You are here

Beth Ditto: male homosexual fashion designers to blame for size zero trend

Beth Ditto is a short, obese lesbian.  Whereas some would quickly point out her obesity as the reason why she is displeased with skinny fashion models and suggest that she is envious of tall and slender women, at least she cannot be called “homophobic.”

Here is the report:

The Gossip singer Beth Ditto says gay men in the fashion industry are to blame for the worrying size zero trend.

Plus-sized Beth, who has posed naked for this month's cover of NME magazine, slammed homosexual designers for putting unrealistic pressure on women to be skinny.

Beth told the music publication, "If there's anyone to blame for size zero, it's not women. Blame gay men who work in the fashion industry and want these women as dolls.

"Men don't know what it feels like to be a woman and be expected to look a particular way. The Beckhams are part of the machine, Paris Hilton is part of the machine.

"There's that thing Paris Hilton said about Lindsay Lohan, 'You're poor, ugly and fat.' It's always women who are victims."

The openly lesbian singer - who is 5-feet tall and weighs around 15 stones (210 pounds) - insists her supermodel pal Kate Moss understands what it's like for women to be persecuted for being large, and is not to blame for the alarming skinny trend.

She said, "I spent one night talking to Kate Moss and she said the most amazing things about bodies. I didn't think I was going to like her, but she said, 'Do you know what I hate, Beth? When people tell my big girlfriends, 'You have a beautiful face.' That's a really radical concept."

The 'Standing in the Way of Control' singer was named the coolest person in rock by NME last year, and has posed in her underwear for Vogue magazine.

Comment: Beth Ditto is, of course, spot-on regarding blaming gay fashion designers for the typical skinniness of high-fashion models, but she didn’t get the underlying reason right.  The homosexuals are not trying to make their models look like dolls, but like boys in their early adolescence.



Do you believe views on what is considered beautiful are conditioned by society or those attitudes are entirely natural? Does media programming dicate what is and is not attractive?

Tim: Your question is answered over many page within this site. Read around. What people find to be beautiful results from some combination of intrinsic preferences and the influence of the social environment; you should start here. People also vary with respect to the extent to which the social environment can manipulate their aesthetic preferences.

Having a shorter than average height is directly correlated with high estrogen and low testosterone, and higher than average fertility. You cherry pick which "masculinized" features that are in style right now as being the measure of what is sexually attractive. Everything but the height thing is unacceptable to you. The true measure of a woman is a caricature of sexual dimorphism, oh, as long as all the features fit your "type."

You use circular reasoning constantly to reinforce your own personal preferences and assumptions, which is nothing new. Remember the (disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups? You were shot down a thousand times by the same guy with his superior logic and evidence, and it finally came to the point that you ordered him to stop posting because you hate when people don't mindlessly eat up your racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit. Every single time someone points out your utter insanity, you reply with some more bullshit and circular reasoning to talk around what everyone else says to continue supporting your own claims.

Remember when you comfortably went ahead and told me my own sexual history? You confidently posited that I had few sexual partners because I'm feminine. You have always already had your biases set as the conclusion, and you ignore all evidence that does not support your own circular reasoning! Your assumption about my personal sexual history was based on my feminine physique. And then you undermine women, and use circular reasoning that any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot, thus she cannot be a counterexample. "If she has many partners and a high libido, she can't possibly be feminine." You are constructing false dichotomies to support your own conclusions, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I mean, you went as far as telling me what my own sexual history must be to make your insane points!

But, go ahead and only posit what YOU find attractive as being the measure of femininity. Use certain arguments based on scientific evidence to back up these claims, oh, except for the features that you like personally, where science disagrees. In those cases, just say, "it can be feminine" and be angry with anyone who doesn't automatically agree.

Picking and choosing, picking and choosing...

I noticed that your sexist, racist, homophobic, insane book based on purposeful logical fallacies and shoddy science was self-published. I can't imagine why you had trouble finding a publisher!

Kim: Whereas women with somewhat below average height tend to have above average fertility and higher estrogen levels (something that I have not disputed), the point is that you will find some women with above average height that have higher estrogen levels and better fertility than most women. Therefore, tallness in women by itself does not imply masculinization.

Regarding the “(disturbing) topic on the most feminine racial groups,” my argument had nothing to do with this notion. A minor point of my argument was concerned with what ethnic groups are overrepresented among the most overall feminine-looking women, which is not to be confused with actual femininity. It is laughable that you describe D’Artagnan’s arguments as comprising of superior logic and evidence. He kept citing outdated studies, repeating the same points, was unware of current anthropological literature, did not have any understanding of modern genetics or statistical tools such as canonical variates analysis, and resorted to deconstructionism and ad hominem. Superior argument indeed!

I did not tell you your sexual history or made any definitive assumptions about it. I said that feminine women are less inclined toward promiscuity, and have cited a bunch of papers in this regard. Your assertion that I argued that “any woman with a high libido is therefore unfeminine because she likes to have sex a lot” or that “If she has many partners and a high libido, she can’t possibly be feminine” is baseless nonsense. As in the sample of height and masculinity-femininity, some feminine women will be more promiscuous than most women notwithstanding the fact that feminine women tend to be less promiscuous. Statistical trends are about distributions. For instance, just because the Japanese are shorter than the Dutch, on average, doesn’t mean that there are no tall Japanese that are taller than most Dutch. I am not resorting to selective evidence, circular reasoning or false dichotomies; the problem is with your poor comprehension.

My book is devoid of sexism, racism, homophobia, insanity, logical fallacies and shoddy science, none of which you have bothered to document. What makes you think that I had trouble finding a publisher? I knew that it would be near impossible to find a publisher given the politically incorrect content, not shortcomings in scholarship. However, I was under the impression that I had no choice but to start sending query letters to literary agents, and I sent about ten before coming across print-on-demand technology and I didn’t bother with any query letters thereafter. Therefore, I did not go the semi-self-publishing route after having trouble finding a publisher; I chose this option shortly after I found out that it is a possibility. Somewhere down the road I will get an updated version of it published by a mainstream publisher. This will be partly possible because of upcoming studies that will increasingly make the case for my major arguments, which will appear less radical in the future than at present.

You should not be critiquing arguments that you are incapable of understanding.

PS, bb:

Confidential to Beth Ditto: In New Musical Express you're quoted as saying, "If there's anyone to blame for size zero, it's not women. Blame gay men who work in the fashion industry who want these women as dolls." That's bullshit. If you want to blame something for size zero, Beth, blame cheap and abundant food. When food was scarce and most poor suckers were starving to death, fat bodies were the beauty ideal and skinny girls were oppressed. Now that food is plentiful and most dumb motherfuckers are eating themselves to death, skinny bodies are the beauty ideal and fat girls are oppressed. File it under "What goes around, comes around." But take heart, Beth: Food may soon be scarce again, thanks to climate change, and fat girls will rule the runways.

And, Beth, if gay men had the power to dictate beauty ideals to impressionable straight men, we wouldn't order boys to lust after women—big or small, dieting or diabetic. We'd order them to lust after cock, Beth—big and small, dockable and undockable.

8D: Your comment confirms my suspicion about your sanity. How sane is someone expected to be if she posts "white power" all over the place?

In spite of the availability of plenty of food, most people prefer a subset of the medically normal weight range rather than skinny looks. In addition, Dan Savage equates convincing some girls that good looks lie in skinniness with changing sexual orientation!

Runway models are not meant to be sexy things for men/lesbians to look at. They are odd-looking statues that queer designers hang their fruity "art" on. I don't know any woman who looks to runway models as a physical ideal to aspire to. There is a small, mostly internet based "pro-ana" subculture based around it, but those are mostly mentally unstable teenage girls. High fashion is its own universe, it isn't supposed to make sense to outsiders.

u r just pissed cause i am distilling down all your hard work into two words:

white power.

cause that's what ur site is. and im not crazy, u r- bb. and i bet ur ugly too.

sarika: yeah, I dont know anyone who wants to look like a fashion model either. so what if they're skinny? just let them be skinny- yeesh. most people dont give a shit about models or high fashion. and people who do get anorexia from looking at them, already have lots of problems.

and btw erik: u ignore the passage i posted. that makes you homophobic. bb.

