Boston Herald Article on the Attleboro Raid
Angel
http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
Angel
AMB- Assertive Masochistic Bottom
"Believe me, when I bottom, I want it MY way :)" - Trouble841
~Remove the kitty to email me~
Philip the Foole
> Angel: Gary Kadet spouts bullshit regarding the Attleboro raid to promote his book.
> http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
"Most people involved in S & M are not very fit, A lot of them smoke.
They eat very badly. They're out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not
what you would visualize a sexy dungeon scene would be."
- Gary S. Kadet
Foole: I'm going to find that guy and give him a good beating. Right
after I finish this bag of Doritos.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
sha...@valise.com
<p...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Angel: Gary Kadet spouts bullshit regarding the Attleboro raid to promote his book.
>> http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
>
>"Most people involved in S & M are not very fit, A lot of them smoke.
>They eat very badly. They're out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not
>what you would visualize a sexy dungeon scene would be."
>- Gary S. Kadet
I am not matronly
Travis
Angel
Rachel <no...@becauseidontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:190720002202133967%no...@becauseidontwantspam.com...
> In article <34kcnsog7bjdgeumo...@4ax.com>,
> gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) wrote:
>
> > Gah. What crap journalism.
>
> Always what people say when they don't like what's said.
Actually, I agree that it is crap journalism and not just because of what
was said:) According to an email forwarded to me tonight, the only reason
the article was written is because of the recent Attleboro raid. The
journalist had no interest to do a story about that arse's book until then.
> Sorry, but my experience around US dungeons has been exactly as this
> guy said.
It has not been my experience. And, I would estimate that it was not his
before he was banned from one (or was it two-I have heard a few different
reports on this) for stalking and harrassing some of the members.
> Why does everyone get so upset with the TRUTH?
Define the truth? Your truth? My truth? Goth's truth? Hopefully it is not
Goth's as he cannot even tell the truth, from all accounts that I have heard
of from those who know him.
> Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
> than one or two token attractive people.
Well, I hate to put it so simply, but just because there were few attractive
people to you, does not mean they were not attractive to anyone else. You
might not have been attractive to many either. Attraction is a very personal
thing.
> The majority are fat and look horrible in leather.
And that is a fine example of it. What you may consider fat, some one else
may not. Who you think looks horrible in leather, someone else may think is
absolutely gorgeous. Unfortunately, everyone will not see everyone else as
beautiful people who look great in leather. Some people do not even care
about such petty things.
> Get over it or go on a diet.
And, the same could be said that you need to get over your simple-minded
biases regarding the looks of others.
TyMeDwn1st
>Gary Kadet spouts bullshit regarding the Attleboro raid to promote his book.
>
>http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
"Bullshit" is FAR too kind a word for the tripe he spouts.
From the article:
>Of this alternative universe accessorized with leather harnesses,
>signal whips, ``slut beds'' and a surplus of submissive males,
>Kadet said, ``I have a knowledge of it. I'm not saying it's not
>something I would ever do or have ever done.''
The rest is worse.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Official Depooty of Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers on SSBB
(To reply via email, simply remove my pearls...)
Psyfuru
Quote from PtF via Angel
>>"Most people involved in S & M are not very fit, A lot of them smoke.
>>They eat very badly. They're out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not
>>what you would visualize a sexy dungeon scene would be."
>>- Gary S. Kadet
Travis
>I am not matronly
Well, Understood. But Mr. Kadet seems to make a good Point.
Depending on how one genders, "hefty, older, matronly" may well be an apt
description of many BDSMer.
The only (slight) failing that I see is that "matronly" is a bit Dated. [1]
Had the author used "hefty, older, butch," perhaps, or perhaps "hefty, older,
femme," my attention would have been Riveted.
f
[1] As demonstrated in recent ssb threads, btw, it is important to capitalize
the last word in any sentence, thus alerting the reader that sie is coming to a
final Stop. Hence, my adoption of the current usage, Here. Doing anything
less would be, uh, Matronly.
Nicole Cloonan
: [1] As demonstrated in recent ssb threads, btw, it is important
: to capitalize the last word in any sentence, thus alerting the
: reader that sie is coming to a final Stop. Hence, my adoption of
: the current usage, Here. Doing anything less would be, uh,
: Matronly.
Please don't do that. Liquid out the nose hurts.
Nicole.
*snark*
--
There are people whose actions cause others to think
"What a nut". I am (apparently) one of these people.
Janet Hardy
> In article <34kcnsog7bjdgeumo...@4ax.com>,
> gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) wrote:
>
> Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
> than one or two token attractive people.
>
> The majority are fat and look horrible in leather.
>
> Get over it or go on a diet.
Poor baby. She doesn't find all the nice kinky people attractive. I guess
she won't want to play with them. What a shame.
Sweetheart -- some of us *like* to hit a butt that jiggles, or put clamps on
lots and lots of skin. Some of us don't believe that a healthy, happy body
ever "looks horrible."
The rest of us should just stay home and keep their toxic negative energy to
themselves.
Verdant
www.greenerypress.com
Xiphias Gladius
>> Angel: Gary Kadet spouts bullshit regarding the Attleboro raid to promote his book.
>> http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
> "Most people involved in S & M are not very fit, A lot of them smoke.
> They eat very badly. They're out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not
> what you would visualize a sexy dungeon scene would be."
> - Gary S. Kadet
Why is everyone so scandalized to find out that we look like everybody
else?
I mean, where was it written that I had to look like an underwear model to
enjoy pain?
Sorry, folks: we are just people. We don't suddenly get personal trainers
showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
boob job with every dildo we buy. We don't require liposuction to buy
paddles. Nobody stands at the door of the playparty and demands proof of
gym membership for entry.
That said: even so, a hell of a lot of people in the scene are damn fine
looking.
And a hell of a lot of people in the scene are very sexy.
And a hell of a lot of people in the scene are very fit.
And you know something? Those categories overlap, but aren't synonomous.
One can be fit without being sexy, and vice versa.
I'm attracted, sexually, to brains. I like bodies, too, and many of the
brains I like are housed in exceptionally fine looking wrappers. But,
well, that's less important.
Even so, Kadet is demonstrably wrong, no matter how shallow one is.
- Ian
--
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. -- Ambrose Bierce
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Sockermom9
>Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
>than one or two token attractive people.
Yikes, guys, she's on to us. Better order up a few extra token attractive
people for the next munch.
Maybe by sheer force of numbers they can tell this broad that what is
attractive is not natural law, but personal taste. Maybe of us are a tad
less...superficial...than those who make their relationship choices based on
the Surgeon General's weight charts.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
Bruce Mills
: Foole: I'm going to find that guy and give him a good beating. Right
: after I finish this bag of Doritos.
Mmmmmmmmm, Doritos...
Bruce
--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Bruce Mills
> [1] As demonstrated in recent ssb threads, btw, it is important to
> capitalize the last word in any sentence, thus alerting the reader that
> sie is coming to a final Stop. Hence, my adoption of the current usage,
> Here. Doing anything less would be, uh, Matronly.
Did I miss *another* Meeting?
Bruce
--
"Usenet rage - It's not just posting, it's a blood sport."
Ben
>Maybe of us are a tad
>less...superficial...than those who make their relationship choices based on
>the Surgeon General's weight charts.
Oh, well - while I have the fireproof suit on anyway ...
I happen to find slim women attractive (well, to a point that stops
short of supermodel extremes). Does this make me more superficial than
those who happen to find heavy women attractive?
Ok, I know you were responding to the crassness of the original
comment, but it does seem to me that people sometimes apply
double-standards in this area. If someone says they find large women
attractive, they frequently receive approving nods; if someone says
they find slim women attractive, they are often accused of
superficiality.
Now, I think we'd all agree that looks are not top of the list when it
comes to choosing a partner. I suspect we would also all agree that
personality and intelligence not only determines
emotional/intellectual appeal but also greatly impacts on perceived
physical attractiveness. For example, a confident 'sassy' woman is
somehow perceived by me as *physically* much more attractive than a
sappy one.
