Patchouli Nyx wrote:
the standard is that we live in a patriarchal society and as such women's beauty and looks are bound up into the ideal of the "perfect" woman.

If you doubt that then just take a look around the site and ask yourself why most of the photographers are men looking to "capture" and admire and in many ways define female beauty.


Not to get all feminist on the discussion but perhaps the largest determinant of a woman's worth in our society is her sexuality as mostly determined by her looks.

So who sets the standards?

We all do but it's still mostly determined by the male gaze and definitions. 

Women participate with our own opinions but it's often just a mirror of wanting to be the desirable or hot  ourselves.

Two Pears Studio wrote:
A large percentage of my work is painting the figure. The number of women to men I paint is probably 75 to 1. That is primarily there are 100 women interested in posing for every 1 man. I also find the female form better suited to solving the issues in my work.

I don't set the standard of beauty, I paint what shows up. I would say more men's magazines would have images of Kate Upton sized women (in proportion) than traditional women's magazines. Most women's magazines would consider Ms Upton out of shape or fat. So is it the men or perception of what men want that sets the standard... or is it other women?

Ms Upton is what she is... fat, thin, sexy, etc... all subjective and open to interpretation.

our cultural perceptions in the US I would say are mostly defined via media.


our media is heavily influenced by advertising trying to sell stuff.

femininity is often defined by body type which is pretty stupid from a realistic point of view.  I've known women with huge boobs and hourglass shapes who aren't very feminine at all and skinny boney women who were quite  feminine.

But changing the definitions of beauty and what's feminine does help sell clothing and beauty products because it keeps the consumer (women) having to constantly update to stay perceptually in style and beautiful.

again though, even though women have free will and we can define ourselves, the bottomline is that we still talking about objectifying women so that if one is too thin or too thick they stuff the judgement of not being pretty enough, which in our society is a bad thing.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
the standard is that we live in a patriarchal society and as such women's beauty and looks are bound up into the ideal of the "perfect" woman.

If you doubt that then just take a look around the site and ask yourself why most of the photographers are men looking to "capture" and admire and in many ways define female beauty.

Not to get all feminist on the discussion but perhaps the largest determinant of a woman's worth in our society is her sexuality as mostly determined by her looks.

So who sets the standards?

We all do but it's still mostly determined by the male gaze and definitions. 

Women participate with our own opinions but it's often just a mirror of wanting to be the desirable or hot  ourselves.

Have you ever watched the Killing Us Softly documentaries?

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
She's a great looking girl


I have no idea what the fuck some of you are on about

QFT


I don't care if she has a different body type than other swimsuit models.  Obviously, many people (including whatever agency represents her) see her beauty and fun and just downright hotness, and they know that it will sure as hell sell whatever they put next to/on her.

SHE IS NOT FAT.  Not by any standards.  No, not even when comparing her to other models.  Fat has a very specific connotation, and she does not even come close to being what it implies.  Yes, her waist is wider than other models, but her stomach still has those two little lines on either side that I see on many other swimsuit models.  Her thighs are not huge, and she doesn't have a stomach that sticks out.  She is in shape.  No, she's not a fitness model, but her body looks beyond acceptable for modeling a bikini. 

Any of you calling her fat and average are delusional if you think that she wouldn't get oggled at more so than your "average" girl in a bikini on the beach.

She's fucking gorgeous.

Casey   Phillips wrote:
I find the girl in the Sports Illustrated photo too skinny and she has no shape :S

You skinny bash a lot.

You do realize that it's mean to bash girls of different body types even if they are thin, correct?

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
Definitely not. The average woman looks… well… average. She's a very attractive woman. If I saw her in any setting I'd think "Wow… she's hot." All these people who are like "Oh, she's not as pretty as this person or that." Come on. They just don't want to like her. She's very pretty. I don't see how people can even take that away from her.

She doesn't have the striking look of an outlier, as in being uncommonly and unattainably attractive but she has the stunning beauty that you feel like you might actually see in real life. I would expect to see a woman just that beautiful from any college sorority (there's always the one hottie of hotties that make people's jaws drop). I would expect to see a woman just that stunning as some successful attorney flirting with politics (there's always that one in each city). I would expect to see a woman or two just that gorgeous cheering for a sports team (there's always that one who make people say "You can't really dance but I don't even care").

And, you know, she's now a celebrity that many people are drawn to and brands are making that work for them. It's now different than having some actress in an ad or on a cover somewhere or in a swimsuit. She's far and away better looking than SJP.

