Ahhh, I hate to disagree with you Pumeco, but she(?) does not clearly look of age.  Heck, I'm only taking your word for it that it's a girl.

And we've had Laura 3 who was defintely a teen... or preteen.

I hate to say it, but Shane has a point about Roxie. When you mature her a bit with curvesher mesh does look like a young boy aside the other.

ah

She's definitely a young woman, and she's definitely of age.
She's an extreme example, as I pointed out.

.<

BTW, as you're sculpting a Roxie too, are you aware that one of the biggest give-aways regards a persons age is the size of their head in relation to their body?

Babies have a huge head in comparison to their body.  A child or pre-teen still has a notably large head but not as obvious as that of a baby.  On a late-teen (Roxie) the head is still larger in comparison than an adult would be, but not as abvious as a child. 

Once you become a mature adult, those changes pretty much come to a halt.

Well, as I don't have Z brush, I haven't really done any scuplting on Roxie. I just went in and pushed some verts around. I like the improvements I've made. They're not too much different from Shane's, I guess except I blew up her breasts a bit more.

Good luck with the morph, I'm watching as always.

Take note of what I said about head size, though.  It's a vital thing to learn if you have something in your head and want to turn it into a morph and to have her the age you wanted.  The fact that Shane still saw Timberwolf's renders in the same light, is a perfect example of how powerful the knowledge is.

He saw the Timberwolf renders, and how extremely shapely they were compared to a standard Roxie, yet he still managed to pick-up on the fact that it's the same age figure as the standard Roxie.  With knowledge of how head-size to body ratios work, it's dead easy to age Roxie and the girl in the photo.

There's plenty of good books about this stuff, and videos on YouTube etc.

I wasn't ignoring your question, I didn't realize you'd asked one. 

Safe teen and barely legal are the same to me. The images Timberwolf posted very much have that barely legal look to them. They're nice renders tho.  

On the other side, I know that there are many girls who have very mature bodies at 18-19, not every one of them look like they still have growing to do. 

The photo of the girl you posted looks like a young boy. Appologies if that observation upsets you, that's just what I see. If I took the time I could pull up at least a few photos of young guys who look very similar. Androgynous might be a more acceptable description. Bishonen, I think is what it's called in Japanese art and culture.

~Shane

Quote -
Good luck with the morph, I'm watching as always.

Take note of what I said about head size, though.  It's a vital thing to learn if you have something in your head and want to turn it into a morph and to have her the age you wanted.  The fact that Shane still saw Timberwolf's renders in the same light, is a perfect example of how powerful the knowledge is.

Nice to know you're looking at it. Thought I might be wasting my time posting  about it since no one left any comments.

I think both yourself and EClark are taking things too literally though, my examples are just that, they're examples, not preferences.

If you want an idea of preferences, I happen to think one of the nicest morphs I've ever seen on here (body wise) is the one hameleon uses to promote his products, the one with the wide hips and an incredible backside:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?vendor=hameleon

Regards the girl in the photo, she's not a typical teen, in fact, I believe she's 23.  But I couldn't help feeling that EClark (and you to an extent) subconsciously use breast size as an age indicator, and his response to the girl was a perfect example of it.  Fact is, if you put your hand to the monitor and cover her body, she's clearly a young adult when you're left with the head and shoulders.

Anyway, no prob's Shane, just wanted to make it clear what I was getting at.  That it's important to have a mesh that can pull that off quite easily.  I still reckon Roxie is the best base mesh for that because the proportions/head are correct for an 18-19 year-old, a few years over that even.

@EClark
Ok sir, your wish is my command, prepare yourself!

BTW , I don't think Roxie is perfect either, she is just better than her reputation.

That's a nice morph, Timberwolf, very nice :-)

Quote - Maybe too muched used to DAZ Amazones. ;) That is the Roxie I use in my renders. Compared to stock Roxie the legs are shortened here. So as you see my Roxie is 8 head lenght tall, which is "normal" for an average adult.

BTW , I don't think Roxie is perfect either, she is just better than her reputation.

7.5 heads is more realistic for the average adult. 8 heads is idealistic. Head width and shape also plays a role in age, as Pumeco I think was saying. A rounder face is generally more youthful.  

Yes, I agree she is better than her reputation once you start working with her. I've been building some body scaling controls to see what that does to help with more variety.

~Shane

@pumeco

I'd reply in detail to your comments to me, but that would apparently be "derailing the thread" and we can't have that! :D :D :D

I didn't mean to imply you were a prude -- but I can see how you got that impression from what I wrote. My bad. Sorry about that. Your further comments make it clear that you are  quite perfectly open-minded. :)

Anyway...

I find the gender/age perceptions different users have of an out of the box figure interesting, and they probably do have considerable influence on how people choose to use such a figure. So worth a discussion -- and still on topic. :)

Apparently androgyny is quite hot in the fashion world (not only in Japan).  I guess if you can pull it off successfully, you can potentially double your contracts. But I don't think it's as much a thing in North America, outside of the bizarre and unlikely world of high fashion.

What makes a figure look male or female? (Or older/younger?) I'm not sure it's as easy or clear cut as we might think.

In the real world, I am regularly mistaken for a guy. But when I tell this to people who know me, they find it hard to believe because I have a very non-masculine face.

It seems we use a few basic cues when making a snap judgment. Aside from clothing, hair is likely the strongest cue. (I was never called 'sir' when I had long hair). Assuming your clothing doesn't make it obvious, by the time someone is assessing you for evidence of breasts or a package, they're probably already feeling deeply uncomfortable for staring at you too long. Apparently, most of us prefer to be able to categorize people immediately.

In the Poser world of T-posed out of the box figures, of course, you don't have all those confounding variables, like hair and makeup and clothing and body language. And you can look at the nude figure for as long as you like.

But I still think that because of our social experiences, we're accustomed to making very fast judgments based on much more limited visual data. In our mental algorithm, we quickly lump obvious breasts and curvy hips into the female category, for example. But it takes just a tiny bit more mental processing when we're looking at a flatter chest and slimmer hips.

Maybe that's what gives Roxie a boyish appearance? She doesn't look like a boy at all. But at the same time, it's not as immediately obvious as it would be if she were a buxom, mature woman. Still, we might be struck forever after by our first impression: boyish, young, teen maybe...

In the Poser world, perhaps first impressions are just as important as they are in real life?

As for the difference between a teen (safe or otherwise) and an adult female, I think any woman who has tried on clothes meant for teens can attest: regardless of body fat, adult females have wider hips.

It may be a tiny difference -- an inch or two on the pelvis -- but the effect on body proportions may be unconsciously noticeable.

Interestingly enough, pelvic widening happens to both sexes throughout our entire lives. I think, though, that it's more apparent in females.

http://www.med.unc.edu/www/newsarchive/2011/may/unc-study-pelvic-widening-continues-throughout-a-person2019s-lifetime

Quote - As for the difference between a teen (safe or otherwise) and an adult female, I think any woman who has tried on clothes meant for teens can attest: regardless of body fat, adult females have wider hips.

It may be a tiny difference -- an inch or two on the pelvis -- but the effect on body proportions may be unconsciously noticeable.

Interestingly enough, pelvic widening happens to both sexes throughout our entire lives. I think, though, that it's more apparent in females.

http://www.med.unc.edu/www/newsarchive/2011/may/unc-study-pelvic-widening-continues-throughout-a-person2019s-lifetime

If that's true, that may also account for people geting shorter as they grow older.

**
@moriador**
Haha, well I'm glad to hear I'm no prude ;-)

Regards your post, I think guessing the age of people is something that could be gotten down to a fine art if a person put the time in.  Trouble is, even the head ratio thing won't help once the main bulk of development stops.  Once it gets to that point you have to look at other details in order to guess an age, and that means facial features.  After that, when people get even older you have to start looking at posture for clues, the way they stand and walk etc.  The older a person gets, the harder it gets.

