/fa/ - Fashion

It has the least effect on how clothes look

>>6922869
cause small boobs are better than big boobs

>>6922873

precisely because they were designed with small tits in mind, the question is why?

>>6922876

why?

>>6922879
Drapey clothes doesn't work as well with big boobs.
Fashion is dominated by androgyny, something that big boobs can only hurt.

Androgyny.

>>6922879
cause everyone likes small boobies

big boobs are messy and ugly

>>6922887
>messy and ugly
sounds like ur life story

>>6922890
Stop trying to sag other people down with you.

>>6922891
u wish
i just saw the opportunity for the quip and took it mr freud

>Hey anon, do you think I can be a model?

>>6922890
gd 1 m8 but im not the one who has to make fun of others to feel better about my own sad life

>>6922887

looks like we have one of those gays in this thread

>>6922879
>precisely because they were designed with small tits in mind, the question is why?
Why is every model as thin as possible? Same reason.
The designer can't explicitly design for the models.
They expect the models to have the same frame.
Roughly the same height, same proportions.
Sure, you could just take only models with D size cups. But good luck finding those.
So: Big tits make things complicated, very complicated.

>>6922895
Not a runway model, those tits are too big. But u can model 4 me any day noamsayin ;)))

>>6922896
lol wow dude

>>6922902

This isn't fucking poetry. Learn to write like a normal person.

>>6922902

>Sure, you could just take only models with D size cups. But good luck finding those.

that's a false dilemma, you're suggesting the only alternative to small tits is huge tits

>>6922869
1. Because androgyny has been en vogue for the last 60 years
2. Because models need to be skinny for practical as well as aesthetic reasons, and rail thin women with substantial tits are rather rare.

>>6922891
>sag
nice

>>6922899
na man, its all about dat ass and dem legs and dem feet yano

You don't have to worry about bust points so much and darting really. Well also the androgyny thing.

>>6922913
The problem is:
You need thin girls and you need consistent proportions. The obvious solution is to find thin girls with small tits. It's the common denominator.
Also, you can basically ignore the existence of small tits as a designer. You can't just ignore big tits. They are influencing the design way too much, therefore hindering creativity in some way.

>>6922909
Go fuck yourself

>>6922895
No. But I'll fuck you any hour of the day. :)

>>6922920

>1. Because androgyny has been en vogue for the last 60 years

why?

>Because models need to be skinny for practical as well as aesthetic reasons

i'm talking about their breasts

>and rail thin women with substantial tits are rather rare.

so are young and skinny 6' women with gorgeous faces, yet there they are, that's not a reason

>>6922935
being skinny means having low fat means having less boob

>>6922933

>It's the common denominator.

if the common denominator was the issue there wouldn't even be models as we know them to begin with

>>6922869
clothes almost always look better on flatter chests

>>6922941

women can be skinny and have 'less boob' and still not have small boobs, most models outside high fashion (sports models and so on, even VS models) are skinny and have medium or big tits

>>6922935
>so are young and skinny 6' women with gorgeous faces, yet there they are, that's not a reason
yep, it is

what you fail to realize is that women with great proportions AND faces on top of being so tall are very rare to begin with
add tits into the mix? it's just about unseen
this is because their height, their frame, and even their faces, are often much more masculine than most women's

there ARE models with big tits ex. stone, cole, etc. but no, they are not the norm, and you're an idiot if you honestly can't see why

>>6922944
What's easier to find: 30 girls with the proportions of a model as we know it today or 30 girls with the proportions of, say, Beyonce? And I don't mean just "a bit more meat" I mean the exact same proportions.
Of course the thin (and as a consequence usually small titted) models are easier to find. Most girls have very similar proportions when they are that thin. When they get fat some may have wider hips than others, some have a fat bellies. You can't work with shit like that.

>>6922946

how did you determine that? better to whom?

