So mainstream media has finally acknowledged what we've known all along. I had to laugh at some of the comments...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...aling.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...aling.html
Quote:Quote:
In the 1980s, in order to accommodate people’s vanity and ever expanding girth, the U.S. Department of Commerce got rid of the uniform sizing system and instead allowed for more ego stroking sizes. As a result of this, today, a size 8 would have been roughly equivalent to a size 16-18 in the 1950s, obviously though this varies a shocking amount from brand to brand.
So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually? Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of. Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took. Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. Her weight fluctuated a bit through her career, usually rising in times of depression and falling back to her normal thereafter, but her dressmaker listed her as 118 pounds and the Hollywood studios tended to list her between 115-120 lbs.
Quote:Quote:
If you’re curious as to how that compares to modern contemporary fashion models, according to BluFire Model Registry, models are generally in the vicinity of a 34 bust; 24 waist; and 34 hips, which is very close to Monroe’s measurements of 35-22-35. They list the average model today at 5 ft. 8 inches, to Monroe’s 5 ft 5.5 inches. Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.
Quote:Quote:
However, Lassek & Gaulin (2008) have suggested that WHR is not associated with health but more related to cognitive abilities. It has been noted, however, that WHR is not independent of body fatness, which may itself be an indicator of physical attractiveness. More recent work therefore has attempted to partition the importance of these two factors, and it has been conclusively shown across numerous studies that variation in attractiveness is much more closely related to variation in body fatness than to differences in WHR (e.g., Henss, 2000; Kościński, 2013; Smith, Cornelissen & Tovée, 2007; Tassinary & Hansen, 1998; Tovee & Cornelissen, 1999; Tovee et al., 2002; Tovee & Cornelissen, 1999; Tovee et al., 1997; Tovee et al., 1998).
Quote:Quote:
if it happened to you it’s your fault, I got no sympathy and I don’t believe your version of events.
Quote:Quote:
The covariance of BF% and BMI with age indicates that the role of body fatness alone, as a marker of attractiveness, has been overestimated
Quote:Quote:
if it happened to you it’s your fault, I got no sympathy and I don’t believe your version of events.
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)storm Wrote:
Reading briefly, this is one part in a longer dialogue to put a number to what is attractive to people (think: 30% boobs, 50% ass, 10% cooking, that sort of thing).
Quote:Quote:
There aren't many guys with a fetish to be a feeder out there.
Quote: (08-28-2015 10:32 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought.
I'd pass. She'd need a moment of enlightenment and then I'd think about it.
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
raw dog Taylor Swift silly
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
put it in her poop chute
Quote: (08-28-2015 12:12 PM)General Stalin Wrote:
Wonderful how predictable people are.
I shared this on my FB account and the first two comments are dudes saying how they like thicker girls (guilty-conscience harpoonmen who feel the need to defend their minority taste in women and that they are dating/have dated fatties) and one fat woman saying "I feel if I were to lay with a woman I would want some meat on her. Taylor Swift is not attractive to me. I'm not saying this just because I'm fat. blahblahblah"
Male and female hamsters all around. Meanwhile the silent majority who simply "like" the status totally get it.
Quote: (08-28-2015 12:22 PM)Phoenix Wrote:
Very interesting! I've heard there is also a report out there that men like tits. WTF, I know right? We'll have to wait for the scientists to confirm this before we start getting erections about it.
Quote: (08-28-2015 06:58 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:
Traditionally in this forum it's good manners to not just post a link with a comment -- we prefer to see some decent excerpts of the article together with hilarious gifs ideally
That said, I LOL'ed at the silly bint who said Marilyn Monroe was supposedly "plump" or a "more realistic" body type, that she was supposedly around a size 12-16 in today's sizing systems.
That look like a size 12 to anybody here?
More on this topic here: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.html/...ize-12-16/
Quote:Quote:
In the 1980s, in order to accommodate people’s vanity and ever expanding girth, the U.S. Department of Commerce got rid of the uniform sizing system and instead allowed for more ego stroking sizes. As a result of this, today, a size 8 would have been roughly equivalent to a size 16-18 in the 1950s, obviously though this varies a shocking amount from brand to brand.
So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually? Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of. Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took. Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. Her weight fluctuated a bit through her career, usually rising in times of depression and falling back to her normal thereafter, but her dressmaker listed her as 118 pounds and the Hollywood studios tended to list her between 115-120 lbs.
As for the suggestion this is outside contemporary norms?
Quote:Quote:
If you’re curious as to how that compares to modern contemporary fashion models, according to BluFire Model Registry, models are generally in the vicinity of a 34 bust; 24 waist; and 34 hips, which is very close to Monroe’s measurements of 35-22-35. They list the average model today at 5 ft. 8 inches, to Monroe’s 5 ft 5.5 inches. Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.
Quote: (08-28-2015 06:58 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:
...Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D.
Quote:Quote:
Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.
Quote: (08-28-2015 10:32 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:
Quote: (08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:
Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought.
I'd pass. She'd need a moment of enlightenment and then I'd think about it.