Vogue magazine editors pledge to use 'healthy' models - Polidicks

[img]http://www.thecornernews.com/images/uploads/fat_woman_two.jpg[/img] now [b]that[/b] is a body I can get in to mmmmm gurl you clap without using your hands mmm

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35865491]It does. You will never see a man who isn't either a) muscular or b) thin and androgynous-looking, doing any professional modelling, commercial or high-fashion.[/QUOTE] let's just compare Men's Vogue to regular ole Vogue. [img]http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/09833465a0bb8eww7.jpg[/img] Men's Vogue has Barack Obama who isn't particularly the most fit or thin person in the world, yet his appearance is paramount as it is for many politicians. Many male movies stars who have appeared on this magazine aren't particularly modified in their appearance either, even Tony Blairs utterly unappealing visage was completely bared on the cover of the magazine. None of their appearances are particularly modified either, this being the 2008 Barack. also note the subjects that the magazine tells you to be interested in. [img]http://www.catwalkqueen.tv/assets_c/2011/03/Kate%20Winslet%20UK%20Vogue%20cover%20April%202011-thumb-379x499-93332.jpg[/img] This is Kate Winslet, who is an awesome actress and by no means ugly nor fat. Yet compare this picture to an actual unedited picture of her face and you'll note that it's actually quite different from her real face. different standards in the same category of magazine.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35865569]like i said this is vogue, there's no particular emphasis on bodily beauty it's not an inescapable reality, it's a social construct. people accepting your "type" is different from an issue in media and it would be just as tragic if healthy models who are naturally and healthily thin would have to adhere to a standard portrayed in the media that is unhealthy for them. sure, but i think for the sake of people's health it's worth it the effort.[/QUOTE] There is an emphasis on it, in that if you can't fit into the sample size, you don't get the job. And if you aren't attractive, you aren't getting hired by any agency, much less an agency that books for Vogue. So while yes, it's about the clothes, it's about the models who sell them just as much. And yes, it is inescapable. There is no way to avoid it. I'm not saying people shouldn't work for change or reveal the ugliness behind the media's portrayal of women, both of these definitely need to be discussed. But the change won't happen overnight, let alone within the next decade. Honestly I have a hard time believing women will -ever- be free of being reduced to objects of physical desire. But like I said, I didn't say it was worth the effort. I'm just saying why it is the way it is. It's worth going for a change, but as things are now, that is why designers will only pick certain types of women to model for them.

Ultraviolence: What you are describing are all male power and sex fantasies. There are no female sex fantasies imposed upon men in the media. Men are never the objects in this equation. They are always portrayed as affluent, powerful, capable and physically strong. This is a MALE fantasy. Women are invariably portrayed as objects of lust. Something to be desired and possessed. I'm sorry, but if you think being portrayed as being awesome in the media is as equivalent to being portrayed as an object, you're just wrong.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35865787]let's just compare Men's Vogue to regular ole Vogue. [img]http://fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/09833465a0bb8eww7.jpg[/img] Men's Vogue has Barack Obama who isn't particularly the most fit or thin person in the world, yet his appearance is paramount as it is for many politicians. Many male movies stars who have appeared on this magazine aren't particularly modified in their appearance either, even Tony Blairs utterly unappealing visage was completely bared on the cover of the magazine. None of their appearances are particularly modified either, this being the 2008 Barack. also note the subjects that the magazine tells you to be interested in. [img]http://www.catwalkqueen.tv/assets_c/2011/03/Kate%20Winslet%20UK%20Vogue%20cover%20April%202011-thumb-379x499-93332.jpg[/img] This is Kate Winslet, who is an awesome actress and by no means ugly nor fat. Yet compare this picture to an actual unedited picture of her face and you'll note that it's actually quite different from her real face. different standards in the same category of magazine.[/QUOTE] It's not the same category, just the same name. Men's Vogue is clearly not a fashion magazine. Vogue didn't start out as a fashion magazine for women, you know, it developed into that over time. "In the 1960s, with Diana Vreeland as editor-in-chief and personality, the magazine began to appeal to the youth of the sexual revolution by focusing more on contemporary fashion and editorial features openly discussing sexuality." (wiki). Vogue was founded in 1892. So it took almost 70 years for Vogue to become focused on fashion. Men's Vogue is not even close to the same category as women's Vogue. I'm talking about men exclusively in the fashion world, not Vogue as a brand. Just google "male model" and you'll know what I'm talking about. [img]http://www.banglads.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/calvin-klein.jpg[/img] This is the same with every brand. Gucci, American Eagle, Hollister, DKNY, any brand that features a male product line.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35865907][img]http://www.banglads.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/calvin-klein.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Yet again, that is male power fantasy at play, not female sex fantasy. That model is not portrayed a lust object to be possessed, he is portrayed as a dude who will pull-up his enemies to death. It is absolutely not equivalent. Implying it is so is downright asinine. Please research the concept of media agency.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35865879]Ultraviolence: What you are describing are all male power and sex fantasies. There are no female sex fantasies imposed upon men in the media. Men are never the objects in this equation. They are always portrayed as affluent, powerful, capable and physically strong. This is a MALE fantasy. Women are invariably portrayed as objects of lust. Something to be desired and possessed. I'm sorry, but if you think being portrayed as being awesome in the media is as equivalent to being portrayed as an object, you're just wrong.[/QUOTE] No, male models are portrayed as physically "desirable" (though, as with female models, are rarely actually what the real world would consider desirable). And you think wealthy, powerful, and strong aren't also a female fantasy? I'm sorry, what?