>>6922951

>add tits into the mix? it's just about unseen

> >>6922950

not only it isn't unseen, but it's pretty common even

>they are not the norm, and you're an idiot if you honestly can't see why

models are never 'the norm', that's why they're models to begin with

>>6922962
>models are never 'the norm', that's why they're models to begin with

what the fuck do you think the purpose of a model is

>>6922962
Are you implying that the old woman in your picture is even close to thin enough to model?

>>6922962
>better to whom?
the audience

btw >>6922950 is bullshit for 3 reasons

1. most VS models don't get hired by high-end labels even before they sign with VS
2. most of them aren't bigger than a B cup, they just wear bras that are much too small for them to make them look larger
2. sports models? are you serious? this is fucking /fa/, take it to /s/ if you want to talk about "sports models"

>>6922955

what's easier to find: 30 model-looking girls or 30 average-looking girls? the latter of course, yet designers use model-looking girls even if they're harder to find because this isn't about that, if the norm was tall, skinny with big tits, model agencies would then be scouting that type of girl and fashion houses would be using them instead; playboy models are tall, skinny with medium/big tits, sports illustrated models are the same, victoria secret models, etc, etc so don't tell me this is an issue of 'because they're hard to find' because it isn't, if there's a market for it, they'll get them

>>6922984
"average looking girls" vary wildly, the shape a model has is obtainable by a variety of women, because all they need to do is slim down, to the point where it's become an industry standard for quite a while.

Stop talking about something you know nearly nothing about. I'm serious, you're just being immature and annoying.

>>6922968

>questioning if one of the biggest models in fashion can even model

this is the most retarded thing i have read here... wow, 'fashion board' haha oh god

>>6922984
You can't fucking work with "average girls". Average girls' proportions vary way too much.
If you are too stupid to understand this concept, than give up, you'll never understand.
Runway models are not supposed to fulfill anyone's idea of an ideal woman or anything. They are supposed to fucking wear clothes and walk. Nothing else.

there are plenty of models w/ big titties tho
it's not the norm but they do exist

>>6922983

>2. sports models? are you serious? this is fucking /fa/, take it to /s/ if you want to talk about "sports models"

is this how you deflect my point? it's obvious i don't want to talk sports, i'm talking about models. if you can't answer the just don't

> >>6922984

>>6922968

Screen-capped to remind myself of the kind of retards that post here and what a joke in general this place is.

>>6922996

they'll vary if you choose the at random, but finding skinny 5'4" tall girls with medium tits isn't hard at all, when you convince me that 'i don't know what i'm talking about' with a good argument and not just a rant 'll stop posting

>>6922997

same

>>6922993
dude that woman is 45. She's not relevant any longer. She's one of those legacy supermodels like Naomi Campbell, Heidi Klum or Claudia Schiffer. Nobody actually cares, she's just some celeb to fill afternoon tv.

>>6923006
>is this how you deflect my point? it's obvious i don't want to talk sports
is this how you ignore the rest of my points? also, lol @ you thinking >>>/s/ is a board for SPORTS

i linked it for you, dumbass, enlighten yourself

>>6923020
Then I'm done replying to you.

Do your own research.

>>6922984
>playboy models are tall, skinny with medium/big tits, sports illustrated models are the same, victoria secret models, etc
But those girls are trash. And like the other anon said most victorias secret models don't have big boobs.

>>6923020
>I don't want to understand anything
ok

>>6922869
Because androgyny is always /fa/.

To make a man fashionable you make him more feminine.
To make a woman fashionable you make her more masculine.

This is disgustingly reductionist but fairly observable.

>>6923023

uh, ok? we all know that. why are you writing these things? what do they have to do with anything?

>>6923028

i have responded to everything you've said so far, if you think i ignored your please point out where i did.

>also, lol @ you thinking >>>/s/ is a board for SPORTS
>"HAHAHAHAHA he doesn't spend as much time as me on 4chan!!!!!!!! let's laugh at him!!! WHAT A DUMBASS!!"

>>6923034

>But those girls are trash

what does this mean?

