Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:54:27 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 88
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <b9b3de8.0402050055.6878a0d1@posting.google.com>
References: <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@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> <3k3120lv3d98r227k6kim8s3m39fufgvl6@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075971268 39070 128.100.83.246 (5 Feb 2004 08:54:28 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:54:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.171.48.161
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2183
Susan S <otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3k3120lv3d98r227k6kim8s3m39fufgvl6@4ax.com>...
> 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
I said that waist to hip ration is the most important, somewhere in
this thread, and I also said that when a woman gets too fat that
generally reduces that ratio. If a woman has a fat rounded backside
coupled with a slim waist, then she'll have her admirers, but with a
cag dangling in front, I think not.
Best
Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|