WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

I suppose it depends on how industry standards are changing. I also recall a time where larger models were still closer to what we'd call average human body types, but that was at a time when fashion models were these kind of sylvan oddities that didn't look normal. They all looked like they survived on celery and cocaine. It seems that the standards have been changing, but for the most part, the obese models tend to cluster in the lower end brands and department store catalogs. I think Sports Illustrated was one of the first to start making waves when Ashley Graham was included in the swimsuit edition several years back. Truly high end fashion doesn't seem to have budged much, in terms of recognizing + size in the common sense. So I guess what you're going to be exposed to depends on how rich you are. In the most recent years, fat isn't being accepted so much as it is being actively pushed by some outlets. I saw a Cosmo magazine cover recently with a legitimately obese black girl, featuring some caption about being healthy at any weight.

I get the real sense in all of this fat-culture of the elitism that we witness with other forms of virtue signaling: X for thee, but Y for me. They're going to give you the fat girls at the low-to-middle end, but I doubt if you will see many obese women on runways in Paris. It's not unlike the way rich progressives lobby for your neighborhood to accept blacks, while there isn't one to be found in theirs. It's the little people that are meant to bear the weight of moral progress (pun absolutely intended).

It's the difference between a multigenerational family unit providing and promoting beauty standards and the MSM doing the same, all in a world where the MSM can because nuclear families subverted it.

[–] 0 pt

Was the extended family really an American trope? It seems to me the whole "Yer 18 now son, go out and start yer own life" has been an Americanism for a long time, with men setting out for the frontier alone. That seems to be the origin story for why Wyoming is known officially as the faggot cuck state, though they use the euphemism "The Equality State".

However, I have heard much of multi-generational households on the wagon trains in the days of the Old West.

You can blame the subversive nuclear family for that. Dating in the West was something you did with a used-up prostitute before 1890. By 1910, (((they))) normalized dating in the West. Multigenerational households collapsed as nuclear families became common. The female empowerment from being allowed to fuck before marriage gave way to women's suffrage, which in-turn gave way to the sexual revolution and massive third-world immigration. The nuclear family broke down into single-mother families. Only getting back to that original stability can fix the current landscape. Any in-between will be a guaranteed return to modern social conditions.

[–] 0 pt

I also recall a time where larger models were still closer to what we'd call average human body types, but that was at a time when fashion models were these kind of sylvan oddities that didn't look normal. They all looked like they survived on celery and cocaine.

The dark days when openly-homosexual fashion moguls wanted women who were "human hangers" so that they did not detract from their clothes? Frankly, I was always confused by that as how can you make clothes for women when they're not being marketed/designed for women with normal body types? Though the Eastern European women seem to embody this: tall, curveless, perpetual dour expression on their face, but I'm pretty sure that the latest in fashion was being tailored toward Eastern Europe.

Though I then heard, on the Nixon Tapes, ole "Tricky Dick" raging that the faggots had commandeered fashion in order to enact their conspiracy to make women ugly in the eyes of straight men. As with so many of his opinions stated on those tapes, he was probably right about that.

[–] 0 pt

That's interesting, and it rings true. I never found very thin women particularly attractive. It didn't run contrary to only my own personal tastes either, but always struck me as a bit deviant from what biology would make us expect. I mean, we want women that look like they could withstand a pregnancy, right? That usually means some excess energy and good hip structure. The 'human hangers' look like either they couldn't be pregnant, or that it would kill them if they could.

[–] 0 pt

For the past few years, I've been hearing that more women are giving birth via c-section, and that this is in large part due to biological necessity from their small hips. This could become a problem, if women who birth daughters via c-section wind up creating a line of women who in turn can only deliver via c-section. FWIW, most of the women I know who gave birth via c-section wound up not having any more kids after that.

I've also heard that women who are emotionally/physically stressed and forced to have lower body fat percentages see their fertility drop off a cliff. So I think you're right about these models not looking like they could withstand a pregnancy, assuming they could even get one.