Nudes in Western Art
Opus the Penguin
did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
different for male and female nudes?
My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
weren't impressionistic.
I'm skeptical. I thought all nudes were Kojak-style until well into the
20th Century, at least for anything that was considered art. Am I
hopelessly uneducated here?
Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair"> doesn't really get me anywhere.
--
Opus the Penguin
"Walmart rarely has to contend with all its truckloads of Care Bears
being impounded and burned, as nice as that would be." - StarChaser
Tyger
Brett Bayne
When I was a kid, what they did show was airbrushed out. There must have been a
"first issue" where they finally threw caution to the wind.
Blinky the Shark
> Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
> did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
> different for male and female nudes?
Did you mean to limit the question to painting?
http://home.rochester.rr.com/satw/italy/david.htm
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
New May 4 - Apple Innovation http://snurl.com/apple2003
D.F. Manno
bret...@aol.commieplot (Brett Bayne) wrote:
According to the Playboy Web site:
> Who was the first Playmate to show pubic hair?
>
> In January 1971, sharp-eyed readers spotted a tuft of sunlight pubic hair in
> the pictorial of Liv Lindeland, who later became Playmate of the Year. It's
> hard to believe, but this was a big deal at the time. (The first appearance
> of pubic hair in Playboy occurred 16 months earlier, in an August 1969
> pictorial featuring actress Paula Kelly of Sweet Charity.)
<http://www.playboy.com/playmates/faq/>
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
James Gifford
IIRC, Penthouse was the one that broke the big taboo. Playboy followed a
few years later with some discreet peeking - maybe 1974?
--
|| James Gifford * jgif...@surewest.net ||
|| See www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more ||
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>> Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask.
>> When did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the
>> answer different for male and female nudes?
>
> Did you mean to limit the question to painting?
>
> http://home.rochester.rr.com/satw/italy/david.htm
Nope. That's an interesting data point there.
I am particularly interested in the painting angle, though, because of
my wife's contention. If anyone can identify the painting she vaguely
recalls, she'd be most glad to smile triumphantly and strut about the
house. Vindicating my skepticism would, of course, mean proving a
negative. So I don't have much hope about that angle.
--
Opus the Penguin
"I'm pretty sure that both of those statements are several different
kinds of wrong." - Huey Callison
Lalbert1
<opusthe...@netzero.net> writes:
>Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
>did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
>different for male and female nudes?
>
>My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
>years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
>Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
>weren't impressionistic.
>
>I'm skeptical. I thought all nudes were Kojak-style until well into the
>20th Century, at least for anything that was considered art. Am I
>hopelessly uneducated here?
>
>Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair"> doesn't really get me anywhere.
>
Although it is not 200 years old, the following painting depicts an early
painting of a nude woman showing her pubic hair. The hair may be diffiicult to
see because the artist is showing the woman in motion. But if you study the
picture you will see what you are looking for:
http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html
Les
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask.
>>> When did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the
>>> answer different for male and female nudes?
>> Did you mean to limit the question to painting?
>> http://home.rochester.rr.com/satw/italy/david.htm
> Nope. That's an interesting data point there.
I think next year is the 500th anniversary of David's completion.
But I didn't mean to imply that that was the first hairy statue on pubic
display. It just came to mind as a good example from further back than
you were talking about.
Incidentally, I can combine the sculpture of *and* the painting of pubic
hair with this bit from Beverly Hills, where this phenomenon was visible
as you drive west on Sunset Boulevard[1]: "Mohammed al-Fassi will long be
remembered for painting pubic hair on the classic Italian statutes that
surrounded his garishly decorated 38-room mansion. The mansion
mysteriously burned down in 1980 while the couple were out of town."
Not content with the sculpted pubes, he had them painted dark colors to
make them more evident. On otherwise natural grey statues, it was
pretty bizarre.
Source, for the purists:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:-f8wEQptJyYC:www.liaoning-gateway.com
/74591981224853504/20030307/1094892.shtml+%22painting+pubic+hair%22&hl=en&
ie=UTF-8
Source, for the rest: http://tinyurl.com/bfgf
[1]Drive west on Sunset
To the sea
Turn that jungle music down
Just until we're out of town
This is no one-night stand
It's a real occassion
Close your eyes and you'll be there
It's everything they say
The end of a perfect day
Distant lights from across the bay
RM Mentock
>
> Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
> did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
> different for male and female nudes?
>
> My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
> years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
> Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
> weren't impressionistic.
Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
or did you mean that?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
> I'm skeptical. I thought all nudes were Kojak-style until well into the
> 20th Century, at least for anything that was considered art. Am I
> hopelessly uneducated here?
I'd heard that some of that was reality, same as shaved legs, but
surely Michaelangelo's Creation of Man thing on the Sistine Chapel
is not
> Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair"> doesn't really get me anywhere.
O yes it did. Remember, research is no defense.
--
RM Mentock
mais cette question nous entraînerait trop loin
Rich Clancey
+ Related question: When did Playboy start showing pubic hair in its pictorials?
+ When I was a kid, what they did show was airbrushed out. There must have been a
+ "first issue" where they finally threw caution to the wind.
Yeah, I think it was in the 1970's. Hugh Heffner, who was
starting to show the years, actually held a press conference
in which he announced that "The country is now ready for
pubic hair". In an interview afterwards, he compared himself
to F. Scott Fitzgerald.
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com
Rich Clancey
+ My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
+ years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
+ Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
+ weren't impressionistic.
The "Three Graces", taken from some Greek source, were a
perennially popular motif in painting, and every painter
eventually painted one.
Titian's "Venus of Urbino" painted in 1534, certainly shows
pubic hair. It's a rather nice looking young woman
lolligagging in her bed, apparently performing what the
Catholic Church used to call "an act of self abuse". I
believe this may be the painting which Mark Twain talks
about at some length in "The Innocents Abroad", making the
point that if he described the same scene in a book, he'd
have every Preacher in the country jumping down his throat.
I don't have a book handy, but I'm sure that Rembrandt
depicted his wife Saskia, whom he frequently painted,
with hair as appropriate. I suspect you'll find the same
with Ruebens.
The issue seems to have been whether pubic areas were
permitted to be depicted at all or had to be covered. When
depicted, they seem to have been rendered without
alteration.
Also remember, before the introduction of the Gillette Blue
Blade, Barbasol Beard Buster, and Old Spice Aftershave,
shaving was no trivial task.
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com
Max C. Webster III
> Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair"> doesn't really get me anywhere.
IHNTA, but that's going in the quote file.
- Max -
=======
"Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair">
doesn't really get me anywhere." - OtP
James Gifford
> Yeah, I think it was in the 1970's. Hugh Heffner, who was
> starting to show the years, actually held a press conference
> in which he announced that "The country is now ready for
> pubic hair". In an interview afterwards, he compared himself
> to F. Scott Fitzgerald.
I saw a quote the other day from Larry Flynt, to the effect, "Poor Hef.
He really thinks he's on a level with Time and the New Yorker when he's
really just another pornographer."
Lalbert1
>Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
>did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
>different for male and female nudes?
>
This is what results from playing subject line roulette. First the drinking,
then the swearing, and now this.
Les
Bob Ward
<men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
>> did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
>> different for male and female nudes?
>>
>> My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
>> years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
>> Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
>> weren't impressionistic.
>
>Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
>or did you mean that?
>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
>
Hmmm - I wonder why they call fat chicks "Rubenesque"?
James Gifford
>> Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
>> or did you mean that?
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
> Hmmm - I wonder why they call fat chicks "Rubenesque"?
Because Rubens established the style 250 years before Renoir?
Mark Steese
der news:3EBD286...@surewest.net schrieb:
> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
>>> or did you mean that?
>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
>
>> Hmmm - I wonder why they call fat chicks "Rubenesque"?
>
> Because Rubens established the style 250 years before Renoir?
Rubens painted Marshmallow Peeps? Cool!
-Mark
--
there's a ribbon in the willow and a tire swing rope
and a briar patch of berries takin over the slope
the cat'll sleep in the mailbox and we'll never go to town
till we bury every dream in the cold cold ground
cold cold ground -Tom Waits
N Jill Marsh
<opusthe...@netzero.net>wrote:
>I'm skeptical. I thought all nudes were Kojak-style until well into the
>20th Century, at least for anything that was considered art. Am I
>hopelessly uneducated here?
Flipping through my _Basic Guide to the Prado_ , I find that Albrecht
Durer's "Adam", dated 1507 has quite definite blond pubic hair peeking
out over the apple leaves, though "Eve" does not.
Francisco de Goya y Lucienties' "The Nude Maja" (1796-1797) has sort
of a pubic mohawk, but it's definitely hair rather than shadow or
suggestion.
I've always assumed* that artists left off the pubic hair in general
for a couple of reasons - one being that a dark triangle of hair
directs more attention than was considered proper to the genital area.
Body hair in general tends to be absent, because it covers the human
form, as well as the fact that the things for which nudity often
represent - truth, innocence, the Grecian ideal, that sort of thing -
go better without animalistic body hair in the way.
>Googling for <fat nudes "pubic hair"> doesn't really get me anywhere.
8050 sites of anywhere, oh fine young penguin.
nj"some would consider it art"m
*speaking as a complete art cretin, I never even did the practically compulsory-for-science-students Art History credit at Uni
--
"Take careful note of distinct odors; they can prove to be valuable
clues."
Carl Fink
wrote:
> I've always assumed* that artists left off the pubic hair in general
> for a couple of reasons - one being that a dark triangle of hair
> directs more attention than was considered proper to the genital area.
> Body hair in general tends to be absent, because it covers the human
> form, as well as the fact that the things for which nudity often
> represent - truth, innocence, the Grecian ideal, that sort of thing -
> go better without animalistic body hair in the way.
It's more directly Grecian than that, according to my teachers. The
Greeks actually did shave the hair off their bodies, especially
athletes (who were used as models), so it became traditional for
European artists (who copied from Greek models) to draw and paint
that way.
Interestingly, the Greeks painted their sculptures in lifelike
colors, but the paints wore off by the time of the Renaissance, so it
became traditional in European art to leave sculptures in the natural
colors of the stone or metal or clay.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Opus the Penguin
> Although it is not 200 years old, the following painting depicts
> an early painting of a nude woman showing her pubic hair. The
> hair may be diffiicult to see because the artist is showing the
> woman in motion. But if you study the picture you will see what
> you are looking for:
>
> http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html
Yes, thank you. Very helpful. I particularly liked the message "Click
image for enlargement."
--
Opus the Penguin
"Then we can just grind up the useless people into a delicious protein-
filled slurry, or hunt them for sport." - Joseph M. Bay
Blinky the Shark
> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
>>> or did you mean that?
>>> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
>> Hmmm - I wonder why they call fat chicks "Rubenesque"?
> Because Rubens established the style 250 years before Renoir?
Too easy! Shame on you. :)
Blinky the Shark
Ain't it the truth. Next thing you know, he'll be dancing, on those
little penguin legs.
Blinky the Shark
> Titian's "Venus of Urbino" painted in 1534, certainly shows
> pubic hair. It's a rather nice looking young woman
I was tempted to link to an image of **just** Venus' pubic area from
Botticelli's "Birth of Venus", to show what can happen when a pubic hair
artist gets carried away. (Late 1400s, IIRC.)
Greg Goss
During my adolescence, Playboy and Penthouse were in a raunch race.
Pubic hair was already there inside the magazine when I started
reading in 69. It arrived on the cover sometime about 71 or 72.
Eventually Hustler raced past them and seized the raunch title, and
refuses to give it back. Hustler was banned in Canada sometime about
77 for a decade or so.
Greg Goss
>In article <b9iquv$akd$4...@pcls4.std.com>,
>Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Titian's "Venus of Urbino" painted in 1534, certainly shows
>> pubic hair. It's a rather nice looking young woman
>> lolligagging in her bed, apparently performing what the
>> Catholic Church used to call "an act of self abuse". I
>
>No hair is visible; her hand is in the way. See:
>http://artchive.floridaimaging.com/t/titian/titian_venus_of_urbino.jpg
>
>> The issue seems to have been whether pubic areas were
>> permitted to be depicted at all or had to be covered. When
>> depicted, they seem to have been rendered without
>> alteration.
>
>This painting is definately in the "covered" category.
There is darkness with an edge at the right point, to our right of the
hand. I would interpret this as pubic hair, not shadow. I would
place this one definately in the "hair" category.
