• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Okay, seriously what is with the obsession with "thin?"

I'd think those tend to understand the difference between "what I find sexy" and "what the customers actually buy", or they won't stay very long in business. Think of it this way: there must be a lot of restaurant owners who like Pepsi more than Coke, but stock the latter.
 
I'd think those tend to understand the difference between "what I find sexy" and "what the customers actually buy", or they won't stay very long in business. Think of it this way: there must be a lot of restaurant owners who like Pepsi more than Coke, but stock the latter.

I am not sure it is about sexy or buying dirrectly, it is about what will generate the best buzz for them and their lines of more practical clothing.
 
The fashion industry is one of the things that I consider utterly, profoundly alien. Its sheer celebration of vain superficiality, along with the whole gaudy colours and tacky music makes for one of the most repulsive subculture I can think of.
 
The fashion industry is one of the things that I consider utterly, profoundly alien. Its sheer celebration of vain superficiality, along with the whole gaudy colours and tacky music makes for one of the most repulsive subculture I can think of.

I had a girlfriend in grade 9 that introduced me to fashion and Fashion Television. I still watch FT to this day, for the articles of course.
 
Anyone remember The Clothes Show on the BBC?
I went so far as to prefer Songs of Praise on a Sunday night... which is saying something.
 
Also, the desirability of women with small waists is not a new one. Anyone who has read the "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder, which have as their focus her life in the 1800s, knows that her father would often boast that her mother, when they married, had a waist small enough to put his hands around.

One major difference, however, was that it was her corset-trained waist that he was able to put his hands around. Having done corsetting myself, it makes a huge difference (I don't do it anymore, but I have aquaintances who do). At the time, corsetting was started young, typically in the early teens/late adolescence; and achieved a permanent modification of the ribcage and waist, displacing the internal organs. Without that training, it's simply not possible to achieve that sort of waist without severe emaciation.
It's silly to act as though this is some phenomenon inherent to america's top model or the magazines of today. Take a look at some of the ancient hindu statues for other examples of buxom women with etremely small waists and lithe bodies. It is a body type that has long been considered desirable.
Possibly in India, but not in Classical Greece. Or Rome.

There's a mistake being made here regarding the nature and intent of these particular peices of art. The assumption is that they are demonstrating standards of feminine beauty. That's actually not correct.

In the case of the Greco-Roman statuary, the forms are often exaggerated to enhance the draping of the clothing. In many cases, it's the form and flow of the cloth that is the primary subject. In other cases, the figures are exaggerated for dramatic purposes, to personify a principle or value, rather than an ideal of beauty. Other artistic depictions, particularly erotic/pornographic, show a substantially different, but still stylized, depiction of the female form.

The Hindu temple art is similarly stylized, but in a different manner. The intent appears to be more one of exaggerated femininity, the portrayal not of an ideal of beauty necessarily, but the essence of femininity, of femaleness. V.S. Ramachandran has an interesting talk on the nature and meaning of the Hindu temple sculpture.
 
fashion is ********. all these "designers" are blind and stupid. nobody wears any of that **** anyway. look outside most people wear normal clothes. only the freaks, weirdos, faggots care about that crap.
 
fashion is ********. all these "designers" are blind and stupid. nobody wears any of that **** anyway. look outside most people wear normal clothes. only the freaks, weirdos, faggots care about that crap.

"Never despise fashion. It's what we have instead of God." --Oscar Wilde.
 
1. I'd have to add about corsets though that it was taken to debilitating extremes.

A thing that was also common in the 18'th century was "fainting rooms" which were exactly what it sounds like. The compression severely limited blood flow and even the ability to breath, so there was only so much moving around you could do at a party in between going to lie down because otherwise you _will_ faint and they'll drag you there.

Another thing that was also common were smelling salts to revive a fainted lady. Yes, it was actually that common that corseted women would faint, that almost everyone in the upper classes carried some.

I'd hardly think of it as some ideal to copy, basically.

2. It being common in the 1800 is mostly explainable actually, like most things fashion, by a neverending quest to make it clear that one doesn't do any physical labour. Clothes, looks, you name it, at least half of it was humanity's quest for a status look that says "look at me, I'm a useless piece of furniture and can afford to be one." (While at the same time preaching protestant work ethics, where applicable.)

Take the tan for example. As long as most work happened outside, humanity had a quest to look as pale as possible, to make a point that one isn't one of those unwashed peasants working in the fields. People even ruined their health with arsenic-based potions to look properly upper-class paper-white. (ETA: and as you would guess "Snow White" actually meant she was an ideal of upper class beauty, as well as a true upper-class lady.) Then as in the 20'th century most jobs moved indoors, suddenly it was fashionable to sport a tan, to make a case that one can afford going to the beach.

Or take breasts. Actually from antiquity to the Victorian era, all the rage were small breasts, as most women would be pregnant or lactating half the time and big breasts tended to be the norm. Small breasts said "young and virginal" or, again, "stinking rich and can afford a wet nurse." Then in modern days as people started postponing making children, all the rage became what previously was mundane.

Waists are largely the same. As long as it was an economy of shortages and even knights often had to plough the land to make ends meet, being fat was something good and sexy. It meant not just that you probably will survive the next famine, but also basically that you can afford it. Status symbol looks all over again. Then at some point it flipped around, with corsets and crinolines (which made the same impression of a narrower waist by comparison) making a point that basically (A) you're so well off that you're not worried about the next famine, and (B) basically being an outfit so disabling that you definitely aren't one of those who have to do any work any time soon.

What I'm getting at, and why I included the other two examples, is that you really can't take it as some indication of built-in human tastes. Just about any element of body shape or hue -- waist, breasts, feet (see the Chinese), you name it -- just flips around with basically whatever is the fashion du jour.

3. What I'm also getting at, is that at least back in those days it served a purpose of making an "I'm rich" case. Whereas the mutants in these photoshopped pictures, well, I'm at a loss what that would say. "My parents spent a vacation at Hiroshima" maybe?
 
Last edited:
There's a mistake being made here regarding the nature and intent of these particular peices of art. The assumption is that they are demonstrating standards of feminine beauty. That's actually not correct.

In the case of the Greco-Roman statuary, the forms are often exaggerated to enhance the draping of the clothing. In many cases, it's the form and flow of the cloth that is the primary subject. In other cases, the figures are exaggerated for dramatic purposes, to personify a principle or value, rather than an ideal of beauty. Other artistic depictions, particularly erotic/pornographic, show a substantially different, but still stylized, depiction of the female form.

Actually, we do know that the proportions that the Greeks and Romans put in their statues _are_ what they expounded as ideals of physical beauty.

Down to the small dicks on male statues. The Greeks seem to have had the same complex that some other race, in their case those primitive barbarians up north, have huge... ahem... tools. Except the Greeks basically just went "well, we're Greeks and proud to be short. Sets us apart from those unwashed barbarians." So they actually expounded that as an ideal of beauty.

In the case of female shape, actually, yes, they liked women with small breasts. The Romans for example made that plenty clear in their fashion too. They're sometimes credited with having invented the bra, but really they invented a strip of cloth tied over the chest, to make women look flatter. I'd say you can't get much more of a hint than that, that maybe they really meant it with the statues too.

ETA: also, here are a few examples which are pretty clearly pornographic and involve _no_ clothes to drape or anything. (Warning: may or may not be safe for work.)

A Pompeii fresco depicting cunnilingus

A tamer fresco, still no huge breasts and no clothes to drape over them

Capitoline Venus, apparently the model was an actual hetaera too

Greek plate representing sex. Granted, the position offers some excuse, but there is no representation of the breasts at all

Venus Of Arles, 1st century BC

Pompeii fresco of a very flat Venus

Venus of Campo Lemni (is that even an A cup?)

I'd say it's pretty clear that they did make breasts small even when no clothes were involved. And I don't think that in a pornographic oral sex scene they used proportions representative of anything else than what would arouse the viewer sexually.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's pretty clear that they did make breasts small even when no clothes were involved. And I don't think that in a pornographic oral sex scene they used proportions representative of anything else than what would arouse the viewer sexually.

That is highly questionable, everything I have heard about roman sexuality included the idea that such a sex act would be totally beyond the pale of perversion in their views. A man should never be penetrated by a woman in that fashion and who could take anything he said seriously after that?

The explanation of that image that I have heard the most is that it was supposed to be funny not arousing. Because no proper man would ever do such a thing.
 
While other explanations are basically along the lines that it still happened, social taboo or not.

Besides, even that stigma was more to do with social roles, which were a bit more complex. E.g., it was considered degrading for an adult man especially over 30 years old to be "penetrated" or take the "passive" role (both of which strangely included performing cunnilingus, indeed), but it was ok for a young boy. That's how homosexuality was ok for them. So basically a teenager performing it on his girlfriend (or really, on anyone else) would actually be ok. Though they'd still frown a bit on her for taking the "active" or "penetrator" role there.

The stigma was also actually milder than you seem to assume. There are plenty of pamphlets deriding some public figure or another for doing just that, but I'm not aware of anyone actually retiring from politics or committing suicide because of it or anything.

And finally the stigma was actually pretty asymmetrical. Using a slave or prostitute to perform oral sex wouldn't degrade the one receiving it all that much, and the slave didn't have much social standing or respect to lose there anyway.
 
While other explanations are basically along the lines that it still happened, social taboo or not.

Besides, even that stigma was more to do with social roles, which were a bit more complex. E.g., it was considered degrading for an adult man especially over 30 years old to be "penetrated" or take the "passive" role (both of which strangely included performing cunnilingus, indeed), but it was ok for a young boy. That's how homosexuality was ok for them. So basically a teenager performing it on his girlfriend (or really, on anyone else) would actually be ok. Though they'd still frown a bit on her for taking the "active" or "penetrator" role there.

The stigma was also actually milder than you seem to assume. There are plenty of pamphlets deriding some public figure or another for doing just that, but I'm not aware of anyone actually retiring from politics or committing suicide because of it or anything.

There were often all kinds of pamphlets about public figures, especially engaging in taboo sexual practices. They were common in the enlightenment I know.
 
The fashion industry is one of the things that I consider utterly, profoundly alien. Its sheer celebration of vain superficiality, along with the whole gaudy colours and tacky music makes for one of the most repulsive subculture I can think of.

Same here, but then my last clothing purchase was a t-shirt with the screaming head from The Wall on it.
 
fashion is ********. all these "designers" are blind and stupid. nobody wears any of that **** anyway. look outside most people wear normal clothes. only the freaks, weirdos, faggots care about that crap.

I have basically the same opinion, but it sounds different when you say it.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom