Gentlemen Prefer Bones

A new ad campaign for Fit Light Yogurt uses well-known sexy images of famous women (Marilyn Monroe in the white dress, Mena Suvari naked and covered in rose petals in American Beauty, Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct), manipulates them to make the women heavier, and includes the tagline “Forget about it. Men’s preference will never change. Fit Light Yogurt.”

The message, apparently, is that men have always and forever preferred skinny chicks, and they always and forever will. The women in the ads are supposed to serve as a contrast to what men really like, since the women in the ads aren’t skinny. Their disgustingly fat bodies are supposed to make us all run for the fat-free yogurt.

At least, I think this is what the ad is supposed to do, based on its tagline. It kind of loses in its delivery, though. Check it (may not be safe for work):



Maybe feminism has rotted my brain, but when I saw this I didn’t go into a panic over the size of my thighs — and to be perfectly honest, it doesn’t take all that much to put me into a panic over the size of my thighs. I’m a very succeptible customer when it comes to scaring women into skinniness. But when I saw this ad I thought, damn, that’s a hot ad. No body panic. Just, “Shit, I want to lay in a bed of rose petals and look like that chick. She’s smokin’, and she looks like she’s having fun.”

I don’t think that was Fit Light Yogurt’s intent.

Once I got over the hotness, I felt a little sick at the idea that this woman’s body is what passes for fat these days. Then I felt like bad feminist for a minute, and, as I’m sure you all expect, concluded that it’s still shitty to put a half-naked chick up to advertise your yogurt no matter what she looks like, for all the feminist reasons that we’ve discussed a million times before. So what’s shittier: An ad that uses the image of a half-naked skinny chick to shame us all into buying their product so that we can look like her, or an ad that uses the image of a half-naked not-skinny chick to terrorize us all into buying their product so that we don’t look like her? I suppose the first option at least tells someone they’re good enough, but overall I’ll file it under lose-lose.

As a side note, since when do men’s preferences never change? I’m pretty sure the thin-with-big-boobs-is-hot thing isn’t exactly a universal truth through the ages and across cultures. I’m also pretty sure that I know a few men who have been quite attracted to not-skinny women.

And I’m annoyed that this entire conversation, including my own post, is all about what men prefer.

The other ads:



marilyn, originally uploaded by JillNic83.



sharon stone, originally uploaded by JillNic83.

Thanks to Amber for the link.

(Just a quick FYI: The post title isn’t to imply that skinny or boney women are unattractive; it is a sarcastic characterization of the messages that the diet industry relies on).


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

104 comments for “Gentlemen Prefer Bones

  1. Thomas
    June 21, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    Hey, when they are trying to be patriarchal assholes and fail, by producing an image that makes more typical bodies look really good while trying to stigmatize them, I say there’s no need to hand-wring about using a woman’s body to sell the yogurt. They were trying to be really evil, and the blew it! Ha!

  2. Liz
    June 21, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I’m thinking this is a foreign brand, but I’d like to be sure because I want to make sure I don’t accidentally buy their products. Assholes.

  3. Anne
    June 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Liz: It’s from Brazil, apparently.

  4. Wol
    June 21, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    You know, when I first saw the “American Beauty” photo, my thought was, wow, look at that gorgeous, curvy woman. I’d like to have my photo taken like that.

    Then I saw the tagline.

    Nope, I won’t be buying this one.

  5. June 21, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Someone on another thread discussing this spoke of Danone as the parent company. Danone certainly sells dairy products in Australia.

  6. June 21, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Interestingly, someone I know sent me a link to this video today. (Anthony Hamilton’s “Sista Big Bones”, totally safe for work)

    I am so unused to seeing plus-sized women viewed sexually that I was confused for a moment.

  7. Alex, FCD
    June 21, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    As a side note, since when do men’s preferences never change? I’m pretty sure the thin-with-big-boobs-is-hot thing isn’t exactly a universal truth through the ages and across cultures.

    No, art history class tells me that that’s a fairly recent thing. Mena Suvari looks about the same size as Botticelli’s Venus.

  8. Karla
    June 21, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    So, these are photoshop-like manipulations of images, and not restaging of photographs with full-figured models? My understanding when I saw this at Shakesville was the latter, and I really felt for the models — they couldn’t possibly have been told prior to the shoot that their figures were meant to be sources of shame or ridicule. If it’s just digital manipulation it makes it a smidgen less evil (though still terrible).

    It’s a shame — these same photographs (or similar restagings) could have had the opposite intent and been really great.

  9. Molly
    June 21, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Yeah, I have to say, my instant reaction to the first one, when I saw it posted in some blog or other a few days ago, was “Damn, she’s hot.”

    And then I read farther down and found out what the slogan was (because let’s face it, it’s not terribly visible on the ad! Bad job by their marketing guys on (at least) two fronts, there). Whoops. But, y’know what? Still gorgeous.

  10. evil fizz
    June 21, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    No, art history class tells me that that’s a fairly recent thing. Mena Suvari looks about the same size as Botticelli’s Venus.

    Huh? No she doesn’t.

    For comparison: Botticelli’s Primavera.

    And Mena Suvari.

    I’m not seeing Venus’s ribs there.

  11. June 21, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    Huh? No she doesn’t.

    I kind of think Alex meant the above faux-Mena and not actual Mena. Although I could be wrong.

  12. June 21, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    I agree, I think Alex did mean the faux-Mena (who in my opinion, is a lot more attractive and appealing than the actual Mena image).

    It’s odd how once women with curves were considered most beautiful (the image of wealth and of…*sigh* fertility) for centuries, yet now the opposite is true.

    Everyone woman, every person, thin or curvy, size 2 (natural build, I have an acquaintance who is a healthy eater but is of that size) or size 16, black, white, or inbetween, etc…is beautiful in their own right. Thus this ad is…depressing (though ironic in how it gave the opposite of its’ desired effect).

  13. sophonisba
    June 21, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    they couldn’t possibly have been told prior to the shoot that their figures were meant to be sources of shame or ridicule.

    Huh? That’s a lovely thought, but why in the world do you think that?

    I kind of think Alex meant the above faux-Mena and not actual Mena. Although I could be wrong.

