It's a time-lapse video of a woman being prepped, shot, and Photoshopped for a billboard. The final result bears very little resemblance to the actual woman (or any actual woman), yet the final result is what women are supposed to aspire to become.
Edited to add: this site has a walk-through demo on how magazine covers are retouched.
[ October 19, 2006, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Saw this yesterday I'd always heard about this, but its illuminating to see it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It's a tired message, but a much better presentation than we're used to seeing.
Good job, Dove.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
One of the eyes looked wonky. o_O
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
It's very interesting to see the metamorphasis of advertising. I remember several months ago my husband showed me the online portfolio of a guy that manipulates photographs for advertising. The before and after (and transitional) photos were astounding, especially on some of the popular actresses. Now I'm going to have to see if I can find it again....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, what I'm hearing here is that anyone can be a model.
*packs bags* *heads to New York*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Everbody I know looks this good...<shrug>
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It was probably www.glennferon.com , but his portfolio is under construction so the before and after shots aren't currently available.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Yes! That's the one I was thinking of!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ah, the winners of the Internets. One of the youtube comments:
quote:My problem with this kind of campaign is that we have enought ugly women as is. Can you imagine the amount of "fuglies" that are going to be walking around if we tell the little girls taht its ok to be ugly?
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thank you for posting, Chris. It's the first thing I'm showing to my 13 year old daughter when she gets home from school today.
Bravo, Dove! (by the way, I've been impressed with their "campaign for real beauty" before, and I buy their deodorant and soap because of it)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I went to a meeting yesterday and one of the attendees asked me if I was still sick. I wasn't wearing too much makeup that day and I hadn't been able to take a shower that morning because the water was turned off (long story - my fault), but that was kind of funny. He looked so sad for me. I didn't have the heart to tell him that this was actually how I really looked without the makeup and cute hair and jewelry.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
Wait, so the fashion industry had a "distorted image of beauty?"
Wow. I'm so glad you told me. Thanks, Dove.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow.
Great commercial though.
Looks more like a PSA almost than a commercial.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Am I right in that I think I'm detecting a note of scorn or derision as in "Geez, like we didn't already know that."
If so, I want to emphasize that the commercial is probably not for you then. So you know that, you aren't swayed by the body image portrayed in fashion, you're comfortable in your own body. Great. Good, that makes me happy.
But I can tell you as the mother of a 13 year old and someone that volunteers with and plans to teach pre-adolescents, it IS a message many of them need to hear. I've even overheard this type of conversation among my daughters and her friends:
A: I'm so fat. B: You are not, I can see your ribs. A: but there's a pooch in my belly. B: Everybody has SOME little poochiness, even models. A: They do not. B: Yes they do, they airbrush photos. A: Only to take off zits and stuff. They're still real skinny, the camera adds ten pounds, so in person they're even skinnier. Not nearly as big as me.
I know we would all like to think that pre-adolescents don't have a distorted view of what beauty is, but I'm afraid there is too much truth in it. Many of them do think they have to look like the person on the magazine covers to be pretty.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well said, Belle.
Well said.
----
Edited to add: And thanks, Chris.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hank: Its one thing to say it its another thing to actually demonstrate it.
Even if an idea is repeated so often that its believed by the majority there are still alot of people that until they check the pudding might say they believe it but they don't. I still have to talk to my wife all the time about her looks.
I honestly resent waking up to it and having to address it everyday often more then once. I love my wife for everything she is, if she wants to tone up with exercise I am happy that it makes her happy. But that sometimes just isnt enough she sees a girl on a poster and says, "Thats what I want to look like honey!" I resent the fact the fashion industry lies to people about what they should aspire for.
If we watched sports events but it was never live and censors could edit out all the mistakes athletes make, it would start making children upset everytime they made a mistake because they would misunderstand that mistakes are inevitable no matter how hard you try.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The part that creeped me out was when they photoshopped her head about two inches up. I thought to myself, "NO NECK STRETCHY! NO!"
My internal monologue degrades when I'm alarmed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: The part that creeped me out was when they photoshopped her head about two inches up. I thought to myself, "NO NECK STRETCHY! NO!"
My internal monologue degrades when I'm alarmed.
Interestingly enough you COULD actually increase the length of anybodies neck by 2 inches easily. There are African tribes that do it by a much larger margin with rings designed to slowly stretch the neck. If it became fashionable to have a naturally longer neck (no photo shop) I wouldnt put it past some models embracing it, women have put up with more obnoxious practices in the name of fashion.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I think that you and I have different definitions of the word easy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have vague recollections of some movie where a person put himself into traction to stretch out is spine to barely bring his height up to a certain height. I'm remembering that it was so that he could join the military, but I don't know.
Does this sound familiar to anybody?
No, it wasn't Gattica. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I wonder what would happen if a coordinated team of big name fashion designers, magazine editors, TV and movie studio heads, and advertising marketers decided, just for the fun of it, to change society's mind and make them think that, say, nipples were boring but elbows were exciting and sensual.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
mph- It sounds sort of like Miles Vorkosigan. Not, but could that be where you're getting the idea?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Chris, you're just trying to get a bunch of us to walk around with our nipples showing to desenstize people. That's going to work.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah, I sometimes have problems like this with my lady friend. She was picking a yahoo avatar and asked me which one looked more like her, the "skinny" one or the "full figured" one. The skinny one was akin to a barbie and there is no way a person could look like that and live longer than a week. The full figured one looked like a normal person. In retrospect, I suppose I shouldn't have said that though, because she got kinda pissed. Gah! It's just so frustrating when people, especially grown people, are still buying in to and perpetuating these unrealistic/impossible standards.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's going to work.
Woot!
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
i dont so much know if its the actual sight of a nipple that makes men get excited. Perhaps its what the nipple does and perhaps that if the nipple make and appearence so probably does the rest of the body.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Perhaps its what the nipple does
Golly I hope not. I mean, I love a glass of milk as much as the next guy, but... *shudder*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Heck with that, I'm an elbow man.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The clavicle is well-nigh underappreciated.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Well that is udderly ridiculous.
(flees from the thread before pumelling begins)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph- It sounds sort of like Miles Vorkosigan. Not, but could that be where you're getting the idea?
No, this memory is from years and years ago, and I just recently read Vorkosigan.
I'm remembering somebody wearing a type of halter on his head with a rope attached up to a pully and down to a weight.
I know of a more recent story that acutally happend, where a professional sumo wrestler had collagen or something implanted in his scalp to barely get him up to a legal height to compete.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Actually Chris (lol I mispelled your name Christ, then realized your name was an intentional mispelling of Christ) In Saudi Arabia they are all about elbows and the tricep area of the arm. But of course THEY prefer their women big, and they even have fat farms to help girls gain weight. They prefer to have enough fat on the upper arm that it can jiggle.
When I worked at my college's testing center they held a team meeting to address sexual harrassment. We were informed that the elbow was the least sensual part of the body, and that if we needed to touch other coworkers to get their attention, we needed to touch their elbows. It became an in joke to seductively rub the elbow area of a coworker as a way to greet or get their attention.
I lol everytime I see wierd Al's music video of Amish Paradise and some Amish boys are reading an Amish version of Playboy and the girl is exposing her shin on the cover.
In China until around the mid 20th century it was fashionable for women to bind their feet as a means to make their feet fit in shoes that resembled a lily petal. It became such a big deal that court officials were known to take a pair of their favorit lover's shoes on business trips so that they could sleep with them and always be reminded of their lovers feet. Incidentally it wasnt the foot that was hot, only the shoe itself therefore a women who could wear it was hot. Take the shoe off and the sock and its just aweful how deformed a bound foot looks. Never under estimate the power of lust I guess. You won't see me taking my wife's panties and bra with me on such trips.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually I'm still pretty creepy, but at least my skin is clear now.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I saw the site with the before and after photoshopping months ago (linked here, probably). It was unbelievable.
Belle, I've also heard a ridiculous number of women (and girls) utter similar sentences, convinced that if you have any fat deposits anywhere on your body then you are 'fat'. It drives me nuts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:We were informed that the elbow was the least sensual part of the body, and that if we needed to touch other coworkers to get their attention, we needed to touch their elbows. It became an in joke to seductively rub the elbow area of a coworker as a way to greet or get their attention.
Hmm...I have heard that the way to get a guy to notice and like you is to touch their elbow. Three times at a party, and you'll have their attention. In my completely unscientific experience, it usually works.
I don't think it's sexual, though. I think it's personal - it means you're paying attention. Personal attention is appropriate in many more situations than romantic/sexual attention would be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...We were informed that the elbow was the least sensual part of the body...