But I'd like to do a bit of a reality-check here. Most of us *do* have
what might crudely be described as 'acceptable ranges' for physical
appearance in a partner. We don't choose those tastes, we're just
wired that way. If someone is within the range we find attractive,
then who they are as a person determines the degree of our interest.
But if someone falls _entirely_outside_ that range, it doesn't matter
how great they are as a person, we're not going to view them as a
potential partner. Great friend, very possibly, but partner, no.
Those ranges can cover anything from body-weight to the shape of
someone's nose. And it's broader than looks - someone recently said
that if she didn't find a man's natural smell appealing then that
would rule him out as a partner for her. These things aren't
judgements in the sense that we think there's anything *wrong* with
people who don't press our attractiveness buttons, they are simply
part of our wiring when it comes to sex.
So I would take issue with the idea that there's anything superficial
in having particular tastes in looks when it comes to potential
sexual/play/life partners. And it's no more superficial to find one's
tastes run to partners inside the Surgeon General's weight guidelines
than it is to find one's tastes run way outside them.
Ben, picking up a fire extinguisher and edging towards the door ...
JOHN WARREN
look good rather than be good. For myself, I'll take someone with a good
heart over someone with good body
--
Diversified Services Books Toys and Videos to the Scene since 1993
www.diversified--services.com (new products added 7/13)
Rachel <no...@becauseidontwantspam.com> wrote in message
news:190720002202133967%no...@becauseidontwantspam.com...
> In article <34kcnsog7bjdgeumo...@4ax.com>,
> gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) wrote:
>
> > Gah. What crap journalism.
>
> Always what people say when they don't like what's said.
>
> Sorry, but my experience around US dungeons has been exactly as this
> guy said.
>
> Why does everyone get so upset with the TRUTH?
>
> Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
> than one or two token attractive people.
>
pijay
>
>> Angel: Gary Kadet spouts bullshit regarding the Attleboro raid
to promote his book.
>> http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/books/sm07192000.htm
>
>"Most people involved in S & M are not very fit, A lot of them
smoke.
>They eat very badly. They're out of shape. Hefty, older,
matronly. Not
>what you would visualize a sexy dungeon scene would be."
>- Gary S. Kadet
.. and this is a problem because ... ?
I'm fairly slim myself, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that
only the young and in-shape 'beautiful people' have a right to
express their sexuality. Beauty comes in many forms, and not
all of us are attracted to the fashion-mag standard-issue
physique.
This is the same level as playground name-calling. It's sad to
see a supposed adult resort to this kind of behaviour.
>Foole: I'm going to find that guy and give him a good beating.
Right
>after I finish this bag of Doritos.
I'll send you as many bags as you need if it means you'll beat
him harder :)
~ ~ pijay{LK}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Elisabeth Anne Riba
Ian, this is an *EXCELLENT* post; you might want to consider adapting it
as a letter to the Boston Herald.
Xiphias Gladius <i...@io.com> writes:
>Why is everyone so scandalized to find out that we look like everybody
>else?
>I mean, where was it written that I had to look like an underwear model to
>enjoy pain?
>Sorry, folks: we are just people. We don't suddenly get personal trainers
>showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
>boob job with every dildo we buy. We don't require liposuction to buy
>paddles. Nobody stands at the door of the playparty and demands proof of
>gym membership for entry.
>That said: even so, a hell of a lot of people in the scene are damn fine
>looking.
>And a hell of a lot of people in the scene are very sexy.
>And a hell of a lot of people in the scene are very fit.
>And you know something? Those categories overlap, but aren't synonomous.
>One can be fit without being sexy, and vice versa.
>I'm attracted, sexually, to brains. I like bodies, too, and many of the
>brains I like are housed in exceptionally fine looking wrappers. But,
>well, that's less important.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
JOHN WARREN
news:jcpdnsc9nof4gv3h6...@4ax.com...
> I think you've missed the point. If you say you find slim
> women attractive, that's one thing. If you say that only
> slim women are attractive, you've just espoused OTW. That's
> especially so if you now make deragotory remarks about
> anyone who doesn't happen to fit your standard.
> It's also superficial if eye-candy happens to be your
> prime criterion.
[nod on both comments] I find slim women attractive. The vast majority of
my lovers have been slim and in many cases delicate. However, when I met
Libby, who is not slim, I found someone who had so many of the _other_
things I look for that she became beautiful to me. I wouldn't trade her for
a chorus line... a long chorus line.
An added bonus is that her beauty cannot fade nor can time touch it. She
will be as lovely to me in fifty years as she is this moment.
Psyfuru
wrt aesthetics
>But I'd like to do a bit of a reality-check here. Most of us *do* have
>what might crudely be described as 'acceptable ranges' for physical
>appearance in a partner. We don't choose those tastes, we're just
>wired that way. If someone is within the range we find attractive,
>then who they are as a person determines the degree of our interest.
>But if someone falls _entirely_outside_ that range, it doesn't matter
>how great they are as a person, we're not going to view them as a
>potential partner. Great friend, very possibly, but partner, no.
Well, but is one's personal sense of what is attractive truly wired in on the
one hand, or has it been conditioned in large part by what sie views in, say,
advertising depictions, on the other hand?
For me, the perception that persons should be slim is food for thought. I'm
troubled that I have bought into it so thoroughly.
f
NrrdGrrl
pijay <pijayN...@btinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:19f55315...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com...
>
> I'm fairly slim myself, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that
> only the young and in-shape 'beautiful people' have a right to
> express their sexuality. Beauty comes in many forms, and not
> all of us are attracted to the fashion-mag standard-issue
> physique.
One thing that struck me at Living in Leather was the great variety of
shapes and sizes of people -- and the fact that they ALL looked great! There
were willowy girls and boys, and average ones, and big folks too. I felt
self conscious about my size right up to the moment when I was looking at a
woman and thinking "DAMN, she looks good!" and then thinking "And she's
bigger than I am!" The vendors selling large-size clothes were doing a LOT
of business, as a lot of big girls were coming to the same conclusion:
Leather, latex, or nothing, an attitude of self-acceptance goes best with it
all. I'm thinking I'll have to attend one of these events at least once a
year, to give my self-esteem a booster shot. :-)
NG
Janet Miles
> I happen to find slim women attractive (well, to a point that stops
> short of supermodel extremes). Does this make me more superficial than
> those who happen to find heavy women attractive?
No. Well, not in and of itself. What I would consider superficial would be
someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim". Even
more superficial would be someone whose criteria for friends, not romantic
or sexual partners, included body shape high on the list.
> Ok, I know you were responding to the crassness of the original
> comment, but it does seem to me that people sometimes apply
> double-standards in this area. If someone says they find large women
> attractive, they frequently receive approving nods; if someone says
> they find slim women attractive, they are often accused of
> superficiality.
I agree with Frites on this point; my observational mileage varies. Someone
who says "I am more attracted to [slender | heavier] [women | men]"
typically receives an approving nod. Someone who says "I like [women | men]
who *look* like [women | men], not 12-year-old [girls | boys]" typically
gets jumped on just as hard as someone who says "I like [women | men] who
are trim, not fat lazy blobs".
> Now, I think we'd all agree that looks are not top of the list when it
> comes to choosing a partner.
Except that I know of people for whom looks *are* a primary criterion,
albeit not the only one.
> But I'd like to do a bit of a reality-check here. Most of us *do* have
> what might crudely be described as 'acceptable ranges' for physical
> appearance in a partner. We don't choose those tastes, we're just
> wired that way. If someone is within the range we find attractive,
> then who they are as a person determines the degree of our interest.
> But if someone falls _entirely_outside_ that range, it doesn't matter
> how great they are as a person, we're not going to view them as a
> potential partner. Great friend, very possibly, but partner, no.
Agreed. Yet there are people who won't even be friends with someone who
doesn't meet their criteria for good looks.