    Yeah. Although Botticelli’s Venus doesn’t look a thing like either woman. Size OR shape-wise. Women don’t come in pre-fab small, medium, and large models, thank goodness; despite the intense creepiness and misogyny of the popular e thing of encouraging women to identify their real bodies with imaginary fantasies (“I have pre-Raphaelite hair” or “I have a Rubens figure!” and you’re supposed to be proud of this) women are still humans, with human variation. Botticelli’s pictures are prettier than Playboy photo spreads, for sure, but they’re no more empowerful.

  14. June 21, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    Yeah, I had trouble understanding the point of the ad campaign after seeing the first image, which is very attractive (they even seem to have airbrushed her skin). The other two less so, since they’re well-known images of teh sexy and its hard to substitute anyone else without their looking bad. As for earlier tastes in women’s bodies, check out Titian’s Venus of Urbino (still pretty slender, but less ridiculously so than, say, the ideal this ad campaign is assuming).

  15. graychick
    June 21, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    Dumb ads–but beautiful pictures. Why do I think the American Beauty one will be much loved by some people (of both sexes–sans tag line, of course)?

    As for men wanting skinny waifs with big boobs–it is to laugh. Now, I’m a straight woman, and so possibly not qualified to judge, but the hottest woman I ever knew was an old roommate of mine. She was short, round… and the toast of her sorority. She radiated confidence, good humor, and, yes, sex appeal. That certainly drew several “worthwhile” (her term, not mine) suitors.

    I think the media grossly overrates the sex appeal of skinny women–I seriously doubt that curves have ever gone out of style for the vast majority of men.

  16. sophonisba
    June 21, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    No body panic. Just, “Shit, I want to lay in a bed of rose petals and look like that chick. She’s smokin’, and she looks like she’s having fun.”

    I understand that this is a reflex reaction, not an argument, so I am not trying to argue with you, directly.

    However, no fucking way do I want to look like that. The cute little I-am-vulnerable head-tilt to expose the neck? The coy flipped up wrist thing (what is that called? It’s gross.) The thighs tightly pressed together? Her body, fine, sure, whatever. But the pose is revolting. Imagine a man in that pose. Just naked in rose petals, hot, of course. But in that pose? It would read as a parody of submission, because that’s what it is.

    The third Basic Instinct shot is the only one that doesn’t make me uncomfortable and repelled, even though it’s an ugly dress and the woman’s not my type. Because it’s the only one where the woman’s posed like a human, not like a helpless doll.

    And if these were “normal” models, this is what we would all be talking about: the implications of the poses. But since they’re fat women, just being fuckable is so noteworthy that it’s all that’s worth discussing. Every comment thread about the ad campaign is just page after page of men chiming in to tell us they’d fuck that. And we — fat women — are meant to be grateful and appreciative. Because dignity in representation is for thin women. For us, fuckability is already more than we deserve, so we don’t get to object to degrading poses. Because hey, how can it be degrading when all these men are telling us they’d fuck that?

    And I’m annoyed that this entire conversation, including my own post, is all about what men prefer.

    Thank you for including that, seriously. I wish other discussions of these ads were dwelling on that point a little more.

  17. June 21, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    Another image of Venus by Titian. And incidentally, in my comment above, I didn’t mean to suggest that thin women are somehow ridiculous, just that it’s ridiculous to think everyone will or should have the same body type.

  18. June 21, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    The third Basic Instinct shot is the only one that doesn’t make me uncomfortable and repelled, even though it’s an ugly dress and the woman’s not my type. Because it’s the only one where the woman’s posed like a human, not like a helpless doll.

    And yet that’s the one that most repelled me, because it reminded me what a horrible person that character was (and, not incidentally, how bad that movie was). Restaging a picture of an icepick murderer is supposed to be sexy? Why not put Norman Bates in a hawt pose?

  19. June 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    My first thought when I saw the American Beauty photo was, “Hey, someone stole my idea to reshoot iconic images with fat women, being both subversive and empowering!” Then I found out it was for Lite Yogurt. And was insulting fat women. And frankly me, too, since I’m male and that ain’t my preference that they are suggesting is universal.

    So, not all men share the preference they are exalting. Some men have the preference they are denying. Preferences DO change over time. For proof, how about Marilyn Monroe. You know, the woman they used as a basis for one of the ads about the unmovable nature of male preferences. Yes, yes, I know the Monroe was fat line overstates things but the hard truth is that today she WOULD be unemployably large for her chosen field. So I guess that changed.

  20. sophonisba
    June 21, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    And yet that’s the one that most repelled me, because it reminded me what a horrible person that character was (and, not incidentally, how bad that movie was).

    Well, hell, they’re all repulsive if you take the filmic context totally on board. I mean, the character the American Beauty shot is supposed to call to mind is a teenage girl who only poses like that in the imagination of a skeevy middle-aged man. But I understand that everybody who finds that shot hot isn’t doing so because they want to fuck a virgin high schooler.

    The Basic Instinct recreation doesn’t appeal to me because of the movie reference, but rather because the model looks cool and controlled, and is looking straight ahead, rather than coyly pretending to look away or doing the push-the-skirt-down/press-the-thighs-together maneuver. I also like the expression of faint amusement, as opposed to scary exaggerated grinning.

    (In some other blog comment threads, I’ve seen guys say that they like all the shots except that one, because they don’t like the “ice queen” look. Which I think says a lot.

  21. June 21, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    Marilyn was a size twelve, meaning she’d never be able to get work as anything but a plus-sized model these days, which does tend to undermine their claim that mens’ tastes never change.

    If you laid Marilyn in a bed of rose petals these days, some idiot would try to use her body as an ad for a diet aid.

  22. evil fizz
    June 21, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    But the pose is revolting.

    I’m reading it more as silly than revolting. Her legs seem to be pressed together so that the rose petals don’t go astray. Otherwise, it kind of reminds me of a kid doing a snow angel.

  23. the15th
    June 21, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    Marilyn was a size twelve, meaning she’d never be able to get work as anything but a plus-sized model these days, which does tend to undermine their claim that mens’ tastes never change.

