Replies

I think people's conception of "fat" or "heavy" is pretty darn subjective, but I think most of us can agree on one thing. The fashion industry/the media's sense of what a "healthy" woman should look like is often unhealthy. Give me a woman who actually looks feminine, not like a cocaine addict! Here's an example:

Kate Dillon - I think she's attractive.

6 posted on 08/12/2004 7:35:51 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)

I concur most wholeheartedly. But I susptect she's only about 160-70. Over 200 it's not as nice.

10 posted on 08/12/2004 7:42:44 AM PDT by fourdeuce82d

Hells yeah. See my other post on this thread.

I'll take classic pin up girls over modern stick-chicks ANY day.

11 posted on 08/12/2004 7:43:31 AM PDT by Gefreiter ("Flee...into the peace and safety of a new dark age" Lovecraft)

Kate Dillon--works for me! I like 'em with a little meat on 'em...!

25 posted on 08/12/2004 8:00:08 AM PDT by ArcLight

27 posted on 08/12/2004 8:06:36 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)

The fashion industry/the media's sense of what a "healthy" woman should look like is often unhealthy.

There's a very simple reason for this: the fashion and advertising industries are heavily influenced by homosexuals and thus are not especially in touch with the thought processes of regular people.

51 posted on 08/12/2004 8:50:44 AM PDT by jpl ("Go balloons, go ballons! Confetti, confetti, where's the confetti?" - Don Mischer)

I agree. A while back a friend of mine introduced me to a find on the Internet. He'd stumbled across a porn site that specialized in really, really old porn. What was interesting is that I really didn't find any of it erotic (the realization that all of the women pictured are either dead or somebodies wrinkled old great grandmother is a real turnoff), but I did look through the site because it offered a genuinely fascinating comparison between the popular notion of beauty now, and beauty as it has been perceived historically (there is also very little vintage hardcore...even in porn the photographers back then tried to leave a lot to the imagination). Almost without exception, the images that were taken prior to 1965-1970 depicted curvaceous, beautiful looking women with rounded hips, ample chests and a few extra pounds around the middle. Interestingly, they were almost all brunettes (there may have been some redheads, but it's hard to tell in black & white).

In the late 60's a bit of a culture shift happened. The raven haired curvaceous beauty almost completely disappears in the images, replaced by blond hardbodies or anorexic boyish waifs. There were even articles about this shift, saying that, at the time, the curvaceous look was considered to be "quaint". The hardbody waif look in the period articles was referred to as the "European Look", and many American trendsetters of that period considered Europeans to be more "classy, stylish, and modern". The Europeans at the time were going through an austerity phase in everything from fashion to architecture, and their vision of austere, skinny beauty was picked up by American stylists (and pornographers apparently). Once that style made inroads into the U.S., however, it stuck around. It's a shame too, because the women depicted in the older images really were beautiful, while the made up blond hardbodies in the later images just screamed "bimbo". IMO, our popular perception of beauty took a real step backwards.

I'm not going to post any URLs if anyone wants to compare this for themselves, but I'm sure you can get plenty of hits by searching for vintage erotica on Google.

91 posted on 08/12/2004 10:29:11 AM PDT by Arthalion

Very nice..my wife has a bit of extra weight and complains about it, I actually like it..it's a lot more pleasing to they eye than some of the "cocaine addicts" that look like they were just released from a concentration camp.
Oh well..I guess I like the old "Amazon hourglass figures" sans plastic..

93 posted on 08/12/2004 10:55:46 AM PDT by MD_Willington_1976

Kate Dillon is tall and she is proportionally an "apple" (not a pear). The weight is distributed more evenly, not mostly to her thighs, hips and bottom.

Most men are "apples" so every carrying extra weight, they can look OK. There are some pear shaped men and they don't look as good IMO.

The same weight to height ratio does not look as good on a "pear" shaped woman.

Tall "apple" women like Kate Dillon can look phenomenal heavier. Shorter and/or "pear" shaped women don't.

Alas, poor Elizabeth Edwards (like many women) is short and pear shaped. Even if she were to lose, say 50 pounds, she would not look as good as Dillon.

122 posted on 08/12/2004 11:44:23 AM PDT by Lorianne

133 posted on 08/12/2004 12:32:36 PM PDT by steve8714

Your picture is great, but here's another - she's pushin' it:

134 posted on 08/12/2004 12:37:57 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Refuse to allow anyone who could only get a government job tell you how to run your life.)

Yes, there's actually some meat on her bones.

164 posted on 08/12/2004 3:10:38 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Kerry/Edwards--Celebrity Metrosexual Ticket 2004)

Damn skippy she's attractive. I was impressed. Who is she?

174 posted on 08/12/2004 9:06:40 PM PDT by Melas

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794