If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect a belief on the model's part that she's worth more with less covered, it's pretty silly.
If you assume that the higher rates for bikini/lingerie reflect the fact that the market will bear it so she might as well get it, then it's just good business sense.
Either way though, those split rates are illogical if you believe that a model's value derives from her looks and talent rather than how much skin she'll expose. Either the model or the market is behaving irrationally, no matter how you look at it.
The first two sentences of this post basically mean the same thing. A model's worth = what the market can support. The market determines the worth of a model.
Glamour models ARE worth more with less covered. There is more demand for a glamour model in a bikini than in a poncho. Therefore, the market supports higher rates for bikini work than for wearing a poncho. A model's value does not depend only on her looks and talent but also on the demand for her services. I look fking great playing the autoharp and I am really good at it, but since there is almost no demand for pretty women playing the autoharp, it does not add to my value as a worker in a free market.
I suppose we all define "odd" differently. I don't see how the fact that something is common has any bearing on whether or not it's odd.
Actually, one of the really nice things about the English language is that English words do not have subjective definitions as you imply. They actually have concrete and discrete meanings which are recorded in dictionaries.
The word "odd" means something that is not common; therefore, whether or not something is common is the ONLY thing that has bearing on whether or not that something is "odd."
Different from what is usual or expected; strange