Openly Anti-porn - reprint of letter

Eve_Dublin

Stheno wrote: »

How massive are massive boobs though? Is the likes of jordan what you are referring to? I know a fair few slim women (size eight to ten) with large boobs, i.e. e cup, and they dress to minimise the whole "first thing you see about me is my boobs" impression that the contrast between slim body and big boobs can give.

Is it when you go beyond that ability to minimise the impact of them?

I'm talking Jordan sized here. Cartoon-like proportions where it's clearly fake. You meet women with large, natural breasts on small frames but it looks natural. It's the appeal of the fake that intrigues me. How some women can look almost non-human and can appeal to men.

Lots of men fancied Jessica Rabbit..another strange one. They'd get off on a cartoon character. Hard to get my head round that one as a woman.

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm talking Jordan sized here. Cartoon-like proportions where it's clearly fake. You meet women with large, natural breasts on small frames but it looks natural. It's the appeal of the fake that intrigues me. How some women can look almost non-human and can appeal to men.

Lots of men fancied Jessica Rabbit..another strange one. They'd get off on a cartoon character. Hard to get my head round that one as a woman.

Im not sure how many men actually like Jordan. I'd be doubtful.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

I think you missed my point. I said that women are left "with the twin problems of having the freedom and expectation to be fit and healthy". So there is more time to be fit and healthy which is good, but far greater expectation which is not so good. Which leads to the above pressure. I thought I was clearer than I probably was.

Ah that makes more sense, i.e. it's clearer

Are they not casualties of a general trend towards healthiness? Not everybody is on a fad diet, getting needless surgery or OCD. I think what you mention is a fair point, but it is an unwanted side effect. With every improvement in life there seems to come a negative.

Now I admit being influenced by what I term (or rather the OH does, as drivel on tv) But watch any reality type programme and you'll find ordinary women trying to emulate celebs and failing due to the demands of their life without the support celebs have.

But in general, I think as I said in that point, diet and better fitness will lead to more people with big boobs/narrow waists. People with the potential to have that shape always existed, there just was not the widespread good health and diet that we now have in the West. I know some people gorge on abundant food or never exercise and then there are those that you refer to above, but in general there are more people leading healthier lives nowadays. So you will see more women with "perfect" figures.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you here, breasts are composed of mainly iirc fatty tissue, so start dieting and losing fat, and you will lose boobage.

However, when you start to build muscle in the chest area that will influence breast size imo.

Remember that I was comparing women of nowadays to those of say, 100 years ago. Surely you'd accept more women are free to get fit nowadays than then? Your personal circumstances may not allow it, but not everybody works 13 hour days. Go to any gym any morning, afternoon or evening and there will be women in there. Ditto sports clubs, teams etc. There just are greater opportunities for the average woman to reach peak fitness now.

In terms of equality, it may not be perfect, but it is better. Although my point mainly centred on women having the freedom to plan their own lives, whereas previously they were simply a mother. You may have issues with the modern western world in terms of equality, but it is better than one your great grandparents lived in.

Yup I'd agree with most of this, the range of choice available to women now is far greater than 100 years ago, or even in the context of Ireland which had the marriage ban in my lifetime 40 years ago.

Eve_Dublin

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The proportions have been around as long as breasts have been deemed sexual and desirable as well...

Have a look at the lady on the left of this pic from the kama sutra temple built in 10th-12th century...

http://www.uniquestuff.net/images/kamasutra_temple/Khajuraho2.jpg

But still they look natural and in proportion. The women dipicted have bigger thighs, broader shoulders....Jordan doesn't.

Eve_Dublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not sure how many men actually like Jordan. I'd be doubtful.

Many found her attractive in her hayday (after she got her implants). I'd say many, many men would find her sexually arousing but probably wouldn't bring her home to mam on the farm in Offaly or even date her.

Ickle Magoo

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

But still they look natural and in proportion. The women dipicted have bigger thighs, broader shoulders....Jordan doesn't.

They don't look at all natural and in proportion, especially in comparison with the tiny waists - certainly no more than the caricature formerly known as Jordan is seen as an international sex symbol.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

PK - Think for a minute. Before the inventions of modern technologies, the car, the washing machine, home delivery, the dishwasher, the hoover, etc etc... people got a lot more excersize.

