link | Submitted by Whipped Honey on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 15:48.
Erik, Prove Rich Men Choose "Feminine" Women, Because I Don't Think They Do"
"It is not true that “in all times and places throughout human history, beauty has been defined in part as the physical signs of higher socioeconomic status (SES).” In Rome, the influx of Northern European slaves made the men flip for the light-haired, fair, fine-skinned and fine-featured Germanic women, and lots of native women ended up jealous, prompting a number of them to artificially lighten their hair and skin."
Erik, I said "in part". Not an absolute rule. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, the physical signs of higher SES are considered more beautiful.
"How can you conclude that Gabrielle’s breasts are fake?"
The signs that Gabrielle's breasts are fake:
1. The lower halves of her breasts are exact semi-circles, not a natural shape.
2. The extreme disproportionality of her breast size to her hip width; women with that much estrogen have wider hips.
Gabrielle's implants are well done in some ways, no roundness on top, no excessively high placement too close to her collarbone, no nipples pointing upwards, almost well done enough to pass for real, if not for those two giveaways. I know everything there is to know about natural breast development, having grown a big pair myself, and Gabrielle's are fake.
"You can look up more pictures of her if you wish."
I judged Gabrielle on the first pictures you posted on this page. She looks better in the link you posted in this comment, mainly because she is clothed and posed in such a way that the implants don't really show.
"Non-overweight masculinized women are bound to disproportionately have small breasts, porn stars tend to be masculinized women, and they need to look more feminine for the male viewership."
Here's why I don't buy that.
You claim fashion models are "masculinized" because the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men. So what's your explanation for why porn stars are "masculinized"? You cannot possibly claim the heterosexual porn industry is dominated by homosexual men!
Why would heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars? If you claim that most men who look at heterosexual pornography are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", then considering that the porn industry makes more profit than the legitimate film, television and music industries combined, what you are really claiming is that the MAJORITY of men are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" - which would contradict your claim that most men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals - or that most men "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" - which would mean that you, Erik, who *claim* you have no trouble escaping nonheterosexuality, do not represent the majority of men.
If you say heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars because somewhat "masculinized" women are more likely to be promiscuous and therefore more likely to do porn, then you contradict yourself because most of your "Attractive Women" gallery, including Gabrielle, are "nude models" who are quite willing to be photographed for public display with their genitalia showing, something NO non-promiscuous woman would EVER do. And many "nude models" secretly moonlight as porn stars and escort service prostitutes using different names, including one close friend of mine, so if you buy that "I'm just a nude model I don't do porn" nonsense, you're kidding yourself.
"Naturally, upper class women will be less inclined to be porn stars, but class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars."
The reason for the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is that, according to Jenna Jameson who should know, it is now almost impossible for a porn star to get top billing and box cover without breast implants. It has become a job requirement regardless of the woman's physical type. Yes, class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars, and that's not what I said; I said class is an issue behind the high frequency of *disproportional cartoon-character* implants among porn stars. Many legitimate film actresses get breast implants as well, but they are statistically less likely to come from the lower class than porn stars, and so most of them have the taste to choose implants at a fairly proportional size.
And no, porn stars don't need those exaggeratedly huge, ridiculous implants for the male viewership. Men's favorite size in implants is said to be C cups.
"Do I need to cite proof that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men?"
Yes, you do.
The entire crux of your argument is men are NATURALLY programmed to prefer women women who are "feminine" as you define it; if that is true, then the rich men who can have their pick of women would generally choose the more feminine ones. So prove it!
"Granted that not all rich men have hot wives, but in individual cases, there could be a number of reasons why: the man may not be a lifetime-exclusive heterosexual,
Unless you have statistical, not anecdotal, evidence that rich men are less likely than middle-class or poor men to be lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, there is no valid basis for using the "not exclusive lifetime heterosexual" excuse for the total absence of any evidence for your claim that rich men tend to marry "feminine" women.
the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife,
All the men I listed were rich/famous before they met their wives. Almost all men who are not born rich/famous but become so, are married to a woman they met after they became rich/famous because once they get rich/famous they trade in the first wife for a younger model.
"the man fell in love with his wife for reasons such as personality/compatibility (looks are not the basis for a long-term-stable relationship),"
You are backpedaling. You said "feminine" women are disproportionately taken by richer men; now the richer men choose a woman on the basis of something other than looks. If the ones who choose "feminine" women are the majority, at least give me some anecdotal evidence.
"or a super-rich man is wise enough to avoid the good looking gold diggers and go for a woman that is genuinely interested in him."
Plain women are gold diggers too, and rich men know that very well. No rich man is naive enough to think that he can avoid gold diggers by avoiding good looking women.
Erik, consider that your claim that richer men are more likely to choose "feminine" women might be mistaken. You haven't managed to produce any solid evidence of it, not even anecdotal evidence.
I listed eight very rich men with at least $100 million and non-"feminine" wives whom they married after they got rich and who have never been rumored to be anything other than heterosexual. Here are some more:
Billionaire Peter Brandt and his wife Stephanie Seymour
Canadian media mogul David Thomson, 10th richest man in the world, and his fiancee actress Kelly Rowan
Rock star Paul McCartney and his wife Linda
Rock star John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono
Rock star George Harrison and his wife Olivia
Rock star
Rock star Keith Richards and his wife Patti Hansen
Rock star Sting and his wife Trudi Styler
Rock star Steven Tyler and his wife Theresa
Director Steven Speilberg and his wife Kate Capshaw
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson
Actor Harrison Ford and his fiancee Calista Flockhart
Actor Clint Eastwood and his wife Dina Ruiz
Actor Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward
Actor Robert Deniro and his wife Grace Hightower
Prince Felipe of Spain and his wife Princess Letizia
Prince Michael of Kent and his wife Princess Michael
8+14, that's 22 so far.