    And before anyone dredges up the “size 12 then was a lot smaller” argument — even if Marilyn’s size 12 was a 4 by today’s standards, that’s still “plus size” as far as Hollywood and the modeling industry are concerned.

  24. Perry
    June 21, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Cross cultural studies show that attractiveness is determined by the ratio between hips and waist, not absolute size. Tastes about the latter do change, but not the ratios. Further, depiction of weight in paintings as an aspect of prosperity or higher social class does not mean that men in general might not have had a sexual preference for thinner women. At the same time that women were heavier and wearing more clothing, they were also wearing corsets and bustles to create favorable ratios. Sexual attractiveness and indicators of health are linked, as are attractiveness and indicators of youth plus sexual maturity. Because women become thicker in the waist as they age or when they become pregnant (a very early sign), the waist to hip ratio is an indicator of youth and sexual availability.

    When a literature on something exists, but people instead say they are “pretty sure” and then assume their own opinion must be true, it irks me because people don’t spend their lives finding answers to questions so that others can spread misinformation labeled as “pretty sure I am right”. There are lots of studies about this stuff and it is possible to know instead of guess about it with an authoritative tone. “Survival of the Prettiest” by Nancy Etcoff discusses some of the literature in readable (non-technical) language.

  25. sophonisba
    June 21, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    But the pose is revolting.

    I’m reading it more as silly than revolting.

    It would probably be more accurate to dial down my rhetoric to “obnoxious and silly” and say that I am revolted by obnoxious and silly images of fat women being valorized, just because they also make the women in them look fuckable, which is the Holy Grail. Fat women are supposed to be so happy to look fuckable that they don’t give a shit whether they look adult or non-ridiculous, too. But yeah, I was projecting my emotional reaction onto the pictures. I do think my emotional reaction is entirely justified, though.

  26. evil fizz
    June 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    I am revolted by obnoxious and silly images of fat women being valorized, just because they also make the women in them look fuckable, which is the Holy Grail. Fat women are supposed to be so happy to look fuckable that they don’t give a shit whether they look adult or non-ridiculous, too.

    With you now. =)

  27. David Thompson
    June 21, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    First off, that’s some BAD photoshopping.

    Second, stufff like this always makes me feel weird. The enlightened, responsible thing to do these days is to be attracted to larger, mildly obese women, but I’m simply not. For whatever reason, I like thin long-limbed women and these discussions always end up with that as a de facto unindicted co-conspirator in all sort of bodily dysmorphia. Dammit.

  28. June 21, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    ‘Marilyn was a size twelve, meaning she’d never be able to get work as anything but a plus-sized model these days, which does tend to undermine their claim that mens’ tastes never change.”

    “And before anyone dredges up the “size 12 then was a lot smaller” argument — even if Marilyn’s size 12 was a 4 by today’s standards, that’s still “plus size” as far as Hollywood and the modeling industry are concerned.”

    But it’s true. I’m a size 8 and when I shop for vintage clothes I’m a 16 or an 18.

  29. htotheb
    June 21, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    akeeyu – I was just about to say, Monroe wasn’t much smaller than the “fat” woman in the ad.

    Couple other things:
    Who gives a fig about “men’s preferences?” I don’t think even women who diet or starve themselves do so for the sake of men’s preferences. Not consciously anyway. Even in my eating disorder days, I may have fallen for a patriarchal beauty standard, but I didn’t have in the front of mind that if I could just shed those last ten pounds, boys would finally want to sex me. That’s not exactly a lofty achievement. Horndogs are everywhere and they’re not picky.

    Secondly, how is anyone still able to get away with advertising yogurt as a diet food? Isn’t it common knowledge by now that yogurt has the same calories as ice cream? It’s right there on the nutrition label.

  30. htotheb
    June 21, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Kelsey – I think the studio system might have fibbed about Marilyn’s dress size. In most of her pics and in her movies, she looks like a current size twelve. It’s like when they post the measurements of the Playboy centerfolds and assert that “voluptuous Vicki” or whoever is 5’8″, 106 lbs, and measures 37 – 23 – 34. Like hell she does.

  31. sophonisba
    June 21, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    The enlightened, responsible thing to do these days is to be attracted to larger, mildly obese women,

    No, it is not. You are making shit up.

    If you meant to say, “The objectifying, misogynistic thing to do these days is to pick an arbitrary tits/ass size and declare that any woman whose body conforms is a “real woman” and therefore fuckable,” you might have a case. Sadly, you did not say that.

    For whatever reason, I like thin long-limbed women

    We don’t care what you like.

    If you read discussions like this and see a bunch of fat women begging you to find them attractive, you are delusional.

    We don’t care if our bodies give you erections. Skinny women don’t care. Fat women don’t care. No woman here cares if you, David Thompson, “like” our bodies.

    Second, stufff like this always makes me feel weird.

    You should feel a whole lot worse than weird.

  32. evil fizz
    June 21, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    Isn’t it common knowledge by now that yogurt has the same calories as ice cream?

    That’s why it’s light and fit yogurt!

  33. hp
    June 21, 2007 at 11:36 pm

    My biggest problem with yogurt nowadays is the amount of sugar or sugar substitute in it.

    WHERE THE HELL CAN I FIND WHOLE FAT PLAIN YOGURT??

    I’m about at the point of figuring out how to MAKE it.

    But talking about body size issues–I was looking through some mag in the kitchen at work today, and kind of swooning over the pictures of the most recent American Idol winner (jail bait! jail bait!).

    Then, I realized that the article containing her images was about how “unhealthily overweight” she was. Huh?

  34. June 22, 2007 at 12:22 am

    Err, this is a Brazilian ad campaign … you’re not going to see these ads in the U.S.

  35. June 22, 2007 at 12:58 am

    Isn’t it common knowledge by now that yogurt has the same calories as ice cream? It’s right there on the nutrition label.

    Um, what are you talking about? You do realize that the serving size of yogurt is 1 cup while a serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup, right? Make sure you’re comparing apples to apples.

    Sure, if you buy cheap ice cream like Dreyer’s, it’s 260 calories for a cup, which is fairly comparable to Alta Dena Strawberry Low-Fat Yogurt at 210 calories, but a lot more than Alta Dena Strawberry Fat-Free Yogurt at 180 calories.