Actually that's a good point, I either take the bus or drive depending on where I'm working, now I do have a giant backpack, but I've a dishwasher, dryer, hoover, share the chores with the OH, and the ironing gets done by an ironing service, so very little physical labour in my life.

Add into that constant lunches out three days out of five at least, and you've a diet/lifestyle disaster if you are not disciplined, which would be me

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The proportions have been around as long as breasts have been deemed sexual and desirable as well...

Have a look at the lady on the left of this pic from the kama sutra temple built in 10th-12th century...

http://www.uniquestuff.net/images/kamasutra_temple/Khajuraho2.jpg

She reminds me of barbie!

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm talking Jordan sized here. Cartoon-like proportions where it's clearly fake. You meet women with large, natural breasts on small frames but it looks natural. It's the appeal of the fake that intrigues me. How some women can look almost non-human and can appeal to men.

Lots of men fancied Jessica Rabbit..another strange one. They'd get off on a cartoon character. Hard to get my head round that one as a woman.

I think it was the proportions of Jessica Rabbit that appeals, with good corsetry, an awful lot of women could achieve that look imo.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not sure how many men actually like Jordan. I'd be doubtful.

like as opposed to treat as a fantasy object?

K-9

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm talking Jordan sized here. Cartoon-like proportions where it's clearly fake. You meet women with large, natural breasts on small frames but it looks natural. It's the appeal of the fake that intrigues me. How some women can look almost non-human and can appeal to men.

Lots of men fancied Jessica Rabbit..another strange one. They'd get off on a cartoon character. Hard to get my head round that one as a woman.

Fake boobs appeal to a certain sector of the porn market. They do nothing for me and many men.

I don't think many men get off at Jessica Rabbit either as in the cartoon character. I think you've taken things extremely literally.

Christina Hendrix would be a Jessica Rabbitt comparison.

parker kent

Stheno wrote: »

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you here, breasts are composed of mainly iirc fatty tissue, so start dieting and losing fat, and you will lose boobage.

However, when you start to build muscle in the chest area that will influence breast size imo.

But breast sizes have increased in the last century (admittedly fatter people play a big role in this) and like you say, many slim girls have big boobs. I think genetics and natural selection play a role. Then add in improved diets over the last 100 years. Like I say, those girls are not ten a penny, but they are around much more than I imagine they were 30, 50, 100 years ago.

The frames of girls seem to be getting bigger too. Which doesn't change the proportions, but it does change the breast size.

parker kent

metrovelvet wrote: »

PK - Think for a minute. Before the inventions of modern technologies, the car, the washing machine, home delivery, the dishwasher, the hoover, etc etc... people got a lot more excersize.

That is not good exercise. Sure you are active, but it is no comparison to a proper gym routine. If anything that sort of daily labour would be back breaking and lead to worse bodies. Whereas nowadays, an hours gym work combined with a vastly improved modern diet will yield better results. I'd be literally amazed if a woman working pre-modern technology had a better figure than a modern woman who eats well and has exercised for an hour 4-5 days a week for a sustained period. People are getting better looking and in better shape.


Of course there are those who don't exercise, eat junk and live sedentary lives. But I'm not talking about those.

Stheno

parker kent wrote: »

But breast sizes have increased in the last century (admittedly fatter people play a big role in this) and like you say, many slim girls have big boobs. I think genetics and natural selection play a role. Then add in improved diets over the last 100 years. Like I say, those girls are not ten a penny, but they are around much more than I imagine they were 30, 50, 100 years ago.

The frames of girls seem to be getting bigger too. Which doesn't change the proportions, but it does change the breast size.

I'm going to be terribly pedantic here, I've already been accused of it elsewhere tonight

However I think it's relevant to your point.

Access to improved diets over the past 100 years is available, but it's been consistently shown that over the past 30 years, the rise of the fast food diet has been detrimental to diet and has increased obesity.

Now I'm slim, have big boobs compared to my frame, and it's pure genetics, if I posted my diet log over on nutrition and fitness they would expire from the horror.

But I come from a family of tall, slim people, on my fathers side and I've inherited those genes. And I agree on that point, the genes you inherit influence, however I don't agree on diet as with lack of education, and lack of finance a lesser quality diet comes into play.

That said, girls having bigger frames, I would correlate to boys of their equal potentially having a similar pattern, but it will influence breast size for women.

Equally those with the slim gene will accumulate fat where it collects, such as the breasts.

parker kent

Stheno wrote: »

I'm going to be terribly pedantic here, I've already been accused of it elsewhere tonight

However I think it's relevant to your point.

Access to improved diets over the past 100 years is available, but it's been consistently shown that over the past 30 years, the rise of the fast food diet has been detrimental to diet and has increased obesity.

Now I'm slim, have big boobs compared to my frame, and it's pure genetics, if I posted my diet log over on nutrition and fitness they would expire from the horror.

But I come from a family of tall, slim people, on my fathers side and I've inherited those genes. And I agree on that point, the genes you inherit influence, however I don't agree on diet as with lack of education, and lack of finance a lesser quality diet comes into play.

That said, girls having bigger frames, I would correlate to boys of their equal potentially having a similar pattern, but it will influence breast size for women.

Equally those with the slim gene will accumulate fat where it collects, such as the breasts.

I have said all throughout that there are those with bad diets and poor exercise regimes. Yes there are people who have been negatively influenced by fast food. Yes it has increased obesity. But and like those who eat fast food all the time, it is a big but :pac:, there are many, many people who use the advantages of modern society and eat varied, healthy diets. To return to 100 years ago, only a small portion of society ate well.

I think my main point about diet is being missed, diet influences body shapes throughout the generations. Healthier people have healthier babies. Which is then combined with genetics and natural selection and leads to what I've been saying in my posts. Or as this article states:

Sian Porter says that breast sizes are definitely on the up, but that's because of a very simple reason. "We are all much better nourished," she says. "Each generation is getting bigger, taller and stronger because we've eradicated a lot of childhood diseases. So our mothers' generation are bigger than our grandmothers and so on. It's a long-term trend. If you have the capacity to grow to 6ft yet you're malnourished, you'll only reach 5ft8in. If you're well nourished during the period when your secondary sexual characteristics develop, you'll reach your potential. The babyboomers were the first NHS babies and from then on we've been in better health – apart from the current problem with obesity."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/16/womens-breasts-are-getting-bigger That link is from an article in The Guardian about why women's breast sizes are increasing in the UK. It is a really interesting read.

Eve_Dublin

K-9 wrote: »

Fake boobs appeal to a certain sector of the porn market. They do nothing for me and many men.

I'm specifically talking about the men it does appeal to though and not those it doesn't. I never mentioned it was the majority as I know it's not. I'm taking it literally because I see it first hand. I'm talking about the appeal for some men of the "fake" look...women who are naturally small and have large breasts don't look fake, they look natural (wearing a corset etc. doesn't really count either). I'm talking about those that look obviously fake..where the boobs look like round ballooned globes...that look appeals to many men and many women desire to look that way. I'm talking about how the fake look and exaggerated proportions through cosmetic surgery appeals to some men on a base level.

Jack B. Badd

parker kent wrote: »

That is not good exercise. Sure you are active, but it is no comparison to a proper gym routine.

This confuses me. Physical activity is physical activity and over the past 100 years or so, it has decreased on average for most people. Humans are, via countless generations of evolution, designed to be active creatures & the gym/exercise concept (i.e. being physically active with no other goal than to be physically active because your body needs it to stay healthy/fit/beautiful) is a relatively new one, cropping up only within recent generations. Before that, you were physically active because you needed to be to get tasks done. I don't understand how this isn't "good exercise". Sure, you can target certain body areas more easily in a gym & combine it to a full body workout but how many people actually put in all the hard graft required to do this. Imo we're getting less fit if anything.

Diet has also decreased in value in certain ways. Yes, we have a more varied diet but let's face it, a lot of us eat sh*t & much more of it than our bodies need.

In women dietary changes & decreased physical activity has resulted in a general move from a natural hourglass figure to a more straight up&down shape. Breast size may have increased but so has waist size & apparently it's the difference in waist to chest & hip measurement that generally is accepted as an attractive figure. Perhaps boob jobs are a reaction to that overall physical change while the social/attitude change is lagging behind.

