Oh okay. Yes, obviously agree with that.
Just that in the pics I saw, she does look thin.
(if that works...)
Sitcom MILF Page 7
Quote: The Rook @ April 4 2009, 12:47 PM BST*checks footage on YouTube, returns to Aaron's remark and disagrees*
I suppose, if you like your women looking like the kind that even Jack the Ripper would have avoided. :/
Quote: The Rook @ April 4 2009, 1:03 PM BSTPoint being that most people think to be sexy you have to be slim, when you don't.
Quite the opposite.
Not that you're fat, zooo. 
Big boobs, and a bum you could rest your head on. Nice - but trying too hard to be Marilym Monroe/Jean Harlow for me, going by her early pics.
I think what we're getting here is that rather common occurence of people saying they like 'larger ladies' when what they actually mean is ladies just as skinny as all the other stars, but with massive tits. 
Quote: Aaron @ April 4 2009, 1:12 PM BSTNot that you're fat, zooo.
Haha!
Quote: zooo @ April 4 2009, 1:22 PM BSTI think what we're getting here is that rather common occurence of people saying they like 'larger ladies' when what they actually mean is ladies just as skinny as all the other stars, but with massive tits.
Not necessarily, zooo. That shape Hollywood stars had back in the 1940s and 1950s was about having curves all over (see Rita Hayworth) rather that just big tits. I'd far rather have Rita than what you describe.
Quote: zooo @ April 4 2009, 1:22 PM BSTI think what we're getting here is that rather common occurence of people saying they like 'larger ladies' when what they actually mean is ladies just as skinny as all the other stars, but with massive tits.
No, there are a lot of men who genuinely like chubby Rubenesque ladies. I certainly don't mind them. It's magazine and newspaper editors that don't like them and make such a big deal of their weights. That said, I'd personally draw the line at Beth Ditto.
Quote: chipolata @ April 4 2009, 1:58 PM BSTNo, there are a lot of men who genuinely like chubby Rubenesque ladies. I certainly don't mind them. It's magazine and newspaper editors that don't like them and make such a big deal of their weights. That said, I'd personally draw the line at Beth Ditto.
Good God. What a vile thought. 
But she's such a catch!
Quote: zooo @ April 4 2009, 2:06 PM BSTBut she's such a catch!
Only if you worked on a trawler and pulled her up in the nets. Good luck to her, though!
Quote: Balf @ April 4 2009, 1:56 PM BSTNot necessarily, zooo. That shape Hollywood stars had back in the 1940s and 1950s was about having curves all over (see Rita Hayworth) rather that just big tits. I'd far rather have Rita than what you describe.
They just had different underwear and clothes were cut differently to emphasise a certain shape. People are bigger now.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 4 2009, 2:16 PM BSTThey just had different underwear and clothes were cut differently to emphasise a certain shape. People are bigger now.
Marilyn Monroe was pretty big. Certainly nowadays she'd be pilloried for her weight.
Quote: chipolata @ April 4 2009, 2:27 PM BSTMarilyn Monroe was pretty big. Certainly nowadays she'd be pilloried for her weight.
Is that the rotten eggs and mouldy vegetables diet?
Quote: chipolata @ April 4 2009, 2:27 PM BSTMarilyn Monroe was pretty big. Certainly nowadays she'd be pilloried for her weight.
Actually her clothes were tiny, she wasn't that big. It was more a case that she was untoned in her 30s.
The size zero 'problem' is a myth. Shop sizes have changed over the past 10 years. I have a lot of vintage clothes and they were so much smaller than today's equivilent sizes - even stuff from only 10 years ago. And the clothes in the past didn't use stretchy fabrics like today. But women did wear very restrictive and shape-forming underwear. In the 50s this created an hourglass shape.
Quote: Marc P @ April 4 2009, 2:36 PM BSTIs that the rotten eggs and mouldy vegetables diet?
Unfortuntely it was the barbituate, amphetamine and alcohol diet. I'd do it myself only it doesn't seem to work...