> Those ranges can cover anything from body-weight to the shape of
> someone's nose. And it's broader than looks - someone recently said
> that if she didn't find a man's natural smell appealing then that
> would rule him out as a partner for her. These things aren't
> judgements in the sense that we think there's anything *wrong* with
> people who don't press our attractiveness buttons, they are simply
> part of our wiring when it comes to sex.
Agreed.
> So I would take issue with the idea that there's anything superficial
> in having particular tastes in looks when it comes to potential
> sexual/play/life partners. And it's no more superficial to find one's
> tastes run to partners inside the Surgeon General's weight guidelines
> than it is to find one's tastes run way outside them.
Agreed. It's superficial if it's the only (or primary) criterion, or if it
extends past partner-selection, or if it's applied in such a way as to be
insulting to those who don't fit one's personal tastes.
JanetM
posted
--
Janet Miles (jmi...@usit.net) <www.public.usit.net/jmiles>
Loyal Webcrafter: PenUltimate Productions <www.worthlink.net/~ysabet>
Member: SSBB Diplomatic Corps -- East Tennessee
"Bananas in the fridge. Potassium is important." -- Slash Maraud 1/30/00
Anthony Hilbert
>Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
>than one or two token attractive people.
>
>The majority are fat and look horrible in leather.
Whether it comes from you or from the journalist, it's bad because it's
not an observation, it's just repeating the same old sneer. Same as the
journos who write up an SF convention as a bunch of nerds in silly
costumes, or the ones who go to a historical event and smugly describe
how they caught someone in full Viking gear eating a hot dog.
It's an outsider's way of feeling better about a group which he has a
nasty suspicion might actually be enjoying themselves in ways he can't
understand.
Which raises the question of why you feel the need to align yourself
with it.
--
Anthony Hilbert SSBB Diplomatic Corps: North England
whose late wife would have looked gorgeous in leather if we could have found
anything anywhere near big enough.
Cassi Ann Donahue
> ... Kadet manages to miss all of these opportunities
>and, essentially, act like a total Chudwah.
I don't think it's an act.
-- Cassi
--
One of the interesting things about the Internet is the large number of
people on it who aren't inhabiting the same universe as me....
-- Boris Ludmenkov
Daniel B. Holzman
Rachel <no...@becauseidontwantspam.com> wrote:
"She's" posting from user-33qtdo4.dialup.mindspring.com, if anyone's
checking whether "she's" another sock puppet.
>Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
>than one or two token attractive people.
Come on down to the Leather Rose in Chicago sometime.
Dan
--
N.M. Wallace
> Sorry, folks: we are just people. We don't suddenly get personal trainers
> showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
> boob job with every dildo we buy.
Oh, yeah?
Speak for yourself, Ian. How do you think I got the Boobs that Ate
Boston?
Darkrose
(The real answer is that I stood in the tits line instead of the height
line when the gods were parceling out these things.)
Nancy M. Wallace @}----- dark...@shore.net
"The one thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart."
_Memory_, Lois McMaster Bujold
Rachel E.
wrote:
>
>Ian, this is an *EXCELLENT* post; you might want to consider adapting it
>as a letter to the Boston Herald.
Good advice! And although I guess it'd be unwise to just post
the email address willy nilly to such a huge newsgroup, anyone
serious enough to take a few minutes will find the email address
for the Lifestyles department on the Contact Us page at the
Boston Herald (www.bostonherald.com).
And I gotta say, I'm smitten with Norton's boilerplate warning
suggestion - "Sorry, we do not look like your pornographic sex
fantasies." It'd make a nice letter to the editor all by itself,
I think. :)
Cheers!
-Rachel
To reply by email take the neveryou out of the mindspring.
M Shirley Chong
someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
Ben wrote: Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who
would go that far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my
time! :-)
Shirley: A data point to present: I've met several men and at least
two women whose top criteria was slenderness.
I've met men who have said straight out words to the effect of "my
girlfriend is an idiot and a shrew but she's built like a brick shithouse."
Perhaps my life as a fat woman gives me a slightly different perspective.
Shirley
to reply via e-mail remove the trees from my address
Ben
>>Ok, I know you were responding to the crassness of the original
>>comment, but it does seem to me that people sometimes apply
>>double-standards in this area. If someone says they find large women
>>attractive, they frequently receive approving nods; if someone says
>>they find slim women attractive, they are often accused of
>>superficiality.
> I think you've missed the point. If you say you find slim
>women attractive, that's one thing. If you say that only
>slim women are attractive, you've just espoused OTW.
Agreed, but that was not my point. I have witnessed, in another
newsgroup, what I described.
Ben
Ben
>For me, the perception that persons should be slim is food for thought. I'm
>troubled that I have bought into it so thoroughly.
I don't think that people should be slim, I just am more likely to
find them sexually attractive if they are.
Ben
Ben
>> I happen to find slim women attractive (well, to a point that stops
>> short of supermodel extremes). Does this make me more superficial than
>> those who happen to find heavy women attractive?
>No. Well, not in and of itself. What I would consider superficial would be
>someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who would go that
far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my time! :-)
>more superficial would be someone whose criteria for friends, not romantic
>or sexual partners, included body shape high on the list.
Agreed. I also can't see any sense in that - if I'm not intending to
sleep with them, their sexual attractiveness is irrelevant. Indeed,
the looks of women friends who are very sexually attractive to me can
be a bit of an unwanted distraction.
>> Now, I think we'd all agree that looks are not top of the list when it
>> comes to choosing a partner.
>Except that I know of people for whom looks *are* a primary criterion,
>albeit not the only one.
Primary, or initial?
If I'm at a party, the first thing I'm going to notice about a woman
is her looks. Not because that's the most important thing about her,
but simply because I can spot physical attractiveness from the other
side of the room; spotting intelligence and a great personality from
the same distance is a bit more of a challenge!
>Agreed.
<Snip>
>Agreed.
<Snip>
>Agreed.
I'm sure the charter prohibits this level of agreement ...
Ben
Ben and Tara Cordes
"N.M. Wallace" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>
> > Sorry, folks: we are just people. We don't suddenly get personal trainers
> > showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
> > boob job with every dildo we buy.
>
> Oh, yeah?
>
> Speak for yourself, Ian. How do you think I got the Boobs that Ate
> Boston?
this explains why mine get the munchies when I go into boston. I am
busy noshing on lowell, though ;)
>
> Darkrose
>
> (The real answer is that I stood in the tits line instead of the height
> line when the gods were parceling out these things.)
and I, being a dualist in way too many ways, got into both. 5'11" with
38DD. wah.
:) (at least I have the back to support them, unlike some unluckier
women out there)
-taralee the titty-bee (don't ask)
Xiphias Gladius
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Xiphias Gladius wrote:
>> Sorry, folks: we are just people. We don't suddenly get personal trainers
>> showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
>> boob job with every dildo we buy.
> Oh, yeah?
> Speak for yourself, Ian. How do you think I got the Boobs that Ate
> Boston?
Fine, DR -- apparently *you* got *my* boob jobs, as well as your own.
> (The real answer is that I stood in the tits line instead of the height
> line when the gods were parceling out these things.)
You're not short. You've gotta be over five feet tall.
In my mind -- that's tall. I went to Brandeis.
shining-one{WH}
news:642fns8fn4eabe87l...@4ax.com...
> Janet Miles <jmi...@use.usit.net> wrote:
>
> >> I happen to find slim women attractive (well, to a point that stops
> >> short of supermodel extremes). Does this make me more superficial than
> >> those who happen to find heavy women attractive?
>
> >No. Well, not in and of itself. What I would consider superficial would
be
> >someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
>
> Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who would go that
> far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my time! :-)
>
Unfortunately, I have. And was intimate with someone like that for a long
time ... my ex-husband. And it really sucked to hear him say to me (at
5'5", 165 pounds, working out five days a week [cardio and free weights ...
465 lbs my best leg press], wearing a size 14-16) that he was "embarrased by
the way [I] look." Well ... let's just say I eventually ended the
relationship. (And wasn't he surprised six years later to find me *very*
attractive ... same height, a little heavier, modeling at the Las Vegas
Fetish Ball this past Halloween. Superficial fuck. His loss, my [and
Whiphand's] gain).
--
shining-one{WH}
Property of her beloved Master Whiphand
(wondering why I was moved to post this)
duny...@my-deja.com
"N.M. Wallace" <dark...@shore.net> wrote:
> How do you think I got the Boobs that Ate
> Boston?
>
> Darkrose
>
> (The real answer is that I stood in the tits line instead of the
height
> line when the gods were parceling out these things.)
And that, my dear, is why you look like the exquisite incarnation of the
Venus of Dusseldorf (spelling?). Being Pagan has its perks.
On the general topic of the concept that the Scene is over-run with
"unattractive, middle-aged, out-of-shape maitronly types", my only
thought is this:
For most people who are kinked, they will stay kinked far longer than
they will stay young. Even the sexiest "kitten with a whip" will
eventually reach an age where the best she can hope for (by current
societal standards of beauty), is to be "well preserved", or "aging
gracefully" (this applies to men as well).
In addition, many of the very young kinksters lack the self-acceptance
and centeredness that would enable them to join the dance. Therefore, it
is not surprising that many who go to events are a little older, wiser,
and more comfortable with themselves. There is great beauty in that.
I am currently *very* "maitronly". I look a bit like the Lady of
Dusseldorf herself. Most people have said that it has only made me more
beautiful. I think I can live very happily with people like that.
I'm going back to bed.
Duny
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
<eit...@forest.pcpartner.net> wrote:
>Janet Miles wrote: What I would consider superficial would be
>someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
>
>Ben wrote: Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who
>would go that far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my
>time! :-)
>
>Shirley: A data point to present: I've met several men and at least
>two women whose top criteria was slenderness.
>
>I've met men who have said straight out words to the effect of "my
>girlfriend is an idiot and a shrew but she's built like a brick shithouse."
>
>Perhaps my life as a fat woman gives me a slightly different perspective.
>
>Shirley
>
>to reply via e-mail remove the trees from my address
my defining point of whether someones "preferences" are "superficial"
is very personal to each individual person. We all have varying needs
that come from varying places in our own experiences. Our preferences
in partners can arise from those experiences, and many of them
happened way to early in our lives for us to have much conscious
choice about them.
To me ( and to be pc, only to me) if your selection process has gotten
you a mate with whom you are well pleased, and they contribute to your
happiness, then your selection process was not superficial, even if
your selection process consisted of only one criteria such as
slimness. (which example I simply cannot imagine in real life--that is
this one criteria making someone happy, but if it does, it does)
If you chose someone based one only one criteria, or on six, and that
person is someone with whom you are not overall pleased, and they do
not contribute to your happiness, then your selection process may well
be flawed and may well be superficial
I agree with Ben in that I believe most of us have at least some
physical requirements for our mate. They must be attractive "to us".
Most of us (again, imho) have our own 1-10 scale, and the person has
to fall at an acceptable place on that scale for us. (each persons
criteria for where someone rates and even what goes into the 1-10
scale is going to be again very personal)
I happen to not care that much about "slimness". I find women who are
a bit "overweight" on the Dr.s charts more attractive then I find
women who are a bit "underweight" on the Dr.s charts. But that is me.
(so for me, a woman can be "too slim". I have never had the luxury to
find out if they can be "too rich")
I am more sexually attracted to women who have breasts that I am
attracted to (and that is as close as I can pin it down. Cannot say
large, cannot say small, it varies,but like the Supreme court judge
and porno, I know them when I see them)
But a bit overweight and nice breasts is just part of it. Another part
is they have to be attracted to me. If not, I cannot get excited.
Call it a bad ego problem, call it being real protective, but they
simply have to be real turned on by me, or I do not get turned on by
them. (and finding women who are turned on by older balding
potbellied guys aint all that God damned easy- then again it was not
all that damn easy finding women excited by younger balding potbellied
guys. Age at least gives some excuse )
another part is that have to be smart. (not degreed, but pretty high
iq). They have to be really good conversationalists, cause, surprise,
I love talk, and it helps to have a SO who likes to talk also. Just
like my posts, I tend to bore myself when I am the only one talking.
but even if I find a woman a few pounds over the Dr.s charts, who has,
like, breasts from here till thursday, who is brilliant and a world
class conversationist, and she she just gets wet at the thought of
short chubby balding white guys with bullwhips, it probably still is
going to be tough as hell to make things work real well.
so if you have something that works, your selection process is just
fine, no matter how "superficial"
Travis
Cassi Ann Donahue
>Cassi Ann Donahue come on down:
>>gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) writes:
>>> ... Kadet manages to miss all of these opportunities
>>>and, essentially, act like a total Chudwah.
>>
>>I don't think it's an act.
>I try hard not to judge people's character, only their behavior.
Well, not to get all serious and philosophical (which I would
*never* do), but I don't personally believe there is anything to
character beyond behaviour (don't worry, I don't expect anyone
else to buy into that idea). Thus my response was really to an
idea which I read into Norton's comment, that Mr Kadet's behavior
in the present instance is out of step with how he behaves
elsewhere and otherwise. I read "act" as "pretend".
--Cassi
pijay
>
>In addition, many of the very young kinksters lack the
self-acceptance
>and centeredness that would enable them to join the dance.
Therefore, it
>is not surprising that many who go to events are a little older,
wiser,
>and more comfortable with themselves. There is great beauty in
that.
There is indeed.
I remember reading a comment about the inclusiveness of BDSM
a while back which stated that the scene often values age and
experience more than other sexualities. Perhaps this may
be a slightly idealised view, but it's certainly an ideal that
I agree with. It's nice to see such a variety of different
people from many age-groups at scene events.
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
Donahue) wrote:
>
>Well, not to get all serious and philosophical (which I would
>*never* do), but I don't personally believe there is anything to
>character beyond behaviour (don't worry, I don't expect anyone
>else to buy into that idea).
>--Cassi
Cassi, I guess I am going to have to start paying a lot more attention
to what you write. First your wonderful comments about "clues and
cooperation", in the single tail thread, and now this.
I "buy into " the idea that character is all about behavior totally.
Travis
Spyral Fox
>For most people who are kinked, they will stay kinked far longer than
>they will stay young. Even the sexiest "kitten with a whip" will
>eventually reach an age where the best she can hope for (by current
>societal standards of beauty), is to be "well preserved", or "aging
>gracefully" (this applies to men as well).
This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately,
because I've got 40 students this summer, all in their
teens. One of their assignments a few weeks ago was
to create a "life map" -- a poster showing what they want
to get out of life. We presented them with a number of
magazines & catalogs and fliers and such to slice up.
The males overwhelmingly put up lingerie models and
swimsuit models when they had female images on their
posters (not all did) -- and these were NOT from my
clothing & gift catalogs (which tend to run toward fully
clothed women of a variety of ages, races, and weights)
but rather from the high-fashion type ads, featuring the
skinny sorts with huge boobs. From an ethological
standpoint, one can discuss waist-to-hip ratios in cross-
cultural studies and the effects of various levels of body
fat on parasites and so on. Add in the cultural component,
and the hormonal factor, and I wasn't surprised.
The females were split in an interesting way. About half of
them had "beauty" as a major theme -- their posters
had lots of ads for cosmetics, high fashion, etc. The other
half had about the same number of female images -- but
theirs were *doing* things. They had women in lab coats;
women in exercise gear, women snorkelling, etc. Their
chosen images focused on the activities, not the bodies
and so they had women of various ages and weights.
I've seen the same sort of thing multiple times. While the kids
this summer are only enough for an "anectdotal" report, I feel
that I can generalize based on six years worth of students.
