Plus-size models

[Sunseeker]

The ultimate I issue I take against this thread is the notion that models need to make a man's loins stir. The reason women and "fags" in the fashion industry choose the women is because they are designing clothes that fit them. A skinny girl makes the clothes look better. When you have a girl with tits and ass then they distract from the clothes.

Which, considering women outside the modeling world usually have tits and ass, explains exactly why noone ever wears that garbage IRL.

[Aqueous]

Women who lift don't loose their breast tissue. Better yet, they get a "lift" so they are not as "saggy" (from lazy + ageing), so their breasts only benefits from it. Building their chest muscle will actually make it look like they have bigger breast. (No, not talking about some chick on steriods). The breats won't dissappear, anymore than it will for any other thin girl. Fat and breasts go together but it's kinda like->

It's not about lifting only, it's about the fact the women in the links you posted are shredded. Yes, if a woman lifted only they wouldn't lose anything and many women do it with squats to enhance their booteh! But the chicks in your phoots are not lifting only, they're stripping their bf down to single digit % which WILL affect their breasts.

Is she bigger than some un-fit/natrually skinny woman? Yes ofc. Is she big? Not really. I'm not 6'6, 260lbs, but yes I'm a bodybuilder and I think she's small. Compared to any fit guy she would be small. I wasn't really compareing her to anyone. I just don't think she is "big". Maybe because when you say "big", you say it in a negative way, while I don't. But she is not relaxed in the picure, it looks like she is contracting her biceps.

Compareing her to men in general, bone structure wise, and skinny, unfit guys. Well, I would call them small too.

However, if muscle mass on women makes them manly. Does the lack of muscle mass on men make them feminine to you, or does this only go the one way?

You don't have to be concerned about what the "norm" is, as I'm guessing the majority will share the same opinion like you (That's she's big and manly). I don't, probably because I'm not the average either. But, before I started lifting, I had somewhat of the same view you have. But over the years that changed, and I think fitness women are hot now.

For me it does go both ways, indeed. When you get a guy who lacks any real definition to their body and/or is skinny - so basically skinny-fat - they can look rather feminine, indeed.

I would say it doesn't go as much the other way, purely because women's bodies have more "distinct" features that you can't really replicate with a guy being skinny-fat, but otherwise I definitely view it swinging both ways, yep.

On the chick, I'm not saying her upper body being big is a negative as such, it's not to my personal taste but she's still attractive. It's more how it reflects on men. If her upper body isn't big for a woman then it feels like to be "average" for a man you need to be stacked like fuck.

But on what's the "norm": there's alot more people with this attitude now though. Not necessarily towards women, true, but with men? Absolutely. Even the way you refer to "fit" sort of suggests it. You don't need to be stacked in any way to be fit. Marathon runners like Mo Farah are very wiry and probably have a smaller upper body than the chick in your photo but are INSANELY fit. I understand you probably meant "fit" in a loose way rather than agonizing over the specific meaning but such loose terms can sometimes be indicative of where attitudes lie, even without someone being aware of it when saying/typing it.

You other brothers can't deny. I had to

And this is why squats are the most beautiful exercise xD

- - - Updated - - -

It's more used to describe people building muscle for competition purposes. People building muscle for Olympic lifting, strongman competitions, etc are typically not referred to as bodybuilders.

These days it's more used to indicate a goal. There are people who do exercise purely to keep fit and trim, which is general fitness, but people who specifically aim to alter their body in a more drastic way which includes packing on muscle are now considered "bodybuilders". It makes sense really considering the literal meaning of the term.

The reason it's used more loosely these days is because people are doing it alot more with much greater, wider success due to advances in dietary and exercise knowledge.

- - - Updated - - -

Which, considering women outside the modeling world usually have tits and ass, explains exactly why noone ever wears that garbage IRL.

Hahaha, love it, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Uriel]

Women have it rough when it comes to their body, no question about that.

However I think we men are MUCH more forgiving about a woman's body that the girls are about ours. At least that is my very own impression in the area I live in.

