Why quarreling with the ambiguous? She finally asked, and started laughing considering my appearance. Well, sorry, dear, but heavy athletics do determine even appearance and it finishes by looking ridiculous in smart silk dresses. Well, honestly, I’d never hire Kurnikova as model, really.It’s not that.
An American, who is still fighting for the determination of general concepts that fit their own identity, can’t understand how you can make a woman of a man or vice versa, and will always, but really always prefer a Camel hat wearing smoker to a Parisian thick lipped model. Strangely I do fundamentally agree with this position for simple esthetical reasons. Many people have always been surprised by the fact that I prefer Schwarzenegger or Stallone to Redford or even worse French softies I can’t simply deal with. Those are no men, I always say, and this is very much misunderstood.Actually it’s not that a man should look like Schwarzenegger (don’t touch, I always say), it is that the image, as image, should transmit inherent logics, as there is neither word nor a story attached to it. The presence, the lines are thus vectors of behavior as immediately perceived by consciousness.
Now if you resume in an image a moral behavior as it should be transmitted by image, to my understanding, for a man, I’d say: the kind keeps his word, knows to keep his territory (field of action), balances differences or equality, etc. Which means in image: hard, strong defined lines and not thiny vanished no ones.It’s an evidence, that my personal values do get seduced much more by the Greek singer who made the song: “Skila, m’ekanes resil” (dog (chienne), you made me ridiculous), when his girl friend ran away with another, than the ‘c’est la vie’ attitude of metropathetics, and many other little things attached to a man, that make Bogart or Brando much more attractive than Depardieu or other, to my mind.The problem of malish women is exactly that: not only they rather seem not to know what a man is, but on top of that, they convey an image of him that is aggressive to her own interests, I’d say. If you look at the Fressange picture, you’d say no man, but the representation of an ideal man as seen by a woman. She represents a fantasy.
Now, the problem is: what’s the man behind? (Must be a really silly one, I think, in fact the little flashy appearance copying female movements trying always to please without depth nor understanding and horribly pretentious.) That man will never love you, Madame de la Fressange, he’ll just get your money and your time, your name and a second’s attention. Conclusion, you’ll get furious with him after ten days, the kind David’s son in his hot love to his half sister. It’s a way of revealing weaknesses in system, after all, I say, but it is no education.Well, you like that man? Ok. Take the same with a splitter of laughter, just with one sentence more than your wicked above mentioned: ‘you won’t make fun with me, dear.’ He’ll take your money anyhow, it’s your pleasure, your time and will make you horribly nervous for a while, and when finally you will have learned that a man’s no toy he’ll run away with a signed by you check of thousands saying with a frozen smile: the teaching was worth much more, but what … ils sont comme cela!
When you can’t have a husband for a life, at least take a lesson, is an implicit publicity message, when it doesn’t go farer and finishes by saying: without exactly that, there is fashion none.You see why I needed you so badly? You cost me 10.000 Usd if I buy the picture and you’ll never sell. On the other hand, you buy here for 200 what you sell for 2000 in Paris. There are ways to get for cheap, Madame de la Fressange? I give you a hat, and we are quit. Make it publicity!
_______________*Ask 4 ten 