As Is 2016-06-24

Need to talk about the day's episode of Wapsi? This is the place to do it. Play nice! ^_^

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

Forum rules
When two threads are posted for a day's comic, the thread posted first becomes the starting post. Please delete the second thread and add your post to the first thread. When naming the thread: Comic Name YYYY-MM-DD
Thanks guys! This keeps the forum nice and neat.
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7111
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Dave » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:30 am

Castela seems intent on completely disrupting a major American industry. Good for her!

http://wapsisquare.com/comic/as-is/

User avatar
Sgt. Howard
Posts: 3146
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:54 pm
Location: Malott, Washington

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Sgt. Howard » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:37 am

If I understand it correctly, anorexia did not exists until a generation of girls that had grown up with 'Barbie' came of age. Frankly, I prefer a woman with enough butt to grab.
Rule 17 of the Bombay Golf Course- "You shall play the ball where the monkey drops it,"
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.

User avatar
Opus the Poet
Posts: 1997
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 am
Location: Surrounded by Hell
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Opus the Poet » Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:49 am

Anorexia started with Twiggy.

And no I'm not going to tell you who Twiggy was, you have the Internet, learn how to use it.
I ride my bike to ride my bike, and sometimes it takes me where I need to go.

User avatar
AmriloJim
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:47 pm
Location: 35ºN 101ºW (for the GPS-challenged, that's Amarillo TX)
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by AmriloJim » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:07 am

Both were contributing factors, but when Mattel introduced Barbie in 1959, Ms. Hornby was just 10 years old.

User avatar
shadowinthelight
Posts: 2569
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:49 pm
Location: Somewhere, TX
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by shadowinthelight » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:55 am

The term anorexia nervosa dates to 1873 but descriptions of similar conditions go much further back than that.
Julie, about Wapsi Square wrote:Oh goodness yes. So much paranormal!

Image My deviantART and YouTube.
I'm done thinking for today! It's caused me enough trouble!

User avatar
jeffepp
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 1:53 am

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by jeffepp » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:58 am

In the 1920's, flappers bound their breasts, to look "flat".

In the Victorian 1800's, corsets were all the rage, and known poisons were uses cosmetically to give women white skin and dilated eyes.

Around the time of the US Civil war, no Southern lady of status would would have gone without having her nipples pierced.

In Greco-Roman times, marble statues depicted the then current ideal form of both man and woman.

This isn't a modern thing. It's been going on, since we could make art above and beyond stick drawings. When written language began, we waxed lyrical about what a woman SHOULD look like, at least according to the author.

And, each generation has it's own "look" to chase. Twenty years ago, you wouldn't have seen women with a buzz cut on one side of their head, or men with buns. Now, both are standard fare. In 10 years, people will talk about it the way we do 1990's mullets.

Barbie didn't start this, nor did Twiggy, or Mata Hari, for that matter.

User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by GlytchMeister » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:04 am

Seems like Castela rolled a natural 20 for "you're not foolin' me!"
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!

eee
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:23 am

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by eee » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:36 am

Oh great, now Atsali's going to be thinking "There's something wrong with my butt???" :(

User avatar
oldmanmickey
Posts: 1656
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by oldmanmickey » Fri Jun 24, 2016 8:25 am

It is horrible how society objectifies women's bodies especially the rear. And i was NOT looking over my shoulder at one when i walked into a concrete pillar no matter what my wife says.
Dear, don’t bore him with trivia or burden him with your past mistakes. The happiest way to deal with a man is never to tell him anything he does not need to know. L. Long

User avatar
meisdadoo
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Neither here nor there

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by meisdadoo » Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:12 am

Paul, with all due respect for an excellent comic strip, you really dropped the ball this time. The title of today's strip should have been "Your Butt"
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously though, the little stinkweed is right--on so many levels.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

User avatar
Lee M
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:10 pm
Location: A small island located between Maine and Amsterdam

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Lee M » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:36 pm

I think Atsali should be pleased that Castela's watching her back.
The paper maker is the basest of all creatures. He deprives the beggar of his rags to make white sheets for editors to lie on.
--early 20th century school essay, from Fresh Howlers, ed. H. Cecil Hunt (UK, 1930)

User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Catawampus » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:47 pm

And Nadette seems to be very appreciative of Atsali's hindquarters, even having eyed them like few others have. I don't think that Atsali has much to fret about in that regard.

User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 5948
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by AnotherFairportfan » Fri Jun 24, 2016 6:28 pm

Catawampus wrote:And Nadette seems to be very appreciative of Atsali's hindquarters, even having eyed them like few others have. I don't think that Atsali has much to fret about in that regard.
"is ded"
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.

User avatar
Vitrbjorn
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Muspelheim/Niflheim

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Vitrbjorn » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:15 am

Sgt. Howard wrote:If I understand it correctly, anorexia did not exists until a generation of girls that had grown up with 'Barbie' came of age. Frankly, I prefer a woman with enough butt to grab.