Intersting stuff though, and the first part, the head ratio is something that can be learnt in minutes.  Only the other week I learnt that your eyes never change size thoughout your entire life.  That's why a child looks like it has large eyes, and why they seem to get smaller as we become an adult.  It's just that the eyes stay the same size as our heads grow larger, it gives that impression - weird.

Regards hips and the widening; that's something that desperately needs to be pointed out to teenage girls and young women.  They have obsessions with thigh gaps, but they don't seem to realise that only a mature woman can have a proper thigh gap.  They starve themselves because having narrow hips means that in order to get a thigh gap, they have to thin-out their thighs.  They end up looking like stick insects, not babes.

A mature woman with wide hips doesn't need to starve herself, she can have thighs and a thigh gap as well (as EClark is about to find out whe he starts pushing those polys) :-)

Regards the androgyny, I think one of the easiest tricks for getting that look is to remove your eyebrows completely.  Those two girls in the black gear from the "Embodiment of Evil" Blu-ray capture I posted, they have no eyebrows at all and there are parts of the movie where they look very androgynous because of it.  It's a powerful trick that works because both of those girls are actually very feminine, they have the wide hips (check out the girl on the right).

And yes, I think first impressions of a Poser figure works just the same on our minds as first impressions of a real figure.  It's very true, first impressions count!

I have not looked at Roxie mesh, but I offer an alternate perspective on what may be the situation.

It is much easier to morph body shapes larger than smaller.

Vic and Dawn start with B/C cup breats and the torso and limbs are shapely.

As raw material for a morph base, I would prefer an A size breast amd baseline limbs and torso.  There should be sufficient verts to support much larger shapes.  The polys should follow and outline the muscle, tendon, ligament, and bone so that they only need inflation and not major lateral moves to get the correct shapes when morphed larger.

  It may be that Roxie was developed with some of these concepts in mind.

Given the nature of the community, such a figure should initially present with a FBM of a more standard body shape so that the community does not reject it.  The base mesh would be morph stock rather than a particularly desirable presentation shape.

The figure would need to have a full raft of body shapes and morphs to begin with, rather than a "here is your base mesh, have at it" approach.

It's important to get a figure's posture and proportions right and try to keep them as balanced as possible so that the the modeling process is less of a chore and less prone for making mistakes. Different features can be difficult to model accurately if the center of balance is too far off from what a real human would have in the same pose. 

It also creates problems in rigging, since the rig is being built based on the angles and twists of the geometry in its default shape. If you have to twist the thigh  15 or 30 degrees from its default position just to get it to align properly with the rest of the body the way a real human's thigh would align if s/he were standing in the same pose, then how well is the figure going to bend that knee or hip? And how off is the torso going to look in proportion, since thighs and knees and various other bits are used constantly to guage where the placement and proportions of other parts of the anatomy are going to be or should be. 

I understand the bit about the T-pose being required in order for walk designer to work, but the rest of the posture shouldn't be affected by that. And if it is then walk designer needs to be redesigned so that the limits it places on figure modeling and rigging aren't keeping the figure from looking like an actual human. 

Bad posture can throw off proportions and details through the whole figure, and it doesn't take a whole lot of change to make everything else a challenge and look just a bit or a lot strange. 

~Shane

Poser community since the first Victoria is dyadic
Victoria came as an alternative to Posette she is now
the mainstream poser figure and all the other figures try to be alternatives
There is a main concept in all Victoria versions, neutral and morphable
If poser could keep this concept on their basic figures and evolve them, using new poser features that come with every version,
without extreme distances from average, than yes average user could use them.
Ok there are people out there like Jessy, Don or even Simon
but this is not a neutral base to transform to everything, ugly or beautiful.
Antonia was a very interesting example of how community could join and produce a very powerful and supported figure
BUT she lost it not being neutral enough
IMHO every poser figure can be transformed in something desirable and it is a great joy when this happens
but potential don't make a successful figure. It should look great from the beginning
It should be love at first sight :)

I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner. (In short, looking like your prototypical Marvel-comic heroine)

;-)

Just showing off a little instead.

