TheBaronOfFratton

I've always felt that 'Inguna Butane' does not really do such a girl much justice. But then I'm not Latvian - perhaps it reads better there... Whereas 'Luisana Lopilato' quite literally drips off the tongue.

This is in no way indicative of any current predicament. I can be pithy on cue. Oh Yes, Let's DO Remember The Good Times And sometimes I still smell you Or the perfume that you wore On people that just pass me by -I don't like it anymore In my photographic history You still reappear I haven't cut you out yet -But I do keep scissors near "Remember when..?" They start to say And then They sometimes stop Shared reference points are many -Before couple bubbles pop How quickly the milk turns sour Bitterness easily takes The victuals will spoil -Eventually glass breaks To your sun I was a satellite And to your light a moth Your once endearing qualities -Now really fuck me off

Sam12 - we agree yet again! In all fairness, I have not yet seen the new show (roll on Monday...) But I'm getting the distinct impression it didn't go down too well with the cognoscenti! Correct me if I'm wrong. 2005 was great. I loved the opening as well, nothingless - and the ladies all looked so damn mean. Ana was at her glorious non-committal best (just a thought - maybe all the recent theatrics simply aren't to her liking. Can you see her as an 'Angel' and participating in 'Angel' shenanigans?) And it was my first introduction to Doutzen - and she looked bloody brilliant! All pouty insouciance, bombshell hair and caramel thighs... The Russian segment was the perfect symbiosis between theme, music, and model. And Natasha losing her shoe was darling (I rather felt the following year's KK shoe 'catastrophe' was slightly contrived). And she looked phenomenally cute. As, infact, did most of them. Even those I can't profess to like. The finale, with all the ladies together, was as enticing as working out which present to open first on Christmas day. Actually that Christmas element was handled well, not overblown and overtly 'surreal' like this year's tree costume business. It had overtones in all the segments (the Russian babushka dolls, the toy soldiers, the wrapped up bows) and was sexy as opposed to gimmicky. And this just could have been the best present ever: I could have done without Ricky Martin, though. But we can't have everything can we?

Heavens no, never! Say it loud, Miss red and proud. (Y) "Get thee to a nunnery."

Do you remember when Heidi Klum used to be a model? "The one off 'Project Runway'?", I hear you ask. Indeed. The very same. Heidi... She was pretty good. But oh, that was so many moons ago... Perhaps you recall Tyra Banks? Yes - that one! She was a model too. I know, I know... But believe me, she was. And Gisele Bundchen; the one from that great film 'Taxi' with Jimmy Fallon and Queen Latifah - about the...well...taxi? Yes, you've guessed it. She was only a bloody model too! And maybe you saw 'How I Met Your Mother' the other week? When they went to the Victoria's Secret party, remember? And they spoke to those girls, with HILAIRIOUS consequences? ALL models! They were models. Insignificant models from fashion shows. Remember fashion shows? You know, where people walk up and down runways to promote clothing? Yes: Old, silly, outdated, irrelevant fashion shows. The ones that didn't involve musical interludes and celebrities and car licence plates around your thighs... Remember them? Yes, people. Do you remember when 'Victoria's Secret Models' used to model 'Victoria's Secret'? A time, not so long ago - before 'Angels', before cameo roles, before this all-encompassing 'celebrity' nonsense that has engulfed us? That time is gone. Alas, we shall never see it's like again. For now we have to have tie-ins and marketing schmarketing. We have to have brand awareness above and beyond the norms of fashion weeks and magazine advertisements and editorials. Unfortunately the Dylan commercial was a warning. It was an endorsement. It was a promotional tool. It was a HARBINGER OF DOOM (forgive the melodrama)! The good old days. Those halcyon days. Where models modelled. Where 'What Is Sexy?' was answered fairly comprehensively. Innocent, carefree days...

But that was the past, my dear. They do things differently there! Besides, science is now on your side...

