Gisele, ma belle

My favorite supermodel of all times. The most beautiful body to have ever strutted on a catwalk. Gisele WAS the Victoria's Secret fashion show. 

And last night, without Gisele:

WHAT exactly is THAT supposed to mean?? Who died and made that chick a 'supermodel'?? Brr. VS, you're so not cool anymore :(

The 'perfect body', self-consciousness, supermodels, being 'fit' - RAMBLE

Oh well, where do I begin. I decided I needed to vent a little after (accidentally) reading some 'news' about the Kardashian sisters and their alleged legal issue with the Quick Trim. Basically, the story goes around the product not being effective and the sisters having cashed in on using their image on something worth crap. But well, that's kinda normal these days.

My ramble is just a personal one so I am not espousing anyone's opinions but my own. It's my personal judgement 'against' the media-imposed standards for physical fitness and attractiveness, and my 'problems' with that. 

Contrary to almost everyone, I don't believe there's a problem with models being famous and earning obscenely large amounts of money from their endeavors. I also don't really think they're establishing impossible standards for us mortals to follow to the letter. My belief goes a little towards the opposite- I personally have a problem with people who are not models, nor deserve to be. Again, this is a ramble and it should be taken as such. I'm not nor ever was a plastic surgeon, cosmetologist, model scout or anything in that family. I'm just...an observer :)

So the point of my post goes like this- I really think what's going on nowadays with the whole 'supermodel' standards and looking good is a crock of sh*t. The age of the real supermodels is gone, and today normal women must measure up against girls who don't really have anything special apart from being super skinny and heavily photoshopped. And I dare say, I think the whole issue appeared when normal people, especially women, got tired of looking at models on the covers of magazines and decided it's time for 'real women' to step in. That's how I perceive it...

1. 'Celebrities' who've become 'famous' exactly because of their 'normal' appearance promoting weight loss products and image-enhancing products (makeup, skincare lines, anti-aging stuff, etc.)

Kim Kardashian is my main 'it' girl when it comes to this. As much as I admire the flawlessness of her makeup (and the skills of her makeup artist), I am totally appalled by her voraciousness when it comes to borrowing her 'image' for all sorts of products, mainly aimed at 'trimming' women's bodies. Kim K described herself as 'curvy and petite' and was upset when some fashion magazine said she was 'plus size'. Oh well. 

Unfortunately, the problem with these products, beyond their efficacy (which isn't the point of my post) is that they're being endorsed by someone who is NOT fit. Kim K doesn't know what curvy means, I reckon. Her body is pudgy and has a lot of fat, beyond the famous derriere (whether it's real or not). Again- I'm not advocating size 0 AT ALL. What I'm saying is that some people step in when they should step out....asap. Especially Kim K and her sister Khloe. I'm not judging their body types or weight per se, whether they're skinny or fat in general- they definitely are not the type of person to advertise...weight loss products. It's just uncool, if you ask me.

First off, these are the covers on which Kim K and her sister Khloe appear as 'trim' and 'curvy', looking and feeling great. I really don't know what's inside the magazine articles but given their association with Quick Trim and fitness-friendly Sketchers sneakers, plus the titles, well, I assume their bikini bodies have something to do with praising healthy diets, fitness, 'curves' and everything in the family.

Beyond the controversy surrounding the products efficacy, which I really neither know too much about nor care, is the main issue here- the way Kim K and her sister REALLY look like. I literally laughed my ass off when seeing the photos Kim tweeted a while ago:

Kim's head is so shrunken her face appears to have lost its actual proportions and has gotten this weird pointy look. I refuse to believe that her gym trainer and healthy lifestyle have the power to work on her body as well as on her skull. That's just beyond my level of comprehension. 

I don't care about these girls or their body types/frames. But when they start advertising solutions that don't seem to have had any results in reality, I start getting bitchy. Kim K's earnings are quite notorious- she's made some chunks of money off of her endorsements. Is it....fair? Or...normal?

This is what Kim and Khloe REALLY look like:

Kim's back fat and bra chub visible all the way. 

Khloe and her 'trim and toned' thighs.

Khloe, being fit. 

Under Kim's bikini string there's a layer of fat. Maybe she shouldn't have advertised weight-loss products? Who knows how many women who aren't happy with their weight or body types are forcing themselves to emulate Kim's twitter pics (the ones with the shrunken head), without knowing that it's called 'photoshop in a can' and that what she really looks like is this? 

I think Kim has a gorgeous hourglass physical structure but layers of fat on top of it. Therefore, she shouldn't be endorsing slimming products and claiming she's 'curvy' and 'toned' when in fact she's pudgy and full of cellulite. When she admitted she has cellulite it was a little bit confusing. This is the problematic part for normal women like myself, from my perspective. 

