OT: Sports (Illustrated.)

[Norm Peterson]

Wanted to get some thoughts on something that's a bit of a current event.

 

I'm talking about models.

 

Not like model planes but like model people.  Like fashion models.  Or swimsuit models.  Or any kind of model human, really.

 

If you have hand models -- those people who get close-ups taken of their hands, wearing rings or some such thing -- I presume they specifically pick out people who have only the best looking hands, right?

 

Or fashion models.  Designers don't pay thousands of dollars to average looking women for photo-shoots.  They want women who are exceptionally beautiful, like 3 standard deviations above the mean.

 

I remember when Lauren Hutton used to be a supermodel before the term supermodel was coined.  And she made a lot of money off of being an exceptionally beautiful woman.  And then she got old and modeling gigs dried up and she went on some talk show like Oprah arguing that "older women can be beautiful, too" and therefore she ought to get modeling gigs to represent older women.

 

I agree older women can be beautiful.  But, by any usual and customary standard, older women are not as hubba, hubba beautiful as young chicks.  I remember in anthropology class in college they talked about women around the world in various and diverse cultures doing things to make themselves appear younger by making their eyes look bigger -- neotenous eyes, they called it.

 

And, I'm sorry Lauren Hutton, but you made a lot of money from this system by being more beautiful than 99.9% of all other women when you were young.  The modeling "system" advantaged you at the time.  So, take the bad with the good.  Now that you're old, you're still better looking than 99.9% of all older women.  But you're not better looking than 99.9% of all women, and it's the younger girls who get paid the big bucks.

 

Her complaint was basically that it wasn't fair that, as an older woman, she was now not able to command those big bucks.  But what's not fair about it?  Would it be more fair that she -- as a no-longer-youthful woman -- should get more money modeling than, say, another older woman who isn't quite as attractive as she?  Or more money modeling than, say, a younger woman who isn't quite as beautiful as she once was but is still better looking than she is now?  If the standard by which you were enriched is simply physical beauty period, then you either meet the standard or you don't.  Don't give me this age BS.

 

 

 

And so ...

 

This brings me to the upcoming swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, the cover of which will feature a plus-sized model from right here in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Some of you may even know her or perhaps are even related to her.

 

She's not getting on the cover because she has a merely average-looking face.  She's advantaged because of her looks.  She's pretty.  But she's not your typical swimsuit model.  And this will probably result in some sort of celebration of our society becoming emancipated from body-shaming or patriarchal notions of what the ideal woman should look like.

 

But the bottom line is she's still advantaged and she's only getting this gig strictly because of her looks:  She's the best-looking heavy-set girl they could find.  She still represents an unrealistic standard of beauty for most women out there.  So, why should we change the rules just for her and ignore her weight while celebrating the fact that she's still genetically gifted in other ways?

 

Kelsey Robinson is better looking but Sports Illustrated is never going to pay Kelsey a bunch of money to pose in a swimsuit on the cover of their Swimsuit edition.  And that's because, even though she's extremely pretty, Kelsey is not fat enough to fall into the plus-sized category and not slender enough to fall into the usual category.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't get the whole equivalency of plus-sized models with regular models.  The only reason this girl from Lincoln is in there is because she's way, way prettier than the average fat chick.  But if she's not swimsuit model material all the way around, should it just be ignored that she's missing one of the usual attributes?  I don't see them using a model with a smokin' hawt body but a mediocre face, do you?

 

Any thoughts?

[Bugeaters1]

I like plus size women myself,and that Rousey chick

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Huskerpapa]

Beauty lies within a person, not with their outer shell.  Seriously.  The SI issue is all about attempting to move the magazine from the red to the black. 

 

When I grew up, "those in the know" attempted to convince society (and they did a pretty good job of it) that Twiggy was what a woman should look like...are you kidding me!  She was skin and bones and had the intellect of a used tire.  No thanks. 

[Norm Peterson]

Beauty lies within a person, not with their outer shell.  Seriously.  The SI issue is all about attempting to move the magazine from the red to the black. 

 

When I grew up, "those in the know" attempted to convince society (and they did a pretty good job of it) that Twiggy was what a woman should look like...are you kidding me!  She was skin and bones and had the intellect of a used tire.  No thanks. 

Sorta.

 

There's inner beauty, for sure. 

 

And then there's outer beauty.

 

Studies have shown that standards of outer beauty are universal.

 

You can show photos of people to young babies and they hone in on what we would normally consider to be the hot women.  I've read of other studies that have established that the desired proportions of women (waist to hip ratio) is the same regardless of culture or part of the world in which you live.

 

It just is.

 

And I guess my point is why should we make an exception for weight when we're not making an exception for facial beauty?  To me, it's a con.  It's like Twiggy but miles in the other direction.

[49r]

This thread is useless without pics.

 

-1, Norm....

 

:mad:

[Bugeaters1]

This thread is useless without pics.

 

-1, Norm....

 

:mad:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8qF6S8ZW_QMAbmMunIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTIzNzhzaDUzBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM0NjI5YTA5YTU2ZWNkNjRiOTFjYmFhZmQyODRhODE1YQRncG9zAzYzBGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DRonda%2BRousey%2BSports%2BIllustrated%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D63&w=656&h=369&imgurl=coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F02%2Fhailey-clauson-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-cover1.jpg%3Fquality%3D88&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcoed.com%2F2016%2F02%2F13%2Fronda-rousey-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue-cover-si-swim-cover-photo-picture%2F&size=70.4KB&name=%3Cb%3ERonda+Rousey+Sports+Illustrated%3C%2Fb%3E+Swimsuit+Cover+photo&p=Ronda+Rousey+Sports+Illustrated&oid=4629a09a56ecd64b91cbaafd284a815a&fr2=&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&tt=%3Cb%3ERonda+Rousey+Sports+Illustrated%3C%2Fb%3E+Swimsuit+Cover+photo&b=61∋=240&no=63&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=13cuujb28&sigb=14l39kmca&sigi=139ahjper&sigt=11rlv91ab&sign=11rlv91ab&.crumb=wLgpCzyjX4s&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla

[HuskerFever]

This thread is useless without pics.

 

-1, Norm....

 

:mad:

 

This article helps sum it up:

 

http://journalstar.com/news/local/this-is-for-all-the-women-who-didn-t-think/article_5344e03a-dde9-57bb-8aeb-6bb1a44d4455.html

[jimmykc]

I think the subliminal message to all this is that Norm doesn't want the Shim-Shams to ever return as the halftime entertainment.

[Cazzie22]

Christie Brinkley, Elle McPherson and Kathy Ireland will always make me happy!  So for that I am thankful to SI.

[atskooc]

I stopped caring about the swimsuit issue round about the time I was a sophomore in high school.

[atskooc]

 

Beauty lies within a person, not with their outer shell.  Seriously.  The SI issue is all about attempting to move the magazine from the red to the black. 

 

When I grew up, "those in the know" attempted to convince society (and they did a pretty good job of it) that Twiggy was what a woman should look like...are you kidding me!  She was skin and bones and had the intellect of a used tire.  No thanks. 

Sorta.

 

There's inner beauty, for sure. 

 

And then there's outer beauty.

 

Studies have shown that standards of outer beauty are universal.

 

You can show photos of people to young babies and they hone in on what we would normally consider to be the hot women.  I've read of other studies that have established that the desired proportions of women (waist to hip ratio) is the same regardless of culture or part of the world in which you live.

 

It just is.

 

And I guess my point is why should we make an exception for weight when we're not making an exception for facial beauty?  To me, it's a con.  It's like Twiggy but miles in the other direction.

 

Or maybe not.

http://www.lifebuzz.com/world-beauty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-the-ideal-womans-body-looks-like-in-18-countries_us_55ccd2a6e4b064d5910ac3b0

[HB]

Norm, I better just stay out of this one.  I smell a trap.

[PimpMario]

Norm how do you feel about Rhonda rousey being on the cover. She isn't there just for her looks

[aphilso1]

I married a woman that I find much better looking than the SI models.  She also happens to have that whole inner beauty thing too.  So really I'd prefer to look at my own smokin' hot babe in real life, rather than some not-quite-as-hot SI model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I may or may not show this post to my wife to earn major brownie points.

[Norm Peterson]

Norm how do you feel about Rhonda rousey being on the cover. She isn't there just for her looks

I'd be OK with her because they're not pretending that she's just as good looking as the other women who've made the covers in the past.

[PimpMario]

Norm how do you feel about Rhonda rousey being on the cover. She isn't there just for her looks

I'd be OK with her because they're not pretending that she's just as good looking as the other women who've made the covers in the past.

Seems like you have a double standard. Nebraska girl > Rhonda.

[HuskerFever]

It should be worth noting that S.I. released three different covers all at the same time:

 

[Norm Peterson]

 

 

Beauty lies within a person, not with their outer shell.  Seriously.  The SI issue is all about attempting to move the magazine from the red to the black. 

 

When I grew up, "those in the know" attempted to convince society (and they did a pretty good job of it) that Twiggy was what a woman should look like...are you kidding me!  She was skin and bones and had the intellect of a used tire.  No thanks. 

Sorta.

 

There's inner beauty, for sure. 

 

And then there's outer beauty.

 

Studies have shown that standards of outer beauty are universal.

 

You can show photos of people to young babies and they hone in on what we would normally consider to be the hot women.  I've read of other studies that have established that the desired proportions of women (waist to hip ratio) is the same regardless of culture or part of the world in which you live.

 

It just is.

 

And I guess my point is why should we make an exception for weight when we're not making an exception for facial beauty?  To me, it's a con.  It's like Twiggy but miles in the other direction.

 

Or maybe not.

http://www.lifebuzz.com/world-beauty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-the-ideal-womans-body-looks-like-in-18-countries_us_55ccd2a6e4b064d5910ac3b0

 

Then again, maybe.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-men-body-evolutionary-roots.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/

 

(18 designers in 18 countries isn't a "study" and doesn't exactly disprove my point.)

[atskooc]

 

 

 

Beauty lies within a person, not with their outer shell.  Seriously.  The SI issue is all about attempting to move the magazine from the red to the black. 

 

When I grew up, "those in the know" attempted to convince society (and they did a pretty good job of it) that Twiggy was what a woman should look like...are you kidding me!  She was skin and bones and had the intellect of a used tire.  No thanks. 

Sorta.

 

There's inner beauty, for sure. 

 

And then there's outer beauty.

 

Studies have shown that standards of outer beauty are universal.

 

You can show photos of people to young babies and they hone in on what we would normally consider to be the hot women.  I've read of other studies that have established that the desired proportions of women (waist to hip ratio) is the same regardless of culture or part of the world in which you live.

 

It just is.

 

And I guess my point is why should we make an exception for weight when we're not making an exception for facial beauty?  To me, it's a con.  It's like Twiggy but miles in the other direction.

 

Or maybe not.

http://www.lifebuzz.com/world-beauty/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-the-ideal-womans-body-looks-like-in-18-countries_us_55ccd2a6e4b064d5910ac3b0

 

Then again, maybe.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-men-body-evolutionary-roots.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/

 

(18 designers in 18 countries isn't a "study" and doesn't exactly disprove my point.)

 

Interesting stuff, Norm.

 

Thanks!

[49r]

I married a woman that I find much better looking than the SI models.  She also happens to have that whole inner beauty thing too.  So really I'd prefer to look at my own smokin' hot babe in real life, rather than some not-quite-as-hot SI model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I may or may not show this post to my wife to earn major brownie points.

 

Boogity boogity boogity AMEN!