Women’s implicit preferences reveal surprisingly high levels of gynephilia

[Orcwords]

I'm by no means a social scientist, but I'm doubtful about the validity of this study even though I have a gut feeling that agrees with its conclusions. Even if it is the case, it's almost impossible to determine how much is cultural/societal vs genetic, and which factor came first.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Well, the basic supermodel look is haughty and pretentiously dressed.

We all sense that the difficulty in attracting one would in no way be proportional to the amount of actual fun you'd have with them.

I can't name a single male model but I also realized that I can't name a single female supermodel who isn't from the 1990s (the name of the super obese model who was a topic of constant discussion a few years ago is right on the tip of my tongue, but...)

Models aren't there to look good: they're there to make the clothes look good. Fashion buyers then manage to persuade women to buy more clothes.

Throwing capitalism at men has successfully resulted in a huge gym industry and selling them bulking powders and supplements, but only a small proportion get interested in buying clothes, let alone make-up, despite loads of effort for years.

Women on average are enough interested in the look of an outfit to keep clothes shops in business and the "I want pockets!" campaign remains niche.

When I was a teenager, many girls would paper their rooms in covers and pages from Vogue, Elle and the like. Imagine my confusion when it was made very clear that the girls with 100 beautiful women on their walks *weren't* remotely interested in women, just their role in complementing the clothes... (the succeeding 30-odd years shows that the biggest sign of being queer, in retrospect, was a single poster of some attractive but not hugely popular man!)

(Sophie Dahl was a plus-size model but hardly obese?)

 

[TheRedChamber]

Models aren't there to look good: they're there to make the clothes look good. Fashion buyers then manage to persuade women to buy more clothes.

Throwing capitalism at men has successfully resulted in a huge gym industry and selling them bulking powders and supplements, but only a small proportion get interested in buying clothes, let alone make-up, despite loads of effort for years.

Women on average are enough interested in the look of an outfit to keep clothes shops in business and the "I want pockets!" campaign remains niche.

When I was a teenager, many girls would paper their rooms in covers and pages from Vogue, Elle and the like. Imagine my confusion when it was made very clear that the girls with 100 beautiful women on their walks *weren't* remotely interested in women, just their role in complementing the clothes... (the succeeding 30-odd years shows that the biggest sign of being queer, in retrospect, was a single poster of some attractive but not hugely popular man!)

(Sophie Dahl was a plus-size model but hardly obese?)

That's kind of my point. The individual models *shouldn't* matter more than the clothes but for some brief moment in the 90s, 'dating a supermodel' became the ultimate indicator of male success in much the same way that 'dating a Playboy centerfold' would have done in the 1960s - except that a Playboy model is both closer to the average woman and (I'd posit) more attractive to the average man. A quick Google suggests that the average supermodel even today has a height of 179cm and a weight of 50kg - giving her a BMI of 15.6 - which is insane, especially as 'average' suggests there are women who are even thinner. Playboy models, if I remember right, average just below 18 which is the supposedly lower bound for a healthly weight.

On the other end of the scale (the one I occupy myself) the model I was thinking of was Tess Holliday who has a BMI of over 40.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

That's kind of my point. The individual models *shouldn't* matter more than the clothes but for some brief moment in the 90s, 'dating a supermodel' became the ultimate indicator of male success in much the same way that 'dating a Playboy centerfold' would have done in the 1960s - ...
the model I was thinking of was Tess Holliday who has a BMI of over 40.

Rich and famous. Always attractive.

And while Kate Moss wasn't classically beautiful, she had her fans. Elle MacPherson, Cindy Crawford, Gisele Bündchen et al. were hot by most standards. Selling the model as a lifestyle resulted in selling more clothes - whereas for men it just didn't work so well. It was mostly women lusting over Nick Kamen and his temporary lack of Levis, for example.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Well, the basic supermodel look is haughty and pretentiously dressed.

We all sense that the difficulty in attracting one would in no way be proportional to the amount of actual fun you'd have with them.

