PDA

View Full Version : it's about time....(sorta OT)


G.S.
September 20th 04, 04:40 PM
the beanpole look never really did it for me....

http://www.lifewise.canoe.ca/LifewiseStyle0409/17_S-curve-sun.html

Dally
September 20th 04, 06:41 PM
G.S. wrote:
> the beanpole look never really did it for me....
>
> http://www.lifewise.canoe.ca/LifewiseStyle0409/17_S-curve-sun.html

Quoting from the article: : "Pam Anderson's bosom meets Jennifer
Aniston's abdomen meets J.Lo's biggest asset," i.e., a new feminine
ideal where even the world's most beautiful women don't manage to put
all the parts together.

Could that be because it's friggin unattainable?

Dally, wishing once in a while beauty would be recognized in situ

Brandon Berg
September 21st 04, 06:16 AM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> G.S. wrote:
>> the beanpole look never really did it for me....
>>
>> http://www.lifewise.canoe.ca/LifewiseStyle0409/17_S-curve-sun.html
>
> Quoting from the article: : "Pam Anderson's bosom meets Jennifer Aniston's
> abdomen meets J.Lo's biggest asset," i.e., a new feminine ideal where even
> the world's most beautiful women don't manage to put all the parts
> together.

1. The hodgepodge was presumably for emphasis rather than for lack of an
example.
2. I don't consider any of them to be unusually beautiful. I could spend
half an hour on any large college campus in the country and find five
examples of women who manage to look better even without the airbrushing.

> Could that be because it's friggin unattainable?

They had two pictures. Not everyone can be exceptionally beautiful. Or
exceptionally intelligent. But some people can. An ideal is just that--an
ideal--and it's not invalidated by the fact that it's not universally
attainable. I think that most people of reasonable intelligence understand
this, so when women get self-righteously indignant about unattainable ideals
that aren't really unattainable for everyone, it just makes them sound petty
and bitter.

> Dally, wishing once in a while beauty would be recognized in situ

I see it all over.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

GS
September 21st 04, 04:07 PM
Brandon Berg wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>G.S. wrote:
>>
>>>the beanpole look never really did it for me....
>>>
>>>http://www.lifewise.canoe.ca/LifewiseStyle0409/17_S-curve-sun.html
>>
>>Quoting from the article: : "Pam Anderson's bosom meets Jennifer Aniston's
>>abdomen meets J.Lo's biggest asset," i.e., a new feminine ideal where even
>>the world's most beautiful women don't manage to put all the parts
>>together.
>
>
> 1. The hodgepodge was presumably for emphasis rather than for lack of an
> example.
> 2. I don't consider any of them to be unusually beautiful. I could spend
> half an hour on any large college campus in the country and find five
> examples of women who manage to look better even without the airbrushing.
>
>
>>Could that be because it's friggin unattainable?
>
>
> They had two pictures. Not everyone can be exceptionally beautiful. Or
> exceptionally intelligent. But some people can. An ideal is just that--an
> ideal--and it's not invalidated by the fact that it's not universally
> attainable. I think that most people of reasonable intelligence understand
> this, so when women get self-righteously indignant about unattainable ideals
> that aren't really unattainable for everyone, it just makes them sound petty
> and bitter.
>
>
>>Dally, wishing once in a while beauty would be recognized in situ
>
>
> I see it all over.
>
I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
Vardalos etc. any day.

Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...


cheers!

Dally
September 21st 04, 05:00 PM
GS wrote:

> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
> and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
> you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
> Vardalos etc. any day.
>
> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>
> cheers!

But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat
padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your
thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.

The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
in your fat stores on the hips.

You want 28% fat you get 28% fat. And it doesn't all contain itself in
the boobs and butt over time. Think about it.

I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body. It's
like you want some amalgom of a woman. It's frustrating to have that be
an ideal.

Dally

GS
September 21st 04, 06:02 PM
Dally wrote:

> GS wrote:
>
>> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming
>> back, and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking
>> beanpoles you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy
>> figures a la Nia Vardalos etc. any day.
>>
>> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>>
>> cheers!
>
>
> But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
> on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?

No problem!