:-P

Nice set of comparisons, Joe!

It demostrates something, why we like what we like and why we generally don't prefer normal.  Out of all those figures I don't see one especially idealistic.  The girl in the top-left looks good on the bottom half, but too narrow on the shoulders.  The girl on the bottom looks more equally proportioned but she lacks the curves of the girl in the top left.

I think the girl in the first drawing is a true babe, I like her.

However, the girl in second drawing (the propotions scale girl) is waaaaaaaaay off being an ideal.  Her hips are way too narrow, she has vitually no curve, her breasts aren't anywhere near full enough, and her buttocks from the back view look more like mine that that of a female.  The girl in the first drawing is way hotter than the one in the ideal proportions.

I find it boring and phoney. It might work in advertising (Also mostly boring and phoney) or fashion magazine covers (The epitome of phoney), but I don't want that rubbish in Poser.

Or, to be precise, I don't want people selling "idealistic" as "realistic" because they know that most people can't really tell the difference. (And yeah, DAZ is very guilty of that.)

Of course I like beauty, but only if it is actually possible in reality.

Make up ? Of course !

Symmetrical face features ? No problem. Some people have won the genetic lottery.

Triple stacked implants to create basketball sized boobs ? No problem also, as some women actually do that in real life.

But everything that goes beyond humanly possible needs to be reserved for cartoons.

I don't want any "Hmm, she looks great but wouldn't she look even better with their legs just a tad longer and her waist a just a tad smaller ?" nonsense.

(And yeah, I know leg bones can be chirurgically broken to create longer legs and ribs can be removed to create smaller waists. But, seriously ?)

A realistic Poser figure needs to be an exact replica of an actual human being, not the "fantasy woman" of the person who built her.

You can do that with add-on morphs if you like, but the default needs to be realistic.

Not semi-realistic, not fantasy-realistic, not photoshopped realistic.

I want "scanned from an actual human" realistic.

Photometrics are cheap now.

Use them.

Or simply call what you want a "toon" and not a "realistic human".

I have no problem people using toons for their renders.

Just be honest.

And not phoney.

 :-)

Whoah, Mona, that's an epic pair you have there!
I'm starting to see the attraction now :woot:

BTW, Joe, I meant to say the girl in the first drawing isn't phoney :-)

I have lots of real women like that in my ... ummm ... reference image folders, such women do exist, there's plenty of them.  It's just that over the last few decades the photographers have shifted away from such women, and now it seems focused mainly on teens.

My favourite type of women are the ones they used to photograph in the sixties and especially the seventies, I have heaps of that stuff, there's some truly incredible babes among it.

Quote - I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner.

LOLOL. Okay. This is true. And a sad commentary on the cultural pervasiveness of current celebrity/fashion ideals.

But what other type of woman would make a worthy match with a man with the brains of an astrophysicist, the financial advantages of a Wall Street banker, the uncanny ability to read women's minds, an erection that functions with perfect reliability, and the willingness to listen for hours on end with enthusiastic interest to the minute details of his partner's shopping/decorating/personal hygiene routines?

People have widely varying tastes, and I don't think there is any one ideal that everyone will agree with. It looks instead, though, as though mass marketing efforts have resulted in a kind of Frankensteinian conglomeration of traits that, put together, would be monstrous... if we weren't so accustomed to them.

Toons. Indeed. The first time I saw a realistic skin texture on The Girl, I found it deeply disturbing. I guess I'm used to it now.

I wonder how people who aren't into CGI respond to that kind of combination? Do they shudder the way I did years ago? Or has the "tooning" of our fashion models and advertizing inured us all to this kind of bizarre caricaturing?

Games ,Movies ,TV ,CGI , Alcohol etc etc is a fantasy world to escape reality.

Quote - Nothing really to say here.

I mean, I could say a lot about proportions, body types, human growth, genetic variety, etc, but why bother as long as most users prefer their women having the limb-to-torso ratio of a 12-year-old, the head-to-body-ratio of a fashion magazine sketch, the boob size of a porn actor and the face of a child beauty pageant winner.