    If you go for the Haagen-Dazs Strawberry Ice Cream, though, it’s 500 calories for 1 cup. That’s a hell of a lot more than the yogurt’s 210 calories a cup.

  36. June 22, 2007 at 12:59 am

    For whatever reason, I like thin long-limbed women

    For whatever reason, I personally like hairy chests. All you guys who’ve been shaving your chests? Unfuckable losers. Women’s preferences never change :-).

    Seriously, there’ nothing wrong with personally finding some particular level of skinny or fat attractive, whatever that level may be. There’s something wrong with holding up photoshopped rose petal woman as some kind of signifier of universally ugly.

    Then again, fat/diet wars aside, I just plain don’t like ads that try to convince me I’m doomed to ugliness or whatever if I don’t buy the product. If you’re going to manipulate me, at least manipulate me by flattery, not by insults.

  37. June 22, 2007 at 1:02 am

    Imagine a man in that pose.

    I’m a bad feminist, of course, but you know, I’m glad to be a bad feminist when I read things that basically imply that traditionally “feminine” poses are not OK (I personally think that women are much more versatile than men when it comes to posing and photography and artful representation). I don’t want to imagine a man in that pose – ’cause I like my men with a little bit of extra testosterone. And you know what? I don’t care what anyone else thinks (well, perhaps I do, just a little bit, otherwise why would I be commenting on this…? But still, it’s mah right!).

  38. June 22, 2007 at 1:03 am

    WHERE THE HELL CAN I FIND WHOLE FAT PLAIN YOGURT??

    Whole Foods. Brown Cow is a good brand — look for the quart of Cream Top plain yogurt.

    If you like really thick yogurt, Fage makes a whole fat Greek-style yogurt (it’s drained to remove the whey, which makes it more sour cream-like).

  39. June 22, 2007 at 1:09 am

    Imagine a man in that pose. Just naked in rose petals, hot, of course. But in that pose? It would read as a parody of submission, because that’s what it is.

    I’m imagining it right now. With George Clooney, I think.

    Wow.

    I’m sorry, were you saying something? I got, um, distracted for a minute there.

    Seriously, though, the pose is already a parody of submission, even in its original movie form. As you said, it’s Lester’s fantasy, not something that actually happens, and there’s definitely a self-mocking edge to the whole thing. To me, it comes across as a jokey Mae-West-like come-hither look.

    Now, let’s talk about putting George Clooney in that pose again …

  40. June 22, 2007 at 1:33 am

    My first thought when I saw the American Beauty photo was, “Hey, someone stole my idea to reshoot iconic images with fat women, being both subversive and empowering!” Then I found out it was for Lite Yogurt. And was insulting fat women. And frankly me, too, since I’m male and that ain’t my preference that they are suggesting is universal.

    Actually, Leonard Nimoy is doing something along that line. Although without the iconic images, his work is subversive in that it presents large nude women as positive images and that’s something America (and Brazil, obviously) hasn’t been able to mentally process.

  41. June 22, 2007 at 1:47 am

    Now, let’s talk about putting George Clooney in that pose again …

    You know, I can’t see Clooney in that pose. It’s that testosterone thing all over again. Orlando Bloom? Maybe.

  42. Jim
    June 22, 2007 at 2:05 am

    This ad is incredibly offensive, and I presonally find many of the women quite attractive.

    Now can someone, anyone, please point out that the Trojans “pig men” ad is just as offensive? Men are not pigs, just as larger women are not objects of disgust.

    Thank you.

  43. htotheb
    June 22, 2007 at 2:14 am

    Mnemosyne Says:
    June 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 am

    Um, what are you talking about?

    Sure, if you buy cheap ice cream like Dreyer’s, it’s 260 calories for a cup,

    you answered your own question

    Natalia Says:
    June 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 am

    I don’t want to imagine a man in that pose – ‘cause I like my men with a little bit of extra testosterone.

    I think that was kind of the point sophonisba was making. The submissive head tilt thing is “feminine.”

  44. libber
    June 22, 2007 at 3:05 am

    The enlightened, responsible thing to do these days is to be attracted to larger, mildly obese women, but I’m simply not. For whatever reason, I like thin long-limbed women and these discussions always end up with that as a de facto unindicted co-conspirator in all sort of bodily dysmorphia. Dammit.

    then ask yourself why you get attracted to thin long-limbed women. It probably isn’t a biological urge, as at least one commenter pointed out (since biologically, it’s about body ratios and not how much people weigh).

  45. Dianne
    June 22, 2007 at 4:43 am

    Imagine a man in that pose.

    I’m sorry. I did and found the image totally hot. I also like the image with the “fat” woman. But not the original image. Sorry, I don’t mean to insult thin women, but this particular woman in this particular situation looks terrible. I think you need a little plumpness to be able to pull off the bed of rose petal thing.

  46. Bunny
    June 22, 2007 at 6:05 am

    Damn…

    That girl in the rose petals is gorgeous. I’ve been feeling like crap all week because I’ve done my back in working out and can hardly move let alone find the flexibility to wear anything other than jammies and looking at the lady in that picture helps remind me that women are ALWAYS sexy, no matter their size or shape, it;s the ATTITUDE and that girl has got it (look at that sly, come-hither expression- she loves herself and it’s so obvious).

    And since we seem to be focusing a lot on “what men want” my partner is a prime example of why these ads are bogus. He’s dated women of all sizes from a size 8 to a size 24 (english sizes) and we happily enjoy images of women of all shapes and sizes- to him its all about the attitude, how happy/interesting/challenging/fun she looks, how much care she takes of herself (no, not frilly dresses and makeup- basic cleanliness and pride in her own appearance). “preferred types” don’t exist for most men I’ve met and of those I have met the only ones who rate this preference over the woman’s personality are very insecure men indeed. (I’m not generalising all men here, but that’s just the guys I know).

  47. W. Kiernan
    June 22, 2007 at 6:44 am

    Stupid yogurt dudes! Jesus, I wonder what rose petals taste like?

    What is it men in women do require?
    The lineaments of gratified desire.

