Bra £6.5 million - Supermodel Priceless
 

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/33927.jpg

This £6.5 million bra is made up of 1,150 rubies, 1,600 emeralds and a matching pair of knickers of 2,420 rubies, emeralds and diamonds.It was designed for Victoria's Secret by Mouawad jewellers and features the gems fashioned into roses and leaves as well as a 60-carat diamond in its centre.

The 18-year-old supermodel, Karolina Kurkova, was voted Model of the Year at the Vogue Fashion Awards.

What bra? ;)

Brian

Does she come with it? :D

I'm not gonna touch that one.

Or the other one.

I guess I am the only person around that thinks that (most) models look disgusting.

nah. i dont much go for blondes in the first place, and most models are too skinny. i prefer curves.

~james

"Those grapes look very sour", said the fox.

Plenty of catwalk ones do but an inch of wierd makeup and anorexia were never at the top of my desireable traits list. She might be priceless but i'm sure those tits cost her a few thou ;) I'm sure it'd be uncomfortable as hell to wear too, rip the shite out of clothing too.

That would imply that I wanted the 'grapes' in the first place. Someone who's entire life is centered around appearances has zero appeal to me.

I suppose you're so much better, Mr. High and Mighty, with your contempt and ignorance. I doubt you have the slightest clue how she spends her evenings or what makes her tick, yet you're plenty quick to judge.

Yes, you're so much better.

Hmph. Well _I_ would. If it weren't for the hulking bodyguards just out of the frame, anyway. Not to mention her left hook.

Gotta agree, i've got a few friends that do model, only one of them fits the sterotype.

She looks like a nice enough girl, good smile, why worry about it either way anyway?

You're right. She could spend her spare time learning chinese and teaching math to homeless kids. I won't deny that.

However. If the model is posing, wearing something that costs that much, you have to wonder how much they are paying her. Then you have to wonder what her house looks like. What the clothes she actually wears look like. (Hell, what -she- looks like, without makeup on)

Then you think of how many cars she may have, bodyguards, big screen TVs.

Then, although you obviously don't, I start to wonder... how much has this person contributed to society by perpetuating the obsession with wealth and appearance. Is she actually someone so important to society that she could buy a small country on her salary? Not to mention the atrocities that are very likely committed by the companies that make these over priced, useless bits of clothing.

Of course, I admit that she could be entirely different. But she's made a pretty bad first impression on me.

Janitors hold a position of more respect. At least what they do helps society.

So are you going to tell me that if someone came up to you today and offered you a thousand dollars to take a photograph of you your going to turn him or her down?

A picture of me doing what? What will it be used it? Who's sponsoring the photography?

On further thought, if this mysterious person was actually doing this photography for a good cause, I'd do it for free. However, the fact that they'd be offering a thousand dollars for it, would more than likely mean their cause does not adhere to my ideals.

I might do it, but chances are slim. Very slim.

However. If the model is posing, wearing something that costs that much, you have to wonder how much they are paying her.


Quite a lot, I hope. She's obviously given them plenty of good publicity.

Then you have to wonder what her house looks like. What the clothes she actually wears look like. (Hell, what -she- looks like, without makeup on)


Why would I wonder what her house and street clothes look like? I'm not planning on stalking her.


Then you think of how many cars she may have, bodyguards, big screen TVs.

No, I don't. Why would I care how many cars or bodyguards or big screen TVs she has? I figure the owners of that bra are paying for plenty of bodyguards during the shoot, though.


Then, although you obviously don't, I start to wonder... how much has this person contributed to society by perpetuating the obsession with wealth and appearance.


Again, why do you care how much she's contributed to "society"? She's definitely pleasant to look at and she's stimulated some discussion here, so she's at least indirectly contributed some value to me (and to you as well, at least on the second point). Add those benefits over the millions of people who have seen her, and you come up with a net positive contribution to "society".


Janitors hold a position of more respect. At least what they do helps society.

Janitors clean up a building; perfectly respectable job, certainly. But what specifically provokes your ire against models? It seems to me that it's largely that they are often paid quite well -- which seems to me to be sour grapes.

Stop, stop. It's not about photography or getting paid, it's about what the most number of people find purty.

hey

i agree that someone whose life is pretty much centered around appearance has little appeal to me.

and you know what? why attack him/her for that statement? that's their opinion, you know?

if anything i'd attack "entire life". true, we have no idea what she does in her spare time. however i don't think that *I* would ever model (if i even could) because i think that, generally, the way a person looks only makes up about 1% of how i think of them. there are first impressions based on looks, but i quickly drop that once someone starts talking to me. unless of course they look like a moron and talk like one too. :P

anyway i think that so-and-so up there was trying to sort of get across that if someone is concerned enough with how they look to try and make money from it (some people, believe it or not, do -NOT- agree with the "if you've got it, flaunt it" mentality), the rest of your personality might follow that thought. or that someone is concerned enough with the way they look to actually listen to what agents and designers say about people needing to be stick-thin, or have big boobs, or yada yada. it causes stereotypes which many people cannot fit into. no shit.

okay, question. who thinks it is disgusting that christina aguilera dresses how she does? i do! i think that, yes, as an adult she should be able to dress however she sees fit, but that also...

she has an obligation, being in the spotlight and having young girls as fans (since that was her original target audience) to act at least semi- like a decent role model. i know if i were as famous as she was, i would feel sick knowing that there were little girls concerned with their looks and weight because they thought i was perfect, or knowing that there were 12 year olds trying to dress like me. and partially it is the parents' time to step in and say "hey, you can't see that" or whatever, but also she should take into consideration the fact that she KNOWS there are children watching how she moves and dresses.

almost all of those people being...men. YES, she has boobs! wow! and she has blonde hair! and no pimples! but she really isn't spectacular. i have seen so many girls at my store in plain street clothes, glasses, and messy hair...who look ten times as good as this girl. because they aren't on a catwalk whoring their image for millions of dollars.

i wonder what makes her a supermodel.

I'll bet the girls in your store that you think look ten times as good as this supermodel look something like this ...

http://media.condenet.com/style/view.../100086801.jpg

Methinks tit's the outrageous bra that's got you so annoyed.

Nah. The finest women are always the ones that are kinda plain. At least in my opinion, anyway.

not necessarily plain, i dont think, but have a uniqueness to their appearance that you dont see every day. a feature you instantly think of when someone mentions that persons name. off the top of my head this morning, the only example i can think of is michelle pfeiffer. i wouldnt find her paricularly attractive if it wasnt for those spectacular eyes.

~james

nic-

nope. she's too thin, in my opinion. give her a steak, a baked potato, and some cooked carrots.

i don't care about the bra, really. i think it is, as before stated, useless. it's pointless, but i really don't care about it beyond that. it doesn't keep me awake at night.

Nic, that woman looks deformed? What happened to the lower part of her body?

That woman is Karolina Kurkova, by the way.

At 18, she has accomplished quite a bit. She's got lots of time to put on weight.

im going to say she looks much cuter in the bra pic, but methinks ive walked into a trap. :)

~james

A person's salary is directly determined by what society values their job to be worth. So it's impossible for someone to earn more than what they contribute to society.

So here's an interesting question if we are going to talk about salary. Who do you think deserves the money they make for what they do, Models or Football Players.

(I'm using football players because baseball and Basketball's salaries are so astromonimcal they don't belong in this discussion. )

Well... if you want a idealistic free-market perspective... they all deserve it.

Why?

Because someone was willing to pay it to them. It's as simple as that. You can't have one team offer a football player $1 million and another offer him $1.2 million dollars, and then say he only "deserves" $100,000.

It's like CDs. Everybody knows CDs are overpriced at $16 or whatever. Well every time somebody walks into a store and buys one, they prove that the CD is indeed worth what they paid for it simply because they paid for it.

Now, where this leads into problems, if you ask me, is if you happen to be in favor of a strict free market economy, and you also think certain things are repugnant and immoral. Whether it's Eminem, Penthouse magazine, the lastest Britney Spears video, pay-per-view porn in hotel rooms, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show (coming on at 8 PM instead of 10 PM this year, I read in the paper this morning), if you buy (pardon the pun) into a free market ideology, these things all exist because people want to pay for them. "But," someone says from the peanut gallery, "that's ridiculous. We have to have some moral standards." Then you get to pick whose standards to use (like the infamous community standards test for obscenity). And once again, you run into trouble, because it's a very short step from applying a couple "moral" standards (which of COURSE everybody agrees on :rolleyes: ) here and there to outright censorship of controversial political ideas.

So we have complete chaos and lack of standards (aka freedom) on one side, and thought police on the other. I don't like either choice, but I can deal with A philosophically better than B.

I'm pissed off about several things at the moment. Pardon me if my stream of consciousness is incoherent.