Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playboy made me do it
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 16 of 183 (224055)
07-16-2005 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by roxrkool
07-15-2005 8:38 PM


quote:
I guess I don't think 'beauty,' as in facial beauty, has changed overmuch through time.
Well, there's skin color, too.
And there is actually a great deal of variation in what constitutes a beautiful face among cultures; broad nose or pointy, high cheekbones or round face, curly hair or straight (long or short), etc.
The only thing that is consistent has to do with the symmetry of facial features, and that is an evolutionary preference due to assymetry being an indication of disease or birth defect.
That being said, humans are extremely visual creatures which appear to have a particular region of the brain dedicated solely to identifying human faces.
quote:
What I think has changed over time, and which may be culturally controlled, is body shape. Some cultures value/favor larger women, others favor tall women, and others favor petite women.
I think it's very much culturally controlled. That's why we see so much more rapid change in preferred body shape as mass media has become more prevalent.
quote:
Why the differences? Possibly due to very sensible reasons. Women with large hips and breasts appear to be better mothers and in a culture that values and respects motherhood, those women become the ideal. In a culture that values and respects strength, perhaps tall and muscular women are the ideal. In a culture that values hardiness, perhaps petite women become the ideal.
Except that when you look at our US history, the changes in popular body shape for women coincided with where the greater society wanted and what was going on in the culture around them. In the 20's for example, during the first wave of modern feminism, style dictated a very thin, flat-chested, gangly boylike figure. In the 30's and 40's, a strong, sturdy but womanly body was preferred, because we needed both Rosie the Riveter to keep the country moving and we needed Betty Grable's womanly curves to keep the troops inspired. Then in the 50's women were relegated back to a restricted role in the home and expected to pump out babies after the war, so Marilyn Monroe with her very full, hyper-womanly figure became the one to emulate. Then the 60's and 70's rolled around again with the second wave of feminism and, just like in the 20's, Twiggy and other defeminized women who were extremely thin and boylike became the ideal. The 80's was a brief moment where a relatively normal body was popular as the aerobics and fitness craze took off, but then in the 90's we're back to Kate Moss and the "heroin chic" waif look.
There has just begun a bit of advertising which features women of normal size, and even big women (Queen Latifah). I was just in NYC on business and there was a big billboard campaign for some underwear company that had a bunch of women of various normal sizes standing there in panties and bras. I had never seen a size 10 woman in her underwear in an ad, let alone a 14 or a 16. It looks strange, but great.
quote:
These days, our culture, and others, value fitness and we've determined that slimmer women are more healthy than larger women.
But "fitness" is different from "thinness".
Most models are skinny, not fit. They have no muscle. They are frail looking, not fit.
Is this woman "fit"?
quote:
I'd have to say those women just had the right people working for them.
So do you therefore believe, unlike holmes, that the media and can convince you that you should find something attractive?
quote:
Men just love women.
Meh.
I think men love women's bodies. I don't think many men love women as people all that much.
quote:
Since they are visually stimulated, they love looking at women. To them, they're just nice bodies, faces, boobs, butts.
Ick.
Talk about dehumanization.
quote:
Who they go home to or choose to marry are often nothing like those calendar girls.
Is that because they don't want that or because they can't get that?
quote:
If men were truly influenced by Playboy, fat and/or ugly women would never date, marry, or have children. Since that if far from the case, it's obvious most men are not overly affected by what they see on the media.
Many fat and ugly women have never dated, married, or had children. The same is true for men, but it is less so for them.
If you think that men are not overly affected by what they see in the media, then why is there an increase in eating disorders, cosmetic surgery, and body dissatisfaction among boys and men these days?
quote:
In my opinion, women are their own worst enemies. We attack each other's beauty, fitness level, hair color, etc. far more than men do. We buy those stupid glam magazines that tell us not to wear undersized bathing suits and then on the next page find a women in an undersized bathing suit. We undermine our own self-worth by kowtowing to the media.
I agree. It's similar to how in cultures that prectice FGM, it's the women that perpetuate the custom. Once you get enough buy in, a group willself-police.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by roxrkool, posted 07-15-2005 8:38 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-17-2005 1:34 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 183 (224057)
07-16-2005 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 4:09 AM