For the grants, I have to keep track of a lot of statistical data,
and I have notes on each student for things that we are not
tracking, so I can make sure I keep straight who is who and
what their interests are, and generally make sure they get
personalized attention from me.
In general, it does seem that the boys whose posters only
feature fast women and faster cars tend to drop out of high
school; few finish college. Those who have life goals that
focus on what they will *do* and how much money they'll
make and their hobbies (other than sex) seem to do much
better academically. The males from 3 - 6 years ago in the
latter category are all in college, some in grad schools.
I don't see the same pattern in the female students -- its' not
relevant to academic success whether they have a tendency
towards images of women as beauty icons or "do-ers." However,
my notes do show that the girls who are focussed on beauty
tend to have more invested in their physical appearance as a
major portion of their self-image than those who do not. As a
result, when I look at the conversational notes, I see a lot more
from them about their own attractiveness -- pointing out their new
hair, make-up, whatever. This is stuff they mentioned to me
when I asked what was new.
OK, so where does the concern come in? Well, someone
remarked what a pity it is to invest a lot in an aspect of self
that won't remain. By the time a woman is 40, she's going
to have a few wrinkles. By the time she's 70, her breasts
are not going to be anything like a 17-year-olds. And so on.
It just seems to me (personal opinion) that the people who
have invested a huge chunk of their self-image in something
as transient as youthful good looks are setting themselves up
for problems when they age.
- - Spyral Fox
--
... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves
San Diego Resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
SSBB Cookbook: http://members.aol.com/ssbbcooks/
SSBB Diplomatic Corps member & Depooty Charter Enforcer (CLG)
Bacchae
> > Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who would go
that
> > far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my time! :-)
"shining-one{WH}" replied:
> Unfortunately, I have. And was intimate with someone like that
for a long
> time ... my ex-husband. And it really sucked to hear him say to
me (at
> 5'5", 165 pounds, working out five days a week [cardio and free
weights ...
> 465 lbs my best leg press], wearing a size 14-16) that he was
"embarrased by
> the way [I] look." Well ... let's just say I eventually ended the
> relationship. (And wasn't he surprised six years later to find me
*very*
> attractive ... same height, a little heavier, modeling at the Las
Vegas
> Fetish Ball this past Halloween. Superficial fuck. His loss, my
[and
> Whiphand's] gain).
>
> --
> shining-one{WH}
> Property of her beloved Master Whiphand
> (wondering why I was moved to post this)
I understand why you were moved to write this. I understand very
well.
My personal experience has been that sometimes you're good enough to
fuck but not good enough to be seen in public with. Well guess what
brain-boy, if you can only get it up for a body that matches certain
Playboysian parameters you're going to have a floppy fucking dick
(or not fucking, as the case may be) for most of your life.
I remember hearing some guys talk about what a dog Katarina Witt was
in person even though she had looked good in her Playboy spread.
Gosh, now women have to walk around in a perpetual "air-brushed,
make-up palette-knifed on" state of grace to even appeal to some
guys.
I have to share another story that makes me sad but makes me laugh
at its ugliness too. Philip the Foole posted a site one time that I
got a real perverse sort of kick out of, a site for manufactured,
human-sized "dolls" but of course, their orifices are always open,
their tits perfectly perky (never to suffer the ravages of gravity),
their complexions forever unflawed, their waists perpetually tiny
(www.realdoll.com). In the letters to the company page (it doesn't
appear to be on their site anymore) there was one letter where the
guy indicated his interest in the dolls but thought the company
should consider making "fat" dolls because some guys actually really
like fat women but can't possibly be seen with them.
Think about that.
Real women come with real bodies. Real bodies are subject to
change.
Oh, I remember another instance that also provided me with a sad
testimony to this fixation on appearance. John Derek was on a
program with his wife Bo Derek (I think it was Carson but it was a
long time ago so I am not sure). The host of the show asked John
Derek if he would still love Bo is she was in a horrible accident
that disfigured her face and body. John Derek paused so long that
it was obvious that it would be an issue. Nice relationship you've
got there John and Bo <snort>. (But of course, all it takes is a
quick glance at John Derek's former wives, Ursula Andress and Linda
Evans and current wife Bo Derek to understand his fixation for a
particular "type". Now, even though he is more than welcome to
fulfill his desire for a certain type of woman it seems to me like
it doesn't particular matter *who* is in the body, as long as the
body conforms to his personal standards.)
The issue is a hot-button with me, obviously.
- Sandy
Bacchae at cadvision dot com
Ben
>Shirley: A data point to present: I've met several men and at least
>two women whose top criteria was slenderness.
Top criteria for a *relationship*, or top criteria for a sexual
partner's *looks*?
In terms of the latter, I would say 'slim' is probably top of my list,
but it's not top of my relationship criteria list.
Ben
mady
<bac...@nospam.cadvision.com> wrote:
:::::::::::snipped:::::::
>........................................................... it seems to me like
>it doesn't particular matter *who* is in the body, as long as the
>body conforms to his personal standards.)
>
>The issue is a hot-button with me, obviously.
Being of the rather zaftig persuasion myself, it is with me too. Each
and every one of us has some kind of criteria by which we judge
whether or not we are attracted to another person. And if fat or
thin, model-like good looks, washboard abs or tight buns are one of
those criteria, so be it. For anyone else to criticize another is
really out of line and totally without merit as such criteria must be
determined by each of us.
I think that the difference, and what I got from that interview,
though it was implied rather than stated was that superficial
attirbutes were being used to make much broader judgements as the
worth of people. And THAT is what really bothers me. And it is
something that has been shown over and over again to be a factor in
such areas as jobs, promotions, etc.
That is why we tend to get so angry when this topic comes up. It's
not that someone may not be attracted to a person who is not thin and
trim and fit. It's that someone would consider a person who is not
thin and trim and fit to be a person less worthy or respect, less of a
person that I have a problem with.
mady
--
madylarian OCL(OCF)
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all spammers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Janet Hardy
> I have to share another story that makes me sad but makes me laugh
> at its ugliness too. Philip the Foole posted a site one time that I
> got a real perverse sort of kick out of, a site for manufactured,
> human-sized "dolls" but of course, their orifices are always open,
> their tits perfectly perky (never to suffer the ravages of gravity),
> their complexions forever unflawed, their waists perpetually tiny
> (www.realdoll.com). In the letters to the company page (it doesn't
> appear to be on their site anymore) there was one letter where the
> guy indicated his interest in the dolls but thought the company
> should consider making "fat" dolls because some guys actually really
> like fat women but can't possibly be seen with them.
They exist -- I saw them at an adult trade show.
Verdant
www.greenerypress.com
Ben
>Well, not to get all serious and philosophical (which I would
>*never* do), but I don't personally believe there is anything to
>character beyond behaviour (don't worry, I don't expect anyone
>else to buy into that idea).
I pretty much share that view. That is, I can accept the concept of
someone's character not being expressed for a time for some reason,
but in general I would say that what people do tells you who they are.
Ben
Angel
JOHN WARREN <ment...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:yTCd5.8468$o71.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
~snip~
> An added bonus is that her beauty cannot fade nor can time touch it.
She
> will be as lovely to me in fifty years as she is this moment.
You dominants are killing me with all this romantic stuff:) First it was
Travis and now you. Makes me wonder if I will ever find a top who just
wants me for my body or something supeficial like that;)
Seriously, that is one of the sweetest things I have ever read!
Angel
AMB- Assertive Masochistic Bottom
"Believe me, when I bottom, I want it MY way :)" - Trouble841
~Remove the kitty to email me~
Mr Etaoin
>
> But if someone falls _entirely_outside_ that range, it doesn't matter
> how great they are as a person, we're not going to view them as a
> potential partner. Great friend, very possibly, but partner, no.
>
> someone's nose. And it's broader than looks - someone recently said
> that if she didn't find a man's natural smell appealing then that
> would rule him out as a partner for her.
Smell turns out not always to be superficial (big surprise).
I read an article about five years ago about a scientific study that
involved scent. But I don't remember anything but the conclusion.
