BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:36 AM

Surely that pic is mostly tops Rapaire.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 09:14 AM

You must excuse me, Azizi, but I cannot resist inserting a picture of one of the best US bottoms (at least in my own opinion) in Boston or anywhere else in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Celtaddict
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:46 AM

You may well be right, Richard Bridge, I may have misinterpreted the comment 'It's about gay anal sex, doh' to refer to more than just the song 'Relax', in the midst of all the commentary on terms that have in various times and places referred to the backside or the feminine front side.
Actually (mild thread drift) in the office it is important to make sure the patient does understand; I know too many doctors do not make a point of this, and some are notorious for using medical jargon leaving patients confused at best. I once had a memorable conversation in a pediatrics clinic with the mother of an infant who seemed dehydrated, as follows:
"Does your baby have diarrhea?"
   "Huh?"
"Watery bowel movements?"
   "Huh?"
"Are his stools loose?"
   "Huh?"
"Does he have the runs?"
   "Uhhh..."
"Your baby got the shits?"
   "Oh, yeah, doc, my baby got the shits real bad!"

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 02:54 AM

Surely Celtaddict has become confused? I ahve not re-read the entire thread (but I have read all of it at least once) and as I recollect, it was stated that "tush" in the USA generally follows the Yiddish in meaning "backside" whereas in songs like "tush" it appears to have come to mean "cunt".

However, Frankie goes to Hollywood's "Relax" was a song about gay anal sex.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 11:56 PM

"...it is not clear why the assumption seems to have been put forth that 'tush' and such necessarily meant anal sex."


                I guess I missed that!

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rowan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:17 PM

Celtaddict, your comment reminded me of the old saw about the "polite" terminology used by doctors, sometimes to the confusion of their patients.

A bloke visited his doctor complaining of a pain in his rear end, making it quite clear (but without using any particular words) he was referring to the alimentary canal. The doctor prescribed some pills with the instruction that he was "to put one pill in the back passage every day for month and then see him again."

After the month your man visited the doctor who asked "How did it go?"

Your man replied "I dunno if them pills is any good, Doc. I did what you said. I put them in the back passage, the front passage, the kitchen, the bathroom, but they never worked. I may as well have shoved 'em up me arse for all the good they did me!"

I suspect you wouldn't have had that problem in the navy.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Celtaddict
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 03:28 PM

To go w-a-a-y back (to Nov 11), it is not clear why the assumption seems to have been put forth that 'tush' and such necessarily meant anal sex.
Surely the extremely common expressions 'piece of tail' and 'piece of ass' are commonly used to mean sexual intercourse, not necessarily anal.

There is a charming etching that has been on my nursery wall, then my (now grown) daughter's wall, for many years, entitled "Le Tousche." It depicts a very young child, unclothed, from the back, climbing on a chair.

And I must admit that, as a gynecologist who spent fourteen years in the Navy and reared four kids, I can discuss virtually anything, but the terms 'butt' and 'ass' are not in my usual vocabulary; I use 'backside' usually, and I don't think it is only because I never know the preferred terms (or offense threshold) of my patients.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:18 PM

So who is Madison Avenue and why should we avoid her?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:57 AM

Spoken like a true victim of Madison Avenue!

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 07:12 PM

Yeah but he might not be able to measure how much ejaculate, and what a word, he's produced because it got lost in all those rolls of lipaceous tissue. Bloody Nora, how a perfectly funny thread can go off. Click ye not here henceforth, Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:58 PM

You could look at it the other way round. In general, the more the male orgasm is delayed, the more ejaculate there will be. So a man having sex with a fat woman he doesn't really fancy may well ejaculate more by the time he comes. He probably will come (eventually) no matter how unattractive the partner, for the male orgasm is mostly a product of temperature and friction...

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: JennieG
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:11 PM

Perhaps the hip/waist ratio could be something to do with having good childbearing hips?

Cheers
JennieG who does (only just) remember the impact the Pill had in the 60s

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rowan
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 04:37 PM

Males in current industrialized cultures are victims of advertising and consumerism to the point that their cognitive levels of sex drive seek thinner women than their animal levels would normally think to be desirable.

While I'd agree with that summary, the test of hip:waist ratios was repeated in Indonesia (using silhouettes and not photos) and arrived at exactly the same results. I'm not sure of which part of Indonesia they located their testing but not much of Indonesia would be described as an industrialised culture. I suspect there's an opening for a PhD student (with a travel bug and a lot of financial support) to try the tests in as many far-flung and nonindustrialised culture as possible, to see how universally the results apply. Getting it past the ethics committee might be interesting.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM

Liz - Of course you're right. I was speaking in generalities. The moped joke is a funny line.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 04:13 AM

Riginslinger - I think that is entirely dependent on how secure your man is with his own image and his relationship with his friends. I know plenty of men who are considered 'hotties' who are perfectly happy being seen in public with women who don't quite meet the modern criteria for 'beautiful', because they've taken the time to get to know the person and love them for who they are, not what they look like.

