Idealizing thin women. - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

strelnik · #31 03-29-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomf301

Curvey and soft - not boney! Of course she has to be a diplomat in public, a lady in the parlor and a raunchy slut in the bedroom.

On ne peut qu'esperer....we can only hope.

Sigh....I'll never know.

Hatterasguy · #32 03-29-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomf301

Curvey and soft - not boney! Of course she has to be a diplomat in public, a lady in the parlor and a raunchy slut in the bedroom.

Extra points if she can suck a golf ball through a garden hose!

aklim · #33 03-29-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Extra points if she can suck a golf ball through a garden hose!

Or the chrome off a trailer hitch or suck start a Harley.

LUVMBDiesels · #34 03-29-2009, 10:26 PM

Blame it on Twiggy...

Look at Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, and the other sex symbols of the 40's and 50's they were big girls fat by today's standards, but just right for the times. Going back further look at pictures of the flappers from the 1920's and women like Ginger Rogers from the 1930's none of them were size zero's

People from the 1950's would look at our scrawny chicks and think they were refugees from a labor camp.

I like my girls with a bit of meat on them.

Give me nice curves and great legs and I am happy. Over exercised zero body fat, ropey muscled girls are not for me...

Lollipops are for candy shops, not for dating...

Botnst · #35 03-29-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Blame it on Twiggy...

Look at Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, and the other sex symbols of the 40's and 50's they were big girls fat by today's standards, but just right for the times. Going back further look at pictures of the flappers from the 1920's and women like Ginger Rogers from the 1930's none of them were size zero's

People from the 1950's would look at our scrawny chicks and think they were refugees from a labor camp.

I like my girls with a bit of meat on them.

Give me nice curves and great legs and I am happy. Over exercised zero body fat, ropey muscled girls are not for me...

Lollipops are for candy shops, not for dating...

I think that's an intersting observation. I read a Op/ed several months ago in which the writer (don't recall whom) contrasted leading males of the olden days (from the era Weismuller up to Clint, I guess). His argument was that men became increasingly feminized. I think he was comparing the Clark Gable ideal of the 30's - 50' with the Brokeback bunch of today. I hadn't thought about your observation -- the ideal female changing from curvy, soft women to angular, boyish girls.

Interesting.

strelnik · #36 03-29-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Blame it on Twiggy...

Look at Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, and the other sex symbols of the 40's and 50's they were big girls fat by today's standards, but just right for the times. Going back further look at pictures of the flappers from the 1920's and women like Ginger Rogers from the 1930's none of them were size zero's

People from the 1950's would look at our scrawny chicks and think they were refugees from a labor camp.

I like my girls with a bit of meat on them.

Give me nice curves and great legs and I am happy. Over exercised zero body fat, ropey muscled girls are not for me...

Lollipops are for candy shops, not for dating...

You had thin women in the 40s and 50s: Gene Tierney, Pola Negri, Claudette Colbert, Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo...and you had more meaty ones: Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Doris Day.

Same nowadays: for every Keira Knightley, you have a Pamerla Anderson or an Angelina Jolie.

Botnst · #37 03-29-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

You had thin women in the 40s and 50s: Gene Tierney, Pola Negri, Claudette Colbert, Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo...and you had more meaty ones: Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Doris Day.

Same nowadays: for every Keira Knightley, you have a Pamerla Anderson or an Angelina Jolie.

Whoa. Rita Hayworth? No way, Jose.

strelnik · #38 03-29-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Whoa. Rita Hayworth? No way, Jose.

What's wrong with Rita Hayworth?

Jorn · #39 03-29-2009, 10:46 PM

Blame it on the gay man; most man in fashion are gay, they look at a woman different than a straight man who looks at a woman in a sexual matter, he wants one thing from a woman: procreate and for that he needs a healthy woman and not a twiggy. While most people in fashion look at it in a aesthetic way, where the model is a a-sexual creature that is there to show of there creations.

Botnst · #40 03-29-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

What's wrong with Rita Hayworth?

Nuthin'! I'm just saying she was no skinny boyish girl.

That was a full-blown woman with curves and steam! OMG. Couldn't act to save her life. But sooooo hot, who cares?

Botnst · #41 03-29-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorn

Blame it on the gay man; most man in fashion are gay, they look at a woman different than a straight man who looks at a woman in a sexual matter, he wants one thing from a woman: procreate and for that he needs a healthy woman and not a twiggy. While most people in fashion look at it in a aesthetic way, where the model is a a-sexual creature that is there to show of there creations.

Excellent point.

LUVMBDiesels · #42 03-30-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

You had thin women in the 40s and 50s: Gene Tierney, Pola Negri, Claudette Colbert, Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo...and you had more meaty ones: Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Doris Day.

Same nowadays: for every Keira Knightley, you have a Pamerla Anderson or an Angelina Jolie.

Yes, but even the skinny girls (think Lauren Bacall and Katherine Hepburn) were not as bony as the chicks we see now. Being real skinny was not an objective. Think of Bacall saying "Don't call me 'slim'" in "To Have and Have Not"

Angelina and Pamela are the closest things we have now to the old style bombshells and Jolie is pretty scrawny...

I also agree with Jorn that this is a result of the fashion industry seeing models as nothing more than clothes hangers and wanting them to have no curves that could detract from the drape of the fabric.

There have been interesting studies done as to what men want to see in women and what women think they should look like. The two ideals are miles apart!

OMEGAMAN · #43 03-30-2009, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

Blame it on Twiggy...

Look at Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, and the other sex symbols of the 40's and 50's they were big girls fat by today's standards, but just right for the times. Going back further look at pictures of the flappers from the 1920's and women like Ginger Rogers from the 1930's none of them were size zero's

People from the 1950's would look at our scrawny chicks and think they were refugees from a labor camp.

I like my girls with a bit of meat on them.

Give me nice curves and great legs and I am happy. Over exercised zero body fat, ropey muscled girls are not for me...

Lollipops are for candy shops, not for dating...

I agree. I sum it up like this. I like women not girls!