>And like the other anon said most victorias secret models don't have big boobs.

yes, that's why i said 'medium/big' tits and not 0big tits'

>>6923046

oh i do, please provide a good explanation that i haven't addressed yet

>>6923052

Came into this thread, reported you, reported myself for announcing reports.

>>6923063

>reported you

last resort?

>>6923072

I'm not that dude who argued with you but spoonfeeding isn't something boards should do, do your own research, some dudes in this thread gave you decent info that you just dismissed.

More like first resort

>>6923052
>i have responded to everything you've said so far
you responded to a single point in >>6922983, and all you said was that you don't want to talk about sports lol

i realize that the my post was watertight, so there's really no use in you addressing the other points, but you shouldn't continue to act like you have an valid argument when you can't attack those points, you should just fuck off or surrender

>"HAHAHAHAHA he doesn't spend as much time as me on 4chan!!!!!!!! let's laugh at him!!! WHAT A DUMBASS!!"
you are indeed a dumbass, but you honestly don't need to spend more than a minute on here to know what /s/ and /sp/ are for

>>6923060
>oh i do, please provide a good explanation that i haven't addressed yet
Ok, here's the explanation you probably want to hear:
Models are thin and have small tits because everybody in the fashion industry is homosexual. Also, we are superficial and hate woman secretly.
I hope this explanation is satisfying.

>>6923060
>what does this mean?
Trashy. They don't fit the high fashion bill. Their faces, their bodies, their body LANGUAGE...its conventionally sexy. Its the difference between Bach and whatever pop trash you hear on the radio. They are on sports mags because they are supposed to be easily digestible hotties for pleb guys.

because you can't really play around with silhouettes if youve got massive boobs jutting out

Small tits are best tits

>>6922899
huhuh gimme dem ol big titties dats wut muh dady told me girls r kitchen huhuh

Because skinny girls have small boobs. And models are skinny.

Even a 30C is pretty flat.

>>6923121
but how can you titfuck her?

>>6923081

i'm not running a research project, i'm asking a simple question that can be answered in a couple sentences, there's no need for me to do any research. what information did i dismiss? please show me, so far i've responded to all these posts, not even insulting anyone and people are getting mad and when they run out of things to say they just go 'uhh well do your research!!' or say i missed things and they i ask what they are and they just vanish

>>6923090

this isn't even about fashion, you're talking about knowing what some 4chan boards are about, i don't care. i don't see what point 1 has to do with what i said so i didn't respond to it, and 2, i just googled vs models and see a good number of girls with medium tits there, take this

http://www.mcsearcher.com/backgrounds/0d7915cd.jpg

only like 3 or 4 of those are kinda flat and none of them are wearing 'small bras' so it's not true, and anyway, i said sports and vs just as two examples, women with medium/bit tits model in many other things, and i 3) i just don't see what you mean by that, just sending me to some other board seems very dismissive and convenient, just make the point.

>>6923140
You vagina fuck her, faggot.

>>6923140
tit fucking is shit

id much rather have all the rest if that, uunnfff

>>6923097

uh, no, that's not satisfying at all, you seem to be under the impression that i'm somehow condemning sexism in fashion or something, i don't care about any of that

>>6923110

i agree many of the faces are conventional, the body language is an absurd point, everyone can learn it, most high fashion models walk and behave like shit when they're new

>their bodies

so the reason for small tits in fashion is because it's unconventionally sexy?

>>6923116

why are you excluding the massive boobs from the silhouette? you see them as out of place because that's the norm these days, but if it weren't they would be as common and easy to play around with the silhouettes as a leg or an arm

>>6923121

yeah, they're my favorite, i'm just asking about why this is in fashion

>>6923131

this has been addressed already

>>6923140

tittyfucks are pretty goofy

One more time: The decision of many designers to prefer small tits over big ones has aesthetic and practical reasons. It's about the clothes, not the sexy models or whatever, and androgynous models are just more reduced. Also it's just easier to make clothes for women like that, for various reasons, has also been explained multiple times in this thread.
But I guess you'll just ignore this once again.

