R
The Ashton Twins
- Thread starter Bob Romano
- Start date
R
rackmsuckr
Guest
R
rackmsuckr
Guest
R
rackmsuckr
Guest
R
rackmsuckr
Guest
Thanks for the neat pics, rackmsuckr.
It appears that the Ashton twins may have donned their low cut tops subconsciously to let men know they have no fleas, lice, or tics.
The following article from The New York Times explains it and also reports the evidence that wearing clothes is a relatively new practice. Before that, people were naked for a million years.
New York Times
Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways
By NICHOLAS WADE
One of the most distinctive evolutionary changes as humans parted company from their fellow apes was their loss of body hair. But why and when human body hair disappeared, together with the matter of when people first started to wear clothes, are questions that have long lain beyond the reach of archaeology and paleontology.
Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed, independently, by two research groups analyzing changes in DNA. The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.
Dr. Mark Stone- king of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, believes he has established when humans first wore clothes. His method is indirect: it involves dating the evolution of the human body louse, which
infests only clothes. Why did humans, the only hairless primates, lose their body hair?
One theory holds that the hominid line went through a semi-aquatic phase - witness the slight webbing on our hands. A better suggestion is that loss of body hair helped our distant ancestors keep cool when they first ventured beyond the forest's shade and across the hot African savannah. But loss of hair is not an unmixed blessing in regulating body temperature because the
naked skin absorbs more energy in the heat of the day and loses more in the cold of the night.
Dr. Mark Pagel of the University of Reading in England and Dr. Walter Bodmer of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford have proposed a different solution to the mystery and their idea, if true, goes far toward explaining contemporary attitudes about hirsuteness. Humans lost their body hair, they say, to free themselves of external parasites that infest fur - blood-sucking lice, fleas and ticks and the diseases they spread.
Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection, Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest, it then became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans, bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free of hair - joined now
by some men - may be no mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct. Dr. Pagel's and Dr. Bodmer's article appeared in a recent issue of The Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Dr. Pagel said he had noticed recently that advertisements for women's clothing often included a model showing a large expanse of bare back. "We have thought of showing off skin as a secondary sexual characteristic but maybe it's simpler than that - just a billboard for healthy skin," he said.
The message - "No fleas, lice or ticks on me!" - is presumably concealed from the conscious mind of both sender and receiver.
There are several puzzles for the new theory to explain. One is why, if loss of body hair deprived parasites of a refuge, evolution allowed pubic hair to be retained. Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest that these humid regions, dense with sweat glands, serve as launching pads for pheromones, airborne hormones known to convey sexual signals in other mammals though not yet
identified in humans.
Another conundrum is why women have less body hair than men. Though both sexes may prefer less hair in the other, the pressure of sexual selection in this case may be greater on women, whether because men have had greater powers of choice or an more intense interest in physical attributes. "Common
use of depilatory agents testifies to the continuing attractions of
hairlessness, especially in human females," the two researchers write.
Dr. David L. Reed, a louse expert at the University of Utah, said the idea that humans might have lost their body hair as a defense against parasites was a "fascinating concept." Body lice spread three diseases - typhus, relapsing fever and trench fever - and have killed millions of people in time of war, he said.
The estimated minimum date for human hairlessness seems to fall in reasonably well with the schedule of other major adaptations that turned an ordinary ape into the weirdest of all primates. Hominids first started occupying areas with few shade trees some 1.7 million years ago. This is also the time when long limbs and an external nose appeared. Both are assumed to be adaptations to help dissipate heat, said Dr. Richard Klein, an
archaeologist at Stanford University. Loss of hair and dark skin could well have emerged at the same time, so Dr. Rogers' argument was "completely plausible," he said.
From 1.6 million years ago the world was in the grip of the Pleistocene ice age, which ended only 10,000 years ago. Even in Africa, nights could have been cold for fur-less primates. But Dr. Ropers noted that people lived without clothes until recently in chilly places like Tasmania and Tierra del Fuego.
Remarkable as it may seem that genetic analysis can reach back and date an event deep in human history, there is a second approach to determining when people lost their body hair, or at least started to wear clothes. It has to do with lice. Humans have the distinction of being host to three different kinds: the head louse, the body louse and the pubic louse. The body louse,
unlike all other kinds that infect mammals, clings to clothing, not hair. It presumably evolved from the head louse after humans lost their body hair and started wearing clothes.
Dr. Stoneking, together with Dr. Ralf Kittler and Dr. Manfred Kayser, report in today's issue of Current Biology that they compared the DNA of human head and body lice from around the world, as well as chimpanzee lice as a point of evolutionary comparison. From study of the DNA differences, they find that the human body louse indeed evolved from the louse, as expected, but that this event took place surprisingly recently, sometime between 42,000 and 72,000 years ago. Humans must have been wearing clothes at least since this time.
Modern humans left Africa about 50,000 years ago. Dr. Stoneking and his colleagues say the invention of clothing may have been a factor in the successful spread of humans around the world, especially in the cooler climates of the north.
Dr. Stoneking said in an interview that clothing could also have been part of the suite of sophisticated behaviors, such as advanced tools, trade and art, that appear in the archaeological record some 50,000 years ago, just before humans migrated from Africa.
