Should over-thin models be banned from fashion shows? [QueenConcerts]

Should over-thin models be banned from fashion shows?

YourValentine 18.09.2006 06:15	"Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has called for "stick-thin" models to be banned from the catwalks during London Fashion Week. It comes after Madrid's fashion week, one of Spain's most prestigious shows, banned underweight models on the basis of their body mass index (BMI). Ms Jowell said "stick-thin" models pressurised girls to starve themselves. But the British Fashion Council (BFC), which runs the event, said it would not tell designers how to run their shows. United Nations health experts recommend a BMI of between 18.5 and about 25, but some models fall well below the minimum. The fashion industry is hugely powerful in shaping the attitude of teenage girls and their feelings about themselves Tessa Jowell, Culture Secretary The Spanish Association of Fashion Designers decided to ban models who had a BMI of less than 18. Ms Jowell urged the BFC to follow this example when the London show opens on Monday. She said: "The fashion industry's promotion of beauty as meaning stick thin is damaging to young girls' self image and to their health. "The fashion industry is hugely powerful in shaping the attitude of teenage girls and their feelings about themselves. "I applaud the decision taken by Madrid to ban super-thin models, and urge the organisers of London Fashion Week to do the same." But the BFC said in a statement it "does not comment or interfere in the aesthetic of any designer's show". (from link What do you think - should the freedom of the designers to choose their models and set fashion standards be respected or should steps be taken to protect young women from dangerous role models? I think we are talking about models like this one link
deleted user 18.09.2006 06:53	This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the girl is actually unhealthy, I agree that she should not be allowed to model, just as an athlete taking steroids should not be allowed to play. But I'm sure there are girls who may have a BMI of, say 17.1, that are perfectly fine. Yeah, like me. Of course, I'm not model material, but the point remains.
AspiringPhilosophe 18.09.2006 06:56	This is an interesting question....I heard about this ban from the show last week. To a certain extent, if the fashion designers are making clothes that are cut for women who are that thin, there isn't too much that can be done. If you have to be a size 0 to fit into their clothes, than that's that. However, these designers do hold a tremendous amount of sway over public opinion of what the ideal image of a woman is and should be, and for too long I think the image has been way too thin. I think the designers know that they have this power, and for some reason they continue to make clothes for uber-skinny models as a way to motivate people (when it normally does the opposite). If it takes these fashion show organizers cutting designers from their shows in order to make them understand the danger they are posing, then maybe that's what it will take. We've given them enough time to see the harm that they are doing, and they've done nothing. Perhaps a swift kick in the wallet (and condemnation from the bigger shows) will make them see. But I wish they'd use something other than the BMI to go on...most doctors agree today that the BMI system is crap. According to that thing, Shaq is obese for his height/weight ratio (and he's all muscle). They ought to use something like waist-hip ratio, which is a better indicator.
deleted user 18.09.2006 07:30	I can't find anything definite on what waist-to-hip ration "means", would you happen to know anything or have a link-y ? Just curious, as I've never really heard of this before !
Lisser 18.09.2006 08:52	This is interesting....I'll have to think about what my answer would be for a little bit.
FriedChicken 18.09.2006 08:59	I think they should. It's a disgrace to let girls and adult woman think that that is the way a woman should look. And that extremely thin is the way men want them to look.
Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 09:09	ABSOLUTELY! It was time that someone put a halt on the fashion industry. I for once I'm absolutely fed up with hearing from my girlfriend, cousins, and female friends how miserable they feel about the way they look when they feel perfectly fine. They might say that they don't allow the media to influence their perspective on how a woman should look, but the truth of the matter is that they do. Supermodels are the last people on earth that women should think about modeling themselves after.
Togg 18.09.2006 09:16	As the father of a young girl i have to say that I believe a lot comes from the way you bring up a child and how you give them a balanced view of the world. There is no doubt that there are huge pressures on young girls to look thin from the media and from peers, however, if the girl has a strong self belief and a solid grounding from her family she will be better equipped to cope, I'm not saying that is all you need, but the ability to be able to look beyond the tabloids and see the real world is vital. I am fortunate that I can send my daughter to a school of my choice where I believe she gets nurtured in such a way that will help boost her confidence, this no-doubt will help her in the long run, but never under estimate the value of the early years, they are the time when children start to form there whole views on life, and a supportive open minded parent makes a world of difference, take them out show them the world and encourage them in everything they do. Do I feel it is right to ban thin models, too little too late, and frankly it will not change the way women are portrayed in the media, I think they should try to have a balance, after all many girls are naturally thin, just as many are naturally fat, so why not design for them all?
eenaweena 18.09.2006 09:54	i guess they should. these models may look pretty, but there is a tendency for people to get the wrong idea of how a woman should look. have you seen the dove ad? i love it. it's so real. not like the ones you see on... vogue for example.
YourValentine 18.09.2006 10:30	I agree with ever word, Togg and I think banning is always the very last resort. However, the models we saw in the New York fashion shows last week are not "naturally thin", they look starved. To me they also do not look pretty.. Here are some pics from the net link link link link link This is not healthy and to think that teenage girls think they have to look that way to be successful and accepted is frightening. Something has to be done. How sick is a society when highly paid models look like poor starving people in Ethiopia (for example). I know it's not only the models, there are celebrities (for example Victoria Beckham) who also look like that.
its_a_hard_life 26994 18.09.2006 10:32	^ Those pictures are SICK. Not one of them is pretty. They are ugly.
Lisser 18.09.2006 10:49	Nicole Ritchie also is extremely thin. Some reports say she is only 85 pounds. It is definitely a psychosis. I do agree with Togg that some women are naturally thin and also need clothing that fits them well, but I don't believe the looks of most models is how nature intended them to look. I think it is starvation. Something ought to be done to sway this popular look but I'm not sure what. Mostly, these women are adults and it is assumed that they are able to make rational decisions for their own health and eating habits. The pictures don't lie though.
AspiringPhilosophe 18.09.2006 10:51	<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I can't find anything definite on what waist-to-hip ration "means", would you happen to know anything or have a link-y ? Just curious, as I've never really heard of this before ! Sure! The waist to hip ratio is a method of measurement which indicates how much fat you store around your middle. Scientific studies have now indicated that how much fat you store here is a greater indicator of possible health problems later than the BMI index. There are links here: link
Janet 18.09.2006 11:36	I am always aghast when I see women who wear sizes 12-14 (USA sizes) described as "plus size" models! Marilyn Monroe wore a size 12! Elizabeth Hurley once said that if she was as big as Marilyn Monroe was, that she'd want to die. Very sad.
Togg 18.09.2006 11:48	Personally I felt is was a great shame when Sophie Dahl slimmed down she was much more attractive with a little weight on her hips. Hopefully this will prove to be just a fashion trend that will come and go, however I doubt much will change when it comes to how women are seen in the media. They will always be shown as perfect in the eyes of artists, producers, art directors, magazine editors etc, however every now and then we get a glimmer of hope when someone like Ana Matronic (The Scissor Sisters) shows up and seems happy (not to mention sexy) to be a little more substantial! shall we say.
Mr.Jingles 18.09.2006 12:22	A MESSAGE TO WOMEN: Don't take advice from gay guys on how you should look. Most men like women with meat on their bones.
pma 18.09.2006 14:32	Mr.Jingles wrote: A MESSAGE TO WOMEN: Don't take advice from gay guys on how you should look. Most men like women with meat on their bones. Yes, ban all skinny models. I don't know why some women want to have figures similar to young men (disgusting). Only a (likely gay) fashion designer can find that sexy. Wait, was that statement homophobic of me. I'll compensate and give a random man a blowjob. Done.
SallyJ. 18.09.2006 16:34	A lot of girls and women are brought up with the idea that all you really need to be/do as a woman, is be pretty. It's also very annoying that in this world of today, women still are not valued for who they are, how intelligent they are, how kind they are, but for the way they look. It's degrading. We women are much more than a body. The extremely thin models that are on the catwalks of the world, send out the message "THIS is what's being pretty and attractive is all about, look at me!" It's utterly silly, if you think about it. After all, it should be about the clothes they are showing, and not about them. And not just that, it's a very unrealistic message they are sending out. Young girls (and adult women as well) think they have to starve themselves in order to look 'beautiful'. Girls and women who look perfectly fine and have a perfectly fine weight, think they are ugly and fat. So in my view, it's not only a matter of what parents teach the children (boys and girls, both) but also think about the message that these skinny models are giving them. edit Oh I forgot to answer YV's question! No I don't think skinny models should be banned. I agree with Togg, there should be skinny models, medium sized models, big models, small models, huge models. Models in all shapes and sizes and colours. Because people come in all shapes, sizes and colours.
AspiringPhilosophe 18.09.2006 17:03	Togg wrote: Personally I felt is was a great shame when Sophie Dahl slimmed down she was much more attractive with a little weight on her hips. Hopefully this will prove to be just a fashion trend that will come and go, however I doubt much will change when it comes to how women are seen in the media. They will always be shown as perfect in the eyes of artists, producers, art directors, magazine editors etc, however every now and then we get a glimmer of hope when someone like Ana Matronic (The Scissor Sisters) shows up and seems happy (not to mention sexy) to be a little more substantial! shall we say. Thanks for the message about Ana Matronic. I've heard of the Scissor Sisters before, but I'd never seen them. I google image searched her, and now feel a whole lot better about the way I look after seeing how good she looks. Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks looked better when she was bigger too. Trust me, it sucks being on a college campus and being surrounded by all of the women who look like those stick thin models. You can't help but compare yourself...which I know is bad. We definately need more people that are "bigger" out there in the public eye (I HATE to call someone Ana's size bigger...she's normal sized to me!) Thank goodness the modeling world is at least talking about the problem now, that's the first step to solving any problems.
deleted user 18.09.2006 17:18	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: <font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I can't find anything definite on what waist-to-hip ration "means", would you happen to know anything or have a link-y ? Just curious, as I've never really heard of this before ! Sure! The waist to hip ratio is a method of measurement which indicates how much fat you store around your middle. Scientific studies have now indicated that how much fat you store here is a greater indicator of possible health problems later than the BMI index. There are links here: link Neat ! Thanks ! Ooo... I think I DO remember this... Hey, this is a bit random, but I've been to CMU (not enrolled, just visiting). The Auditorium building was very nice. link ^ This was a good book that I once read.
AspiringPhilosophe 19.09.2006 10:42	<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: <font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I can't find anything definite on what waist-to-hip ration "means", would you happen to know anything or have a link-y ? Just curious, as I've never really heard of this before ! Sure! The waist to hip ratio is a method of measurement which indicates how much fat you store around your middle. Scientific studies have now indicated that how much fat you store here is a greater indicator of possible health problems later than the BMI index. There are links here: link Neat ! Thanks ! Ooo... I think I DO remember this... Hey, this is a bit random, but I've been to CMU (not enrolled, just visiting). The Auditorium building was very nice. link ^ This was a good book that I once read. Not a random thing at all! CMU is a really nice campus. Which auditorium where you in? Plachta in Warriner Hall or one of the smaller ones in the library? Or there are some in the music building too....if you don't remember, you can describe the building and I'll figure it out. I've seen that book before, btw. If I didn't have 31 books to read for the semester, I'd pick it up for sure. Interesting note on this subject too...while I was at lunch with Jaap and my PAT friends (PAT is the national Historians Honors Society and Jaap is an exchange student from The Netherlands) we were talking about thin people and stuff. Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing.
Micrówave 19.09.2006 12:25	I'll bet a lot of the people complaining are simply fat. What do you mean Ban? The market is there and people pay top dollar for the clothes so what is the big deal? Who died? Nobody. Who is making money? The model. The designer. The manufacturer. There are fat models too. What about those three 400 pound hogs on the postcards? Should we ban them too? I have a better idea. Ban TV, books, and music from the people who want to ban something.
Mr.Jingles 19.09.2006 12:28	Mircrowave! wrote: I'll bet a lot of the people complaining are simply fat. I love my flabby gut. Personally I'd much rather grab love handles than bones.
Micrówave 19.09.2006 12:30	a little cushion...
pma 20.09.2006 03:55	Mircrowave! wrote: I'll bet a lot of the people complaining are simply fat. Oh my, that's a nice assumption.
RETROLOVE 20.09.2006 05:51	I think as long as a person is healthy thats all that really matters!
Togg 20.09.2006 06:11	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Togg wrote: Personally I felt is was a great shame when Sophie Dahl slimmed down she was much more attractive with a little weight on her hips. Hopefully this will prove to be just a fashion trend that will come and go, however I doubt much will change when it comes to how women are seen in the media. They will always be shown as perfect in the eyes of artists, producers, art directors, magazine editors etc, however every now and then we get a glimmer of hope when someone like Ana Matronic (The Scissor Sisters) shows up and seems happy (not to mention sexy) to be a little more substantial! shall we say. Thanks for the message about Ana Matronic. I've heard of the Scissor Sisters before, but I'd never seen them. I google image searched her, and now feel a whole lot better about the way I look after seeing how good she looks. Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks looked better when she was bigger too. Trust me, it sucks being on a college campus and being surrounded by all of the women who look like those stick thin models. You can't help but compare yourself...which I know is bad. We definately need more people that are "bigger" out there in the public eye (I HATE to call someone Ana's size bigger...she's normal sized to me!) Thank goodness the modeling world is at least talking about the problem now, that's the first step to solving any problems. Trust me if you look like her in terms of size you have nothing to worry about, she is totally normal, it's just that we are all so used to seeing girls look much thinner on the TV. She is the way a health girl should look!
AspiringPhilosophe 20.09.2006 06:57	Mircrowave! wrote: I'll bet a lot of the people complaining are simply fat. What do you mean Ban? The market is there and people pay top dollar for the clothes so what is the big deal? Who died? Nobody. Who is making money? The model. The designer. The manufacturer. There are fat models too. What about those three 400 pound hogs on the postcards? Should we ban them too? I have a better idea. Ban TV, books, and music from the people who want to ban something. First of all, that's a false assumption that in no way helps your arguement, although you have proven what most politicans do...that insulting people is better than actually putting together a decent argument. Who died? Do I need to make a list of all of the wannabe modles that died from complications because they were so thin (or drug use like cocaine to kill their appetite and make them thinner?) Who is making money? You are right here. But there are so many models who admit later that they were miserable and unhealthy in their "prime". We aren't talking about banning the models altogether...we are talking about one show banning it, and not because they think it looks gross, but because they are unhealthy. You don't see people glorifying smoking and being five hundred pounds for the same reason....it's not healthy. There's still a market out there for those waif thin people, and probably always will be. This show is simply attempting to take the spotlight off them, which is not neccesarily a bad thing. Like it or not, most people are very insecure and need role models, and these are unfortunately the ones that a lot of girls look up to. Health first, looks second is all this show is saying, and I happen to agree.
Mr. Scully 20.09.2006 07:38	Banning? Probably not. But the designers must understand that while there's no demand for fat models, there's also no demand for thin girls. Yes, we DO want to see SLIM girls - but with proper curves! Not a boy-like ass or missing breasts. A model 170 cm tall should weigh 55-60 kg. Not 45, not 70. It's quite a simple math.
blerp 20.09.2006 08:02	After looking at those pictures, I can't believe that some people thought that I was unhealthy like that. People should look at models a bit more closely.
Poo, again 20.09.2006 08:24	I'd like Fat Bottomed Girls, please.
YourValentine 20.09.2006 09:00	Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. Designers use these girls as walking clothes-hooks and seem to ignore the fact that they are dealing with living human beings. The fashion industry has to recognize the desastrous consequences of presenting such extremely thin girls as models. Although such "role models" are certainly not the reason for anorexia and other eating disorders - it also does not help to overcome this very frequent disease among young girls who are manipulated into thinking they need to be that thin to be attractive.
AspiringPhilosophe 20.09.2006 09:44	Thanks for the compliment, and I totally agree with you! You can't fall into the trap of saying that all eating disorders come from this...but it certainly is a big factor.
Lisser 20.09.2006 10:05	I agree with CMUgirl also. I think Cindy Crawford always looked great and she still does. I don't think she is too thin or too heavy (certainly not). I think some designers go for the shock factor, with the overly thin, overly ugly, overly made up models and the clothing they are displaying. I mean look at the outfits they are modeling in these shows. I would never buy any of the outfits I see these girls modeling even if I had the money to buy them. I saw one model that was wearing something that made her look like a peacock. Feathers about five feet above her head. It was odd to say the least. Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to?
Mr.Jingles 20.09.2006 12:15	YourValentine wrote: Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits. Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence.
user name 20.09.2006 13:26	Mr.Jingles wrote: YourValentine wrote: Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits. Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence. In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything. It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this.
AspiringPhilosophe 20.09.2006 14:12	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Mr.Jingles wrote: YourValentine wrote: Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. I do get your point but models were not forced to get into that type of career, and everybody knows that it requires certain restrictions on their eating habits. Then again, supermodels are supermodels because they don't have enough brains to follow a career that requires a certain degree of intelligence. In the same vein as to what you said, I have no sympathy for models who suffer due to the line of work that they willingly place themselves into. They are not getting paid for who they are, or what skills they have (and certainly not for their intelligence). They are getting paid for their body, and if they don't like being objectified like that, then they are in the wrong business. Secondly, if you are getting paid to simply look good, you have no right to even begin to complain about anything. It would be like if Brian May complained that he needed to know how to play the guitar in order to be in Queen. And even worse, banning such models would be like people supporting him and trying to get non-guitarists and non-musicians to play lead guitar for popular music bands. Brian May sure complains about a lot - more or less everything - but he's sure as hell not stupid enough to have complained about this. I agree with both Jingles and MusicMan. I'm not sorry for these women at all...they chose this "career" path, so they get no sympathy from me at all about their "problems". What I object to is the fact that they are projecting this image that isn't at all healthy as the "ideal". Anyone who is willing to base their entire life around how they look is going to have to prepare for a long, hard fall. That's why I hated the parents like the Ramseys, who basically taught their daughter Jon Benet that her looks were her life. What do you think would have happend to her when she hit 35 or so and her looks started to fade out? She'd have probably done what most of the models do...major plastic surgery addicts or nervous breakdowns. Anyone who chooses the path of modeling can't whine to me about their issues....I don't care. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it, and that's that.
deleted user 20.09.2006 15:16	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Which auditorium where you in? Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing. It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way). And the Victorian England thing... makes squinchy face ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)... Lisser wrote: Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? Church. No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women. Like this : link and link Or : link Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : link Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival...
Lisser 20.09.2006 15:47	<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Which auditorium where you in? Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing. It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way). And the Victorian England thing... makes squinchy face ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)... Lisser wrote: Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? Church. No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women. Like this : link and link Or : link Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : link Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival... Those types of outfits and the make-up are exactly what I'm talking about. What the hell??!! I wonder how much money that make-up "artist" got for putting that liptstick all over that model's face instead of on her lips. How much did the hair "stylist" get for teasing her hair up in to a rat's nest? Bleh.
Mr.Jingles 20.09.2006 17:24	If I ever see Tyra Banks on the catwalk i would toss a fuckin' dolphin.
AspiringPhilosophe 20.09.2006 18:37	<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Which auditorium where you in? Kevin, who studies Victorian England, was telling me that back then, the ideal of feminine beauty was for a man to be able to touch his fingers around the wasit of a woman, thus the whole corset thing. It had wood-panels on the walls... and a door in the wall on the right that appeared to lead back-stage... and oh... gosh... The doors that lead inside were about aligned with the auditorium ones... and there were also two hallways, with the men's room on one side, and the women's the opposite direction (which I found out the hard way). And the Victorian England thing... makes squinchy face ewwwww. I would hope for a man with large hands (you know what they say -)... Lisser wrote: Do people really buy these clothes or costumes, whatever they are? If so, where do you wear a peacock outfit to? Church. No, I totally agree with you. A lot of things that appear on fashion runways are in NO WAY representative of what a normal person would wear. Just like the models are not representative of normal women. Like this : link and link Or : link Fashion Designers - please do not stay up late doing coke and watching Dark City : link Oh dear... I just realised that the "peacock outfit" sounds almost EXACTLY like something I saw a girl wearing at a Renaissance Festival... Sounds like Plachta....which would make sense. It's the bigger and fancier one. That's right in the middle of campus. And the Victorian thing, yeah, it's true. It was also a piece of womanly advice that she should marry a guy with big hands for that very reason. But things were alittle screwy back then...like they had whole manuals on who you should marry and why. Like me? I'm a red head, so I'm volitile in temper and should marry a man with black hair to balance me out. And I've got blue eyes, which means I'm fragile, so I should marry another man with blue eyes, according to the manual.
Carol! the Musical 20.09.2006 19:23	I think if they are, in fact, very unhealthy they should be banned until they get the help they need. But not all thin girls should be banned. Some have fast metabolisms and their slim physique(?) has nothing to do with anorexia or bulimia. And if it was their dream to model, it seems mighty unfair to keep them from doing what they love because of the girls who want to look like that. They need to understand that a lot of the time, it's actually genetics doing the trick. But anyone can lose weight through healthy diet if they really want to. :-) And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill.
*Marial-B* 20.09.2006 20:35	Okay... my honest opinion: I know how is to be thin and be called unhealthy. I was in a mayor depression post break up last year. I lost 6Kg, and gone of 50Kg. to 44Kg. The main reason was the crying all day. But I gained weight, I have 48Kg. now and I eat 5 times a day. I have tried to reach my goal to have the weight I had before, but it's getting difficult. I talked with my personal doc about my health and it seems to be fine. I even thought I was becoming anorexic, but it seems I wasn't, it was my body who wasn't asimilating the food I was eating, and believe me I eat a lot of junk food I can find in the market out there :P.
AspiringPhilosophe 21.09.2006 10:11	<font color=660066>Fredlilah<h6>12345678 wrote: I think if they are, in fact, very unhealthy they should be banned until they get the help they need. But not all thin girls should be banned. Some have fast metabolisms and their slim physique(?) has nothing to do with anorexia or bulimia. And if it was their dream to model, it seems mighty unfair to keep them from doing what they love because of the girls who want to look like that. They need to understand that a lot of the time, it's actually genetics doing the trick. But anyone can lose weight through healthy diet if they really want to. :-) And moving to the purpose of the art of modeling... on this basis I don't think they should be banned, because their bodies are, in fact, beautiful. Unless, like stated earlier, they are seriously ill. Exactly the point. Even though they are using BMI to indicate the health of the models, which has been outdated and is currently out of favor in the medical community as a measuring stick for this kind of thing, only the ones who have unhealthy levels are getting banned. If those models are told they are banned for that, that should spur them to get to the doctor and find out why. Granted genetics can have something to do with it, but if genetics is making them that skinny that it's unhealthy, then there is a major problem with their metabolism that needs to be fixed. I'd like to see them move to the waist hip ratio, because it's a better indicator of overall health than the BMI. And the art....beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I may not be as slim as I want to be (but I am by no means big), but if I can look at a girl or guy standing still and I can see ribs....that's not pretty. That's too skinny.
john bodega 21.09.2006 11:28	Honestly. Who wants to see a Biafran on a catwalk? I don't know who says it's attractive to have so many bones showing, and I don't know how it sells clothes, but I'm baffled.
The Real Wizard 24.09.2006 14:34	They don't want attractive women wearing the clothes, simply because people will look at the women, not the clothes. And they won't choose overweight people, because in our culture, most people won't look at the clothes because they're busy pointing out that the person is overweight. Therefore, the only option is to use incredibly skinny people, as less people will comment on someone being "too skinny" than "too fat". It's the selfish needs of the fashion world that exploit people for their own financial needs. Simple as that.
user name 24.09.2006 16:22	Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: They don't want attractive women wearing the clothes, simply because people will look at the women, not the clothes. And they won't choose overweight people, because in our culture, most people won't look at the clothes because they're busy pointing out that the person is overweight. Therefore, the only option is to use incredibly skinny people, as less people will comment on someone being "too skinny" than "too fat". It's the selfish needs of the fashion world that exploit people for their own financial needs. Simple as that. Those who become models have just as well signed a paper that says, "Please exploit me." I mean, come on, the entire job description is basically, "You will donate your body to us, where we will use it at your expense." If you're stupid enough to become a model, it's your own problem. I can't blame the fashion industry for taking advantage of this.
Donna13 24.09.2006 18:07	I wouldn't make any assumptions about how smart or stupid the models are. They are just following instructions to lose weight - just like a football player or ballet dancer follows instructions regarding their body. It's the instructions (from the modeling agencies) that need to change.
The Real Wizard 25.09.2006 00:14	I have to agree with Music Man. You have to give people a little credit. Yes, the system is in place, and in theory it could change. But there is no gun to the models' heads. They chose their jobs all on their own, and it's probably because they were handed a hefty cheque - in exchange for a significant portion of their health, among other things.
sparrow 21754 25.09.2006 00:54	now, im 5'7" almost and i weigh 115ish more or less. im a little underweight but i eat quite a bit. people worry about me because i look thin. truth is im fine! i could eat a banquet if i wanted to! it saddens me to see that these girls are considered 'pretty' by forcing theirselves to go under some influence to make theirselves into some THING and not a beautiful NATURAL human being. i like the way i look but honestly i wish i had a little more meat on my bones but my metabolism is too fast. it hurts to sit on bones! it hurts to lie down on the floor and have your own hips stab you! i dont know why anyone owuld voluntarily like to be like that...ladies, a little bit more on your bones is BEAUTIFUL! evolution can tell you guys love that more becasue it meant you could carry their babies and be a strong mother and caretaker! plus its more comfortable to not sit on bones :) and when you sit on someones lap or give them a hug you wont stab them with your ribs or shoulders or non existant butt. and guys like boobs. so a word of advice, NOBODY should put theirselves thru a vanity disease or drugs to look like something horrible jsut becasue someone thinks a rail is fatter than a twig. i would like to think most women are smarter to not think that their natural bodies that god gave them arent good enough because a magazine told them so....unfortunaly the media shoves things down the easily molded's throats.... so NATURAL and HEALTHY is beautiful. THAT shoud be the 'in' thing....not sickly.
john bodega 25.09.2006 05:21	Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: They don't want attractive women wearing the clothes, simply because people will look at the women, not the clothes. And they won't choose overweight people, because in our culture, most people won't look at the clothes because they're busy pointing out that the person is overweight. Therefore, the only option is to use incredibly skinny people, as less people will comment on someone being "too skinny" than "too fat". It's the selfish needs of the fashion world that exploit people for their own financial needs. Simple as that. In a logical world I'd agree with this, but you can't underestimate the value of a good body here and there. I remember our Miss Universe's gown fell off once on a catwalk and everyone saw her g-string as she ran away, and I'm pretty sure the logos in the background were of the company that made the stuff she was wearing. You can bloody bet they got a jump in business after that, because I sure as shit remember it and I hate advertising!
AspiringPhilosophe 25.09.2006 09:39	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: They don't want attractive women wearing the clothes, simply because people will look at the women, not the clothes. And they won't choose overweight people, because in our culture, most people won't look at the clothes because they're busy pointing out that the person is overweight. Therefore, the only option is to use incredibly skinny people, as less people will comment on someone being "too skinny" than "too fat". It's the selfish needs of the fashion world that exploit people for their own financial needs. Simple as that. Those who become models have just as well signed a paper that says, "Please exploit me." I mean, come on, the entire job description is basically, "You will donate your body to us, where we will use it at your expense." If you're stupid enough to become a model, it's your own problem. I can't blame the fashion industry for taking advantage of this. Definately have to agree with both of you here...these models get no sympathy at all from me. The system does need to change, and that's why this banning of the over-skinny models is a good thing...it's a step in the right direction towards that end. At the end of the day, there is a sucker born every minute, and there will always be someone out there waiting to exploit them. Anyone shallow enough to put their entire career and livelihood on how they look is destined for a fall, and they'll get no pity from me. As far as athletes and ballarinas go...they are actually doing something that they love to do, and thus most of them are pretty happy. Models are just fancy hangers for clothes, they aren't doing anything but making themselves rich and unhealthy and miserable. That's not happiness to me.
Mr.Jingles 25.09.2006 12:12	No wonder why they only fuck drug addicted rock stars, actors and other types of screwed up celebrities. Supermodels are quite simply brainless.
Micrówave 25.09.2006 13:00	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: these models get no sympathy at all from me. The system does need to change, and that's why this banning of the over-skinny models is a good thing Huh? No sympathy? But your next sentence clearly states that it's not the model's fault, right? Then why is banning necessary? Who's responsibility is the care of YOUR OWN BODY??? Now you want to inflict rules and fines and bans because somebody chose a certain career? Punish a company for an individual's choice? When do we start holding ourselves accountable? So now if football players die because of weight related issues, then it's the Green Bay Packers fault for trying to condition the toughest, best atheletes on the field? So then we should ban football, at least by teams who practice hard and have a strict dietary regimin, right? How exactly will you be able to sell "flag football" to the general public?
Micrówave 25.09.2006 13:11	YourValentine wrote: Very good post, CMU HistoryGirl. It's really not about aesthetics, it's about abusing people. What? I have to say I'm a little suprised at you. Nobody is abusing anybody except the individual. Are these manufacturers (abusers you say) holding these model's families hostage? The problem with so many things today is that no one wants to be accountable for THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Simply quit the job!!!! If you can walk away from something with no reprocussions, IT IS NOT ABUSE. There are people in the world truly suffering from abuse. How bout worrying about banning starvation in Africa or child abuse in the Far East?
YourValentine 25.09.2006 15:54	Really, Microwave - this kind of discussing would kill ANY sort of criticism: Don't look if you don't like it, nobody forced the models to hurt their own body, it's all for money, other people have it worse etc etc. I think things go wrong in the fashion industry and - yes I think that models are abused even if they are paid well and that was not even the issue in the first place. The issue was the impact such models have on young girls who are looking up to them as role models. As a member of Human Rights Watch I don't need to be told about the extent of the abuse, exploitation and discrimination of women and children all over the world. But that was not the topic of this thread. Abuse is no less abuse when there are much worse cases elsewhere.
Donna13 25.09.2006 16:03	Well, this brings up another can of worms, but football players (American football) do risk their lives at every game. Does this make them stupid? I've heard some of them say that they wouldn't want their sons to play the game. It was their way out of poverty. (Did anyone force them to play? No. But it got them a college education, a house, money to take care of a family.) The injuries to the knees are the least of their health risks I believe. Internal injuries (and head and neck injuries) are a real risk. And what are football players? Glorified gladiators? There for the sole purpose of satisfying the couch potato's lust for a bit of violence? Same with race car drivers. Boxers. No more stupid, I'd say than models. All are lucrative professions if you are successful, but all are good ways to risk your health. Saying models are stupid is quite sexist, I'm afraid. Fashion is no more rediculous than football in my opinion. Millions of dollars are wasted on both.
Micrówave 25.09.2006 18:01	Yes, the topic of the thread was BANNING. No offense, YV, I was merely trying to ask Where do we draw the line? ...and was surprised that you would be FOR banning parts of an industry so close to the music industry. I don't see how "The Fashion Industry" is to blame in your point, and others here. These people had a choice. Abuse happens when you DON'T have a choice, wouldn't you agree? Then why ban? Plus, what have we "banned" in the past that has been a good thing? Drugs? Yeah, that worked! Music & Arts? Now listen to the radio! Nudity on half-time shows? Made a lot of people rich. I'm not PRO boney models, but I don't think ANYONE has the right to determine a set of rules here. Donna13 wrote: And what are football players? Glorified gladiators? There for the sole purpose of satisfying the couch potato's lust for a bit of violence? You mean NOT for the millions and billions of dollars they generate for players, coaches, owners, businesses, churces, schools, etc.? Oh, I didn't know that. Well then, why can't we watch ALL the games for free?
Donna13 25.09.2006 18:43	Same reason boxing matches are not free. The threat of injury sells. The money generated is because of this threat. Football is a "contact" sport. So is boxing. Lately, so is racing. The athletes who choose to participate in a violent sport do so at their own risk. They are taking a calculated risk to make big money. I wouldn't assume they were stupid either. As for the models having a choice, of course they could choose to not be models. But that wouldn't solve the problem, as there would be endless replacements willing to lose any amount of weight possible to get their job. It is about the fashion industry using another person's body (and risking that person's health) to make money. I'm just saying that it is not just the fashion industry making this ethical mistake.
deleted user 25.09.2006 18:46	I want steroids back in baseball. And cricket. Cricket needs steroids.
YourValentine 26.09.2006 09:42	Dear Microwave - if you had bothered to read my posts you would have noticed that I am NOT for banning because I do not think that this is a good way to solve any problem. I only discussed the issue which got a lot of attention because the Spanish Association for Fashion Designers made the choice to exclude these extremely thin models. However, I think the issues needs to be addressed because thousands of young girls suffer from anorexia and other eating disorders and a turn in the public evaluation of such models or beauty standards in general would surely help.
AspiringPhilosophe 26.09.2006 10:27	½Microwave wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: these models get no sympathy at all from me. The system does need to change, and that's why this banning of the over-skinny models is a good thing Huh? No sympathy? But your next sentence clearly states that it's not the model's fault, right? Then why is banning necessary? Who's responsibility is the care of YOUR OWN BODY??? Now you want to inflict rules and fines and bans because somebody chose a certain career? Punish a company for an individual's choice? When do we start holding ourselves accountable? So now if football players die because of weight related issues, then it's the Green Bay Packers fault for trying to condition the toughest, best atheletes on the field? So then we should ban football, at least by teams who practice hard and have a strict dietary regimin, right? How exactly will you be able to sell "flag football" to the general public? No, the next sentence clearly did not state that. It simply said the industry needed to change. Bottom line, when a model decides to sign a contract with a modeling agency, she's told upfront what her life is going to be like from that point on. If she/he signs on the dotted line, knowing full well what the job entails, then its their own fault. These models are making themselves miserable because once they sign the contract, they have to. What I was saying was that if the industry was changed so that the contracts were different that the models signed, then the models wouldn't feel the need to make themselves that way. If you take a look at most of those contracts, there are clauses that set strict limits on things like how much weight a model can gain, or what size they can be, before they are dumped like a hot potato. Granted, it is her own personal choice to live by that kind of contract, but do you honestly thing that in the face of multi-million dollar deals a person will feel the need to say, "Screw this! I'm going home!"? There may be a few like that, but not many. I feel sorry for them to a degree, but not too much. At the end of the day, they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. And, to be clear, I'm not in favor of a permanent ban on the activity. I'm thinking about the models health here, since they obviously don't do it themselves, or they'd never make themselves that skinny. What I am in favor of is, if a model is unhealthily skinny, she should be banned from further participation until she gets herself checked out. She can re-enter the world of modeling once she is healthy enough to do so. And believe me, I'm all for holding people accountable...there is far to little of that going on these days. That's why I don't have much sympathy for these models...they signed the papers, they can deal with the consequences. However, they should have access to help, if they decide they need it. And the football analogy? Doesn't apply to me, since I'm not in favor of a full ban on anything. The same applies in that case though...The athelets signed the contract, they should live by it. They know going in what is going to happen....it isn't the Packers fault if one of them does drugs or something and dies on the field.
Mr.Jingles 26.09.2006 12:19	½Microwave wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: these models get no sympathy at all from me. The system does need to change, and that's why this banning of the over-skinny models is a good thing Huh? No sympathy? But your next sentence clearly states that it's not the model's fault, right? Then why is banning necessary? Who's responsibility is the care of YOUR OWN BODY??? Now you want to inflict rules and fines and bans because somebody chose a certain career? Punish a company for an individual's choice? When do we start holding ourselves accountable? So now if football players die because of weight related issues, then it's the Green Bay Packers fault for trying to condition the toughest, best atheletes on the field? So then we should ban football, at least by teams who practice hard and have a strict dietary regimin, right? How exactly will you be able to sell "flag football" to the general public? Football should be banned for being a stupid sport.
AspiringPhilosophe 26.09.2006 20:59	I like you Dan...don't make me dislike you for not liking football
Mr.Jingles 27.09.2006 09:22	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I like you Dan...don't make me dislike you for not liking football But football sucks, man. What's the point of watching a bunch of retards bump into each other and have the game stopped every 5 seconds? I'd much rather watch baseball despite the fact that the first 6 innings are usually incredibly boring.
Micrówave 27.09.2006 17:32	Donna13 wrote: Same reason boxing matches are not free. The threat of injury sells. The money generated is because of this threat. Football is a "contact" sport. So is boxing. Lately, so is racing. Okay, that's ridiculous. Is it free to go to Wimbledon? Tennis is not a contact sport. I don't have Sunday Ticket or Cowboys season tickets because I want to see threat of injury. Nobody does. And now you're trying to imply that racing is becoming more popular now because of wrecks? So parents get their kids into Football, Baseball, etc. to see the "threat of injury"? YourValentine wrote: Dear Microwave - if you had bothered to read my posts you would have noticed that I am NOT for banning because I do not think that this is a good way to solve any problem. I didn't think you were, but it was sounding like you were starting to. Great debate, though. I agree with mostly everything said here EXCEPT the banning part. That solves nothing.
Micrówave 27.09.2006 17:38	Mr.Jingles wrote: But football sucks, man. What's the point of watching a bunch of retards bump into each other and have the game stopped every 5 seconds? The Other Football then? Yes watching guys in really short shorts run around a field for God knows how long (because there is no posted clock), no using your hands, and the final score be 2-1. YIPPPPPPPPEEEEEEE!
AspiringPhilosophe 27.09.2006 19:06	Mr.Jingles wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I like you Dan...don't make me dislike you for not liking football But football sucks, man. What's the point of watching a bunch of retards bump into each other and have the game stopped every 5 seconds? I'd much rather watch baseball despite the fact that the first 6 innings are usually incredibly boring. Oh come on, Dan! Baseball is a game that I can (and have) fallen asleep through! Two hours or watching guys try to hit balls with bats, only to have the ball caught. Maybe you'll have a homerun once in the game...and that's the only excitement for the rest of the night. Football is much more interesting. A new play every few minutes, you don't know what kind, and there is nothing better than watching a good, strong offence take on a good, strong defense. Well...except Hockey. That's better than both.
user name 27.09.2006 23:11	I should have posted this before. Hockey is simply the best sport ever (yes, this is my opinion, and I am not stating this as a fact). Before you immediately jump on me, no - I do not think so because of the violence, fights, and "threat of injury." If I cared so much for that, I would watch rugby, but then again, that sport is more or less just as retarded as football. But no, hockey takes INTELLIGENCE and REAL-TIME STRATEGIZING (no dumb-assed memorization of plays, with players merely being the coach's puppets), UNGODLY ENDURANCE (there is a reason that leaving a player out on the ice for more than one minute is a big mistake - you are expending more energy in that one minute than most people do in a day - and then you have two-three minutes to rest until you do it again), ACCURACY and FINESSE (sports like golf and bowling are solely comprised of this aspect - hockey incorporates it with everything else), and, of course, STRENGTH and TOUGHNESS (this is basically all that is required for American football).
AspiringPhilosophe 28.09.2006 09:59	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I should have posted this before. Hockey is simply the best sport ever (yes, this is my opinion, and I am not stating this as a fact). Before you immediately jump on me, no - I do not think so because of the violence, fights, and "threat of injury." If I cared so much for that, I would watch rugby, but then again, that sport is more or less just as retarded as football. But no, hockey takes INTELLIGENCE and REAL-TIME STRATEGIZING (no dumb-assed memorization of plays, with players merely being the coach's puppets), UNGODLY ENDURANCE (there is a reason that leaving a player out on the ice for more than one minute is a big mistake - you are expending more energy in that one minute than most people do in a day - and then you have two-three minutes to rest until you do it again), ACCURACY and FINESSE (sports like golf and bowling are solely comprised of this aspect - hockey incorporates it with everything else), and, of course, STRENGTH and TOUGHNESS (this is basically all that is required for American football). Here here!!
Micrówave 28.09.2006 15:01	Man, this has become a great thread! <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I should have posted this before. Hockey is simply the best sport ever. STRENGTH and TOUGHNESS (this is basically all that is required for American football). Whoa there, pardner. Hockey's good, but let's examine your other attributes: INTELLIGENCE How many plays are there in Hockey to memorize? Routes to run, defenses to read, etc. REAL-TIME STRATEGIZING (no dumb-assed memorization of plays, with players merely being the coach's puppets) Well if that were true, every game coached by say Bill Parcells would be coached the same way. There's a lot more than just plays and players. Is weather a factor in Hockey? UNGODLY ENDURANCE Did you see Mike Patterson (DT, Eagles) run back a 98 yard TD fumble? THAT was unGodly! By the way, he was back on the line in the next defensive series. ACCURACY and FINESSE Brett Favre in the 90s... Brett Favre now. 'Nuff said. and finally PROPER MANAGEMENT This does not exist above the GM level in Hockey. The owners don't get it, Bettman doesn't get it, and now thanks to a shoddy TV contract... I DON'T GET IT!!!! If they ever fix it, I might someday agree with you, Musicman! Go Stars
Donna13 28.09.2006 17:45	½Microwave wrote: Donna13 wrote: Same reason boxing matches are not free. The threat of injury sells. The money generated is because of this threat. Football is a "contact" sport. So is boxing. Lately, so is racing. Okay, that's ridiculous. Is it free to go to Wimbledon? Tennis is not a contact sport. I don't have Sunday Ticket or Cowboys season tickets because I want to see threat of injury. Nobody does. And now you're trying to imply that racing is becoming more popular now because of wrecks? So parents get their kids into Football, Baseball, etc. to see the "threat of injury"? YourValentine wrote: Dear Microwave - if you had bothered to read my posts you would have noticed that I am NOT for banning because I do not think that this is a good way to solve any problem. I didn't think you were, but it was sounding like you were starting to. Great debate, though. I agree with mostly everything said here EXCEPT the banning part. That solves nothing. Well, I don't know of any sane parents that want to see their kids play football (flag football is OK). The decision to play football is made by the kid when he is in high school. And then parents have to sign a release form. Let's see, break the kid's heart, or let him go out and injure his knees and have a lifetime of disability and arthritis? Or what about those football practices when the temp. outside is 100 and the high schoolers start collapsing and dying of heat stroke? Hmm. I guess this is a tough decision for a parent. Baseball is another story. It is not as dangerous (I suppose there could be some accidents, but probably more like minor injuries that would heal up pretty fast - pulled muscles, etc.). Basketball is fine. Soccer can be dangerous depending on the other player's intentions ("break his leg!"). Or what about the Frenchman who headbutted the guy in the chest during the World Cup? As for race car driving, do you really think the crowd is not waiting for a crash? This thirst for violence all goes back to the days of the Roman colliseum. I suppose it is human nature. Let's see. Tennis. Well, I suppose a player could get extremely tired and collapse but tennis is not a violent sport. The fans of the more violent sports are enjoying this violence. That's why there are no petitions being signed by them to get these sports to be less violent. If the NFL decided to go to flag football, how much support from the fans would they receive? There would still be skill, strategy, strength, endurance, and brains required for flag football. There is only one element missing. The violence and threat of injury. What about the football player who recently was commended for continuing on with the game even though he later had to have surgery for his spleen due to an injury during the game? Is this all about strategy? Was he just "taking one for the team"?
Micrówave 28.09.2006 18:53	Donna13 wrote: Well, I don't know of any sane parents that want to see their kids play football (flag football is OK). The decision to play football is made by the kid when he is in high school. Uh, you've never been to Texas have you? High school? In Texas, High School players are ALREADY RANKED!!!! I don't know what small, sheltered town you're from, but let me tell you, there are plenty of sane parents whose kids play football. In Texas and Oklahoma, Friday Night is like no other. Millions of kids play football. Are you saying we have millions of insane parents running around? Or what about those football practices when the temp. outside is 100 and the high schoolers start collapsing and dying of heat stroke? That has happened twice this year. Drunk Driving accounts for 100 times as many teenage deaths. Maybe we should ban driving. Baseball is another story. It is not as dangerous (I suppose there could be some accidents, but probably more like minor injuries that would heal up pretty fast - pulled muscles, etc.). In case you haven't read a newspaper in a while, there's a big problem with Steroids in baseball that is reaching all the way down to the elementary school level. Basketball is fine. Kermit Washington, Ron Artest, Vernon Maxwell, ring any bells? If the NFL decided to go to flag football, how much support from the fans would they receive? There would still be skill, strategy, strength, endurance, and brains required for flag football. There is only one element missing. The violence and threat of injury. You know, the world is a dangerous place, it's not all pink and fuzzy like wherever you live. There's actually schools where they have their children jumprope WITHOUT ROPES. They fake it. That way everybody can do it. I bet you think that's a great idea. No child left behind, and all that!
Donna13 28.09.2006 19:47	It's probably pink at your house.
AspiringPhilosophe 28.09.2006 19:53	You can't seperate the danger from life...otherwise it's not life. I've got two quotes that sum this up: You know, Octavian, it's quite possible that when you die, you will die without ever having been alive! (from Cleopatra) Breathing will kill you sometimes, not breathing will kill you. It just depends on which one kills you first (my best friend Jenny) Sheltering the kids up in some kind of bubble isn't healthy for them. Eventually you will die, the bubble will burst and they will have to go out into the real world, where things aren't always safe. Then they will be totally unprepared, and either have a nervous breakdown or they will be so naive and trusting that they'll get hurt on purpose by the more unscrupulous among us.
Donna13 28.09.2006 20:39	My brothers both played football in high school and luckily were not injured. I actually had a daredevil childhood including gymnastics, motorcycle riding (no, we didn't wear helmets back in the 60's), swimming in the Calif. surf, riding an elephant once, owning and riding horses, skiing, ice skating, roller skating, boating on the bay in Calif. with no adults in the boat, swimming in lakes with no floatation devices, jumping off high dives, and extensive travel (yes, including other countries ... and Texas). I've been around cowboys with guns. I've been in countless small planes including an open cockpit bi-plane, and was once even on a plane that caught fire on the runway (with me as the only passenger). I've also flown in a helicopter. I've been bucked off horses, in the pen with cows, and injured by horses (no broken bones thank goodness). I also played flag football in college on my sorority team. One of my sorority sisters was so badly injured during a practice in the mud that she had to have several knee surgeries. So, just because I say that some sports are dangerous doesn't mean I live in a pink fuzzy world or suggest that other people do so. And why you would attack me personally like that is really beyond my comprehension (even trying to insult the town I live in ... you must not get out of Texas very much). I can only guess that you are one of those couch potatoes that indeed lives vicariously through the sports on TV. My whole point is that some of these professional sports are dangerous and the athletes are taking their chances. Money is being made by people who are not risking their health but are benefitting from those that do. The football players are being taken advantage of - just as the fashion models are.
AspiringPhilosophe 29.09.2006 07:22	Donna13 wrote: My brothers both played football in high school and luckily were not injured. I actually had a daredevil childhood including gymnastics, motorcycle riding (no, we didn't wear helmets back in the 60's), swimming in the Calif. surf, riding an elephant once, owning and riding horses, skiing, ice skating, roller skating, boating on the bay in Calif. with no adults in the boat, swimming in lakes with no floatation devices, jumping off high dives, and extensive travel (yes, including other countries ... and Texas). I've been around cowboys with guns. I've been in countless small planes including an open cockpit bi-plane, and was once even on a plane that caught fire on the runway (with me as the only passenger). I've also flown in a helicopter. I've been bucked off horses, in the pen with cows, and injured by horses (no broken bones thank goodness). I also played flag football in college on my sorority team. One of my sorority sisters was so badly injured during a practice in the mud that she had to have several knee surgeries. So, just because I say that some sports are dangerous doesn't mean I live in a pink fuzzy world or suggest that other people do so. And why you would attack me personally like that is really beyond my comprehension (even trying to insult the town I live in ... you must not get out of Texas very much). I can only guess that you are one of those couch potatoes that indeed lives vicariously through the sports on TV. My whole point is that some of these professional sports are dangerous and the athletes are taking their chances. Money is being made by people who are not risking their health but are benefitting from those that do. The football players are being taken advantage of - just as the fashion models are. Excellent last point, and please don't take my previous response as a personal attack on you, because it wasn't and wasn't meant that way
Donna13 29.09.2006 12:58	Not at all. No apology needed, really. I was referring to 1/2Microwave's obnoxious comments towards me (he was trying to insult me, insult my town, etc. and he doesn't even know where I live).
Micrówave 29.09.2006 14:52	Chill out, Donna. I was having a discussion with you not a nuclear war. This is a point I think a lot of people are passionate about, that's all. You're just a little niave when it comes to the subject of Football. And your alternate sport suggestions didn't hold much water. No offense. But you shouldn't talk about your Mom and Dad like that: Donna13 wrote: Well, I don't know of any sane parents that want to see their kids play football (flag football is OK). The decision to play football is made by the kid when he is in high school. Donna13 wrote: My brothers both played football in high school and luckily were not injured. Or did your brothers' high school play Flag Football? Donna13 wrote: It's probably pink at your house. No but I live in a predominately latino neighborhood so a couple other houses are. But the lime green one really takes the cake. They still have their Christmas lights up!
wstüssyb 29.09.2006 15:07	meat on bones, yes...I like to see some skin shake when I slap that ass :)
Killer Queenie 29.09.2006 15:24	Well I think they should because they are setting a bad example to young girls. No one should be that skinny, its not healthy!
user name 29.09.2006 17:51	½Microwave wrote: Man, this has become a great thread! <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I should have posted this before. Hockey is simply the best sport ever. STRENGTH and TOUGHNESS (this is basically all that is required for American football). Whoa there, pardner. Hockey's good, but let's examine your other attributes: INTELLIGENCE How many plays are there in Hockey to memorize? Routes to run, defenses to read, etc. Memory and intelligence are not the same thing. Hockey requires real-time intelligence that, in football, you would mostly see from a quarterback. And in football, one ends up practicing the plays so often that it merely becomes muscle memory, which takes no real intelligence at all. This is not to say that football players are not intelligent - merely that it is not a prerequisite (although the same could be said about many hockey players). ½Microwave wrote: REAL-TIME STRATEGIZING (no dumb-assed memorization of plays, with players merely being the coach's puppets) Well if that were true, every game coached by say Bill Parcells would be coached the same way. There's a lot more than just plays and players. Is weather a factor in Hockey? Just because the coaches are the only ones thinking in football doesn't mean that they stop thinking once they have filled their playbook. They must keep creating new plays and adjust to their adversaries and weather. I will agree that football takes a lot of strategizing, more than hockey...but how many players on the field are actually strategizing? Just the quarterback, who gets most of his stuff from the coach. And hockey is a lot more dynamic (as its not broken down into discrete plays), so it takes a lot of real-time strategizing, which is my main focus. ½Microwave wrote: UNGODLY ENDURANCE Did you see Mike Patterson (DT, Eagles) run back a 98 yard TD fumble? THAT was unGodly! By the way, he was back on the line in the next defensive series. Seriously...98 yards is hardly even measurable. The shortest race in track and field is 100 METERS. And that is pretty much nothing; anyone could sprint that entire distance. The only credit I'll give here is that he has to lug around his equipment with him. ½Microwave wrote: ACCURACY and FINESSE Brett Favre in the 90s... Brett Favre now. 'Nuff said. Yes, several quarterbacks have shown much accuracy and finesse. But between them, WRs, and kickers is 100% of football's accuracy and finesse. Linemen are another story... And forget Brett Favreerevereve. Steve Young. 'Nuff said. ½Microwave wrote: and finally PROPER MANAGEMENT This does not exist above the GM level in Hockey. The owners don't get it, Bettman doesn't get it, and now thanks to a shoddy TV contract... I DON'T GET IT!!!! Well...yeah. I can't really argue that...except for the fact that it doesn't really have much to do with the essence of the sport itself. But yeah, this is a really shitty part of hockey. To be honest, it's also a hard sport to watch, save the highlights (which are almost always some of the most impressive highlights in all of sports). But when you're playing it...it certainly never feels like there is ANY downtime. ½Microwave wrote: If they ever fix it, I might someday agree with you, Musicman! Go Stars Go Flyers. Not that I have anything against the Stars. I've already said how much Mike Modano is amazing. And, back in the day, with the Stars, Belfour was one of the great goaltenders in the NHL, before he started overdosing on Nyquil or whatever.
Micrówave 29.09.2006 18:06	I wish we still had your coach! The Philly / Dallas rivalry is growing. Now if only the Sixers and the TX Rangers could hold up they're end! <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: ½Microwave wrote: UNGODLY ENDURANCE Did you see Mike Patterson (DT, Eagles) run back a 98 yard TD fumble? THAT was unGodly! By the way, he was back on the line in the next defensive series. Seriously...98 yards is hardly even measurable. The shortest race in track and field is 100 METERS. And that is pretty much nothing; anyone could sprint that entire distance. The only credit I'll give here is that he has to lug around his equipment with him. Not for a 350 lb Lineman. Dude, he was sweating butter by the 40 yard line!!!
user name 29.09.2006 21:32	½Microwave wrote: I wish we still had your coach! The Philly / Dallas rivalry is growing. Now if only the Sixers and the TX Rangers could hold up they're end! <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: ½Microwave wrote: UNGODLY ENDURANCE Did you see Mike Patterson (DT, Eagles) run back a 98 yard TD fumble? THAT was unGodly! By the way, he was back on the line in the next defensive series. Seriously...98 yards is hardly even measurable. The shortest race in track and field is 100 METERS. And that is pretty much nothing; anyone could sprint that entire distance. The only credit I'll give here is that he has to lug around his equipment with him. Not for a 350 lb Lineman. Dude, he was sweating butter by the 40 yard line!!! This is also true...I suppose linemen are just a different kind of build than you'd see in any other sport...except sumo wrestling - and you know they don't run a four-minute mile. But that all goes to endurance and athletic ability. You can be a huge person, but you sacrifice athleticism just so you can be the sumo wrestler on the front lines. All in all, it's fair to say that hockey and football are just completely different sports, and that it's really not fair to compare them. We just have our respective favorites for our own reasons. Anyway, I think most professional teams and their fans have realized how futile it is to have a rivalry with a Philadelphia team. It's inevitable that said team from Philly will blow it in the playoffs. So what's the point?
deleted user 30.09.2006 16:06	Alright, I don't have time to read everything I missed, but I would like to add this, which is paraphrased from an article I read in the New York Times... Many (not ALL, of course) of the models (especially in Europe) come from poorer places and nations and do not speak English well. These girls may not have gotten the education to get a "real" job, or the language barrier prevents them. They are simply doing what the agencies tell them to do in order to get money to survive.
Donna13 30.09.2006 20:02	½Microwave wrote: Chill out, Donna. I was having a discussion with you not a nuclear war. This is a point I think a lot of people are passionate about, that's all. You're just a little niave when it comes to the subject of Football. And your alternate sport suggestions didn't hold much water. No offense. But you shouldn't talk about your Mom and Dad like that: Donna13 wrote: Well, I don't know of any sane parents that want to see their kids play football (flag football is OK). The decision to play football is made by the kid when he is in high school. Donna13 wrote: My brothers both played football in high school and luckily were not injured. Or did your brothers' high school play Flag Football? Donna13 wrote: It's probably pink at your house. No but I live in a predominately latino neighborhood so a couple other houses are. But the lime green one really takes the cake. They still have their Christmas lights up! Hey, maybe you should get off the couch and go help those lime greeners take those lights down. Nah. Christmas will be here soon enough. Actually my parents truly had major discussions trying to talk my brothers out of it. My Dad was a physician. And, hey, I was actually on the championship flag football team (we beat all the other sororities) so really you are just assuming I am naive about football aren't you? LOL.
user name 30.09.2006 21:05	Hmmm...I can see what Donna is saying, but it would require one to make the faulty assumption that sports like football are inherently dangerous. They aren't, and the vast majority of high school and college football players remain safer and healthier than they would have been if they hadn't played the sport.
Donna13 01.10.2006 16:37	I don't know what risk level is "acceptable" for serious sports injuries. I guess that is up to the individual players to decide. But I do question whether a young kid should be making that kind of decision.
Micrówave 01.10.2006 21:20	If that kid can't make the decision by the time he's in highschool, then he'd better get used to a life of people walking all over him and not being able to take care of himself without momma's teet. Congrats on the FLAG football championships. I once hit a ball into the outfield when I played Tee-ball, but that was years ago!!!
user name 01.10.2006 21:52	Donna13 wrote: I don't know what risk level is "acceptable" for serious sports injuries. I guess that is up to the individual players to decide. But I do question whether a young kid should be making that kind of decision. You probably have a greater chance of getting injured in gym class than you do of sustaining a serious sports injury before entering college.
Donna13 01.10.2006 23:28	Oh, sure. That's why they have an ambulance and medical crew standing by at each school for gym class. That way they can carry you off in a stretcher when you get a rope burn or skinned knee, and they can x-ray your wrists after you play volley ball. I used to love getting packed down with ice after a long game of kick ball. It was so refreshing. And the oxygen came in handy just before math tests. Of course anyone that got major pain killers from the medical team were lucky - it got them exempt from using anything sharp or hot in the science lab. Those were the good old days.
Mr.Jingles 01.10.2006 23:41	Football injuries caused by the constant head bumping kill thousands of brain cells. Which explains why football players are so dumb.
user name 01.10.2006 23:53	Donna13 wrote: Oh, sure. That's why they have an ambulance and medical crew standing by at each school for gym class. That way they can carry you off in a stretcher when you get a rope burn or skinned knee, and they can x-ray your wrists after you play volley ball. I used to love getting packed down with ice after a long game of kick ball. It was so refreshing. And the oxygen came in handy just before math tests. Of course anyone that got major pain killers from the medical team were lucky - it got them exempt from using anything sharp or hot in the science lab. Those were the good old days. But you're making two assumptions: 1) Getting carried off in a stretcher, getting packed down with ice, etc. are indicative of a serious injury. 2) These activities are commonplace, and a player is bound to go through them. Medical standby is likely there (if at all) for legal reasons. And as we all know, legal reasons do not always qualify as real reasons. As for me, I've played hockey since I was young, and have ski raced all through high school. And the biggest problem I ever faced was fatigue.
AspiringPhilosophe 02.10.2006 07:11	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Donna13 wrote: Oh, sure. That's why they have an ambulance and medical crew standing by at each school for gym class. That way they can carry you off in a stretcher when you get a rope burn or skinned knee, and they can x-ray your wrists after you play volley ball. I used to love getting packed down with ice after a long game of kick ball. It was so refreshing. And the oxygen came in handy just before math tests. Of course anyone that got major pain killers from the medical team were lucky - it got them exempt from using anything sharp or hot in the science lab. Those were the good old days. But you're making two assumptions: 1) Getting carried off in a stretcher, getting packed down with ice, etc. are indicative of a serious injury. 2) These activities are commonplace, and a player is bound to go through them. Medical standby is likely there (if at all) for legal reasons. And as we all know, legal reasons do not always qualify as real reasons. As for me, I've played hockey since I was young, and have ski raced all through high school. And the biggest problem I ever faced was fatigue. Excellent points, MusicMan. That is the reason they have medical personnel on standby. You might see them take a player off the field in a stretcher, and automatically assume "Serious Injury!!!" That's the way it's done, it's to be over-cautious. 90 percent of the time those players are just fine, and walk away under their own power, with nothing wrong with them at all, but you never see that. All you see are the ones that wind up in the hospital for days because it's like a second viewing. It's all policy, and even the players can't argue with it. When I got hit by a car on my bike my Freshmen year here at CMU, I tried to tell the paramedics that I was fine and didn't need the hospital, but they didn't give me a choice, even though I was a legal adult...they make me go anyway. Same principle applies, moreso because the athelets are minors. BTW...your brain doesn't automatically change when you hit 18 to make you suddenly be responsible, so delaying the decision to play sports until adulthood makes no sense. It's about maturity, not age. Don't shelter the kids for their whole lives...you're doing them a disservice in the long run.
Donna13 02.10.2006 10:59	Wow! CMU HistoryGirl. I'm glad you were OK after getting hit by that car. I got hit by a car once while walking across the street in DC! I think the guy was on drugs or something and he hit the gas instead of the break. I ended up on the hood of the car, bounced off to the pavement, got up, was fine, insured the driver that I was fine (he had a blank stare), and then he just drove off. I'll never forget that day. Anyway, for those of you who are interested (I just looked this up today). link It seems that CMU HistoryGirl was doing the most dangerous of all the activities! LOL. Of course hockey would probably be much higher, Music Man, if more people played. Skiing too. However, those are very cool sports (in more ways than just the temperature - ha). And Mr. Jingles is right: bumps to the head can cause loss of brain power it seems. And I was wrong about basketball (you were right 1/2Microwave) - looks like it is near the top of the list! Anyway, Music Man, I once went to a hockey game in Toronto and I agree that the action is so fast - it is not easy to always see where the puck is! (For the audience I mean). Now, 1/2Microwave, I appreciate that everyone gets excited about football in Texas and Oklahoma. They do here too (Virginia) - it fills up 1/2 of the local newspapers. I bet a lot of kids end up playing football because there is a lot of community (and high school) pressure to do it - not because it is the perfect sport for them. What about the ones who have great skills for hockey or skiing, or tennis or golf, but are "forced" into football by a football crazed society?
The Fake Greg Brooks 02.10.2006 12:13	Football sucks.
Micrówave 02.10.2006 12:20	Donna13 wrote: Now, 1/2Microwave, I appreciate that everyone gets excited about football in Texas and Oklahoma. They do here too (Virginia) - it fills up 1/2 of the local newspapers. I bet a lot of kids end up playing football because there is a lot of community (and high school) pressure to do it - not because it is the perfect sport for them. What about the ones who have great skills for hockey or skiing, or tennis or golf, but are "forced" into football by a football crazed society? Well, lets look at how much money Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc. (THE TOP COLLEGES IN AMERICA) set aside for Skiing, Hockey, Tennis, and Golf. Hmmmm... combined it's not even 1/10th of what Football is. And that's not just Texas, that's America. So you have WAY better a chance of scoring a scholarship in Football than any other sport, period. There are minor execptions. Duke, for example doesn't put football #1. But they don't put education #1 either... it's basketball. Learning more about you in your posts, though, I see why you would be against your kids participating in anything physical. So please, don't take offense, it's a great conversation!
Donna13 02.10.2006 12:27	I don't have kids! And you obviously have missed my points entirely. Oh, well, 1/2Microwave, just think - tonight is Monday night football.
Micrówave 02.10.2006 12:58	I know!!! Philly vs Green Bay. My football pants are going crazy! I think this is the year for Five. Favre will put on a good show, but McNabb is on fire. I think the defense will be fine without Jevon Kearse. They play an 8 man rotation, so fresh legs should be available throughout the game. I predict 2 sacks for Trent Cole on Favre. Donna13 wrote: I do question whether a young kid should be making that kind of decision. This was your point? That and parents forcing their kids into something, right? My point is 14 or 15 years old is old enough for a kid to make choices for himself. And he shouldn't be persuaded by an over protecting parent or interest group.
Donna13 02.10.2006 15:21	½Microwave wrote: I know!!! Philly vs Green Bay. My football pants are going crazy! I think this is the year for Five. Favre will put on a good show, but McNabb is on fire. I think the defense will be fine without Jevon Kearse. They play an 8 man rotation, so fresh legs should be available throughout the game. I predict 2 sacks for Trent Cole on Favre. Donna13 wrote: I do question whether a young kid should be making that kind of decision. This was your point? That and parents forcing their kids into something, right? My point is 14 or 15 years old is old enough for a kid to make choices for himself. And he shouldn't be persuaded by an over protecting parent or interest group. Yah. I guess that is my point. Nobody ever told me what to do as a 14 year old. So I understand your point also. But I actually think the bulk of persuasion being received by anyone is on the side of "play football". I also think the issue of control bothers me. An adult (coach) telling a kid, "OK, now go in there and block him like this". I'd much rather see people have control over their own destiny (like soccer or hockey). And then once they get started on the football track there is a lot of pressure to continue (not just for monetary reasons, but those are enough). I guess that was where I was drawing the similarity with the young models. Both seem like things you would get "sucked" into. Money, glamour, but also risk to the body that other people are benefitting from. Anyway, have fun with your game tonight. I hope you have plenty of spicy food on hand or at least some spicy Doritos! I predict 2 interceptions by the Eagles.
Micrówave 02.10.2006 16:05	Donna13 wrote: I hope you have plenty of spicy food on hand or at least some spicy Doritos! I predict 2 interceptions by the Eagles. Mexican restaurant 3 blocks from my house! I order enchiladas and queso for the 3 of us whenever the Feared and Dreaded play on Monday night. I certainly hope your prediction comes true, but something is telling me that Brett may pull the game of his life out. We've beaten him the last 4 times and McNabb is lights out on Monday night. Plus all the Favre retirement talk... I think we're in for a much better game than appears on paper. God I love how a modelling(yuk) thread got us talking about tonight's game. Serves them skinny girls right!
AspiringPhilosophe 02.10.2006 16:58	Donna13 wrote: Wow! CMU HistoryGirl. I'm glad you were OK after getting hit by that car. I got hit by a car once while walking across the street in DC! I think the guy was on drugs or something and he hit the gas instead of the break. I ended up on the hood of the car, bounced off to the pavement, got up, was fine, insured the driver that I was fine (he had a blank stare), and then he just drove off. I'll never forget that day. Anyway, for those of you who are interested (I just looked this up today). link It seems that CMU HistoryGirl was doing the most dangerous of all the activities! LOL. Of course hockey would probably be much higher, Music Man, if more people played. Skiing too. However, those are very cool sports (in more ways than just the temperature - ha). And Mr. Jingles is right: bumps to the head can cause loss of brain power it seems. And I was wrong about basketball (you were right 1/2Microwave) - looks like it is near the top of the list! Anyway, Music Man, I once went to a hockey game in Toronto and I agree that the action is so fast - it is not easy to always see where the puck is! (For the audience I mean). Now, 1/2Microwave, I appreciate that everyone gets excited about football in Texas and Oklahoma. They do here too (Virginia) - it fills up 1/2 of the local newspapers. I bet a lot of kids end up playing football because there is a lot of community (and high school) pressure to do it - not because it is the perfect sport for them. What about the ones who have great skills for hockey or skiing, or tennis or golf, but are "forced" into football by a football crazed society? Thanks Donna....I'm glad I'm ok to. Yeah, I was being a bit stupid at the time, but I didn't have much of a choice. I'd just moved off campus (about 3 miles from at the time) and I had no car. All I had was my bike, and I'd just gotten out of a night class (It was 9:30pm in November, so pitch black). I was riding back to my apartment, when I got to a corner where a guy was waiting to go through the light. There was no light for me, so we both hesitated, not knowing who should go first. In the end, we both went at the same time, and he hit the back wheel of my bike, sending me flying through the air and landing on the pavement in the left turn lane. Ambulance got called, all that stuff. I was ok, scratched up and sore and all that, but ok even though they made me go to the hospital. To be honest, I was more worried about the 3 year old they had in the back seat of the car seeing it happen! Good thing I had the brain capacity to think, as I was flying through the air, to hold out my hands when I hit so I didn't hit my head on the pavement when I landed, or things could have been much worse.
user name 02.10.2006 19:04	½Microwave wrote: Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc. (THE TOP COLLEGES IN AMERICA) No. I don't think anyone would consider SMU a "top" college. It's okay at best. There is no school with the word "Texas" in it that even hints at being a good school. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor is a decent school, as opposed to the outstandingly mediocre Michigan State University. USC is another decent school, like Ann Arbor. Tennessee is another school that's mediocre at best. Now, if you wanted something like the top colleges in America (and the world), then let me help you: Amherst Brown CalTech Chicago Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Davidson Duke Georgetown Harvard Haverford Middlebury MIT Olin Pomona Princeton Rice Stanford Swarthmore UPenn Washington University in St. Louis Williams Yale If you're thinking about naming one of the top colleges of America, you're thinking about naming one of those. "Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc." are just okay in comparison.
AspiringPhilosophe 02.10.2006 22:01	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: ½Microwave wrote: Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc. (THE TOP COLLEGES IN AMERICA) No. I don't think anyone would consider SMU a "top" college. It's okay at best. There is no school with the word "Texas" in it that even hints at being a good school. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor is a decent school, as opposed to the outstandingly mediocre Michigan State University. USC is another decent school, like Ann Arbor. Tennessee is another school that's mediocre at best. Now, if you wanted something like the top colleges in America (and the world), then let me help you: Amherst Brown CalTech Chicago Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Davidson Duke Georgetown Harvard Haverford Middlebury MIT Olin Pomona Princeton Rice Stanford Swarthmore UPenn Washington University in St. Louis Williams Yale If you're thinking about naming one of the top colleges of America, you're thinking about naming one of those. "Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc." are just okay in comparison. Um, I think he meant the schools with the top athletic teams...not for academics.
user name 03.10.2006 00:05	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Um, I think he meant the schools with the top athletic teams...not for academics. "Top College" always means academics unless one says "Top Sports College." 'Tis my take on the matter.
Mr.Jingles 03.10.2006 09:13	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: ½Microwave wrote: Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc. (THE TOP COLLEGES IN AMERICA) No. I don't think anyone would consider SMU a "top" college. It's okay at best. There is no school with the word "Texas" in it that even hints at being a good school. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor is a decent school, as opposed to the outstandingly mediocre Michigan State University. USC is another decent school, like Ann Arbor. Tennessee is another school that's mediocre at best. Now, if you wanted something like the top colleges in America (and the world), then let me help you: Amherst Brown CalTech Chicago Columbia Cornell Dartmouth Davidson Duke Georgetown Harvard Haverford Middlebury MIT Olin Pomona Princeton Rice Stanford Swarthmore UPenn Washington University in St. Louis Williams Yale If you're thinking about naming one of the top colleges of America, you're thinking about naming one of those. "Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc." are just okay in comparison. Um, I think he meant the schools with the top athletic teams...not for academics. Fuck all those schools! Here's a list of the top party schools. Indiana University - Bloomington Clemson University University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa Penn State University Park University of Florida SUNY at Buffalo University of New Hampshire University of Colorado, Boulder Florida State University University of Wisconsin-Madison The University of Texas at Austin Michigan State University University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Louisiana State University University of California-Santa Cruz University of Tennessee New York University Ohio State University-Columbus Virginia Tech Tulane University
FreMe 03.10.2006 10:44	To some degree.. If that makes sence? I think the whole idea of super skinny supermodels has gone totally out of controll.. Since when should it be a beauty-ideal to be unhealthy? But on the other hand, I think that it is okay that there is Some skinny (not too skinny, though) models on the catwalks.. And I think so because there IS girls who is skinny, and cant do anything about it, and it would be discriminatng to bann skinny models totally.. It has always been what the "unreachable" that has been popular.. Decades ago, a girl with some pounds too much where a beautyideal, and that was back in a time where most people where too skinny. But there should be as many chubby girls on the catwalks as skinny, and personally I perfer some pounds to much over some pounds too little... And I say that as a 1,66 tall 70 kg girl.. Gennerally they should put most focus on healthy and normal girls! to much of this: link link is probably what leads to this: link link I hope you dont get me wrong, I am totally against that young girls is getting pushed into their minds from everywhere that they should be starving themselves, to get atention. And to some degree, yes, I think they should ban the skinny ones, and where there is a skinny model, there should be a chubby one too! MORE HEALTHYNESS, BALANCE AND BEAUTY!
The Fake Greg Brooks 03.10.2006 14:27	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Um, I think he meant the schools with the top athletic teams...not for academics. "Top College" always means academics unless one says "Top Sports College." 'Tis my take on the matter. Not in revenue generated. Your school list is a joke.
Micrówave 03.10.2006 14:31	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: "Top College" always means academics unless one says "Top Sports College." 'Tis my take on the matter. No I meant sports and attendance. Most of the schools on your list are privately funded, so to call them a "top School" would not be valid in any case. I was talking atheltic scholarships previously, so sorry for the mislead. And yes Fake Greg, the income from those schools and the boosters that continue to donate also outweighs MusicMan's schools.
Micrówave 03.10.2006 14:40	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't think anyone would consider SMU a "top" college. The richest college in the state of Texas. Amherst PLEASE! Brown Ok, good school CalTech PLEASE! Chicago PLEASE! Columbia Ivy League Private (Who Knows for sure?) Cornell SAME Dartmouth SAME Davidson PLEASE! Duke Duke is on my list as would N.Carolina Georgetown More money comes from athletics than academics Harvard Ivy League, see above Haverford NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK Middlebury NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK MIT Nerds and Geeks Olin Never heard of it Pomona PLEASE! Princeton Ivy League, see above Rice More money comes from athletics Stanford More money comes from athletics Swarthmore NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK UPenn More money comes from athletics now Washington University in St. Louis not as good as Washington State Williams Huh? Yale Ivy League see above "Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc." are just okay in comparison. The #1 college in America where IT professionals graduate happens to be the University of Texas. Sorry to shred your list.
deleted user 03.10.2006 15:01	<font color=FFFFOO>FreMe Mercury wrote: To some degree.. If that makes sence? I think the whole idea of super skinny supermodels has gone totally out of controll.. Since when should it be a beauty-ideal to be unhealthy? But on the other hand, I think that it is okay that there is Some skinny (not too skinny, though) models on the catwalks.. And I think so because there IS girls who is skinny, and cant do anything about it, and it would be discriminatng to bann skinny models totally.. It has always been what the "unreachable" that has been popular.. Decades ago, a girl with some pounds too much where a beautyideal, and that was back in a time where most people where too skinny. But there should be as many chubby girls on the catwalks as skinny, and personally I perfer some pounds to much over some pounds too little... And I say that as a 1,66 tall 70 kg girl.. Gennerally they should put most focus on healthy and normal girls! to much of this: link link is probably what leads to this: link link I hope you dont get me wrong, I am totally against that young girls is getting pushed into their minds from everywhere that they should be starving themselves, to get atention. And to some degree, yes, I think they should ban the skinny ones, and where there is a skinny model, there should be a chubby one too! MORE HEALTHYNESS, BALANCE AND BEAUTY! Those last two pictures are very scary.
user name 03.10.2006 18:22	The Fake Greg Brooks wrote: Not in revenue generated. Your school list is a joke. Revenue generated means nothing. The only purpose for revenue when it comes to college is to cover operating costs and expenses. If a college can do that with low revenue, it's just as good as if it could do so with high revenue. A college is not a corporation or a proprietorship. Its goal is not to maximize profits for its owners. Retained earnings are recycled within the college, not distributed to shareholders through dividends. Clearly you have no concept of the best schools in the country, for if you did, it would be parallel with mine. ½Microwave wrote: Most of the schools on your list are privately funded, so to call them a "top School" would not be valid in any case. This makes no sense. The top colleges in the United States are largely private universities.
user name 03.10.2006 18:23	½Microwave wrote: <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't think anyone would consider SMU a "top" college. The richest college in the state of Texas. Amherst PLEASE! Brown Ok, good school CalTech PLEASE! Chicago PLEASE! Columbia Ivy League Private (Who Knows for sure?) Cornell SAME Dartmouth SAME Davidson PLEASE! Duke Duke is on my list as would N.Carolina Georgetown More money comes from athletics than academics Harvard Ivy League, see above Haverford NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK Middlebury NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK MIT Nerds and Geeks Olin Never heard of it Pomona PLEASE! Princeton Ivy League, see above Rice More money comes from athletics Stanford More money comes from athletics Swarthmore NOT A TOP SCHOOL, maybe in UK UPenn More money comes from athletics now Washington University in St. Louis not as good as Washington State Williams Huh? Yale Ivy League see above "Colleges like SMU, Texas, Michigan, USC, Tennessee, etc." are just okay in comparison. The #1 college in America where IT professionals graduate happens to be the University of Texas. Sorry to shred your list. You made 0 points in this entire post... :/ I'll give you another chance to clarify before I go off. When I say "top college," I am thinking what everybody else is thinking: academics. I am not ranking "the richest colleges in America." That is stupid and pointless.
Donna13 03.10.2006 21:15	I'm not sure if it really matters how a college is ranked. I've worked with three Ivy League graduates - all had advanced degrees (these are the top Ivy League but I won't mention the schools, just to be nice). One was a very bad judge of character and was considered slow and ineffective by peers, one was a babyish tattletale that nobody trusted twice, and one had panic attacks and was extremely stingy. Anyway, what you learn in college is just a tiny fraction of what you will learn after college. That is why it is funny to me that people feel "educated" when they graduate. I know I did. I was wrong!
Micrówave 04.10.2006 11:30	Oh, yeah, back to the topic of these models. Interesting response found on CNN this morning: CNN wrote PARIS, France (Reuters) -- German designer Karl Lagerfeld on Wednesday shrugged off concerns about the fashion industry's obsession with ultra-thin models, noting countries such as France rather had problems with a rise in overweight people. Madrid last month sparked a controversy when it banned excessively thin models from its catwalks after accusations their appearance may cause eating disorders in young women. But the runways in Paris this week have been filled by girls with child-like figures and stick-thin legs. "We don't see anorexic (girls). The girls are skinny. They have skinny bones," Lagerfeld told reporters after his show, which saw models parade out in tiny short dresses, barely covering their almost non-existent behinds. Asked whether the fashion industry was to blame for eating disorders of many young girls who were starving themselves, the designer said: "No, that is something to sell papers." The pony-tailed Lagerfeld, who has himself drastically shed weight, is presenting clothes for his Karl Lagerfeld label in Paris, as well as for fashion house Chanel. The multi-tasking fashion icon edits books and shoots fashion photographs for glossy magazines, and also created a one-off collection for Swedish retailer H&M. Lagerfeld said the rise in the number of overweight people in many countries was a problem. "In a country like France, with 18 percent of girls in the (northern region of) Pas de Calais being too fat -- I think they needed more treatment than the zero-point-I-don't-know percent of the too skinny ones," he said. It was not clear which numbers Lagerfeld was referring to. A recent survey showed almost a third of French people were overweight and 12.4 percent were obese, while around 5 percent were underweight. Models presenting the Karl Lagerfeld collection paraded out in tight uniform style shirts, featuring tie-like lapels, others presented long floating transparent dresses with ruffles, wearing tights with large flowers on their thin legs. Lagerfeld's comments came after other designers shrugged off fashion's responsibility for the hype to be skinny. Designer Giorgio Armani has blamed stylists and the media for the fashion industry's obsession with ultra-thin women. Burberry's designer Christopher Bailey said he was very thin but was able to eat like a horse, noting people had to be conscious and sensible about the issue and use common sense. Copyright 2006 Reuters. Well, at least there's some FAT BOTTOMMED GIRLS still out there!!! Figures they're in France.
AspiringPhilosophe 04.10.2006 11:56	Is there anyone else out there who is sick of these people who are that skinny and then say things like, "I don't work out, and I eat like a horse,"? Total crap! You don't get to be that skinny eating like a horse and not working out, even if you have a metabolic disorder! Like Kiera Knightly, during Pirates I, who said that she was eating cheeseburgers and stuff and not working out...bull! I doubt she's ever seen a cheeseburger in her life!!
Poo, again 04.10.2006 13:36	Notice how almost every single thread on QZ manages to go off topic.
Micrówave 04.10.2006 15:02	CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Is there anyone else out there who is sick of these people who are that skinny and then say things like, "I don't work out, and I eat like a horse,"? Total crap! I've eaten 4 Ding Dongs and 3 Mountain Dews today and it's only 2pm. nah nah nah nah nah!!!!
user name 04.10.2006 16:44	Donna13 wrote: I'm not sure if it really matters how a college is ranked. I've worked with three Ivy League graduates - all had advanced degrees (these are the top Ivy League but I won't mention the schools, just to be nice). One was a very bad judge of character and was considered slow and ineffective by peers, one was a babyish tattletale that nobody trusted twice, and one had panic attacks and was extremely stingy. Anyway, what you learn in college is just a tiny fraction of what you will learn after college. That is why it is funny to me that people feel "educated" when they graduate. I know I did. I was wrong! This couldn't be more true. College is a whole lot of bullshit, no matter where you go. It's just an excuse to separate people by intelligence and financial status, to make it easier for employers, methinks. CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Is there anyone else out there who is sick of these people who are that skinny and then say things like, "I don't work out, and I eat like a horse,"? Total crap! You don't get to be that skinny eating like a horse and not working out, even if you have a metabolic disorder! Like Kiera Knightly, during Pirates I, who said that she was eating cheeseburgers and stuff and not working out...bull! I doubt she's ever seen a cheeseburger in her life!! I would love to disagree with you here, and I'm sure most people would...but there are, indeed, plenty of people like that. I've seen them with my own two eyes. I'm sure that even I could be like that, although due to my predilection toward physical activity, we may never know. But I do love to eat - and unhealthily, and yet I am very lean. Think about it. While most of the guys who are in those Nathan's hot dog eating contests are overweight, some of the best ones are as skinny as a twig. Also, if you've ever watched that McDonald's documentary (by some guy who for some reason seems to have some major issues with McDonald's...maybe his parents were killed by a McDonald's delivery truck...), it features a Big Mac fanatic, who ate them all the time. Big Macs are pretty much acknowledged as TERRIBLE for you. You would never believe his diet from looking at his skinny frame!
Janet 04.10.2006 17:07	Right now, on my son's desk...is a half eaten box of famous amos chocolate chip cookies, a box of hostess cupcakes, and a bag of bbq potato chips. He is terrible with junk food, and loves pizza and burgers, I chastize him all the time. He is almost 20, is 6'1" and weighs 120 lbs! He looks like he hasn't eaten in a month. Its just the way he is!
Micrówave 04.10.2006 17:41	<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Big Macs are pretty much acknowledged as TERRIBLE for you. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Big Macs are awesome! ...and the 2 for $2 deal is like manna from Heaven.
user name 04.10.2006 18:48	½Microwave wrote: <b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Big Macs are pretty much acknowledged as TERRIBLE for you. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Big Macs are awesome! ...and the 2 for $2 deal is like manna from Heaven. Wait...are you saying...I can get two Big Macs for $2? You have made my day a whole lot better. I usually go with the 2 double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a medium drink. Their chicken McNuggets have also been much more consistently delicious as of late...and you get 10 of them. What the hell were they thinking when you only got four?? However, Big Macs have always been my favorite McDonald's sandwich, but what often dissuades me from getting them is that McDonald's employees often do a really bad job putting them together. It's most often a gamble whether you're going to get a mess or a delicious meal. They really _can't_ screw up a double cheeseburger or chicken nuggets...unless they got a LOT of help from equal opportunity employment laws. I wish I could say I liked Burger King, but I have to say, that ever since they got rid of the Rodeo Cheeseburger, they've been doomed to mediocrity.
Donna13 04.10.2006 19:27
user name 04.10.2006 21:36	Despite ketchup being a necessity on my burgers, I just don't like tomatoes. They always seem too thick. Lettuce is good, but somehow, McDonald's makes their burgers great with just ketchup, pickles, and onions. It's that lack of complexity, and compactness that I find appealing. That must be why, despite superior taste, I tend not to opt for the Big Mac. I like Burger King, but if I had to choose, I'd go with McDonald's.

QueenZone discussion #882060

Should over-thin models be banned from fashion shows?