Skip to content
7 Comments leave one →
  1. M. Thompson permalink
    20 April 2010 @ 23:56 23:56

    Actually Mr. Belvedere, I’m surprised that you didn’t mention that Rule 5 queen Christina Hendricks was named by Esquire as the “Best Looking Woman in America” with this title.

    (with tongue stuck firmly in cheek)

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      21 April 2010 @ 07:09 07:09

      A few things M….

      1) Miss Hendricks is the Rule 5 Empress – a much loftier title and more fitting for such a paragon of womanhood.

      2) Mrs. Belvedere is the Best Looking Woman In America – bar none. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

      3) While you would seem to be satisfied with your own tongue planted firmly in your own cheek, I would aim higher and seek to stick my tongue firmly in Miss Hendricks’s cheek.

  2. 21 April 2010 @ 03:57 03:57

    I see where you’ve been going with this now and it has finally hit me, these were not merely the babes of yesterday, but were women from a time where impressive endowments were not gifts from the Carnegie Foundation.

    However, I hate to burst your anonymous casting agent’s bubble, but A-list ‘small cup beauty’s like Keira Knightley are lacking a certain significant appeal. There is a reason the boys down at marketing are paintng on cleavage for the promotional photos like mad men, and it has nothing to do with their love of paint. Obviously Heidi Montag’s dissatisfaction with new DDD’s and desire to move on up to HH (I’ve never heard of that rank. Would one still be required to salute?) is a marker that her own notion of increasing her marketability and sex appeal has lost its anchor to reality and is drifting out to sea. All this to say I am okay with the rejection of female enhancement, just as long as you are not expecting me to admire the artistic purity of flat chested performers.

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      21 April 2010 @ 07:25 07:25

      I expect no such thing Nicholas. If you notice, the vast majority of ladies I feature are, at the very least, modestly endowed. When I do feature a gal with small frontage, it is because, despite her lack of curb appeal, she possesses some other attributes which make up for the lack of a front lawn.

      However, if given the choice between Keira Knightley and Pam Anderson, the former is certainly more pleasing than the latter in the cleavage department, relatively speaking.

      I will always favor the natural over the enhanced and this extends to other areas as well. In addition to my work in the upper regions, I have long railed against the trend for women to try and achieve the shape of a fourteen year-old boy from the waist down [or David Bowie in the Ziggy Stardust days]. The figure eight is the natural shape that the good Lord designed – if it was good enough for Him, who am I to question His wisdom?

      Men should take women as they are and not try to convince them to mold themselves into plastic dolls. Beauty does not come from perfection, rather, it arises from a mixture of the ideal with the flawed. How the two combine [how they mix] is the key.

      PS: Your first sentence is ‘well played, sir’.

Trackbacks

  1. ABC Can’t Handle The Truth « The Camp Of The Saints
  2. Rule 5 Sunday : The Other McCain
  3. Halle Berry and the Value-Added Tax

Leave a Reply [Go on...I double-dog dare you]

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers