealing goods intended for those pets?

Or does it only apply when you're talking about gay people? If so, why?

Homophobia is homophobia, and it shouldn't be tolerated here under the guise of SA. We wouldn't like it if over on the gay rights board, people were talking about how fat people can't be trusted to run restaurants because no fat person can see beyond his own predilection for junk food. The number of assumptions it take to climb that particular ladder of logic is breathtaking, and so is saying that the reason the fashion industry hasn't catered to fat women is that it's run by gay people.


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> ...
> Having a problem with the way an industry conducts itself, even with the way individual fashion designers conduct their business, and attributing those choices to the sexual orientation of gay designers in particular don't amount to the same thing. And the latter is homophobia.
> ...



I completely agree. The statement...



NoWayOut said:


> ...
> This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that? If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive, which is thin men.
> ...



is not a critique of the toy industry (designing dolls). It's an unfounded statement on gay men, Period. Saying that gay men will design a doll that is attractive to a gay man is like saying that men become gay because they have overbearing mothers, or that lesbian women become lesbians because they had abusive fathers. It's a stereotype at best, outright homophobia at worse. One of the reasons dolls look the way they do (female dolls in particular...) is to keep them from being overly sexual (keeping their "bits" mild so to speak...) especially if the doll is a child's toy. One of my classmates from art school (sculpture) designs dolls. He is heterosexual btw...


As for this statement...



NoWayOut said:


> ...
> So as long as most fashion designers are gay men, models are going to look like teenage boys.
> ...



Ditto. As any fashion designer professional will tell you, there are other reasons for the aesthetic that exists in the fashion industry. Again, this is an unfounded statement completely based on a stereotype.


----------



## Webmaster (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> ....Wank logic.
> 
> Wank. Wank. Fail.
> ...



Very curious way of carrying on a debate.


----------



## mergirl (Oct 15, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Very curious way of carrying on a debate.


Did you miss the rest of the brilliant stuff she said?? 
To have the honour of debating with and reading the thoughts of intelligent women such as Fascinita is the main reason i stick around.


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 15, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Fascinita said:
> 
> 
> > Wank. Wank. Fail.
> ...



Personally, I think it just added a little spice to the point she was making...


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 15, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Very curious way of carrying on a debate.



Point taken.

You must admit, however, that the rest of my posts in this thread have been well-thought-out and respectfully expressed. Forgive me for indulging in a little crass humor along the way, as I see many others do on Dimensions.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 15, 2009)

I still think it's a valid argument to say that men, not just gay men are in charge of most of woman's fashion. That must have something to do with the divide between the ideal woman in fashion and the real woman of reality. Most fashion is designed by men to be worn by models who have the figures of boys (tall, flat chested and no hips). Studies show that men internationally are more attracted to fuller-figured women than waifs, yet the fashion world doesn't think they exist. Whether it's gay or not, I just don't think men in fashion really like women all that much as people. I even venture to say that the few women involved don't much respect their own sex.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 15, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> I still think it's a valid argument to say that men, not just gay men are in charge of most of woman's fashion. That must have something to do with the divide between the ideal woman in fashion and the real woman of reality. Most fashion is designed by men to be worn by models who have the figures of boys (tall, flat chested and no hips). Studies show that men internationally are more attracted to fuller-figured women than waifs, yet the fashion world doesn't think they exist. Whether it's gay or not, I just don't think men in fashion really like women all that much as people. I even venture to say that the few women involved don't much respect their own sex.



I wonder, Dre, if the reasons why fashion is so "skinny" parallel the economic disparities between fatter people and less-fat people, i.e., the statistics that illustrate that obesity is more prevalent among poorer people. IF this were the case, we might be able to say that fashion inflates its prices (and profits) by marketing itself thin (and therefore "richer".) In other words, what fashion sells is the image or appearance of wealth. And when you think about it in these terms, you can almost see fashion as a kind of "costuming" or "armor." The performative nature of fashion lends itself perfectly to a kind of marketing that sells "image". 

It also seems sort of evident to me that fashion works in a normative way, i.e., it purports to represent ideas of what's "normal" while at the same time _prescribing_ those ideas. It might be interesting to take a hard look at who really benefits from this kind of prescribing of ideas about women's bodies. Is it a handful of gay designers? Is it the men who run and finance fashion? One group that _might_ be a likelier candidate is the group made up of women with disposable time and income. It's no secret that women often collude in the oppression of women, and I wonder if this is one group for which class interests supersede gender concerns. (That's just speculation... I have no idea if it holds or not.)

What do you think?


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I wonder, Dre, if the reasons why fashion is so "skinny" parallel the economic disparities between fatter people and less-fat people, i.e., the statistics that illustrate that obesity is more prevalent among poorer people. IF this were the case, we might be able to say that fashion inflates its prices (and profits) by marketing itself thin (and therefore "richer".) In other words, what fashion sells is the image or appearance of wealth. And when you think about it in these terms, you can almost see fashion as a kind of "costuming" or "armor."
> 
> What do you think?



If that was true, then it would be a complete reversal of what historically the relationship between wealth and obesity was viewed as. In nearly all societies from the East to the West, affluence was connected with girth. The higher you were in the social ladder, the fatter you were since you could afford the most food. In many societies food is scarce so being fat was a luxury and thus desirable.

We're now in some strange point in time, where the affluent people in order to show how well off they are, deliberately starve themselves despite being able to afford as much food as they want. Anti-fat crusaders criticize Americans who are obese by contrasting them with starving Third Worlders. I think that people in developing countries would be more puzzled at the rich Americans who starve themsleves rather than enjoy the luxury of a bountiful meal.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Oct 15, 2009)

Reopening with a reminder to please debate in a civil manner.

Thanks,

/Mod


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Oct 15, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> I still think it's a valid argument to say that men, not just gay men are in charge of most of woman's fashion. That must have something to do with the divide between the ideal woman in fashion and the real woman of reality. Most fashion is designed by men to be worn by models who have the figures of boys (tall, flat chested and no hips). Studies show that men internationally are more attracted to fuller-figured women than waifs, yet the fashion world doesn't think they exist. Whether it's gay or not, I just don't think men in fashion really like women all that much as people. I even venture to say that the few women involved don't much respect their own sex.




Most of the world is ran by men. If men had periods tampons would be more comfortable and and pms wouldn't be the stuff of jokes. 

I don't beleive that fashion is about what type of body the designer finds attractive. Its about the clothes, the art. The designers just look for models that will take the least amount of attention away from their art.


----------



## BBW4Chattery (Oct 16, 2009)

Friday said:


> And 4chat, if health care and I assume health period are concerns for you, why would you not be concerned about a so called art form that contributes to 25% of girl children and what was it...11%? of boys being affected by eating disorders? The models keep getting more and more skeletal and the percentages keep climbing. To deny that the constant bombardment we get from Madison Avenue about thin being ideal and fat being disgusting must certainly seep into the consciousness of everyone subjected to it...basically everyone in America certainly. Ever see a 6 year old child upset because she thinks she's 'a fat pig'? I have, and she wasn't even chubby. Where do you suppose that came from?