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Wilkes/VenusOfUrbino/ is a larger
image, but seems to be in worse condition. Is that entirely because
of the blowup?
James Gifford
> During my adolescence, Playboy and Penthouse were in a raunch race.
> Pubic hair was already there inside the magazine when I started
> reading in 69. It arrived on the cover sometime about 71 or 72.
>
> Eventually Hustler raced past them and seized the raunch title, and
> refuses to give it back. Hustler was banned in Canada sometime about
> 77 for a decade or so.
The difference being that Hustler is at least honest about being raunch,
and makes no pretensions of being an upscale magazine for the discerning
literati jetsetters with a few tasteful boobs thrown in.
Penthouse is merely dismaying in this respect, but the entire Playboy
attitude makes me physically ill, and always has.
(Penthouse was quite literate in the years I read it, perhaps 78-82. I
was shocked when I bought an issue around 95 for a friend's opinion
piece, and found the whole magazine dumbed down to about a seventh grade
level.)
James Gifford
> There is darkness with an edge at the right point, to our right of the
> hand. I would interpret this as pubic hair, not shadow. I would
> place this one definately in the "hair" category.
Now you're just splitting hairs.
N Jill Marsh
>Eventually Hustler raced past them and seized the raunch title, and
>refuses to give it back. Hustler was banned in Canada sometime about
>77 for a decade or so.
It was certainly available in Ontario in the early 1980s. I was
vaguely aware that it might have been unavailable for a few years, but
I think it was more due to the split run/magazine wars than for
content. Individual issues might not have made it over the border,
but I'd have to see a reputable cite before I'd believe the actual
publication was banned in Canada at any time.
During the early 1980s, _Hustler_ was no more raunchy than _High
Society_ or _Harvey_.
nj"think pink"m
--
"When cornered in a hotel room or ship's berth, look for a bell cord
to signal for help."
Lalbert1
<go...@gossg.org> writes:
>During my adolescence, Playboy and Penthouse were in a raunch race.
>Pubic hair was already there inside the magazine when I started
>reading in 69. .....
>
Oooh, gross! Pubic hair inside the magazine; I guess some guy was using it
before you bought it, and put it back on the stand. I would have complained
to the news-stand owner about the spread of germs from pubic hair.
Les
GrapeApe
>did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
>different for male and female nudes?
That spanish painting on the stamp had it.. not 20th century stuff. Chick
laying on a couch or such.
GrapeApe
>laying on a couch or such.
Or Goya's Maja, as others have pointed out. Sometime before 1800
Mark Steese
news:20030510202104...@mb-m28.aol.com schrieb:
No, no, it was a promotional gimmick. The hair was sealed inside a
glassine bag and was allegedly clipped from the Penthouse Pet of the
month. IIRC a scandal resulted when some wiseacre sent off the hair to
be tested and it turned out to be canine in origin - Guccione was raising
pedigreed poodles at the time.
James Gifford
>>Oooh, gross! Pubic hair inside the magazine; I guess some guy was
>>using it before you bought it, and put it back on the stand. I would
>>have complained to the news-stand owner about the spread of germs from
>>pubic hair.
> No, no, it was a promotional gimmick. The hair was sealed inside a
> glassine bag and was allegedly clipped from the Penthouse Pet of the
> month. IIRC a scandal resulted when some wiseacre sent off the hair to
> be tested and it turned out to be canine in origin - Guccione was raising
> pedigreed poodles at the time.
Reminds me of a junior high trick. (Anyone remember "The Bionic Woman"?
Lindsay Wagner? The original Steve Austin's goilfriend?) We'd pull the
spring out of a ballpoint pen, stretch it out, and wedge it in our front
teeth. When questioned (and some dork would always ask), the reply was,
"Oh, had a date with the Bionic Woman last night."
(I lost my jones for LW when I found out she was still breastfeeding her
sons at 5 and 7 years old. And making film production work around her
feeding schedule...)
Brett Bayne
> was still breastfeeding her sons at 5 and 7
> years old.
No. Fucking. Way.
James Gifford
> No. Fucking. Way.
No. Shit.
Look. It. Up.
Gross. Ain'it?
Greg Goss
I was thirteen and stealing the magazines. I think complaining about
their condition might have been counterproductive.
Brett Bayne
> Look. It. Up.
> Gross. Ain'it?
Well, you're right. There it is, right at crazywashedupactresses.com. 'Scuse me
while I puke seven different colors.
artyw
> > Oooh, gross! Pubic hair inside the magazine; I guess some guy was
> > using it before you bought it, and put it back on the stand. I would
> > have complained to the news-stand owner about the spread of germs from
> > pubic hair.
>
> No, no, it was a promotional gimmick. The hair was sealed inside a
> glassine bag and was allegedly clipped from the Penthouse Pet of the
> month. IIRC a scandal resulted when some wiseacre sent off the hair to
> be tested and it turned out to be canine in origin - Guccione was raising
> pedigreed poodles at the time.
>
artyw
> Brett Bayne wrote:
> >> I lost my jones for LW when I found out she
> >> was still breastfeeding her sons at 5 and 7
> >> years old.
>
> > No. Fucking. Way.
>
> No. Shit.
>
> Look. It. Up.
>
> Gross. Ain'it?
Kevin O'Neill
Yeah, and then you'd have had to have gone into custom kitchen
installation, and that would have sucked, eh?
Kevin
got to move these refrigerators
Stephen Fels
"Rich Clancey" <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:b9iquv$akd$4...@pcls4.std.com...
> Titian's "Venus of Urbino" painted in 1534, certainly shows
> pubic hair.
"Certainly" is an awfully strong word, for something that one couldn't
possibly be sure of seeing at all.
> It's a rather nice looking young woman
> lolligagging in her bed, apparently performing what the
> Catholic Church used to call "an act of self abuse".
"Apparently" is an awfully strong word, considering she's casually covering
herself with a relaxed hand. Plus, there are two other women in the room. It
looks more like the lady of the house is modestly covering her privates,
while her servants prepare her days wardrobe.
> I
> believe this may be the painting which Mark Twain talks
> about at some length in "The Innocents Abroad", making the
> point that if he described the same scene in a book, he'd
> have every Preacher in the country jumping down his throat.
I believe you're wrong. "A nude woman casually covers her privates with a
hand, as her servants gather her clothes. A dog is sleeping at her feet."
Scandalous! I hope I won't regret not marking this post no archive...
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
GrapeApe
Yes way.
Don't make the chronic br*stf**ders patrolling usenet for such discussions come
in here and tell you otherwise.
Anny Middon
news:Xns9377C7A3EE9A5...@216.168.3.44...
>
> No, no, it was a promotional gimmick. The hair was sealed inside a
> glassine bag and was allegedly clipped from the Penthouse Pet of the
> month. IIRC a scandal resulted when some wiseacre sent off the hair to
> be tested and it turned out to be canine in origin - Guccione was raising
> pedigreed poodles at the time.
>
OK, I know you're joking.
But I had some younger neighbors sure I was joking when I told them about
Scratch & Sniff Stacy. Older afcans may remember that in the late 1970's
(I'd guess 1977), Hustler came out with an issue with a scratch & sniff spot
right on the model's vagina. I thought Stacy must have been an awfully
clean girl, because it smelled like Ivory soap to me.
Anny
A cult of no
>Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
>did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes?
twentieth century or so, with some notable exceptions.
>My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
>years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
>Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
>weren't impressionistic.
Sure sounds like Renoir to me.
>I'm skeptical. I thought all nudes were Kojak-style until well into the
>20th Century, at least for anything that was considered art.
Well, not all. For instance, there's Courbet's origin of the world, from 1866.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit6-10-15.asp
Still, it's a good general rule, even for Courbet.
http://www.artformgallery.com/courbet.htm
. Nudes in general don't have pubic hair, and female nudes often don't really
have genitals until the 20th century.
http://www.artformgallery.com/preview3.htm
> Am I
>hopelessly uneducated here?
Nah. Frankly, I think the wif is confabulating hair into a renoir, prolly
because the brush work makes them look like they've got hair all over ehri
bodies.
--
."Besides invading other people's countries, and forcing them to do whatever he
said, Alexander the Great was famous for something called the Gordian Knot."
StarChaser Tyger
>"Apparently" is an awfully strong word, considering she's casually covering
>herself with a relaxed hand. Plus, there are two other women in the room. It
>looks more like the lady of the house is modestly covering her privates,
>while her servants prepare her days wardrobe.
...and a slow motion paparazzi paints her picture...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
James Gifford
> James Gifford <jgif...@surewest.net> wrote:
>>(Penthouse was quite literate in the years I read it, perhaps 78-82. I
>>was shocked when I bought an issue around 95 for a friend's opinion
>>piece, and found the whole magazine dumbed down to about a seventh grade
>>level.)
> Don't even go near an issue now--they're showing full-on sex scenes,
> penetration, and so on.
I have no objection to that, in its place; I will admit for a taste for
well-wrought erotica/pornography and have few limits to my tastes other
than zero interest in abusive or faux-abusive images. (If they're not
having fun, I'm not interested.)
In the era I read PH, even the pictorial text tended to be rather
elegant and literate, as foolish as such efforts might have been. In the
95-ish issue, the pictorial text was almost literally "See Jane. See
Jane lay on the bed. See Jane wait for rapture." Awful.
Brett Bayne
> Don't make the chronic br*stf**ders
> patrolling usenet for such discussions come
> in here and tell you otherwise.
I did a double-take on that one. Looked like your
asterisked word was "brettsters."
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Brett Bayne wrote:
>>> I lost my jones for LW when I found out she
>>> was still breastfeeding her sons at 5 and 7
>>> years old.
>> No. Fucking. Way.
> No. Shit.
> Look. It. Up.
> Gross. Ain'it?
Yes. It. Is. You. Getting. All. Pissy. About. It. That. Is.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
GrapeApe
>>> was still breastfeeding her sons at 5 and 7
>>> years old.
>> No. Fucking. Way.
> No. Shit.
> Look. It. Up.
> Gross. Ain'it?
Yes. It. Is. You. Getting. All. Pissy. About. It. That. Is. >><BR><BR>
If weaning wasn't an important part of growing up, we would all still be
clutching at the teat.
I suggest if they can walk and talk and dress themselves and go to
kindergarten, it is time to put titty away.
James Gifford
> Yes. It. Is. You. Getting. All. Pissy. About. It. That. Is.
As father of six, all breastfed, I'm the last person in the world to get
pissy about breastfeeding.
But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd expect
from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the mother's
immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed nutrition. The
rest of the arguments are anti-medicine, granola-crunching nonsense.
And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
abilities and draw are marginal at best.
So yes - Gross. Stupid. *Snork*.
Carl Fink
> But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd expect
> from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the mother's
> immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed nutrition. The
> rest of the arguments are anti-medicine, granola-crunching nonsense.
You know, I'd love to see your double-blind, controlled studies
proving that long-term breast-feeding is useless.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Boron Elgar
<jgif...@surewest.net> wrote:
>ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> Yes. It. Is. You. Getting. All. Pissy. About. It. That. Is.
>
>As father of six, all breastfed, I'm the last person in the world to get
>pissy about breastfeeding.
>
>But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd expect
>from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the mother's
>immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed nutrition. The
>rest of the arguments are anti-medicine, granola-crunching nonsense.
>
>And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
>breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
>be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
>abilities and draw are marginal at best.
>
>So yes - Gross. Stupid. *Snork*.
What would make it even more interesting would be some evidence that
it really happened. She is certainly mentioned for breastfeeding, but
I cannot find anything about the ages of the kids and the story is
just so out of whack, that I am amazed that I cannot find articles
about it easily online.
boron
James Gifford
> In article <3EBFD2E...@surewest.net>, James Gifford wrote:
>> But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd expect
>> from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the mother's
>> immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed nutrition. The
>> rest of the arguments are anti-medicine, granola-crunching nonsense.
> You know, I'd love to see your double-blind, controlled studies
> proving that long-term breast-feeding is useless.
I've seen plenty showing that the benefits of breastfeeding rise
enormously in the other direction. A week of breastfeeding for a newborn
(which is all some mothers can manage) is of incalculable benefit. Six
months of breastfeeding produces stronger, healthier babies. A year of
breastfeeding is gravy. Beyond that, the child has acquired all the
non-nutritive benefits there are and can only acquire a portion of
needed nutrition.