Count Duckula

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm talking Jordan sized here. Cartoon-like proportions where it's clearly fake. You meet women with large, natural breasts on small frames but it looks natural. It's the appeal of the fake that intrigues me. How some women can look almost non-human and can appeal to men.

Lots of men fancied Jessica Rabbit..another strange one. They'd get off on a cartoon character. Hard to get my head round that one as a woman.

Don't mean to drag this off-topic (although it does seem to now just be the "porn thread"), but do you mean Jessica Rabbit in particular, or all animated porn? If it's the latter, do you feel differently about the men (and women) who get off to written porn? In both cases, the man is getting off to women who are entirely fictional.

Blowfish

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The proportions have been around as long as breasts have been deemed sexual and desirable as well...

Have a look at the lady on the left of this pic from the kama sutra temple built in 10th-12th century...

http://www.uniquestuff.net/images/kamasutra_temple/Khajuraho2.jpg

It seems to vary a lot based on history and culture though. For the Greeks/Romans the 'desirable' body shape was completely different, e.g. the Venus de Milo which is extremely athletic and has much smaller boobs. In Renaissance times, Venus was depicted with smaller boobs too, but also had a bit more weight around the rest of the body.

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Many found her attractive in her hayday (after she got her implants). I'd say many, many men would find her sexually arousing but probably wouldn't bring her home to mam on the farm in Offaly or even date her.

But Jordan is only known as an image, we only know her for print and screen image, how people react to her in real life is one can only imagine.

Personally, I think she falls into the grotesque category. And I dont mean the eew yuck that's gross, I mean the grotesque, as in strange, incongruous, fantastically ugly, excessive...tacky, even comedic. That grotesque. She is somewhat, for me, repulsive, but then Im not wired to go on boob alert. So I dunno. ANd when I say Jordan or she, I refer to the screen and print images.

The pictures in the link Ickle gave, I dont think are excessive in the same grotesque way. They are plausible bodies, and nice bodies, even if idealistic. We cant call them 'realistic' because they are not in a realistic form artistically and I dont know if the piece is really representational art as such...

coffee_cake

Count Duckula wrote: »

Don't mean to drag this off-topic (although it does seem to now just be the "porn thread"), but do you mean Jessica Rabbit in particular, or all animated porn? If it's the latter, do you feel differently about the men (and women) who get off to written porn? In both cases, the man is getting off to women who are entirely fictional.

I have a suspicion she used "cartoons" to mean exaggeration rather than fiction

cdaly_

metrovelvet wrote: »

But Jordan

She is somewhat, for me, repulsive,

+1 for me as a male.

flutterflye

Can't keep up with all the points here.
Too early for my brain to work properly.

But, Penis size - I don't care less, and I don't know any girl that does.
So long as it is functional who cares?

They are ugly things though!
As are their female counterparts.

And full, pert breasts - Don't see why there's any query here?

Men are attracted to them just as they are to curves, supple skin etc...
They signify youth, femininity, and fertility.

Wibbs

parker kent wrote: »

I think my main point about diet is being missed, diet influences body shapes throughout the generations. Healthier people have healthier babies. Which is then combined with genetics and natural selection and leads to what I've been saying in my posts. Or as this article states:

Not necessarily. EG Japanese people are getting taller and broader and breast sizes are going up, but are less healthy and likely to live shorter lives compared to their grandparents. And they're not within sniffing distance of our obesity problem. This has long been observed in Japanese Americans.

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

This confuses me. Physical activity is physical activity and over the past 100 years or so, it has decreased on average for most people. Humans are, via countless generations of evolution, designed to be active creatures & the gym/exercise concept (i.e. being physically active with no other goal than to be physically active because your body needs it to stay healthy/fit/beautiful) is a relatively new one, cropping up only within recent generations. Before that, you were physically active because you needed to be to get tasks done. I don't understand how this isn't "good exercise". Sure, you can target certain body areas more easily in a gym & combine it to a full body workout but how many people actually put in all the hard graft required to do this. Imo we're getting less fit if anything.

+1 Overall we're fatter, more insulin resistant and less fit. Sure more go to the gym, but either do the wrong exercise, or use it as an excuse to eat more. Gym bunnies are a minority. I mean actual very fit gym bunnies. There would have been less of them 100 years ago, but there would have been far more slim people with a basic level of fitness.

