NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/supermod/1505

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-04 | 5.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!alberta!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!acs.ucalgary.ca!panlilio
From: [e-mail] (Victor P. Panlilio)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Summary: Real clothing for real women?
Keywords: eating disorders
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:49:59 GMT
Expires: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 05:00:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: Victor
Followup-To: alt.supermodels
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 105
Nntp-Posting-Host: acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Ingram) writes:

>It may be true that you don't expect the women in your life to look like
>supermodels but doesn't the fact that you have that calender suggest that
>at least some part of you would really like it to be that way? It is not

Hmm. One can appreciate many types of beauty, and just because
one has, say, a Paulina calendar on one's wall doesn't mean that
one cannot be enchanted by a photo of Winona Ryder or Shannen
Doherty, or even Grace Kelly in her later years. I think it is
stretching credulity to conclude that just because a man puts on
display a calendar of some scantily-clad supermodel or beautiful
woman, his criteria for considering a woman attractive is limited
to what is defined by that type of woman. Some people like to put
calendars of wild animals on their walls -- what conclusions can
we draw from this, using the specious logic implied in the above?

Then again, it would be interesting to see how many people really
change the month on a wild animal calendar vs. a Cindy calendar!

*chuckle* (just so you know I'm not taking this too seriously)

>you personally that is responsible for the feeling of insecurity so many
>women have about their bodies (I say women because the overwhelming majority
>of eating disorders occur in women), but the overwhelming media concentration

Cancer of the cervix also occurs ONLY in women. So?

>on such models and their often dangerously slim figures is a very major
>contributing factor.

Whoa. Slow down, boy. As any Statistics 101 class will have
taught you,

    Correlation DOES NOT Imply Causation!

General statements like these, while politically correct (along
the lines of Naomi Wolf's _The Beauty Myth_), have no more claim
on our credulity than any other opinion that is unsupported by
good empirical (not circumstantial) evidence. I do not think that
the bodies of Cindy Crawford, Paulina Poriskova, or Christie
Brinkley could be considered dangerously slim. If anything, the
overall proportion of body fat in their physiques is much higher
than it would be in the bodies of many female athletes. It just
so happens that they are statistically on the end of the bell
curve, where their natural endowments, aided by the attentive
ministrations of personal trainers, spa treatments, and dietary
counsellors, are held in high regard precisely because not only
are such gorgeous physiques rare, but because it costs A LOT of
time and money (usually) to maintain them in such condition. In
general, people are dazzled by what is EXPENSIVE, so Cher's body
work (and the results) are held up for all to see and admire.

Claudia Schiffer has a pronounced overbite and unshapely legs,
but she's worth many millions of dollars now. Go figure. 8^)

Stephanie Seymour doesn't have nice teeth. Neither does Paulina.
Cindy's smile is crooked. Want me to rattle off more flaws?

Most of the models I photograph are acutely aware of *their*
shortcomings, and in a business that is so competitive on the
basis of looks, they are among the most insecure of people, so
whatever I can do to reassure them that they're beautiful, I try
to do, which I think partly explains my success as a photographer
in getting them to look their best. (Tip for you novices, okay?)

>You only have to look at the fact that in high street stores it is difficult
>to find fashionable womens clothes in the *average* size, never mind larger
>than that to see the pressure put on women to slim to the size of these
>models.

That's why mail order exists. Designers, unfortunately, have not
been reformed to think in terms of the AVERAGE woman. They gush
over this face or that body, never mind that it belongs to a very
anorexic 14-year old with an abnormally high metabolic rate...

(exaggeration for comic effect)

Besides, most models are 5'9" or taller. Most AVERAGE women range
from 5'3" to 5'7", so therein lies a *great* difference, yes? I
am trying to get to photograph a model who's 6'2" and she's only
19. How many women do I know who are 6'2"? Not many, I'll admit.

>I think it is a mistake to dismiss so flippantly the large problems in
>society that this woman was attempting to highlight.

I think it is a *mistake* to assume that just because a statement
is politically correct and intellectually fashionable, it is thus
true. Large problems in society are not amenable to neat and tidy
formulated ontologies. There are too many complex variables, and
that, in fact, may be something of an understatement, old chap.

The bigger problem, since we are in the line-drawing game here,
is that far too many people eat an over-rich diet, while most of
humanity starves. At least part of the proceeds of the latest
Cindy Crawford swimsuit calendar goes to helping a children's
charity -- now, are we to fault Cindy (and the calendar's woman
producer, Monique Pillard) for such an egregious lapse in the
current rage for FASHIONABLE political correctness? Tsk, tsk.

Please, spare me the indignant self-righteousness of PC talk. It
ill suits people who're supposed to have fully functional brains.

Victor 8^)
(who sneers at the very concept of political correctness)