The head louse would probably have colonized clothing quite soon after the niche became available - within thousands and tens of thousands of years, Dr. Stoneking said. So body lice were probably not in existence when humans and Neanderthals diverged some 250,000 or more years ago. This implies that
the common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals did not wear clothes and therefore probably Neanderthals didn't either.
But Dr. Klein, the Stanford archeologist, said he thought Neanderthals and other archaic humans must have produced clothing of some kind in order to live in temperate latitudes like Europe and the Far East. Perhaps the body lice don't show that, he suggested, because early clothes were too loose fitting or made of the wrong material.
Dr. Stoneking said he got the idea for his louse project after one of his children came home with a note about a louse infestation in school. The note assured parents that lice could only live a few hours when away from the human body, implying to Dr. Stoneking that their evolution must closely mirror the spread of humans around the world.
The compilers of Genesis write that as soon as Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they sewed themselves aprons made of leaves from the fig tree, and that the Creator himself made them more durable skin coats before evicting them. But if Dr. Rogers and Dr. Stoneking are correct, humans were naked for a million years before they noticed their state of undress and called for the tailor.
It appears that the Ashton twins may have donned their low cut tops subconsciously to let men know they have no fleas, lice, or tics.
The following article from The New York Times explains it and also reports the evidence that wearing clothes is a relatively new practice. Before that, people were naked for a million years.
New York Times
Why Humans and Their Fur Parted Ways
By NICHOLAS WADE
One of the most distinctive evolutionary changes as humans parted company from their fellow apes was their loss of body hair. But why and when human body hair disappeared, together with the matter of when people first started to wear clothes, are questions that have long lain beyond the reach of archaeology and paleontology.
Ingenious solutions to both issues have now been proposed, independently, by two research groups analyzing changes in DNA. The result, if the dates are accurate, is something of an embarrassment. It implies we were naked for more than a million years before we started wearing clothes.
Dr. Mark Stone- king of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, believes he has established when humans first wore clothes. His method is indirect: it involves dating the evolution of the human body louse, which
infests only clothes. Why did humans, the only hairless primates, lose their body hair?
One theory holds that the hominid line went through a semi-aquatic phase - witness the slight webbing on our hands. A better suggestion is that loss of body hair helped our distant ancestors keep cool when they first ventured beyond the forest's shade and across the hot African savannah. But loss of hair is not an unmixed blessing in regulating body temperature because the
naked skin absorbs more energy in the heat of the day and loses more in the cold of the night.
Dr. Mark Pagel of the University of Reading in England and Dr. Walter Bodmer of the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford have proposed a different solution to the mystery and their idea, if true, goes far toward explaining contemporary attitudes about hirsuteness. Humans lost their body hair, they say, to free themselves of external parasites that infest fur - blood-sucking lice, fleas and ticks and the diseases they spread.
Once hairlessness had evolved through natural selection, Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest, it then became subject to sexual selection, the development of features in one sex that appeal to the other. Among the newly furless humans, bare skin would have served, like the peacock's tail, as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free of hair - joined now
by some men - may be no mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct. Dr. Pagel's and Dr. Bodmer's article appeared in a recent issue of The Proceedings of the Royal Society.
Dr. Pagel said he had noticed recently that advertisements for women's clothing often included a model showing a large expanse of bare back. "We have thought of showing off skin as a secondary sexual characteristic but maybe it's simpler than that - just a billboard for healthy skin," he said.
The message - "No fleas, lice or ticks on me!" - is presumably concealed from the conscious mind of both sender and receiver.
There are several puzzles for the new theory to explain. One is why, if loss of body hair deprived parasites of a refuge, evolution allowed pubic hair to be retained. Dr. Pagel and Dr. Bodmer suggest that these humid regions, dense with sweat glands, serve as launching pads for pheromones, airborne hormones known to convey sexual signals in other mammals though not yet
identified in humans.
Another conundrum is why women have less body hair than men. Though both sexes may prefer less hair in the other, the pressure of sexual selection in this case may be greater on women, whether because men have had greater powers of choice or an more intense interest in physical attributes. "Common
use of depilatory agents testifies to the continuing attractions of
hairlessness, especially in human females," the two researchers write.
Dr. David L. Reed, a louse expert at the University of Utah, said the idea that humans might have lost their body hair as a defense against parasites was a "fascinating concept." Body lice spread three diseases - typhus, relapsing fever and trench fever - and have killed millions of people in time of war, he said.
The estimated minimum date for human hairlessness seems to fall in reasonably well with the schedule of other major adaptations that turned an ordinary ape into the weirdest of all primates. Hominids first started occupying areas with few shade trees some 1.7 million years ago. This is also the time when long limbs and an external nose appeared. Both are assumed to be adaptations to help dissipate heat, said Dr. Richard Klein, an
archaeologist at Stanford University. Loss of hair and dark skin could well have emerged at the same time, so Dr. Rogers' argument was "completely plausible," he said.