Katisha is going to be pissed!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Hmm...I have heard that the way to get a guy to notice and like you is to touch their elbow. Three times at a party, and you'll have their attention. In my completely unscientific experience, it usually works.
Uh, if you're a cute girl I'm not sure there is a place on a guy you can touch three times without getting his attention.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I love nice girls. You're all so cute. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, I was always taught when flirting to touch the guy's arm.
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, JT said it in a non-lecherous way. I couldn't manage it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would be distraught if I didn't have a guy's attention after touching his elbow once. But my eye contact is probably much more forward than kat's. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Course, if the elbow brush doesn't work you can always fall back on old faithful -- the crotch brush.
/better, Stormy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
JT and Stormy: You're darling. That's really sweet.
Added: Oh! That wasn't there when I posted. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Of course, you could not touch anything and just use The Blonde Mating Call....
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
*snort*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: JT and Stormy: You're darling. That's really sweet.
Added: Oh! That wasn't there when I posted.
Now look what you've done! You've gone and scandalized kat! Shame on you.
-pH
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I would be distraught if I didn't have a guy's attention after touching his elbow once. But my eye contact is probably much more forward than kat's.
I don't know, kat's eye contact is pretty darn forward. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Of course, you could not touch anything and just use The Blonde Mating Call....
And that would be, "I am soooo drunk!"?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Now look what you've done! You've gone and scandalized kat! Shame on you.
Hey, my advice wasn't for kat. It works for any woman in nearly any social situation!
edit: Though, I imagine if kat tried it you'd read an obituary the next day that prominently featured the words, "death by mortification."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The real trick is not to touch the guy at all. If a girl at a party takes her shirt off, she has my complete attention, no matter how many times she's touched my elbow. Even if she's not airbrushed a bit!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See if a girl takes her shirt off I am turned off because I immedietly assume, "Used Goods"
I've had alot of girlfriends (not the intimate type but the platonic type). They would often come to me for advice about how to get a guys attention, or rant to me about how a guy did not pick up on their hints.
Touching is a huge deal, there's a barrier that exists right up until physical contact is made. But if a girl sits next to me and starts making conversation (but she has to keep the momentum up, not querie about some basics about me and then lose momentum) she is off to a very good start. For me at least, what I can see is important, but its far more important for me to gauge off what I can hear.
If a girl touched me 3 times on my elbow though I'd probably think, "Wow VERY interested."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The use of phrases such as "used goods" annoys me. I also think "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" is possibly the worst attitude towards women ever.
But. Touching is definitely helpful when flirting. I notice very subtle things sometimes, like if a man stands a little bit closer to me than I would consider "usual." Of course, sometimes I get a bit weirded out. I don't appreciate it when men I don't know very well touch my midsection at all. Arm around the shoulders is possibly okay, but contact with my midsection is tricky.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...I am turned off because I immedietly assume, "Used Goods"
I've heard this attitude ("used goods" = bad) before, and I just don't understand it. Why does that matter?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I object to the "used goods" thing. A person is not a commodity, an object. Not "goods" at all.
Added: I didn't mean to dogpile. There was nothing there when I started to post.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I was just about to edit my post to clarify that I'd put "used goods" in quotes because I didn't like the term, but it looks like I've been beaten to it. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I've had alot of girlfriends (not the intimate type but the platonic type). They would often come to me for advice about how to get a guys attention, or rant to me about how a guy did not pick up on their hints.
Therein lies the beauty of the crotch brush: it's impossible to miss or to misinterpret.
Tell your friends.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But if a girl sits next to me and starts making conversation
Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm sure you're not trying to imply that most women don't have something to say or can't make conversation, but that's kind of how it's coming out.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Most people can't actually make conversation, Megan.
(Edited to add that I'm emphatically included in that group.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
People who can actually make conversation are worth worlds.
But I'm stuck on the crotch brush. For some reason I'm picturing a stiff wire brush, used vigorously, to ensure that the person in question never ever hints anything at you ever again.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Chris:
Shmuel: That may well be true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Owie.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: But if a girl sits next to me and starts making conversation
Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
We are. Sadly, most men still won't date us if we are overweight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
pH: I merely mean that I think there is something attractive about a girl who does not easily bestow her affections on men.
