There's little valid info, which make his opinion suspect.
GB hasn't had a nose job (as anyone can see), nor implants. I mean to base a theory, he should at least get some facts right about his cornerstone arguement! :wtf: (I fully concede, in her case, that she is far to straight and narrow in the torso, waist and hips.... which is why she's usually arching her back massively in photos.)
"Modelling" is one of those words that makes me cringe. "I'm a model" - how many more times do I have to hear some girl say that to me, or a friend, trying to increase her standing? ("Yeah, at most a foot model...."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Big grin :D :D"
)
Glamour models are meant to be seen nude or nearly so. They are also intended to be seen by men.
Fashion models are meant to wear and present clothes. They are intended to be seen by (mostly) fashion conscious women.
I think the conclusion was arrived before the facts and he wanted to "prove" it. I've met, partied with, danced with, made out with, been around, whatever, real high fashion models and I would never, ever imagine thinking that they weren't feminine... or less feminine than glamour models. Real fashion models share many things in common, but most obviously the fact that they are all naturally quite tall and thin, lanky - and that they are photogenic. Some were/are total mannequins or robtots and some are almost superhuman in charisma.
Both types are part of the same industry, in the end, just with different target markets.
My answer?
Give me high fashion models as a girlfriend and wife, but glamour models as a mistress or one night stand.