  48. David Thompson
    June 22, 2007 at 6:49 am

    You should feel a whole lot worse than weird.

    I hope you feel better.

  49. June 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

    I think that the models they’ve used are very attractive and so the ad ultimately fails on me, but must every body image thread including photos necessarily go into “Nuh-uh–skinny chicks are the gross! We want to objectify and consume large women! They’re totally spank-worthy! Yeah!” ?

  50. David Thompson
    June 22, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Seriously, there’ nothing wrong with personally finding some particular level of skinny or fat attractive, whatever that level may be.

    I think it is wrong. We have no say in the character of the shell we’re born into, and I can’t accept that it’s okay to select or reject someone for something that they had no choice in.

  51. June 22, 2007 at 9:04 am

    It would probably be more accurate to dial down my rhetoric to “obnoxious and silly” and say that I am revolted by obnoxious and silly images of fat women being valorized, just because they also make the women in them look fuckable, which is the Holy Grail. Fat women are supposed to be so happy to look fuckable that they don’t give a shit whether they look adult or non-ridiculous, too.

    I’ve seen this discussed on a few blogs, and I’m so glad to hear someone finally say something about it other than how hot she looks.

    The other thing is, of course, she’s very beautiful. And she’s also been airbrushed so much that the outline of her body is actually fuzzy and her skin is perfect and she has no cellulite whatsoever. Despite not being skinny, she still looks nothing like a real woman. Even were it not for the tagline, I don’t think these images are really a victory for anyone.

    So, these are photoshop-like manipulations of images, and not restaging of photographs with full-figured models? My understanding when I saw this at Shakesville was the latter, and I really felt for the models — they couldn’t possibly have been told prior to the shoot that their figures were meant to be sources of shame or ridicule. If it’s just digital manipulation it makes it a smidgen less evil (though still terrible).

    Karla, either way, I’d be willing to bet that the models posed willingly. Whether they were staged or photoshopped, the woman obviously had to pose in those positions and it would in any case be illegal to use them for advertising without their consent.

  52. car
    June 22, 2007 at 9:07 am

    Oh, Brown Cow is awesome. I discovered it when I was looking for whole-fat yogurt for my toddlers. I know you were looking for plain, but the maple flavor is heaven on earth.

  53. Torri
    June 22, 2007 at 9:30 am

    You know, I can’t see Clooney in that pose. It’s that testosterone thing all over again. Orlando Bloom? Maybe.

    I imagined Bloom and it was adorably cute… then it went to Johnny Depp in his Captain Jack get up which sent me into a fit of giggles and now the whole male cast of Pirates of the Caribbean is flashing through my head in that pose….
    I’m going to be giggling for a while now…

  54. June 22, 2007 at 9:50 am

    I think it is wrong. We have no say in the character of the shell we’re born into, and I can’t accept that it’s okay to select or reject someone for something that they had no choice in.

    For sex???? It’s OK for me personally to reject someone for sex for any reason whatsoever, including ones that are beyond the person’s control, or shallow, or false, or really dumb of me, or even wrong-headed and bigoted. Because, as long as I feel that way, the only available alternative is me accepting someone for sex while still feeling all those things about them, and that has to be worse. Better I be shallow or wrong-headed or prejudiced in the one way than outright cruel in the other. Plus, sex isn’t exactly an entitlement.

    On the other hand, it may sometimes be possible to think about why one finds certain things attractive, and maybe even broaden the set of what one finds physically attractive.

  55. Frumious B
    June 22, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Fat Mena Suvari is hot. Skinny Mena Suvari is also hot, but damn, fat Mena Suvari is hot. Maybe they meant that if I eat enough yoghurt I’ll bulk up to look like her?

  56. Erika
    June 22, 2007 at 9:58 am

    The images aren’t Photoshopped. They are staged images from movies with heavier models substituting for the thinner originals.

    Despite the fact that the ads are hawking a diet yogurt,* I think the tagline is more damning of men than insulting of heavy women. The message is: look at these beautiful sexy women…oh, well, men are too stupid to appreciate them.

    *It may be low-fat, but I bet it’s loaded with sugar or high fructose corn syrup.

  57. Frumious B
    June 22, 2007 at 10:02 am

    Now can someone, anyone, please point out that the Trojans “pig men” ad is just as offensive?

    1. Do you read this blog? Or just come here for the naked pictures?

    2. Yeah, something you carry is totally like something you are.

  58. lou
    June 22, 2007 at 10:13 am

    WHERE THE HELL CAN I FIND WHOLE FAT PLAIN YOGURT??

    farmer’s market. That’s where I get mine.

    I don’t find the pose demeaning. She looks as though she’s confident and having fun, “ya want to join me? If not, I’m still having a great time” kind of fun. Not, “I’m yours, only yours,come get me” type of thing.

  59. Thomas
    June 22, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Since people are debating Marilyn Monroe’s comparitive adiposity:
    Red Velvet shot here.

  60. Ugly In Pink
    June 22, 2007 at 10:45 am

    Stonyfield Farm also makes a good whole milk yogurt w/cream on top. You can usually find it at Whole Foods.

  61. Thingy
    June 22, 2007 at 10:50 am

    “I think it is wrong. We have no say in the character of the shell we’re born into, and I can’t accept that it’s okay to select or reject someone for something that they had no choice in.”

    So it’s wrong for, say, a lesbian to reject a man just because she doesn’t find his gender attractive? After all, he didn’t really have much choice in the matter.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t think your argument makes much sense.

  62. Jessica
    June 22, 2007 at 10:52 am

    What is wrong with having personal preferences about the type of person you are attracted to? To me, personal preferences are vastly different from categorizing all fat women as “gross” or all skinny women as “sickly,” or, alternatively, all hairy men as “ugly” (as an example). While I agree that it’s certainly meaningful to try to understand why we are attracted to particular body types, given the influence of mainstream media in what is considered the feminine (or masculine) ideal, it doesn’t make sense to me to be attracted to someone because it’s the ‘enlightened’ thing to do. That’s BS.