For instance, Women can be small or tall, chubby or skinny, can have little boobs or large ones, may be shy or assertive and all that while the common girl want's her partner to be taller than her, should have at least some visible muscles and must be dominant and strong minded. While the tast in girls of most men differ, most women will give you the same answer when you ask they how their boyfriend should be.

[Weaponized Nuclear Kitten]

Which, considering women outside the modeling world usually have tits and ass, explains exactly why noone ever wears that garbage IRL.

Same reason that you don't see the average joe middle class family walking into art auctions and dropping a year's salary on sculptures and paintings.

Fashion in it's higher forms (the "garbage" from the runway) is often not intended for everyday wear. You can call it stupid if you so desire but it's in the same vein as calling Ferraris garbage because some rich prick will buy it and only drive it once every 3 months.

My parting shot: people (me included) enjoy fashion and see it in some ways as an art form. One that's organic and inclusive; it's like a painting or sculpture that you or others wear. To call it garbage is insulting to me, and quite frankly, close-minded.

[Aqueous]

Same reason that you don't see the average joe middle class family walking into art auctions and dropping a year's salary on sculptures and paintings.

Fashion in it's higher forms (the "garbage" from the runway) is often not intended for everyday wear. You can call it stupid if you so desire but it's in the same vein as calling Ferraris garbage because some rich prick will buy it and only drive it once every 3 months.

My parting shot: people (me included) enjoy fashion and see it in some ways as an art form. One that's organic and inclusive; it's like a painting or sculpture that you or others wear. To call it garbage is insulting to me, and quite frankly, close-minded.

Except painting and sculpture are artforms that many "everyday" people indulge in, they have purpose and worth in the real world as well as output that is coveted. The vast majority of homes have paintings of some kind or even just prints of them, and the vast majority of gardens have figurines of some sort. Only a select few indulge in "high fashion" however, and the output of the industry at that level is useless to the vast majority of people. It's made further ironic as it's an industry arguably more "in your face" than the former examples in spite of being more insular. When it's shoved on people's laps who don't care for it you're going to get opinions as feedback and don't be surprised if most of those opinions are negative.

And on top of that, painting and sculpture don't require a living being to shred its weight down to unhealthy levels.

Let me pose this: if someone is a true artist, they should be able to make their clothes look beautiful on a normal, human body not a living coathanger, just as a true painter can paint on a variety of surfaces with a variety of paint types.

[Kalis]

My parting shot: people (me included) enjoy fashion and see it in some ways as an art form. One that's organic and inclusive; it's like a painting or sculpture that you or others wear. To call it garbage is insulting to me, and quite frankly, close-minded.

I don't see why it is insulting to you.

If people hate football I don't take it as a personal insult. We all enjoy different things.

[PizzaSHARK]

Oooh, are we talking about high fashion? Can we get Megramm in here to tell everyone about his $2,000 hobo shoes and explain how we're all too poor and stupid to understand fashion?

[Revi]

I'll just leave this here.. Genuinely an outfit that is considered worthy of an international catwalk.

[Kalis]

Let me pose this: if someone is a true artist, they should be able to make their clothes look beautiful on a normal, human body not a living coathanger, just as a true painter can paint on a variety of surfaces with a variety of paint types.

Leonardo Da Vinci, who is considered a true artist by just about everybody, tried to paint on an unusual surface using different techniques and famously fucked it up.

[Aqueous]

Leonardo Da Vinci, who is considered a true artist by just about everybody, tried to paint on an unusual surface using different techniques and famously fucked it up.

Well to be fair, I wasn't even suggesting something -that- unusual, but in that example at least he tried something new. Experimenting always has the possibility of fuck ups, doesn't matter how great you are it's impossible for every experiment to be a success. That doesn't make it less worthwhile though.

But anyway I meant more modest variation such as different canvases, different types of wood and using different paint types like oil, acrylic, watercolour etc. not setting fire to your paint!

Heck we can even include digital medium in there now.

[Tommy T]

Sexy.

Slightly overweight is better than skinny. That voluptuous look is endearing.

[Kalis]

Well to be fair, I wasn't even suggesting something -that- unusual, but in that example at least he tried something new. Experimenting always has the possibility of fuck ups, doesn't matter how great you are it's impossible for every experiment to be a success. That doesn't make it less worthwhile though.

