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