Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!djl
From: djl@fisher.UUCP (Dan Levin  N6BZA )
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: indoctrination (really thin vs. sexy)
Message-ID: <357@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 19:51:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.357
Posted: Sun Oct 14 19:51:59 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Oct-84 02:03:03 EDT
References: <3811@tektronix.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 33

From: moiram@tektronix.UUCP
>Are you kidding?  *Where* have you been?  The Manhattanization of America
>has one message for all women, that we must be young and thin and beautiful.

Alright gentlemen, this has been the topic of a raging discussion here
amungst my friends, and this one really hit close to home.  

While it is very true that the recent trend has been toward svelt, even
scrawny figures, I argue that most red blooded American males still find 
your basic Rachel (sp?) Welsh at least as attractive as a Brooke Shields.
In fact, while the advertising world has been parading 5' 8" 105lbs
models around, it seems to me that a 36x24x36 5' 7" 135lbs women walking
down the street still turns heads.

So let's hear it.  Ignoring the fact that this discussion in sexist and
basically ignores many very important facets of what makes for a great
person, what do

Men: You like to see in a potential SO in terms of build and

Women: Do you feel pressured into trying to fit the Brooke image, or
do you think men are still attracted to more shapely figures?

			***dan

{ihnp4 | decvax | ucbvax}!allegra!fisher!djl
The misplaced (you call *that* a mountain ?!?!?) Californian

-- 
			***dan

{ihnp4 | decvax | ucbvax}!allegra!fisher!djl
The misplaced (you call *that* a mountain ?!?!?) Californian