Post: #1

So mainstream media has finally acknowledged what we've known all along. I had to laugh at some of the comments...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...aling.html

Post: #2

Traditionally in this forum it's good manners to not just post a link with a comment -- we prefer to see some decent excerpts of the article together with hilarious gifs ideally

That said, I LOL'ed at the silly bint who said Marilyn Monroe was supposedly "plump" or a "more realistic" body type, that she was supposedly around a size 12-16 in today's sizing systems.



That look like a size 12 to anybody here?

More on this topic here: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...ize-12-16/

Quote:In the 1980s, in order to accommodate people’s vanity and ever expanding girth, the U.S. Department of Commerce got rid of the uniform sizing system and instead allowed for more ego stroking sizes. As a result of this, today, a size 8 would have been roughly equivalent to a size 16-18 in the 1950s, obviously though this varies a shocking amount from brand to brand.

So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually? Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of. Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took. Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. Her weight fluctuated a bit through her career, usually rising in times of depression and falling back to her normal thereafter, but her dressmaker listed her as 118 pounds and the Hollywood studios tended to list her between 115-120 lbs.

As for the suggestion this is outside contemporary norms?

Quote:If you’re curious as to how that compares to modern contemporary fashion models, according to BluFire Model Registry, models are generally in the vicinity of a 34 bust; 24 waist; and 34 hips, which is very close to Monroe’s measurements of 35-22-35. They list the average model today at 5 ft. 8 inches, to Monroe’s 5 ft 5.5 inches. Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.

Post: #3

Apologies. Will remember for next time!

Post: #4

I can't wait for the next mind-shattering study where they discover that water is wet.

Post: #5

Amazing.

Those scientists got money for ths study, probably made publications.

Maybe I too can suprise the world and get a doctors degree by a new groundbraking study that shows that earth revolves around sun.

Post: #6

The actual paper is here. Check it out, good fun.
https://peerj.com/articles/1155/

This reads like a bunch of scientists and mathematicians got tired of hearing fat is beautiful from their rivals and threw down with a controversial title.

Reading briefly, this is one part in a longer dialogue to put a number to what is attractive to people (think: 30% boobs, 50% ass, 10% cooking, that sort of thing).

Quote:However, Lassek & Gaulin (2008) have suggested that WHR is not associated with health but more related to cognitive abilities. It has been noted, however, that WHR is not independent of body fatness, which may itself be an indicator of physical attractiveness. More recent work therefore has attempted to partition the importance of these two factors, and it has been conclusively shown across numerous studies that variation in attractiveness is much more closely related to variation in body fatness than to differences in WHR (e.g., Henss, 2000; Kościński, 2013; Smith, Cornelissen & Tovée, 2007; Tassinary & Hansen, 1998; Tovee & Cornelissen, 1999; Tovee et al., 2002; Tovee & Cornelissen, 1999; Tovee et al., 1997; Tovee et al., 1998).

Post: #7

The top 3 comments:



I'm afraid there is no hope for the U.K. at this point.

Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought. I like how one chump makes a pointy elbows internet male comment about his preferences. It's guaranteed that dude only has his hand for company on cold foggy nights in ole blighty.

Post: #8

Yes actually their methodology seems generally good so all those people saying for every man who likes a thin woman there is one who does the opposite are factually incorrect. Indeed the 90%+ of men sampled (whites, Asians, blacks) prefer thin women with p<0.05. .

To put that in context one would conclude that men like women at all with p<0.05 (the gap being due to gay men).

You can point haters to this paper.

And for the beautiful at any age group:

Quote:The covariance of BF% and BMI with age indicates that the role of body fatness alone, as a marker of attractiveness, has been overestimated

Post: #9

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)storm Wrote:  Reading briefly, this is one part in a longer dialogue to put a number to what is attractive to people (think: 30% boobs, 50% ass, 10% cooking, that sort of thing).

So here on RVF, 30% of the posting should be in the Boobs Lounge, 50% in the Ass Lounge, and we need to set up a Chef Lounge for 10% of the posts

Post: #10

Those men in the comments are A) Not men, B) Lying, C) Have their S/O standing behind them as they type, D) Have been banging gross fat women so long they've brainwashed themselves and forgotten what real beauty looks like or are significantly overweight themselves.

Post: #11

Quote:There aren't many guys with a fetish to be a feeder out there.

The fact that this was a funded study is bullshit and shows the amount of autism going on in the western world today. It doesn't take fucking scientists to understand why men find fat women gross. Putting little to no effort in how you look is unattractive. Also, look at the quality of men in relationships compared to the weight of the woman. The fatter the woman, the uglier, more stupid and more beta the man. Fat women date men at the bottom of the totem pole because they have to settle for that and vice versa. Whereas fit women will date men at the top of the totem pole because the whole totem pole finds them attractive, so they'll stay away from the bottom because they have better options. A girl who cares about what she puts into her body and what she does with it is sexy. This isn't something that just happened within the last few years, it's literally always been this way.

Our world is getting filled to the brim with morons. This is honestly pathetic.

Post: #12

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought.

I'd pass. She'd need a moment of enlightenment and then I'd think about it.

Post: #13

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought.

I'd pass. She'd need a moment of enlightenment and then I'd think about it.

her elbows too pointy for you or what.

Post: #14

Wonderful how predictable people are.

