/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.5974960]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-vogue-factor-fashion-really-isnt-worth-dying-for-8560194.html

Thoughts? I feel like this may have been discussed before in some form though.

Pic related, as beautiful as she is, even if she gained a bit of weight she would still be really skinny.

[Anonymous No.5974964]

The world of fashion is dominated by women and homosexual men, neither of which have any intuitive appreciation for the healthy female form. Hence this sort of depravity will not soon be gone from fashion

[Anonymous No.5974971]

yeah they actually have to photoshop her so she doesn't look so thin

[Anonymous No.5974979]

>>5974964
No, I disagree. As a straight male going into the industry I will not be hiring models fatter than her to showcase my lines. She is absolutely beautiful but you are looking at her as a sexual object. She is not "fuckable" or whatever you call it but she really is true beauty.

[uuuuhhhh No.5974982]

salty hoes smh

[Anonymous No.5974983]

>>5974982
lel

[Anonymous No.5974988]

>>5974971

There is nothing desirable about this. Only a sick human being could look at this with envy. A pregnancy would kill this woman.

[Natalie !Nat9xVTTmU No.5974990]

>>5974964
omg i swear is this a copy pasta?
i've heard that complaint so many times before, almost verbatim. please stop, it's not true but some people may believe it

[Anonymous No.5974993]

>>5974979

You are a cretin continuing a decadent trend. I hope you're proud; it's clear reason cannot prevail upon you.

[Anonymous No.5974998]

[Anonymous No.5974999]

>>5974979
What is true beauty? When I (OP) say she is too skinny this is not a sexual thing--she has way too little body fat. This look is just unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.5975003]

>>5974990

Your post is missing an argument.

[uuuuhhhh No.5975009]

>>5974999
that's what tall hoes look like
no one that actually buys runway clothes cares about models

[Natalie !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975025]

>>5975003
it doesnt need an argument
you pulled your point out of the blue

[Anonymous No.5975031]

[Anonymous No.5975032]

mods just delete this thread, were being trolled by some womans activists from /lgbt/

[Anonymous No.5975034]

>>5975009
You don't really believe that, do you? Just being taller doesn't do that to you.
And people may not care, but shouldn't they? A lack of interest and attention to this issue is precisely why it continues to exist. Designers have a responsibility to follow more ethical principles, and if customers cared, they might listen.

[Anonymous No.5975047]

>>5974988
haha she probably doesn't have periods at her weight

[sage No.5975049]

>>5975034
go away

[Anonymous No.5975052]

>>5975032
You're an idiot. This is a legitimate issue.

[sage No.5975059]

>>5975052
no its not, why the fuck do you care? are you a model? no? oh ok, go the fuck away.

[Anonymous No.5975079]

>>5974999
The look may look unhealthy but in reality she is more healthy than most people extremely as she looks extremely fit and toned.

[uuuuhhhh No.5975084]

>>5975034
>Just being taller doesn't do that to you.
yeah it does to a degree
>And people may not care, but shouldn't they?
no
look at the clothes not the models
>if customers cared, they might listen.
exactly
the only people that care aren't the customers they're fucking sour grape poor ass dog hoes
get back to the f21 plus size section

[Anonymous No.5975086]

>>5975025

I'm sorry, are you contending that the world of designer fashion is NOT dominated by women and homosexual men?

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975122]

>>5975086
no, i'm bringing to light the fact that you are completely GENERALIZING all those designers simply by gender or sexual orientation

they all have very different aestheic values concerning the human body and garments.

"healthy female form"
another of your assumptions and supporting evidence for your bias

[sage No.5975128]

>>5975122
theres no point in arguing with the faggot posting this, we shouldn't bump the thread. let them live in the delusion they want, idgaf.

[Anonymous No.5975183]

>>5975122

Perhaps it surpasses the ambit of your understanding, but the heterosexual male is the final arbiter for female desirability/undesirability, just as the heterosexual female is so for the male. One can throw around whatever idiosyncrasies one pleases with respect to 'beauty' and the like; the fact remains that we condition the judgments 'desirable' 'pleasing' and etc. by exercising discrimination in partner and mate selection.

The point I am driving at is that what determines the appropriate and 'desirable' look in fashion (for both sexes) are drives and perspectives OTHER than those for which nature will vouch. It is artistic fancy substituted in the place of instinctive attraction. A handsome woman will be so, whether she is done up in designer clothing or discounted rags. Fashion is finery, ornamentation. It does not strike at the heart of what we find attractive, for which reason human models and not mannequins are the preferred display. But the conflation of fashion with beauty means we are led to confuse fine dress with fine appearance; eventually, these clothing models create a new canon of aesthetic beauty divorced from that which is intuitive and appropriate to life and reproduction. These things lie in the domain of art, which does not necessary take natural cause and effect into the calculation. What is being presented here is decidedly NOT a picture of human healthiness, and therefore nature cannon consent to this presentation. I am simply arguing that the preponderance of women and homosexual men in the field has led to the continued estrangement of 'fashionable' from 'healthy', and further, that this is a poor direction for things. A heterosexual male would be more inclined to break from this dysgenic trend and demonstrate models who are not in the process of rotting from the inside out. There is no argument to be had as to whether these trends are unhealthy. You are arguing perspectives, whist I am delivering facts.