In women dietary changes & decreased physical activity has resulted in a general move from a natural hourglass figure to a more straight up&down shape. Breast size may have increased but so has waist size & apparently it's the difference in waist to chest & hip measurement that generally is accepted as an attractive figure.

Yep from what I've read that's one of the biggest changes. Women are becoming more barrel shaped. More straight up and down. Even slim women. The classic(and healthiest) hourglass is now much rarer.

Blowfish wrote:

It seems to vary a lot based on history and culture though. For the Greeks/Romans the 'desirable' body shape was completely different, e.g. the Venus de Milo which is extremely athletic and has much smaller boobs. In Renaissance times, Venus was depicted with smaller boobs too, but also had a bit more weight around the rest of the body.

Well yes and no. Overall weight varies with culture, but some things don't. The biggest of these is the hip waist ratio in women. 0.7(IIRC) is the one to have. Venus de milo, Kate Moss, Rubens/Ingres/Titian nudes, Aphrodite(classical to now), Egyptian murals, Marilyn Monroe, even the neolithic hugely obese figures all vary in size but all have this ratio. Why? Women with this ratio are simply more fertile. Women outside this ratio are less fertile(and less healthy overall). I'd put money those Kama Sutra figures linked earlier have the ratio. Breast size seems to vary alright, but completely flat chested is rare, as is cartoonishly huge.

Eve_Dublin

Count Duckula wrote: »

Don't mean to drag this off-topic (although it does seem to now just be the "porn thread"), but do you mean Jessica Rabbit in particular, or all animated porn? If it's the latter, do you feel differently about the men (and women) who get off to written porn? In both cases, the man is getting off to women who are entirely fictional.

It's not really relevant to the topic so I won't go there and you've taken my point up wrong. I'm talking about proportions in those cartoons and women eminating them in real life and men feeling attracted to that it goes beyond fantasy. Jordan might not be popular with some of the guys here but she was popular among a lot of men back in the day after she got her massive implants but I'm talking about extreme cases here. That's all. For the record, I understand men getting off on cartoon porn because as a woman, I would too.

Eve_Dublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

But Jordan is only known as an image, we only know her for print and screen image, how people react to her in real life is one can only imagine.

Personally, I think she falls into the grotesque category. And I dont mean the eew yuck that's gross, I mean the grotesque, as in strange, incongruous, fantastically ugly, excessive...tacky, even comedic. That grotesque. She is somewhat, for me, repulsive, but then Im not wired to go on boob alert. So I dunno. ANd when I say Jordan or she, I refer to the screen and print images.

The pictures in the link Ickle gave, I dont think are excessive in the same grotesque way. They are plausible bodies, and nice bodies, even if idealistic. We cant call them 'realistic' because they are not in a realistic form artistically and I dont know if the piece is really representational art as such...

I've seen men with women who would resemble Jordan while in Latin America and specifically Colombia...women got arse transplants, boob transplants, lip transplants and the guys I was travelling with had their tongues hanging out whenever one passed. I didn't get it but then I'm heterosexual female. I'm not saying this is the desire of most men but it is the desire of some men and I guess that's what I'm trying to get my head round.

pajunior

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I've seen men with women who would resemble Jordan while in Latin America and specifically Colombia...women got arse transplants, boob transplants, lip transplants and the guys I was travelling with had their tongues hanging out whenever one passed. I didn't get it but then I'm heterosexual female. I'm not saying this is the desire of most men but it is the desire of some men and I guess that's what I'm trying to get my head round.

Everyone has there own little things.

I love redheads. Don't know if they're more fertile or what it's just what I like. Other men like blondes/brunets etc.

So some men like Barbie doll type women, I doubt too many do but I don't see why there has to be a social reason for it.

Eve_Dublin

pajunior wrote: »

Everyone has there own little things.

I love redheads. Don't know if they're more fertile or what it's just what I like. Other men like blondes/brunets etc.

So some men like Barbie doll type women, I doubt too many do but I don't see why there has to be a social reason for it.

