why straight men should run the fashion industry…

first, i've gotta thank my super secret internet wifey, ripple, over at amygrindhouse.com for feeding me a bit of rage to fuel some creativity today.  amy who along with me forms the greatest celebrity couple you've never heard of chrindhouse is my source for pop culture and gossip, and she puts up with my rants and ramblings in her comments, even egging me on sometimes.  so if you're sick of me go check out her site.

that said, look at this atrocity to the left (for the record, i borrowed the pic from somewhere, not amy, and i don't remember where.  i suck.  if you want credit, just tell me and you'll get it!)  poor emma watson, the girl who plays a hot schoolgirl witch in harry potter is on a magazine cover looking so disgustingly emo that it makes the emo kids cry (then again, what doesn't?).  she looks (to steal my own lines) like she just rolled out of bed at clown school, like the queen of the zombie bikers, and (to steal an idea from elayne from the grindhouse comments section) like the president of the "i wish i was amy winehouse" club.

it's not some joke picture she took with friends that was never supposed to see the light of day, it's the result of a professional photo shoot and was taken with the intent of having it be in a magazine with the possibility (and reality) of it being a cover shot.  conservatively, 1 or 2 people from ms. watson's staff of handlers, a photographer, at least 2 editors at the magazine and ultimately whoever is charge at elle all had to say "yes, this is great!  let's put it on the cover."  that's AT LEAST 6 people who had their hands on this that could have said "holy shit she looks like a hooker that's been floating in a river for days, we have to get new photos."

for the record i don't blame poor emma for any of this.  she likely showed up, got her hair done, threw on what they told her to, took a few pictures, was told they came out great, and went home or to do enjoy life in some other way. 

what bothers me most is not that they took a beautiful girl and stripped her of any attractiveness, it's that to her right is a giant "the new trends" i'm assuming pointing out an article in the magazine.  for the love of christ, i hope no girl passes by a newsstand and thinks the cruella de vil look is in this year.  and that brings me to my point…none of this would have happened if there was a straight man somewhere in the chain. 

here's the thing with the fashion industry it is primarily and stereotypically run by women and gay men.   why?  well, i guess because they care or some might say "have an eye" for fashion.  problem is, there's a difference between what looks good on a runway and what looks good in reality.  and most of the time, it kind of clashes. 

here's the deal.  gay guys don't really care how a girl looks.  sure, the idea is to make her look her best and i would never claim he (he being our example gay guy) would attempt to make a girl look bad purposefully, but when it comes down to it, he doesn't want to fuck her.  he doesn't really have any interest in some random guy liking what he sees.  he cares about what he sees and if what he sees is beautiful, to him, he's gonna say so.  i'm not saying he's wrong, i'm just saying it's not practical.

then there's women.  what woman is going to make another woman look better than her?  i've been told a couple of times i'm wrong on this, but i can't quite possibly see how.  there's just no chance in hell a woman, whether straight or gay, is going to help make another woman fighting for the same resources (be it men or women) be more attractive than her.  that'd be like the lakers allowing the orlando magic to have kobe bryant as they play the nba finals. just ain't gonna happen.

i'm not saying all women are conniving backstabbers set out to make you look horrible when you ask their opinion, i'm just saying that they're more interested in you thinking you look good rather than you actually looking good.

and then there's the folks, male or female, straight or gay who are seeing the art in it.  NO ONE WANTS TO FUCK ARTSY.

just let the models be themselves.  odds are if they're hot (and you can count that in terms of being attractive or being popular) enough to be asked to pose for a magazine they're either good looking or personable enough to carry the shoot on their own.  they don't need a pound of disgusting makeup to weigh down their natural beauty and you can dress em up in shit that might actually get worn, in real life, not in some magical fashion show that no one cares about but the person who's head it's in.

what's wrong with capturing the natural beauty of an attractive girl?