Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello chums!

Well, I am having a rare old time arguing with strangers on facebook, after seeing this picture.





Which do you prefer?

Out of 5000 comments, 4750 are negative about the top one. And I wouldn't mind so much if it was women saying "I think the bottom ones look nicer" but loads of them are aggressively rude. "Oh those bitches look like they come from a concentration camp!" they squeal, and embarrassingly, a huge amount of men, who (I presume are trying to get some phone numbers off the fat chicks) are posting negatively about the top one as well!

Things like "Oh we men like some meat on your bones, you go girls!" and all this nonsense. Anyway, after retorting and getting heaps of gak, I want to be vindicated by the always honest about their sexual inadequacies gaming community.

I say, that while the chicks in the bottom picture don't look too bad (only maybe two or three are actually fat fat) they would all look better if they went fething circuit training three times a week.

I must be one of the 1:20 who prefers the top one.



Oh, and while half the bottom ones don't look bad, the water buffalo option in the poll is too good to resist.

Can I just mix and match? Because center woman in the top picture is revoltingly thin (her leg that is up kind of grosses me out) but the women on the ends of the bottom picture I find just as unattractive (for different reasons of course).

I think the main problem with comparing the two is that the top picture has very likely seen plenty of post processing while the bottom dove picture has not.

mattyrm wrote:Hello chums!

Well, I am having a rare old time arguing with strangers on facebook, after seeing this picture.





Which do you prefer?

Out of 5000 comments, 4750 are negative about the top one. And I wouldn't mind so much if it was women saying "I think the bottom ones look nicer" but loads of them are aggressively rude. "Oh those bitches look like they come from a concentration camp!" they squeal, and embarrassingly, a huge amount of men, who (I presume are trying to get some phone numbers off the fat chicks) are posting negatively about the top one as well!

Things like "Oh we men like some meat on your bones, you go girls!" and all this nonsense. Anyway, after retorting and getting heaps of gak, I want to be vindicated by the always honest about their sexual inadequacies gaming community.

I say, that while the chicks in the bottom picture don't look too bad (only maybe two or three are actually fat fat) they would all look better if they went fething circuit training three times a week.

B actually. Pics of concentration camp survivors don't really peak my interest.

Get the ones from the bottom picture in some nicer underwear and I'll be happy

Corpsesarefun wrote:Get the ones from the bottom picture in some nicer underwear and I'll be happy

Now there's capital thinking. Excelsior!

Add the lack of feminine shape to the undies of the girls on the top doesnt help, they are halfway to boxer shorts so the models look halfway to boys.

Odd that allowing for the fact that its a lingerie ad.

Someone has not heard of boy shorts.

Either way, I don't find either group especially attractive.

For some reason, the top one looks photoshopped to me. But then its VS so I wouldn't be surprsied.

Agree though that some of the top and bottom women are unattractive, while others are.

I agree with Dogma in the sense that neither picture is more appealing over the other.

Wouldn't say no though.

None of them appeals to me to be honest.

I don't know that the comparison necessarily tells us so much about human perception of attractiveness as it does about advertising. I'll leave aside the curious logic of employing women with no knockers who more than slightly resemble prepubescent boys to advertise underwear, since it seems to be the standard practice, and concentrate on the Dove advert, because that's the clever one.

By hiring a gaggle of quite average-looking women, and telling them to smile, rather than looking po-faced, they successfully convey an everyday, down-to-earth wholesomeness, which works rather well if you're trying to sell soap.

Better yet, whoever come up with the Dove advert deserves a particularly generous bonus for succeeding in getting people to talk about the advert - and, by association, the product. And on Dakka of all places! A community which harbours individuals to whom not even Victor Kiam could sell soap.

I'm surprised, the chicks in the top picture are proper mint. Obviously, because they are professional models.

How do you not find them more attractive?!

Like, Frazzled for example.. I mean, I know you are older obviously, but I still find hot 18 year old girls attractive because Im pretty good looking and I always think push comes to shove I could probably get away with still chasing them! (I'm 32) Do you actually genuinely find the bottom ones better, or do you sorta, accept the fact that your pulling power has lessened after you hit 40 and you cant get 21 year old girls or does something click in your head?

I mean, I've always been a bit concerned about that, you know.. my taste in women hasn't changed much since I was 18, so, when I am 60 I am obviously going to find my missus repulsive right?

Or does something just click in your head when yoy get old and you start fanciing old birds?!

Either way, the top ones arent too skinny in my book, they look pretty awesome. You cant see their ribs or anything and they dont have sunken faces, so they hardly look anorexic.

I just like slim women who look like they actually go jogging. My missus weighs about 110lbs, and I think that's a pretty good weight for a woman.

