tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11101950.post2179843545822837438..comments2023-11-02T15:31:22.535+00:00Comments on Michelle Styles:: Which figure? Betty Grable or Kate Moss?Michelle Styleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03400990189443593076noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11101950.post-4954234339984009742011-04-16T03:47:21.432+01:002011-04-16T03:47:21.432+01:00Firstly, as a fan, I would like to point out that ...Firstly, as a fan, I would like to point out that Kate Moss is more like 5' 6" and 34-26-35. AND Kate is beautiful; wrinkles, cellulite and all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11101950.post-6747999982450925802011-03-20T18:48:41.645+00:002011-03-20T18:48:41.645+00:00Let's face it, what our culture considers &quo...Let's face it, what our culture considers "beautiful" wouldn't be that way if everyone could achieve it; the unattainable is the unattainable, depending on the culture and social forces in play. So, today, with plenty of food and lots of sedentary work, to be ultra-thin is the goal. But going back to a time when food was always difficult to come by and periodic famines wiped out everything, having ample proportions was the goal. (I read somewhere that Rubens married his second wife because of her rose-pink skin and 62-inch hips. Wow, I was born too late!)<br /><br />Anyway, to chase that always-changing goal is exhausting and detracts our focus (not to mention our money) from other things. I say, stay in shape to be healthy and live longer, but give up pursuing the Kate Moss/Posh Spice look. It's simply unachievable for most of us--and that's the point.Debnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11101950.post-31317691603285513842011-03-18T12:37:18.926+00:002011-03-18T12:37:18.926+00:00Really interesting post Michelle. I think the 195...Really interesting post Michelle. I think the 1950s shape is the most attractive. We are in danger of losing waists altogether either through being too thin or the other.Carolnoreply@blogger.com