Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site nlm-mcs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!nlm-mcs!rene
From: rene@nlm-mcs.ARPA (Rene Steiner)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: re: fat at the recent L.A. Con II
Message-ID: <5213@nlm-mcs.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 15:46:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: nlm-mcs.5213
Posted: Mon Sep 24 15:46:40 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 04:14:30 EDT
Organization: NLM/LHNCBC, Bethesda, Md.
Lines: 20

Sorry, I couldn't wait to read the rest of the flames before flaming
about this. Geez, alan, I'll bet you've never been to an art museum.
So you think almost no culture past or present thinks fat is
beautiful? Guess again. It's only recently that bony has become
beautiful, at least partially due to the fact that photography makes
people look fatter, so models must be skinnier, and models are
epitomes of beauty ... at any rate, if you look at paintings from
almost any earlier era, you'll see (surprise!) the women shown are
FAT, or at least pleasingly plump. They were the beauties then. Being
overweight was a sign of wealth and beauty. You don't think they'd put
anything other than the prettiest when they painted those nudes in
mythological settings, do you? And, by the way, it is also a
relatively recent development that larger breasts have been the focus
of a beautiful bod; the rear end was much more important (again, look
at the masters). 

		- rene

-- 
rene@nlm-mcs