Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: IKEA Catalog & Traditional Photography  (Read 9881 times)

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: IKEA Catalog & Traditional Photography
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2014, 12:50:22 pm »

Yet others don't like big boobs and bums. Just personal taste that's all.

They don't necessarily have to be big, but they have to exist.

The entire form and function of the female body is to produce babies, and the singular uniqueness of their structure (hips/tits) is to facilitate the delivery and sustenance of the infant.

Therefore, aesthetics aside, since form (literally) follows function, it is anatomically-correct to say, "Without tits and hips, it's not a woman."

So, not only are these areas what create their curves and beauty from an aesthetic standpoint, they literally create their function as "females" ... and so to graphically or surgically minimize these areas is, literally, to de-feminize them. And I can't imagine any sane, heterosexual desiring to do such a thing.

Jack
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: IKEA Catalog & Traditional Photography
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2014, 01:03:10 pm »

My friend who had her breasts reduced did so as they literally caused her pain with her back and shoulder where the bra straps dug in. They didn't feminise her, instead they made her a bit freakish as they were way too big for the rest of her. Anyone thinking she should not have done that is the one lacking sanity or compassion.

I also know people who dislike big boobs and prefer slender women. They still managed to have plenty of kids in spite of not their women not being suitable for the job according to you. And God knows how orientals manage as they tend to be quite slight and very lacking in curves compared to Westerners. Then there's the African tribes who are very tall and slender and completely in contrast to others tribes who are all curves and yet somehow all these varied people manage to reproduce.
BTW women with hardly any boobs are still able to breastfeed normally as they get bigger and full of milk when needed.

Personally I prefer an hourglass shape, but I certainly do not agree that women who according to your blunt definition are not women, because they are perfectly capable of being a mother. There's a reason why women's bodies undergo changes during pregnancy and it's to facilitate ease of birth and nursing.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 01:05:01 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: IKEA Catalog & Traditional Photography
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2014, 02:40:23 pm »

My friend who had her breasts reduced did so as they literally caused her pain with her back and shoulder where the bra straps dug in. They didn't feminise her, instead they made her a bit freakish as they were way too big for the rest of her. Anyone thinking she should not have done that is the one lacking sanity or compassion.

You're missing the point of what I am saying.

I never said that the necessary removal of excess breast tissue, for health reasons (cancer, pain, etc.), defeminizes women ... I am saying that the random, "artsy," graphical/surgical effort to create an androgynous "look" defeminizes women.

Please have the sense to understand the difference.



I also know people who dislike big boobs and prefer slender women. They still managed to have plenty of kids in spite of not their women not being suitable for the job according to you. And God knows how orientals manage as they tend to be quite slight and very lacking in curves compared to Westerners. Then there's the African tribes who are very tall and slender and completely in contrast to others tribes who are all curves and yet somehow all these varied people manage to reproduce. BTW women with hardly any boobs are still able to breastfeed normally as they get bigger and full of milk when needed.

Yawn. All of this is common knowledge, and has nothing to do with my point.

And, FYI, people are not "oriental," they're Asian.

You buy oriental rugs; you see and meet Asian people. (Just a free tip.)



Personally I prefer an hourglass shape, but I certainly do not agree that women who according to your blunt definition are not women, because they are perfectly capable of being a mother. There's a reason why women's bodies undergo changes during pregnancy and it's to facilitate ease of birth and nursing.

Thank you for your distortion of everything I said, as well as your penchant for stating the obvious. I didn't make a blunt definition of a woman; I stated a general and accurate one.

Arguing extremes is pointless.

However, an extreme to the feminine side (large hips/breasts) is at least feminine exaggeration. Attempting to "masculinize" a woman, however, by shrinking their hips look like a man's, and by de-emphasizing their breasts, is (by default) defeminizing them. Again, please have the sense to understand the difference.

I am fully aware that a woman can be slender, athletic, and still have hips and still be recognizable as a woman. Tennis players and many other female athletes are still "all woman" in their shapeliness ...

I am talking about that gaunt, sickly, "androgynous look" that is becoming popular, which to me quite frankly is neither healthy nor sane. It is actually a biological fact that women who are too lean often have trouble with their periods, and often become infertile, until such time as they add a little weight back to their frames. That is basically "life itself" defeminizing them ... until such time as they add some healthy weight and want to become women again.

At least we agree on one thing: preferring an hourglass shape. That is, was, and will always be "the feminine shape," one with curved hips, not straight ones.

Jack
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 03:36:27 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: IKEA Catalog & Traditional Photography
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2014, 06:41:47 pm »

I knew I shouldn't have gotten grumpy. -100 points to me for thread derailment bait. 

I suspect the fashion industry penchant for scrawny female models has to do with the fact that it is easier to design "concept" clothing styles for relatively uniform stick-like figures rather for the diversity of actual body types. As a female buyer of clothing, nothing interests me less than seeing the clothes modeled by someone whose body type is drastically different from mine. Who cares if it looks good on a model? The buyer wants the clothes to look good on her.

Fashion seems to be one industry where realistic imaging is considered a sales-killing ploy while fantasy is considered to sell clothes. That probably works when selling to department store buyers who don't have to wear the clothes.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up