Cult Icon, on 17 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:
Having seen both vintage VS and modern VS, I don't think that strong personalities or very curvy and sexual models with large body parts would model the myriad generic items on their websight and catalogue very well. The intentionally awkward and extensive photoshop work they do tends to draw emphasis away from the woman that is wearing whatever and beams one's eyes instead onto the clothing. The model herself actually fades into the background somewhat.
Using supermodels or very beautiful pictures would be very distracting. The vintage VS catalogues resemble men's magazines a bit too much and featured such distraction.
Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, and I truly hope you don't take this personally, but are you gay? No insult intended and if you are, not only is that okay it's kind of awesome, but really? You're more drawn to the clothing then to the model? Okay, I can understand some of the models not being your cup of tea, but these women, regardless of how much they are photo shopped are all quite beautiful, each in their own way.
I can see the difference between vintage VS and modern VS, but I don't think that that is the intent of the brand to have the eye drawn away from the model and focused on the clothing. They are still trying to brand their new models. Forcing some of these women down our collective throats so we get to know for instance Candice, and the things Candice does. If they just wanted us to see the clothing they wouldn't try to sell us a name.
I think it's more a case of Monica and Ed catering towards a certain body type and not taking into consideration what their target audience wants. These women are still trying to sell sex, they just are "falling short" because of the elevated platform so many of us have put vintage VS on. It's not necessarily better or worse, but it's current so it's not as good.
It's the collective nothing is good enough unless it's something we don't have.
-----------
Quote
Yeah, and the whole trope about thin women = unhealthy is off unless they are showing signs of nutritional deficiency. I am thin/underweight myself and am not unhealthy. A lot of these model girls have an elongated and delicate bone structure. They can be quite thin and have no nutritional deficiency at all. And actually, I don't think that they do.
In fact, normal or even chubby women could be significantly less healthy than they. It all depends..
So the claim that Katie Upton is more healthy than Karlie Kloss is twaddle unless specifics are being examined.
While this argument has been done to death, the whole idea of unhealthy skinny being better then unhealthy over weight is absolute garbage. Either way is unhealthy. And yes, in the past some of the VS models, have shown signs of being a little to "skinny" to be healthy, and it's made headlines, and had people taking a step back questioning how a brand marketing "sexy" could consider this okay.
If you consider yourself underweight that is unhealthy, because their is a natural body weight you should be around based on bone density, height and other factors. By taking that into consideration underweight, by it's very nature is considered unhealthy.
As for Kate Upton being more healthy then Karlie Kloss, or vice versa that argument hasn't been thrown out in quite some time, at least not to the point where it should have become a stand point for a debate. The whole point people have been trying to make for the last page or so is that there should be a broad range of the full spectrum of healthy body types. Slender, curvy, bottom heavy, top heavy, whatever your quirk is. Instead it's all these incredibly slender girls, with waif like figures who they then proceed to photo shop weight and or curves onto.
If you want curves, hire a damn model with curves, if not then stick with what you have. Chicken cutlets aside, padding aside there are numerous models out there who fit the bill of the fuller figure, Barbara being one of them, Kate being another. They choose not to pick up any women like that, instead sticking with overtoned or petite girls and wondering why the average joe has so much trouble relating to the brand and why their sales are declining.
Most people, especially in America are not the size of Candice, or Alessandra, or even Doutzen and Adriana, (both of who are considered their fuller figured models of the brand). They're closer in range to a girl like Barbara, who has that soft womanly curve that is "possible to the imagination". When a woman sits back looking at this lingerie they want to be able to picture themselves in it, and it's hard to relate to women who have no tits or ass, if you're looking down at a full C or D and a booty where one cheek would fit the entire panty of Candice's bottoms.
Yes there are girls who are more petite buying the brand, but they aren't the only ones but they seem to be the only ones who are being represented. So personally I look at the argument of skinny vs curvy as having progressed past which is healthier or more unhealthy to something more along the lines of give us both ends of the spectrum, not just one little slice of it. It's like looking into the sky and seeing the red, orange and yellow bit, but having a tree blocking the green, blue, indigo and violet parts of a rainbow. You feel cheated in some way.
I for one don't just want my cake, I want to eat it too.
17
)
)