And I could think of many more if I were willing to spend the time.
Can you come up with a list of even just 10 men who have at least $100 million who are married to "feminine" women?
:bug:
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
Erik, Prove Rich Men Choose "Feminine" Women, Because I Don't Think They Do"
Erik, I said "in part". Not an absolute rule. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, the physical signs of higher SES are considered more beautiful.
The signs that Gabrielle's breasts are fake:
1. The lower halves of her breasts are exact semi-circles, not a natural shape.
2. The extreme disproportionality of her breast size to her hip width; women with that much estrogen have wider hips.
Gabrielle's implants are well done in some ways, no roundness on top, no excessively high placement too close to her collarbone, no nipples pointing upwards, almost well done enough to pass for real, if not for those two giveaways. I know everything there is to know about natural breast development, having grown a big pair myself, and Gabrielle's are fake.
I judged Gabrielle on the first pictures you posted on this page. She looks better in the link you posted in this comment, mainly because she is clothed and posed in such a way that the implants don't really show.
Here's why I don't buy that.
You claim fashion models are "masculinized" because the fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men. So what's your explanation for why porn stars are "masculinized"? You cannot possibly claim the heterosexual porn industry is dominated by homosexual men!
Why would heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars? If you claim that most men who look at heterosexual pornography are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" or "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality", then considering that the porn industry makes more profit than the legitimate film, television and music industries combined, what you are really claiming is that the MAJORITY of men are "not lifetime exclusive heterosexuals" - which would contradict your claim that most men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals - or that most men "narrowly escaped nonheterosexuality" - which would mean that you, Erik, who *claim* you have no trouble escaping nonheterosexuality, do not represent the majority of men.
If you say heterosexual men pay to look at "masculinized" female porn stars because somewhat "masculinized" women are more likely to be promiscuous and therefore more likely to do porn, then you contradict yourself because most of your "Attractive Women" gallery, including Gabrielle, are "nude models" who are quite willing to be photographed for public display with their genitalia showing, something NO non-promiscuous woman would EVER do. And many "nude models" secretly moonlight as porn stars and escort service prostitutes using different names, including one close friend of mine, so if you buy that "I'm just a nude model I don't do porn" nonsense, you're kidding yourself.
The reason for the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars is that, according to Jenna Jameson who should know, it is now almost impossible for a porn star to get top billing and box cover without breast implants. It has become a job requirement regardless of the woman's physical type. Yes, class is not an issue behind the high frequency of breast implants among porn stars, and that's not what I said; I said class is an issue behind the high frequency of *disproportional cartoon-character* implants among porn stars. Many legitimate film actresses get breast implants as well, but they are statistically less likely to come from the lower class than porn stars, and so most of them have the taste to choose implants at a fairly proportional size.
And no, porn stars don't need those exaggeratedly huge, ridiculous implants for the male viewership. Men's favorite size in implants is said to be C cups.
Yes, you do.
The entire crux of your argument is men are NATURALLY programmed to prefer women women who are "feminine" as you define it; if that is true, then the rich men who can have their pick of women would generally choose the more feminine ones. So prove it!
Unless you have statistical, not anecdotal, evidence that rich men are less likely than middle-class or poor men to be lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, there is no valid basis for using the "not exclusive lifetime heterosexual" excuse for the total absence of any evidence for your claim that rich men tend to marry "feminine" women.
the man wasn’t rich/famous before he met his wife,
All the men I listed were rich/famous before they met their wives. Almost all men who are not born rich/famous but become so, are married to a woman they met after they became rich/famous because once they get rich/famous they trade in the first wife for a younger model.
You are backpedaling. You said "feminine" women are disproportionately taken by richer men; now the richer men choose a woman on the basis of something other than looks. If the ones who choose "feminine" women are the majority, at least give me some anecdotal evidence.
Plain women are gold diggers too, and rich men know that very well. No rich man is naive enough to think that he can avoid gold diggers by avoiding good looking women.
Erik, consider that your claim that richer men are more likely to choose "feminine" women might be mistaken. You haven't managed to produce any solid evidence of it, not even anecdotal evidence.
I listed eight very rich men with at least $100 million and non-"feminine" wives whom they married after they got rich and who have never been rumored to be anything other than heterosexual. Here are some more:
Billionaire Peter Brandt and his wife Stephanie Seymour
Canadian media mogul David Thomson, 10th richest man in the world, and his fiancee actress Kelly Rowan
Rock star Paul McCartney and his wife Linda
Rock star John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono
Rock star George Harrison and his wife Olivia
Rock star
Rock star Keith Richards and his wife Patti Hansen
Rock star Sting and his wife Trudi Styler
Rock star Steven Tyler and his wife Theresa
Director Steven Speilberg and his wife Kate Capshaw
Actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson
Actor Harrison Ford and his fiancee Calista Flockhart
Actor Clint Eastwood and his wife Dina Ruiz
Actor Paul Neuman and his wife Joanne Woodward
Actor Robert Deniro and his wife Grace Hightower
Prince Felipe of Spain and his wife Princess Letizia
Prince Michael of Kent and his wife Princess Michael
8+14, that's 22 so far.
And I could think of many more if I were willing to spend the time.
Can you come up with a list of even just 10 men who have at least $100 million who are married to "feminine" women?
:bug: