(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go, with the statement I am about to make I expect to get a battering from the fanboys and maybe others. But everything I say on this forum I believe to be valid and worth considering by others members.
My belief is this. Not one model on any of the babeshows not just s66 would, without these shows or Internet cam shows have a cat in hells chance of making a living out of glamour modeling. These shows and cam work are all these girls have. They just wouldn't be attractive enough for any other type of photography work, or any sort of modeling work. In my honest, humble opinion the work they do now is last chance saloon for these girls before they have to join the real world.
I think Olivia Berzinc and Electra are beautiful to look at, no others come to mind though.
(04-01-2015 14:01 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]To my mind, it's not so much that many of these girls could not be successful "glamour models" so much as the fact that there is very little success to be had in glamour modeling altogether.
I'm possibly aging myself here but, to me, the traditional 'pyramid' of modeling aspiration was something like the following:
1. Supermodel (i.e. Sports Illustrate swimsuit issue)
2. Catwalk / fashion model (e.g. Cosmopolitan magazine)
3. Adverts model (e.g. inside pages of regular mags)
4. Glamour model (e.g. Lads mags)
5. Nude model (e.g. top shelf mags)
6. Babeshows / Cam shows
7. Porn
I'd agree but not sure about Supermodel vs Catwalk.
The original supermodels from the late 80s and 90s were a top tier of catwalks not swimsuit models. Catwalk models look down on all the rest including swimsuiters. Naomi Campbell, Tatiana Patitz, linda Evangelista, Cindy Crawford - all examples of the breed.
The list of the seven categories of models doesn't take into account a girls attractiveness. For example Kate Moss would be in the top tier and Kagney Linn Karter would be in the bottom tier. Personally I would take the lovely miss Karter any day of the week.
(04-01-2015 21:02 )Lotuseater Wrote: [ -> ]Catwalk models look down on all the rest.
Tell me about it. Whenever I call Cindy Crawford for phone sex she just calls the cops and changes her number
Anyway, I'm sure you're right. By "supermodel", I actually meant the top tier of catwalk models -- that's who usually ends up in SI.
Block is also correct in distinguishing between hardcore and softcore porn. Good point.
*Escorting is the wildcard, I suppose. Runs the gamut from real stunners to ... well, the opposite of that, to be diplomatic. The funny thing about escorting is that while it may seem like the ultimate taboo, it is also far more discrete than any type of glamour modeling or babeshow presenting. A girl could conceivably be a very successful escort, while her family just thinks that she is earning a fortune in tips as a Starbucks barista.
(04-01-2015 21:13 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]The list of the seven categories of models doesn't take into account a girls attractiveness. For example Kate Moss would be in the top tier and Kagney Linn Karter would be in the bottom tier. Personally I would take the lovely miss Karter any day of the week.
I don't really know the finer points of catwalk modeling. I am sure that height and weight and grace and charisma all come into it. But from what I can tell, the biggest difference between the bottom of that list and the top can be measured in
silicone and
ink!
(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]Here we go, with the statement I am about to make I expect to get a battering from the fanboys and maybe others. But everything I say on this forum I believe to be valid and worth considering by others members.
My belief is this. Not one model on any of the babeshows not just s66 would, without these shows or Internet cam shows have a cat in hells chance of making a living out of glamour modeling. These shows and cam work are all these girls have. They just wouldn't be attractive enough for any other type of photography work, or any sort of modeling work. In my honest, humble opinion the work they do now is last chance saloon for these girls before they have to join the real world.
they are all models whether we find them attractive or not, some people call them babes but the word babe is a matter of opinion, i don't call the likes of Lori, Ella Jolie and Candy Charms babes but they are models and would still get offered modelling work if they left the babechannels now
Tori Lee does modelling work she wouldn't be able to live off her babeshow income when she is only on like twice a month and she doesn't do that much webcam anyway, go on her twitter account and you'll see how many photoshoots she has done
i think you are a bit harsh to say all of these babeshows girls aren't attractive enough to make it as models, personally i would rate some of the current and former babeshows babes much higher than some of the famous models you see in magazines and stick thin catwalk models are not my cup of tea at all, although my favourite Glamour model used to be Louise Glover she did one shift on S66 a few years ago
(04-01-2015 11:53 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: [ -> ]They just wouldn't be attractive enough for any other type of photography work, or any sort of modeling work.
Errr.... But the majority of them have already done other modelling work. Some of them have done a huge amount of other modelling work.
By the way, have you had your eyes tested recently? If you think babe channel girls aren't attractive enough to do other modelling work it kind of calls your eyesight into question.
Should have gone to Specsavers?
On a serious note, haven't looked recently, but when I first watched the babe channels you could find a modelling profile for practically every girl who appeared on them.
I'm surprised that Fernanda hasn't had a mention in this discussion yet. I don't know about now, but in the past she did a lot of high profile modelling and had a contract with a very prestigious modelling agency. She was also quite an actress and has several TV appearances to her name.
(04-01-2015 21:43 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2015 21:16 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ]But from what I can tell, the biggest difference between the bottom of that list and the top can be measured in silicone and ink!
Spot on!
And at the top of the list it's anorexia and bulimia