So these haters (yes, Shon, I include you in this group) have their reasons for disliking her but why should she not be a swimsuit & video hotgirl who, through the cult of celebrity, gets some editorials? I'm pretty sure I saw T.I. in a GQ editorial and that motherfucker is shorter than many child models.

Thank you!  Truth ^

Garry k wrote:

I subscribe to Oxygen. The readership, and the "appeal" is very different.

Oxygen is a magazine that appeals to women who are VERY into fitness, weightlifting and body development. There is always a figure pro section at the end with coverage of news from women's physique competitions, national competitors, etc. There are specialty recipes for adding mass/cutting, and articles that are interesting to females who either work in the fitness industry, compete as figure athletes, or are otherwise living and breathing fitness as a lifestyle.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit is meant to appeal to the average dude who likes looking at pretty girls in skimpy attire, and that's about it. The Swimsuit edition is not about sports, or being an athlete. It's about looking at chicks in bikinis.


Putting them side and by side, taking a picture of the covers and comparing them, is kind of silly.

Additionally, the woman who is gracing that cover of Oxygen -- well, during her OFF SEASON, her body most likely does not look like that. She's going to be a whole lot softer and curvier.

Koryn Locke wrote:
I subscribe to Oxygen. The readership, and the "appeal" is very different.

Oxygen is a magazine that appeals to women who are VERY into fitness, weightlifting and body development. There is always a figure pro section at the end with coverage of news from women's physique competitions, national competitors, etc. There are specialty recipes for adding mass/cutting, and articles that are interesting to females who either work in the fitness industry, compete as figure athletes, or are otherwise living and breathing fitness as a lifestyle.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit is meant to appeal to the average dude who likes looking at pretty girls in skimpy attire, and that's about it. The Swimsuit edition is not about sports, or being an athlete. It's about looking at chicks in bikinis.


Putting them side and by side, taking a picture of the covers and comparing them, is kind of silly.

Additionally, the woman who is gracing that cover of Oxygen -- well, during her OFF SEASON, her body most likely does not look like that. She's going to be a whole lot softer and curvier.

I only posted this to provide an example of a lean vs plump llama

but since you have speculated about the lean llama , I will tell you that from what I know personally about Sveta she does not allow herself to get ( as you put it ) a whole lot softer and curvier that what you see on that cover

Garry k wrote:

I only posted this to provide an example of a lean vs plump model

but since you have speculated about the lean model , I will tell you that from what I know personally about Sveta she does not allow herself to get ( as you put it ) a whole lot softer and curvier that what you see on that cover

I've gotten down about that lean once in my life, and it took a pretty extreme lifestyle to accomplish it, and the minute I resumed eating regular-healthy food again (back up to a normal calorie intake for an athletic female, and no carb cycling), I went back to a much softer body-type. Took about 4 months to shred it off, and about a month and a half to put it back on. I lost my period for two months, and when it came back, it was not regular for another month. I'm sure there are women who are genetically blessed, and naturally lean enough to have a six pack stomach and ripped looking thighs all year, but it's pretty rare. You have to have some strong genetics on your side to accomplish that, without either compromising your health, or resorting to HGH injections.

Koryn Locke wrote:

I've gotten down about that lean once in my life, and it took a pretty extreme lifestyle to accomplish it, and the minute I resumed eating regular-healthy food again (back up to a normal calorie intake for an athletic female, and no carb cycling), I went back to a much softer body-type. Took about 4 months to shred it off, and about a month and a half to put it back on. I lost my period for two months, and when it came back, it was not regular for another month. I'm sure there are women who are genetically blessed, and naturally lean enough to have a six pack stomach and ripped looking thighs all year, but it's pretty rare. You have to have some strong genetics on your side to accomplish that, without either compromising your health, or resorting to HGH injections.

Of course everyone's body and metabolism is different

Here is a photo I took of Sveta when she wasn't in training mode

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12235733

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Astounding. There have been MMer models who are grossly obese and some so homely they've been mistaken for men, yet they get the "You go, girl! You're beautiful!" treatment. Yet Kate gets treated like a no-name pig.

I wish someone could explain it to me.

It's called white-knighting

Honestly I never heard of Kate until recently when someone said she froze her ass off in the snow for an SI cover. Personally she's not fat, but hitting the gym 3-4 times a week wouldn't hurt.

Garry k wrote:
Of course everyone's body and metabolism is different

Here is a photo I took of Sveta when she wasn't in training mode

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12235733

To me, she looks more attractive here than shredded up.

I am all about athleticism yet six packs (not long vertical lines or some cuts) on the stomach looks a tad too masculine.

I do however think the racehorse look is awesome, but seeing and living with horses all my life, even thoroughbreds don't have six packs.

Nice, athletic body (not thoroughbred style)
*to me

Garry k wrote:

Of course everyone's body and metabolism is different

Here is a photo I took of Sveta when she wasn't in training mode

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/12235733

She appears to have a naturally smaller build, and probably always had a lower body fat percentage. Girls who do not add a significant amount of sudden fat on their legs, boobs and bellies during puberty, tend to be leaner into adulthood, also. Women who "blossom" more slowly seem have it better off that way.

I just woke up one day, around 12 years old or so, with big hips, with my legs and ass covered in blue stretch marks -- so much so that it alarmed my mother, and she took me to the doctor, who said something to the equivalent of "Puberty's a bitch." I was a chunky kid from there on out, until I started lifting in my mid-20s and finally stabilized my body composition.

I'm sure it makes a huge difference, in the long term, and overall fitness levels in one's teens. If a girl plays sports in her teens, she might carry some of that increased lean mass and muscle memory, into her 20s and probably stay fitter overall, with less effort than a women who doesn't start caring for her physical health until later in life. Just a guess.

Jules NYC wrote:

To me, she looks more attractive here than shredded up.

I am all about athleticism yet six packs (not long vertical lines or some cuts) on the stomach looks a tad too masculine.

I do however think the racehorse look is awesome, but seeing and living with horses all my life, even thoroughbreds don't have six packs.

Nice, athletic body.
*to me

That woman does have a "six pack," but the softness of the lighting tones it down a lot. Were she lit from above, and the photo edited in a contrasty sort of way, she would have the exact stomach look that you describe as looking too masculine.

The softness you are seeing is all lighting and editing. That woman is absolutely ripped.

Koryn Locke wrote:

She appears to have a naturally smaller build, and probably always had a lower body fat percentage. Girls who do not add a significant amount of sudden fat on their legs, boobs and bellies during puberty, tend to be leaner into adulthood, also. Women who "blossom" more slowly seem have it better off that way.

I just woke up one day, around 12 years old or so, with big hips, with my legs and ass covered in blue stretch marks -- so much so that it alarmed my mother, and she took me to the doctor, who said something to the equivalent of "Puberty's a bitch." I was a chunky kid from there on out, until I started lifting in my mid-20s and finally stabilized my body composition.

I'm sure it makes a huge difference, in the long term, and overall fitness levels in one's teens. If a girl plays sports in her teens, she might carry some of that increased lean mass and muscle memory, into her 20s and probably stay fitter overall, with less effort than a women who doesn't start caring for her physical health until later in life. Just a guess.

You should consider writing a book on fitness. Your posts on this subject are so honest and uplifting to all body shapes/types.

Koryn Locke wrote:
That woman does have a "six pack," but the softness of the lighting tones it down a lot. Were she lit from above, and the photo edited in a contrasty sort of way, she would have the exact stomach look that you describe as looking too masculine.

The softness you are seeing is all lighting and editing. That woman is absolutely ripped.

I've seen so many pictures of her but on fashion mags and Shape magazine, etc. She looks great in that mode; you are right about the lighting and such I'd figure...

*Scoping internets

In tip top shape and has stomach cuts but I don't consider this a six pack.

Jules NYC wrote:

You should consider writing a book on fitness. Your posts on this subject are so honest and uplifting to all body shapes/types.

I'm a trainer at a chain gym. There are days I love my job, and days I hate it. Mostly, it's just hard to make a living, for a large portion of the year. I know that I do want to continue to pursue some avenue of work in the fitness industry; I just haven't even come close to finding my niche yet. I'm really, really, good at taking people who are already in reasonably good shape, and turning them into gods and goddesses, but for better or worse, in the chain gym milieu -- you just don't meet many of those types of clients, and when you get one, you know you have a keeper, because they are going to look ridiculous in six months, if they do what you tell them to. I'm sure there's a place for me doing what I love to do; there's just no telling how many places I will work, be miserably bored working there, until I find *it*.

Koryn Locke wrote:

I'm a trainer at a chain gym. There are days I love my job, and days I hate it. Mostly, it's just hard to make a living, for a large portion of the year. I know that I do want to continue to pursue some avenue of work in the fitness industry; I just haven't even come close to finding my niche yet. I'm really, really, good at taking people who are already in reasonably good shape, and turning them into gods and goddesses, but for better or worse, in the chain gym milieu -- you just don't meet many of those types of clients, and when you get one, you know you have a keeper, because they are going to look ridiculous in six months, if they do what you tell them to. I'm sure there's a place for me doing what I love to do; there's just no telling how many places I will work, be miserably bored working there, until I find *it*.