[Anonymous No.5975190]

>>5975122

>>5975122

Perhaps it surpasses the ambit of your understanding, but the heterosexual male is the final arbiter for female desirability/undesirability, just as the heterosexual female is so for the male. One can throw around whatever idiosyncrasies one pleases with respect to 'beauty' and the like; the fact remains that we condition the judgments 'desirable' 'pleasing' and etc. by exercising discrimination in partner and mate selection.

The point I am driving at is that what determines the appropriate and 'desirable' look in fashion (for both sexes) are drives and perspectives OTHER than those for which nature will vouch. It is artistic fancy substituted in the place of instinctive attraction. A handsome woman will be so, whether she is done up in designer clothing or discounted rags. Fashion is finery, ornamentation. It does not strike at the heart of what we find attractive, for which reason human models and not mannequins are the preferred display. But the conflation of fashion with beauty means we are led to confuse fine dress with fine appearance; eventually, these clothing models create a new canon of aesthetic beauty divorced from that which is intuitive and appropriate to life and reproduction. These things lie in the domain of art, which does not necessary take natural cause and effect into the calculation. What is being presented here is decidedly NOT a picture of human healthiness, and therefore nature cannot consent to this presentation. I am simply arguing that the preponderance of women and homosexual men in the field has led to the continued estrangement of 'fashionable' from 'healthy', and further, that this is a poor direction for things. A heterosexual male would be more inclined to break from this dysgenic trend and demonstrate models who are not in the process of rotting from the inside out. There is no argument to be had as to whether these trends are unhealthy. You are arguing perspectives, whist I am delivering facts.

[Anonymous No.5975192]

op fuck off
she's a model, it's her job to be thin

and she should

she'd not near too skinny at all, seesh

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975199]

>>5975183
you make good points, i can see what you mean
>heterosexual male would be more inclined to break from this dysgenic trend and demonstrate models who are not in the process of rotting from the inside out.
this intrigues me, but i've always wondered how would the rest of the fashion industry react if someone did this? if a straight male used models that fit his vision of sexual attraction?

[Anonymous No.5975213]

>>5975199

He would in all likelihood be declaimed against from all sides. He would stake his career on the gamble. No one who wasn't well-established would have the credentials to attempt something like that and not be dismissed out of hand. He would have the inertia of an entire industry against him.

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975219]

>>5975213
lol that sounds so fun
it would be incredible, i wonder if it will ever happen

[Anonymous No.5975227]

>>5975190

go back to /sci/ and leave art to the appreciators of art

[Anonymous No.5975234]

>>5975199

note that tom ford, the man who brought sex back into fashion during the 90s, is bisexual

[Anonymous No.5975245]

>>5975219

It would not however NEED to be a heterosexual male who does this: a woman or a homosexual male could also take this step. I merely say that there is less incentive for them to do so, perhaps because they do feel the problem with current trends as keenly as a straight male does.

Most ventures in this direction have actually come from underwear models, and the reasons behind this are unfortunately purely business-minded.

It would have to be taken very seriously, in any event

[uuuuhhhh No.5975246]

>>5975190
muh ev psyche

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975250]

>>5975234
>the man who brought sex back into fashion during the 90s
where can i read more about this?

[Anonymous No.5975253]

>>5975227

Pardon me, but we will be the worse for everyone sacrificed health to the manifold callings of art.

(A dash of Kant, for flavour.)

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975254]

>>5975246
he still makes a point, the template of the body of a fashion model is not generally based on sexual attraction.

[Anonymous No.5975260]

>>5975250

http://hypebeast.com/2011/7/gucci-the-making-of-book?_locale=en

A bit pricey, but your local bookstore should have a copy you can read through without buying it. Tom Ford WAS Gucci for a period.

Not sure if he has any standalone biography. You can also watch his film, A Single Man

[Anonymous No.5975261]

>>5975227

Pardon me, but we will be the worse for it if everyone sacrificed health to the manifold callings of art.

(A dash of Kant, for flavour.)

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975266]

>>5975260
>You can also watch his film, A Single Man
Yeah, just read about that on google. I'm going to watch it. It sounds interesting, a fashion designers approach towards cinematography.

[Anonymous No.5975268]

>>5975190
> the heterosexual male is the final arbiter for female desirability/undesirability, just as the heterosexual female is so for the male

How is this so? From the standpoint of sexual desire this may be so, but as far as the artistic appreciation of beauty as an aesthetic concept, we are in fact able to separate this consideration from our sexual instincts through the use of higher thinking that allows us to transcend our base instincts

[Anonymous No.5975280]

>>5975190
>beauty divorced from that which is intuitive and appropriate to life and reproduction

Isn't that more of a cultural trend, a general arc of humanity? The notion of beauty as a simple signifier of health started to go the way of the dodo with the green revolution.
We're entering the birth of transhumanism in our own lifetimes. We get to redefine all those ancient notions of beauty as we see fit, just as we are rewriting genetic code and altering our perceptions on a massive scale with SSRI's, Nootropics and other pharmaceuticals.
We don't need to heed archaic modes of thought any longer, we don't need to demonstrate the health of our seed in order to reproduce. We get to explore, we get to play, because we're more than apes.
We aren't about reproduction anymore, we're about ideas and culture. We are an idea excreting force in the universe, and we are headed to a future where survival of the fittest matters less and less for our species and really only applies to concepts and systems.

Of course, this is just more perspective. But you're delivering perspectives, too. Many of them warped. Blaming a proliferation of unhealthy lifestyles on Gays and Women? How glib and reductive can you get, man?

[Anonymous No.5975282]

>>5975268

But at the end of the day, we still mate on the directions of our baser instincts. Unless we are degenerates, in which case we may do so for money, reputation, or indeed, love of art.

[uuuuhhhh No.5975290]

>>5975254
hence
muh ev psyche
I don't watch fashion shows to bust a nut
and that purple passage bullshit isn't impressing anyone

[Anonymous No.5975295]

The only reason the fashion industry NEEDS women to be skinny is for the same reason they all NEED to be 5'10-6'2, so they can all fit into roughly the same sized shit with minor or no adjustments

yes there are idiot models and actresses that take it way too far, but it happens for the same reasons anyone takes anything too far - insecurity and competition

and the lazy fatties out there are using this as an excuse to try to lead a crusade to "redefine beauty", pat themselves on the back for being fat, and deride the women they themselves are jealous of

[Anonymous No.5975297]

>>5975282

yes, love of material wealth and artistic beautyis a new, degenerate form of attraction and cannot be found in ancient and primitive civilizations all over the world. you make a good point.

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975302]

>>5975290
>I don't watch fashion shows to bust a nut
That's what we were talking about. But it would be interesting to see that approach in some higher end fashion shows sometimes.

What is purple passage?

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975311]

>>5975280
>Blaming a proliferation of unhealthy lifestyles on Gays and Women
I forgot this was got me upset in the first place lol

[Anonymous No.5975313]

>>5975280

We can go beyond this archaic canon; it is more a question whether we should, and with what trepidation, what ambitions.

Who can doubt that an Hellene brought into the world today would die laughing, or else drop dead from panic?

Perhaps it is the interval which is most dangerous, that between our oldest ways and those which science has thrown open the door to. There are many alarming trends about today: foremost among these is the steadily rising age of parents male and female. In some parts of the world, I am sorry to say, the bearing age has become the barren age, and vice versa. The noble estate of human healthiness foots this debit for the time being, but its resources are not infinite.

[Anonymous No.5975318]

>>5975297

And it has always led to the decline of the human type, whensoever it has appeared. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.5975319]

>>5975199
do you even know anything about the industry? there are a fucking lot of straight designers and photographers and none of them are using fatties. their shape warps the garment

because we are talking about glorified coat racks after all

[Anonymous No.5975321]

>>5975319

You do realize there is some distance considerable between these anorexic types and what you are calling 'fatties'?

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975323]

>>5975319
you dont have to from skinny to fat

[Anonymous No.5975324]

>>5975302

It would get panned for objectifying women. Not even tom ford made women into sex objects, but into masters of their sexuality.

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975328]

>>5975324
>Not even tom ford made women into sex objects, but into masters of their sexuality.
This sounds so interesting.

[Anonymous No.5975334]

>>5975318

those behaviors are literally ubiquitous through all cultures.

[Anonymous No.5975337]

>>5975328

http://www.vmagazine.com/site/content/108/dog-days-are-over

Read this, you'll like it

[Anonymous No.5975338]

>>5975334

Degeneracy is the second most ubiquitous feature of any culture, behind only death.

[Anonymous No.5975340]

>>5975338

so it means literally nothing in your mouth. thanks for playing.

[uuuuhhhh No.5975342]

>>5975338
what's ur ideal society

[Anonymous No.5975350]

>>5975337

>TF No, it’s a horrible job. I feel really sorry for models. I’m serious. It’s a horrible job. They get rejected and treated like they’re not even people. And this sounds negative, but when you’re considered one of the most beautiful women in the world, it’s very, very hard when that starts to slip away. It’s hard to feel good about yourself when people react to you differently. And, Gisele, I hope you’re not reading this, because it is going to sound negative, but I know through some of my best friends who are really famous actresses— I’m not going to mention their names—who were at one point considered to be among the most beautiful women in the world at different periods of time, and how hard it is for them emotionally. So I hope Gisele is prepared for that, because it’s so difficult. It’ll be the same for you when you quit playing football, it’ll be a real change. Could you see yourself just retiring and not doing anything but playing golf and tennis and taking care of your kids?

[Anonymous No.5975351]

>>5975321
there's really not

lets review, models are typically between 5'10-6'2
anorexic - size 0/1
too fat to model - size 6/7

[uuuuhhhh No.5975354]

>>5975351
anorexia is a mental disease not a physical weight

[Anonymous No.5975358]

>>5975351

I know this is hard for you, but between 1 and 6, there is:

2
3
4
and 5

The ideal range for body fat percentage is fairly narrow as well, so let's not discount the correlation.

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5975363]

>>5974960
>two thirds of people are overweight
>half of those are obese

MUH ANOREXIA

SRS PROBLEMS GUISE

[Anonymous No.5975365]

>>5975340

Feel free to reformat my arguments for future trolling purposes, if it suits your fancy. I'm out of patience to spend on you.

>>5975342

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greece

(instead of typing something long-winded)

[Anonymous No.5975368]

>>5975363

Funny how it's just so hard to get it right.

[Anonymous No.5975370]

>>5975311
I know, Nats... Couching that kind of stuff in carefully rhetoric really gets my goat.

>>5975313
>We can go beyond this archaic canon
And we will, and nobody can stop it. There will always be a traditionalist reactionary in every age of discovery and advancement. That voice will always be drowned out by new technology, the final arbiter of human culture.

>Who can doubt that an Hellene brought into the world today would die laughing, or else drop dead from panic?

I can doubt that. I can also tell you that she'd probably end up better educated, healthier and with an extended life-expectancy to boot. This 'Noble Estate' you speak of sounds an awful lot like Eugenics. It sounds like the invention of a man who thinks our highest calling is reproduction. Guess what? It isn't, and it's meant increasingly less every time we things like fire, language, calculus, nation states, music, painting, philosophy and quantum mechanics. These ideas are our greatest legacy. The wings of technology and art will carry us into the future, not some silly obsession with shitting out as many healthy babies as humanly possible.

You want to talk alarming trends? Talk about the destruction of the planet, the ever widening gap between rich and poor, our over dependence on petroleum distillates, the countless undiscovered species we've driven to extinction so that we can grow cheap beef in the Amazon. But please, don't tell me in so many words that gays and women are eroding the death grip our species has on this planet. That's just ridiculous.
If you must blame someone, blame Madison Avenue. Blame a culture of industry that has figured out the human psyche well enough to wring dollars out of its insecurities. Blame the human condition.

[Anonymous No.5975371]

>>5975363

i heard you could land a plane on her forehead

[uuuuhhhh No.5975369]

>>5975365
typical /sci/ dork tryna talk about things he knows nothing about

[Natalie Portman !Nat9xVTTmU No.5975372]

>>5975350
yeah that was so depressing

[Anonymous No.5975381]

>>5975365
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Greece

you do realize that the greek ideal of male beauty was developed by males and even appreciated sexually by other males as part of an major cultural institution, right?

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5975384]

>>5975358
>obese and average right next to each other

#america

[Anonymous No.5975392]

>>5975365
>classical greece
I think you meant to say THESE GUYS.

[Anonymous No.5975395]

>>5975280
>>5975370
these are some of the better posts i've ever seen you make, poet. you're killin it

[Anonymous No.5975410]

>>5975369

Your bill is due.

>>5975370

And where do you think all these wonderful things have come from? A bountiful heredity, really the harvest of antiquity, has allowed man to develop all the wonderful fields which you mentioned.

It is a very grave thing to diminish the importance of human healthiness. Man sick is man defeated. In fact, the decline of human healthiness makes a nice parable for the gradual erosion of our planet's many resources, foremost of which are time and space. This accumulated principal is what current generations live on: it is the case as much with fossil fuels that cannot be replaced as it is with the diversity of the human genome that cannot be reproduced by the meddling of scientists. But you seem determined to exaggerate my earlier point. The problem of unhealthy trends in fashion is miniscule, but notice that the original subject of this discussion was precisely this problem. There are many worse charges I could level against the lot of women, for example, but they exceed the scope of our present heading.

Try not to inject so much spite into your ideas; they will be the better for it.

[Anonymous No.5975418]

>>5975410
>There are many worse charges I could level against the lot of women, for example, but they exceed the scope of our present heading.
no they dont

please expand on yr misguided misogyny

[Anonymous No.5975419]

>>5975381

Yes, the Greeks were otherwise. Physical beauty migrated over to the female sex through the subversion brought on by Abrahamic religions and the doctrine of marriage which they preached. But this is something else and nothing I care to broach any further.

[Anonymous No.5975420]

>>5975358
i was speaking strictly in regards to the range in which you can be a model, did i somehow not make that obvious enough?

the range in which you can be skinny enough to be a model, yet not be anorexic, is an extremely narrow margin

>>5975354
no but that's the size you wear when you are anorexic and that height there mister deductive reasoning

[Anonymous No.5975432]

>>5975418

Ah, more assumptions. How tiresome. If you want to pin anything on me, try philogyny. A father may love his wife and daughter ever so much; that does not absent him the obligation to treat their missteps with due seriousness.

[uuuuhhhh No.5975437]

>>5975420
there are fat anorexics
there are people that are that thin and not anorexic

[Anonymous No.5975444]

>>5975419

and instead of returning to the greek ideal, we should stick with the judeo-christain one because?

[Anonymous No.5975452]

>>5975444

Inertia

[Anonymous No.5975456]

>>5975437
how's the splitting of them hairs?

let me correct for you since i'm stoned and have sat on 4chan swapping spit with other trolls who are undoubtedly more pathetic than i if they're even bothering to respond for the past three hours instead of making myself dinner after work

by anorexic i mean these women discussed in the article that will willingly sacrifice their health in order to attain what is in their mind, but not in reality, the ideal stick body

[timber No.5975473]

>>5975432
lmao the male savior trope was tired when j.c. did it my man

step up & expand on what u believe 2 b tha malfeasances of woman or fall back, no other options available

[Anonymous No.5975488]

>>5975473

Deferral and neglect of the duties related to motherhood would be my first card, but I'm not really up for another round at this point. Running at about half power right now. Blame the lateness of the hour.

[Anonymous No.5975490]

>>5975395
Thanks, brother!

>>5975410
These wonderful things come from ten thousand years of striving for the unnameable. They come from cultural diffusion and hard work. They do not come from selective breeding.
Our life expectancy is longer than it ever has been at any point in human history. Healthiness? We are healthier, smarter and more powerful than we ever were. We have reached the apex of our physical evolution and are now poised to shed the monkey body and take evolution into our own hands.
You seem like a man terrified by the world around him, and like men are often wont to do when the present day is too chaotic, you've cast yourself back, into history, into a simpler time. Into the "last sane moment we ever knew." In your case, this is Ancient Greece. But there are no answers back there. We left that time behind. You try to couch your future shock in the notion that you really do care about the place humanity is headed, but your obsession with reproduction and gender roles betrays you. Women are no longer mere brood mares, sorry.

You can't stop the waves of progress sweeping across the planet any more than you can turn back the clock, so why not face it head on? We're not fucked, brother. Anything but! Things are wild right now, incredibly complex and constantly moving faster - that's a good recipe for fear and cognitive dissonance. Don't be afraid of it. We're headed towards a new and exciting manifestation of the Prigogine Principle, and beyond that leap... Well, something deep in my heart knows that it will be beautiful. The further dissolution of gender roles and the decreasing importance of reproduction are but harbingers of this wonderful eventuality. Why waste your energy and your rhetoric trying to beat back the tide? Move forward, and shed your humanity. There are other worlds than these.

[Anonymous No.5975499]

>>5974960
She doesn't look that bad, actually, though it could just be the pose.

>>5974971
>>5974998
These on the other hand look like Auschwitz survivors.

[Anonymous No.5975513]

>>5975452

inertia doesn't have any ethical import, now does it?

[Anonymous No.5975515]

>>5975280
>>5975370
>>5975490
These are some damn good posts.

[timber No.5975534]

>>5975488
r u trying to argue that the relegation of women to the role of child-raiser & home-maker is anything but at best arbitrary and at worst a weaponized artifice of catholic-born patriarchy? i think immediately 2 mitt romney blaming gun violence on single mothers in front of an audience of millions. yr both ludicrous

[Anonymous No.5975546]

>>5975490

What you say is very fine and appropriate to your particular disposition, but I must confess you are misrepresenting my position. The question of reproduction falls mostly into the lap of woman today; accordingly, she has become the primary guardian of human healthiness. I am not yet convinced, however, that she is equal to this responsibility as I have said already:

>>5975488


Breeding is the covert labour of mankind. It is nothing abstracted regulated, or with definite principles. We are guided by intuition and drives older than us in this concern, or if you like, by the hand of nature. It is the foundation of everything we have accomplished, though it demands no accolades or emoluments for its work.

We are both future-oriented, whatever you may think to the contrary. I believe the fundamental division between us lies in the fact that you have your eyes fixed resolutely upwards, and therefore see only the opportunities and bounties of tomorrow; whilst my eyes are parallel to the ground and therefore occupied with those worldly problem that lie between here and the future you describe.

Yours will always be the more hopeful, and therefore the more popular message, but the head goes nowhere without the legs steady beneath. -- A word in favour of restrained enthusiasm and practical discipline.

[Anonymous No.5975547]

>>5975513

Purely practical. But between the two, ethics is the easier to prevail upon.

[Anonymous No.5975551]

>>5975490
Poet, what are the other worlds? Besides the all too real dream/astral plane? Are you hinting at real, actual physical planets?

[Anonymous No.5975579]

>>5975546
How am I misrepresenting you? I'm saying that you place far too much importance on reproduction, which you do. The primary guardian of human health is the not Woman, it's the society at large, its laws, its government and the medical establishment. Even if we start living in some sort of Handmaid's Tale, human health doesn't mean shit without technological advances, laws legislating pollution and deforestation, an adequate food supply and enough medicines to go around.
Reproduction is a drain on the planet. Seven plus billion of us, all of us draining the life out of this rock. Our species is shitting out an average of seven babies PER SECOND and you want to tell me that the future of humanity lies in reproduction? The death of humanity lies in reproduction. We have enough, we always will.

Or is it that we don't have enough white heterosexual christian babies?

[Anonymous No.5975582]

>>5975579
>Or is it that we don't have enough white heterosexual christian babies?
POET W/ THE DEATH BLOW. FUCKING K.O.

[Anonymous No.5975593]

>>5975551
Other worlds in the physical sense, yes. Our expansion into the cosmos. But also other worlds beyond the shallow and repetitious act of breeding. I don't agree with the notion that our value lies not in our minds and the things we create but rather in the thimbleful of genetic slop we eke out of our dicks upon climax. Fuck that.

Something is calling us out of time, out of history, out of the monkey body, shaping us in its image through evolution and culture. The body is a merely a vessel, a slab of meat intended to get our species from point A to point B. Bodies die, but ideas and culture can live forever and shape the paths taken by new bodies.

These, in a nutshell, are the other worlds.

[Anonymous No.5975614]

>>5975579

It lies in fine reproduction. It is not hard to see how want of quality in our offspring is compensated by sheer quantity.

I am not sure if you are the same 'Poet' I have argued with in the past; that fellow was of a much cooler head and did not need to reiterate the crude sentiments of a bitter minority to carry his points through.

The world 'eugenic' is of Greek origin; it means fair breeding, not voluminous or reckless reproduction, which you are insinuating was my objective for the human race. I would repeat that you are perverting my position once again, but I do not see that you have much interest in understanding me in mine.

My stance on these issues remains secure. Perhaps I have not depicted my core contentions with sufficient clarity, but I believe they will be understood well enough by those who harbour similar concerns. At any rate, I always enjoy an opportunity to sharpen my knives, and look forward to doing so again in the future, when we will hopefully both be in better form. Adieu.

[Anonymous No.5975624]

>>5975614
>>5975534
What, you're just going to bitch out of this argument? Lmao

[Anonymous No.5975629]

>>5975624
He has no obligations to you or anyone.

[Anonymous No.5975630]

>>5975629
You mean you don't. Give /fa/ some credit, there's not more than one of these insane fucking pseudo-intellectual women-hating assholes running around

[Anonymous No.5975646]

>>5975614
You gotta tell me two things:
1. Who's the bitter minority? or do you just mean minorities in general?
2. Define 'fine reproduction' and 'quality offspring'. Is there an empirical measurement for this sort of thing?

I'm the same guy as before. If I seem a tad rustled, it's because I don't like seeing an obviously intelligent and educated man abusing his skill sets in an attempt to validate what sounds an awful lot like the principles of National Socialism in shiny new packaging.

Lebensunwertes Leben, amirite? Those cats just LOVED Ancient Greece. Hitler himself saw it as the progenitor of the Reich. He loved the architecture, too, but what he really loved was perverting their thought and philosophy for the justification of genocide and other crimes.
That's what I see here. The roots of white exceptionalism. The longer i talk to you, the clearer it becomes. I don't need to pervert your position, it's already twisted.

I'm sorry if I've offended you, but I don't like where your train of thought is headed.

[Anonymous No.5975649]

I fucked a model-skinny woman once, and it was AWESOME.
>dat weight
I could fuck her in positions you can't even imagine
>dem small breasts and my tongue tickling that hard nipple in the middle
HNNNG
>dat tight pussy
HNNNNNNNG
>dat small body that I could protect and cuddle after a hot banging session
>when she got on top of me and I could still move freely
>and, Irrelevant, but she had dat straight hair, dem blue eyes, dat smile
I wish I could go back in time sometimes, she was probably the most beautiful girl I ever fucked
I had a few kinda chubby partners and they were mostly lazy as fuck, gross and absolutely not romantic and sweet

[Anonymous No.5975653]

>>5975593
Don't forget the inner worlds. Exploration of deep space may end up a dead-end without million-year robots/cyborgs that can deal with slow travel times or unless we find a practical way to tear through space. We can create other intelligences and worlds as complex as Earth or the galaxy here. Superintelligence (not disjointed from humanity) is the best legacy we could leave.

[Anonymous No.5975654]

>>5975084
What an amazing outfit

[Anonymous No.5975666]

>>5975420
>no but that's the size you wear when you are anorexic

Oh get over it. I wear a 00 and I'm fine. The size you wear doesn't correlate to mental health

[Anonymous No.5975668]

>>5975653
Oh man, there's so much I want to say but I'm so off topic as it is, I'm just gonna leave it - my tirades piss off enough people as is.
I think we'll find FTL travel somewhere down the line, but terraforming and expert systems are certainly the order of the day.
Superintelligence, some sort of self aware intranet... It will come, you're dead on.

g'night, brothers - it's been surreal.

[Anonymous No.5975684]

>>5975649
>i could fuck her in positions you can't even imagine

i hear you bro
my gf is model-skinny, we have the most fun sex i've ever had, fuck

[Anonymous No.5975697]

>>5975684
haha that's nice, enjoy it bro !

[Anonymous No.5975747]

OP's article is so unabashedly biased. Taking an extreme example from one person's experience and providing minimal evidence doesn't support her pre existing opinion. (Plus that bitch only worked for vogue Australia).

There's a decent argument to be had, but that's not the way to approach it.

>>5975282
As poet said, our basic instincts are so amorphous and somewhat irrelevant in this age.

Even defining what is and isn't a basic instinct is difficult. Traces of materialism can be found before civilization existed (40,000 y.a.), yet material goods are not held in the same light as surviving. As our lives have become less threatened, humans have focused more on a culture that could be considered superfluous.

In the modern day hang overs of our genetic evolutionary drives may still exist, but they can be doused. Men still view the breast and hip regions before a woman's face when presented with an image, larger breasts and hips may not appeal to the individual as they previously did, and no longer suggest child bearing success.

As for healthy weights, the hadza hunter gatherer women weigh around 43kg. Obviously they are incredibly fit. Being a certain weight doesn't mean you're healthy or unhealthy, and looking a certain way might not either. It's obvious when someone is unhealthy, but the examples provided in this thread don't scream anything to me.

Again, poet is reking the counter argument in this thread.

Human reproductive success and consequent genetic evolution is near irrelevant in modern society. Culture has surpassed a lot of biology in importance. Obviously we need to reproduce in order to further this culture, but reproduction is likely going to be our ruin. Even the act of reproduction is more often than not recreation.

I don't think this thread was worth the effort

[Anonymous No.5976309]

>>5975666
are you six feet tall? no, you're not, you're a subhuman midget (probably 5'6 or shorter)
do you people not get context?

[Anonymous No.5976326]

Oops, guess I need to lose 15 pounds, hope I don't die or get hospitalized or something...

[twerk it No.5976372]

honestly, i'm kind of flattered that someone thinks my lifestyle is impactful enough to threaten the future of the human race

[Anonymous No.5976375]

>>5974960
>They eat tissue paper to stave off the hunger pangs – literally ball it up and eat it.
This is just the most obvious bullshit I've ever heard on that topic. Eating tissue paper? Seriously? That's what fat people want to hear: Those models are suffering. It is hard, unhealthy and undignified to cut your intake. You should always be able to eat whenever you feel like it.
Not to mention that I never heard of an anorexic woman eating paper. Those people are already better at starving than that. Hell, I ate nothing for 3 weeks once and I never even had the idea to eat paper.

This article is just a fat people circlejerk, overblowing a problem in the fashion industry, that may exist, but not even close to the degree it is described here.

[Anonymous No.5976392]

>>5976372
Weren't you ranting about your healthy/no-starve diet yesterday?

[twerk it No.5976399]

>>5976392
i was only ranting about people inflicting self-harm through dietary choices.

i get the feeling that it's only one, or just a small handful of posters making those pro-ana threads. that's kind of insidious; the kids here have enough problems with their body image.

[Anonymous No.5976417]

>>5976399
I'm confused, maybe I didn't get your first post here?

[twerk it No.5976418]

>>5976417
i was referencing the post about women and gays destroying society by advocating skinny female models.

[Anonymous No.5976421]

>>5976399
based twerk you can assist my kid
you can do what you want omg based twerk keep helping

[Anonymous No.5976429]

>>5976418
Oooh ok, I thought you were referring to models starving themselves, sorry.

[Anonymous No.5976438]

>>5976309
>subhuman
There we go again with the hitler talk

[Anonymous No.5976451]

>>5976438

His birthday is coming up :3

[Anonymous No.5976463]

>>5976451
Those hips.

[twerk it No.5976465]

>>5976451
cant believe im gonna be broke on 4/20
i don't really smoke day to day but i still like 2 celebrate
mebe ill hit up my homie and mooch :o

carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

[Anonymous No.5976469]

>>5974979
whats your name
ill look out for your shit fam

[Anonymous No.5976542]

>>5976451
i love birthday parties

[Anonymous No.5976557]

>>5976309
>>>/fit/

[Anonymous No.5976571]

>>5976451

mien fuhrer pls

[Anonymous No.5977702]

>>5975363
It IS a problem in the fashion industry. You job literally depends on you being as skinny as possible, and since most models are scouted before puberty, they get fucked up when they suddenly grow boobs and hips and can't fit into samples anymore...

[Anonymous No.5977746]

>>5974960
>>5974971
I think Karlie Kloss looks absolutely stunning

She has the perfect body IMO, she's beautiful in every sense


Also, the photographer didn't airbrush the photo, the magazine did and there was a huge outrage over it

[Anonymous No.5977750]

>>5975084
>the only people that care aren't the customers they're fucking sour grape poor ass dog hoes
>get back to the f21 plus size section
SHOTSFIRED

[Anonymous No.5977815]

>Falling for some fat hambeast

lel

[Anonymous No.5977886]

>>5974971
>tfw the right looks better
there's nothing shameful or sickly about having your ribs visible, especially when you raise your arms like that

>>5977702
>they get fucked up when they suddenly grow boobs and hips and can't fit into samples anymore...
i really doubt this happens

there are plenty of venues for successful models that get wider hips and larger boobs

boobs and hips are hardly ever the problem really, it's usually plumpening arms and midsections that get models dropped

[Anonymous No.5977897]

>>5977886
muhdick.png

[Anonymous No.5977935]

>>5974960
shes not that skinnny. not like anorexic or anything, she's healthy and in shape.

[Anonymous No.5977962]

>>5977897
That's emma watson? Fuuuuck.

[Anonymous No.5977973]

>>5977962
Yeah m8 I'd throat fuck the shit out of her mouf.

[that nig with an E30 !ePUl/AW9M2 No.5977982]

>>5977897
>>5977962
>>5977973

neat lil fact.

my friend attended Bryant and saw Emma Watson on several occasions since she went to Brown at the time

[Anonymous No.5977983]

>>5977973
When the fuck did this happen? I'd always thought she was ugly.

[Anonymous No.5977990]

The image in OP's post is just one facet of beauty, in this case the type of beauty required by clothing designers to best portray their wares.
The women who don't understand this and destroy themselves trying to force themselves into another category, are a problem unto themselves which should be handled by them and there's.
Female insecurity is nauseating and not the responsibility of corporations nor impotent saviours of humanity such as yourself

[Anonymous No.5978004]

>>5977982
I have a feel that she's probably a posh kunt and thinks she's patrish though... Needless to say I would violently fuck her until her knee become weak from such Earth shattering orgasms.

[Anonymous No.5978000]

>>5977990
I almost agree. Except corporations do have a responsibility when they push a certain body type or image.

[Anonymous No.5978002]

>an actual civil discussion on /fa/

is this real life?

[Anonymous No.5978023]

>>5977886
A lot of models (Including Coco Rocha) speak out about hiring youger models specifically for this reason. No one cares about arms in the fashion world, they care about boobs, waist and hips, mostly models get dropped because of waist and hips. Although you usually CAN do something about waist, it's much more difficult for hips because your pelvis actually expands. You can lose all the weight in the world but it won't file down your bones.

[Anonymous No.5978036]

>>5978000
This.
>>5977990
I agree, but the article was specifically talking about model conditions.

[Anonymous No.5978492]

[Anonymous No.5978599]

>>5975079
>extremely fit and toned.

Loos like a fucking Holocaust survivor.

No Bitch, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5978616]

>>5977886
lol that chick looks like mannequin chan

[Anonymous No.5978619]

>>5978492
#afterlife

[uuuuhhhh No.5978630]

>>5978000
why

[Anonymous No.5978689]

>>5978616
Who's mannequin chan?
Pics?

[Anonymous No.5978717]

>>5978689

[Anonymous No.5978729]

>>5978717

Hate the head scarf and the shoes.

[Anonymous No.5978754]

>>5978717
Do you have a sentimental attraction to your head covering?

I feel like they always bring your fits down every single time from an aesthetic viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.5978756]

>>5978717
#wowowo

[Anonymous No.5978757]

>>5978729
the shoes are socks lelel

[Anonymous No.5978760]

>>5978754

I agree. It takes it from a modern, striking place to something kind of dowdy and awkward.

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5978778]

>>5978754
i dnt think thats her man she hasnt posted in ages

[Anonymous No.5978797]

>>5978599
She is just skinny as fuck. Used to do ballet too.

>>5978757
Looks like shoes to me. How would a sock be so stiff?

[Anonymous No.5978802]

>>5978797

Yeah, I guessed it was a shoe based on the pointed toe.

[Anonymous No.5978817]

>>5978760
>>5978754
are you fucking kidding? that's gothshinobi to the max

her wit is clearly above you two

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5978834]

>>5978817
some #nxtlvl bodiecore shit

[Anonymous No.5978861]

>>5978834
r.i.p.
one of the most engaging characters

also mannequin chan isn't here, i just saved her nxtlvl fit and posted it 4 u

[Anonymous No.5978881]

>>5978492
beautiful

[Anonymous No.5979027]

>>5978881

[alex No.5979073]

>>5979027
that girl got some man hands damn

[Anonymous No.5979118]

>>5976451
tfw my bday is the = day as him

[Anonymous No.5979128]

>>5978861
thank you based anon, you're fighting the good fight

[Anonymous No.5979166]

>>5979118
smoke bluntz

[Anonymous No.5979212]

>>5979166
i dont smoke
what do

[Anonymous No.5979245]

>>5979212
eet weed

[Anonymous No.5979260]

>>5979245
ok
my garden is pretty big

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5979285]

>>5978861
all my fav characters died :(

rip snoop and omar and wallace

[Anonymous No.5979336]

>>5979285
WHERE THE FUCK IS WALLACE?

yeah but characters just get replaced man. the final montage of the whole show, god damn, dat cycle. but for real, there'll never be another omar or snoop. fuck that shows dynamic was incredible

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5979346]

>>5979336
goat for real, my fav

got any recs? all im doing now is waiting for new breaking bad and game of thrones

[Anonymous No.5979361]

>>5979346
>hick plays dress up

[Anonymous No.5979388]

>>5979346
hm, i finished season 1 of treme and watched generation kill, both of which david simon created/wrote i believe, and can recommend them both, tho treme is far more culturally based than compared to the wire's politics.

other than that not really b haha i just been watching black dynamite, archer, and arrested development.

sucks that i watched the wire after 4 seasons of bb cause now i see bb as comparative shit but i still enjoy it

[uuuuhhhh No.5979385]

>>5979346
the sopranos

[that nig with an E30 !ePUl/AW9M2 No.5979399]

bae looks so good in this pic doe 8)

[basedprophet !IFJ/2SLAGo No.5979403]

>>5979388
first couple seasons of bb i didnt like that much too much family shit but the last few were great imo

archer is fucking great lol, do you watch workaholics?

[Anonymous No.5979405]

>>5979346
The corner and generation kill, both written by david simon. I saw your thread on /tv/ but forgot to post in it.