Is the girl in that latest ad supposed to be glamorously curvy or skinny and scrawny? To me, she looks like a burger wouldn't kill her.
I wanted to find out just when those ads ran, but a short search turned up no dates. I'm guessing 1945-55. The curves and the boobs were important. But I bet a woman with well-defined musculature wouldn't have been seen as desirable. "Don't get sweaty building muscle, honey. Just take Numal."
Has any woman, ever, really been 36-24-36 unassisted? Sometimes I think we've come a long way, and sometimes I know we haven't.
I don't mean to be prurient (I like prurience, but generally only in private), but has anyone but me noticed that when the economy stinks, which often happens when republicans are in the White House, women's underwear/lingerie tends to get more "glamorous"? More padding. More lace. I guess that even when you can't afford to buy a new car, you can afford a new thong. When entertainment dollars are hard to come by, one thing we can usually get for free is sex.
Women, back me up. I'm serious about seeing a connection between the economy and underwear.
"…you just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake."
Most Users Ever Online: 186
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 9
Newest Members:Scannerpdq, Incipiosae, Vitamixwyv, AnatoliyKep, romabogato, Foamdad
Moderators: Cheeta: 0, Jen: 631, Orb: 0, Scout: 1205, Toger: 1488, Yapette: 836, Dobralov: 17, xtal: 1683, Meho: 82, Tap-Repeatedly: 0, geggis: 1425, Lewis B: 214, Mat: 245, AJLange: 200, Dix: 483, LewisB: 0, Amy Louise: 12, l0vetemper: 3
Administrators: admin: 2, MrLipid: 31, Steerpike: 3307, Helmut: 795, Synonamess Botch: 1108, heddhunter: 27