(I confine my argument to situations where obtaining adequate nutrition
for littles is not a problem; I am excluding extended breastfeeding in
third-world nations where it makes the difference between malnutrition
and health.)
Go 'head, show me your controlled, double-blind studies that show
extended breastfeeding has any measurable benefit over weaning ca. 18-24
months and replacement with a nutritious diet.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
> If weaning wasn't an important part of growing up, we would all still be
> clutching at the teat.
Well, I for one still make the ocassioned grab, let me assure you.
But taking you seriously for a moment, why do you say so? Do you see
animal populations doing such things?
> I suggest if they can walk and talk and dress themselves and go to
> kindergarten, it is time to put titty away.
I suggest that if that's your line, then fine, and if Ms Wagner's line is
a bit further along then so be it.
James Gifford
>> And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
>> breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
>> be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
>> abilities and draw are marginal at best.
> What would make it even more interesting would be some evidence that
> it really happened. She is certainly mentioned for breastfeeding, but
> I cannot find anything about the ages of the kids and the story is
> just so out of whack, that I am amazed that I cannot find articles
> about it easily online.
Yeah, everything just says "extended breastfeeder" without details. I'm
sorry I can't point to a convenient reference, but I clearly recall an
article (ca. 1980) that went into detail, including interview with her,
about her breastfeeding practices.
Boron Elgar
WHO recommends exclusive for the first 6 months, then the addition of
foods after that. I do not think anyone argues that *exclusive*
breastfeeding makes sense at older ages, but that does not mean that
there are not any nutritional/physical or psychological benefits that
extend beyond 6 months...the former may be key in 3rd world places.
The AAP would like it to continue until at least 12 months while WHO
prefers 2 years.
boron
Ian Munro
> In article <3EBFD2E...@surewest.net>, James Gifford wrote:
>
>> But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd
>> expect from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the
>> mother's immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed
>> nutrition. The rest of the arguments are anti-medicine,
>> granola-crunching nonsense.
>
> You know, I'd love to see your double-blind, controlled studies
> proving that long-term breast-feeding is useless.
I'd love to know why it's "idiotic," even if it is pointless. I'd also
be interested in James' expertise in the proper management of Hollywood
careers; since the people who are employing Wagner seem fine with this
arrangement, why is it (again) "idiotic"?
Ian Munro
--
"God is a gentleman. He prefers blondes."--Joe Orton
Joseph Michael Bay
>GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
><snip>
>> If weaning wasn't an important part of growing up, we would all still be
>> clutching at the teat.
>Well, I for one still make the ocassioned grab, let me assure you.
>But taking you seriously for a moment, why do you say so? Do you see
>animal populations doing such things?
They're weaned. It's an important part of their growing up. For
mammals, anyway.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/
n o m a t t e r h o w r o u n d i t f e e l s
i t ' s s t i l l f l a t
Charles A Lieberman
Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Also remember, before the introduction of the Gillette Blue
> Blade, Barbasol Beard Buster, and Old Spice Aftershave,
> shaving was no trivial task.
Do many people shave their pubic areas with a safety razor?
I mean, of those who do it at all.
I do't think I need to know how anyone who knows the answer has come by
that knowledge.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Charles A Lieberman
"Stephen Fels" <ste...@fels.cc> wrote:
> > I
> > believe this may be the painting which Mark Twain talks
> > about at some length in "The Innocents Abroad", making the
> > point that if he described the same scene in a book, he'd
> > have every Preacher in the country jumping down his throat.
>
> I believe you're wrong. "A nude woman casually covers her privates with a
> hand, as her servants gather her clothes. A dog is sleeping at her feet."
> Scandalous! I hope I won't regret not marking this post no archive...
It's less shocking 150 years later.
Charles A Lieberman
bret...@aol.commieplot (Brett Bayne) wrote:
> Related question: When did Playboy start showing pubic hair in its
> pictorials?
> When I was a kid, what they did show was airbrushed out. There must have been
> a
> "first issue" where they finally threw caution to the wind.
I never (well, I say "never" -- I've only seen a couple issues) noticed
pubic hair in Playboy spreads, although even if my recollection is
correct its absence doesn't necessarily indicate anything about Playboy
editorial policy or the use of airbrushing (literal or metaphorical).
Guess I'll be stopping at the newsstand on the way home.
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <b9iquv$akd$4...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> Also remember, before the introduction of the Gillette Blue
>> Blade, Barbasol Beard Buster, and Old Spice Aftershave,
>> shaving was no trivial task.
>Do many people shave their pubic areas with a safety razor?
>I mean, of those who do it at all.
Well, yeah. Just like legs, armpits, or faces, really. And
I'm not sure about waxing but I think the "technology" was
available before the safety razor. "Sugaring" was supposedly
popular among court ladies in Pharonic Egypt.
>I do't think I need to know how anyone who knows the answer has come by
>that knowledge.
Okay.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> Yes. It. Is. You. Getting. All. Pissy. About. It. That. Is.
> As father of six, all breastfed, I'm the last person in the world to get
> pissy about breastfeeding.
> But breastfeeding much past 3 is pointless idiocy, much what I'd expect
> from the vegan crowd. The child has long since acquired the mother's
> immunities and can't draw more than a fraction of needed nutrition. The
> rest of the arguments are anti-medicine, granola-crunching nonsense.
What is the world wide avergae age for weaning? Last I heard it was 4.
> And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
> breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
> be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
> abilities and draw are marginal at best.
Eh, if she want's to live that way *and* can make her bosses dance to her
tune, more power to her.
> So yes - Gross. Stupid. *Snork*.
Nah, none of the above.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> In article <b9iquv$akd$4...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> Also remember, before the introduction of the Gillette Blue
>> Blade, Barbasol Beard Buster, and Old Spice Aftershave,
>> shaving was no trivial task.
> Do many people shave their pubic areas with a safety razor?
It sure beats shaving with a straight razor.
> I mean, of those who do it at all.
> I do't think I need to know how anyone who knows the answer has come by
> that knowledge.
Waxing seems to be the most comomnly employed method in the states for
controlling uruly pubes.
James Gifford
> What is the world wide avergae age for weaning? Last I heard it was 4.
