No, really. I've been to those exhibitions of Rubens and what have you, full of fat chicks with cellulite all over their asses and posing coyly so all you get to see is a butt and a nipple silhouette. And sure, they may all be hanging out together on a river bank putting things in each other's hair and frolicking in the name of spring, but it certainly isn't a playboy spread. In fact, if someone had suggested that we get some girls who aren't even fit for the amateur photography section in the crappier men's mags, stick them in a field with flowers, have none of them touching each other, and have them all smiling like they're purer than the virgin Mary Hugh Heffner would have them institutionalised.
And those paintings are worth a fortune, where as you're lucky to get a couple of hundred bucks for a really decent shot unless you're in the big leagues!
I just don't understand.
Not that I have EVER done porn, anyway.
Why are pictures of fat girls worth so much more than a men's magazine?
Tue, 01/01/2008 - 04:36 — Misty
Comments
Nudes of the Romantic era
May I offer some kindly advice.
Rather than look at the pictures as unsavory through your twenty first century lens, do a little research about the cultural history of Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe.
The cultural ideal then, was the buxom, full-figured, healthy woman. It was only during the mid-twentieth century did we (read Europe) change the ideal to the rail thin, wispy siren -- a la Twiggy.