Actually it was Twiggy back in the 60's and early 70'2 that made the fashion industry so, there is no polite way to say it, their ideal girl/woman was a twelve year old boy. No bust, no butt, weight no more that 95 pounds. That was taken up as the perfect ideal by the media, no it is everywhere. women eat, and those who are not comfortable with their bodies either eat so little a bird eats more, or they run off and vomit it up. Weight should be based on height and activity, not some drug addicts ideal vision.
That which does not kill you but makes you stronger only shows you to a different level of predator.
Be careful lest the gods devour you in your new strength.

User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2738
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Atomic » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:42 am

jeffepp wrote:Around the time of the US Civil war, no Southern lady of status would would have gone without having her nipples pierced.
Source, please?

I know wet nursing was much in demand for m'lady need not debase herself with such animalistic activities, etc, etc. And heavens, that she might turn something less than pale for having been out in the sun! Horrors! One might suspect that she actually.... worked.... for a living! And we can't have that, now, can we?
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff

User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by GlytchMeister » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:48 am

I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!

User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2087
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Catawampus » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:11 am

Vitrbjorn wrote:Actually it was Twiggy back in the 60's and early 70'2 that made the fashion industry so, there is no polite way to say it, their ideal girl/woman was a twelve year old boy. No bust, no butt, weight no more that 95 pounds. That was taken up as the perfect ideal by the media, no it is everywhere. women eat, and those who are not comfortable with their bodies either eat so little a bird eats more, or they run off and vomit it up. Weight should be based on height and activity, not some drug addicts ideal vision.
From my own research into the whole thing (I did a moderately in-depth study of body images and ideals and such years ago), Twiggy set part of the fashion industry on a somewhat vague course towards boyish looks, which really set in in the 1980's. Things didn't get really bad until Kate Moss became part of a super-influential ad campaign in the 1990's, though, at which point the "wasting away from drug abuse" look became the Next Big Thing. That was a bit too extreme, though, and died out relatively quickly (probably at least partly due to too many of the models dying off as well, which tends to attract a bit of unfriendly scrutiny). Now it's back to the thin, but not diseased, look as being ideal. Which is still a problem due to the huge amount of pressure that the fashion industry places on girls to look that thin, but it is at least an improvement and shows that progress can be made.

The fashion industry does tend to be very much about trends, which come and go at the drop of an overpriced overdesigned hat. It's also not quite the universal hive mind that a lot of people seem to assume, what with a good bit of regional variety (the androgynous look was more of an American industry trend, for example). So there is the potential for some rapid and drastic changes to sweep through.

Perhaps the Next Big Thing will be busty well-toned Latino gals less than five feet tall. . .
GlytchMeister wrote:I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.
There are two types of clothing designers: those who design clothing (which is supposed to be worn), and those who design "art" (which is supposed to be looked at while maybe being displayed on a person). The latter don't appreciate having some person's body distorting the beauty of their creations, and so try to find bodies to best fit their product rather than make products to best fit the available bodies.

User avatar
Sgt. Howard
Posts: 3146
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:54 pm
Location: Malott, Washington

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Sgt. Howard » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:15 pm

GlytchMeister wrote:I always thought the fashion industry liked rail-thin women because it's easier to get the right draping and other fabric effects on a stick figure than it is on a complicated 3-D body.

Which seems like cheating, honestly. If you're designing clothes, don't make the basic shape so simple and easy it doesn't apply to a majority of natural body shapes. At least work from an average.
I am convinced that the industry is run by Gay Men who fixate on adolescent boys in drag... which is what a lot of high-end models look like. Did you know that the majority of skinny models have so little body fat and blood count that they stop menstruation?
Rule 17 of the Bombay Golf Course- "You shall play the ball where the monkey drops it,"
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.

Alkarii
Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by Alkarii » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:43 pm

If I'm ever gonna say/think "damn, look at the rack on that one," I'd prefer it to be in regards to her breasts, and not her ribs.
There is no such thing as a science experiment gone wrong.

User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: As Is 2016-06-24

Post by GlytchMeister » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:49 pm

Hey, some women are just put together tall and skinny like that. Others are fun-sized and curvy.

I don't mind that. What I'm not happy about is the demonization of all body types other than "stick-figure" and the fixation the fashion industry has on a single body type.

I'd be just as unhappy if fashion was fixated specifically on rotund women no taller than 5'3". It would still encourage women to aspire to a specific body type other than their own and make them view any other body shape as negative.

That's not how it's supposed to work.

If an article of clothing is designed specifically as art, fine. Whatever. Drape it over a pole. That would draw attention to the piece of art itself and not give people the idea that their body is not put together right.

If you want it to be worn, make it wearable by several different body shapes. You'll sell more.
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!

Post Reply