International Stuff 1886

Frank Kalder

That is just one picture.

to maximize earnings potential of buttets that are well remunerated, and they are trying to do so before those buttets depreciate.

They take a perfectly logical view that over the short term they may be tired and unhealthy but at the time that nature takes over they will be able to mitigate both the health issue in favor of the aging issue.

I doubt that it's a lifestyle projection as much as a realization that the qualities desired in such a direction are just as difficult and rigorous to fulfill as concert violinist or neurosurgeon. You either got it or you don't.

As I said I don't mean to personalize this at all.

I think that I hate having this discussion because it will always make me go to the mirror, see that I am old and out of shape, that I was always self conscious about my girth even in my thinnest days, know that I was not endowed with the body to be a model or neurosurgeon, recognize that I can't do anything about any of it, and get depressed and upset about getting fatter and older and realize I care very little about the women who are dieting to make millions. Let them engage in this stupid contract with men and the fashion industry. I never had the ability to become a participant. Why should I care. I honestly don't, as there are far more important battles out there for me to participate in, in which I can actually make a difference, in an arena in which I can be a soldier. But every time I have one of these discussions, it makes me want to engage in equally dangerous dieting steps because I become cognizant, once again, that there is a judgmental world out there and my waistband has gotten tighter again this year, in spite of my attempts at nutrbreastious rather than toxic dieting.

And then I recognize to depresonalize this from an apparent accusation as to what you did or did not post, I certainly recognize that you are not apt to find high fashion models who are chunky muscular paragons of actual athletic and dietary fitness. Those two things are inconsistent. They are not your fault

To further depersonalize, I can't care about what your personal preference is in size. So I won't be tempted to convert the size to US standards. Primarily because it wasn't a personal indictment. But again, because a number provided isn't of much value in deciding what is and is not attractive. One can be the same size you quote and be built like a box. One can weigh the amount the models are, and have no female shape at all.

And then, there are those who like boxes and sticks, rather than "female" forms. And chacun a son gout etc etc. So who wants to criticize people who like angles over curves?

Which brings me to a very nice point Chris Matthews made this morning on his show: Brokeback Mountain is not about homoloveuality. It's about the inability to predefine what humans find physically attractive on an individual level and how what they are attracted to is not always consistent with what society and or morals decide what they must be attracted to.

I have always recognized the paradox in humanity and understood that males are attracted to what they are attracted to, and yet fascinated by their intimidation of what they consider superior beauty. I have watched as completely unintimiated men - who are less than humble in spite of their own lack of physical perfection - demand what they want physically. Humans are complicated and what they want and what they are willing to fight for and what they settle for is fascinating to contemplate.

I won't make the mistake of trying to figure out what the numbers you have provided translate into.

Because it is not personal.

I will make the revelation that women are not that much different than men, even though they have often been said to be more cerebral in choosing mates. That's not true of course. They are equally judgmental and demanding about physical appearance should be in either gender. They are fascinating to listen to when they judge what men are good looking and what they should wear. But they are equally fascinating to listen to when they judge each other about their own appearance. Their vanity and judgmental behavior definitely incorporates these male and fashion values. How often I have heard a woman fear leaving the house before putting on her makeup.

I myself am judgmental and attracted to this or that particular thing or type. And I am self aware enough that I try to keep open the possibility that I should not define people, and particularly males that I have been attracted or not attracted, in physical terms. I try very hard to see first what the personality is. I am not always successful. I am human and I will be judgmental.

And finally, on football: I have decided to hate all types.

They were just showing your lingerie bowl on Fox News. Many women have decried it, so they say. They had one of the proponents, advocates, company representatives on, a female herself. She said in no uncertain terms, this is advertising. Get over it.

It turns out that I could never be allowed to play in the Sueprbowl and never in my life could I have been chosen to be in the lingerie bowl. Consequently, I hate both superbowls.

For the readers that Frank alleges read this blogging, he means supportive. Proving emotional support. Not sportive as in athletic.

As I have said, it is not necessary for you to defend the paradoxes and ironies of human attraction. As Chris Matthews essentially said, we can't really be responsible for the chemicals and psychologies that create the input that define what we will find desirable or esthetic.

I understand what you are trying to say and why you say what you say, and what Ariane says what she said. But there's no hope for achieving what you desire, unless you regulate the fashion industry by saying that each applicant must be monitored for proper nutrition, lack of pharmaceuticals, and healthy rather than destructive exercise. You could try to do the same as in sports, but how do you justify such intrusion into an industry. You could perhaps require minors to be more regulated than adult women, who certainly have the right to make their own nutritional and contractual decisions. But geez, how could anyone possibly legislate and force people to eat.

Never mind that for the industry, the bottom line is the "bottom line" - the plus or minus, the red or black of the ledger. It's certain such regulations would impact that bottom line.

It's equally unlikely that the fashion industry would self govern,as that impairs the bottom line. It's equally unlike government would create a law that says any one putting dieting pressure on someone to get or keep a job would be liable. Given that modeling is about esthetics, not actual weight, the requirement is absurd. And then think of jobs such as pilot or police officer where weight might actually matter. And think of the newest trend of companies not accepting smokers for employ because of insurance costs and potential uninsurability. Will there be a day when this issue is similarly treated? Possibly for traditional corporations that provide health insurance. BUt not for an industry that provides transient employment, by contract usually, where tastes and trends change too fast.

no I didn't know their history.

absolutely accidental stumble on it, seemed VERY appropriate

cute though)

mk5000

"My job is to serve the culture of the company. I sit in meetings all day on the corporate side, but I do whatever it takes to get the job done. I will go to a meeting to discuss our profits and our losses, but I'll also go to a club to sign an artist"--record exec Kevin Liles