Because
> that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat padding the
> breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your thighs,
> upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
>
> The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
> something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
> in your fat stores on the hips.
>
> You want 28% fat you get 28% fat. And it doesn't all contain itself in
> the boobs and butt over time. Think about it.
>
> I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body. It's
> like you want some amalgom of a woman. It's frustrating to have that be
> an ideal.
>
> Dally
>
Curves are nice is my point, if theres a little extra with them so be
it. I never have been a fan of the "thin is better" phenom, actually I
can't think of a single male I know that is, we all prefer a well
rounded figure over a beanpole. I think that the thin phenom was/is
largely a thing women self-inflicted on themselves IMHO

Proton Soup
September 21st 04, 06:11 PM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:00:39 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>GS wrote:
>
>> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
>> and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
>> you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
>> Vardalos etc. any day.
>>
>> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>>
>> cheers!
>
>But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
>on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
>Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat
>padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your
>thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
>
>The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
>something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
>in your fat stores on the hips.
>
>You want 28% fat you get 28% fat. And it doesn't all contain itself in
>the boobs and butt over time. Think about it.
>
>I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body. It's
>like you want some amalgom of a woman. It's frustrating to have that be
>an ideal.

Well, you're probably going to hate me for saying this, but having a
*little* extra body fat can be very attractive on some younger women,
but the older a woman gets, the less attractive it is.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Hoff
September 21st 04, 06:23 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:00:39 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
> >GS wrote:
> >
> >> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
> >> and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
> >> you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
> >> Vardalos etc. any day.
> >>
> >> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
> >>
> >> cheers!
> >
> >But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
> >on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
> >Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat
> >padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your
> >thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
> >
> >The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
> >something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
> >in your fat stores on the hips.
> >
> >You want 28% fat you get 28% fat. And it doesn't all contain itself in
> >the boobs and butt over time. Think about it.
> >
> >I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body. It's
> >like you want some amalgom of a woman. It's frustrating to have that be
> >an ideal.
>
> Well, you're probably going to hate me for saying this, but having a
> *little* extra body fat can be very attractive on some younger women,
> but the older a woman gets, the less attractive it is.
>

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."

(couldn't resist)

Hoff
--
Peanuts!! Get yer Peanuts!!
http://irongarm.org/Files_html_global/peanutgallery2.htm

geek_girl
September 21st 04, 11:48 PM
In > Dally wrote:
> GS wrote:
>
>> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming
>> back, and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking
>> beanpoles you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy
>> figures a la Nia Vardalos etc. any day. Nothing beats a nice "S"
>> curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders... cheers!
>
> But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra
> lard on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?

IME yes, many men are.

> Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat >
> padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding
> your thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
>

Usually, yes. But that doesn't have to mean you'll have a huge gut and
flabby cottage cheese thighs. Most men don't complain too much about a
woman having a slightly rounded belly and a little extra padding on
shapely muscular thighs.

> The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
> something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
> in your fat stores on the hips.

Did you even read the whole article? "'Curves are seen as sexy because
that's the shape of a mature women, not a flat chested adolescent
teenager. The allure is of a woman as opposed to a girl,' says Royal
Ontario Museum fashion curator and author Dr. Alexandra Palmer."


> You want 28% fat you get 28% fat. And it doesn't all contain itself
> in the boobs and butt over time. Think about it.

Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for many
women with bf% in the low 20s.

> I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body.

No, your objection is that you're not one of those women. Deal with it.

Dally
September 22nd 04, 01:22 PM
geek_girl wrote:
> In > Dally wrote:

> Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for many
> women with bf% in the low 20s.

My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
in your low 20s. YMMV.

>>I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body.
>
>
> No, your objection is that you're not one of those women. Deal with it.

What, flailing around ****ily on a newsgroup isn't dealing with it?

Dally

Dally
September 22nd 04, 01:35 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> Well, you're probably going to hate me for saying this, but having a
> *little* extra body fat can be very attractive on some younger women,
> but the older a woman gets, the less attractive it is.

I don't hate you for saying that, I agree with you. And what I've
discovered is that young boobs hold fat preferentially, whereas old
boobs deflate immediately when you try to cut. I've also discovered
that fat deposits - once laid down - are very, very, very hard to budge
from thighs. So the secret to being attractive is to never have aged
and never to have to diet.

Which is just another way of saying younger women are more attractive.
I agree with that, too. I'm just agitating because the article said
that "mature" women are attractive and then showed young women with
nearly unattainable bodies... the ones that Nina calls "winning the
genetic lotto" with just a different lotto.

I keep wishing feminine beauty would be attainable for - if not me - my
daughter or people I know. I recall reading that less than 10% (was it
6%?) of women have an hourglass shape. Most are apples or pears based
on where they hold their fat deposits.

So saying "finally, hips are allowed" doesn't help all that much over
the "18% bodyfat but big boobs" model. That model was at least
attainable with just breast augmentation.

I still swear one of the Victoria's Secret models is a transsexual: 8%
body fat with big boobs and lantern jaw... hmmm. It's the very image of
what a woman can't achieve naturally (unless she started out as a man
with excellent access to medical procedures.)

Dally

geek_girl
September 22nd 04, 06:53 PM
In > Dally wrote:
> geek_girl wrote:
>> In > Dally wrote:
>
>> Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for
>> many women with bf% in the low 20s.
>
> My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
> in your low 20s.

No, your point is that in *your* experience, *you* don't.

> YMMV.

Apparently it does.

>>>I guess my objection is that you want 28% fat on a 18% fat body.
>>
>>
>> No, your objection is that you're not one of those women. Deal with
>> it.
>
> What, flailing around ****ily on a newsgroup isn't dealing with it?

No.

Nina
September 22nd 04, 09:29 PM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:00:39 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>GS wrote:
>
>> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
>> and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
>> you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
>> Vardalos etc. any day.
>>
>> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>>
>> cheers!
>
>But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
>on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
>Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat
>padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your
>thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
>
>The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
>something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
>in your fat stores on the hips.

Some women genetically look like this way. Even when I'm heavy, I
have to reach around 175 pounds before I my waist creeps past
30inches. And my stomach has always been flat. From the side, I
looked like a thin person. From the front, I looked like an
hourglass.

I *think* your point is that there's always a trade-off (for me, it's
my thighs. Bah!)

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
September 22nd 04, 09:31 PM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:22:25 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>geek_girl wrote:
>> In > Dally wrote:
>
>> Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for many
>> women with bf% in the low 20s.
>
>My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
>in your low 20s. YMMV.

Mine certianly does! I'm trying ot think who saw me at my thinnest,
which was 18-20% BF. Watson and Lyle are the only ones I can think
of. I definitely still had back, and my bra size was 32DDD.




Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Dally
September 22nd 04, 10:06 PM
Nina wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:22:25 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>
>>geek_girl wrote:
>>
>>>In > Dally wrote:
>>
>>>Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for many
>>>women with bf% in the low 20s.
>>
>>My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
>>in your low 20s. YMMV.
>
>
> Mine certianly does! I'm trying ot think who saw me at my thinnest,
> which was 18-20% BF. Watson and Lyle are the only ones I can think
> of. I definitely still had back, and my bra size was 32DDD.

That's why you're allowed to live in LA. :-)

Dally

Nina
September 22nd 04, 10:27 PM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:06:01 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Nina wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:22:25 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>geek_girl wrote:
>>>
>>>>In > Dally wrote:
>>>
>>>>Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for many
>>>>women with bf% in the low 20s.
>>>
>>>My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
>>>in your low 20s. YMMV.
>>
>>
>> Mine certianly does! I'm trying ot think who saw me at my thinnest,
>> which was 18-20% BF. Watson and Lyle are the only ones I can think
>> of. I definitely still had back, and my bra size was 32DDD.
>
>That's why you're allowed to live in LA. :-)
>
>Dally

Yeah, but alhtough mine don't sag to my knees, they don't dey gravity,
nipples-pointing-heavneward-to-mock-the-diety sort of way, either!

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Slambram
September 23rd 04, 04:16 AM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:40:26 GMT, "G.S." >
wrote:

>the beanpole look never really did it for me....
>
>http://www.lifewise.canoe.ca/LifewiseStyle0409/17_S-curve-sun.html


Did J-Lo lose weight? Her butt actually looks a lot more normal in
that picture than the BAM!!! I usually see..

Proton Soup
September 23rd 04, 05:41 AM
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:29:39 GMT, Nina
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:00:39 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>>GS wrote:
>>
>>> I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
>>> and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
>>> you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
>>> Vardalos etc. any day.
>>>
>>> Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>>>
>>> cheers!
>>
>>But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
>>on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
>>Because that's the way fat stores actually work. If you've got fat
>>padding the breasts and butt then you most likely have fat padding your
>>thighs, upper arms and quite possibly your abdomen.
>>
>>The ideal of big boobs and butt and tiny waist and flat stomach is
>>something you get for a moment when you're 17 before you finish laying
>>in your fat stores on the hips.
>
>Some women genetically look like this way. Even when I'm heavy, I
>have to reach around 175 pounds before I my waist creeps past
>30inches. And my stomach has always been flat. From the side, I
>looked like a thin person. From the front, I looked like an
>hourglass.
>
>I *think* your point is that there's always a trade-off (for me, it's
>my thighs. Bah!)

Now you're just taunting her.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

MJL
September 23rd 04, 05:59 AM
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:11:24 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:


>Well, you're probably going to hate me for saying this, but having a
>*little* extra body fat can be very attractive on some younger women,
>but the older a woman gets, the less attractive it is.

I prefer to hate you for several other valid reasons.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Proton Soup
September 23rd 04, 07:17 AM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 04:59:40 GMT, MJL > wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:11:24 -0500, Proton Soup >
>wrote:
>
>
>>Well, you're probably going to hate me for saying this, but having a
>>*little* extra body fat can be very attractive on some younger women,
>>but the older a woman gets, the less attractive it is.
>
>I prefer to hate you for several other valid reasons.

Well, I am beautiful.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
September 23rd 04, 02:30 PM
In article >, Dally >
wrote:

> GS wrote:
>
> > I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
> > and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
> > you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
> > Vardalos etc. any day.
> >
> > Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
> >
> > cheers!
>
> But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
> on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?

Um, no!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Proton Soup
September 23rd 04, 04:43 PM
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:30:53 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >, Dally >
>wrote:
>
>> GS wrote:
>>
>> > I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
>> > and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
>> > you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
>> > Vardalos etc. any day.
>> >
>> > Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
>> >
>> > cheers!
>>
>> But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
>> on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
>
>Um, no!

Not even if she's a sweetie like geek_girl?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
September 23rd 04, 06:03 PM
In article >,
Proton Soup > wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:30:53 -0400, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Dally >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> GS wrote:
> >>
> >> > I just skimmed the article, my whole point was "curves" are coming back,
> >> > and it's about time IMHO. To hell with the anorexic looking beanpoles
> >> > you see on fashion show runways etc. Give me nice curvy figures a la Nia
> >> > Vardalos etc. any day.
> >> >
> >> > Nothing beats a nice "S" curve from a womans butt up to her shoulders...
> >> >
> >> > cheers!
> >>
> >> But are you willing to take a bit of a rounded belly and some extra lard
> >> on the thighs along with the bountiful boobs and out-there butt?
> >
> >Um, no!
>
> Not even if she's a sweetie like geek_girl?

Without seeing jpegs, no!

>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Mick R.
September 23rd 04, 09:35 PM
"Nina" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:06:01 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
> >Nina wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 08:22:25 -0400, Dally > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>geek_girl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In > Dally wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Who wants 28% fat? The look they're talking about is attainable for
many
> >>>>women with bf% in the low 20s.
> >>>
> >>>My point is that my experience is you don't get big boobs and big butt
> >>>in your low 20s. YMMV.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mine certianly does! I'm trying ot think who saw me at my thinnest,
> >> which was 18-20% BF. Watson and Lyle are the only ones I can think
> >> of. I definitely still had back, and my bra size was 32DDD.
> >
> >That's why you're allowed to live in LA. :-)
> >
> >Dally
>
> Yeah, but alhtough mine don't sag to my knees, they don't dey gravity,
> nipples-pointing-heavneward-to-mock-the-diety sort of way, either!
>
Not fair!

Teasing with toys we can't play with is not fair!

> Cheers,
> Nina
> delicious! evil! calorie free!
> http://www.theslack.com