Ah, the glories of fashion. The beauteous rapture that is celebrity.
The very beautiful and talented Renee Zellweger has been denied her previously scheduled cover appearance on Harper’s Bazaar.
According to Harper’s, “she looked very uncomfortable, and as a result, it didn’t make for an inviting cover.”
According to the New York Daily News and Zellweger’s spokesperson, however, she was dropped because she has gained several pounds for an upcoming film role.
If the latter version is true, and I suspect very strongly that it is, I would like nothing more than to line up the entire administrative staff of Harper’s facing a wall with their buttocks painted bright red and release Jim-Jim and Precious, a pair of sexually frustrated baboons, to have their way with them anally.
Jim-Jim and Precious! Oh shit, that’s funny! I’m right there with ya, brother. I’ll be the one prodding the baboons to get 'em riled, saying, “Who wants shallow fashion editor ass? Jim-Jim does! Yes he does!”
Andros, have I told you lately that I love you?
And that there’s no one else above you?
The horror, the HORROR! A talented and beautiful actress who is getting rave reviews for a major new film has the gall to look a little too fucking normal. Of course the woman looked “uncomfortable” - she was probably surrounded by harpies with the physique of garden rakes making snide comments for the entire shoot.
She should clearly be banned from magazine covers until she’s spent some time in the Fashion Victims Concentration camp, where the nutrients in mineral water are considered sufficient for survival and all actual calories come from champagne and vodka tonics. Once a week you get a rice cake and a small leaf of lettuce. If you are caught sneaking food, your bare ass is beaten with a spiked Manolo Blahnik. Consumption of protein is punished by a week in The Hole.
Excuse me for being the voice of reason in the pit…
I hold those who publicly advocate violence, however disingeously couched as hyperbolic “humor”, more reprehensible and grotesque than people who hold different opinions about beauty. It is perhaps over-obvious to point out that Harper’s is in the business of selling magazines. If people did not prefer to see rail-thin models, they would not purchase the magazine by the millions. As a corollary, if Harper’s displayed a different sort of model, they wouldn’t sell the magazine.
It would seem more appropriate to hold ridiculous the display of an unnatural physique as a paragon of beauty and to urge people to recognize that their purchase reinforces that stereotype. But perpetuating an attitude that violence towards those with whom you disagree is acceptable, humorous and attractive seems more damaging than perpetuating an attitude of a particular vision of beauty, however unrealistic. In short, you are committing the same “sin” that you accuse the magazine of, but in a more damaging and contemptible manner.
Here’s an admittedly farfetched possibility: maybe Harper’s was telling the truth. After all, an uncomfortable looking cover model would probably have a negative effect on sales. If they did bump her because of her weight, then fuck them. That’s horribly superficial.
I understand why you’d want to believe that. After all, you’re a guy (I’m assuming), and you don’t want to look at some broad that looks like someone’s about to stab her in the eye. However, that magazine is geared towards women, so evidently they don’t include that amongst their standards. I’ve stood on line in many a supermarket with my best friend, and had conversations such as: “Heh heh - look at Elizabeth Hurley… Someone must be breaking her finger,” or “Ha ha ha - is it me, or is Jennifer Love Hewitt being grabbed by the back of her neck?” Looking “uncomfortable” is not an issue with those magazines. Look at them sometime (and I mean look at their faces, not their racks). A vast majority of the cover models look uncomfortable. Hell, many of them look bitter or miserable. That has NO effect on the illusion they’re selling.
If those magazines wanted women to be happy, they’d feature average-sized women wearing flattering clothing. Their articles would be about things like, “How to look halfway decent when you have to go to a wedding,” or “Ten Reasons You Should Not Keep Dating the Guy Whose Last Girlfriend Insists He’s a Stalker,” or “Quiz: How to Know if You’re Getting Screwed on Child Support.”
Other features would include, “How to Make Sure You’re in a Good Mental State,” “Reasons You Don’t Need to Worry About Your Hair, Makeup, or Weight,” and “How to Exercise Sensibly.”
Let’s all just take a deep breath and accept that “Women’s Magazines” are nothing but a detriment to women. They do not attempt to help women. They only care to make women more dedicated consumers.
The day Cosmo is concerned about the average woman’s well-being is the day Mark Serlin realizes douching is not beneficial. It’s not going to happen.
Expecting philosophical depth from a fashion/glamour magazine shows the same exceptional naivete as expecting generosity from a bank or efficient flexibility from a government institution. These magazines exist to satisfy a desire; so long as the desire exists, so will the magazines. True, they promote an ideal of beauty that appears ridiculously unrealistic. But they do no one injury. Each person has the freedom to hold the attitudes and desires he or she chooses. Should the ideals these magazines display become unpopular, they would instantly change. It is foolish and useless to expect or demand that the media to shape our desires. If a person allows others to dictate his or her opinions, attitudes and desires, that person is a slave, regardless of the benevolence, malice or indifference of the master.
It is interesting to observe that the level of satisfaction regarding romantic relationships, both among men and women, is far more strongly correlated to the absence or presence of neurotic attitudes (including obsessive vanity) than to physical attractiveness. In other words, ugly happy people have better relationships than cute unhappy people.
Second, to hold in contempt or ridicule attitudes and views with which you disagree is entirely legitimate. I happen to share the sense of ridicule. I am not moved, however, to a great degree of indignation; many far worse offenses exist to occupy that mode of thought. But to fantasize grotesque violence shows a depravity which exceeds their own.
Since the parties that I attend never involve sharing fantasies of violence, my attitudes in this matter are entirely irrelevant in such a context. Apparently, the parties you attend differ significantly in this regard. Then again, none of my friends seem in need of extra sheets; one suspects that again in this matter your experience may differ. Or perhaps I misinterpret your remark: You may refer instead to my manner of speech. If so, I find it amusing to contemplate the obvious irony of such an attitude in this particular thread.
Valerieblaise, I find your suggestions for a magazine interesting. I urge you to start such a publication. It might very well contribute to the dissemination and popularity of attitudes we all would agree upon.
Mr. Malik, in part you are correct. While saying that violence never solves anything is clearly a falsehood, as I’m sure you’ll agree, you are quite right that advocating violence, in however a hyperbolized way, is intrinsically negative.
Nevertheless, I watch Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Personally, I see a big difference between a clearly exaggerated, obviously unrealistic, humorous intimation of violence and any real advocacy of violence, harm, or danger. I’m sorry you were offended, and I hope you are taking your zeal into the world to struggle against television, film, music, sport, and the print media.
One disagreement, though. You said:
I simply do not see your point here. It’s a completely different “sin,” as near as I can tell. And I completely disagree that my discussion of Jim-Jim and Precious is any more damaging or comtemptible that the hypothetical victims of their lusts.
And that, I imagine, will remain a point of contention, although I am very interested in hearing your reasoning.
Imagine that everywhere you went you were surrounded by images of people jumping off cliffs. To jump off a cliff is the cultural ideal. The coolest people jump off cliffs, and those who don’t jump off a cliff are second-class citizens.
With that kind of cultural pervasiveness, knowing intellectually the dangers of jumping off a cliff is not enough for most people to overcome the idea that they really might be worthless for being a non-cliff jumper.
Now, I don’t in any way blame “the media.” I blame people–the ones who sell cliffjumping and the ones who buy it.
May one ask how you got that title. I don’t know why, but I always get nervous when people present themselves as the voice of reason - it’s one step up from claiming to “speak for the people”.