I can't name a single male model but I also realized that I can't name a single female supermodel who isn't from the 1990s (the name of the super obese model who was a topic of constant discussion a few years ago is right on the tip of my tongue, but...)

I think it is important to distinguish a runway model from a supermodel.
The typical runway model certainly has a haughty and pretentious look, but for supermodels that isn't the case.
The OG supermodels from the 90s weren't, Claudia Schiffer, Kathy Ireland and the rest.

 

[MillieDynamite]

She makes me feel so thin!

That's kind of my point. The individual models *shouldn't* matter more than the clothes but for some brief moment in the 90s, 'dating a supermodel' became the ultimate indicator of male success in much the same way that 'dating a Playboy centerfold' would have done in the 1960s - except that a Playboy model is both closer to the average woman and (I'd posit) more attractive to the average man. A quick Google suggests that the average supermodel even today has a height of 179cm and a weight of 50kg - giving her a BMI of 15.6 - which is insane, especially as 'average' suggests there are women who are even thinner. Playboy models, if I remember right, average just below 18 which is the supposedly lower bound for a healthly weight.

On the other end of the scale (the one I occupy myself) the model I was thinking of was Tess Holliday who has a BMI of over 40.

View attachment 2461764

 

[TheRedChamber]

Models aren't there to look good: they're there to make the clothes look good. Fashion buyers then manage to persuade women to buy more clothes.

Throwing capitalism at men has successfully resulted in a huge gym industry and selling them bulking powders and supplements, but only a small proportion get interested in buying clothes, let alone make-up, despite loads of effort for years.

Women on average are enough interested in the look of an outfit to keep clothes shops in business and the "I want pockets!" campaign remains niche.

There was an advert for a brand of alcopops called Wicked in the UK a few year ago (KQ will remember this, for other posters...) that had women saying apparently 'wicked' things to each other. They had two women clothes shopping and one saying to the other "Does this dress make me look fat?" To which the other woman replies "No, your fat makes you look fat."

I'd say this is just how men* think all the time. We're not overly convinced any particular outfit is going to make us one iota less ugly than we are. And even if it did, it would be 'cheating' somehow.

(*British men certainly, maybe less so French and Italians)

For myself, the part of my brain which evalaluates clothes for style and suitability is completely missing. Wandering around a clothes shop is much the same for me as wondering round a set of ancient Egyptican hieroglyphics.

I just can't decode anything. Back in my twenties when I was really struggling with dating, I looked at the problem logically, and went to my sister, a woman with a small vested interest in me finding a partner and said "Right, here is £400, buy me a whole new wardrobe." I remember looking at the shopping bags at the end and being like "Well, okay, I just have no idea how any of this is supposed to work" (and, no, it didn't. Not noticably anyway).

I was at a (landmark-age) birthday party for a friend and her mum pointed out, in an offended fashion, that I was wearing odd socks. I was genuinely baffled that anyone would actually looking at the space between my shoes and my ankles and they would be bothered by what they saw if they did.

I may be particularly bad, but I don't think I'm unique in this. Men, how many of you think you could realiably pick out your wife's wedding dress from random selection of, say, four?

So, no, capitalism has an uphill battle here.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I think it is important to distinguish a runway model from a supermodel.
The typical runway model certainly has a haughty and pretentious look, but for supermodels that isn't the case.
The OG supermodels from the 90s weren't, Claudia Schiffer, Kathy Ireland and the rest.

Fair enough. Either runway or super though, the tendency is (or was) for super-tall, small(ish) chested and not particuarly hour-glassy women. I went on a Google image search and, yeah, none of those named are exactly ugly and they defintely look better when photographed 'being themselves' (and maybe even smiling) than when they're on the catwalk. As the absoulte pinnacle of aspirational feminity though...

I think men's biggest fear of dating a supermodel is that we'd have to spend a lot of time and money clothes shopping...

(Fear is irrational, no need to analyse that joke and point out she'd get all her clothes from work...or not. I don't know how it works...)