richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I think the problem is with some of the studies you have given is that they
> > are biassed because obese people write them.
> >
> > Uncle Davey
>
> My word! Isn't it easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your view!
> Thanks for the laugh.
>
> RF
>
> PS You're not exactly persuading me by the force of your argument and
> evidence.
Here is an interesting point. When the truly mass production of
images on paper became cheap and easy, from high speed rotary presses,
around the turn of the last century, it was possible for the first
time to provide chick-pictures to a mass market. You will look forever
to find any mass produced images of female beauty that are anywhere
near fat. Check out the vargas girls who were staple pinups in the 2nd
WW.
It is hard to know exactly why stone images of fat women were mass
produced 20,000 years ago. It is unlikely that they were love objects
because such women have low fertility and would be a lot of trouble to
carry around from place to place in stone-age Europe. Maybe the
statues were used as fear inducing objects in primitive warfare --
something to throw at an enemy to make them run away.
As for all those Raphaels, Who knows? He was being paid to portray
certain rich people. Who knows why they wanted what he produced?
But for images of female beauty for a mass market, there has been
virtually no fat-women-images, ever. Maryln Monroe, at the end of her
life, was at the upper limit of what has ever been considered
marketable.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|