    Nevertheless, I agree with the argument that sophonisba made – just because men (or women) respond to these ads by remarking “she’s hot, I’m attracted to her” doesn’t, in my mind, make-it-all-better. I don’t care who finds women my size fuckable. What I do care about, however, is how women my size are used as a universal symbol for unattractiveness, or as a ‘horror story’ for all those other women out there who don’t want to end up like me. Fuck that noise. The fact that this marketing strategy is acceptable is much more of a problem in my eyes than whether or not there are men who find these women attractive. Like one commenter mentioned, they’re photoshopped perfect, and fat or not, still represent, to some extent, dominant notions of the feminine ideal (whether you recognize that they’re filmic representations or not…but honestly, think about those movie characters and what they represent). And that’s a bunch of bullshit.

    It’s a no-win situation. How uplifting.

  63. June 22, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Thomas — Google tells me that photo was taken in May 1949, when Monroe was 22 years old and pretty much unknown. She wasn’t that skinny at the height of her fame.

  64. June 22, 2007 at 10:53 am

    I get the Liberte yogurt: http://www.liberte.qc.ca/en/page.ch2?uid=Yogurt

    It’s 2% milkfat, but it has the cream on top, which is what I love about the whole fat stuff. And the plain flavor is really great. For whatever reason, I never see the plain Brown Cow yogurt–maybe my store just doesn’t carry it?

  65. Autumn Harvest
    June 22, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Seriously, there’ nothing wrong with personally finding some particular level of skinny or fat attractive, whatever that level may be.

    I think it is wrong. We have no say in the character of the shell we’re born into, and I can’t accept that it’s okay to select or reject someone for something that they had no choice in.

    I’m not totally sure if you’re serious or not. This doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. I mean, I want my partner to be intelligent, and that’s also something they have no choice in.

    On an unrelated note, I don’t think a major company would ever run this ad in the U.S. It seems too overtly fat-bashing, even for our advertising industry. Although I’m not sure; perhaps that’s just wishful thinking. These ads flash me back to the Dove “Campaign for Real Beauty,” where they picked conventionally attractive women who were slightly less skinny than the average supermodel, and trumpeted them as examples of how “normal” women could be beautiful too.

  66. hp
    June 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

    Oh, Brown Cow is awesome. I discovered it when I was looking for whole-fat yogurt for my toddlers. I know you were looking for plain, but the maple flavor is heaven on earth.

    I’m looking for a yogurt not overloaded with sugar/HFCS the way that most of the commercial brands are now. There’s so much simple sugar in them that they give me a headache and make my mouth itch.

    Unfortunately, no Whole Foods around here–the closest one is almost a 50 minute drive. Looking at Brown Cow’s web site, though, I wonder if Dominick’s (Safeway) or the Jewel (Albertson’s) might carry it. Although I’ve found that just because it’s carried at the parent company doesn’t say anything about whether Dominick’s or Jewel is going to have it.

    I tend to shop at Woodman’s, which is really really good about carrying some specialty food (cheese OMG the cheese!) and really bad about carrying others (like yogurt).

  67. Thomas
    June 22, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Brooklynite, that’s right. The “red velvet set” was originally anonymous, and she became famous before people realized that it was her, and IIRC it was something of a sensation when her name was attached to those photos, at or about the time they were published in the first issue of Playboy.

    At 22, she was neither as skinny as Mena Suvari, nor as curvy as the woman shot in the restaging of that photo (or of the Marilyn restaging).

    Certainly, Marilyn Monroe walked around with more bodyfat than the celebrity press would tolerate now, and probably more later than when she was 22. This is, I think, later, and I think she’s a little softer.

    I think there are better examples of women from the mid-20th century who are famous for their beauty and much more voluptuous than the images we’re fed today; most notably Jayne Mansfield.

    I think I probably shouldn’t have put up the Marilyn link without comment, because on this topic nothing speaks for itself. Marilyn Monroe was a small, thin woman; yet the culture regularly now demands that women famous for their beauty be much thinner than her. Mamie Van Doren, Jane Russell and Jayne Mansfield were thin women with unusually large breasts, and yet they are looked at today as examples of plus-sized women. they weren’t. Women at thin as them are thin women. The standards of the culture have moved to a realm that it absurd and unhealthy. (Of course, there’s no winning with beauty standards. Keira Knightly’s build is very slender, and I believe that at least in large part she’s naturally really thin — but she has said she’s self-concious about her body because her breasts are small. No winners in the Patriarchy game.)

    I welcome a trend where larger women with bodyfat distributions more typical of the real world are presented as attractive. I love the more voluptious restaging of the Suvari photo — in fact, I’d be a lot more interested in that model as a sex partner, expecially since the Suvari character was underage and the image played that up. Of course, the problem is that doing that will always to a certain extent do harm also — by presenting women as things for male sexual consumption. It is very tough, within the confines of the culture we have, to both present any woman as attractive and not also ratify the patriarchal conception of “woman” as “thing useful for male sexual gratification.” Unless we can decouple the concept of “beautiful” from “sexually attractive” … which is a set of issues all its own.

  68. Thomas
    June 22, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Please excuse the obvious typos.

  69. Paige
    June 22, 2007 at 11:41 am

    WHERE THE HELL CAN I FIND WHOLE FAT PLAIN YOGURT??

    At the grocery store (which happens to be, for me, Safeway or Costco).

  70. June 22, 2007 at 11:45 am

    I vote for Johnny Depp in the rose petal pose. And for Greek-style yoghurt.

  71. Ugly In Pink
    June 22, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    Most supermarkets will also order a product if you request it. I know Shaw’s generally will, unless it’s a really difficult product to get or massively out of line with what they usually carry. But whole milk plain yogurt shouldn’t be a problem.
    PS – add fresh blueberries.

  72. Flamethorn
    June 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Lynn, you made me visualize Johnny Depp covered in rose-petal yogurt. (Ew.)

  73. June 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    # Jim Says:
    June 22nd, 2007 at 2:05 am

    DEAR GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?!?!

    This post isn’t about the Trojan ad. You want to read blog comments about the Trojan ad, go look for a blog post on it.

  74. Bitter Scribe
    June 22, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    This whole thing reminds me of something that Kellogg Co. went through with Special K cereal about 9 or 10 years ago.