>>6923222

>aesthetic

yes i know it has aesthetic reasons, that's what the whole thread is about, how could i not know this?

>and practical reasons. It's about the clothes, not the sexy models........

never have i said anything about wanting models to be 'sexy', this has nothing to do with what i've said, and the only practical reasons i've received so far are 'because you can't really play around with silhouettes if youve got massive boobs jutting out' which i already responded to.

>But I guess you'll just ignore this once again.

i've responded to everything. what exactly have i ignored? i've asked this several times already.

>>6923243
>what exactly have i ignored?
You just don't understand anything, that is the problem. You seem to have read what I wrote, but you didn't get it.
It's okay. These things are apparently not for everyone.

>>6923161
>this isn't even about fashion, you're talking about knowing what some 4chan boards are about, i don't care.
holy shit, you're the one who made the mistake in the first place

i told you to go to /s/ because that isn't about fashion, it's just about the bodies of women, and that's obviously all you give a shit about since you can't get this
>clothes almost always look better on flatter chests
>what you fail to realize is that women with great proportions AND faces on top of being so tall are very rare to begin with
>this is because their height, their frame, and even their faces, are often much more masculine than most women's
>Most girls have very similar proportions when they are that thin. When they get fat some may have wider hips than others, some have a fat bellies. You can't work with shit like that.
through your skull

designers are not going to fuck around tailoring clothes to accommodate huge tits that inevitably will have more variance in shape than small ones, they want a consistent sample size

it has to do with money and efficiency, the standard sizing of models makes it so when producing samples, there is not as much issues involved in the fitting.

in fashion design there are extreme time constraints and monetary constraints, and the standardization of models measurements is an attempt to streamline the process.

>>6923274

>'oh you just don't understand'

this is like a kid ringing someone's doorbell and then running away

surely there's nothing to understand if you cannot explain it and defend it when questioned about it

Girls who are tall and skinny and have angular faces have more testosterone. They arent usually gonna have large breasts.

>>6923317
>surely there's nothing to understand if you cannot explain it and defend it when questioned about it
it's been explained and defended to death, there's literally nothing else to be explained which is why the conversation has been going in circles for the past hour

>>6923313

and also at this point in time, since the body type is now a standard and is expected in much of the fashion industry in the context of runway shows and lots of lookbook photography, the use of models that dont conform to a certain range of measurements is viewed as "making a statement" or "doing something dramatic"

if you use standard models, people dont pay attention as much to their builds because its standard, par for the course, so instead they skim over the bodies and look directly at the clothes instead, which is the idea. Youre selling the clothes, the person inside of the clothes is simply your prop. And if youre in business, you need to make money, so youll naturally choose the most useful (profit-producing) props you can.

>>6923302

>holy shit, you're the one who made the mistake in the first place

making the mistake means i care? you're the one that's been going on about this all this time, i don't care what every board here is about, i just browse 3 or 4

>i told you to go to /s/ because that isn't about fashion, it's just about the bodies of women

i'm not talking about bodies of women in X Y or Z, i'm talking about women in fashion

>clothes almost always look better on flatter chests

you all claim this like it's some self-evident truth that needs no justification, that's just 'revealed' to some, you cannot even explain it

>women with great proportions AND faces on top of being so tall are very rare to begin with

then why not exchange some of the parameters, like boobs for height? after all women with medium/large-sized breasts and pretty faces are easier to find than very tall ones, and since, as you all say, this is a matter of 'what's easier to find' it seem like a lot more logical option.

>Most girls have very similar proportions when they are that thin.
>rest of post

most girls will have similar proportions if you hire them with similar proportions, regardless of their type

>When they get fat some may have wider hips than others, some have a fat bellies.

did i say i was in favor of fat girls modelling? did it? please quote me on that.

oh my god just stop responding you idiots

>>6923325

>it's been explained and defended to death

and challenged even more so, what you're trying to do is what's called 'proof by repeated assertion'

Good thread.

>>6923356
>making the mistake means i care? you're the one that's been going on about this all this time, i don't care what every board here is about, i just browse 3 or 4
continuing to address it means you care, but whether or not you care is honestly the least relevant part of the discussion at this point

>i'm not talking about bodies of women in X Y or Z, i'm talking about women in fashion
yet you have absolutely no understanding of fashion and the role of models in it

>you all claim this like it's some self-evident truth that needs no justification, that's just 'revealed' to some, you cannot even explain it
it really doesn't even need an explanation because as you can see, all relevant parties in the industry have a similar opinion

>then why not exchange some of the parameters, like boobs for height?
the industry values height over boobs because it's not for thirsty men

sports magazines value boobs over height because they are for thirsty men

this is not that hard to figure out

>after all women with medium/large-sized breasts and pretty faces are easier to find than very tall ones
you mistakenly believe they want faces that are just "pretty"

>this is a matter of 'what's easier to find' it seem like a lot more logical option.
no, it's a matter of what's easier to find once you've already established a few prerequisites

those prerequisites are: height, facial aesthetics, skin quality, and a thin frame

>most girls will have similar proportions if you hire them with similar proportions, regardless of their type
yet certain types look better in their clothing than others

>did i say i was in favor of fat girls modelling? did it?
that poster isn't talking about women who are literally "fat" in the sense that they are overweight, they're talking about women who aren't very thin

>>6923372
>and challenged even more so
dude, "nuh uh" and "why" are not valid challenges, they're just contrarian drivel

Because women with small breasts look like boys.

>>6923399

>yet you have absolutely no understanding of fashion and the role of models in it

you have no idea what I know or don't know

>it really doesn't even need an explanation because as you can see, all relevant parties in the industry have a similar opinion

yes, that's the point of the thread, pay attention

>the industry values height over boobs because it's not for thirsty men

there was a time when playboy did the same, yet the magazine still was for 'thirsty men', that's not a good reason

>you mistakenly believe they want faces that are just "pretty"

ok, gorgeous!!! happy?

>those prerequisites are: height, facial aesthetics, skin quality, and a thin frame

we're talking about the changing the height, so don't include it n the prerequisites; apart from that, you'll find prerequisites like these even in (some) porn

>yet certain types look better in their clothing than others

again, this needs explanation.

that poster isn't talking about women who are literally "fat" in the sense that they are overweight, they're talking about women who aren't very thin
>fat = not very thin

wow! that's a big jump. i'm addressing what he said, not what he 'meant to say'

>dude, "nuh uh" and "why" are not valid challenges,

of course they are, if the thing is wrong, you refute, if it is insufficient, you as why

>>6923313
>>6923339

thanks, this was a good answer

>>6923463
>you have no idea what I know or don't know
you made the thread

this tells us all about what you don't know

>yes, that's the point of the thread, pay attention
they all prefer the way it looks

how is there any more of an explanation to be made?

>there was a time when playboy did the same
no, there wasn't

>ok, gorgeous!!! happy?
nope

>we're talking about the changing the height, so don't include it n the prerequisites
the prerequisites don't just magically disappear

if you want them to magically disappear, then you're going to have to contest the value of height, facial aesthetics, skin quality, and a thin frame ON TOP of the value of small boobs, and i don't know if you have it in you

>again, this needs explanation.
there is no explanation

you get it or you don't

you can try to explain why something is pleasing, but it's not going to make someone who disagrees find it pleasing

>wow! that's a big jump. i'm addressing what he said, not what he 'meant to say'
now you know

>of course they are, if the thing is wrong, you refute, if it is insufficient, you as why
"nuh uh" is not a refutation
"why" does not show how it is insufficient

you sit here and demand lengthy explanations while giving none on your part

>>6923475

>this tells us all about what you don't know

so making a thread about models with small breasts = absolutely no understanding about fashion? huh go figure

>they all prefer the way it looks. how is there any more of an explanation to be made?

because that's precisely what's been questioned.