Of course, we can condense all this into an old Biker joke.

Why is a fat woman like a moped? It's fun to ride but you wouldn't want your mates to find out.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 09:37 PM

"...how much sperm was "stripped" during ejaculation weren't nearly as effective at it as those our currrent culture would describe as "fat"."

          Males in current industrialized cultures are victims of advertising and consumerism to the point that their cognitive levels of sex drive seek thinner women than their animal levels would normally think to be desirable.

          At least that's what I get from the posting, and I think it's correct. I think modern men would rather be seen in public with women who are thinner than those women with whom they would rather go to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rowan
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:23 PM

Richard,your comment about the selfish gene may be spot on; the New Scientist articles were published only ten years ago, on research that had been done in only the previous year or two and I left out mention of others that were dealing with aspects not relevant to the structure/shape etc of human physiognomy. Given that the earlier study I mentioned was an atttempt to be objective about "what males regarded as attractive about a woman's shape" I was intrigued that it was the waist hip ratio. But I was fascinated by the disparity between attractiveness at the conscious level and the unconscious level. The women rated as most attractive at a (not necessarily "the") conscious level, as measured by how much sperm was "stripped" during ejaculation weren't nearly as effective at it as those our currrent culture would describe as "fat".

We can be as socially reconstructed as we like and as politically correct/incorrect etc as we like at a conscious level; the results showed that, at a rather fundamental level (over which we apparently have no conscious control; we're talking 'quantity' here rather than timing) our bodies have other ideas. Some may say it's the old reptilian brain at work. In winter I like sitting with my back to the sun so, while I may deny having a reptilian brain, I'll admit to having a reptilian back.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:50 PM

Richard - not all of us are that old :D

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:34 PM

You don't remember the liberating effect of the pill?

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: TheSnail
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 01:31 PM

Richard Bridge

Then the 60s - the change of sex from being for procreation to recreation.

That'll come a surprise to generations of ploughboys, milkmaids and Jolly Jack Tars. Invalidates a huge swathe of folksongs at one go.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:44 PM

There are several factors in play here.

First, the "selfish gene" approach. We will desire sex with the partner most likely to produce strongly surviving offspring.

Then the Gordon Gecko. Women will desire the mate best able to provide for offspring (in current Western society, the richest or the most socially or politically powerful).

Then the paranoid man. He will seek women least likely to have had previus partners lest his genes do not take in that the woman may already be pregnant. Here lies the Victorian fascination with virginity, and the foundations for today's institutional peadophilia.

Then the 60s - the change of sex from being for procreation to recreation. The LAST thinking you wanted was a fertile mate, for babies were a sex life disaster.

Then the powercrazed: The powerful of both sexes wish to control others including thier sex partners, so desire such partners to be inexperienced, hence immature, hence youthful - hence slim and free of body hair or odour.

The need for a robust physique to combat illness has been displaced by medical advance, so mass is no longer a survival trait.


Compare the way paleness is prized in agricultural societies, since it betokens a person of enough power that another can labour for them - but the 60s and since, the suntan indicates enough money to holiday in the sun. Then the sunbed and Easyjet - the suntan becomes the derided "tango".

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:04 AM

I read a study about the concept of the ideal woman in advertising a number of years ago, and they made the point that American advertising icons were continually made thinner. The direction of their argument seemed to be that advertising made people think the ideal woman should be thinner, but people didn't really believe it in real life.
                They started with Lilian Russell as an original role model, as I recall.
                Some of the icons that had been made thinner over the years included Aunt Jemima, Better Crocker, the Dutch Cleanser Girl, and the Dove Soap Girl. There were others that I don't remember now.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 11:08 PM

It would make sense, one would think, that a man would not lust after flesh, if there was no flesh to lust after.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:14 PM

Thanks Rowan - another theory proven then!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rowan
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 04:53 PM

Liz, your comments about female fertility reminded me.

According to a series of (apparently unconnected) articles in New Scientist that appeared around 1996/7 various investigators were trying to see whether there was any sort of objective measure of female beauty that could then be analysed in a natural selection methodology.