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35865944]And you think wealthy, powerful, and strong aren't also a female fantasy? I'm sorry, what?[/QUOTE] Are you implying that women want to be owned? That the polar opposite of the media's female ideal (beautiful, dependent) taken form as a wealthy, strong and powerful individual is derisive? I'm sorry but please consider what you're implying here before I delve into societal pressures dictating what women should want, while men have the agency to dictate what they want for themselves.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35865879]Ultraviolence: What you are describing are all male power and sex fantasies. There are no female sex fantasies imposed upon men in the media. Men are never the objects in this equation. They are always portrayed as affluent, powerful, capable and physically strong. This is a MALE fantasy. Women are invariably portrayed as objects of lust. Something to be desired and possessed. I'm sorry, but if you think being portrayed as being awesome in the media is as equivalent to being portrayed as an object, you're just wrong.[/QUOTE] It may just be Norway but men are portrayed as objects of lust for women [I]a lot here[/I]. Yay for gender equality.

[QUOTE=mac338;35865992]It may just be Norway but men are portrayed as objects of lust for women [I]a lot here[/I]. Yay for gender equality.[/QUOTE] How so? If it is in such a way in which the male is not dependent and submissive to the female, then it is not a female lust object. Dependence and submission are pretty key components for that label.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35865907]It's not the same category, just the same name. Men's Vogue is clearly not a fashion magazine.[/QUOTE] yes but one could argue that it's the counter-part. What is considered fashionable for men is different than what is considered fashionable for women. even a magazine completely devoted to clothing for men would likely not be mainstream because men being interested in clothing to that extent is not mainstream. [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35865907]I'm talking about men exclusively in the fashion world, not Vogue as a brand. Just google "male model" and you'll know what I'm talking about. [img]http://www.banglads.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/calvin-klein.jpg[/img] This is the same with every brand. Gucci, American Eagle, Hollister, DKNY, any brand that features a male product line.[/QUOTE] yet it is simply not as normalized as it is with female models. to a lot of men the notion that you presented: [quote]this thread has made several women, including myself, feel better about their body simply because of that.[/quote] is alien because male models are not the standard for which male success is dictated. that goes pretty deep, but surely you can agree that in our society a woman is much more pressured to look like the models we are decrying than men are. this is why the interests in Men's Vogue is notable, and why i mentioned Tony Blair. we could look ugly as sin and still be on magazine covers in all our human glory, while Kate Winslet, not at all ugly or fat, still gets the airbrush treatment. I'm skeptical of the camera angle too.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866014]How so? If it is in such a way in which the male is not dependent and submissive to the female, then it is not a female lust object. Dependence and submission are pretty key components for that label.[/QUOTE] Well to put it one way; in my class there are 30 students. I am one of the only 2 males in the class. Plastered all over the walls are pictures shirtless men and also sometimes their asses. Doesn't help my own confidence or body image.