Hey, I'm not attracted to the faces of child beauty pageant  winners. That's just sick! Okay, maybe Brooke Shields when she was 14, but I'm only a few years older than she is so, I was pretty much a child myself back then.

Quote -
Speaking of "Statuesque", here's what I'd consider a prime example of an elegant human statue.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

She looks like she'd snap like a twig. Those thighs are disturbing. She doesn't have enough muscle anywhere for her emaciated look to be due to an athletic activity. (She's no long distance runner, for example.) She looks more like an advertisement for an eating disorder clinic.

But, you know, everyone's tastes are different. I was always told that it was women who were the driving force behind out culture's equating extreme thinness with sexiness, that men didn't really find that kind of thing attractive at all. I never bought that argument before. But I see that it's apparent that enough people of both sexes find it appealing for it to become the dominant ideal.

This image of Kim Kardashian is in an article entitled "Celebrities who have lost their sex appeal." I guess a few pregnancy pounds and she's just a dog now.

http://rollingout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Kim-Kardashian-7.jpg

I mean, ICK! Can you imagine touching that!? :D

Given the cultural expectations, frankly I wonder how single women manage to have sex at all... :D :D :D

Quote -
Speaking of "Statuesque", here's what I'd consider a prime example of an elegant human statue.

oh,hell!!! Can anybody feed her, please?

Are you both serious? :lol:

The girl is nigh on perfection in the sense of "Statuesque" (and remember she was posted as a demonstration of statuesque).   Hell, her hips are almost twice the width of her abdomen, I'd say thats a figure and a half by any standards!  By the time she's the same age as Kim and she's filled out a bit more, her figure will be even better than it is now.

Kim looks hot, definitely, that's the sort of figure I think of when I think "babe".  Women like that are the reason I pointed out to Joe that plenty of those women exist.  Kim in this photo is pretty much the same as the first drawing Joe posted above, same thing, a babe, not a stick insect (but the girl in my pic is not a stick insect either, she's just lean).

QUOTE:
"I mean, ICK! Can you imagine touching that!? :D"

Oh yes, I can, hell yeah :woot:

QUOTE:***
"Given the cultural expectations, frankly I wonder how single women manage to have sex at all... :D :D :D"

Well put it this way, if you know of any Kim Kardashians that are having trouble in that department, please do send them my way (you won't find any).  The press talk absolute bollocks, cause believe me, there isn't a man on earth is going to look at that picture of Kim and think she's a dog.

I mean, I realise it's each to his own when it comes to these things, but surely there are limits.  If a publication gave you the impression that men in general would see her like that, you need to start reading a more reliable and honest publication ;-)

She looks amazing.

Oh my god! Someone give that first girl a sandwich! STAT!

Kim could stand to skip a few meals, but culturally speaking (my culture, not yours), she ain't that bad.

She looks very unhealthy to me too (the picture of the overly skinny girl). She may just have a very high metabolism, but more likely she isn't eating properly. She has absolutely no muscle definition either. She might "fill out" by the time she is the same age as Kim, if she lives that long.

To me, "Statuesque" brings more of a vision like this defeinition:

"like or suggesting a statue, as in massive or majestic dignity, grace, or beauty"

The posted photo tends to make me think of the terms "frail" and "brittle". I guess this is an excellent example of the great variation in what is considered beautiful from one person to the next.

The term that comes to my mind for the skinny girl is "anorexic."

OOOOOGLY.

Out of curiosity, and this is a very genuine want to really know why:

What is it about the lean girl that causes you all to see her as being anorexic or having an eating disorder?  I honestly can't see any indicators of that on her body, not anywhere.  If she was undereating or anorexic you'd see her rib cage.  There's not a rib in sight, even her hip bones have flesh around the crest, they aren't popping out of her body like they would on an anorexic girl.  Her face looks perfectly normal as well, not withdrawn.

She just looks naturally lean but shapely to me, a girl who is lucky enough to have a good metabolism and have a nice pair of hips as well.