Sorry.
There is a gene, which in combination with its complement from a mate,
causes birth defects. Researchers tested men and women for this gene.
Then they took used undershirts from the men and passed them around the
women. When a woman smelled the undershirt of a man whose gene would
make the wrong combination, she thought it smelled bad. When she
smelled the undershirt of a man whose gene would make the right
combination, she thought it smelled good.
--
ETAOIN: Nevertheless, you are in a cage, and I am free to walk about.
THE SNAKE: Oh, you have your cage, too. You test your bars as often as I
test mine.
Charles Finney, The Circus of Dr. Lao
webm...@houstonbdsm.com
<mret...@JUNKhotmail.com> wrote:
>Ben wrote:
>>
>> But if someone falls _entirely_outside_ that range, it doesn't matter
>> how great they are as a person, we're not going to view them as a
>> potential partner. Great friend, very possibly, but partner, no.
>>
>> Those ranges can cover anything from body-weight to the shape of
>> someone's nose. And it's broader than looks - someone recently said
>> that if she didn't find a man's natural smell appealing then that
>> would rule him out as a partner for her.
>
>Smell turns out not always to be superficial (big surprise).
>
>I read an article about five years ago about a scientific study that
>involved scent. But I don't remember anything but the conclusion.
>Sorry.
>
>There is a gene, which in combination with its complement from a mate,
>causes birth defects. Researchers tested men and women for this gene.
>Then they took used undershirts from the men and passed them around the
>women. When a woman smelled the undershirt of a man whose gene would
>make the wrong combination, she thought it smelled bad. When she
>smelled the undershirt of a man whose gene would make the right
>combination, she thought it smelled good.
I am sorry but that theory just stinks
Travis
duny...@my-deja.com
Dusseldorf. But, that was the best my brain could do at 3:30 a.m.
Just an FYI for anyone who might see that as a question playing "trivial
persuit" or "who wants to be a brazillionaire".
Duny
In article <8l8vbr$v7c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
duny...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> "N.M. Wallace" <dark...@shore.net> wrote:
>
> > How do you think I got the Boobs that Ate
> > Boston?
> >
> > Darkrose
> >
> > (The real answer is that I stood in the tits line instead of the
> height
> > line when the gods were parceling out these things.)
>
> And that, my dear, is why you look like the exquisite incarnation of
the
> Venus of Dusseldorf (spelling?). Being Pagan has its perks.
>
> On the general topic of the concept that the Scene is over-run with
> "unattractive, middle-aged, out-of-shape maitronly types", my only
> thought is this:
>
> For most people who are kinked, they will stay kinked far longer than
> they will stay young. Even the sexiest "kitten with a whip" will
> eventually reach an age where the best she can hope for (by current
> societal standards of beauty), is to be "well preserved", or "aging
> gracefully" (this applies to men as well).
>
> In addition, many of the very young kinksters lack the self-acceptance
> and centeredness that would enable them to join the dance. Therefore,
it
> is not surprising that many who go to events are a little older,
wiser,
> and more comfortable with themselves. There is great beauty in that.
>
Tanguero
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:33:05 -0500, M Shirley Chong
><eit...@forest.pcpartner.net> wrote:
>>Janet Miles wrote: What I would consider superficial would be
>>someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
>>
>>Ben wrote: Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who
>>would go that far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my
>>time! :-)
>>
>>Shirley: A data point to present: I've met several men and at least
>>two women whose top criteria was slenderness.
>>
>>I've met men who have said straight out words to the effect of "my
>>girlfriend is an idiot and a shrew but she's built like a brick shithouse."
>>
>so if you have something that works, your selection process is just
>fine, no matter how "superficial"
I think you're on to something. A propos of that, I'd like to point something
out: Most people have preferences of one sort or another, and there's
nothing wrong with them in and of themselves. What I think is narrowminded
and crass is not the preference itself, or even the importance one
places on it, but rather the tendency some people have to place the
burden of their preferences on others. IE, don't blame others for being fat
just because you are only attracted to thin people. A preference is
really a limitation on the person holdng the preference.
I have a slightly different perspective on this because my own body-type
preferences are a bit uncommon: I am unattracted to slender women.
I don't have a "fat fetish", but rather a "not too skinny fetish". I
find myself most attracted, I suppose, to women in the size 10 to 16
range. And while I have often women who are much bigger than that
attractive, I am just incapable of being sexually interested in a
woman who is much smaller than that range: say, a size 4. I give
the Victoria's Secret catalogue not a glance; I drool over
Mode Magazine.
But my point is that this is a source of frustration for me. It is
a problem for me. I have met quite a number of charming, intellectual,
interesting women I'd have loved to get to know romantically,
had it not been for their slender figures.
I have what is clearly a fetish, in the strictest sense of the word:
something which is a sine qua non for sexual interest. A fetish
is not something desirable. It is a limitation. Not all that
narrow, in my case (there are still plenty of women I feel attracted
to) but a limitation nonetheless. I wish I didn't have it.
In USAan society, the thought of me sneering at slender women and
scorning their lightweight figures would certainly sound absurd.
Unfortunately, since people who have the reverse fetish often seem
to feel justified in sneering. Even worse if their preference
isn't really a fetish at all, but a simple preference. In
that case they're placing the limitation on themselves voluntarily.
That *is* narrowminded indeed.
SilverOz
Cassi Ann Donahue <ca...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>Well, not to get all serious and philosophical (which I would
>*never* do), but I don't personally believe there is anything to
>character beyond behaviour (don't worry, I don't expect anyone
>idea which I read into Norton's comment, that Mr Kadet's behavior
>in the present instance is out of step with how he behaves
>elsewhere and otherwise. I read "act" as "pretend".
>
A favourite quote of mine.... From an early 19th book on "The Gentle
Life", a book not about etiquette but about manners:
To boast, as some do, that he can be a "gentleman when he
pleases" is nothing more than polishd hypocrisy.
(Not an exect quote, can't find the book right now)
THe point being that you act as you are. That if you are a gentleman,
you will behave as one because you can do nought else. If you are a
cad you might ape the gentleman if you think it will get you something
but that's all it is.
The gentleman *can't* ape the cad.
SilverOz
SilverOz
Spyral Fox <spyr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <8l8vbr$v7c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, duny...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>OK, so where does the concern come in? Well, someone
>remarked what a pity it is to invest a lot in an aspect of self
>that won't remain. By the time a woman is 40, she's going
>to have a few wrinkles. By the time she's 70, her breasts
>are not going to be anything like a 17-year-olds. And so on.
>It just seems to me (personal opinion) that the people who
>have invested a huge chunk of their self-image in something
>as transient as youthful good looks are setting themselves up
>for problems when they age.
A while back, there as an interview in the Herald with the woman who
founded Cosmo. [1]
She was on about how youth was important, if you wanted to be attractive
and that women should spend a lot of time and effort and money on
looking young. She had just had another facelift and said that it was
money well spent and that every woman should do herself a favour and
stamp out signs of aging.
They had a photo of her, next to antoher woman. An old woman, grey
haired, wrinkled... And gobsmackingly attractive. There was strength
and serenity in her. She had seen life and was smiling. She was happy
with herself. She was one of the best looking alive real women I've
seen in a newspaper photo.
The woman into facelifts and "Staying young" was a hag. She looked
strident and false and ugly. Yeah, no wrinkles, no grey hair, no jowls.
And no beauty either.
Hats off to a photographer and subeditor who knew what they were doing :)
Whenever I hear this thing abuot youthful good looks, my mind turns to
Katherine Hepburn. Alright, the woman was blessed with cheekbones that
Aphrodite would have killed for, and eyes to burn you up, but there's
more to it than that. I suppose that's why she's the text book example
of a woman whose beauty is ageless, but I don't know how much her ageless
beauty is cheekbones and how much of it is eyes and grace and vivacity.
SilverOz
[1] umm Helen Gurley-Brown? SOme name like that. I recall the pic,
not the name.