From 1.6 million years ago the world was in the grip of the Pleistocene ice age, which ended only 10,000 years ago. Even in Africa, nights could have been cold for fur-less primates. But Dr. Ropers noted that people lived without clothes until recently in chilly places like Tasmania and Tierra del Fuego.
Remarkable as it may seem that genetic analysis can reach back and date an event deep in human history, there is a second approach to determining when people lost their body hair, or at least started to wear clothes. It has to do with lice. Humans have the distinction of being host to three different kinds: the head louse, the body louse and the pubic louse. The body louse,
unlike all other kinds that infect mammals, clings to clothing, not hair. It presumably evolved from the head louse after humans lost their body hair and started wearing clothes.
Dr. Stoneking, together with Dr. Ralf Kittler and Dr. Manfred Kayser, report in today's issue of Current Biology that they compared the DNA of human head and body lice from around the world, as well as chimpanzee lice as a point of evolutionary comparison. From study of the DNA differences, they find that the human body louse indeed evolved from the louse, as expected, but that this event took place surprisingly recently, sometime between 42,000 and 72,000 years ago. Humans must have been wearing clothes at least since this time.
Modern humans left Africa about 50,000 years ago. Dr. Stoneking and his colleagues say the invention of clothing may have been a factor in the successful spread of humans around the world, especially in the cooler climates of the north.
Dr. Stoneking said in an interview that clothing could also have been part of the suite of sophisticated behaviors, such as advanced tools, trade and art, that appear in the archaeological record some 50,000 years ago, just before humans migrated from Africa.
The head louse would probably have colonized clothing quite soon after the niche became available - within thousands and tens of thousands of years, Dr. Stoneking said. So body lice were probably not in existence when humans and Neanderthals diverged some 250,000 or more years ago. This implies that
the common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals did not wear clothes and therefore probably Neanderthals didn't either.
But Dr. Klein, the Stanford archeologist, said he thought Neanderthals and other archaic humans must have produced clothing of some kind in order to live in temperate latitudes like Europe and the Far East. Perhaps the body lice don't show that, he suggested, because early clothes were too loose fitting or made of the wrong material.
Dr. Stoneking said he got the idea for his louse project after one of his children came home with a note about a louse infestation in school. The note assured parents that lice could only live a few hours when away from the human body, implying to Dr. Stoneking that their evolution must closely mirror the spread of humans around the world.
The compilers of Genesis write that as soon as Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they sewed themselves aprons made of leaves from the fig tree, and that the Creator himself made them more durable skin coats before evicting them. But if Dr. Rogers and Dr. Stoneking are correct, humans were naked for a million years before they noticed their state of undress and called for the tailor.
Last edited:
Geez, do you have nothing better to do than cut and paste!
B
BuckHunter
Guest
(well said miss kitty) LOL
Wow God,
That is funny cause Bevy, Joanne, and myself were having the same discussion last week over coffee.
(cut and paste is an understatement)
Great pics. rackmsucker!
Wow God,
That is funny cause Bevy, Joanne, and myself were having the same discussion last week over coffee.
(cut and paste is an understatement)
Great pics. rackmsucker!
Linda,
Excellent pictures, thank you for sharing them with us!
Eydie
Excellent pictures, thank you for sharing them with us!
Eydie
Linda,
Is it possible that you e-mail me with your e-mail address please?
Thanks,
Eydie
windycityopen@aol.com
Is it possible that you e-mail me with your e-mail address please?
Thanks,
Eydie
windycityopen@aol.com
I got a call today from a friend who said that someone names "Photoguy" was slamming the Ashton's and the Midwest Open on BD Fourm. Does anyone know who this is and why he would be so hatefull?
Thanks,
Eydie
Thanks,
Eydie
That little bit of cleavage looks great to me! If you open your eyes and look at most young girls now, this is nothing by comparison. Most girls now are wearing pants so low that waxing is mandatory. What's a little cleavage compared to that?
How on earth did FL get into this thread?
How on earth did FL get into this thread?
Bringing it back to life
I just love this post, so I thought I would bring it back to life.
Above are some beautiful pictures of The Twins and Linda Carter.
You go girls! Love you all!
Eydie
I just love this post, so I thought I would bring it back to life.
Above are some beautiful pictures of The Twins and Linda Carter.
You go girls! Love you all!
Eydie
Eydie Romano said:
I wondered why this thread was back up.
I knew you put a link to it on your poll in the NPR section. Those were the good old days! I don't know that I ever gave Bob my email addy? I must have since I get Windy City updates.Take care,
Linda
Bob Romano said:
There was another ad around 'Cue Chicks' or somehing like that that i could see being offensive to some-It was all sex but Bev and Jo's is just fine.
BTW- the girls dont say 'Eh' or sound too canadien as they are IIRC originally from England and have a touch of an English accent remaining.
Im very happy for them and wish them luck.
Nostroke said:
I don't know if their originally from England but they don't have any accent, at least not the last time I talked to them
Scott, I can't give you the exact reasons they haven't turned pro yet...you'd have to ask them that but one of the reasons has to be their location, here in Calgary were a looonnnggg ways away from all the major tournaments so if the girls joined the WPBA they would have to relocate to avoid traveling thousands of miles to most of the WPBA events. Their certainly talented enough to do it though.