Is This Toxic Content? Down To Earth/Girl Next Door

Post Reply New Topic

Is this toxic content?



https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/01/02/10/22905780-0-image-a-17_1577962576753.jpg

This doesn't reflect the "average woman." They're all models.

I don't know if I would use the word "toxic."

But I find this "western" society frequently places heavy expectations upon both women and men in terms of physical looks. In reality, people who are supposedly "average" or "below average"-looking frequently find love with other "average," or "below average"-looking people.

It's BS that "80% of women seek out 20% of men."

Sure, both sexes might fantasize about model types (I never did)-----but, as long as couples remain faithful to each other, then I find this sort of fantasizing is okay.

I don't know if it's toxic but it's definitely completely unrealistic.
See what your neighbours look like if you want to know what "next door girl" means. She's most likely not looking for old money guys, rather next door guys.
These "types" and their "matches" have little to do with real people out there.

What about the concept itself if you take looks out of the equation?

Well I keep hearing that 80% of guys miss out on women, because those 80% of women go for the top 20% of guys. But if this is true to an extent, that would that the top 20 of guys are just going for all the average women. If the top 20% percent of guys would just stick to the top 20% of women, and stay in their league, then the other 80% of women would be forced to date the other 80% of guys.

But for some reason, the top 20% of guys will go date down it seems.

I'm nowhere near the "top 20%"----yet I've been with quite a few women.

Not bragging-----just pointing out the fallacy of all these "theories" about "alpha men" and all that.

They are all models, btw.

The dailymail is a scourge on humanity.

The fashion and beauty industry have always sought out to sell a lifestyle to consumers. One of wealth and desirability. A simplified fantasy. The rules of fashion are constantly changing in order to turn a profit. Certain women's magazines can be rather notorious for picking random human traits and telling their audience that trait is unattractive and needs to be changed by buying their products.

I've worked with previous freelance models and I've also worked with non-models on photography projects. The main difference I noticed was that the non-models became antsy when they lacked direction regarding how to pose. I would speculate that a fair amount of people who deem themselves unattractive aren't actually that bad looking but simply don't know how to photograph themselves in a way that is flattering.

Presenting yourself in a way that is attractive to others can be a difficult task since it involves trying to determine what traits someone might find attractive about you. This can be tricky as you probably aren't your own type. So, some people turn to newspapers, magazines and websites to tell them how to dress, what to do with their hair and what make up to wear. These standards can at times be unrealistic or so trivial that people get fixated on traits that others around them probably aren't even considering. Separating 'Girl Next Door' from 'Down to Earth' seems so arbitrary. I was under the impression that the two were more or less the same concept.

The lifestyle that is being marketed in this image is wear expensive clothes, present yourself in this way and find a good man - then you'll be successful and happy. Of course, life isn't always that simple. Clothes don't have to be picked based on what others will find attractive but instead can be a source of comfort or a way of communicating a sense of identity. I dislike fast fashion and its fickleness. Besides, fashion always circles around, so if you stick with a style long enough then you're likely to unintentionally find yourself on trend eventually anyway.

I've never lived next door to any girl who dresses even slightly like that!