And in modern countries, where infant and toddler nutrition are not
problem areas, it's...?
>>And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
>>breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
>>be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
>>abilities and draw are marginal at best.
> Eh, if she want's to live that way *and* can make her bosses dance to her
> tune, more power to her.
Well, you note that she's hardly a headline actress any more. She had
very striking looks and was at least competent at her craft; I can't but
think being a PITA in this manner helped get her pushed out of the
to-call list.
Sean Houtman
>bret...@aol.commieplot (Brett Bayne) wrote:
>
>>Related question: When did Playboy start showing pubic hair in its
>pictorials?
>>When I was a kid, what they did show was airbrushed out. There must have
>been a
>>"first issue" where they finally threw caution to the wind.
>
>During my adolescence, Playboy and Penthouse were in a raunch race.
>Pubic hair was already there inside the magazine when I started
>reading in 69. It arrived on the cover sometime about 71 or 72.
>
>Eventually Hustler raced past them and seized the raunch title, and
>refuses to give it back. Hustler was banned in Canada sometime about
>77 for a decade or so.
Things get really bad when you see your English teacher in Hustler, it was a
really raunchy picture too.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Sean Houtman
>(Penthouse was quite literate in the years I read it, perhaps 78-82. I
>was shocked when I bought an issue around 95 for a friend's opinion
>piece, and found the whole magazine dumbed down to about a seventh grade
>level.)
You seem to have discovered the average age of its readers...
Sean Houtman
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
>>> breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have to
>>> be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress whose
>>> abilities and draw are marginal at best.
>
>
>> What would make it even more interesting would be some evidence that
>> it really happened. She is certainly mentioned for breastfeeding, but
>> I cannot find anything about the ages of the kids and the story is
>> just so out of whack, that I am amazed that I cannot find articles
>> about it easily online.
>
>Yeah, everything just says "extended breastfeeder" without details. I'm
>sorry I can't point to a convenient reference, but I clearly recall an
>article (ca. 1980) that went into detail, including interview with her,
>about her breastfeeding practices.
>
You know, if she is _still_ breastfeeding the same kids, then the oldest must
be 30, and that is a bit off.
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <b9ov8j$2fe$1...@news.Stanford.EDU>,
>Joseph Michael Bay <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> "Sugaring" was supposedly popular among court ladies in Pharonic Egypt.
>EXPN 'sugaring'
Google for
depilation sugar
Lalbert1
Lieberman <cali...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>I never (well, I say "never" -- I've only seen a couple issues) noticed
>pubic hair in Playboy spreads, although even if my recollection is
>correct its absence doesn't necessarily indicate anything about Playboy
>editorial policy or the use of airbrushing (literal or metaphorical).
>
>Guess I'll be stopping at the newsstand on the way home.
Whoopee!! Tonight's the night?
Les
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message news:<unjrbv002n0su4468...@4ax.com>...
>Yeah, and then you'd have had to have gone into custom kitchen
>installation, and that would have sucked, eh?
Then I might have been competent and have some vague idea how much a
major remodelling job would be likely to cost.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5E035B84
>Kevin
>got to move these refrigerators
Got to move these colour TV's ...
I shoulda learned to play the guitar
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Mike Muth
On 10-May-2003, James Gifford <jgif...@surewest.net> wrote:
> Penthouse is merely dismaying in this respect, but the entire Playboy
> attitude makes me physically ill, and always has.
I can't speak for the last 20 or so years, but Playboy once was a magazine
which was a pleasure to read. Authors such as Mailer, Capote, Fleming,
Sturgeon, Clarke, Silverstein, and Fredrick Brown graced its pages. The
"Playboy Philosophy" was interesting to read and Gahan Wilson usually had a
cartoon or two in each issue. Penthouse never measured up to that
standard, and never really tried to. Instead they competed by showing more
skin. The saddest thing about the whole thing was that the competition
between the two led to a marked reduction in Playboy's quality as Playboy
played Guccione's game.
Mike
I really did read the magazine (and I looked at the pictures, too).
Brett Bayne
masterpiece. Gahan Wilson was also great. Barbi Benton was no slouch, either.
D.F. Manno
"Mike Muth" <mike...@unverbesserlich.org> wrote:
> I can't speak for the last 20 or so years, but Playboy once was a magazine
> which was a pleasure to read. Authors such as Mailer, Capote, Fleming,
> Sturgeon, Clarke, Silverstein, and Fredrick Brown graced its pages. The
> "Playboy Philosophy" was interesting to read and Gahan Wilson usually had a
> cartoon or two in each issue. Penthouse never measured up to that
> standard, and never really tried to. Instead they competed by showing more
> skin. The saddest thing about the whole thing was that the competition
> between the two led to a marked reduction in Playboy's quality as Playboy
> played Guccione's game.
If the latest issue is any indication, Playboy is only going to get
worse. They're Maxim-izing the mag, a direct result of its hiring of a
former Maxim editor to be editorial director. They've trashed the
front of the book--lots of pictures and no text longer than a
paragraph. The snide Maxim tone has seeped into the rest of the
magazine. And it agreed to a request by a "Joe Millionaire" contestant
to appear in a pictorial without full frontal nudity.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
groo
>
> James Gifford wrote:
> > Bob Ward wrote:
> >>> Chubby bathers, sounds like Renoir, but he was an impressionist
> >>> or did you mean that?
> >>> http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/renoir/bath/
>
> >> Hmmm - I wonder why they call fat chicks "Rubenesque"?
>
> > Because Rubens established the style 250 years before Renoir?
>
> Too easy! Shame on you. :)
But he got it wrong. It's because of Pee Wee.
groo
>
> Lalbert1 wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9376D1CD3FBD7op...@127.0.0.1>, Opus the
> > Penguin
> ><opusthe...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> >>Ok, my little penguin cheeks are turning red, but I have to ask. When
> >>did Western Art begin depicting pubic hair on nudes? Is the answer
> >>different for male and female nudes?
>
> > This is what results from playing subject line roulette. First the
> > drinking, then the swearing, and now this.
>
> Ain't it the truth. Next thing you know, he'll be dancing, on those
> little penguin legs.
It's not his fault. After all, don't penguins have sex standing up?
