Monday, August 10, 2015

More things I'm thinking about

These days, I like to just sit a lot and think.  I'm pretty sure this is what it will be like to be 80, only I won't realize I'm doing it like I do now.  At 70 I'll realize I'm doing it when I'm interrupted, but I will respond in a cranky "you're full of beans" way to any criticism.  Wait, I do that now.

At least now I can usually pay attention to what I'm thinking about and make note of it.  If you like, I'm remarking on what I'm remarking on - or even if you don't like, because this is my blog.  The things that draw my attention are usually visual.


Swing your partner all around.  
Here's a standard dress pattern from the 60s.  It's the kind of style my mother used to wear, and I'm certain she had this pattern or one like it, because she used to make her own clothes and she taught me to make mine as well.  Seen today, with decades of life experience between me and my childhood, this pattern looks ridiculous to the point of embarrassment.  What were the pattern makers thinking?

Did an actual adult draw this woman and get paid for it?  Because this woman is seriously deformed.  Like the Barbie doll, if she were an actual human being she'd be eight feet tall with a waist circumference of 12" - no room for internal organs, but maybe they're under that square dance skirt.  A person who was that tall couldn't stand without external support, especially with proportionately child-sized feet, for more than two seconds before falling over - and of course she'd snap off at the waist.

The layout of this pattern is all wrong, as well.  Is she about to pat the head of that poor tiny woman behind her, or is she swatting her away like a bothersome fly? Is that the very first "Talk to the hand?"  It's hard to believe this pattern ever sold, but I know that it and its equally hideous sister patterns did, because I remember my mother buying them and making them, and everyone else's mother was doing it, too.  Why was this the woman our mothers wanted to be?



Naked canoer
A postcard we just listed in our FionaDorothy shop.  I went through a postcard phase a few years ago, and bought up several lots.  Okay, more than several.  I listed most of them yesterday.  This postcard in particular caught my eye, because it's so over the top.  And I don't mean in an "Oops, we're canoing over Niagara Falls" kind of way.  I mean in a gruesome pseudo-naughty kind of way.  There is no reason for this woman to be naked, or even a little bit unclothed - except that nudity sells.  She also looks more Italian than native American, but it might be racist of me to notice that.  She has baseball-like breasts which are startlingly unsexual.  These led me to look up the definition of "mature content" on Etsy, so that I'd know if I had to label her as such.  Turns out breasts are not considered to be mature content.  Who knew?

The strangest thing about this photo is not the nudity, but the description on the back, which tells us that the tribe this woman belonged to believed the roar of the Falls was the voice of the Great Spirit.  No, they didn't.  They recognized the sound of a lot of water going over a cliff.  The description goes on to say ". . .she and her father still live in a crystal cave behind the waterfall."  No, they don't, but feel free to go look for them.  First take of your clothes, then rent a canoe.


A very bad girl indeed.
For you fetishists, here is Bondage Chicken.  In one photo, we have a combination of so many kinky pecadillos it's hard to know where to begin.  First, there's raw meat.  Someone must be into that, but I don't want to know.  Then of course the bondage.  That chicken looks extremely well-trussed in a painful yet very disciplined way.  And a shoe fetish, with one having fallen off (naughty, sloppy, careless chicken, about to be stuffed!).

There is the cleanliness fetish, because there are obviously chicken. . .err. . .juices on that cutting board, and we all know how dangerous those can be.  Then there's the organizational fetish, wherein some people spend thousands of dollars getting their closets arranged just so.  That hanger is not being used correctly, and that would bother those people.  A lot.

And finally, there's the issue of photographing underage models.  People, this is someone's daughter!  She can't be a day over six months, and she will never get any older.

And if she hangs around much longer she won't be any good for frying.



Jimmy's done it again!
I love vintage ads.  They reveal so much about the fears and hopes of humans in other times.  Sometimes they're ingenious.  And sometimes they are just plain odd.  Here's one from the latter category.

First, were shorts that burst into flame ever a problem for anyone?  If so, was the problem caused by friction, or was someone deliberately setting crotch fires?  Did only boys burst into flames?  And note that these shorts are only "fire retardant," not fireproof.  That means they slowed the fire down.  Presumably to allow for time to throw the kid into the pool.

Second, is it good marketing to put this image in customers' minds? And if the boy were actually burning, would he be standing still?  Wouldn't the wall be on fire, too?  And I can't help noticing those danger shorts he's supposedly wearing are not on fire at all.

This looks looks more like a campfire with legs.  Now that's a scary idea.



And finally. . . .SprocketsInside blog reader scores are in!  Your  personal scores are: