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