Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 66
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <a766a589.0402031902.7c54489@posting.google.com>
References: <laurieappieton-20040124035057.21792.00000635@mb-m06.aol.com> <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com> <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com> <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401311452.4845f5f4@posting.google.com> <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402010651.5b31f70f@posting.google.com> <bvje91$lk8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com> <cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075863683 6031 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004 03:01:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:01:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.59.168.242
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox2.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 97715 i14323I6003001 mailbox2.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2154
rdubose@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose) wrote in message news:<cb5b2d4e.0402021542.4498bb00@posting.google.com>...
> 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.
Much cheekier than what you see now.
> 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.
Such people had higher fertility in stone-age conditions, when food
supplies were uneven..
> 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.
Special pleading. You're explaining away the mass of evidence against
you with ad hoc assertions. When cheesecake was expensive to produce,
pictures of fat ladies got produced, you don't really say why. But
when a great dead of effort went into production, and the product was
relatively rare and valuable, the cheesecake tended toward heavey.
Why, you don't say.
I note also how you dismiss any speculation on people's motives ("Who
knows why they wanted what he produced")when you think it helps your
argument to be dismisive, while going for the gold when you think it
helps to speculate ("Maybe the statues were used as fear inducing
objects"). I suppose it likely you were joking; which means you had
no real response to that bit of evidence at all.
Monroe, by the way, was not at the upper-limit of marketable pin-up
photos. Your comment that there have been virtually no
fat-women-images, ever, on the mass market is inaccurate. In the 19th
c. a healthy market for pin-up still grew hard upon the evention of
photography. Fat was often the word of the day.
Mitchell Coffey
|
| 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 |
|