    After years of TV ads showing slinky women squeezing into tight outfits with the help of a Special K regimen, Kellogg announced, with much self-congratulatory fanfare, that they were getting away from that strategy because it was demeaning to women. They came out with a satirical commercial showing a bunch of men earnestly asking each other things like, “Does this make my butt look fat?” It was actually pretty funny and made the point perfectly.

    Well, I guess sales weren’t what they wanted, because after about a year, they were back to—yup—slinky women in tight outfits. Which is how Special K is being advertised to this day.

  75. Rose
    June 22, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    Lynn, you made me visualize Johnny Depp covered in rose-petal yogurt. (Ew.)

    Ew? I say YUM!

  76. Frumious B
    June 22, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    Fat women are supposed to be so happy to look fuckable that they don’t give a shit whether they look adult or non-ridiculous, too.

    Not that there aren’t issues unique to fat women, but you know, all women are supposed to be so happy to be fuckable that we don’t mind spending a lot of money on it and looking ridiculous.

  77. sophonisba
    June 22, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Not that there aren’t issues unique to fat women, but you know, all women are supposed to be so happy to be fuckable that we don’t mind spending a lot of money on it and looking ridiculous.

    Well yeah, I know! But feminists critique that shit right off the bat.

  78. sophonisba
    June 22, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    1.

    I’m a bad feminist, of course, but you know, I’m glad to be a bad feminist when I read things that basically imply that traditionally “feminine” poses are not OK

    2.

    I don’t want to imagine a man in that pose – ‘cause I like my men with a little bit of extra testosterone.

    Uhhhh. Someone is basically implying that traditionally “feminine” poses are not OK, and, um, it’s you.

  79. June 22, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    First, I am right there with you on the gut reaction. Firstly, that scene in American Beauty was totally hot. Secondly, the first two pictures turned me on immediately. And thirdly, I think it sucks donkey ass that they’re trying to use this to their advantage.

    To respond to whoever said “Imagine a guy in this pose,” Damn, that’s still hot. ^.^

  80. BabyGirl
    June 22, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Sorry, I skimmed most of these responses, but aside from the fact that women should not be concerning themselves solely with what men find attractive, since when do men NOT want curvaceous and even downright obese women? I am black and every black man I thinks the thicker the better! One of my good friends is a “chubby chaser.” My fiance loves my body even more now that I am pregnant and my ass is spreading and my tummy is bulging. Sorry, I just don’t buy “the skinnier the better” when it comes to attracting men. History (from Renaissance art to Marilyn Monroe) tells us differently as do our personal experiences. I went on a diet two years ago and lost 20 pounds. Every woman at my job kept telling me how amazing I looked and the guys all kept asking me if I was sick and when was I going to gain some weight back!

  81. ellenbrenna
    June 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Indeed compare the red velvet photo to the way she jiggles in say Some Like It Hot then maybe you have a discussion. Marilyn Monroe was a human being whose body varied over time and was always wicked sexy to boot.

  82. Thomas
    June 22, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    ellen, I have a response to Brooklynite stuck in mod for the last four hours with a link to Marilyn later and a little heavier — I agree that she was skinnier at 22 than at the height of her fame. But she was always, IMO, a relatively thin woman — as were Mansfield and Van Doren. The fact that the standard for celebrities and for MSM acclimations of beauty is so much thinner now than these relatively thin women is very distressing. I welcome a much more open window for body types to be presented as attractive (not least because I myself like larger women; my sex partners have ranged from double-digits to probably over 300 lbs).

  83. Rose
    June 22, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    I have idolized Marilyn Monroe since I was a child. I think she was the most beautiful woman who ever lived. Her lush curves varied from slimmer to heavier during her career. But she was never super-skinny.

    There’s been debate over whether or not she was “too fat” for years. But her image still sells and specifically sells sex over 30 years after she died.

    That’s what makes these ads so disgusting. To suggest that thin has always been in is bullshit. To suggest that these women, particularly Rose Petal woman are unsexual, unattractive, and could never in the whole history of time been found beautiful and attractive is not only untrue, but verges on hateful. It certainly encourages women to hate their bodies – If the’re ugly, then what the hell am I? And if that wasn’t gross enough, to drag the all-time queen of lush, womanly curves, Marilyn into this? Oh the humanity!

    And for the sake of full disclosure, I’m hetro and married but I’m seriously girl crushin’ on Rose Petal woman – she is smokin’ hot!

  84. June 22, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Err, this is a Brazilian ad campaign … you’re not going to see these ads in the U.S.

    Err, ok…? Your point?

  85. June 22, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    This ad is incredibly offensive, and I presonally find many of the women quite attractive.

    Now can someone, anyone, please point out that the Trojans “pig men” ad is just as offensive? Men are not pigs, just as larger women are not objects of disgust.

    Thank you.

    Feel free to read the rest of this blog, where you will find a post linking to a HuffPo article I wrote, which said just that.

  86. Thomas Lau
    June 22, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Well to be absolutly honest, this add had a mixed reaction within me. My original thought was ‘Holy shit she is hot’ then I realized what the actual message was suppost to be.
    The idea that only skinny women are sexy is still kind of strange to me, that coming from a guy. I still don’t understand how a skinny woman is more attractive than a none-skinny (by whoever’s standard) woman.
    Since I am a guy I can not really determine this myself, but from a biological (natural) standard isn’t she in a perfect figure? And if yes, wouldn’t that kind of imply she is then theoretically more healthy than a skinny woman?
    Someone please explain the difference to me.

  87. Myca
    June 22, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Every comment thread about the ad campaign is just page after page of men chiming in to tell us they’d fuck that. And we — fat women — are meant to be grateful and appreciative. Because dignity in representation is for thin women. For us, fuckability is already more than we deserve, so we don’t get to object to degrading poses. Because hey, how can it be degrading when all these men are telling us they’d fuck that?

    I don’t really agree. Most of the threads I’ve seen on this have had page after page of men (and women, actually) chiming in not to say “I’d fuck that” but to say, “wow, these women are really attractive.”

    Which seems relevant, since the point of the ads was that men wouldn’t find these women attractive.

    I do find them attractive (since they’re freaking beautiful), and it’s not an issue of “so you should sure be grateful,” but one of, “the yogurt company is talking out of their collective asses.”

    —Myca

  88. June 22, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Uhhhh. Someone is basically implying that traditionally “feminine” poses are not OK, and, um, it’s you.

    Nope. What I am saying is when I look at posed photography, what I find attractive about women isn’t usually what I find attractive about men.

  89. Rose
    June 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Thomas,

    You make an interesting point that from a Darwinian, survival of the species perspective, pushing women to be the standard of thin that’s being pushed as “beautiful” today, is to push them toward being infertile. At some point, if you stop carrying body fat, you’ll stop getting periods.

    The push to make people thin has little to nothing to do with health. I’m 5’1 and my weight has ranged from 98 – 170 lbs in the past 25 years. It’s only now at the age of 37, that I’m starting to understand that I’ve lived a eating disordered life. I wish I could tell every young woman who’s about to descend into a lifetime hell of semi-starvation/binging that she should let her young body develop into a healthy one that can (if she chooses) bear children later in life.

    If I did have a teenage daughter I’d hold her in my arms and tell her that I loved her no matter what size she ways and that loving herself, including the body she lives in is the HEALTHIEST choice a young woman can make. If there are any mothers of young women on this board, I sure I hope you’ve made that clear to your children.

  90. togolosh
    June 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    I’m quite sad that this campaign won’t be run in the USA. The location of the tag line and the yogurt cup image are just perfect for a little midnight editing. Not that I would ever, in any way, condone vandalism, mind you. But a little pro bono assistance with the design – who could object?

  91. Beylita
    June 22, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    I agree, I think Alex did mean the faux-Mena (who in my opinion, is a lot more attractive and appealing than the actual Mena image).

    I think it’s worth noting that with the set up and makeup and cgi involved the image in the film isn’t all that real either.

  92. June 22, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    If I knew how to upload to you, I’d send you a diet ad I pulled off the web a couple of years ago.

    The “female” torso (you can tell it is female because it is wearing pink and a half naked male torso has its hands on her waist) — the female torso has **no tits whatsoever**. It is so skinny that this person is FLAT.

    Whoever designed the ad was one sick bstrd.

    Give me rose petals. Screw this bony sht.

  93. June 22, 2007 at 5:43 pm

    Scorpio, get yourself a free photo-hosting account (Flickr, Photobucket, Google-Picasa etc) and upload your photo there, then you can post the link anywhere you like.

  94. David Thompson
    June 22, 2007 at 5:45 pm

    then ask yourself why you get attracted to thin long-limbed women.

    I honestly don’t know. Best guess I can come up with is some desire for interpersonal symmetry.

  95. David Thompson
    June 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    For sex???? It’s OK for me personally to reject someone for sex for any reason whatsoever, including ones that are beyond the person’s control, or shallow, or false, or really dumb of me, or even wrong-headed and bigoted.

    Huh. I was talking about liking people, not swapping STDs with them.

  96. lou
    June 22, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Here’s Marilyn Monroe’s stats:
    Height: 5 feet 5 1/2 inches
    Weight: Varied, 115 – 120 lbs.
    Measurements: 37-23-36 (Studio’s Claim); 35-22-35 (Dressmaker’s Claim)
    Hair color: Blond
    Eyes: Blue

    So while by no means zaftig, she would be considered too heavy by Hollywood standards today. Liv Tyler, who is 5’8″, was told to slim down when she got up to 128.
    I’m sure MM would have been told she needed to be no more than 105, if not less.

  97. June 22, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Everyone’s entitled to their aesthetic “type.” Nobody has a right to sexual desire from anyone else.

    I’m fascinated by the long-legged skinny boys. For whatever reason, the toned jocks never turned my crank. Luckily, I found myself a life partner who likes short, pale women like me.

    To each their own.

  98. June 22, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    I wonder what rose petals taste like?

    Rose petals are actually quite tasty. Rose petal yoghurt might be good, if one finds yoghurt good. One of my favourite condiments ever was an old friend’s rose petal jam. It smelled like nothing you ever wanted to eat, and tasted like you’d died and gone to a very nice place. So you folks can, actually, complete your fantasies of eating the rose petals right off the voluptuous model (I’ve BTDT already).

    There aren’t any winners in the Patriarchy Game, as someone said up there, including those dumbshits who made the ads. I’d say they’re practically the dictionary definition of “losers.”

  99. June 22, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    Once again,stupid has triumphed over commerce.

  100. June 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm

    What’s interesting is that her dressmaker’s claim came in below the studio’s claim.

    Obviously, both are interested parties who can’t be relied on.

    OTOH, the trend in the discrepancy says interesting things about cultural norms.

    If today’s equivalent of a a studio star really had a “35-22-35” star, there’s no way her people would misrepresent her as a “37-23-36.”

    I’ve read several stories about how J-Lo wants a “size-2” stiched into her clothes when she’s really (gasp!) a size 6. I’ve never heard of one of today’s stars contesting a claim of how thin they are.

  101. June 22, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    So, going by the studios claim, MM was actually not that far from my size, but, unlike me, somehow managed to have breasts that were bigger than her hips. (And also a somewhat skinnier waist.)

  102. Patty
    June 24, 2007 at 1:47 am

    The enlightened, responsible thing to do these days is to be attracted to larger, mildly obese women, but I’m simply not.

    The problem is that these ads are directed towards women. Few (if any) ad campaigns are targetting plus size men in order to make them hate their bodies and buy their useless products. That’s the problem. It’s unfair that men’s bodies aren’t subject to the same kind of nonsense.

    These ads are, on some level, an aggressive campaign against all women because of the inequity of how these things play themselves out and the underlying message that a woman’s fuckability is supposed to take precedence over every other aspect of who she is. In other words, if our looks do not meet certain standards, then we are not worthy of praise or love.

    Who you are attracted to may be important to you but I don’t think it’s a significant aspect of this discourse. I don’t think who you find attractive should even keep you from understanding what this is about.

  103. June 25, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Thanks for posting this, Jill. I saw it just now.

Comments are closed.