But anyway I meant more modest variation such as different canvases, different types of wood and using different paint types like oil, acrylic, watercolour etc. not setting fire to your paint!

Heck we can even include digital medium in there now.

Most artists have a preferred medium and techniques they use, the painter/sculptor who can demonstrate their ability using any material is relatively rare (probably non-existant).

'High' fashion designers use the models as their canvas, I don't think it's really fair to say it isn't art because they don't use a variety of models. They have chosen a canvas that is the best for their needs, just as other artists carve out of marble, or cast in bronze, or use oil paints on a hemp canvas, because it gives them the best opportunity to show off their talents.

[Deleted]

It's just a marketing thing and we all know it.

Once it isnt interesting or new anymore they dump her/them again.

[Aqueous]

Most artists have a preferred medium and techniques they use, the painter/sculptor who can demonstrate their ability using any material is relatively rare (probably non-existant).

'High' fashion designers use the models as their canvas, I don't think it's really fair to say it isn't art because they don't use a variety of models. They have chosen a canvas that is the best for their needs, just as other artists carve out of marble, or cast in bronze, or use oil paints on a hemp canvas, because it gives them the best opportunity to show off their talents.

Except there's no variation at all.

With painting, yes, each artist tends to have their favoured surface but there is variation in what surface is between the artists. In fashion, it's all beanpoles, nothing else.

Besides, it still doesn't address the fact that said beanpoles are made by virtual starvation of a human being.

I'm not saying it isn't art - that term seems to be rather shapeless to be honest - but I am saying it has less merit as an art than painting or sculpting due to a variety of reasons, not least because it has virtually no relevance or output to real life which the other artforms do. If fashion is an artform it's got to be one of the worst and most irrelevant artforms out there.

[Kalis]

Except there's no variation at all.

With painting, yes, each artist tends to have their favoured surface but there is variation in what surface is between the artists. In fashion, it's all beanpoles, nothing else.

Besides, it still doesn't address the fact that said beanpoles are made by virtual starvation of a human being.

I'm not saying it isn't art - that term seems to be rather shapeless to be honest - but I am saying it has less merit as an art than painting or sculpting due to a variety of reasons, not least because it has virtually no relevance or output to real life which the other artforms do. If fashion is an artform it's got to be one of the worst and most irrelevant artforms out there.

You don't need variation. To be honest, it's a ridiculous argument to even suggest that their choice in canvas makes a difference whatsoever to whether something is art, or the quality or merit of said art. If whoever cast the Riace Bronzes only worked in bronze, it wouldn't make those two statues anything less than the masterpieces they are - I think they may have been from two different sculptors, but that isn't relevant.

Most artforms are irrelevant, most are purely aesthetic, it's a form of entertainment. Recently someone linked some really drab artwork on these boards from somebody on Deviant Art, it was really dull, no originality at all, technically sound, but it lacked any passion or invention. Some people really liked it due to it having themes they recognised and appealed to them (fantasy and Pokemon). Each to their own, it was shit, but it's still art.

The vast majority of art is shit and irrelevant, fashion as an artform isn't going to be any different, there will be good and bad, but their choice of canvas has no bearing on that.

[Weaponized Nuclear Kitten]

'This... stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff.

This quote is from the Devil Wears Prada. Yeah it's a movie, I get it, but there is truth in this message. High fashion may seem stupid, impractical, hilarious, dumb, whatever countless negative adjectives you may trod on forth to apply to it, but they do have a very firm grasp on what YOU will see the average person wearing, even if you would think otherwise.

[Deleted]

The model is fat. I doubt she's into the normal BMI range, maybe if she's lucky it's at the top. People might be attracted to her because she has a very nice face or they might be into her body (because fetish) but overall she's not normal or should be considered normal. The normal range is there because of medical reasons, as it's the prime body structure/weight. Anything over that it's complicated and not healthy.

[Lollis]

Leonardo Da Vinci, who is considered a true artist by just about everybody, tried to paint on an unusual surface using different techniques and famously fucked it up.

It's a really stupid fuck up too. Surely there must have been someone who knew who could have said 'Oi Leo! When making a fresco, the plaster is supposed to be wet.'