Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Bourgeois males used to be able to merely possess slender beauties;
> now they must also aspire to become slender beauties as well if they
> can (reflecting _changes in ideological emphasis_ from possession to
> performance, from vertical integration to lean & mean subcontracting
> & suburban mini-mills, from investment in physical capital to
> investment in financial instruments?).
I thought that at an earlier age that heft was considered to be
attractive, as a sign of affluence.
> This heightened consciousness
> of male physical beauty for men of all classes (and if not beauty at
> least fitness) is a new thing under capitalism (though the ideal of
> male beauty did exist
The people at the gym often discuss taking those near steroids and the
like to enhance their body. Also, supposedly body builders have very bad
images of their bodies.
> (With his fondness for basketball, I'd imagine our dear moderator
> should look pretty good!)
I would be a great disappointment. I am almost 61. I play with the
young people, some are college players. I was a starter for Northern
Arizona in the NCAA tournament last year. These people zip past and over
me. In their eyes, I am probably more of a mascot that a player.
You will get a more accurate picture of me from Max, who often provides
humerous, but not inaccurate images of your humble moderator.
> It's also about class. The rich can afford to spend money & time
> working on their bodies, whereas the poor of both genders have more
> difficulty staying fit.
Absolutely. Also, the poor seem to be more influenced by commericals --
say for smoking.
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
