[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/fa/ - Fashion



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1539204074744.webm (2.57 MB, 640x900)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB WEBM
Why do Fashion models have to be skinny and tall?
>>
>>13751582
honestly its more attractive to anybody that doesnt mouthbreathe.
>>
File: Qcxixn7.jpg (275 KB, 1000x1000)
275 KB
275 KB JPG
Clothes will lay and fit better onto a body that's not shapely/curvy or that has extra rolls poking out.

It's also just easier and cheaper for designers to not have to worry about fluctuating weight, mobility, and other health issues an overweight models may have.

They want people to look healthy and attractive to advertise the clothes and draw people into the stores in an attempt to imitate they look they saw in the ad or on the runway.

Seriously clothes just plain look better on a person with a tight body. A thin body won't fuck up the silhouette or shape of the clothing. Everything is easier to work with and just looks neater and cleaner on a lithe or graceful body.
>>
>>13751601
>she lost her tits
>>
File: IMG_0306.jpg (154 KB, 500x750)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>13751582
Because mannequins are tall and skinny. Models are meant to be walking hangers, bringing attention to the clothes. Not to mention, that body type is objectively the most attractive. If you were a high fashion company, why wouldn't you want the most attractive people to wear your clothes?
>>
>>13751582
because there's a difference between something that's visually interesting vs something you want to put your dick in you tard
>>
>>13751603
Yep that was to illustrate how the same close fitting top is suppose to look compared to when it's stretched out of shape by a person that's chubby or overweight. Looks much better on the thinner version and it actually serves it's intended purpose of breast support.
>>
>>13751606
>objectively
Can you guys stop using that word incorrectly?
>>
File: VAL_0266.1366x2048.jpg (241 KB, 1366x2048)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
>>13751585
this
>>
>>13751622
Beauty is objective
>>
>>13751641
this
>>
>>13751641
kek then why most of the girls from "10/10 cute face" threads from /s/ are like 7/10 to me
>>
>>13751582
Fashion models are clothes hangers. The fact that they are often highly fuckable is of secondary importance.
>>
>>13751582
Model in the webm?
>>
File: 1515903058512.jpg (93 KB, 960x960)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>13751657
10/10 does not exist. A lot of guys can agree on a 8-9/10 but after that its mostly preference that makes a girl a 10 to a guy. Plus, those rating systems vary highly so that is not a good metric, nor is it what I was talking about. Choose a better argument
>>
>>13751670
Stephanie Rayner
https://www.instagram.com/stephjrayner/?hl=en
>>
>>13751601
Right looks more pretentious.
What a cunt
>>
>>13751673
>Beauty is objective
This is what the anon you replied to replied to.
>>
>>13751694

You mean right side is out of your league now and you're intimidated. Got it.
>>
>>13751698
beauty is objective, but individuals have fetishes (perversions of thought/disorders of soul) which cloud their judgment.
>>
To get my dick hard.
>>
>>13751710
Your words in my ears:
>beauty is pure math
>but it's also more than math
>>
>>13751715
Think of it as a baseline
>>
>>13751582
Fit women are hot. High fashion models are classy.
>>
>>13751601
>moe vs jojo
>>
>>13751582
Skinny=neutral looking, or at least less sexually appealing
Tall=to be more "visible", to impose their presence and to make the clothes they're wearing more visible
>>
>>13751582
Because they're human clothes hangers
>>
File: disgusted rick.png (66 KB, 205x237)
66 KB
66 KB PNG
>>13751606
>>13751641
embarrassing
>>
>>13751606
she actually looks not great there.
i like a robust woman
>>
because fatties are gross and shouldnt be normalized
>>
>>13751657
Something doesn't need universal agreement to be objective
>>
>>13751606
>objectively the most attractive
are you retarded?
>>
File: 1535841878781.jpg (1022 KB, 1080x1346)
1022 KB
1022 KB JPG
>>13751582
Please do not post the queen of /tv/ here.

This is your last warning.
>>
File: Untitled.png (890 KB, 886x494)
890 KB
890 KB PNG
>>13752252

You guys need to stop, as if you would pass up a date with Miranda Kerr for someone like Lena Dunham.
>>
File: 4L_wuUtznXl.jpg (79 KB, 300x339)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>13752279
>virgin here

I don't wanna bag a bag of bones. If I wanted to feel something hard I could go to prison, sleep on the concrete outside, or offer a gloryhole to feel hard dicks.
I'd choose slightly overweight to slightly underweight and if it was extremes if even choose the fatter one. The girl called the ugliest girl in the world is too skinny. Their hips are pokey when they weigh so little.