At the end of the day, its better to be 20lbs under weight than 20lbs over surely? All sorts of studies have been linked to that, with regards to lifespan, risk of illness, injuries whilst exercising and the obvious ones like heart disease and diabetes.

I'm more into the bottom picture.

I like 'em a bit thick. Not "fat", mind, but I'm not a fan of really skinny gals. Though, of course, I'd roger every single person in both pics given half a chance.

I'm not interested in either, but I prefer the "We're still alive" look to "We're skeletons" look.

Medium of Death wrote:I agree with Dogma in the sense that neither picture is more appealing over the other.

Wouldn't say no though.

The distinction I always make is between a willingness to pursue, and a willingness to sleep with.

I wouldn't pursue any of the pictured.

I prefer the bottom ones too. That's just my taste - I'm generally not into skinny birds. There are certain physical difficulties associated with being a brick gak-house, one of them being that you tend to unintentionally 'crump' skinny birds, like a gorilla fething a spider monkey...

mattyrm wrote:I'm surprised, the chicks in the top picture are proper mint. Obviously, because they are professional models.

How do you not find them more attractive?!

Like, Frazzled for example.. I mean, I know you are older obviously, but I still find hot 18 year old girls attractive because Im pretty good looking and I always think push comes to shove I could probably get away with still chasing them! (I'm 32) Do you actually genuinely find the bottom ones better, or do you sorta, accept the fact that your pulling power has lessened after you hit 40 and you cant get 21 year old girls or does something click in your head?

I mean, I've always been a bit concerned about that, you know.. my taste in women hasn't changed much since I was 18, so, when I am 60 I am obviously going to find my missus repulsive right?

Or does something just click in your head when yoy get old and you start fanciing old birds?!

Either way, the top ones arent too skinny in my book, they look pretty awesome. You cant see their ribs or anything and they dont have sunken faces, so they hardly look anorexic.

I just like slim women who look like they actually go jogging. My missus weighs about 110lbs, and I think that's a pretty good weight for a woman.

At the end of the day, its better to be 20lbs under weight than 20lbs over surely? All sorts of studies have been linked to that, with regards to lifespan, risk of illness, injuries whilst exercising and the obvious ones like heart disease and diabetes.

Those aren't slim women. They have no muscles. Their BMI's really are akin to concentration camp victims. They look like what they are: pretty faced coke heads.

Can they play football in them?

Albatross wrote:. There are certain physical difficulties associated with being a brick gak-house, one of them being that you tend to unintentionally 'crump' skinny birds, like a gorilla fething a spider monkey...

Albatross wins the thread.

Meh. Give me a cute Japanese girl any day.

I vaguely remember reading something about the Dove Real Beauty campaign/ad.

Basically, it said that even though women reacted with overwhelming positive feedback, the company actually lost sales. When it came to actually shelling out and buying the product, customers chose other companies with more conventional (hot models) advertising.

I thought the hypocrisy was hilarious, and I'm firmly in the Vic Secret camp.

The top picture has a bunch of women that really need to gain weight, while the bottom image has mostly average women, some of whom need to lose weight...

On average the bottom one is probably more attractive. They actually look like they're having fun instead of suffering for art.

Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. Give me a cute Japanese girl any day.

Christ, what is it with people on the internet and asian girls?

Melissia wrote:The top picture has a bunch of women that really need to gain weight, while the bottom image has mostly average women, some of whom need to lose weight...

On average the bottom one is probably more attractive. They actually look like they're having fun instead of suffering for art.

This ^^^^^

While I won't go so far as to say concentration camp or fat the top ones really need to eat something as they are wayyyyyy to skinny. Honestly it creeps me out some. Now some of them are ok. Same thing with the bottom ones. While they don't creep me out on the skinny factor some of them could stand to loose a few.

Can't there be a third, middle of the road kind of option.

It's hardly fair making us choose between anorexic Skeletors and sumo secretaries, Matty.


Although if I I HAD to choose I'd go top. The bottom ones look like dumpy housewives.

WHereas the top ones look like skeletons with some skin on them.

If they're standing up straight, not bending backwards or anything, and I can clearly see the outline of each of their ribs, that's just... disturbing and unattractive.

Albatross wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. Give me a cute Japanese girl any day.

Christ, what is it with people on the internet?

I think you could have stopped there.

Skinny models of that sort look OK on camera, but trust me, they look fething weird in person.

Albatross wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:Meh. Give me a cute Japanese girl any day.

Christ, what is it with people on the internet and asian girls?

Anime.

Albatross wrote:Skinny models of that sort look OK on camera, but trust me, they look fething weird in person.

Mel hit it on the nose with "suffering for art."