I'm glad that you two are taking this beyond the level of "who I want to bone".

[QUOTE=mac338;35866220]Well to put it one way; in my class there are 30 students. I am one of the only 2 males in the class. Plastered all over the walls are pictures shirtless men and also sometimes their asses. Doesn't help my own confidence or body image.[/QUOTE] well that's norway i guess maybe you're in shirtless men and ass class. the other male is probably gay.

[QUOTE=mac338;35866220]Well to put it one way; in my class there are 30 students. I am one of the only 2 males in the class. Plastered all over the walls are pictures shirtless men and also sometimes their asses. Doesn't help my own confidence or body image.[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer the question, though. Circumstance is irrelevant. It's about the portrayal.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866281]That doesn't answer the question, though. Circumstance is irrelevant. It's about the portrayal.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't call them dependent, maybe a little submissive. But then again I'd say the same for most of vouge's women shots as well. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Good night.

[QUOTE=mac338;35866310]I wouldn't call them dependent, maybe a little submissive. But then again I'd say the same for most of vouge's women shots as well.[/QUOTE] Female portrayals in media are almost [I]always[/I] submissive. Right down to posture. That's the point. It is extremely rare for a male model to be portrayed as anything but the [I]male[/I] ideal. They're tough, strong, muscular. Compare how many shirtless dudes you've seen posing like a badass compared to shirtless dudes you've seen, say, laying in their girlfriend's lap or cuddling. Or even sprawled out across a bed by themselves. Compare that number to the number of female models portrayed that way and you will see how male power and sex fantasies dominate the media. Our culture is so held by male fantasy that female fantasy is still this vague, undefined entity which you can't even really picture aside from the basic requisites of sex objects. The male of the equation is damn near [I]always[/I] the one in control. Human sexuality in the media is all about the man being the one in charge, which is why it is incredibly petty to imply male media portrayals are harmful.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35865928]Yet again, that is male power fantasy at play, not female sex fantasy. That model is not portrayed a lust object to be possessed, he is portrayed as a dude who will pull-up his enemies to death. It is absolutely not equivalent. Implying it is so is downright asinine. Please research the concept of media agency.[/QUOTE] That is [i]not[/i] simply "male power fantasy." Would you have pictures like that hanging on your walls to make you feel good about yourself? I'm guessing no, the same way I wouldn't hang up pictures of female models to feel good about myself. He [i]is[/i] portrayed as an object of lust, and nothing more. "Pull-up his enemies to death?" Are you kidding me? No, he's there to look attractive. It's completely equivalent. He's there to look attractive to sell product. That is all. Lol at taking personal shots at my intelligence though, that's classic. [QUOTE=Lankist;35865964]Are you implying that women want to be owned? That the polar opposite of the media's female ideal (beautiful, dependent) taken form as a wealthy, strong and powerful individual is derisive? I'm sorry but please consider what you're implying here before I delve into societal pressures dictating what women should want, while men have the agency to dictate what they want for themselves.[/QUOTE] How the hell are you getting that I'm somehow making the implication that women want to be "owned?" You seem to be stuck in your own world here, where somehow everything I say comes down to men being dominant and women being submissive. All I was saying was that men being strong, influential, and wealthy aren't just what men want to be (in the same way women want to be successful, wealthy, and beautiful), it's attractive to women as well. And you seem to believe that those three things aren't attractive to women, apparently because that means they become a possession of the man? What? The media's ideal has nothing to do with dependency. In fact, if we're going for the entire media, powerful, independent women are more prevalent. And I'm sorry, but please consider that I'm not implying any of what you seem to be forcing on me before I delve into the fact that you're trying to turn this conversation into something I wasn't even discussing, nor is relevant to this entire topic. And if you think that women only want what they want because of society, while men want what they want because they want it, you either extremely sexist or extremely disillusioned.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866497]That is [i]not[/i] simply "male power fantasy." Would you have pictures like that hanging on your walls to make you feel good about yourself?[/QUOTE] Uhh yeah, I already do. Conversation continued without you. If you would like clarification, read my last post above. I'm not going to repeat myself out of courtesy.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35866092]yes but one could argue that it's the counter-part. What is considered fashionable for men is different than what is considered fashionable for women. even a magazine completely devoted to clothing for men would likely not be mainstream because men being interested in clothing to that extent is not mainstream.[/quote] Of course, but that is the nature of society itself and delves into the subject of gender roles, which I wasn't aware was what we were discussion. I was just talking about the nature of body image in the realm of fashion, not about gender roles or societal pressures to conform to them. And of course it's not as normalized, simply because, as I said, women are a better option for selling product. I don't know why, as I don't study advertising or marketing, but that's simply a fact. And yes, beauty isn't the standard for which success is dictated. Not for either gender, as far as I know. It's more their desirability, which yes, definitely, being beautiful is definitely the standard for women, whereas for men it's more about who they are than what they look like. But one again, I'm not debating gender roles or whether or not this should be how it is. I'm simply pointing out the way things are as it is, not what it could or should be. yet it is simply not as normalized as it is with female models. to a lot of men the notion that you presented: is alien because male models are not the standard for which male success is dictated. that goes pretty deep, but surely you can agree that in our society a woman is much more pressured to look like the models we are decrying than men are. this is why the interests in Men's Vogue is notable, and why i mentioned Tony Blair. we could look ugly as sin and still be on magazine covers in all our human glory, while Kate Winslet, not at all ugly or fat, still gets the airbrush treatment. I'm skeptical of the camera angle too.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866497]The media's ideal has nothing to do with dependency. In fact, if we're going for the entire media, powerful, independent women are more prevalent.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.mariasphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/beauty-and-the-beast-vogue-cover.jpg[/img] [img]http://stylefrizz.com/img/penelope-cruz-bono-vogue-paris-may-2010-cover.jpg[/img] [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Eu8CJcqdPHE/TfGHmH13EmI/AAAAAAAAAbw/gOt-f_9YKeE/s640/LeBron-Vogue-Cover.jpg[/img] bold and independent women not portrayed as submissive at all. penelope cruz only has half a face because its bold and independent to stand in the shadow of a man.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866497]Would you have pictures like that hanging on your walls to make you feel good about yourself? [/QUOTE] metal bands have posters like that and men always hang that up. [img]http://thegreatestalbum.com/thumbs/manowar_blow_your_speakers-t2.jpg[/img] that is made to be attractive to men

guys fat chicks are hot

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866532]Uhh yeah, I already do. Conversation continued without you. If you would like clarification, read my last post above. I'm not going to repeat myself out of courtesy.[/QUOTE] Okay, so out of that entire post, that's all you pulled out. To tell me that you have pictures of half naked men on your walls...? And I read your post, out of courtesy, despite the fact that you're arrogant and rude and clearly not interested in the actual debate. All you did was repeat your exact argument that I responded to, but with more words. Women aren't portrayed and meek and dependent in media. Right down to their posture? You're kidding me right? In fact, a lot of high fashion modelling photos have women in very strong poses. Meek doesn't translate well when you're trying to sell product.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866557]Of course, but that is the nature of society itself and delves into the subject of gender roles, which I wasn't aware was what we were discussion. I was just talking about the nature of body image in the realm of fashion, not about gender roles or societal pressures to conform to them.[/quote] it's all connected and it all serves itself. body image in fashion comes from gender roles and societal pressures to conform. else the term plus-sized model wouldn't exist. [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866557]And of course it's not as normalized, simply because, as I said, women are a better option for selling product. I don't know why, as I don't study advertising or marketing, but that's simply a fact.[/quote] depends on the product and why. you could market it as a sexual fantasy by portraying women doing something because, as an example, he drinks budweiser instead of the other gay beers. or market it as a empowerment fantasy by making the dude super-muscular and cool because he drinks budweiser. [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866557] But one again, I'm not debating gender roles or whether or not this should be how it is. I'm simply pointing out the way things are as it is, not what it could or should be.[/quote] well thanks but we all know the way things are, else we wouldn't be debating about it.