Some relevant news to bump this neglected thread: Of all women, redhheads have the most sex.Although he doesn't explain exactly how he came up with this dubious conclusion, sex researcher and professor Dr. Werner Habermehl of the Hamburg Medical Research Institute in Hamburg, Germany says he examined the sex lives of hundreds of German women and compared the findings to their hair colour - specifically red, blonde and brunette. "The sex lives of the women with red hair were clearly more active than those with other hair colour, with more partners and having sex more often tha the average" Habermehl told London's Daily Mail "The research shows that the fiery redhead certainly lives up to her reputation." And if women dye their hair red? That means they're signalling men that they're looking for a sexual partner. "Even women in a fixed relationship are letting their partners know they are unhappy if they dye their hair red," the professor told the Daily Mail "They are saying that they are looking for something better." Psychologist Christine Baumanns told the British paper, "Red stands for passion and when a man sees a redhead he will think he is dealing with a woman who won't mess around and gets straight to the point when it comes to sex." (source - AOL personals) Well, there you have it. 'Redheads Make Better Lovers': FACT. This one's for you, sweet Ophelia..! :brows:

Ah, Ma'am - I just knew you'd know that one!!! Thank you for the kind words. Of course this means I might just outstay my welcome! Please post more. I thought the "I would like to be Mary..." poem was a beauty. Ever read any D H Lawrence poetry? It was quite akin... I hope this thread picks up - Looking forward to a deluge.

This little puff-piece was written a few years ago - an homage to Edgar Allen Poe and his poem "Annabel Lee" - I'd hope Penny-Dreaddful was aware of it, if no one else! I should post it in the Anouck Lepere thread too. I think she's pretty much retired now, but at the time she sashayed through my dreams... It was troubling me on billboards high And magazines everywhere That a maiden displayed, that was making me sigh By the name of ANOUCK LEPERE; And this maiden, she lived with no knowledge of me As she gazed benignly from there. And I sought out her image, I sought out her smile In magazines everywhere And hours I'd spend watching FashionTV - For a glimpse of ANOUCK LEPERE - Watching adverts intently on telly each night 'Cos she appears on some perfume one there. And just like 'Leffe' and just like Magritte She's a part of my Belgian affair And we'd move back to Antwerp to eat moules et frites Just me and ANOUCK LEPERE And from Paris, Milan, New York and beyond I'm in love with the girl with the long brown hair As it sashays in chestnut down catwalks And in magazines everywhere. I'd defer to her knowledge of what clothes suited me And on my ear I'd proudly wear - A jewellery piece that caresses my lobe Designed by my maiden with flair And sold in 'Barney's' and 'Maxfield's' But mine, a gift from ANOUCK LEPERE But our love it is stronger by far than the love Of some model + rock-star pair Or some strange David Copperfield affair No, no rock-star, nor actor or male-model No magician or millionaire Can ever dissever my soul from the soul of the lovely ANOUCK LEPERE And I guess I can't write without invoking the sight Of the lovely ANOUCK LEPERE As she promenades down my daydream runways The lovely ANOUCK LEPERE: We'd discuss architecture whilst the mood got quite potent With her swathed in 'Deep Red' and (no doubt) Dries Van Noten I'd lie by my muse with no more a care - If she'd only come out of her magazine there. And then I moved on. God, I'm fickle...

Blatantly this is an unfair contest. To begin with you cannot compare Heidi Klum to Predator. Heidi Klum IS predator. Witness the evidence: KLUM PREDATOR And as for the Alien. Well, this beast impregnates it's victims by a pretty unsavoury face-hugging technique: However, this would pose absolutely no threat to the Klumster. After all, she has already faced a much worse mating process: Quid Pro Quo, Heidi (already imbued with the power of Predator) would laugh in the face of Alien. Plus she is a Victoria's Secret Angel (or is she? I can never tell) - and therefore is used to acid-spitting bitches...

"Convincing", and seemingly correct judging by Sam12's viewing figures. Yes, this is over-analysis. But that is kind of the point of this thread. Sure it is spectacle: sturm und drang. As such it sets itself apart from Milanese or Parisian fashion shows. It may pilfer from those show's top models, added to its own impressive canon of 'angels' - but it is a distinctive beast. Fashion shows are, by their nature, adverts for a brand. Haute couture or pret-a-porter, the end result is the same. SELL, SELL, SELL. Clearly Victoria's Secret has mastered this aspect. Although in this here 'rest of the world' the products and shops are elusive, the brand is endemic in malls across the States, yes? This isn't an exclusive product, yet it garners the same sort of (popular) press as a limited edition Cavalli. And now - despite this apparent abomination of a show (I won't get to see it until next Monday) - we have an upturn in viewing figures and no doubt more of the same crud next year. So, maybe more spring-loaded snowflake wings. Superhero costumes. Heidi and family sing the Osmond's song-book. Stam dressed as the Great Pyramid of Cheops. And maybe, just maybe, hentai tentacle-porn! And no, here in Argentina I've never harboured a taxi-cab fantasy...

