Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Susan S <otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:24:18 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Church Of Last Thursday
Lines: 77
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <3k3120lv3d98r227k6kim8s3m39fufgvl6@4ax.com>
References: <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> <a766a589.0402031902.7c54489@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075875858 10329 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004 06:24:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:24:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.178.131.237
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2159
In talk.origins I read this message from MitCoffey@aol.com
(Mitchell Coffey):
>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
Davey is just plain wrong. Even I know that a subset of the
pornography industry is devoted to larger women. Research into
which female body types are considered most attractive by male
residents of the U.S. shows that the waist-to-hip ratio was the
most important factor.
Susan Silberstein
|
| 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 |
|