GrapeApe
They are like inflatable punching bags... that is one of their only two
available postures. The other one is swimming. Don't pay attention to that
linux logo. They can't sit down and count their toes. If they are on land they
are making like a bowling pin.
Jon and Mary Miller
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
>> What is the world wide avergae age for weaning? Last I heard it was 4.
>
>
> And in modern countries, where infant and toddler nutrition are not
> problem areas, it's...?
>
>>> And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
>>> breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have
>>> to be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress
>>> whose abilities and draw are marginal at best.
>>
>
>> Eh, if she want's to live that way *and* can make her bosses dance to
>> her tune, more power to her.
>
>
> Well, you note that she's hardly a headline actress any more. She had
> very striking looks and was at least competent at her craft; I can't but
> think being a PITA in this manner helped get her pushed out of the
> to-call list.
>
No way. Your movies make $50 mil, they put up with all sorts of crap.
Your movies lose money, they don't call you back, no matter how easy you
are to work with.
The most it could possibly have cost her is one last chance.
Women seem to sell mostly on looks, so when their time is up, it's up
and they get moved over. There's only so much you can do with makeup
and surgery.
Jon Miller
Stephen Fels
"Jon and Mary Miller" <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3EC43CF7...@comcast.net...
> James Gifford wrote:
>
> > ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> >
> >> What is the world wide avergae age for weaning? Last I heard it was 4.
> >
> >
> > And in modern countries, where infant and toddler nutrition are not
> > problem areas, it's...?
> >
> >>> And... insisting that shooting schedules be set around your
> >>> breastfeeding schedule for 5 and 7 year olds, meaning that they have
> >>> to be on the set all the time, is an idiotic move for an actress
> >>> whose abilities and draw are marginal at best.
> >>
> >
> >> Eh, if she want's to live that way *and* can make her bosses dance to
> >> her tune, more power to her.
> >
> >
> > Well, you note that she's hardly a headline actress any more. She had
> > very striking looks and was at least competent at her craft; I can't but
> > think being a PITA in this manner helped get her pushed out of the
> > to-call list.
> >
>
> No way. Your movies make $50 mil, they put up with all sorts of crap.
> Your movies lose money, they don't call you back, no matter how easy you
> are to work with.
Umm, you realize we're talking about Lifetime, not MGM here...
--
Stephen
Home Page: stephmon.com
Satellite Hunting: sathunt.com
Jon and Mary Miller
> Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
> + My wife swears she's seen a painting from "a hundred to two-hundred
> + years ago" featuring 3 or more female nudes lolling around in the sun.
> + Hairy. She can't give me much more detail. They were chubby. They
> + weren't impressionistic.
>
> The "Three Graces", taken from some Greek source, were a
> perennially popular motif in painting, and every painter
> eventually painted one.
>
> Titian's "Venus of Urbino" painted in 1534, certainly shows
> pubic hair. It's a rather nice looking young woman
> lolligagging in her bed, apparently performing what the
> Catholic Church used to call "an act of self abuse". I
> believe this may be the painting which Mark Twain talks
> about at some length in "The Innocents Abroad", making the
> point that if he described the same scene in a book, he'd
> have every Preacher in the country jumping down his throat.
>
> I don't have a book handy, but I'm sure that Rembrandt
> depicted his wife Saskia, whom he frequently painted,
> with hair as appropriate. I suspect you'll find the same
> with Ruebens.
>
> The issue seems to have been whether pubic areas were
> permitted to be depicted at all or had to be covered. When
> depicted, they seem to have been rendered without
> alteration.
>
> Also remember, before the introduction of the Gillette Blue
> Blade, Barbasol Beard Buster, and Old Spice Aftershave,
> shaving was no trivial task.
>
>
But in Victorian England, there was a fetish (ha ha) of painting
apparently pre-pubescent nudes, to the point of excluding adult women.
Google on Ruskin pubic hair -- but note that it's all "gossip" and
"rumor" (or "rumour"). He apparently was shocked to find that his wife
had pubic hair and possibly the marriage was never consummated. Or
possibly it's all slander, now libel that it's written.
Jon Miller
James Gifford
>> Well, you note that she's hardly a headline actress any more. She had
>> very striking looks and was at least competent at her craft; I can't
>> but think being a PITA in this manner helped get her pushed out of the
>> to-call list.
> No way. Your movies make $50 mil, they put up with all sorts of crap.
> Your movies lose money, they don't call you back, no matter how easy you
> are to work with.
I don't think the gate from every movie Lindsay Wagner has been in
totals $50M.
Gary S. Callison
: Jon and Mary Miller wrote:
: > (attribution burned in... ...but WE CAN REBUILD IT.)
: >> Well, you note that she's hardly a headline actress any more. She had
: >> but think being a PITA in this manner helped get her pushed out of the
: >> to-call list.
: > No way. Your movies make $50 mil, they put up with all sorts of crap.
: > Your movies lose money, they don't call you back, no matter how easy you
: > are to work with.
: I don't think the gate from every movie Lindsay Wagner has been in
: totals $50M.
Brief google says:
Gross receipts for
Nighthawks: $14m
Ricochet: $21.76m
Can't find a damn bit of data for
A Light in the Forest (2002)
Frog and Wombat (1998)
Martin's Day (1984)
High Risk (1981)
Second Wind (1976)
...and other than that, she's done an awful lot of bad TV, so unless the
gate from those five I don't know totals $14m (High Risk and Martin's Day
very easily could have, those were big movies - the other three, not so
much...) you could be right.
--
Huey
Richard Hoskins
> Gross receipts for
> Nighthawks: $14m
> Ricochet: $21.76m
>
> Can't find a damn bit of data for
> A Light in the Forest (2002)
> Frog and Wombat (1998)
> Martin's Day (1984)
> High Risk (1981)
> Second Wind (1976)
>
> ...and other than that, she's done an awful lot of bad TV, so unless the
> gate from those five I don't know totals $14m (High Risk and Martin's Day
> very easily could have, those were big movies - the other three, not so
> much...) you could be right.
She was also in "The Paper Chase" (1973). I think that was a big hit.
--
Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble.
--Bucky Katt
Hank Gillette
Jon and Mary Miller <jon.and.m...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Google on Ruskin pubic hair -- but note that it's all "gossip" and
> "rumor" (or "rumour"). He apparently was shocked to find that his wife
> had pubic hair and possibly the marriage was never consummated. Or
> possibly it's all slander, now libel that it's written.
You can't libel the dead.
--
Hank Gillette
Sean Houtman
>
>Women seem to sell mostly on looks, so when their time is up, it's up
>and they get moved over. There's only so much you can do with makeup
>and surgery.
An exception to this rule is Katherine Hepburn, who is still hot, and filming
now.
Bother the wrinkles, Beauty is inside, not outside.
Bermuda999
>From: Jon and Mary Miller jon.and.m...@comcast.net
>
>>
>>Women seem to sell mostly on looks, so when their time is up, it's up
>>and they get moved over. There's only so much you can do with makeup
>>and surgery.
>
>An exception to this rule is Katherine Hepburn, who is still hot, and filming
>now.
Katharine.
Katharine Hepburn.
Jon and Mary Miller
>From: Jon and Mary Miller jon.and.m...@comcast.net
>
>>Women seem to sell mostly on looks, so when their time is up, it's up
>>and they get moved over. There's only so much you can do with makeup
>>and surgery.
>>
>
>An exception to this rule is Katherine Hepburn, who is still hot, and filming
>now.
>
>Bother the wrinkles, Beauty is inside, not outside.
>
I'm sure glad I inserted the weasel words. Not good thinking, just
force of habit.
She's selling acting, not beauty. British films seem more likely to
include people that look like regular people. The US film industry
seems to avoid that (compare the real Erin Brockovich to Julia Roberts).
Jon Miller
SoCalMike
>
> She's selling acting, not beauty. British films seem more likely to
> include people that look like regular people. The US film industry
> seems to avoid that (compare the real Erin Brockovich to Julia Roberts).
is erin brockovich horse-faced?
Mark Brader
> > regular people. The US film industry seems to avoid that
> > (compare the real Erin Brockovich to Julia Roberts).
> is erin brockovich horse-faced?
In fact she was a beauty contest winner -- Miss Pacific Coast --
but that was in 1981, and the events depicted in the movie took
place in the mid-1990s. You can see in the movie what Brockovich
looked like in 2001: she has a bit part as waitress named Julia.
--
Mark Brader "'Taxpayer' includes any person
Toronto whether or not liable to pay tax."
m...@vex.net -- Income Tax Act of Canada, s.248(1)
Sean Houtman
>>
>>Bother the wrinkles, Beauty is inside, not outside.
>>
>I'm sure glad I inserted the weasel words. Not good thinking, just
>force of habit.
>
>She's selling acting, not beauty. British films seem more likely to
>include people that look like regular people. The US film industry
>seems to avoid that (compare the real Erin Brockovich to Julia Roberts).
Katharine H. is quite a beauty in my book, even after about 70 years in the
acting business.
Blinky the Shark
> From: Jon and Mary Miller jon.and.m...@comcast.net
>>>Bother the wrinkles, Beauty is inside, not outside.
>>I'm sure glad I inserted the weasel words. Not good thinking, just
>>force of habit.
>>She's selling acting, not beauty. British films seem more likely to
>>include people that look like regular people. The US film industry
>>seems to avoid that (compare the real Erin Brockovich to Julia Roberts).
> Katharine H. is quite a beauty in my book, even after about 70 years in the
> acting business.
Maybe three or four years ago, I saw Lauren Bacall somewhere. I think she
looks better than anyone I've seen, at that age. She's 78 now.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
A Public Service:
About Spam And "Remove Me" http://snurl.com/removeme
RM Mentock
What about an estate?
--
RM Mentock
mais cette question nous entraînerait trop loin
Mike Muth
How could I have forgotten the Playboy Interviews? (Can Jimmy Carter?)
You're right. There were some great ones. Even the run-of-the-mill
interviews were usually interesting.
Mike
D.F. Manno
RM Mentock <men...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hank Gillette wrote:
> >
> > You can't libel the dead.
>
> What about an estate?
No. You can only libel/slander individuals.
Nick Spalding
<hankgillette-D3EE...@news.comcast.giganews.com>:
Do I not recall Tom Lehrer having some sort of legal dust-up with the
descendants of Wernher von Braun?
--
Nick Spalding
James Gifford
>> You can't libel the dead.
> Do I not recall Tom Lehrer having some sort of legal dust-up with the
> descendants of Wernher von Braun?
I believe it was with WvB himself, who was still alive. I could be
misremembering.
There are also special cases with people who are well-known enough to
have protective estates guarding their names and likenesses - Einstein,
Monroe, Elvis, etc.
Generally, though, if someone were to write a book claiming that those
three had a sexual triangle in Central Park during which they tortured
small animals, none of the estates could sue. Hence Kitty Kelly's career.
GrapeApe
>> descendants of Wernher von Braun?
>
Who cares who is sent up, or who is put down, that ain't his department...
D.F. Manno
James Gifford <jgif...@surewest.net> wrote:
> There are also special cases with people who are well-known enough to
> have protective estates guarding their names and likenesses - Einstein,
> Monroe, Elvis, etc.
Even in those cases, however, you can't libel the person or his
estate. The estate could sue claiming infringement of the right of
publicity, but that's different from claiming defamation (which is the
basis of a libel/slander suit).
Margaret Kane
"D.F. Manno" <domm...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dommanno-B412D7...@corp-radius.supernews.com...
> In article <3ECA7DC8...@surewest.net>,
> James Gifford <jgif...@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> > There are also special cases with people who are well-known enough to
> > have protective estates guarding their names and likenesses - Einstein,
> > Monroe, Elvis, etc.
>
> Even in those cases, however, you can't libel the person or his
> estate. The estate could sue claiming infringement of the right of
> publicity, but that's different from claiming defamation (which is the
> basis of a libel/slander suit).
Is that also the case in the UK? I'm having a vauge memory of something to
do with Oscar Wilde?
Margaret
James Gifford
>> There are also special cases with people who are well-known enough to
>> have protective estates guarding their names and likenesses - Einstein,
>> Monroe, Elvis, etc.
> Even in those cases, however, you can't libel the person or his
> estate. The estate could sue claiming infringement of the right of
> publicity, but that's different from claiming defamation (which is the
> basis of a libel/slander suit).
Right - that's what the following paragraph, which you snipped, said.