[QUOTE=thisispain;35866591]metal bands have posters like that and men always hang that up. [img]http://thegreatestalbum.com/thumbs/manowar_blow_your_speakers-t2.jpg[/img] that is made to be attractive to men[/QUOTE] That is so clearly different I don't even feel the need to explain it [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;35866670]well thanks but we all know the way things are, else we wouldn't be debating about it.[/QUOTE] Well thanks for being a sarcastic dickhead, but clearly "we all" don't, else I wouldn't be correcting anyone about it.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866657]Okay, so out of that entire post, that's all you pulled out. To tell me that you have pictures of half naked men on your walls...? And I read your post, out of courtesy, despite the fact that you're arrogant and rude and clearly not interested in the actual debate. All you did was repeat your exact argument that I responded to, but with more words. Women aren't portrayed and meek and dependent in media. Right down to their posture? You're kidding me right? In fact, a lot of high fashion modelling photos have women in very strong poses. Meek doesn't translate well when you're trying to sell product.[/QUOTE] Hey did you look at those cool pictures of empowered women I posted. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] You know, the ones standing behind lions, enormous screaming black men and bono [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] standing behind bono is def. the female ideal. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866679]That is so clearly different I don't even feel the need to explain it[/QUOTE] Do it anyway.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866679]That is so clearly different I don't even feel the need to explain it[/QUOTE] well you probably should because the only difference is that with post-modernism we could be ironically attracted to it, that doesn't detract from the seriousness of its creators. [QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866679]Well thanks for being a sarcastic dickhead, but clearly "we all" don't, else I wouldn't be correcting anyone about it.[/QUOTE] the difference is perspective, we can both be correct purely by perspective. this isn't science.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866735]Hey did you look at those cool pictures of empowered women I posted.[/QUOTE] I did look at those selective pictures, I saw one "soft" pose, the rest you seem to believe are meek because they happen to be with a man. [img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg2tdcjtZY1qzu8u7o1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhkzs4WtaO1qdixojo1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljah7jVTY01qisja0o1_500.jpg[/img] [img]http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqjos6xeH51r13zeyo5_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqjos6xeH51r13zeyo3_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqv739nceh1qfj7v6o1_500.png[/img] [img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrkw39t5op1qi8e1bo1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://dopeambition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/meghan_collison_vogue_russia_3.jpg[/img] [img]http://dopeambition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/meghan_collison_vogue_russia_4.jpg[/img] [img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzmlb3du5B1qc0ajno1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0foe9gWz11r4y3nao1_500.jpg[/img] [img]http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ntdw2VW91qiy4xho1_1280.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.sirenamodels.com/model-agency/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sexy-tattoo-topless-model-m.jpg[/img] [img]http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/preciousstone/default/high-fashion-model--large-msg-122195259191.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/6853712/2/stock-photo-6853712-high-fashion-model.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.models.com/oftheminute/images/2009/03/love_magazine_february_2009_01-600x817.jpg[/img] [img]http://truestarmag.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/0206sess_article1.jpg?w=450[/img] There you go. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;35866752]well you probably should because the only difference is that with post-modernism we could be ironically attracted to it, that doesn't detract from the seriousness of its creators.[/quote] One is a metal band standing on top of a mountain with naked women at their feet, lightning in the background, and "lesser men" in the background. The other is an almost-naked man in a suggestive pose selling underwear. The only similarity is that they're muscular and have no shirt on.

[QUOTE=Ultra Violence;35866870]One is a metal band standing on top of a mountain with naked women at their feet, lightning in the background, and "lesser men" in the background. The other is an almost-naked man in a suggestive pose selling underwear. The only similarity is that they're muscular and have no shirt on.[/QUOTE] They're both selling shit by making it seem "manly." There are a hell of a lot more similarities than that. The cover attempts to validate manhood to encourage you to purchase. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Also single-shots are very difficult to explain in terms of submissiveness with someone who is not literate in media agency, visual culture and its accompanying vocabulary. So I'm gonna do your thing and just say I'm above explaining it.