I personally find something incredibly sexy about the fact that my wife and I are exploring our sexuality and it does not involve anybody else, it never has and it never will.
But thats not to say when I was dating that I would not kiss a girl who had had previous boyfriends, or had even had sex.
But if a girl is willing to rip her shirt off merely for the entertainment of a bunch of horny male dogs, I just don't want to be a part of it, thats all.
If a girl likes to express her sexiness in that way, thats all well and good for her, its just wont impress ME thats all.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's silly. You're worth more if you weigh more. Basic math, people.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
We are. Sadly, most men still won't date us if we are overweight.
That's just more gold!
El JT Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Women who can actually make conversation, not only listen but have something to say, are freaking worth their weight in gold.
We are. Sadly, most men still won't date us if we are overweight.
That's just more gold!
I prefer to err on the side of too much, rather then too little when it comes to girls Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
JT and MC, yup. Sadly, though, kmb is correct.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yeah, she is. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
People have different preferences in mates. Many guys don't want to date overweight women. Many women don't want to date unemployed men. Guys often want to date younger women. Women often want to date more emotionally mature men.
I'm still hoping my girlfriend gives me her weight in gold. That's gonna rule!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I can completely understand people who value a stricter sexual morality in themselves and the people they date preferring to date people who feel the same. I can even understand people who don't believe sex before marriage is wrong being uncomfortable if they find out someone they're dating has had a lot more partners than they have, although I don't feel that way myself.
I cannot understand labeling such people which a derrogatory term, even in the hypothetical. There's no "merely" about it. Someone doesn't share your moral values. That's a fine reason not to get involved with them. It's a crappy reason to call them names.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*applauds ElJay*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*takes a bow*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I can completely understand people who value a stricter sexual morality in themselves and the people they date preferring to date people who feel the same. I can even understand people who don't believe sex before marriage is wrong being uncomfortable if they find out someone they're dating has had a lot more partners than they have, although I don't feel that way myself.
I cannot understand labeling such people which a derrogatory term, even in the hypothetical. There's no "merely" about it. Someone doesn't share your moral values. That's a fine reason not to get involved with them. It's a crappy reason to call them names.
You're being a mite melodramatic. I thought, "used goods." Its far from me to tell a girl that she is used goods, as there is simply no positive outcome to be gleaned by such an action in that scenario.
I am perfectly happy to take note of who the shirtles girl is, and proceed to focus my attention on other girls.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I thought "used goods."
You also posted it here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You posted it here. That's calling her names.
Please don't talk about people like they are objects or commodoties.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You didn't think used goods, or none of us would know it. Of course you didn't tell her, it was a hypothetical situation. You used the term here, and that is what I am objecting to.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wondering whether to be relieved no one has commented on my photoshopped picture...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I need to see the full face to have an opinion, Chris.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
OK so it would have been ok for me to formulate the idea in my head, but not articulate it into words?
Ok seriously
We are talking about my hypothetical response to supposed situation in which a girl takes off her shirt.
From now on I will simply say, "I would frown on the actions of the shirtless girl" and simply not specify why I would.
Though I will concede articulating my response in this forum does indeed constitute name calling and if I ever meet this hypothetical girl, Ill apologize for insulting her from within this community.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK so it would have been ok for me to formulate the idea in my head, but not articulate it into words?
It would still have been wrong to think of a woman as "goods" an object, something that could be bought or sold, that loses value from having a previous owner (getting it yet?).
But if you had kept this wrong thought to yourself, it wouldn't have been overtly rude.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BlackBlade, can you see why we're objecting? I felt insulted by your characterization of the hypothetical girl as used goods, and I'd as soon swim to Tahiti as take my clothes off at a party. I am not "goods." Women are not goods. A good is a commodity - something you buy or trade. An object.
Thinking or calling someone "used goods" doesn't acknowledge that you are dealing with a person with whom you do not share morals - you are treating her like an it or an object. It's not okay to talk about people like that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Your last line shows you still don't get it. Listen to kat, she's explaining it better than I could.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I understand the objection but I think you are mistakenly reading too much into the phrase, "Used Goods"
We compare human beings to objects of lesser importance all the time. Nobody objected to me comparing the men in the hypothetical situation as "horny dogs." (Though perhaps I did not give enough time for men in this forum to respond in such a manner) Men are certainly not dogs, and not all of them are horny.
My objection to the shirtless girl in this situation is that she is surrendering to the mindless caterwauling (again men are not cats) of these unruly males. I think there are perfectly legitimate mediums for girls to celebrate their beauty in front of men, women, or coed audiences. I personally do not think stripping in front of a party of strange men is one of those mediums. Ditto for girls wishing to use their sexiness as a means to draw certain men towards establishing a relationship with them.
If you disagree with my perception of the situation, I'm sorry if my opinion gauls you to any degree. But I just would personally rather not associate with a girl who is so liberal in exposing her body to men.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps it is because for a long time women were considered objects or tradable goods or less than human, that this is so offensive. "Men are dogs" is clearly a metaphor; "women are goods" is not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is objecting to your preference. I'm certainly not. I greatly prefer dating someone with my same standards and practices.
quote:But I just would personally rather not associate with a girl who is so liberal in exposing her body to men.
That's fine. Just don't label her (and by extension every woman) as a thing when you do so. You sound like you're at a yard sale.
If you didn't mean it that way, then you should know that your words have more meaning than you intended. It's like swearing in another language. You meant to say the equivelent of "darn" but the native speakers just recoiled in horror.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can accept that there is a history of maltreatment to women including viewing women as, "goods to be bought and sold." If that makes the use of the phrase, "used goods" overtly offensive, I can accept that. I don't need the term.
edit: I'm sorry if the phrase cause any of you to take offense. I certainly did not intend it that way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you for the apology, and for dropping the term.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Just to be clear, I was talking about a lady flashing me to get my attention, not a woman taking off her shirt in an attempt to sell herself on the commodities exchange.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: People who can actually make conversation are worth worlds.
Given that the thread was kind of, at that point, about what turns us on, I'm sticking with women, but you are free to mean what you want to.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Gee, and here I was thinking sexism was dead...
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...a woman taking off her shirt in an attempt to sell herself on the commodities exchange.
Buy low, sell high.
Posted by Mix-up (Member # 9512) on :
There was actually an interesting editorial in the New York Times on the 16th about stuff like this... it was called "Why Aren’t We Shocked?"... but unfortunatly I can't get to this page because I don't have a subscription... Either way, the editorial argued that through clothing embracing sexuality, and other such things, women today are supressing themselves as much as they were supressed years and years ago by men. (Or at least thats what I took from it.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"yet the final result is what women are supposed to aspire to become."
Not really. It is the fantasy world of commercialism that seems to work. They know what sells. Many people they sell to desire this kind of a person and so that is the kind of person adversers "create." A few people who don't conform to this image, and those who just like to point fingers, might be critical of those changes. Most (at least American men) will still pick the "dolled up" version over the "real" version. So, are they selling to men or are they selling to women?
There was a study printed in National Geographic showing that these kinds of changes actually enhance men's attraction to the women. It just wasn't pulled out of a rabbit hat. Now, they did say in the article that it wasn't a universal application. However, what they did say was that some aspects of female bueaty was slightly more than the eye of the beholder. Going on memory, I think it was big eyes, big breasts, and big posteriors were a consistant attraction.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...a woman taking off her shirt in an attempt to sell herself on the commodities exchange.
Buy low, sell high.
I'd say her assets are well-allocated.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The market is definitely looking up.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: The market is definitely looking up.
I'd give her a call, if she'd put up with me.
(hint: options trading)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Um...pork belly futures...yeah!
I'm a pun loser. *hangs head*
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there are better commodities in your future.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I should probably take stock of myself?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
That is a sound strategy. I'd also recommend consulting an advisor to see if your lifestyle needs rebalancing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think if I invested some liquid capital into another market, diversification opportunities would arise, and I might be able to expand my portfolio to incorporate another exchange of capital with an eye to the future.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, see if the feeling's mutual.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'd be careful if the product is readily-available on the open market. If too-frequently combined with other products, unexpected-dividends may develop that will require proper certificates of deposit in order to verify.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, as always, demand is inversely related to scarcity.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm just looking forward to when she finally yeilds her curves to me.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
The clavicle is well-nigh underappreciated.
I actually do find it attractive when you can see a woman's collarbone, especially the area where the two bones almost meet and create that hollow at the base of the throat. On a related note, I also like it when a woman turns her head about 90 degrees and you can see that one muscle (tendon?) snake all the way up the side of her neck. It makes her look so ethereal, or as if she was carved like a statue.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Owie.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)