|
||||||||||||||||||
    
|
|
 In my house, my hippie mother felt that it was more natural for me to see movies with naked people making love (that's the term 8 out of 10 hippie mothers preferred) than movies where people were trying to kill each other. As it was, I was totally accustomed to seeing breasts on our early '80s cable channels, nipples of various sizes bouncing around across our 19-inch screen, and I knew that men liked to look at boobs and hips and butts and the dark thickets in a girl's "area" but it wasn't until we had a rummage sale one summer afternoon and her live-in boyfriend Larry pulled out a moldering box of vintage Playboys that I really understood. It wasn't just looking at naked boobs on the television. It was somehow more private than that. Sure, this naked girl might have been replicated in 500,000 copies, but somehow, at that moment, it was just her and the viewer. These pages, slick as beetle skins, the eyes wearing impossible amounts of mascara, looking up at the viewer, imploring somehow, begging to be looked at. That's when I really got a sense of how powerful a girl's body could be when displayed on the glossy pages of a magazine. Erin over at Product Fiend recently talked about Sports Illustrated's cover vault, specifically the vintage Swimsuit Edition covers. I've never really seen the point of the Swimsuit Edition, even though I know that it makes people drool like crazy. I mean, there's nothing SPORTY about staring at women in swimsuits, and if you want to see the bush, there are magazines dedicated to that purpose. And at least the Victoria's Secret catalog was free. So I took another look and...wow. If you want to have your eyes opened on the changing dimensions of the average SI Swimsuit Edition cover model, simply compare 2008's Marissa Miller to 1971's Tannia Rubiano or 1967's Lynn Tyndall. Seriously, you need to click on those links. I don't know about you but I miss seeing covers that celebrate women with amazing breasts like these. I need to be reminded that at one time, girls with big boobs had hips to match (image NSFW) and it was all good. Perspective, is what I think I'm getting here. And I have stupid Sports Illustrated to thank for it, except I'll probably never admit that anywhere else. 6 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
![[Self's Reach Your Goal ad]](http://elasticwaist.com/ads/slf_goals08_275x225.gif)
Send your queries to us at
info@elasticwaist.com Check out Elastic Waist on MySpace.com. Follow Weetabix on Twitter |
||||||||||||||
FEED ME
Wowzah............
Thank you for this!! Apparently I was born a couple of decades too late. I can't believe the difference in hip width between the 60s and today!
Point taken!
Wow, look at that cover! All three of them look normal, healthy and gorgeous, except for those hideous high cut bathing suit bottoms that were all the rage back then.
Maybe not Elle, but Kathy and Rachel would both take shit today for being "Fat" and would never make the cover. Living in 2008 just sucks for women. Jeez.
OMFG.
We've brought back the corset without actually bringing back the corset. I really don't know what's worse, putting on a garment that displaces your internal organs or models dying of anorexia.
Feminist movement, my ass.
Are they just airbrushing the women now? How are these women even making their hips look like they belong on a 12 year old boy??
I don't think they airbrush the hips so much as they pump up the boobs.
Just showed my fiancee all of those pics and he went totally gaga over that last one (the uber curvy lady) and I quote "guys love that, we're totally starved for that kind of body in mainstream media". Sometimes I forget that what the media says men want isn't always true.