Please file under: "Undignified".

That, irenistiQ, is where the budget went! I've got to bloody wait until December 17th to see the show. That said I've read the reviews, and those whose opinions I care about (I'm sure you know who you are - pretty much the only one's who have replied to this thread anyway!!!) have damned the whole thing. Oh 2008, come quickly - we NEED you. We need that redemption. And it seems to be prevalent to this thread - the whole change in tone, the "outfits" and gimmicry etc. Perhaps it's more about PIP'ing, or whatever the correct vernacular may be. Yours, jadedly...

Yes, that was a great post! I'd completely forgotten the appalling "ninja turtle outfit" - but I'll take that, and raise you this: Bad 80's sci-fi? Post-apocalyptic scavenger? Maybe they're taking surrealism to it's extreme and simply shoving every automatic idea together. And then sitting back and laughing at us on a big pile of money..?

(Sigh), you are probably right - I read far too much into it, damn Art History and Philosophy! I should just appreciate the ladies. But after watching Sam12's video of the 2000 show again it reinforced my opinion. The sheer change in tone is astonishing. I suppose, as with any spectacle, you have to trump what came previous - witness Olympic opening ceremonies, or New Year firework displays. Sometimes that can go horribly wrong and become an overblown farce. Therefore, on occasion, it's wise to start again - 'year zero' or 'back to basics'. The James Bond franchise chose this approach with "Casino Royale", no gadgets or ludicrous villain's lairs. Once you've had an invisible car in an ice palace where else can you go? Of course you make it a 'show'. You need general themes. But this is still about lingerie - and by association sex. This costume is at least logical, from 2005: It's candy. It has connotations of Valentines, terms of endearment, and supposed aphrodisiac effects. Maybe don't spend too long reading into the whole lollipop thing! And the sweet wrapper is just a tad OTT. But this: ??? Now I'm not an American, so maybe I'm missing something - but is the Statue of Liberty cross-pollinated with a New York cab sexy? Infact that whole segment looks (from the photos so far) a bit too contrived. I know PINK is supposed to be more playful and young, but to me it just looked garish and messy - and decidedly half-arsed. Perhaps I'm being the anti-Joker here, too bloody serious! But they started it. They asked "What Is Sexy?" And then they gave us a woman disguised as a Christmas tree.

Hello all, This thread is to discuss, via digressions, the increasingly surreal outfits of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - which culminated in this year's 'Surreally Sexy' segment. I wanted to begin by making sure it's understood that this is not a critique on any of the respective models featured. Rather it is about the outfits and the themes. You watch the earlier VSFS's and they are essentially women walking in underwear - of that in itself, I have no complaints - but the behemoth this show has become seems to have strayed drastically from this simple premise. Models model, yes? (I'm talking proper models here - not 'models' who spend their time losing their clothes and bending over in increasingly gynaecological poses as per the magazine covers here in Buenos Aires!) And as such they sell us products - clothing, accessories, make-up. I'm sure, even in 2000 had I been inclined, I could have gone and bought some of the items I saw on the catwalk in Cannes. But today? These outfits are designed as spectacle. To provoke interest in the brand. To be fantasy. This is fantastical lingerie, as opposed to functional underwear. It's a worthy cause, certainly - but it begs that perennial question of theirs: What Is Sexy? Take one of this year's outfits: + = Now I'm a big fan of Rene Magritte. I have reproductions of his work, books even (of which I shall possibly bore you with later). His thoughts and subsequent art have inspired me in the past - but is it sexy? No. This is just shoving together a few of Magritte's themes (along with another recurring motif in his art - the umbrella), and hoping for the best. I like the idea, and the general theme - I just think it was poorly executed. Like this: I guess it was an homage to Salvador Dali's 'Mae West Sofa' - but for me it's simply "Isabeli, run! Mick Jagger's hungry." Perhaps a movement such as this, although very pre-occupied with sex, is just not sexy enough in itself. Victoria's Secret had another episode like this a few years ago with it's advert featuring Bob Dylan. Dylan, again, is another hero of sorts, but he really is not sexy. To see him juxtaposed with Adriana in that advert was akin to - well - a sexy young woman being next to a slightly ailing old man. Then he had his CD's for sale 'in store'. Ah, marketing... I don't wish to steal any thunder from the excellent Strange/Unique thread - but I am interested in other's thoughts of surrealism in regards to modelling. VSFS can do this. Take this for instance: It's at once (obviously to one's own taste) sexy and surreal. Why is she wearing a gate? If you break it down it makes (surreal) sense. The bars, the key, the lock - it's corsetry, but with connotations of chastity and even mild bondage. Why is it in a fashion show, can you buy it? Probably not, but subliminally it works. And then there's this: What is sexy? Patently not dressing up as a bell. You'd have to be a serious campanologist to get your kicks here (Stam notwithstanding). Even the divine Helena Christensen circa 1991 (my awakening) couldn't have pulled that off. And this wasn't (as far as I can tell without having seen the full show) even in the surreal segment. Possibly because it goes way beyond that in to the realms of bizarre. Magritte himself talked about the power of concealment and it's effect on the human mind. Surrealism - at least in his case - was about "rendering the invisible visible" and he painted with that in mind. I know he wasn't referring to the VSFS per se(!), or even lingerie - but maybe he had a point here: "Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see but it is impossible..." Now that is sexy, that tantalising glimpse of flesh - the promise of what's underneath... Or, just perhaps, he simply meant this: Well, that's my sermon. Please add your thoughts. Like I said, surreal photos and fashion shoots already have a brilliant thread - as does that self-same "What Is Sexy?" question. I simply want to know if you think the VSFS has gone too far from simply showcasing their products, or not far enough. Or if this has any business being dissected on a fashion forum!