At first they took the "vital statistics" of all the Miss America, Miss World and Miss Universe winners, as reported in the press, on the basis that they represented at least a group of 'judged' and thus 'objectively accepted' beautiful shapes. The only common rating (stay with me) applicable to all of them was the Hip:Waist ratio, from memory about 1.2:1. Breast size & shape was irrelevant, apparently and the recorded weights of the women involved had decreased by about 2 stone (28 lbs in American money) from 1944(?) when the first of these competitions had occurred to ~ 1995. But despite these changes, the hip:waist ratio of "the most beautiful" had stayed the same.

Thinking that others might regard this as biased due to America (and western) fondness for displays of nudity, they checked their findings in Indonesia, where Playboy routinely had black bars printed over anything nude that wasn't a male chest. They used only silhouettes of women's figures and the preferred images all had the same hip:waist ratio. There was more but that's all I can recall.

I might add that this article was only one of series that New Scientist ran over a couple of years that was most interesting from a human biology perspective. One described the effect of attractiveness on how much semen was "stripped" (I kid you not) from men during intercourse and ejaculation. Without going into boring detail, they found that no matter how attractive the males rated their female partners for such activities (even using hip:waist ratios) it was the more Rubenesque ladies (ie, slightly overweight to "modern" eyes) that routinely stripped the most semen from their partners.

The inference drawn from this was that, despite any 'conscious' deliberations by the male, the women with just that little bit extra subcutaneous fat (already known to be a marker of higher fertility) were better able to get their partners to "deliver" in the fertilisation stakes. All very Darwinian!

Just thought you'd like to know.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 08:24 AM

Opps, I meant to post that hyperlink:

http://www.smileytraffic.com/?rid=18247&splash=4

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 08:23 AM

Riginslinger, that didn't turn into a hyperlink because you didn't add a http:// in front of the www URL that you posted.

Highlight that URL and add an http:// to that www.smileytraffic.com/?rid=18247&splash=4 and then place the whole thing in the box that appears after you click on to the "Make a link {"blue clicky"} that is provided at the BOTTOM of this comment box.

When I added http: to that URL and did what I said above, I got a view that I could have lived without seeing.

And no, that's not a photo of me. BUTT I'm sure she's a very nice woman.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:36 AM

www.smileytraffic.com/?rid=18247&splash=4




               These things never turn out "blue" for me!

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:29 AM

Or to put it another way, Steve, ecce fundamentum in ho.

Apparently it used to be said in the South West, "The bigger the maid, the better the cheese." This was because the cheese (Cheddar) was pressed by sitting on top of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 07:17 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Nov 07 - 06:59 AM

Presumably having a big butt is another way of saying 'child bearing hips', an indication of easy births and fecundity. Ever seen a fertility goddess with a tiny tush?

If your culture is based upon prosperity shewn by large families and lots of sons, then a good, fertile wife or wives is the way to go. A woman would have better prospects of marriage if she were healthy, plump and looked capable of bearing many children.

In the west, it's only in the last 100 years or so that skinny women have been the desired norm. Even with the corsetry of the 18th and 19th Centuries, the emphasis was placed on a large bosom (the "pouter pigeon" look) or the enhanced caboose. The shrinking of the waist to the desired 19 or 18 inches of an hourglass figure only served to enhance the size of the top and bottom parts.

I have an hourglass figure. It's just that the sand has mainly trickled to the bottom.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: topical tom
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 12:37 PM

UPON JULIA'S CLOTHES.
by Robert Herrick


WHENAS in silks my Julia goes,
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free ;
O how that glittering taketh me !

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:17 AM

Azizi - Yes, Amiri Baraka, thank you.

         I recall one of his earliest poems that started out:

What evil lurks in the hearts of men,
Only Jack Kerouac and me that I know of.



         I saw him interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. It was total disconnect.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

Ugh! fyiw

I either meant to write fyi {for your information} or fwiw {for what it's worth}

Off topic but for what it's worth and for your information, here's a link to information on cultural nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism

The form of Black cultural nationalism that I accepted/accept is learning, strengthening, and celebrating the cultural connections between African people and people of the African Diaspora worldwide, and helping to build and support Black cultural institutions in the USA.

Hmmm.

How did a play on words thread about the structure of butts lead to references to cultural nationalism? Well, [also] for what it's worth, and afaic {as far as I'm concerned} all roads do not lead to Rome. But I don't mind taking an opportunity to refer to serious subjects I'm interested in, even in a fun discussion thread.

But, hopefully, this will not ruin the lighthearted mood of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:20 AM

Poet, playwright, author, activist LeRoi Jones
changed his name to Amiri Baraka to better reflect his African cultural nationalism.

