Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lurkette
Fair enough...my bad. I'm not talking about people who are naturally slim or who athletic. I'm talking about women who are so thin they have probably stopped menstruating. And by "genetic freaks" (an admittedly bad choice of words) I mean that many of the people who are held up as paragons are waaaay on the far end of the bell curve in terms of normal distribution, and whose bone structure, fat retention patterns, etc., are extremely unrealistic, if not impossible, as goals for the rest of the population.
However, I take the point.
Also, I'm aware thatthe standards of "perfection" cut both ways. For every stick-thin runway model there's a curvy Salma Hayek to live up to.
|
Take a look at a show called 'The Agency' on VH1 sometime. Telling stick-thin girls they're 'too fat'....When I was 18, my height (5'8") and weight (113lbs') was 'correct' for modelling; now women(girls, actually) aren't looked at by agents if they're not at least 5'9" and 110lbs, so 'genetic freaks' is not off the mark, really. And if you saw how they looked in real life, you might be surprised-most facial features are oversized, noses prominent, teeth seemingly too big for their faces and sometimes crooked...objectively take apart any of the more well-known models feature by feature and it's very clearly seen how they're 'freaks'-it's how they photograph, how they stand, how they're made up, etc., that makes them the societal opinion of 'beautiful'.
As for 'living up to' anyone's image, bah! Salma's a genetic freak as well, curves or not. It's these 'freaks' that draw us 'plain folk' in, after all.