Enjoy your imaginary skeleton date compared to a non model fatass.
>>
File: Eugenia-Cooney-Photos.jpg (63 KB, 940x545)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>13752305

No one is talking about dating women that are anorexic. We're talking about healthy adult models vs the "average" person.
>>
>>13752320
Yeah, because models are well known for being healthy
>>
>>13752320
>healthy
>model
pick one you adderall ape

>average
so super tall and underweight or fat.
>>
>>13751582
They have to be ridiculously thin to disguise the fact they’re all secret trannies.
>>
File: A06riBV.jpg (1.42 MB, 3612x2408)
1.42 MB
1.42 MB JPG
>>13752335

That would be stupid to say that they're all perfectly healthy but there's no comparing their level of attractiveness to the average girl you'd encounter today. They stand out for a reason. Lets take away conventional attractiveness and talk about a model such as Molly Bair. Most people wouldn't call her beautiful but she's tall (6 feet), thin and very eye catching. If you're trying to sell clothes would you rather have Molly wear and advertise them for you or would you want Adele in your ad campaign?
>>
File: 4L_JeVklnF8.jpg (78 KB, 673x789)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>13752354
>you can only have tall and thin models or fat models
>want a model to draw attention away from clothing
>>nobody gets attention on the catwalk

are you 12, 9 or a nigger? IQ this low shouldn't exist.
>>
>>13752248
Not him, but
:--D
That is incorrect as fuck.
>>
>>13752367

Are you retarded? Why do you think people specifically seek out certain models to advertise for them? It's because they have a look that grabs attention. People notice the face or body first and then they notice clothes.
If models were ineffective in selling clothes then all of the collections would be premiered in galleries on mannequin or dress forms and all ads would just be the clothes spread on a spread, without a person in them to show how they fit, move, or highlight a person's looks.
>>
File: 4L_WhLHg3kD.jpg (51 KB, 445x620)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>13752390
>being this retarded
you are devolving before my eyes
>>
>>13751603
Good!
>>
>>13751601
Left is literally hotter.
>>
>>13752398
what is that thing
>>
>>13752320
>We're talking about healthy adult models
>healthy
>models

heartiest fucking kek
>>
>>13751641
Objective as in it being subject to changing parameters such as cultural fluctuation and circumstance. Either way androgynous, tall and skinny is not (((objectively))) the most attractive.
>>
>>13751710
What is beauty outside the human experience? We alone define it. If a human has another defining, inescapable trait, like a fetish (you can’t show me a picture of a “purely” beautiful person, since you aren’t pure and thus have fetishes), then through this lens we must view it. Beauty is not observable without our inherent biases. It doesn’t exist outside of human beings. Sure, the actual object of our label remains, but it is not beautiful or ugly, it simply is. So is it then reducible to a binary system? Either something is beautiful or it isn’t? How would one go about proving something is beautiful? By popular vote, or maybe through science? Are the majority always correct and does science not look deep enough?
>>
>>13751715
just because you believe something is true, it isn't necessarily true. just because two people have different beliefs about something, it doesn't mean that thing has a subjective existence.

try reading plato or something
>>
>>13752525
>What is beauty outside the human experience?
A form.

Listen pinhead, pick any ig thot and then some hamplanet at walmart. Why will the first one be nigh-universally preferred by men around the world? there's a reason we have the word 'paraphilia'.
>>
>>13752534
Smooth brain, stop talking, you don't understand.
>>
>>13752537
repent, atheist
>>
>>13752534

Let them like their ugly fat chicks. If they procreate hopefully they'll become so ugly and gross that they'll become self quarantined and the rest of won't have to deal with them.
>>
>>13752562
I'm sure they will suffer greatly having to deal with these ugly fat chicks such as the one in the OP. She's clearly unfit to bear children and support a wholesome life.
>>
>>13751582
it's the only way to b. fat people are disgusting and should b exterminated
>>
>>13752354
me on the right
>>
>>13752572
>ugly fat chicks such as the one in the OP

No one has called that woman ugly or fat, she's perfectly attractive and in good shape. OP chose a bad image if he think she's fat.
>>
>>13751582

how do you think a 6'3+ woman is going to look like modelling clothes when she has a normal weight? you think she'd ever make it into an italian 38 or 40? no sir, that's why they have to be 100 lbs tops.