When moriador posted I sort of giggled and thought to myself, well, that could be the classic thing you see among almost all women, perhaps secretly she's envious of her figure.  But a lot of the comments here are from men so that puts a totally different angle on it.  Granted, she's not the babe-type figure that kim is, she's just "statuesque". 

If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If it's just the overall impression of her, don't forget she's on tip-toe, a classic trick to make the legs look longer.  Women generally have hips with a notable dip around the waist, she definitely has that as well, by the bucket-load.  Her breasts are big enough that the sides protrude her ribcage even.

She's a stunning example of the female form in my book, and very statueque.  Hell, if she was a 3D mesh and the whole scene was rendered in white with AO, she'd look like the perfect statue!

Honestly, I think it might have something to do with culture. I can't say where everyone else who commented is, but I live in North Carolina here in the states.  I know everyone keeps saying how fat America is getting, so yeah, maybe we see a girl that thin and we think she's starving to death.

It's why I didn't really say anything when you asked for a thigh gap, but most girls don't have one.

Attached Link: http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/old-navy-thigh-gap-jeans-controversy-180859473.html

To be honest, I only mentioned the thigh gap for selfish reasons, I love women with wide hips and a thigh gap.

She has to have wide hips, though, or it doesn't look right.  Women with narrow hips should forget about thigh gaps because they have to destroy their thighs to get one.  Only a mature woman with wide hips can have the ultimate thigh gap.

The only guy on here who's pulled it off successfully is Hameleon.  When he poses his figure, the ass and hips look fantastic no matter how he poses her.  It's one of only two figures on here I'd pay money for.  Trouble is I think she's strictly for demoing his stuff (and can't say I blame him).

But yup, I wanted you to make Roxie have that versatility, like Hameleon has done on his demo babe.  An ass that looks right no matter how she's posed, with the added benefit of wide hips and a thigh gap.

Free or paid, I think she'd be popular :-)

Regards your observation, you probably nailed it right there.  In England we never stop hearing that "Americans are too fat", we get a lot of that.  I think it's a bit hypocritical of them to make comments like that though, because we have our fair share of overweight people here in England as well.

Believe me, America has no more a problem there than we do, not in my opinion, anyway.

Quote -If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

Quote - If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

To be fair though, you can always airbrush Kim to be thinner. You can't really airbrush the other girl to be bigger. Well, not convincingly any way.

The first is ugly as she is too thin.
The second is ugly as she is too thick.

The Blender node comes to mind.

Blend or shake, both pictures posted and you could get 2 nice looking women.

Quote - > Quote -If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If her thighs were thicker, she would look a lot healthier. 

Ultra skinny doesn't look good on men or women. She may not be starving, but you can see her ribs up in her chest. Mostly its her thighs that give her that "too weak to stand" look. 

I think Kim there ate all the girl's lunch. 

~Shane

Look at Ornella Muti Movies from the 70s. That the bodyshape I prefer.

The Poser morph brush has push and pull and now transcends body zones. I am sure JoePublic or Cage could figure out how to get the skinny girl and Kim in and out of Poser....problem solved! :rolleyes:

Edited to add and you could sell the moprhs you created in the market place for other girls to use also! :laugh:

So Kim stole her lunch, EClark believes a quick airbrush might do thie trick, and vilters has Frankenstein fantasies about blending women together in Blender.

So basically, what you're all saying is you want this (see attached).

Forget it, such creatures are girls of fantasy.  They're the exclusive domain of men who possess either handsome good looks, a handsome-sized wallet, or both.  I can just hear the commentator now:

Ok babe, hand in the air, lets take a good look at you - there's a good girl - oh hell yeah!

- Ok, I have 5.000 dollars.
- 10.000.
- 50.000.
- Old guy at the back there, 60.000.
- I have 60.000 dollars.
- Did I tell you she does nude yoga and contortion?
- 100.000 dollars to pumeco over there!
- Any advance on 100.000.
- Yo Shane, check out the booty!
- 150.000 dollars.
- 160.000 dollars.
- 200.000 dollars.
- Sorry vilters, no monthly installments on this one.
- I might as well give her away at these prices, come on guys!
- Wiz, a pretty little retirement gift to yourself, huh?
- 220.000.
- 250.000.
- Any advance on 250.000, imagine the possibilities, guys, come on!
- 500.000 dollars, oh my, they love you babe, they love you!
- Any advance on 500.000 dollars?