>no, there wasn't

i saw them when i was younger, i don't have them and i won't go look for them or look them up on the internet so ignore that if you like, but i saw many girls with small breasts

>the prerequisites don't just magically disappear

they do in a hypothetical case, which is what we were discussing in that bit

>there is no explanation

then your point can be dismissed just as easily

>"nuh uh" is not a refutation

did i say 'nun uh' somewhere here or just a plain 'no'? please quote me

>"why" does not show how it is insufficient

the whole point of a 'why' is that the thing was not clear enough, that's what 'why's are for. if you can't answer the 'why', then yes, there's not doubt it was insufficient.

>you sit here and demand lengthy explanations while giving none on your part

i'm not making a statement, i have no opinion in this, i just came here with a question and analyzing the answers, i don't need to give any

>>6923510

>you sit here and demand lengthy explanations while giving none on your part

also, i've never demanded any length in the responses, if i did, again, quote me

so many unsupported assumptions of what i know or say... this is going nowhere so i'll probably just answer one more time if necessary

>>6923463
Playboy never, ever did that son.

Asking "Why do designers generally prefer skinny, flat chested models?" is like asking "Why do we have 12 tones in European music?"
There is no fucking reason. It works and we got used to it and people got to like it. If you don't, become a fashion designer and do it differently. Or become a musician and play 19 tones instead of 12. I don't care.

>>6923525

didn't even take me a minute

http://25.media.tumblr.com/ZkkTinzGS73adcwchAFAEtkZ_400.jpg

my opinion is that lower bodyfat is the real thing that is attractive, and most girls with lower bf have small boobs

I'd say models don't have small tits for their bmi/bf%

>>6923553
Thats a celeb who is being featured on the cover because of her status. She would never have a chance if she was a nobody who just has to work off her looks like normal playboy girls.
But I don't know why you think a girl with small tits appearing in playboy means that playboy valued height over boobs to begin with.

>>6923580
>>6923573
nigga please
http://skinnyprettyfashion.tumblr.com/
enjoy your fap

>>6923594
>http://skinnyprettyfashion.tumblr.com/
my favorite blog

>>6923569

i can on keep posting

http://www.babemansion.com/2013/03/carly-madison-flaunts-small-boobs/carly-madison-playboy-pics12/

http://playfulbabes.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ashley-Sasha-Tropical-Heatwave-Playboy-Cybergirls.jpg

the point is that playboy has allowed these women, again, i had access to these magazines when i was like 15, i don't have them now, but anyone with some time can look them up on the internet if they're interested

>>6923594
im too thirsty rn

>>6923603

ok, i'm going now

btw, although most answers were shit, i actually agree with some of the replies, i was just playing devil's advocate, see ya

>>6923603
The first one is short and this one doesn't even have small boobs..not huge but not small.

>the point is that playboy has allowed these women
Thats a nice point but your first point was that playboy valued height over boobs when in reality they just are ok with presenting their readers with a variety of women.

>>6923612
>But guys, I was just pretending to be retarded!

Congrats?

>>6923617

k, i'm back

and then i said 'i saw them when i was younger, i don't have them and i won't go look for them or look them up on the internet so ignore that if you like', so why are you pressing on this? i don't have the proof with me so it's like i haven't said it at all, unlike many of you who don't have any proof and keep pushing it, i just took it back. I wish i had these magazines, but i don't, and that's it.

now i'm really going, i have to shower, bye.

>>6923620

nope, i actually stand by most of what i said, it's funny because even after acting like this most of you still look more retarded than me and it's clear you don't know how to defend what you believe in. these >>6923313 >>6923339 were pretty much the only decent answers. now i'm going for real now, let me go.

>>6923628
Well the thing is I don't really want your 'proof' because it isnt proof of anything.....I already know that pictures of girls with small boobs in playboy doesn't prove that playboy valued height over boobs. You can keep posting playboy models with not huge boobs but you arent ever going to prove a point that was BS.