Are these drug stories mere speculation - or do they have any substance? I only ask because it would seem churlish to admonish one particular girl on these grounds when it seems to be fairly endemic in the 'Fashion World'. From the stories of '70's excess by the likes of Janice Dickinson, to more recent Kate Moss tabloid fodder - modelling and drugs (and in particular cocaine) seemingly go hand in hand. Indeed, during the long hours of the big fashion weeks, we always hear that our muses (supposedly) sustain themselves with cigarettes and coffee in lieu of food, and cocaine in lieu of sleep. I simply think that it would be remiss of anyone to ignore these links. I'll also add that all the above is 'alleged' (one has to watch one's back in regards to defamation laws)!! However, none of this is really my point for writing this. I just wanted to get that out of the way because I am neither glamourising or demonising drugs, I just merely think that Ana just has that 'look' about her. And I find it INCREDIBLY attractive! I read on the forum, and elsewhere, about her looking 'drawn', 'strung out', 'tired '...ad infinitum. But it's these qualities that attract me to her. It's that languid expression. Those heavy-lidded eyes. She looks at once ethereal and insouciant. This could be mistaken for excess - heavy nights on whatever drug, legal or otherwise - but could just simply BE. I'm personally plagued by eyes that all too richly tell the evidence of last night, my tongue can spin an innocent yarn but the proof is obvious 'en mis ojos'! Take this picture for instance: Heavy night, Ana? Or 'come-to-bed' eyes? It's not my favourite photo of her, but I find it enchanting nonetheless. She never comes across as 'high-maintenance' or overly demanding. I think Ana Claudia Michels has this quality too: they just seem chilled. Yeah, whatever..! I've always referred to this quality as 'far away eyes' - and it's highly prized in my world. At once you know this is a girl you can dream with; infact 'dreamy' is another appropriate adjective. Hours could roll by in a hazy slumber - but the eyes also hint at a myriad Bacchanalian pleasures to enjoy too! Well, that's my thought today! I suppose this should have been posted under General Discussion - but the 'drug' thread was here on Runway, and intrinsic to my post. Apologies if it is clogging it up incorrectly... "Much to my surprise, there she was sitting in the corner A little bleary, worse for wear and tear Was a girl, with far away eyes."