no, and even if she were lucky enough and her waist would look thin, her upper thighs would always look like fat trunks. *no one* in the industry wants to see jiggling legs on the catwalk.
>>
>>13752335

>as he wipes his cheeto stained fingers on his cum stained sweat pants in his parent's basement
>>
>>13752752
nice projection retard
>>
>>13752268
literally want to be her toilet
>>
File: pGXZ4xC.jpg (31 KB, 400x344)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>An average person is generally 7-and-a-half heads tall (including the head).
>An ideal figure, used when aiming for an impression of nobility or grace, is drawn at 8 heads tall.
>A heroic figure, used in the heroic for the depiction of gods and superheroes, is eight-and-a-half heads tall. Most of the additional length comes from a bigger chest and longer legs.
>>
>>13751601
>They want people to look healthy
lol
>>
>>13753231
not every designer is in love with heroin addicts as much as Heidi is.
>>
>>13752525
>Beauty is not observable without our inherent biases
I would hardly call primal instinct bias humans have a prefrence for certain features in women.
>>
>>13753429
Such as being so underweight they can't even breed? Doubt.

>>13752733
Yes. That is the point, everyone arguing that skinny tall is objectively better because the other option is apparently some fat slop is being disingenuous.
>>
File: NIICE.jpg (23 KB, 646x720)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>13751582
because of your webm holy shit she's almost objectively 10/10
>>
File: fatbhldn3.png (892 KB, 750x684)
892 KB
892 KB PNG
>>13751601
>>
File: 1538767910663.jpg (76 KB, 1000x1500)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>Implying this isn't the superior female body
>>
>>13753628
..I think they were implying that woman wasn't skinny enough?
>>
>>13751582
they're human wardrobes
>>
>>13751582
A mixture of not wanting the model to outshine the clothing and using them as a clothes hanger and the fact that less fabric used to make clothing. Fashion designers lose money by doing runway shows.
>>
Because. Just as normal men want to be big, so is being thin a inter-female oriented status thing competition and also fags are bitches.

Normal men don't find that thin shit sexy. tbqh
>>
I wanna smash this shit so badly
>>
File: ass.jpg (27 KB, 540x540)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>13754235
>>13754244
>>
>>13754089
It is amazing how many people cant see something they like and realize that there is too much of it: Excessive breasts, excessive servings, excessive curves... how do we decide there is too much? When the quantity presented is unhealthy.

A lot of people seem unable to even recognize what healthy LOOKS like anymore.
>>
>>13752527
>try reading plato or something
Try fucking yourself out of existence you faggot.
>>
>>13754249
wtf are you exactly trying to say boy
>>
>>13754235
>Normal men don't find that thin shit sexy
I agree. As a matter of fact, i like a woman you could grab onto something.
>>
>>13751582
Damn, this is perfect.
>>
File: Lifegaurd.jpg (906 KB, 1091x1601)
906 KB
906 KB JPG
>>
>>13754316
You grab onto Ginny Sacramoni, your fuckin' hands will disappear!
>>
>>13754363
What a whale
>>
>>13752851
no such luck, she wears diapers
>>
File: 1537130834880.jpg (32 KB, 593x448)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
Why do men prefer big boobs to small boobs?
>>
>>13754394
cuz most men aren't attracted to kids
>>
>>13752739

I think you're exaggerating what the average high fashion model looks like. They're like 6'0 and 120 pounds. Very slim, but not slenderman.
>>
>>13754394
Different men like different things, sweetie. Some like big boobs, some like big asses. Some like legs, some are footfags. Etc etc...
>>
File: bueno.jpg (84 KB, 546x366)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>13754235
>>13754244
Now imagine if there was a bonus appendage underneath the skirt.
>>
>>13754368
New Jersey’s a small state... She moves in, she could tip it over.
>>
>>13751635
>tfw no qt ayy gf
>>
>>13754394
Men of taste don't.
>>
>>13752457
Pleb
>>
>>13751582
not gonna lie

I've never seen a woman so beautiful in person
not even from a distance
>>
>>13751727
Jojo. Always be Jojo. Everyone should aspire to be a Jojo character
>>
>>13754363
Orca
>>
>>13751657
Because you objectively have bad taste
>>
>>13751582
Gay men and women like tall women.
>>
File: bigcockbrock.png (78 KB, 216x203)
78 KB
78 KB PNG
>>13751641
Objectivity doesn't mean "Undeniable truth, hehe facts don't care about ur feelings checkmate pleb", objectivity means the state of something existing outside human perception. Since beauty is a characteristic ascribed solely by human perception, it CANNOT be objective.

The only people who say beauty is objective are the ones who have an autistic fit when either someone says their waifu isn't a 10/10, or that someone they don't find attractive is attractive.
>>
>>13751582
clothes hang better on them, and they're more androgynous which makes them more popular with gay designers. Contrast them with pornstars, who are chosen for attractiveness (and whorishness of course) and they tend to be shorter and bustier.
>>
>>13754737
Beauty DOES exist outside of human perception.

Beauty isn't the same thing as pleasantness. Beauty isn't merely the fact that something happens to please people, beauty is when something SHOULD be pleasant to everyone.

Now, just because we as individual can't tell the difference between beauty and pleasantness for sure, does NOT mean that they're essentially the same thing. BY DEFINITION, beauty is an objective quality.
>>
>>13751582
because gay guys are the best designers and they want chicks that look like 13 year old boys
>>
>>13754579
Ooh Johnny!
>>
File: beauty.png (24 KB, 889x384)
24 KB
24 KB PNG
>>13754764
Thats wrong though.

>Beauty is when something SHOULD be pleasant to everyone
ie everything you find beautiful right?

Beauty does not exist outside the human mind. Certain things can objectively exist outside the human brain, but whether or not they trigger any perceived sensation of 'beauty' is entirely in your head. Its like saying a meal objectively tastes good, when "tasting good" doesn't exist outside your brain. Hell, people are genetically predisposed to tasting things differently. Look at Brussels Sprouts. They aren't inherently tasty or disgusting.
>>
>>13754770
forgot link

https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/12/04/brusselssprouts/
>>
>>13751601
Gosh I would shag her so hard
>>
>>13754770
>>13754772
Okay that's a nice try but next time at least try to do some research (and no, Thesaurus.com does not count as research) or at the very least figure out why we use different words and what their respective meanings are, instead of lumping everything together under the banner of subjective relativism.

Beauty is not a sensation. It is not something I feel, it is something that things ARE. The basic fucking structure of the English language makes it obvious.

The thing you're talking about is called aesthetic pleasure, and unfortunately, it can also be triggered by things that aren't beautiful, which is why nobody agrees on what is and isn't beautiful, but by definition, by the very syntax of thought and language, beauty is NOT in the eyes of the beholder it is in the THING that is beheld.

Absolutely nobody looks at something they find beautiful and thinks "I feel beauty", we all think "THIS thing IS beautiful"
whether they're correct or not is another topic entirely, the fact of the matter is that beauty, if there is any of it at all, exists independently of human perception, and the faillibility of human perception doesn't mean that it isn't an objective property.

Same as any other objective property.
>>
because short and thick women are disgusting pigs.

>>13751608
Lizards are visually interesting but we dont put them on runways. runways are for models you want to fuck (but probably cant).

>>13751657
probably because youre a loser who cant get laid so you reprogrammed yourself to respond to average looking girls.

>>13751746
>skinny
>less sexually appealing
you think they select women who are sexually unappealing? im fucking furious at your stupidity.

Well im back to /pol/, it was nice visiting you faggot and your pointless hobby.
>>
>>13754802
No because again, beauty is an inherently human concept being ascribed to the object. Just like this thing is not objectively delicious. Beauty has no tangible foundation or value beyond what humans put it in it, and the fact that its consistently in flux and nobody can agree on it further enforces this.
>>
>>13754807
Imagine getting this upset that not everyone shares your preferences. Its almost as if your defensiveness were compensating for them.
>>
>>13754812
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
This is your post with the cliches replaces with periods and the original content in text.
>>
>>13754847
Haha get it none of your content was original. your comment reads like a computer generated word salad.
>>
>>13754847
This is the most autistic thing I've ever seen
>>
>>13754212
no
>>
>>13754810
As opposed to what? A lizard concept? Who are you to tell me lizards don't know about beauty?

Many birds sure as hell do. It doesn't matter who came up with the concept, it is an objective one, and we don't attribute it to things arbitrarily, we observe it the same way we observe anything else, and, like everything we observe, we can make mistakes about it because we aren't infallible.

