Well they do say stereotypes are stereotypes because they are true.
I've never heard anyone say that, and some stereotypes are bullshit. The problem with stereotypes is that they rely on taking a characteristic that is displayed by some members of a group, and attempt to extrapolate it to being representative of the entire group.
Seriously I have no truck with homosexuals.
That expression means you refuse to have anything to do with homosexuals.
Sure I can be accused of trying to rattle the cages of the gay lobby on this forum.
I've never noticed that we had a "gay lobby" here. We have some gay people, who expect others to not spout outrageous bullshit.
Absolutely homosexuals have a right to exist, live and love like the rest of us(straights). My 'musings' are about those homosexuals that have a over-representation in the fashion world and in particular at the top level if evidence bought forth from osmanthus is to be believed. (As an interesting aside if you tapped top ten porn companies over half are run by Jews, when they only make up two/three per cent of the population lol) (UsA )I'd even chip in an assertion/insinuation that they are over-represented across broad swathes of the media world. There is nothing really wrong with their over-representation in the media world, they seem to be overly-represented in the talented and funny people. Just that their sexuality is represented more (in the media)than their representation in general. It's not a case of 'most' it is a case of 'over-represented'.
If there is nothing really wrong with them being "over-represented" then why keep banging on about it? All you're saying is "Hey guys, I found out something which I regard as totally irrelevant!"
Straight old man sexuality is responsible for the vast majority of objectification of women, determining how they should look and act, pornography etc.
Really? So straight young men have no influence? There's no research into target markets for porn? Misogyny in rap and hip-hop culture is not perpetrated and encouraged by young men?
How much more over-represented let's say the difference in women on the catwalk and those in other parts of the media. Imo there is a difference in women used on catwalks than in the rest of the media. Boobs and bums mainly.
Yes, the fashion industry selects tall and slender women for models. There are several points here.
First is that breast size has nothing to do with femininity or sexual maturity or, in my view at least, with attractiveness. There are plenty of very attractive women outside the fashion industry who don't have much in the way of teh boobage, and that's fine. Big boobs are called "big" because they are abnormal.
Bum size is related to pelvic size and body fat. Slender women have smaller bums than less slender women, and for them this is natural and not necessarily unhealthy.
As I pointed out earlier, the trend towards using tall and slender women as runway models was started by Elsa Schiaparelli. The reason she selected such women is because she thought they were better for showing off the clothes, not because she personally found them more sexually attractive. I can see the point here.
If you are selling haute couture then you are selling elegance and style. Taller models will give a more impressive effect, and not filling the clothes to bursting point with luscious curves of squeezy bitz (
) will let the audience focus more on the clothes themselves. It's a subjective and debatable point of view, but I can see the arguments for it.
It shouldn't be a problem as long as the women involved are physically healthy, and as long as people aren't daft enough to promote them as an ideal for all women. The fashion industry is failing on these two counts, and that is the real problem.
This wouldn't get my goat at all if it wasn't for the fact sexualisation of children has become a worry. I am father of near-teenage daughters and it isn't as simple as logging off or having good parent skills, because as i know from my childhood peer pressure counted a lot more than parenting.
The thing is that there a lot of models who are not children. They are within the normal range of human genetic variation. Some women are just built like that. You can't say that just because they are built like that, this means they are involved in sexualising children.
I mention 'old man' because imo old men sexuality is imo different to young man sexuality, I don't think Man was meant to live beyond 40-45 years in past times and now they push on into into their nineties, those extra forty years must be different to handle than the first forty years.
Since I am currently fifty years old and have not noticed any tendency for myself to develop a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent girls, I have no fucking idea what you are on about here. The thing I'm pissed about is that Marg Helgenberger is leaving CSI. The show may be total crap, but Marg rocks.
And I believe it is these older men be they straight (or gay) that run the media and hence the representation of women is skewed towards what they ahve been wired to like in evolutionary terms, fertile girls, perhaps in the evolutionary past it was advantage to spot girls who had just turned 'ready' in essence.
That's perhaps why older women spend billions on looking younger shinier hair/glowing skin to keep being attractive to the opposite sex. So indeed this skinny look the media 'portrays' stems from dirty old media man's primal instinct for the shape of girls rather than shape of women, the same accusation that Amanda Platell threw at gay man seeking the look of boys in their cat-walk models rather than women. Skinny women without bums and breasts.
Well older gay men are not, presumably, evolutionarily wired to go for fertile girls, or for pre-pubescent girls.
As for straight men, would it not make more sense for evolution to wire them to go for young women who were already capable of successfully carrying a pregnancy to term and raising the resulting child? What possible evolutionary benefit would there be in wiring straight men to want girls who were too young to breed successfully? Your argument falls down on basic common sense.
And I simply don't think it is free society is sexually healthy for children. If I didn't have children I perhaps would/may not have come this far with my musings, I don't know. Ideally I just wish it wasn't in their faces. One example is the difference between movies rated 12/15 today and those in the eighties, is vast. The porn culture is more prominent and accessible to young boys and girls, in my time, when the women still had pubic hair, we had to rely on one of my schoolfriends finding his dad's stash and bringing into school. My dad must have hidden his well lol.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with the fashion industry since the fashion industry doesn't make porn.
Topic: Isabelle Caro, the face of anorexia, dies at 28