I think the gorgeous Beyonce is the perfect image of what 'curvy' really means:

And one of my favorites in terms of dellusion, this time not weight-related- she's not a supermodel, she's a famous actress who played a 'supermodel'. One of the sexiest women in the world according to magazines, etc.:

2. Supermodels 

While Kim K is a normal person, after all, who never claimed she was a model or a 'super' one, supermodels, especially the Victoria's Secret ones, do have this power of making us feel a little bit...unfit? :)) Seriously now. Their catalogues are full of breathtakingly beautiful 'angels', their shows are masterpieces of beauty and glamour. The girls seem to be amazing creatures and real bombshells. The world clearly 'needs' models (and supermodels) from my perspective, but that's not the point. It's absolutely normal that clothes fit better a thinner, slimmer body with nice shapes (breasts and derriere), than someone with a little bit of chub- that's what 'model' means in the first place. I think we mustn't compare ourselves with them, just admire the beauty of the clothes and the talent of the designer. Sometimes, some people are more beautiful than others. I totally agree with Karl Lagerfeld on this one. Sorry folks, but it's true.

Now. The aforementioned 'theory' is one thing. But in reality, things are a little bit different. This is what some of the Victoria's Secret supermodels look like in their catalogue and usual photoshoots:

Alessandra Ambrosio

This is what she actually looks like. No photoshop, no professional lights, no body makeup, no contouring, no nothing. Yes, the girl's been through two pregnancies already and she is still thin. Emphasis on 'thin':

Where are her breasts? And her sexy derriere? 

Alessandra looks amazing after two births, there's no doubt about that. She's very thin which is a blessing when you think about so many women with cardiorespiratory problems or diabetes due to their weight. Especially if one gained weight during their pregnancies and is struggling to go back to their pre-baby shape. She is an example from this perspective, no comment. However, this isn't actually the point. Alessandra is a supermodel with a high-powered career and extremely high earnings. Her name and face are almost household products, exactly due to her career. 

Am I thinner than her? Hell no! Do I have cellulite? Loads! Are my legs longer than hers? probably, but that's because I'm tall. Am I fit, overall? NO! Do I look this skinny? NO!! Then what am I bitching about?

 Well people....i'm not a supermodel. My face isn't in the VS catalogue, not to mention my body. I didn't earn $15 million last year from my work. I don't do runway for Dior, Chanel, Versace etc. I'm not 'known' anywhere else than my family and circle of friends. Nobody pays me to be 'beautiful'. I don't have my face plastered on posters in Times Square. I don't go to glamorous parties or on yachts, no paparazzo has ever followed me. This isn't a 'self-esteem' issue or 'jealousy'. I personally believe we're all supposed to be good at what we do. Take, for example, a math teacher who can't solve an equation- you don't start saying 'hey, give the poor guy a break! Math is difficult, not everybody can be good at it! Can you solve a more difficult equation than him? Shut up then!'. The math teacher is supposed to be better than most of us at solving equations simply because that's his job. 

I think Alessandra is a very beautiful woman, as I said, but her body type doesn't seem to belong to the supermodel category, especially the established ones, like Naomi or Giselle. She is just very skinny with absolutely no 'curves' as in breasts or buttocks. I just don't understand why the industry picks up girls like her, who are JUST very thin, and prefers to digitally alter their image instead of getting women who are naturally beautiful and fit. 

Same thing applies for Miranda Kerr, Brooklyn Decker, Karolina Kurkova, Lara Stone, Candice Swanepoel, Heidi Klum....etc.

Heidi Klum

Guess that sometimes even 'supermodels' have to hang up that sequined bikini and put away the body foundation...it's just sad and disappointing when people are 'tricked' into images that are completely unrealistic and in no way reflect 'beauty'. 

Lara Stone

Karolina Kurkova

Brooklyn Decker

Bar Refaeli

Candice Swanepoel

What I'm guessing real supermodels should look like...at least some of them. Because it is possible to look like this, even after a pregnancy (and a natural birth), during a second pregnancy or even past the age of 41. No protruding bones, no floppy butts, no painfully thin frames or sunken chests. Just long legs, tight hips, beautiful figure and a gorgeous body frame. I'd buy anything these ladies advertise:

The one and only, miss Naomi:

Elle Macpherson

I personally think the 'old' supermodel 'type' was about being tall, first of all. Long legs, muscular yet slender body, very 'narrow' waist and hips yet curvy where needed- breasts, butt, legs, arms, etc. I think Elle's shape clearly demonstrates that not everybody can be a supermodel or just a model, albeit starving themselves and ending up looking just like this:

All in all, I do believe that in this case, less is not more. I think there's a major difference between this:

..and this:

Another girl who already looks like a supermodel is Kendall Jenner. Perhaps the next Gisele?

So, what my point really is about is comparing this:

with this:

Gisele Bundchen