white power,

Sárika: I agree that female high-fashion models are not supposed to appeal to heterosexual men or lesbians who are into feminine women. These models are obviously meant to appeal to the homosexual designers who find the looks of boys in their early adolescence aesthetically appealing, and this is an example of how outsiders can make perfect sense of why high-fashion models look the way they do. It is also true that most women are not convinced that these models have a highly desirable look, but something needs to be done to educate the minority of girls/women who mistakenly believe that attractiveness lies in skinniness or else skinny fashion models would not occupy the top rung among female models. If you go through this site, you will also realize that the aesthetic preferences of gay fashion designers affect the selection of lingerie models and beauty pageant contestants, too. Something needs to be done about this. If feminine women are needed, feminine ones should be used.

8D: I have not ignored Savage’s passage. Firstly, I cited a link showing that in spite of access to an abundance of food, the great majority of people in Western societies do not find skinniness appealing, refuting Savage’s contention. Secondly, I pointed out that Savage argues that molding someone’s perception of the elements of good looks is equivalent to molding one’s sexual orientation, and since the latter is obviously absurd, the former is absurd, too. The very equation is absurd to start with. To some extent people are obviously influenced by the social environment when it comes to believing what are good looks.


that means you were raised around inbred peepul. obviously.


"She said, "I spent one night talking to Kate Moss and she said the most amazing things about bodies. I didn't think I was going to like her, but she said, 'Do you know what I hate, Beth? When people tell my big girlfriends, 'You have a beautiful face.' That's a really radical concept."

A radical concept? Beth Ditto is not the sharpest tool in the music box. Obviously she had planned on hating Kate Moss because she is a skinny model. This would equate with Kate Moss expecting to hate Beth Ditto because she is an obese singer.

There is truth in 8D's statement about extra weight being exalted in poorer, hungrier societies. Slimness in exalted in wealthier societies, it seems to suggest an ability to resist temptation.

Why do models need to be physically attractive to heterosexual men? Do they have an avid interest in the latest collection of Hermes or Prada? The obscene wealth generated by this industry means that those who fork out will not hand over their cash to see extras from an M&S catalogue. They want to see fantasy, something unattainable. That is what drives the consumer society, that vague feeling that everything is just within reach if you spend a few more Euros, or lose a few more pounds. This is humanity, not homosexuality.

Debra: I do not dispute that in many non-Western societies, overweight is held in high regard, whereas in the West it is held in low regard, but this has nothing do why high-fashion models are typically very thin. Most Westerners don’t like the typical thinness of high-fashion models. It isn’t the attainability issue either. Overall thinness can be achieved by caloric restriction, but what behavioral changes would lead to a feminine pattern of fat distribution? A thin look isn’t the most difficult to achieve. Feminine beauty (with a healthy body weight) is the most difficult to achieve look. So why isn’t this look common among high-fashion models?

Debra: I forgot to add that what appeals to most men also appeals to most women as far as women’s looks go. So it isn’t that fashion models have to appeal to heterosexual men.

'You can never be too rich or too thin'. A quote from the duchess of Windsor who was 6ft under long before Kate Moss came on the scene.
Fashion models have always been thin because thin has always been in. Either the gay effect reaches back into the mists of time or women have held this physique in high regard long before the fashion houses. Sorry to bust your bubble guys, but it has little to do with you. Most women would chose a fashion model physique over a centrefold if they had to choose. The same way that men obviously pay little attention to the kind of buff physique that a women would admire.

Debra: You have ignored the literature that I have cited, and it shows that women generally do not differ from men in what they consider desirable in women’s looks. Fashion models’ looks have changed over time, and this is related to variation in the strength of the gay influence. High-fashion models haven’t been as thin on average in the past as in recent years.

What Eric says is true, Debra, and you need to read the research offered before you jump to hasty conclusions. The healthy thin feminine look- as opposed to sickly thin and dying thin unhealty puking look- IS the hardest to achieve and most unattainable for many women. But designers don't want that look because it's not to their liking for obvious reasons! Just because something's not politically correct doesn't make it untrue. Wake up and smell the coffee! There are also models and insiders out there from the industry who agree with Eric's theories and I have read this online. They can't all be lying, what would be the point?? Wake up.

Click here to post a new comment