Re: alright, let's look at some pictures.
quote:
so you admit then that the playboy ideal is more based in reality?
Yes, but that doesn't make it better.
Not coming close to the beauty standard of a Goddess is understandable.
I mean, it's a god.
The fact that the Playboy ideal is based in reality implies that it is attainable at all. That woman is a real woman, therefore attainable.
You are using as examples these paintings by Boticelli and Raphael to comare to the mass media images in Playboy. There was no mass media back then, those paintings weren't being used to sell anything, and were not available to the vast, vast majority of people.
In the painters' lifetimes, I'd be surprised if a couple of hundred people saw those paintings.
Playboy's circulation is 4.5 million worldwide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 4:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 9:33 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 183 (224059)
07-16-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 4:39 AM


Re: pop quiz.
So, are you actually telling me that you don't think that these women's bodies don't look all that different?:
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-16-2005 08:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 4:39 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 9:47 AM nator has replied
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 10:31 AM nator has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 183 (224068)
07-16-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
07-16-2005 8:20 AM


Re: alright, let's look at some pictures.
Yes, but that doesn't make it better.
Not coming close to the beauty standard of a Goddess is understandable.
I mean, it's a god.
yes, that's why i posted a picture of someone who was NOT a goddess, to demonstrate that the ideals are still present in the depictions of normal people. it's not until the baroque period that we get realistic, lifelike depictions of people. but even then, there's ideal. and there's stylization going on.
but hey, i think you're missing the point a little here. actually, rather, by alot. do you suspect botticelli BELIEVED in venus? i strongly suspect he was catholic. these are things they painted specifically to portray idealized beauty. the renaissance and baroque painters admired the greek traditions of idealized beauty, not the gods themselves. the greek goddess of the renaissance are exactly equatable to playmates. there's good evidence that half the time, they just painted them so they could get some nudity in their work.
so, well, how should i phrase this? not coming close to beauty standard of a playmate in understandable. i mean, it is called "playboy." playboys don't go after average girls, do they?
The fact that the Playboy ideal is based in reality implies that it is attainable at all. That woman is a real woman, therefore attainable.
we'll look at a real woman below. but tell me, do you seriously think that these artists just drew from their imaginations? no, they had models and references. there's was no photography in the 16th and 17th century, was there? when a real person was depicted, they were depicted in paint or stone.
You are using as examples these paintings by Boticelli and Raphael to comare to the mass media images in Playboy. There was no mass media back then, those paintings weren't being used to sell anything,
wanna bet? they were used to sell the artist's talents. they themselves were sold. patrons would pay a great deal, and the art world was HIGHLY competitive. there rivalries -- often eadly -- between artists. so it's a grave mistake to think there were not selling something.
and were not available to the vast, vast majority of people.
In the painters' lifetimes, I'd be surprised if a couple of hundred people saw those paintings.
you should re-think this one too. although i've shown some pagan art, most of the art produced in the renaissance and 17th century were comissioned by popes and cardinals. when you go florence or rome today, where do you see all of the art? churches. so, yes, these paintings were getting seen.
even the pagan and secular paintings were proudly desplayed in palaces and homes. they were quite the status symbol, the bling of its day. the whole purpose was to show them.
Playboy's circulation is 4.5 million worldwide.
and boticelli's birth of venus has been billions of people worldwide in various forms. this is not an image with no impact.
so anyways, just to keep this going, we're going to look at stylized baroque ideal, vs. a somewhat realistic depiction. to keep it interesting, i'll use someone who's not a god or godess, but still not your average person. (if she were average, it would defeat the point of idealization, wouldn't it?)
here's bernini's "santa bibiana"
personally, i love bernini. just the right blend of realism with stylization. and you gotta love how makes marble come to life. why bibiana? no particular reason. i couldn't find a naked female figure by bernini who wasn't a greek goddess or an angel. now saints are, of course, somewhat ordinary people, but idealized ordinary people. so it fits. now his stylization is a lot less obvious. you can see it more easily in his other works. he likes perfect almond-esque heads, and youthful supple figures. the softness he puts into his female figures is incredible; the marble looks exactly like skin. in "pluto and prosperpine" pluto's fingers actually press into her thigh in such a realistic manner that you probably couldn't tell a b+w detail of it from a photo of real human beings. the realism here is incredible -- his only stylization is the creation of ideals.
so look at the features bibiana, a dignified saint and more importantly a real person, has in common with venus in the botticelli. while we can't compare boobs, we can compare her more visible features. her face and hair are very similar to venus. her hands are exactly the same, one's just turned out. the impression we get of her figure is that it's very similar to venus, long and slender, although more realistically proportioned. in fact, the only major difference i see are the clothes, and her squarish shoulders. but that might just be an illusion of the fabric.
for contrast and comparison, here's bernini's mistress
finally, a realistic depiction of a woman, right? an attainable idea of what women look like. well, keep looking. she has as much in the way of similarities as she does differences. her features are still very perfected, her neck long, and her shoulders VERY curved. she's different in that she's got a little more body fat. a little, not a lot. this might be a somewhat accurate depiction of the weight of the average working-class woman was in 17th century italy. her other difference is her hair and clothing. she's at once evidence that these ideals are not average women, and that average women can still be portrayed in the same fashion.
she probably would have stopped sleeping with him if he made her look ugly.
shall we look at greek sculpture next? i think the issue here is that average person now is further from the ideal than at any time during history, due largely to the conveniences of the modern world. for instance, cars probably contribute the obesity problem. there's some thought that says that the hellenistic sculpture was actually somewhat realistic in its ideals. it explains why the idealization of classical greek sculpture is so far over the top (especially for the men, who wouldn't have looked out of place in those boby-building competitions).