Regarding this Brandon Davis 'character'... Firstly - what a Premium-Grade, arse-piece. I, thankfully, was unaware of this detritus until reading this thread. I watched the video. Finding him show-boating, gurning and being so casually vituperative alongside the vacancy that is Paris Hilton really says all we need to know. It matters not what one thinks of Lindsay Lohan (and I think very little); it's that spittle-flecked, character-assassination in the company of such pointless sycophants and the voracious, grasping press that we should worry about... I care not for how he looks. As I've stated before - in my brief sojourn as a poster - beauty is in the eye of the beholder (ah, that old cliche). He could well be of any creed, colour, religion, size and shape. He could well be conventionally ugly - whatever that may entail. If Miranda sees something in his physicality then who are we to argue? But, (second cliche alert!) if it's "what's on the inside that counts" then one should be very concerned. This swaggering idiot, surrounded by an admiring pack of similarly privileged buffoons, is seemingly endemic in 'celebrity' circles. The kind of circles that the models we so admire - such as Miranda - will no doubt fall into. That he should be considered a 'catch' in any sense, other than the obscene amount of money he will so undeservedly fall into, is a disgrace. There, my friends, is the rub. Miranda - back away. Of course money and power are attractive - it is foolish to disregard that. But we want to think we are made of stronger stuff. And it is not like a Victoria's Secret Angel will find herself short of cash soon. These people are 'vampiric'. they suck on the edges of glamour. Be it fashion, film, or music. Talentless, but loaded - with money and self-importance. - they whisk our heroes and heroines away with the allure of the 'Lifestyle'. But, judging by this pitiful display - they are ugly to the very core. Oh, if there were a brief Rapture. One to rid us of these fiends. A brief, sudden, decimation. And they are gone - and we can breathe easily again. The 'entertainment' industry might be left wanting. But that's not so bad a sacrifice! I expect more from our models. Then again - perhaps he is just incredibly endowed! You see, I'm not all super-serious.

(with thanks for the image to wickedcrazyness) And there you are - my Be'elzebub of beauty My Titian-haired temptress Beguliling Bewitching Copper-topped coquette of cute. Be-freckled bastion of bounteous perfection Devil-tipped diva of distraction I could, and would wax lyrical of your lips, Were I not eternally enchanted by your ethereal eyes. Oh, Cintia, a sencillo More beautiful than those painted ladies abound 'A minha menina' in your native tongue Could I get to say the same in mine? My flame-haired femme of the fashion world Pelirrojo in perfection, in auburn you shine Delicious Diablo, render me to digression To forever count freckles on this template of thine... (Now That's What I Call Rococo!!! - Although I personally prefer the insult 'Byzantine')

And so my friends - WERE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? Forgive me. I don't have a scanner, access to breaking news, an insider, or any such inroad with which to divulge information for your voracious appetites (mine included)... So let me begin this missive with a sincere thanks to all those respective posters - those heroes who actually contributed photos and information for our delectation. I only wish I could help, that I could join in with something worthwhile other than my words. But I hope, at least, that this is above the inane banter we sometimes have to sift through!!! Perhaps, yes, it is better to destroy than to create the inessential... Anyway, my thoughts, they are no greater or lesser than anyone else's - ignore the number of posts: I just type when I feel the need, or have something to say (see above). Hey - did you notice Ana Beatriz Barros wasn't there!!! Back to the matter. I suppose we will not really know the long and short until we see the show. We have these snapshots and these all-too-brief segments of waffling reporters on "entertainment" shows who know not what they are referring to. This is not 'Dancing On Ice', Mr. Toothsome Grin. This is not 'The Apprentice', Ms. Was-Picked-To-Be-Homecoming-Queen-But Can't-Really-Compare-To-These-Glamazons-But-Smiles-Maniacally-That-Much-More-Through-This-As-A-Result... Yes, the photos. Though we can't see the strut, or feel the vibe; we can imagine. Ah, and when the time comes play it with the sound down and crank up the music YOU wanted to hear. Much better. I can see it now. No, not telling, don't want to pigeon-hole myself. Infact, even better. We can fast-forward through Selita, or whomever our 'bete noir' might be come December 4th. I use the unfortunate Ms Ebanks as an example, judging by the myriad posts I've read - but we all have our own. Again, I don't want to divulge to much. Needless to say it would annoy a great many. What happened to Doutzen??? Juvenile. I know. Humour, like attraction, is very personal. We can, if we so wish, slow down Angela's predilection for that arm aloft thing, or the multitude of variations on it that have been alluded to. For me it is Inguna's smile. Radiant. Or the ferocity of certain struts. Probably, with our remotes, the show will last the same amount of time. It will just be that much more specific. We don't have to pander to the masses and make sure all boxes are ticked. Just the one's we care about. Oh, that hackneyed old adage of the box of chocolates - but tell me, is there one better? All those flavours... Scoff the ones you want until you feel queasy. Give the crap ones to Grandma (but not the toffees you bastard - you know they're no good for her teeth). And when it's all over and you feel those pangs for 2008 - go outside and get some fresh air. Next year's Candice might be working at your local corner-shop. Highly unlikely I'll concede... But it get's me out of bed in the morning! All the best chicos...

You, my Argentinian friend, are my hero.