I don't ascribe to the belief that eating disorders are created or sustained at a societal level. There is plenty of competing research to counter the statistics you list within your post. To me, and it's only my opinion, the research is in the same vein that blames children's issues on violence in television, binge drinking on the beer commercials with naked chicks, and teen pregnancy on the risque prime-time line up. It just really boils down to your particular theoretical beliefs on motivation and human behavior.

I believe that eating disorders stem from internal locus of control issues where as the societal view would imply an external locus of control. Those that suffer from eating disorders generally refuse to accept anyone's influence over their behavior. Their drive to restrict, purge, or overeat is more powerful than even the natural survival instinct. If it was something as simple as just being exposed to an abundance of thin people, then it would be purely a behaviorally conditioned response and a treatment of intensive behavioral re-training would "fix" the problem. Instead, eating disorders are a lifelong battle for those who suffer.

Is there a cultural component to fashion-thin models? Of course there is... but I don't believe that results in the true eating disorders that we treat in clinics and hospitals around the country. I believe that the thin obsessed culture that takes cue from images of skinny, etc is NO DIFFERENT than the culture obsessed with gaining that exists on another sub-board. They are two sides of the same coin; in my opinion. There are always going to people in life who are more comfortable at extremes and I just don't feel it's helpful to anyone to single out those on the other end of the spectrum. 

I know I don't like it as I'm constantly bombarded with societal messages about how my obesity is the downfall of society and I'm sure the thin girls don't like hearing the same thing in their direction.

As for that 6 year old girl, I've worked with children, adolescents, and teens professionally in multiple settings and I can tell you that I've met fulfilled and happy children at every size imaginable... and children with deep desperation and pain at every size. There are SO many more factors that go into developing a healthy psychological existence than just what you see and hear from society. The research I support and apply to my understanding examines the idea that your direct supports (family, friends, school) are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more important in developing a sense of self than societal influences via the media. 

If a child has no supports, they will be more susceptible to these images BUT they would also be equally likely to fall prey to every other societal ill in the world. 

I guess it's more like 4 cents I've added now. Ha.


----------



## Friday (Oct 16, 2009)

She had family support, but all the kids (mostly girls) at school were constantly worried about weight. The girls literally obsessed about looking like the pop tart of the month and it's all Ad driven, And it's getting worse. Scrawny boys and girls in ads for every teen targeted store. Ambercrombie, Hot Topic, Victoria's Secret, they're all the same.


----------



## MsGreenLantern (Oct 16, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Saying that one must be "sexually interested" in one's market in order to serve that market puts your logic in all kinds of "interesting" positions. For example, do straight people who design petwear need to be sexually interested in a sector of the pet population in order to produce appealing goods intended for those pets?
> 
> Or does it only apply when you're talking about gay people? If so, why?
> 
> Homophobia is homophobia, and it shouldn't be tolerated here under the guise of SA. We wouldn't like it if over on the gay rights board, people were talking about how fat people can't be trusted to run restaurants because no fat person can see beyond his own predilection for junk food. The number of assumptions it take to climb that particular ladder of logic is breathtaking, and so is saying that the reason the fashion industry hasn't catered to fat women is that it's run by gay people.



No, it applies to straights AND gays. I would assume most straight male designers wouldn't be on the same wavelength as most fashion-buying gay men... same as gay men may not be creating fashions on the same wave-length as your average fashion conscious woman. Believe it or not, not every opinion about gay/straight/trans/races etc are racist or homophobic or heterophobic. There was nothing horribly insulting about the original thought. And there is a huge difference between someone saying all fat people are junk food addicts, and all gay men like male bodies...please.

You are taking what was a simple suggestion/idea, and turning it into some ridiculous personal battle. Apparently anyone who has ANY ideas about a gay person [good or bad!], even if they're gay themselves, are then homophobic. Well.. if that's the case most gay people I know fear themselves and their friends... really. I'm sure my Godfather and best friend would like to know that someone has told me I'm homophobic for thinking gay men aren't the best people on earth to tell me what makes a woman look sexy... Calm down.


----------



## Jes (Oct 16, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> so dominate .



dominant.



pants


----------



## Jes (Oct 16, 2009)

BBW4Chattery said:


> I disagree with this in the big picture (but not with your reference to this being a key issue in finding Barbie's ankles appropriately attractive, etc).
> e.



i really appreciate every post of yours, lately. Welcome.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 16, 2009)

MsGreenLantern said:


> Calm down.



*tickles you*

I'm calm.

Boop boop be-doop.

Get me a sandwich? Please?


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Wank logic.
> 
> Wank. Wank. Fail.
> 
> ...



Yes, I do. It's because in those professions, looks of other humans have *absolutely nothing to do with their job*. 

Gay mathematicians and straight mathematicians will come up with the same answer to every problem if both did the work correctly. How structurally sound a bridge is has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the architect and everything to do with the skill of said architect. But concerning the looks of other humans, gays see the world differently from non-gays because what the two groups find attractive is completely different

YOU are the one talking complete nonsense in a ridiculous attempt to make a factual statement appear to be homophobia. I stand by everything that I said, and I know that it's not homophobia, no matter how hard you try to make it so. I'm not the one making foolish statements here.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 17, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> a ridiculous attempt to make a factual statement



Just pointing out to the mods, etc., that "ridiculous" as used above is an Appeal to Ridicule, and probably not a good way to carry on a debate. NoWayOut has not explained in a reasonable, satisfactory manner how sexual orientation prevents anyone from executing his vocation in a professional manner, but merely claims _a priori_ that sexual orientation drives creativity. Therefore the "ridiculous" label on my analysis is a smear.

Please, someone inform him that this is not allowed.

It's not allowed, right?

*curtsies*


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Just pointing out to the mods, etc., that "ridiculous" as used above is an Appeal to Ridicule, and probably not a good way to carry on a debate. NoWayOut has not explained in a reasonable, satisfactory manner how sexual orientation prevents anyone from executing his vocation in a professional manner, but merely claims _a priori_ that sexual orientation drives creativity. Therefore the "ridiculous" label on my analysis is a smear.
> 
> Please, someone inform him that this is not allowed.
> 
> ...



That's because that's not my argument, it has never been my argument and it's you who are trying to make it my argument without any basis. Nor have I once made that claim that sexual orientation drives creativity. Hence, why I called your analysis ridiculous. Would you have preferred the legal term of slander?

If defending myself against baseless accusations is not allowed, then this site is a waste of my time.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 17, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> because



I was addressing the mods. I have no interest in debating this or any topic with someone who won't argue logically with me. There's simply no argument to be had when it's OK to make claims right and left without having to explain how they hold in rational terms. 


It's for the best, really. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## Santaclear (Oct 17, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> That's because that's not my argument, it has never been my argument and it's you who are trying to make it my argument without any basis. Nor have I once made that claim that sexual orientation drives creativity. Hence, why I called your analysis ridiculous. Would you have preferred the legal term of slander?
> 
> If defending myself against baseless accusations is not allowed, then this site is a waste of my time.



The argument that gay designers design one certain way and straight designers another is what makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I was addressing the mods. I have no interest in debating this or any topic with someone who won't argue logically with me. There's simply no argument to be had when it's OK to make claims right and left without having to explain how they hold in rational terms.
> 
> 
> It's for the best, really. Thanks for understanding.



Last word on the subject: That's the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 17, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> Last word on the subject: That's the pot calling the kettle black.



Don't be so quick to take personal offense at everything I say. The worst I've said is that certain _logic_ is homophobic and participates in homophobia. 

What individual people think and do on their own time is none of my beeswax. But when they start spouting off "truths" that have no basis in reality, I feel an obligation to point out how those "truths" are actually not truthful--especially where those "truths" appear to malign an entire class of people.

And I see what I do as completely congruent with Size Acceptance's mission. I'm not so sure that SA is possible in an environment where it's OK to smear a group of people just because of their sexual identities. You're not understanding how your thinking does that, and not allowing me to explain. Instead you've rushed to defend yourself (and others have rushed to defend you) against a charge I didn't make. I was attacking a certain logic, not you. 

At a certain point, I just can't slow down to explain how things fail the tests of logic... So I have to exclude myself from the debate and point out as politely as I can the reason why. I can't lock horns into infinity, massaging every rule of logic until it's clear why it holds. Dialogue breaks down when one person's logic is incongruent with the other's. And the logic you've used to make your claims about gay fashion designers don't jibe with any of the rules of logic I'm familiar with. 

I don't think I was impolite in my last post to you. But your reaction, your failure to "shake hands" and withdraw as is customary, points to the fact that for you this has a personal bent.

No, this isn't about you. I don't know you from Adam. All the evidence I have for saying that you won't hold a debate grounded in reason and logic is right here in this thread. Don't take it personally and don't storm off with the "last word" about "pot calling the kettle black." That seems in poor form for a debate. I'm not _calling_ you anything. Seriously, no hard feelings.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 17, 2009)

The Irish journalist Kevin Myers tackles the role gay fashion designers have in dictating woman's body issues in an article in The Independent. He actually coins the term to "cosmosexual" to differentiate these designers from the average homosexual. Here's a link to the full essay and below is an excerpt:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...to-suit-their-own-demented-needs-1777537.html


*"Almost no designers of women's clothes are women. Most are either homosexuals, such as Yves St Laurent, Christian Dior or Gianni Versace, or more ambiguous... such as Gaultier, Lagerfeld and Valentino. Hardly any designers for women are simply straightforward heterosexual men. Tommy Hilfiger and Paul Costelloe clearly love women as they are. Which is why their clothes celebrate women's carnality, their sexuality and the sheer exuberant bodiness of the female form.

This cannot be said of gay designerdom: Versace, St Laurent, Dior, or of their peers. Together, they have redesigned the female body to suit their own demented needs -- and what do you know: she looks just like a teenage boy.

Whether this process is conscious or unconscious is really irrelevant. At its heart have toiled a tiny minority of homosexual alpha-males for the past 40 years. And the ideal young woman of this demented ethos is a waif, an asexual, unbreasted, libido-free hermaphroditic elf.

Men who love women have been excluded from the process of dressing them, while the high queens of high culture impose their terrible visions upon a strangely obedient female sex. And puzzle heaps upon puzzle here. For these gay designers do not represent the attitudes of most gay men, who are usually very sympathetic to women. And there is no equivalent in the opposite direction, no prospect of men meekly obeying the ruinous fashion-edicts of lesbian designers, and their she-chums."*


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 17, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> The Irish journalist Kevin Myers tackles the role gay fashion designers have in dictating woman's body issues in an article in The Independent. He actually coins the term to "cosmosexual" to differentiate these designers from the average homosexual. Here's a link to the full essay and below is an excerpt:
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...to-suit-their-own-demented-needs-1777537.html
> 
> ...



gotta say i agree.


----------



## Ceres (Oct 17, 2009)

hello there!i am back..altoh noone probably remember mei wasnt around for almost 3 years..anyhow...i read recently about Barbie that in the 60's mattel use to put a little guide with the doll called "how to look like barbie" and apparently the advice was not to eat...after several protests the manual was removed..so...apparently already back then the tried to put in little girls brains that skinny is beautiful,wich we all know is bull poohpooh!Ceres


----------



## katorade (Oct 17, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> Yeah, it would, actually. Who do gay men find attractive? Men, *and these gay men specifically find rail-thin men attractive. *So female models are looking like the kind of men that these fashion designers find attractive. This is in direct contrast to what straight men normally find attractive. Straight men normally like a woman to have at least a few curves, maybe not BBWs, but a few.
> 
> If it were straight men or women who were fashion designers, we'd see normal-sized women as models, not rail-thin women. So yes, his homosexuality is actually a very big part of the issue.




Oooooh, lord Jesus, talk about making assumptions. 

Not all gay men find "rail-thin" men attractive, and even if they did, they aren't vapid enough to try and impose that look onto women, who no matter HOW much they LOOK like a man, are still women, and therefore still not the objects of their affections!

And to throw a wrench into your logic, this is a male model...







This, also a male model...






Male models do not have the physique of "teen boys", though they may in fact BE teenagers, as many models are. 

Quite on the contrary, prized male models have incredibly masculine features such as chiseled jaws and triangular body types, with broad shoulders and wide, muscular chests. Indeed there are male models that fit a boyish look, though they are not the norm, just as there are curvier female models, but it all depends in what look a designer is going for, and usually has absolutely NOTHING to do with what they find sexually appealing, male or female.

You'd think that if gay men were out to turn all models into physical representations of their sexual desires, they'd actually START with the models they would even have a preference for.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 18, 2009)

lol It's so funny to see heterosexual men trip all over themselves to wrest control of women's bodies from the clutches of "gay fashion designers."

It's almost like it's threatening or something, the idea of some point of the full "ownership" of women getting out of their hands.

If straight men want to design fashion for women, who's stopping them?

:happy:


----------



## katorade (Oct 18, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> If straight men want to design fashion for women, who's stopping them?
> 
> :happy:



Good taste?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Oct 18, 2009)

Ceres said:


> hello there!i am back..altoh noone probably remember mei wasnt around for almost 3 years..anyhow...i read recently about Barbie that in the 60's mattel use to put a little guide with the doll called "how to look like barbie" and apparently the advice was not to eat...after several protests the manual was removed..so...apparently already back then the tried to put in little girls brains that skinny is beautiful,wich we all know is bull poohpooh!Ceres



The only thing that was packed with the early Barbies was a small paper booklet that showed the other fashions you could buy.


----------



## Teleute (Oct 18, 2009)

NoWayOut and Judge Dre - if you were given the task of designing clothes for men, would you try to make them look as much like women as possible so that you found them sexually attractive?


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 18, 2009)

Teleute said:


> NoWayOut and Judge Dre - if you were given the task of designing clothes for men, would you try to make them look as much like women as possible so that you found them sexually attractive?



Not unless it was fetish wear.  What I wouldn't do is design clothes for men that promoted a body shape that was not natural or dangerous for men to try to conform to. 

I'm not freaked out to admit to finding a guy attractive. I'm a freaky goth kid from NYC. I have had my share of experimentation. I live in a neighborhood with a high gay population. I regularly attend the pride parade in my neighborhood with gay friends. I'm by no means a homophobe. 

I do believe that there is certain subculture which Kevin Myers refers to as "cosmosexualism" which has a negative view on women's bodies. I also believe that cosmosexual subculture includes women who happily promote this way of thinking and contribute to the growing self-image problem of women.


----------



## NoWayOut (Oct 19, 2009)

Teleute said:


> NoWayOut and Judge Dre - if you were given the task of designing clothes for men, would you try to make them look as much like women as possible so that you found them sexually attractive?



No, because that's not what men are supposed to look like, nor would that be promoting a healthy body type. That's all I'm saying, because I'm going to get called a homophobe again if I say anything more.


----------



## Ceres (Oct 19, 2009)

The only thing that was packed with the early Barbies was a small paper booklet that showed the other fashions you could buy.

Is not what i read....apparently the year was 1967 or 1969....i just posted what i read in an article about barbies....but if you say so....then is my mistake.Lucy


----------



## Teleute (Oct 19, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> Not unless it was fetish wear.  What I wouldn't do is design clothes for men that promoted a body shape that was not natural or dangerous for men to try to conform to.
> 
> I'm not freaked out to admit to finding a guy attractive. I'm a freaky goth kid from NYC. I have had my share of experimentation. I live in a neighborhood with a high gay population. I regularly attend the pride parade in my neighborhood with gay friends. I'm by no means a homophobe.
> 
> I do believe that there is certain subculture which Kevin Myers refers to as "cosmosexualism" which has a negative view on women's bodies. I also believe that cosmosexual subculture includes women who happily promote this way of thinking and contribute to the growing self-image problem of women.





NoWayOut said:


> No, because that's not what men are supposed to look like, nor would that be promoting a healthy body type. That's all I'm saying, because I'm going to get called a homophobe again if I say anything more.



Well, that's kinda my point - your heterosexuality doesn't lead you to want to make men look like women, so why should another man's homosexuality lead him to make women look like men? I think you're completely right about there being the damaging subculture, but I think it's less because they're homosexual and more because they're elitist fucks who are entirely out of touch with the rest of the world. 

I also think the assumption that the ideal body type would be more normal and attainable if fashion were designed by straight men to be very, VERY faulty. The easiest example of this is mainstream porn; the female body as dictated by straight men is cartoonishly exaggerated, with a silhouette that is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve naturally - not just difficult or unlikely, as with the runway models. Plenty of young girls are already incredibly selfconscious about their breasts from only mild exposure to porn; making that the fashion standard as well would be disastrous. If an FA fashion designer suddenly convinced everyone that SSBBWs were the new hotness, you'd have naturally waifish girls eating sticks of butter in a desperate attempt to put on weight against their body's natural tendencies - which is no healthier than women dieting obsessively to stay a size 2 when they're naturally a size 14. Having a single body type as the ideal means it will always be unattainable for a good chunk of the population.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 19, 2009)

I really don't think anyone said that all homosexuals do this. I was pretty clear that it was a subculture within the fashion world dominated by gay men. Straight designers like Tommy Hilfilger and Marc Echo don't seem to be part of this group. Also why bring up pornography? I don't see the relationship with the fashion world. It's a non sequiter. I cannot speak for NoWayOut, but I never thought that these men designed clothes to make women look men so that they can find them attractive to have sex with. Sexuality doesn't work that way. I just believe that these designers do not have a high regard for the female body. They surround themselves with images of androgynous body types in a subtle way to diminish the power of women. these models cease to become real people in their eyes, but merely props to hang clothes on. If they were to have curves and come in different sizes and shapes, they would thus become individuals.

Let's not panic over the how we have described the designers as gay. It's merely a fact that the fashion world is dominated by gay men. If I would to say that the U.S. has a White dominated legal system that holds down Blacks, would I be a racist? It doesn't mean that all Whites in the legal system or in America in general are racists. It's merely pointing out that there's a mentality involved that involves a predominantly white presence. Of course, there are Blacks and other groups who may also be contributing to keeping such a system alive.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 19, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> What I wouldn't do is design clothes for men that promoted a body shape that was not natural or dangerous for men to try to conform to.



So your own sexual identity would not be involved in allowing you to discern what is "not natural or dangerous"?

It's a strange logical quandary, when a claim is made that someone's sexuality somehow prescribes their own judgment about what is good or bad, and then to make an exception from that rule for yourself. It appears to put you in a position of saying that you're perfectly capable of controlling the involvement of your sexuality in your professional ethics, but somehow gay people aren't capable of doing the same.



Teleute said:


> the female body as dictated by straight men is cartoonishly exaggerated, with a silhouette that is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve naturally - not just difficult or unlikely, as with the runway models.



Exactly. Which is why I can't figure out why are we gnashing our teeth about the horrible treatment of women's bodies at the hands of gay men. It's a culture-wide problem, the way women's bodies and images are commodified in unrealistic, manipulative ways. But I think it would be too threatening to address the root problem. That would, after all, mean that a lot of what some people _like_ about commodified female bodies would have to go away.


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> So your own sexual identity would not be involved in allowing you to discern what is "not natural or dangerous"?
> 
> It's a strange logical quandary, when a claim is made that someone's sexuality somehow prescribes their own judgment about what is good or bad, and then to make an exception from that rule for yourself. It appears to put you in a position of saying that you're perfectly capable of controlling the involvement of your sexuality in your professional ethics, but somehow gay people aren't capable of doing the same.



It doesn't seem you actually read my previous posts closely. I stated that sexual attraction is not the basis for this. I was also clear that it's not all gay men, but a cabal of elitists in one particular industry. It's the promotion of androgynous body type in order to diminish the power of women. It's no mistake that this androgynous type is boy-like rather than say amazon which indeed would be androgynous, but much too powerful. I'm being very specific in my statements, I'm puzzled why people are generalizing them to include all homosexuals or all heterosexuals.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 19, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> a cabal of elitists in one particular industry.



OK, so let's stop talking about gay men and talk about elitism. That I'm a lot more comfortable with.



> It's the promotion of androgynous body type in order to diminish the power of women.



If we're talking about diminishing the power of women, a serious analysis has to look at how _all_ commodification of women's bodies diminishes the power of women. It's not just the commodification that bugs us _personally_ that contributes to the blight on women that unrealistic body expectations produce. All kinds of industries perpetuate this. To make the fashion industry single-handedly responsible is to ignore the root cause. And if what you want is to critique a single industry, that's fine and good, but do it in a way that gets at the real problem--widescale, rampant, unchecked commodification of women's bodies--not lay it at the feet of a handful of designers.


----------



## Teleute (Oct 19, 2009)

I apologize for the messy post here - there are several things I wish to address, and it's harder for me to organize it without the multiple quotes.



Judge_Dre said:


> I cannot speak for NoWayOut, but I never thought that these men designed clothes to make women look men so that they can find them attractive to have sex with. Sexuality doesn't work that way. I just believe that these designers do not have a high regard for the female body. They surround themselves with images of androgynous body types in a subtle way to diminish the power of women. these models cease to become real people in their eyes, but merely props to hang clothes on. If they were to have curves and come in different sizes and shapes, they would thus become individuals.



I apologize for misinterpreting what you were saying. I completely agree that it's a method of reducing women to props. I don't believe it's dependent on the lack of curves, however.



Judge_Dre said:


> I really don't think anyone said that all homosexuals do this. I was pretty clear that it was a subculture within the fashion world dominated by gay men. Straight designers like Tommy Hilfilger and Marc Echo don't seem to be part of this group.





Judge_Dre said:


> It doesn't seem you actually read my previous posts closely. I stated that sexual attraction is not the basis for this. I was also clear that it's not all gay men, but a cabal of elitists in one particular industry. It's the promotion of androgynous body type in order to diminish the power of women. It's no mistake that this androgynous type is boy-like rather than say amazon which indeed would be androgynous, but much too powerful. I'm being very specific in my statements, I'm puzzled why people are generalizing them to include all homosexuals or all heterosexuals.



I did catch that you were referring to a small group of people, and did not mean to imply that you meant "all homosexuals". Perhaps I should have worded my question "...make them look as much like women as possible because that's what you find aesthetically pleasing?" to reduce the confusion. 



Judge_Dre said:


> Also why bring up pornography? I don't see the relationship with the fashion world. It's a non sequiter.



I apologize for not explaining it more clearly. That was merely an example of straight males designing the female body, in contrast to gay males designing the female body - not a direct relationship with the fasion industry, but a parallel. This is why I don't think the lack of curves has anything to do with reducing the individuality of women to reduce their power; it's a different aesthetic, sure, but it's still got one ideal body type that all women must fit, and the women are little more than nameless props. The excerpt you posted from Kevin Myers' article says that straight designers such as Tommy Hilfiger are not part of the elitist group that is trying to control the appearance of the female body, and I think that is false - both in the assumption that the straight designers are radically different in their approach, and in the assumption that more curves equals less attempt to control. I was simply using a different industry to demonstrate that concept.



Judge_Dre said:


> Let's not panic over the how we have described the designers as gay. It's merely a fact that the fashion world is dominated by gay men. If I would to say that the U.S. has a White dominated legal system that holds down Blacks, would I be a racist? It doesn't mean that all Whites in the legal system or in America in general are racists. It's merely pointing out that there's a mentality involved that involves a predominantly white presence. Of course, there are Blacks and other groups who may also be contributing to keeping such a system alive.



Again, the article by Myers DOES focus on the homosexuality specifically, rather than as an incidental fact. I apologize if that is not your own view and I have misinterpreted. The statement that straight designers celebrate the woman's body while gay designers have redesigned it to suit "their own demented needs" has nasty implications (and, demented? WTF? ) Let's take a look at the designers, for comparison:

YSL









Tommy Hilfiger








Vera Wang (female designer)






The fashion world IN GENERAL is guilty of this, not just the homosexual male designers. It's about the control and objectification, not the waifish figure which happens to be the ideal now.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 19, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> androgynous body type



Dre, I will say that I think you've been very astute to notice the symbolic logic that goes on in the fashion industry's promotion of the uber-thin standard.

I feel that the extreme "androgyny," as you call it, *is* symbolic of the expectation that women mold themselves to a certain size or proportion, that it is not OK to be uber-feminine and naturally curvy.

On the other hand, other industries specialize in making other kinds of symbolic gestures that express just-as-unrealistic expectations of women. Is it any more natural, in terms of portraying natural femininity, to glorify gigantic butts or enormous breasts as "superior"?

Know what I mean?


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Oh, good grief. Crap like this wouldn't have happened when Ruth was in charge. They really need to start designing Barbie for girls again and not male fashion designers.



No offense, but a straight, red blooded man would not say Barbie's ankles are fat. It's just the truth. I am shocked at this craziness. I just don't see it. What is it about stick thinness that designers love? I don't think it's about aesthetics or sensuality, I really think this is about women being clotheshangers--I mean come on, they want to sell their clothes, a woman's sexiness distracts that.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> Yeah, it would, actually. Who do gay men find attractive? Men, and these gay men specifically find rail-thin men attractive. So female models are looking like the kind of men that these fashion designers find attractive. This is in direct contrast to what straight men normally find attractive. Straight men normally like a woman to have at least a few curves, maybe not BBWs, but a few.
> 
> If it were straight men or women who were fashion designers, we'd see normal-sized women as models, not rail-thin women. So yes, his homosexuality is actually a very big part of the issue.



_Exactly, I am so tired of this PC stuff. Gay men fantasize about MEN. Many want sexy, angular men. That is their attraction. I have many gay friends that tell me this observation. 

I have never had problems attracting men, many of these men--black, hispanic, even white---prefer curvy women. Gay men want angular men. 

However, many lesbians, like straight men, are attracted to curvy women. 

Few men want these bony chicks. When you see a sexy, curvy woman walk by, watch how many RED-BLOODED MEN turn their heads. Just watch.......and the media tells you most men want bones---HA! LMAO.


Women have been bamboozled to the highest level. 
_


----------



## mergirl (Oct 19, 2009)

Gok wan...
Totally gay and totally into designing for women of all sizes. 

View attachment gok wan.jpg


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Oooooh, lord Jesus, talk about making assumptions.
> 
> Not all gay men find "rail-thin" men attractive, and even if they did, they aren't vapid enough to try and impose that look onto women, who no matter HOW much they LOOK like a man, are still women, and therefore still not the objects of their affections!
> 
> ...



These men are angular, just like the female models are angular and lacking curves. 

Not all gay men like teenage boy figures, who was arguing that? Most want angular shapes like these men here.


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _Exactly, I am so tired of this PC stuff. Gay men fantasize about MEN. Many want sexy, angular men. That is their attraction. I have many gay friends that tell me this observation.
> 
> I have never had problems attracting men, many of these men--black, hispanic, even white---prefer curvy women. Gay men want angular men.
> 
> ...




Would you like it if someone made generalizations about you being a black woman? No? Didn't think so. Please don't attempt to speak for anyone that you're NOT.


----------



## mergirl (Oct 19, 2009)

GOK WAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mergirl (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _Exactly, I am so tired of this PC stuff. Gay men fantasize about MEN. Many want sexy, angular men. That is their attraction. I have many gay friends that tell me this observation.
> 
> I have never had problems attracting men, many of these men--black, hispanic, even white---prefer curvy women. Gay men want angular men.
> 
> ...


I have two gay friends in real life who are chubby chasers. I have known them since school and they are seperate from my dims life. Not all gay guys like angular... there are a LOT of bears and chasers on the scene!


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> These men are angular, just like the female models are angular and lacking curves.
> 
> Not all gay men like teenage boy figures, who was arguing that? Most want angular shapes like these men here.



Uh...



> You know darn well that's not the issue, and don't try to make that the issue. This is not about being anti-gay. This is a simple fact: gay men like other men. Can we agree on that?* If we can, then we can also agree that they are going to try to make women look like what they find attractive,*which is thin men.
> 
> *So as long as most fashion designers are gay men, models are going to look like teenage boys.* That is just the way it is, because that is what these gay men find most attractive. If fashion designers were men from this site, models would look like the women on the paysite board. That's why his homosexuality is important to this, because it determines what he finds attractive.




That bit. That is what I was arguing. Those men are angular, yes. Those men, however, are not rail-thin or waifish, or resembling the gawky teenage boys that some people in this thread are making female models out to be.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Would you like it if someone made generalizations about you being a black woman? No? Didn't think so. Please don't attempt to speak for anyone that you're NOT.



It's so nice of you to acknowledge race in this discussion. How do you know I'm even black? Because of my skin color? Nice assumption.

I'm not trying to start anything personal with you, so please don't even go there, lady. 

And you can start the generalizations with many blacks, that's fine with me, there are some truths to every generalization. 

But if you want to take it personally, that's fine. If I was white, you wouldn't have brought race into this discussion.



Sad.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Uh...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is that they lack curves.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I have two gay friends in real life who are chubby chasers. I have known them since school and they are seperate from my dims life. Not all gay guys like angular... there are a LOT of bears and chasers on the scene!


_
Yeah, that's also true, you have the bear fans--the Theodore Roosevelt types.

We can't say all in one group like such and such, but we can say "in general". I don't see why some people are taking offense to this thread.

In general, black men like thicker women with shapely behinds--anything wrong with that? That said, not ALL black men love thick women, some (a few) prefer thin with a flat ass. 

Lots of Arabs love voluptuous women. But not ALL. 

Happy, Katorade? _


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 19, 2009)

Teleute said:


> I apologize for misinterpreting what you were saying. I completely agree that it's a method of reducing women to props. I don't believe it's dependent on the lack of curves, however.



You make many good points. While I cannot help, but think that there has to be some connection to it, I admit there's probably a whole list of other contributing factors. This is one of those kind of subjects where you cannot find any real evidence to prove any point-of-view. It's all interpretative. Of course, I'm bias on how I view the debate. 

I wish I can remember where I read this, but there was this feminist scholar who wrote a theory on why the acceptable dress size for women has decreased since the 1940's. She stated that growing independence of women since that era intimidated men. Looking at popular film stars and pin-up models of that era show women with curves. As women began to join the workforce in greater numbers and won more legal battles for equality, the acceptable size of women decreased. Someone, smaller bodies women balanced out the greater amount of rights they received. The controlling of woman's bodies is a last ditch effort to control women. It's only a theory and one that I'm sure can better be explained by someone more qualified then me.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

Judge_Dre said:


> You make many good points. While I cannot help, but think that there has to be some connection to it, I admit there's probably a whole list of other contributing factors. This is one of those kind of subjects where you cannot find any real evidence to prove any point-of-view. It's all interpretative. Of course, I'm bias on how I view the debate.
> 
> I wish I can remember where I read this, but there was this feminist scholar who wrote a theory on why the acceptable dress size for women has decreased since the 1940's. She stated that growing independence of women since that era intimidated men. Looking at popular film stars and pin-up models of that era show women with curves. As women began to join the workforce in greater numbers and won more legal battles for equality, the acceptable size of women decreased. Someone, smaller bodies women balanced out the greater amount of rights they received. The controlling of woman's bodies is a last ditch effort to control women. It's only a theory and one that I'm sure can better be explained by someone more qualified then me.



_That is one interesting theory, Judge Dre. A thinner, more angular body supposedly meant being taken not as a sex object but as a serious worker to many on the feminist movement. 
_


----------



## mergirl (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _
> Yeah, that's also true, you have the bear fans--the Theodore Roosevelt types.
> 
> We can't say all in one group like such and such, but we can say "in general". I don't see why some people are taking offense to this thread.
> ...


See, i think generalization without evidence that isn't backed up by potential social reasons can't be based in fact and is just hear say, subjective oppinion and myth. 
I wonder if there is scientific research that says: Black people like this... Gay people like this.. etc.. or whether we are just perpetuating stereotype. (It would be interesting to understand the reason for this too right enough)


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> It's so nice of you to acknowledge race in this discussion. How do you know I'm even black? Because of my skin color? Nice assumption.
> 
> I'm not trying to start anything personal with you, so please don't even go there, lady.
> 
> ...




Yeah, you see how you didn't like that? How regardless of how I feel about black people, you felt like it was a slight? Even though I didn't even MAKE a generalization, just asked how you'd feel if someone did.

Now imagine being a gay man and hearing some straight guy say that gay men like all of their men to look like TEENAGE BOYS. Think about how crappy it is that someone that doesn't know you or anything about you just easily made an assumption about you and everyone like you and everyone they even THINK is like you.

Sure, lots of black men like curvy women. Lots of white men like them, too. As do a lot of lesbians. Hell, I've met plenty of gay men that absolutely love a nice pair of boobs. Just because those men exist does not mean it's an absolute TRUTH or even the majority.

Like you said, ideas like that are just perpetuating beliefs, and are just "bamboozling" people into believing them. Even you.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Yeah, you see how you didn't like that? How regardless of how I feel about black people, you felt like it was a slight? Even though I didn't even MAKE a generalization, just asked how you'd feel if someone did.
> 
> Now imagine being a gay man and hearing some straight guy say that gay men like all of their men to look like TEENAGE BOYS. Think about how crappy it is that someone that doesn't know you or anything about you just easily made an assumption about you and everyone like you and everyone they even THINK is like you.
> 
> ...


_
I didn't take offense at anything you said. If you had said black or latino men prefer women with meatier behinds, I would not even become angry, that's just an observation that has a lot of truth to it. 

I never joined this forum to become a troll, I was interested in size positive issues and empowering curvier women of all colors. I am not a person who revels in internet beefs. 

But then, you saw my picture, designated me as BLACK, according to my skin color. I found it interesting that you decided to bring my race into this discussion, when in fact, you never brought out the race of those other people who were making similar comments about fashion designers on this board. That is what gets me, is it because they are white, and I am not white--based on my skin tone? So you singled me out because of my color.

That is what gets me. What is the need to bring my race into this discussion? Trying to prove something? 
_


----------



## Judge_Dre (Oct 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Dre, I will say that I think you've been very astute to notice the symbolic logic that goes on in the fashion industry's promotion of the uber-thin standard.
> 
> I feel that the extreme "androgyny," as you call it, *is* symbolic of the expectation that women mold themselves to a certain size or proportion, that it is not OK to be uber-feminine and naturally curvy.
> 
> ...



I'm not quite certain I understand you. Your post does make me wonder if "natural" has anything to do with beauty. I've seen rather bizarre notions of beauty around the world. Most of it seems to be unnatural and risky. Corsets in the nineteenth century, the medieval Spanish practice of flattening breasts, cranium binding in pre-columbian Peru and various forms of body mutilation in Africa. Fashion's obsession with rail-thin bodies can merely be a cultural thing tht I do not understand. 

What bothers me is that it doesn't seem to be overly popular with a huge number of people. If there's so much debate about it in the media, studies indicate most women do not look like that and surveys regularly show that most men do not find that body type attractive, how can "thin is in" be the mainstream notion of beauty. I guess being a FA means I will never understand it.


----------



## Teleute (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Now imagine being a gay man and hearing some straight guy say that gay men like all of their men to look like TEENAGE BOYS. Think about how crappy it is that someone that doesn't know you or anything about you just easily made an assumption about you and everyone like you and everyone they even THINK is like you.



This is a particularly hurtful stereotype for the gay community because there has long been a view of gay men as sexual predators looking to "get" your sons. My little brother was talking to me at lunch today about how he ended up driving through the gay area of Seattle by mistake, and how he locked his car door because he saw two guys holding hands. Uhhhh... what? :doh: This is a really, really vicious stereotype that has caused a lot of lashing out at gay men. 


Judge Dre, that is an interesting theory - I'll have to look it up for sure! An interesting balance in the attempt to retain control.


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _
> I didn't take offense at anything you said. If you had said black or latino men prefer women with meatier behinds, I would not even become angry, that's just an observation that has a lot of truth to it.
> 
> I never joined this forum to become a troll, I was interested in size positive issues and empowering curvier women of all colors. I am not a person who revels in internet beefs.
> ...




Your race has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Jesus. You want me to go back and change it to "fat woman"? My point still stands. You obviously didn't like being generalized as a black woman just because of the color of your skin. You don't like having generalizations made about you, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.

You made blatant generalizations about entire groups of people that are NOT you, OR _like_ you in orientation. 

Furthermore, you completely slighted women that AREN'T like you as "bony chicks", and that reeeeeal, red-blooded men don't want them. That's insulting and has absolutely no real bearing on who people see attractive.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

Teleute said:


> This is a particularly hurtful stereotype for the gay community because there has long been a view of gay men as sexual predators looking to "get" your sons. My little brother was talking to me at lunch today about how he ended up driving through the gay area of Seattle by mistake, and how he locked his car door because he saw two guys holding hands. Uhhhh... what? :doh: This is a really, really vicious stereotype that has caused a lot of lashing out at gay men.
> 
> 
> Judge Dre, that is an interesting theory - I'll have to look it up for sure! An interesting balance in the attempt to retain control.


_
When in fact, most pedophiles are STRAIGHT MEN. This has been documented and researched. And most men that rape other men in prisons are straight men. _


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> No offense, but a straight, red blooded man would not say Barbie's ankles are fat.



Really? Then you haven't heard of the Gold's Gym campaign against cankles? Look it up. Google it.

I'm pretty sure I've had one or more uninvited comments from straight men about my ankles being too fat.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _
> I didn't take offense at anything you said. If you had said black or latino men prefer women with meatier behinds, I would not even become angry, that's just an observation that has a lot of truth to it.
> 
> I never joined this forum to become a troll, I was interested in size positive issues and empowering curvier women of all colors. I am not a person who revels in internet beefs.
> ...



As far as discussions concerning the preference towards a more curvy bottom we already have a thread for that 
right here.

What an amusing thread- all this passion for a child's toy... I miss Hyde 
Park  




Judge_Dre said:


> I'm not quite certain I understand you. Your post does make me wonder if "natural" has anything to do with beauty. I've seen rather bizarre notions of beauty around the world. Most of it seems to be unnatural and risky. Corsets in the nineteenth century, the medieval Spanish practice of flattening breasts, cranium binding in pre-columbian Peru and various forms of body mutilation in Africa. Fashion's obsession with rail-thin bodies can merely be a cultural thing tht I do not understand.
> 
> *What bothers me is that it doesn't seem to be overly popular with a huge number of people. If there's so much debate about it in the media, studies indicate most women do not look like that and surveys regularly show that most men do not find that body type attractive*, how can "thin is in" be the mainstream notion of beauty. I guess being a FA means I will never understand it.



_
My take- the media doesn't speak for me - I love SSBBWs ... I'm not bothered by their so-called ideal of what the body beautiful is...

It's all an illusion... be it Fashion Modeling or Bodybuilding (most Male and Female competitors starve themselves before the competition to get that vascular look) or Fitness Models (hair plugs, breast enhancements) - sometimes the road that folks travel to achieve this look is less healthy than any "fast food" frenzy one would take part in _


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 19, 2009)

Teleute said:


> This is a particularly hurtful stereotype for the gay community because there has long been a view of gay men as sexual predators looking to "get" your sons. My little brother was talking to me at lunch today about how he ended up driving through the gay area of Seattle by mistake, and how he locked his car door because he saw two guys holding hands. Uhhhh... what? :doh: This is a really, really vicious stereotype that has caused a lot of lashing out at gay men.
> 
> 
> Judge Dre, that is an interesting theory - I'll have to look it up for sure! An interesting balance in the attempt to retain control.



yeah that sounds loosly similar to a joke i hear from white suburbanites that come through the "black area" usually refering to detroit.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> Your race has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Jesus. You want me to go back and change it to "fat woman"? My point still stands. You obviously didn't like being generalized as a black woman just because of the color of your skin. You don't like having generalizations made about you, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.
> 
> You made blatant generalizations about entire groups of people that are NOT you, OR _like_ you in orientation.
> 
> Furthermore, you completely slighted women that AREN'T like you as "bony chicks", and that reeeeeal, red-blooded men don't want them. That's insulting and has absolutely no real bearing on who people see attractive.




_Nope, the first thing that came out of your post was BLACK WOMAN. You saw my skin color and singled me out for it while others have said things about gay fashion designers. I know what you are trying to do now. 


Anyway, I'm finished arguing with you. I don't engage in catfights.

If you have a beef with me, I could care less. It's obvious I triggered something personal with you. _


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _
> When in fact, most pedophiles are STRAIGHT MEN. This has been documented and researched. And most men that rape other men in prisons are straight men. _



huh?!?!?!!


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Really? Then you haven't heard of the Gold's Gym campaign against cankles? Look it up. Google it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've had one or more uninvited comments from straight men about my ankles being too fat.



_My God, how many times have I got to say it! Folks are speaking on generalities! I think some people on here like to start things. I'm done with this thread. I'm out. Peace. _


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _My God, how many times have I got to say it! Folks are speaking on generalities! I think some people on here like to start things. I'm done with this thread. I'm out. Peace. _



Oy. No need to rush off in a hurry.

Don't go. Stay a while. Relax. We're just talking, really.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> huh?!?!?!!



Well, they label themselves as 'straight'.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 19, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Oy. No need to rush off in a hurry.
> 
> Don't go. Stay a while. Relax. We're just talking, really.



Do we a get a sandwich if we stay


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 19, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Do we a get a sandwich if we stay



you get punch and pie.


----------



## Teleute (Oct 19, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> happyface83 said:
> 
> 
> > And most men that rape other men in prisons are straight men.
> ...



It's true, gangstadawg - prison rape (and in fact rape in general) is an expression of power, not desire. One man raping another in prison is a declaration that he is above the other man, that he owns him. It's not that he finds the victim sexually attractive. Check out this study for more information - I've linked to the summary page, as the actual study is many many pages long.


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _Nope, the first thing that came out of your post was BLACK WOMAN. You saw my skin color and singled me out for it while others have said things about gay fashion designers. I know what you are trying to do now.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm finished arguing with you. I don't engage in catfights.
> ...



LOL. Yes. I'm racist. That's what this is all about.


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

Teleute said:


> It's true, gangstadawg - prison rape (and in fact rape in general) is an expression of power, not desire. One man raping another in prison is a declaration that he is above the other man, that he owns him. It's not that he finds the victim sexually attractive. Check out this study for more information - I've linked to the summary page, as the actual study is many many pages long.


_
And it's sad. I wish more can be done to prevent prison rape. The most at risk of rape are those that are young. It's barbaric to throw teenagers into adult facilities, they are the ones that will be attacked first and foremost. I'm so sick of that attitude "Well, they are in prison, so to hell with them". We must not forget that these young men will be released back to society with all sorts of mental trauma. It's a vicious cycle. It's all about dominance and control and that is what makes the offender 'hard', he is turned on by the power, not how sexy the person looks....
_


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

katorade said:


> LOL. Yes. I'm racist. That's what this is all about.



_Never even called you that. But upon examining many of your posts around here, you seem hellbent on starting shit with people. Do you like to e-fight with people? You get off on it for some reason. _


----------



## katorade (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _Never even called you that. But upon examining many of your posts around here, you seem hellbent on starting shit with people. Do you like to e-fight with people? You get off on it for some reason. _



Hey, all I did was point out that you were being insulting to multiple groups of people, which is _wrong_. You're the one freaking out.


----------



## Smushygirl (Oct 19, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> _Nope, the first thing that came out of your post was BLACK WOMAN. You saw my skin color and singled me out for it while others have said things about gay fashion designers. I know what you are trying to do now.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm finished arguing with you. I don't engage in catfights.
> ...



ESPNCutie?! Is that you?!!!


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

_Ignore list you go..................adios bruja...._


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 19, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> you get punch and pie.









*What GangstaDawg- No Gravy!!!! * :happy:


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 19, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *What GangstaDawg- No Gravy!!!! * :happy:



with punch and pie?


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 19, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> with punch and pie?



Why of course - if it's a Meat pie


----------



## gangstadawg (Oct 19, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Why of course - if it's a Meat pie



EWWWW i was talking about apple pie. know what forget the pie cake is much better.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 19, 2009)

gangstadawg said:


> EWWWW i was talking about apple pie. know what forget the pie cake is much better.



In THAT case - if it's cake - then NO Gravy


----------



## KittyKitten (Oct 19, 2009)

I hate that you can't edit posts after 30 minutes. I take back the post about placing you on the ignore list. I place no one on ignore. 

But really, it was inappropriate to bring up someone's race into the discussion because you feel you can easily target them that way. My race has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, don't ASSUME someone is a certain race based on skin color.


----------



## littlefairywren (Oct 20, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *What GangstaDawg- No Gravy!!!! * :happy:



OMG, Tony I have not seen that cartoon in years and it is my very favourite.....hahaha memories Sorry, completely off topic.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 20, 2009)

littlefairywren said:


> OMG, Tony I have not seen that cartoon in years and it is my very favourite.....hahaha memories Sorry, completely off topic.



Why you are on topic- I mean from "toy" ankles- to issues of "gender" and "ethnicity" - this thread is your basic free for all for anything anyway... and you are on topic :happy: Plus... thread needed a pooch picture and just for you ... here's the complete cartoon. After All - this is a Blue Ribbon cartoon that was nominated for the Academy Award

Chow Hound


----------



## littlefairywren (Oct 20, 2009)

Tony, you are my hero!
Thank you muchly....


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 20, 2009)

littlefairywren said:


> Tony, you are my hero!
> Thank you muchly....



We aim to please :happy:



Feed the Kitty

*Another Blue Ribbon Cartoon*


----------



## littlefairywren (Oct 20, 2009)

This is heaps better than Barbie ankles
I had forgotten that one as well.....lovely!


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 20, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Do we a get a sandwich if we stay



Tony, you get a "Heart Attack in the Making"...

...and a nice bowl of matzoh ball soup.

YUM!











Don't forget the mustard for your sandwich!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 20, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> I hate that you can't edit posts after 30 minutes. I take back the post about placing you on the ignore list. I place no one on ignore.
> 
> But really, it was inappropriate to bring up someone's race into the discussion because you feel you can easily target them that way. My race has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, don't ASSUME someone is a certain race based on skin color.



You do realize that you are, quite literally, making her point for her ... right?

Point being that NOBODY likes being generalized about. Not even you


----------



## katorade (Oct 20, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> You do realize that you are, quite literally, making her point for her ... right?
> 
> Point being that NOBODY likes being generalized about. Not even you



Exactly. Not to mention that I didn't actually SAY anything about race, merely used it as an example of something people are sensitive about when it's generalized.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 20, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Tony, you get a "Heart Attack in the Making"...
> 
> ...and a nice bowl of matzoh ball soup.
> 
> ...




Thanks Fascinita .... My gosh, that sandwich is unbelievable I mean what a Monster something only a true Feed Demon could devour. I love the smiling guy at the end of the pictures- wonder if he polished off his soup...

Yes Matzoh Ball Soup - good for the Soul 

And Gangtsa- no sandwich for you sorry  - only Pie and NO GRAVY :happy:


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 20, 2009)

happyface83 said:


> I hate that you can't edit posts after 30 minutes. I take back the post about placing you on the ignore list. I place no one on ignore.
> 
> But really, it was inappropriate to bring up someone's race into the discussion because you feel you can easily target them that way. My race has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, don't *ASSUME* someone is a certain race based on skin color.



Hi HappyFace83: 

To Ignore or not Ignore- that is always a dilemma .....what to choose .....

Normally I would added a picture or two on this response - but, this is an occassion to enjoy some classic "Assume Videos"  



Felix Unger-Don't Assume

Benny Hill- Don't Assume


----------



## Lamia (Oct 22, 2009)

In the beginning, the reason thin models were used to was to show off the clothing. Curvy woman would distract from the clothing. So instead of looking at the design people would look at the woman's body. They used girls who had no shape so that the design could be appreciated. 

My problem with the fashion industry is that this became the ideal within the industry and now it's affecting poor Barbie's fat feet which I loved to chew on as a kid by the way.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 22, 2009)

My daughter is starting art school next fall and a representative from the school visited her high school yesterday. They talked about many aspects of art -- from food to fashion -- but he made a point of discussing fashion models and how the bodies are illustrated in fashion drawings. He said that while they used to choose tall thin women (and draw tall thin women) because it put the emphasis on the hemline, the trend is toward more "natural" looking drawings, and this is something that's trickling down to models as well. He told her class that now they are excluding models who are "too thin" and who's BMI's are too low because it's important to see how the designs look on actual women. 

I saw this as a real positive move toward healthier body images in the future.


----------



## dcoyote (Oct 22, 2009)

Well that's great Miss Vickie! I think changes back toward more average sized women's figures in fashion will take time, but it will happen.

I'm actually surprised that Barbie is thinning the ankles. They were already fairly thin. I thought they would have went the other way like the Brats dolls with their giant, over-sized feet.


----------



## mango (Oct 26, 2009)




----------



## tonynyc (Oct 26, 2009)

mango said:


>



*A Bountiful Barbie :wubu: minus the Armless Chair *


----------