Going once ... going twice ... SOLD ... to EClark over there for the bargain price of 500.000 dollars!
*Well done man, that'll be 500.000 dollars in advance - and no funny business this time.

Any questions before I strip her and stick her in the trunk?*
Yeah, does she cook and wash dishes?

BTW... EClark... the answer to your original post is: "fantasy girl."

Everything else posted before or after this post is simply white noise. It's like clothing in the store. Everyone SAYS they want streetwear. The masses BUY slutwear. You're not going to get a meaningful answer to this one.

ROFLMAO

Quote -
Out of curiosity, and this is a very genuine want to really know why:

What is it about the lean girl that causes you all to see her as being anorexic or having an eating disorder?  I honestly can't see any indicators of that on her body, not anywhere.  If she was undereating or anorexic you'd see her rib cage.  There's not a rib in sight, even her hip bones have flesh around the crest, they aren't popping out of her body like they would on an anorexic girl.  Her face looks perfectly normal as well, not withdrawn.

She just looks naturally lean but shapely to me, a girl who is lucky enough to have a good metabolism and have a nice pair of hips as well.

When moriador posted I sort of giggled and thought to myself, well, that could be the classic thing you see among almost all women, perhaps secretly she's envious of her figure.  But a lot of the comments here are from men so that puts a totally different angle on it.  Granted, she's not the babe-type figure that kim is, she's just "statuesque".  If you had to be perfectly serious and analytical about it, what is it about her that stands out the most to you when you first gance at her; what's the main feature that makes everyone see her like that?

If it's just the overall impression of her, don't forget she's on tip-toe, a classic trick to make the legs look longer.  Women generally have hips with a notable dip around the waist, she definitely has that as well, by the bucket-load.  Her breasts are big enough that the sides protrude her ribcage even.

She's a stunning example of the female form in my book, and very statueque.  Hell, if she was a 3D mesh and the whole scene was rendered in white with AO, she'd look like the perfect statue!

IMHO she is simply abnormally thin. The first thing that made me go eeeuuwwww was her arms, they look way too thin and shapeless - like bones with flesh on top but virtually no muscle underneath. Look at the size of her shoulders, elbows, and hands compared to her arms. The proportions indicate a lack of muscle. True, for some people they can be perfectly healthy with long, "stingy" muscles (i.e. world class marathon runners), but you can typically clearly see muscle definition. That's not the case here.

Her legs are a bit better, but the muscles covering her bones are still quite scant. Her knees and ankles are almost as wide as the widest part of her calf. Her thighs are only slightly larger than her knees. Sorry, but I don't statuesque when I look at her picture, I see someone who looks very frail.

Thanks for the depth, DustRider :-)

I do see what the rest of you see, but like EClark said, I think it's a cultural thing.  For the most part I think European models often do come across as more 'delicate' than the models that come from America.  Not always, but I do think there's a notable difference there in general.

Compare the true American girls of Playboy to the true European girls on Met-Art, for example.  Comparing the statue girl to the girl on auction, I see a different type of figure, but I don't see any illness in it, or even frailty.  I do get how some might see her as frail, of course I do, but all I see is a female who's built like a female, and for me, women aren't meant to be hefty anyway.

Delicate and feminine suits a female.

There are women out there with muscles, hard-bodies, that sort of thing.  All of them are attractive in the right context I think, but the statue girl looks more every-day feminine than women with those sorts of bodies.

It would be interesting to see examples of what others see as "Statuesque", because personally, I would have been perfectly happy to create a figure like that, for vending, if I had set out to do a girl that is supposed to be statuesque.  To me she's a perfect example of that body type and I really can't picture what other people must see when they think of a statuesque woman, if she's not it.

Their vision must be very different from mine.