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site
http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/
========================================================================
Bacchae
"SilverOz" wrote in message ...
>
> A while back, there as an interview in the Herald with the
woman who
> founded Cosmo. [1]
>
> She was on about how youth was important, if you wanted to be
attractive
> and that women should spend a lot of time and effort and
money on
> looking young. She had just had another facelift and said
that it was
> money well spent and that every woman should do herself a
favour and
> stamp out signs of aging.
>
> The woman into facelifts and "Staying young" was a hag. She
looked
> strident and false and ugly. Yeah, no wrinkles, no grey
hair, no jowls.
> And no beauty either.
>
> [1] umm Helen Gurley-Brown? SOme name like that. I recall
the pic,
> not the name.
That's her. Very scary walking skeleton, if you ask me.
<shudder>
The woman I admire is Lauren Bacall. Now *that* is the woman I
want to grow up and be ("if you want me, just whistle, you know
how to whistle don't you, just put your lips together and
blow.....")
- Sandy
--
Yaldahtvah
>[1] umm Helen Gurley-Brown? SOme name like that. I recall the pic,
>not the name.
Yup....Helen Gurley Brown, wife of David Brown, partner to Darryl Zanuck.
I am reminded of what Gloria Steinem said when told, upon turning 50, "You
don't look 50", replied: "THIS is what 50 looks like!"
You go, girl.
susie
"Those who hear not the music, think the dancers mad."
JOHN WARREN
news:slrn8nhekg...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
Spock would disagree. "A civilized man can play the part of a barbarian,
but a barbarian cannot play the part of a civilized man."
--
Diversified Services Books Toys and Videos to the Scene since 1993
www.diversified--services.com (new products added 7/19)
starf...@eudoramail.com
webm...@houstonbdsm.com writes:
>
> >On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 22:33:05 -0500, M Shirley Chong
> ><eit...@forest.pcpartner.net> wrote:
>
> >>Janet Miles wrote: What I would consider superficial would be
> >>someone whose *only* criterion for a partner was "she has to be slim".
> >>
> >>Ben wrote: Agreed, but I don't think I've *ever* met anyone who
> >>would go that far, and I've met some pretty superficial people in my
> >>time! :-)
> >>
> >>Shirley: A data point to present: I've met several men and at least
> >>two women whose top criteria was slenderness.
> >>
I've just sort of bumped into this thread, and although I haven't been
following the whole thing, the issue of body size and shape is an
interesting one when it comes to preference.
As a larger and well rounded woman (size 16-18 Australian sizes) the one
thing I've found really interesting is when one meets people online first,
and without any physical idea of what the other looks like, alot of insight
comes in regarding how others view body size and shape. In my experience
most of the men I have met online are attracted to weight, height
proportionate women, and clearly thins comes out at some point during
conversation, not necessarily immediately. When they finally meet me or
discover that I do have extra padding and then some, they are still
attracted to me, and quite often seem surprised by this discovery.
I'm sorry but the first thing that comes to mind for me in these cases is an
instant turn off to the men concerned. I don't want to be an educational
experience, kept on hold becuase I am judged clearly and precicely on my
apprearance, or their IDEA of what I look like, only to find that their idea
of attractiveness is broadened to inculde larger women upon meeting me. One
can't help feeling like some sort of guinea pig for experiement.
So, I keep well away from anyone that specifies certain physical attributes.
I find it rather dull and predictably boring.
Kristina.
Steven S. Davis
: SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
: > A favourite quote of mine.... From an early 19th book on "The Gentle
: > Life", a book not about etiquette but about manners:
: >
: > To boast, as some do, that he can be a "gentleman when he
: > pleases" is nothing more than polishd hypocrisy.
: >
: > (Not an exect quote, can't find the book right now)
: >
: > THe point being that you act as you are. That if you are a gentleman,
: > you will behave as one because you can do nought else. If you are a
: > cad you might ape the gentleman if you think it will get you something
: > but that's all it is.
: >
: > The gentleman *can't* ape the cad.
Of course he can, if he pleases. But unless he's an actor or
an undercover agent, he won't wish to.
: Spock would disagree. "A civilized man can play the part of a
: barbarian, but a barbarian cannot play the part of a civilized
: man."
Sure they could. It does, however, require some time to learn
how, while have an idea how to be barbarians (It's bred in the
bone), so a civilized person can become a barbarian with much less
study time than a barbarian can assume a given culture's face
of civilization.
Spock doesn't grok barbarians very well (except maybe every
seven years). Barbarians playing the part of civilized people
are quite commonplace. They do it well enough that so long as
the surrounding civilization doesn't crumble they may quite
successfully pass as civilized. But when/if it does crumble,
their true nature rapidly reappears.
The SSB FAQ: http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
The SSB Charter: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
The SSB Homepage: http://www.phszx81.demon.co.uk/ssb/
The ASB/SSB Welcome: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/wel.htm
My homepage: http://links.magenta.com/lmnop/users/sd/sd.html
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
<bac...@nospam.cadvision.com> wrote:
> Oh, I remember another instance that also provided me with a sad
> testimony to this fixation on appearance. John Derek was on a
> program with his wife Bo Derek (I think it was Carson but it was a
> long time ago so I am not sure). The host of the show asked John
> Derek if he would still love Bo is she was in a horrible accident
> that disfigured her face and body. John Derek paused so long that
> it was obvious that it would be an issue.
The situation that really gets to me is the Plastic surgeons and their
wives. Where the wife has gone under the knife lots of times at the hands
of her husband. The result tends to look very ... artificial.
I have a PVC fetish, and the sorts of clothes I like to see, women to tend
to feel look better on slender bodies. But to me within reason, it doesn't
matter what the body shape is, as long as they are wearing the PVC and
they *feel* sexy in it.
I find that the biggest turn on, is not just the outfit, but the way the
person wearing it feels wearing it.
In the TV show, Ally McBeal, it is Renee that I find the most attractive...
--
Anson
Want to get in touch with the New Zealand BDSM community?
New Zealand BDSM Resource site: http://www.whisper.co.nz
New Zealand BDSM Newsletter available: bd...@thenet.co.nz
TyMeDwn1st
>The woman I admire is Lauren Bacall. Now *that* is the woman I
>want to grow up and be ("if you want me, just whistle, you know
>how to whistle don't you, just put your lips together and
>blow.....")
<groan> Oh yeah........!
And Lauren Hutton. MAJORLY Lauren Hutton.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
Official Depooty of Sheriff of Nettingham's Charter Enforcers on SSBB
(To reply via email, simply remove my pearls...)
just julia
> I've met men who have said straight out words to the effect of "my
> girlfriend is an idiot and a shrew but she's built like a brick shithouse."
> Perhaps my life as a fat woman gives me a slightly different perspective.
But...but....being built like a brick shithouse means you're a solidly
built lass with meat on her bones (and bosoms and other places). We must
smack those clueless people with their incorrect use of slang.
j
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devastating Dyke of the Fortnight
http://www.medianstrip.net/~julia/ddof.html
Stephanie
> But...but....being built like a brick shithouse
> means you're a solidly built lass with meat on
> her bones (and bosoms and other places).
> We must smack those clueless people with
> their incorrect use of slang.
Consider me smacked then. I've never used the term myself, but someone
once used it to refer to me and I couldn't figure out why. I don't
exactly have a model's figure. Now I understand, as I _am_ a "solidy
built lass with meat on her bones".
Stephanie
Steven S. Davis
Somehow it seems fitting that the thread concerning this article
become a thread on shithouses.
Stephanie (Step...@webtv.net) wrote:
Well, remember that a brick shithouse was several steps up from
the wooden shithouses that most people had back when people had
shithouses, so a brick shithouse was a very well built structure.
Now, I associate the idea of "very well built", when the reference
is to the female form, with a markedly curvy, voluptuous figure,
and I think that such has traditionally been the general usage.
But it's also been the case that since the time when most people
had shithouses the idea of what constitues a well built woman has
been altering, from Lillian Russell to Marilyn Monroe to the
supermodels of today. So I'm not sure the slang is being misused
- it still means a well built woman - as much as it is that people's
idea of well built has altered, so that it to many people no longer
means something as solidly constructed as a brick shithouse, but
increasingly means something with a very lightweight frame that,
if the term were applied to the structures which inspired it, would
easily tip over (even if it wasn't mischief night) in a strong breeze.
Philip the Foole
Foole: Hah! So you admit that Mensa still exists. When I applied,
they told me that they had closed their clubhouse and left town.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Intelligence, like the quality of being a "Master," is an area in which
it seems prudent to allow the observer to draw their own conclusions.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb
Spyral Fox
(Norton Zenger) writes:
>Maybe there is, maybe there isn't; I don't know. What I do know is that
>behavior, generally, can be changed, while character, generally, cannot. I
>have thus found that statements about behavior are more ideologically
>justifiable and less likely to get me flamed. If I say to someone, "You are
>an idiot", he or she can come back boasting about being a member of MENSA,
>having a 1600 SAT score, having won the Employee of the Month at Wal-Mart,
>whatever.
Hey there. I know lots of Mensans. I am one. I know lots of
other people who are certainly able to qualify for Mensa, but
don't feel any need/desire to send money to their National group.
I can therefore say, with lots of specific ansectdotes to back
me up, that there is no contradiction between being an idjit and
being a Mensan. I'm an idjit myself at times, and I know some
few Mensans who make a career out of idiocy. Being able to
take tests and get high schores correlates nicely with the skills
needed in particular academic fields where particular sorts of
logic are important.... but it ain't worth squat in day-to-day
life.
That all said, and with full acknowledgement that there is a strong
stereotype of what the typcial Mensan is like (e.g. an egotistical
windbag) and with the full acknowledgement that there actually
are some members who *are* like that, I'd like to point out that
the vast majority of the membership are perfectly capable of
admitting that they are acting like idiots and not feeling that they
need to point to their membership card as a way of proving that
they aren't *really* stupid.
Please don't slam a whole group of people based on a stereotype.
[you may now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar...]
Jerri
>after I finish this bag of Doritos.
>
I'll help you, soon as I finish these oreos. : )
Mz Midnite
"Oh Bother" said the Borg, "we've assimmilated Pooh!"
Jerri
>showing up at our doors when we buy our first whips. We don't get a free
>boob job with every dildo we buy. We don't require liposuction to buy
>paddles. Nobody stands at the door of the playparty and demands proof of
>gym membership for entry.
GASP!!!!! We don't??? OMG that does it, I'm not buying one more damned whip or
dildo until I get my free body beautification coupons!!!
Spyral Fox
<p...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> Spyral Fox: ... with full acknowledgement that there is a strong stereotype
>of what the typcial Mensan is like (e.g. an egotistical windbag) and with the
>full acknowledgement that there actually are some members who *are* like
>that, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of the membership are
>perfectly capable of admitting that they are acting like idiots and not
>feeling that they need to point to their membership card as a way of proving
>that they aren't *really* stupid.
>
>Foole: Hah! So you admit that Mensa still exists. When I applied,
>they told me that they had closed their clubhouse and left town.
That must have been when they left New York for Texas. ;-)
Elisabeth Anne Riba
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Rachel wrote:
>> Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
>> than one or two token attractive people.
>> The majority are fat and look horrible in leather.
> Ummm, and this has *what* to do with the Attleboro raid?
It's sadly relevant because the news article in question begins as follows:
``Most people involved in S & M are not very fit,'' said the lanky,
black-clad writer. ``A lot of them smoke. They eat very badly. They're
out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not what you would visualize a
sexy dungeon scene would be.''
In other words, no kittens with whips and - Attleboro suspects
notwithstanding - very few honey-blond dot-com tyros with paddles.
Still, the first-time novelist, who is also crime editor for the
Boston Book Review, found the milieu he termed ``a dumping ground for
the swinging set'' a tantalizing setting for a literary descent into
compulsion and inner conflict.
> Right, crap journalism.
Yup.
--
---------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <---------------
Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
RJ
}It's sadly relevant because the news article in question begins as follows:
} ``Most people involved in S & M are not very fit,'' said the lanky,
} black-clad writer. ``A lot of them smoke. They eat very badly. They're
} out of shape. Hefty, older, matronly. Not what you would visualize a
} sexy dungeon scene would be.''
} In other words, no kittens with whips and - Attleboro suspects
} notwithstanding - very few honey-blond dot-com tyros with paddles.
} Still, the first-time novelist, who is also crime editor for the
} Boston Book Review, found the milieu he termed ``a dumping ground for
} the swinging set'' a tantalizing setting for a literary descent into
} compulsion and inner conflict.
Ick. I know that one of my scene-related epiphanies came when I
realized that I could be a top/dom/whatever because I could wear
whatever I chose because I _was_ the top/dom/whatever.
These days I find myself attracted to people who don't have large
lumpsof self-loathing sticking out all over the place. It seems to
be working: I have two body-comfortable sweeties (one kinky) and am
meeting more people who find me attractive as is.
--
RJ Johnson \ I don't write .sig files...
Meme Wrangler \
r...@xocolatl.com \ I write the things that make .sig files _better_.
Cassi Ann Donahue
>Cassi, I guess I am going to have to start paying a lot more attention
>to what you write. [kind words snipped...]
Oh dear, don't look too closely. My writings, much like my looks,
are best appreciated at a distance.
-- Cassi
--
One of the interesting things about the Internet is the large number of
people on it who aren't inhabiting the same universe as me....
-- Boris Ludmenkov
Cassi Ann Donahue
>Cassi Ann Donahue come on down:
>>gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) writes:
>>
>>>I try hard not to judge people's character, only their behavior.
>>
>>Well, not to get all serious and philosophical (which I would
>>*never* do), but I don't personally believe there is anything to
>>character beyond behaviour (don't worry, I don't expect anyone
>>else to buy into that idea).
>Maybe there is, maybe there isn't; I don't know.
Well, I certainly don't know either. It's really just an
operational thing for me.
> What I do know is that
>behavior, generally, can be changed, while character, generally, cannot. I
>have thus found that statements about behavior are more ideologically
>justifiable and less likely to get me flamed.
Yeppers. I've gotten into numerous battles because of my
quirky definitions of such things. I rarely bother trying to
explain my ways any more and usually just nod and smile. I'm
all too clearly in a minority on this one.
....
>>Thus my response was really to an
>>idea which I read into Norton's comment, that Mr Kadet's behavior
>>in the present instance is out of step with how he behaves
>>elsewhere and otherwise. I read "act" as "pretend".
>Ah, OK. I had simply intended it as "behave".
Yes, I saw that clearly *afterwards*... Ya gotta love that
hindsight.
--Cassi
LK
wrote:
>
>
>> In article <34kcnsog7bjdgeumo...@4ax.com>,
>> gay...@catholic.org (Norton Zenger) wrote:
>>
>
>> Point me to one play party, one dungeon, one munch where there's more
>> than one or two token attractive people.
>>
>> The majority are fat and look horrible in leather.
>>
>> Get over it or go on a diet.
>
>Poor baby. She doesn't find all the nice kinky people attractive. I guess
>she won't want to play with them. What a shame.
>
>Sweetheart -- some of us *like* to hit a butt that jiggles, or put clamps on
>lots and lots of skin. Some of us don't believe that a healthy, happy body
>ever "looks horrible."
>
>The rest of us should just stay home and keep their toxic negative energy to
>themselves.
Isn't it along the lines as any fashion industry: "attractive" people
are used to sell the fashion. Customers' $$$ is what counts and what
goes in the till. I've yet to hear of clothing or costume place that
refuses to sell to someone because they aren't pretty enough for the
clothes.
Oh, duh! I'm too sexy for my shirt. Of course.
LK