What you can reasonably argue is that the existence of beauty is unfalsifiable, but saying that beauty is subjective is a self-contradiction.
>>
>>13754864
>It is an objective concept
>that we can perceive but can't pinpoint because it doesn't exist outside our heads
Exactly, its subjective. mate come on now, don't go jumping through these hoops. If beauty were objective we wouldn't be having these arguments about what is and isn't beautiful.

>What you can reasonably argue is that the existence of beauty is unfalsifiable
This is nonsense. Saying something isn't objective is not saying that it doesn't exist. It isn't Santa Claus.
>>
>>13754764
>Beauty DOES exist outside of human perception.
>Beauty isn't the same thing as pleasantness. Beauty isn't merely the fact that something happens to please people, beauty is when something SHOULD be pleasant to everyone.
Jesus fucking Christ this is the dumbest shit I read today
>>
>>13752752
Embarrassing
>>
>>13754363
*sniffs to heart’s content*
Aaaahhhhhhhh
>>
File: Screenshot_7.png (581 KB, 510x581)
581 KB
581 KB PNG
>>13754807
>runways are for models you want to fuck
You're deeply retarded. Loads of models aren't conventionally attractive or someone you'd ever want to fuck but still look aesthetically "beautiful" or appealing, or just draw the eye in some way.
>Lizards are visually interesting but we dont put them on runways.
I mean a lot of them pretty much are
>>
>>13755002
this person is not conventionally attractive and not someone i would want to fuck and not aesthetic.

>>13754856
HA this is only 10% of my full autism.
>>
>>13753703
Exactly what I was saying. This is why we typically don't send overweight or chubby people down the runway. It's easier to take in clothing than it is to expand them. And I always find it so funny when they do with the real women have curves argument. No bitch your curves are fat rolls and you're shaped like a couch, nothing is going to fit you right, you need to have a waist line to be curvy.
>>
>>13752354
Why are they using boots?
>>
>>13754394
They're a sign of sexual maturity
>>
>>13751606
>>
>>13754310
That ass is just too fat for this anon.
>>
>>13754864
jesus christ man you're embarrassing yourself. I don't think I've seen a more obviously tipped argument on 4chan for all the time I've been here
>>
File: 1445500451278.png (33 KB, 597x384)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
>>13751582
/fit/-tier bait thread
>>
>>13754368
lmaoo
>>
>>13754363
id still inject my penis inside her
>>
>>13752464
banana
>>
>>13754802
i hope you get bullied
>>
>>13751606
>short women
>tall men
this is what is attractive to the opposite sex retard. not saying clothes dont look better on taller women from a fashion perspective, but short women are preferred due to evolutionary reasons
>>
>>13754737
>objectivity means something out of human perception
then how can objectivity exist, dummy?
>>
>>13757468
being perceptible =/= existing
>>
File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (56 KB, 1280x720)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>13754579
careful with these kind of jokes, my friend
>>
>>13753535
>Such as being so underweight they can't even breed? Doubt.
I never said anything of the sort or implied it. That being said for models it could be said that people in general like facial symentry which almost all models have.
>>
Beauty is a social construct
>>
>>13757471
i know that but you cannot say a thing exists without experiencing it.
>>
>>13755501
Why? He's right. Animals can experience, create and display beauty, therefore beauty is not a human construct. It's really not that hard.
>>13757710
The idea of deconstructing ideas by realizing they're social constructs is a social construct.
>>
>>13754363
dang im into it
>>
Beauty in humans, other apes and animals in general is an instrument of sexual selection and is not different from plain attractiveness. Still has subjectivity in case of our gens, because we evolved to find multiple traits and sets in our kind as beautiful, so some people may think that Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful creature in the entire universe, while others may say "meh, I've seen girls qter than that". And neither would be right or wrong, because there is no single solid and defined criteria of beauty

Beauty in non-living objects is pure mathematics, it doesn't matter if these objects were created naturally or artificially, and its perception as "beautiful" by us human beings is subjective social construct.
>>
>>13751622
It is call a hyperbole, faggot.
Can you read between the lines?
>>
>>13757271
Miranda Kerr is only 5'9". If you're a man and under that, you're a manlet and therefore a subhuman that doesn't deserve to breed, tbqh.
>>
The more a woman resembles a man the more beautiful she is, only incels and lowbrow meat portals will deny this.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.