Fyiw, from 1967-1969 I was a member of the Newark, New Jersey cultural nationalist group that Amiri Baraka led.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 09:07 AM

I've been using the word "callipygian" for some years now. It's far more respectable to say that in polite company when you've spotted a wondrous rear end than it is to say "Phwoar - (insert what it is you really want to say)!"

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:56 AM

And LeRoi Jones (I'm spacing out what his name is now, sorry) wrote in a poem:

          ...and my goddess got steatopygia

          I remember running across that many years ago and having to look it up to see what it meant.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 08:46 AM

Here's another reference to big butts in a children's rhyme:

POLICE LADY POLICE LADY DO YOUR DUTY
Police lady, police lady. Do your duty.
Here comes Keisha
with ah African booty.
She can wiggle.
She can wobble.
She can do the split.
But I betcha five dollars
She can't do this.
Lady on one foot, one foot, one foot
Turn all around, around, around.
Lady on two foot, two foot, two foot
Touch the ground, the ground, the ground.
Lady on three foot, three foot, three foot
Say your prayers, your prayers, your prayers.
Lady on four foot, four foot, four foot
Jump right out.
-TMP. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, mid 1980s

-snip-

The reference to big butts in this rhyme is "an African booty".
I need to correct the impression that I may have given that saying a woman has a big butt is always an insult in African American cultures. It's not. In this jump rope rhyme an African booty is a compliment.

"Lady on one foot" means jump on one foot, "two foot" means jump on two feet; three foot means jump with two feet and one hand touching the ground, and four feet means jumping on two feet with both hands touching the ground. Two people who we called "enders" turned one or two long ropes. We called it "Double Dutch" if enders turned two ropes.

TMP is my daughter. This rhyme is very much like the one I learned when I was growing up. However, we said "Policeman Policeman Do Your Duty". I find it very significant that children in my daughter's generation changed the referent "police man" to "police lady". I don't think there were any female police when I was growing up in the 1950s. Btw, I didn't teach her this rhyme. She learned it from her peers.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 03:35 AM

Time to resurrect the regency term for a handbag - "reticule"?

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: JennieG
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 01:35 AM

Darwin (Northern Teritory, Oz) has a place named Fanny Bay. Lots of boats moor there.

Those bags that folk wear hanging off their waist (either front or back) I believe are, in the US, called fanny packs. We call them bum bags.

Or, should one wish to go proper posh, rectum receptacles.

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:30 PM

There are some really wide ones at Big Cuties.com

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 10:02 AM

Or the limerick:
There was a young lady from Mass.
With a truly magnificent ass
Not rounded and pink, as you probably think
But gray, had long ears and ate grass

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 09:46 AM

Here's a children's rhyme that mentions "fat bums":
   
Apple on a stick makes me sick makes my heart beat 2-46 not because you're dirty not because you're clean not because you kissed the boy behind the magazine hey girls you wanna have some fun cause here come a lady with a big fat bum she can wibble she can wobble she can even do the splits but i bet ya i bet ya she can't do this close your eyes and count to ten if you muck it up you're a big fat hen. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 (if you didn't muck up) we didn't muck it up so that's the end. we're best friends. (if you did muck up) we mucked up and that's the end so start again cause we're not best friends.
-Allie; 2/15/2007

-snip-

That example was sent to my website Cocojams . Fwiw, I just posted that example and some others to Mudcat's thread on Children's Street Songs thread.cfm?threadid=4300&messages=133 in response to a guest's query about that rhyme.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: GUEST,sparticus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 08:42 AM

Jake Thakeray was spot on. Walking down the street to the shops there's nothing better than catching sight of a Kylie Minogue type rear. On the other hand there's others that just remind you that you need to buy a sack of spuds.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 08:00 AM

Don't care what you call it but Kylie Minogue's on last week's TV Special (in the UK) was perfection.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:54 AM

And there's Jake Thackeray -

'I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day!'

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:43 AM

There's a great line in Claudy Banks -

I boldly stepped up to her and gave her arse a prize.

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 07:06 AM

Then there's the (possibly apocryphal) tale of Johnny Cradock saying at the end of the cookery programme "That's all for this week, and I hope your doughnuts turn out like Fanny's."

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: David C. Carter
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 06:32 AM

"Fanlight Fanny the Froussy Night Club Queen"
Clinton Ford,Way back when...
The title always gave me a laugh!

David

Subject: RE: BS: The structure of fannies (US bottoms)
From: GUEST,sparticus
Date: 13 Nov 07 - 05:17 AM

Other fanny expressions:

"He/She's running around like a fanny in a fit." - He/She doesn't have a clue what he/she is doing.

"Here comes Fanny two-shoes" - Miss prim and proper.

"Stop fannying on." - Stop messing about.

Fanny by gaslight always made me chuckle!