Fair enough...just pondering. I'll stop pondering now as I've reached a cul de sac in my pondering.

parker kent

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

This confuses me. Physical activity is physical activity and over the past 100 years or so, it has decreased on average for most people.

Surely you see the difference between the extreme physical labour people went through before modern conveniences and exercise in a controlled environment? People keep referring to aspects I have already said are irrelevant, whether there are sedentary people in the modern era, that has no impact on those that are physically active.

Think about it for a second. I'm comparing people who would have worked long, difficult days. Too much exercise is not a good thing, continuous hard labour would lead to injuries and general poor health. Now compare that to somebody today who gets an appropriate amount of exercise (50 minutes 4-5 days a week as I said in my earlier post).

Then add in that such a person today has access to a far wider diet and can be as healthy as they choose. Far more people than could have done so 100 years ago (which I have been saying continuously). It is irrelevant that many are not choosing to be fit and healthy as they are not what I am talking about.

The changes in modern society means that we now have fitter and healthier people than ever and these people are in greater numbers. Since we were talking about women, there are many other obvious things to mention. I am comparing women who were primarily mothers and often gave birth to large numbers of children to women who have fewer children on average and have far greater access to decent exercise. Sure there are people who do not use the benefits of modern living, but my point is that it far more available to a far greater amount of people than over 100 years ago.

Then given the other points I mentioned, it is not that difficult to see why female bodies are changed.

Edit: I think many are forgetting my original reason for mentioning fitness, we were talking about people with "perfect" figures. So everybody else is irrelevant, I am ONLY referring to the those with the perfect figures we spoke of earlier.

Edit 2: Changed=fitter

Ambersky

Here is a woman Cindy Gallop who argues that hardcore pornography has distorted the way a generation of young men think about sex, and talks about the launch of a website to correct the myths being propagated.
See what you think.

Here is a link to her video which is NSFW not because of the visuals its more cos of what she says.
http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/02/cindy_gallop_ma/

And here is a link to the site she was talking about. NSFW either I think?
http://makelovenotporn.com/myths/facial

gargleblaster

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

In women dietary changes & decreased physical activity has resulted in a general move from a natural hourglass figure to a more straight up&down shape.

Wait, what? I thought that women with more straight up-and-down shapes were just born with that body shape, and that had to do with genetics, not dietary changes or physical activity.

Is there any proof that women are naturally all supposed to have hourglass figures? Is that even what you're saying? Also is there any proof that it is indicative of any actual difference in fertility?

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

Wait, what? I thought that women with more straight up-and-down shapes were just born with that body shape, and that had to do with genetics, not dietary changes or physical activity.

Nope, or if they are there's been some mad genetic changes in the west in the last 50 years. Records of clothes sizes in women have shown them getting bigger breasts, broader frames and most of all putting on fat around the middle. Apple shapes in younger women were much rarer 80 years ago. Beer bellies on young men the same. In a way you could say men and women are getting middle age spread in early adulthood. That aint genetic. They're not "born with it". It's environmental. Maybe even due to exposure to some environmental pressure before puberty even hits. Well for a start puberty is hitting younger than it did 50 years ago. Body weight and excess fat is a lot to do with that.

Is there any proof that women are naturally all supposed to have hourglass figures? Is that even what you're saying? Also is there any proof that it is indicative of any actual difference in fertility?

Yep http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbieshaped-women-more-fertile.html Basically women with narrower waist than hips and medium to large breasts are more fertile. Up to three times more fertile. http://newfoundlandnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-your-waist-to-hip-ratio-says-about.html That hip waist ratio is the one selected for millennia by men. Overall size can change in fashion(within reason) and personal preferences but the hourglass figure = reproductively healthy woman. Given that there has been an increase in obesity in women and an increase in infertility in both men and women and an increase in PCOS which appears to have a large insulin resistance factor I would say(and the figures we have back this up) that women whose grandmothers were more pear shaped are themselves more apple shaped.

gargleblaster

Thanks, I suspected the fertility claim would have been the one more likely to be backed up by science. It also makes the idealization of the shape very rational.

As for the other, I'm still not convinced. Clothes sizes don't depend on whether or not your shape is more hourglass or straight up and down. Many very athletic women have the straight up and down figure. Having narrower ribcages and hips would characterize this shape far more than poor health or diet I'd think.