4: Sorry, that's bullshit. If you want to talk about how attractive women who are slim, but not actually starved, are without sending a message about how ashamed all non-emaciated women should be about their bodies, don't open it with a picture of a sow in heels.
God, I hate Pandagon. The headline and tagline about "fat" and "plate scrapers" is pretty stupid, but the article itself is quite reasonable. Just about all the women pictured are meaty by Hollywood standards, and there's no question that the writer thinks they look better for it.
I'm undecided about the pig in heels picture. It could be as stupid as the headline, but the juxtaposition of the pig with all the subsequent hotties could be a way to subvert the Hollywood notion that they're fat. I'm sure this possibility will be dismissed out of hand by the outraged.
Ahem. I would gladly lust (and enthusiastically!) after any of the pictured women, if only Hollywood were not trying to make me do so. Fuckin Hollywood -- I want the autonomy of my own perverted daydreams!
Dude, Details is calling them 'platescrapers', and opening the slideshow with an unexplained pig. The women in those pictures are not anywhere close to overweight. Really. They aren't fat but attractive despite it, they're slim, just not starved.
That's not about subverting the notion that they're fat. It's about the magazine excusing itself for publishing pictures of women who aren't emaciated by making it clear that the writer knows they're fat, but has a perverted taste for them anyway.
Whatever you think of Pandagon, the Details article is sick.
excusing itself for publishing pictures of women who aren't emaciated by making it clear that the writer knows they're fat, but has a perverted taste for them anyway
I just don't see that at all. (And the writer's a woman, no?)
True, I'd missed that, but she's writing for a male audience.
Look, I'm terrible with actresses, so I have no idea who the woman in the orange dress is, but she's fucking skinny. She's not hipless, but she's little and has a perfectly flat stomach -- there's not an ounce of flab on her. In a world where it makes sense to illustrate a woman who looks like her with a pig, and a headline making fun of how much she must eat, emaciation is clearly the only acceptable norm.
I might be unusual in this regard, but I actually prefer women who have bodies substantial enough to keep them alive for the long-haul.
This is not at all to deny the plain fact there is something deeply sexy about a jaundiced skeleton whose breath reeks of her own rotting flesh.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:17 PM
Guys?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:19 PM
It's probably past bedtime where dsquared is, so I will take it upon myself to observe that Details is for poofs anyway.
Posted by Felix | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:20 PM
That details article basically makes the same argument as the first paragraph of Adam's comment. They just used a stupid picture.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:26 PM
Not that any of this is a huge deal, but it was just a moment of 'Yes, this is exactly why we're all insane.'
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:26 PM
4: Sorry, that's bullshit. If you want to talk about how attractive women who are slim, but not actually starved, are without sending a message about how ashamed all non-emaciated women should be about their bodies, don't open it with a picture of a sow in heels.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:28 PM
In context, that stupid picture basically makes the same argument as Felix's comment.
Posted by jmcq | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:29 PM
God, I hate Pandagon. The headline and tagline about "fat" and "plate scrapers" is pretty stupid, but the article itself is quite reasonable. Just about all the women pictured are meaty by Hollywood standards, and there's no question that the writer thinks they look better for it.
I'm undecided about the pig in heels picture. It could be as stupid as the headline, but the juxtaposition of the pig with all the subsequent hotties could be a way to subvert the Hollywood notion that they're fat. I'm sure this possibility will be dismissed out of hand by the outraged.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:30 PM
Ahem. I would gladly lust (and enthusiastically!) after any of the pictured women, if only Hollywood were not trying to make me do so. Fuckin Hollywood -- I want the autonomy of my own perverted daydreams!
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:31 PM
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "If that's a pig, I love pigs...."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:32 PM
Dude, Details is calling them 'platescrapers', and opening the slideshow with an unexplained pig. The women in those pictures are not anywhere close to overweight. Really. They aren't fat but attractive despite it, they're slim, just not starved.
That's not about subverting the notion that they're fat. It's about the magazine excusing itself for publishing pictures of women who aren't emaciated by making it clear that the writer knows they're fat, but has a perverted taste for them anyway.
Whatever you think of Pandagon, the Details article is sick.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:36 PM
I don't approve of the pig. Or the Jane Russell picture: where'd they get that one, anyway, and why didn't they use a better one.
Posted by CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:37 PM
excusing itself for publishing pictures of women who aren't emaciated by making it clear that the writer knows they're fat, but has a perverted taste for them anyway
I just don't see that at all. (And the writer's a woman, no?)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:42 PM
(And the writer's a woman, no?)
True, I'd missed that, but she's writing for a male audience.
Look, I'm terrible with actresses, so I have no idea who the woman in the orange dress is, but she's fucking skinny. She's not hipless, but she's little and has a perfectly flat stomach -- there's not an ounce of flab on her. In a world where it makes sense to illustrate a woman who looks like her with a pig, and a headline making fun of how much she must eat, emaciation is clearly the only acceptable norm.
That's completely, but completely fucked up.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-15-06 5:48 PM