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:20 AM nator has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 183 (224069)
07-16-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
07-16-2005 8:32 AM


Re: pop quiz.
So, are you actually telling me that you don't think that these women's bodies don't look all that different?:
no, what i'm trying to tell you is that the mainstream ideal hasn't changed excessively in western culture in more than 2000 years.
calvin klein's heroin chic ads of the early 90's were a little blip on the radar, and even then they weren't accepted by everyone as the ideal. i'm sure you've heard the ever-popular sir-mix-a-lot song, "baby got back"? apparently, he wrote it in response to these very ads.
how long did they last?
now, how long did pinups last, in comparison? you can find pinups as early the turn of the century (i'm rather fond of alphonse mucha's paintings, many of which seem to have inspired pinup trends) right through to the 1950's.
here's of course where the turnabout comes into play. playboy picked up where pinups left off. and the trends are all the same -- healty, curvy women, often volumptuous. round hips, larger breasts. very stylized poses. it's all the same stuff, really.
so we have nearly 100 years of pinups, and 2 of heroin chic. one is arguably the mainstream ideal of the 20th century, and one is just not.
not that there weren't subtle changes. you'll notice difference in preferenc between the 20's and 30's, and between the 80's and 90's. but which one looks more like the women i've been showing pictures of? nobody's arguing that calvin klein promoted an unhealthy image with their auschwitz victim ads. but we're debating whether or no the picture BELOW it is unhealthy.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 11:17 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 183 (224072)
07-16-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
07-16-2005 8:32 AM


