Models with no make up on

Was just watching True Blood. New character in Season 4. :eek:

whoaugly.jpg


I think she fits the intention of this thread. No, she's a human who gets hit on in the pub, not a supernatural. That's just how she looks.
 
I feel terribly bad for these (super)models that so many here seem to find them unattractive in photographs that appear deliberately to be taken in ways that are unflattering, it'll doubtless be a huge blow to their egos.

A supermodel doesn't have to be 100% conventionally attractive, in fact it's pretty much a given that if they are a supermodel then by definition there will be something slightly off-kilter about their look - they need to be a little bit distinctive and that's how they get noticed over the hundreds of other models who all look merely "good" for displaying clothes.

Sure, most of the girls pictured there don't look at their best but since they're pretty much all there with their hair scraped back, no make-up and not smiling (aside from one) that's hardly a great surprise. In the dreamworld where I've got a chance with any of them and free choice then maybe there are some who I'd decline but arguably spending time dismissing something that has no chance of happening is simply rationalising to make oneself feel better "yeah, didn't want that anyway".
 
semi-pro waster said:
A supermodel doesn't have to be 100% conventionally attractive, in fact it's pretty much a given that if they are a supermodel then by definition there will be something slightly off-kilter about their look - they need to be a little bit distinctive and that's how they get noticed over the hundreds of other models who all look merely "good" for displaying clothes.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but that's the trick now, isn't it? A designer doesn't want to put a model up on the runway and have everyone looking at her. They want the shoppers to look at the clothing. It can be a walking mannequin -- which is what they are -- and that is what the shoppers notice.

It isn't until they have become successful that they actually become glamourous. And they become successful by NOT drawing attention to themselves. Be robotic, be a mannequin, be nobody.

No runway model has ever been the centre of attention until they have done their duty.
 
to all those that say E.mcpherson looks great, it isn't because she is the ONLY one smiling + under different lighting + with slight make-up on, now is it?

just thought i'd point it out..

It's an ad, it isn't a confession by LV, of course it's engineered in some way for their purposes.
 
Nerusy said:
Do you agree with me that fashion models are required to be size zero yes, they are very skinny, without makeup they look sickly and rightly so. It is safe to say a women that looks sickly is not attractive. Because they're so skinny their shoulders stick out giving them if anything a male-like appearance. It's not what being attractive was, the reason why you might like sickly underweight body is through years of brainwashing into us this image of a what beauty is.
Click to expand...

You've answered the question in the same sentence as asking it. Is any reply I give even going to register? :confused:

Not all fashion models are required to be size zero, so no I don't agree with you. That's not what this argument is about though, it's about high fashion models such as those in the OP being beautiful and attractive, and you're saying (wrongly) that a size zero model can't be attractive because she's 'sickly', which is wrong. You're also completely ignoring a naturally skinny occurring bone structure, rather than a larger bone structure being dieted to get down to a certain weight. One will look natural, the other wont. You're ignoring lots of things really, but that generally happens with sweeping statements :p

Fashion models are not pretty, "beautiful" yes (most of the time makeup is needed to achieve that).
Click to expand...

Maybe not to you. They are to me. It's not a fact like you state it.

Attractive models are the glamour models.
Click to expand...

Another sweeping statement. Not true.

And don't give me this models are employed for their attractive looks rubbish. You have to be tall (for women 5'9''+) and very skinny. Have to have prominent face features, the make up will do the rest. A girl with a conventionally pretty face can only hope to become a glamour model.
Click to expand...

Why can't tall and skinny be attractive? And what on earth are you defining as 'conventionally pretty'?

Edit: keep in mind that fashion model bmi is very underweight. When you are underweight you look "sickly". If you'd seen a model in flesh without make up. You'd be both very disappointed with the face and the body. I am really talking mostly about the body here. I am not talking about given beauty of a face or body even. Simply the fact the fashion models are severely underweight, they look ill without the makeup.
Click to expand...

I know plenty of naturally skinny people. They don't diet to be that weight, they're not bulimic, they don't look sickly. I've seen endless models in the flesh thank you very much, pre/post makeup, pre/post retouching, hence how I can be so confident you're talking rubbish.

and if you find that sickly look attractive (without the makup and in person) then well I guess there is a reason people are freaking out fashion models are giving wrong image to the young girls and even males across the globe.
Click to expand...

I can find skinny people attractive without ruining the fabric of society. My argument is proven simply by their existence, if no-one liked it they wouldn't be used. Even if a very vocal section of society are decrying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom