Andrew Fildes wrote:
> No, it's the social 'our'.
>
Against which any curmudgeon worth his salt would rail. I know bloody
well what it is, and it's my duty to speak out against it.
> It is acceptable to use broad generalisations mate
See above.
> and the entire fashion industry is against your personal tastes.
See above.
> Actually it's not too accurate - the Greeks at least preferred what we would
> call a healthy build - neither thin nor fat - and the Romans usually copied
> Greek art anyway.
>
That was part of somebody else's post. I don't care about their taste,
then or now.
> I like a rather more lateral reason for the fashion industry preferring
> skinny, young girls - most fashion designers are gay male and prefer models
> that look like young boys. I don't know if it is
> true in either category but it's amusingly plausible.
>
I think Winsor's right, male or female, the designers simply don't
actually like women and don't want them to get in the way of the pretty
fabric constructions game.
> But in all this, my views are coloured by by the experience of an
> acquaintance who happened to be following her 12 year old schoolgirl daughter
> down the street past a bar late one afternoon and saw the verbal treatment
> the girl received from the drunken smokers on the patio outside. Said patrons
> were quite disturbed to be very loudly informed that she was 12yo and that
> they were they were "useless filthy f***ing paedophiles"...
>
It has appalled me how young my granddaughters became flirts, with
mannerisms way too sexy. I wonder, though if this is particularly new to
our age and culture.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|