Re: pop quiz.
So, are you actually telling me that you don't think that these women's bodies don't look all that different?
Yes and no. Yes the top one looks nothing like the average playboy playmate, and No the bottom one is pretty similar to the average playboy playmate.
Remember you were the one that said that Playboy was setting the trends and enforcing the cultural standards. Yet did they have massive amounts of "waifs" indundating their pages such that it became the new norm?
If so then why are guys still liking big breasts and big butts, and why does the average playmate have cleavage?
You continue to skip around just to try and keep your position.
By the way, if you really believe what you said about men, then you really need to get some help for yourself. At the very least you need to deprogram yourself by working hard to remove your stereotyped negative imagery. You should do that as well with regard to your negative views of your body.
You will note that was one of the suggestions within the sources you cited, and what I had said earlier. Both stereotypes are very unhealthy.
If I said the same thing about blacks as a group, or muslims as a group, I'm sure you would be jumping all over me for saying it... right?
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-16-2005 10:34 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 8:32 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 183 (224079)
07-16-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 9:47 AM


Re: pop quiz.
quote:
here's of course where the turnabout comes into play. playboy picked up where pinups left off. and the trends are all the same -- healty, curvy women, often volumptuous. round hips, larger breasts. very stylized poses. it's all the same stuff, really.
Actually, the average Playmate has far fewer curves than the average woman.
Today playmates are two inches taller than when the magazine started, yet they are only one pound heavier, their bust and hip measurements are smaller, and their waist measurements are larger.
They have gotten less voluptuous and more boy-like with narrower hips, a lotthinner, and taller.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 9:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 11:51 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 183 (224080)
07-16-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
07-16-2005 10:31 AM


Re: pop quiz.
It just so happens that I was channel surfing this morning and came across some show on ET about Playboy magazine. I only caught the end but someone from the magazine was talking about how they choose Playmates from all of the beautiful women that want to be in the magazine.
She said that the trick is to convince the public that there is something special and unique about the model.
I am sorry that I can only write this right now. I have to be at work in a half an hour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 10:31 AM Silent H has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 183 (224082)
07-16-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
07-16-2005 11:17 AM


Re: pop quiz.
Actually, the average Playmate has far fewer curves than the average woman.
out of curiosity, do you read playboy?
this might be because the average woman is fatter now than she's ever been. i mean, let's be honest. it's not about number of curves, but placement.
she's got a lot more curves than a playmate, doesn't she? clearly quantity has very little to do with it.
Today playmates are two inches taller than when the magazine started,
quote:
shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002
we're quiblling over an inch or two, in 50 years? i can bat your statistics right back at you.
They have gotten less voluptuous and more boy-like with narrower hips, a lotthinner, and taller.
in a trend of people getting taller and thicker around the waist, this seems rather silly, doesn't it? of course they're changing by an inch or two in 50 years.
now compare this years playmate of the year (which i already posted) to that heroin chic model. which is the unhealthy ideal, do you think?
and i'd like to point out that your statistic is probably referring to actual models themselves -- NOT the images. this year's pmoy seems to have her waist line digitally altered to be smaller, which exagerated her hips.
kinda shoots your "boyish figure" argument out of the water, doesn't it?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 11:17 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 1:01 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 26 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-16-2005 1:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 183 (224100)
07-16-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 11:51 AM


Re: pop quiz.
Very funny.
Yes, were talking about an inch or two, because even though the women have gotten taller, their weight has essentially stayed the same.
Now, the slender hips, flat stomach, and very thin arms and thighs are still in fashion, but with big breasts. That's why fake breasts are so common among many models, actresses, and singers.
Is this woman homely? She'd never, ever get into Playboy. She is more indicative of the average, normal weight woman:
Compared to many models, the poty is a little more curvy, but she still has little in the way of hips. And that airbrushed pic of her with the hula skirt is creepy. She looks deformed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 11:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 4:30 PM nator has replied
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 07-16-2005 4:34 PM nator has not replied
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 8:06 AM nator has replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 26 of 183 (224103)
07-16-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
07-16-2005 11:51 AM


Re: pop quiz.
Thanks, 'rach.
Note to self: Don't look at Arachnophilia's posts when drunk at 5am. He might scare you.
Note to everyone else (Mainly Schraf): It's purely eye candy. Men like to look at Tiffany Fallon for the same reason we like to look at the Aston Martin Vanquish V12: It's curvey and goes like a train, but we wouldn't really like to own either of them, because the maintenence is too much.
There will always be people who find the stick insect model attractive. They are normaly idiots. There will always be girls who want to be stick insects, and they apparently want to attract idiots.
Think Dawin & Gould: Dumb blondes produce dumb blondes, and fill the dumb blonde niche...
For the record, the previous Mrs Parrot looked like Cindy Crawford, but acted like Damien Thorn.
The current Mrs Parrot looks more like the Venus of Willendorf than any other pic on this thread, but The result is snoozing in the cot.
In the morning, I'm driving into town to see a cat show: I may pass the Jaguar garage, but I'm only looking. I drive a Nissan...
...It gets me where I want to go....
---------------
Edit for clarity...
This message has been edited by Dead Parrot, 07-17-2005 05:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 07-16-2005 11:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 1:43 PM Dead Parrot has not replied
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 07-16-2005 4:34 PM Dead Parrot has not replied
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 7:46 AM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 183 (224106)
07-16-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dead Parrot
07-16-2005 1:24 PM


Re: pop quiz.
But it's not purely eye candy.
Most women and girls are raised to believe that they should strive to look like that. By both the culture and their families and friends.
They get highly rewarded when they do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-16-2005 1:24 PM Dead Parrot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 07-17-2005 7:44 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 183 (224119)
07-16-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
07-16-2005 1:01 PM


Re: pop quiz.
Is this woman homely? She'd never, ever get into Playboy
No she is not homely. Whether you make it into Playboy or not is not the line on homely. It is not even the line on hot. It is the line for least common denominator hot, which is still not a guarantee that a particular model will be attractive to any particular guy.
She is more indicative of the average, normal weight woman:
Well this is interesting. We are talking about ideals. Are ideals supposed to be the average person. Are we all supposed to be holding as more or most attractive, the average person?
And I might add that despite your lamenting that there is all this iconography of thinness which you claim is forcing everyone to try and be like, the fact is that the average person is not only becoming heavier in general, but actually unhealthfully heavy.
How do you explain that inconsistency?
It is true that we are seeing more cases of people with disorders related to weight, but it is actually in both directions, not just one. It might be interesting to know if more people are having liposuction as a body altering procedure rather than breast implants.
What seems to be the REAL problem is that people are becoming excessive in whatever they do and not being able to discern between fantasy and reality. They don't accept the limits of reality. They don't accept moderation as a fact of reality.
Earlier you showed a photo of Kate Moss. Now I am unsure if she has an eating disorder, but there are people that are naturally slim and so look like her. Are you suggesting that society should find them unattractive and repulsive and that such thin people should gorge in order just to pack on pounds, perhaps engage in plastic surgery to look like your average person?
If not, what exactly are we supposed to do with people that look like Kate Moss?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 1:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 5:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 183 (224120)
07-16-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dead Parrot
07-16-2005 1:24 PM


Re: pop quiz.
There will always be people who find the stick insect model attractive. They are normaly idiots. There will always be girls who want to be stick insects, and they apparently want to attract idiots.
Why do they have to be idiots? Have you ever seen some African tribes? Some are naturally thin. Are they all idiots or something?
This is all taste. Frankly I did find the Barbi's scary, and any model that begins to look like a skeleton scary... but I cannot find those that find beauty in that stupid.
I should say I do find Kate Moss and Milla Jovovich attractive, despite my general fetish for chubby girls. Does that make me an idiot?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dead Parrot, posted 07-16-2005 1:24 PM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 183 (224121)
07-16-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by nator
07-16-2005 1:01 PM


Re: pop quiz.
Is this woman homely? She'd never, ever get into Playboy.
I'm not big on celebrities, is that Kate Winslet? If so her breasts have appeared in the November 98 and November 99 issue of Playboy
(edit: - I'm so not big on celebrities, I spelt her name wrong)
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 16-July-2005 09:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 07-16-2005 1:01 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024