Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason all supermodels are tall.

This.

Deal with it.

It’s because they most easily imitate a hanger.
They hire tall thin women to literally disappear into the clothes.
So... yeah. It is what it is.

+1 it's also why fashion models are reed thin with hardly any curves. Many are flat chested. They are coat hangers, and it's about how the clothes fall or hang which is more about the designer's vision akin to how an artist wants to paint a portrait. A cubist protrait doesn't make you look attractive, but it's an artistic rendering of how the artist views you. It's similar in the fashion industry. That's why you see weird clothes in fashion shows but no in actual stores. It's about the art more than anything. But most men wouldn't find a reed thin, flat chested, buttless woman attractive.

For some bizarre reason, it seems they prefer her to be young, coltish, 6ft tall and built like a prepubescent boy.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/jul/05/vogue-truth-size-zero-kirstie-clements

Girls who can't diet their breasts away will have surgical reductions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason all supermodels are tall.

This.

Deal with it.

It’s because they most easily imitate a hanger.
They hire tall thin women to literally disappear into the clothes.
So... yeah. It is what it is.

For some bizarre reason, it seems they prefer her to be young, coltish, 6ft tall and built like a prepubescent boy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tall ladies looked very good with knee length dresses but looked like giants and unnatual looking with the ball gowns. Very masculine and odd.

Short women did not look good with knee length dresses but actually looked great with the full length gown (zoe kravitz) or very short dresses (Reese).

what?! No. These two are over 6 ft tall and smoking. Super feminine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason all supermodels are tall.

This.

Deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason all supermodels are tall.

This.

Deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:There is a reason all supermodels are tall.

Anonymous wrote:I think the tall ladies looked very good with knee length dresses but looked like giants and unnatual looking with the ball gowns. Very masculine and odd.

Short women did not look good with knee length dresses but actually looked great with the full length gown (zoe kravitz) or very short dresses (Reese).

Anonymous wrote:Is the woman in the red dress in the first picture Zoe Kravitz? It doesn't look like her at all.

Anonymous wrote:I think the tall ladies looked very good with knee length dresses but looked like giants and unnatual looking with the ball gowns. Very masculine and odd.

Short women did not look good with knee length dresses but actually looked great with the full length gown (zoe kravitz) or very short dresses (Reese).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Among a normal population, 5'1" to 5'2" would look short but not freakishly short. 5'10" to 5'11" would look tall but not freakishly tall.

What makes that particular group look wild is that there is nobody in the middle - they are all either really short or really tall. If that group were mixed in with a lot of 5'5" to 5'8" women, the differences wouldn't look quite so striking.

I think because we see so many tall models we forget how unusual 5'11" is for a woman. Among American woman age 20-29, the median woman is ~5'4-1/2". A 5'1" woman is at the 12th percentile. Her tall corollary (that is, the woman who is as far from the mean as she is) is just under 5'8". A 5'11" woman is in the 99th percentile. (A height 1 percenter!) A woman in the 1st percentile for height is under 4'11"

Huh. PP here - my perception may be skewed because I'm just over 5'8", almost 5'9". I know I'm tall, but didn't think I was that far from median! 5'11" doesn't seem crazy to me but I guess that's my height bias showing . I honestly thought the US median was closer to 5'6", so I stand corrected.

But, my point still stands that the differences appear even more exaggerated because there is nobody in-between standing with them. If these lovely ladies were standing in a big crowd of mid-heighters, yes they would still stand out as the extremes of the group, but it would look more like a continuum. Here it's just really stark that everyone is super-short OR super-tall, there's no in between.

A 5'2 woman with heels wouldn't stand out in a crowd, but a 5'11 woman, with or without heels would still stand out.

Anonymous wrote:Among a normal population, 5'1" to 5'2" would look short but not freakishly short. 5'10" to 5'11" would look tall but not freakishly tall.

What makes that particular group look wild is that there is nobody in the middle - they are all either really short or really tall. If that group were mixed in with a lot of 5'5" to 5'8" women, the differences wouldn't look quite so striking.