I shared this on my FB account and the first two comments are dudes saying how they like thicker girls (guilty-conscience harpoonmen who feel the need to defend their minority taste in women and that they are dating/have dated fatties) and one fat woman saying "I feel if I were to lay with a woman I would want some meat on her. Taylor Swift is not attractive to me. I'm not saying this just because I'm fat. blahblahblah"

Male and female hamsters all around. Meanwhile the silent majority who simply "like" the status totally get it.

Post: #15

Very interesting! I've heard there is also a report out there that men like tits. WTF, I know right? We'll have to wait for the scientists to confirm this before we start getting erections about it.

Post: #16

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift

Indeed. Plus, banging Swift would be a great pussy investment.

STEP 1:

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  raw dog Taylor Swift silly

STEP 2:

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  put it in her poop chute

STEP 3: Cease all contact.

STEP 4: She writes a song about you out of bitterness and you become temporarily famous as the latest guy to pump-and-dump Taylor Swift.

STEP 5: ??????

STEP 6: Gash on tap.

Post: #17

----------------------------------------

Post: #18

(08-28-2015 12:12 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Wonderful how predictable people are.

I shared this on my FB account and the first two comments are dudes saying how they like thicker girls (guilty-conscience harpoonmen who feel the need to defend their minority taste in women and that they are dating/have dated fatties) and one fat woman saying "I feel if I were to lay with a woman I would want some meat on her. Taylor Swift is not attractive to me. I'm not saying this just because I'm fat. blahblahblah"

Male and female hamsters all around. Meanwhile the silent majority who simply "like" the status totally get it.

The silent majority needs to stop being silent and tell these fucking degenerates, manginas and fatasses to shut the fuck up. Not speaking has empowered these weirdos.

Post: #19

I like the terms fit and slim better than thin because thin probably makes a lot of men think of super skinny runway model types with hardly any boobs, hips or ass. Some of these men then say "I like a girl with more meat/curves on her", meaning boobs, hips and ass, not fat. And I agree with those men.

Post: #20

(08-28-2015 12:22 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Very interesting! I've heard there is also a report out there that men like tits. WTF, I know right? We'll have to wait for the scientists to confirm this before we start getting erections about it.

"You have been fined 5 credits for an unauthorized erection"

The kind of future SJWs want us to have.

Post: #21

He's also missed two of his mandatory estrogen treatments... lock him up!

Post: #22

(08-28-2015 06:58 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Traditionally in this forum it's good manners to not just post a link with a comment -- we prefer to see some decent excerpts of the article together with hilarious gifs ideally

That said, I LOL'ed at the silly bint who said Marilyn Monroe was supposedly "plump" or a "more realistic" body type, that she was supposedly around a size 12-16 in today's sizing systems.



That look like a size 12 to anybody here?

More on this topic here: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...ize-12-16/

Quote:In the 1980s, in order to accommodate people’s vanity and ever expanding girth, the U.S. Department of Commerce got rid of the uniform sizing system and instead allowed for more ego stroking sizes. As a result of this, today, a size 8 would have been roughly equivalent to a size 16-18 in the 1950s, obviously though this varies a shocking amount from brand to brand.

So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually? Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of. Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took. Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D. Her weight fluctuated a bit through her career, usually rising in times of depression and falling back to her normal thereafter, but her dressmaker listed her as 118 pounds and the Hollywood studios tended to list her between 115-120 lbs.

As for the suggestion this is outside contemporary norms?

Quote:If you’re curious as to how that compares to modern contemporary fashion models, according to BluFire Model Registry, models are generally in the vicinity of a 34 bust; 24 waist; and 34 hips, which is very close to Monroe’s measurements of 35-22-35. They list the average model today at 5 ft. 8 inches, to Monroe’s 5 ft 5.5 inches. Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.

The original source on Marilyn Monroe being "tiny" was a writer named Virginia Postrel who wrote an article for Bloomberg News about seeing her "Seven Year Itch" dress being auctioned off for Bloomberg View in 2011.

That article has been removed from Bloomberg's site, and if you try to access it you get a 404 error. Was this deliberate? I wonder.

Luckily, Postel has preserved the article (or some form of it) on her own Web site. She also cites the waist sizes of other legendary actress during their heyday like Liz Taylor (19.5), Hedy Lamarr (22.5), and Judy Garland (22).

The idea that women were bigger back then is just that -- an idea. What it's not is a fact. Revisionist history.

Post: #23

Sadly the study stopped testing men's reactions at 19BMI. I'm intrigued as to what the tail off point is.

An online magazine popped up with this study on my Facebook feed yesterday morning.

I read it, refreshed the page...and it was gone. Deleted and forgotten.

Post: #24

(08-28-2015 06:58 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  ...Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D.

Bolded: Sad, depressing...

MM's measurements:



(Anyone have a non-captioned version of this .gif? I've been looking for it for a while)

Quote: Elizabeth Hurley, who in the above quote called Marilyn Monroe “fat”, actually has around the same dimensions: 34-24-34, though is about 5 inches taller than Monroe was.

Haven't heard from her for a while...thought she slammed into the wall and was attention whoring...



She's 50...

(08-28-2015 10:32 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 09:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Also there is not a single living and breathing straight man who wouldn't raw dog Taylor Swift silly and put it in her poop chute as an afterthought.

I'd pass. She'd need a moment of enlightenment and then I'd think about it.

...

While facially she is just ok, if you wouldn't slam Taylor Swift through the floor, then it means you might be...

Post: #25

I would what Taylor with the swiftness.
But I honestly wish that she had a better ass...or really, just had an ass period.