You need to train people with a shit load of $.
Way to do that if not celebrity (too much competition) is move to the Hamptons or Greenwich, CT or liketype area where there are resources for that.

Work at a local gym there (wherever there is), sell your book there and build a clientele.

Jules NYC wrote:
In tip top shape and has stomach cuts but I don't consider this a six pack.

"Six packs" also look much different - and waaaay more cut - in studio lights, than in natural outdoor lighting.

That's why fitness shoots can be finicky, because there's so much variation in the way lighting styles will effect the overall appearance of muscle tone. Even quarter inch movements in posing can radically change how the stomach looks and photographs from different angles.

Koryn Locke wrote:
"Six packs" also look much different - and waaaay more cut - in studio lights, than in natural outdoor lighting.

That's why fitness shoots can be finicky, because there's so much variation in the way lighting styles will effect the overall appearance of muscle tone. Even quarter inch movements in posing can radically change how the stomach looks and photographs from different angles.

That may be true...

It's just in the previous example of 'fitness', I can clearly see the 'cans of beer'...
Meaning her body fat was so low I can see the definition.

So if Gabby has one, awesome, it's just her overall body type and amazon stature makes it look aesthetically pleasing to me.

Looks solid; can't break her in two.

GRMACK wrote:
Here's her agency portfolio:
http://www.imgmodels.com/details.aspx?n … D=1&indx=7

She's right behind Kate Moss on the IMB website's model board (Interesting website too.).

What is surprising is her height.  She is 5'10" so it fits the height standard for fashion as well.  I somehow have a hard time believing she is a 34C cup though, maybe D or E.  Waist seems a bit small if they show it as 25" and I would have guessed 27+ or so given her height.  Shoe size of 8.5 seems to be low too for her height, but she has thin legs in her port photos.

I suspect we are seeing some optical illusion in some of her photos.  Maybe being round plays into it:  Round shoulders, round bust, round face?  I thought she was shorter too and maybe the curves played into it as well since some of the swimsuit girls are towards the short curvier type.  But Kate is tall, and if you look at Hedi Klum who is also on the IMB website (Special bookings), they are almost the same in overall measurements (maybe an inch), and Kate is a dress size smaller than Heidi too, so go figger that one?

Bah

Can't see on my iPhone

GRMACK wrote:
Here's her agency portfolio:
http://www.imgmodels.com/details.aspx?n … D=1&indx=7

She's right behind Kate Moss on the IMB website's model board (Interesting website too.).

What is surprising is her height.  She is 5'10" so it fits the height standard for fashion as well.  I somehow have a hard time believing she is a 34C cup though, maybe D or E.  Waist seems a bit small if they show it as 25" and I would have guessed 27+ or so given her height.  Shoe size of 8.5 seems to be low too for her height, but she has thin legs in her port photos.

I suspect we are seeing some optical illusion in some of her photos.  Maybe being round plays into it:  Round shoulders, round bust, round face?  I thought she was shorter too and maybe the curves played into it as well since some of the swimsuit girls are towards the short curvier type.  But Kate is tall, and if you look at Hedi Klum who is also on the IMB website (Special bookings), they are almost the same in overall measurements (maybe an inch), and Kate is a dress size smaller than Heidi too, so go figger that one?

Heidi Klum also has more of a "straight" figure actually, with a waist that isn't very pronounced



lots of fashion models don't have particularly curvy waists, I have no idea where this myth came from that fashion models are hourglasses (just because you have 24-34-34 measurements, doesn't mean your body looks like a pronounced hourglass. it really has to do with how you are built as well!)

and heidi by now is in her 40's and had 4 kids :p. She's allowed a slightly bigger dressize in my opinion haha.

Prolens Photography wrote:
This is a real woman, who eats sensible, has a active life style, and graces my cameras with her present, normal yes, skinny no, sexy sometimes, Fat In Any Way HELL NO!!! 

so what does an unreal woman look like exactly...?

Anna Adrielle wrote:



so what does an unreal woman look like exactly...?

??? you tell me, I've shown you normal, lots of unreal out there???

Prolens Photography wrote:
??? you tell me, I've shown you normal, lots of unreal out there???

nono, you didn't say "normal", you said "real".

all women are real women. And maybe some men too.

doesn't matter if it's size zero or size 28, or what kind of life they live, they're all real women. what else would they be? cyborgs?

Jules NYC wrote:
Can I be a dragon?

yes, you can . But then I want to be a unicorn!