WTF? A fucking PIG in heels!

For the record, I hate, loath and despise 'Men’s" and “Women’s” magazines. Cosmo, Glamor, FHM and Stuff, all these rags can just rot on the selves. ( I have a little game I play at the news stand: Look at the Men’s mags teaser titles, then look at the women’s. They tend to complement each other. “How to get her to do your naked bidding in bed.” vs. “How to find out what he really wants”)

Details gets special little corner of Hell, and my first Pit post.

They had an article on “Why Fat is back in Hollywood.” The article has a pig in heels. Fucking Hell! Any woman over a size zero must be a porker. :rolleyes: The author describedScarlett Johansson as “lush.” Does this woman look obese to you? Does she deserve to be connected the image of a farm animal in drag?

Fuck you Details! Your article and your slide show of “the sexiest plate-scrapers ever” are a spit in the face of millions of women.

Without having seen the magazine, it sounds like they’re just trying to say the tide is turning. Johannson is a completely different body style than what has been popular for the last five years or so. I’ll bet she easily outweighs other actresses of her height and bone structure by 20-30 lbs. I think the pig was just a humorous attempt at illustrating that. Not a statement to say she’s fat. I can relate. I’ve gained 30 lbs and have only gone up from a size 0 to a size 2. While I look completely different, no one would consider me “fat.”

You have a good point. The magazine could have picked an image that is a little less loaded. I’m all for a wider (no pun intended) range of body types in the popular media.

Also, I’m a size ten. While I’m not obese by any means, I have heard the “You’d look so much better if you lost 20 pounds” line. Looking at actresses with impossible bodies. Watching my guy friends and spouse salivate over these women. It gets very, very old. The magazine seems to be re-enforcing the “slim is in” line with their picture while supporting “curvy” women. :dubious:

Plenty of magazine nowdays try to make a nod to curvy women, and try to make it appear as if they’re really not obsessed only with the size 0 women of the world.

Problem is, for most of these idiotic publications, their idea of what constitutes curvy tends to stop at about size 2, maybe a 4. What’s even more amusing (if by amusing, you mean hypocritical and moronic) is that they then have the gall to publish “shock! horror!” stories about how skinny Nicole Richie or that Olsen twin is. As if the magaziones’ constant obsession with thinness has absolutely nothing to do with women’s body image.

There seems to be a disconnect between the content of the article and the image and headline associated with it. The article does not deride “curvy” or “lush” women, and seems to positively note their increase in prominence recently. They also quote Mae West and refer to her positively as a sex symbol.

I’m thinking we may have a case where an editor skimmed an article and assigned an inappropriate headline/picture to go along with it. In magazine houses the headlines and photos are selected for maximum impact, not absolutely accurate reflections of the article content.

I think the most famous was the article which launched the Y2K scare. The author had not raised the spectre of airplanes falling out of the sky, or massive food shortages, but the editor sensationalized the article and headline. The author acknowledged the far-flung possibility of such things, and the editor ran with it.

Enjoy,
Steven

So, should I curse the editor for the “the sexiest plate-scrapers ever” slide show?

Thank for the info Mtgman. :slight_smile: I didn’t realize that the publication process was broken up like that. (I work in bio-med research. When we submit something for publication, we provide our own images.)

Yep, I was in the mag-biz for 20-some years, and every five years or so they’ll all do stories on how it’s OK to be a lush, zaftig size 4 instead of a size 2. Then in the next issue they’ll do a story on the obesity epidemic, complete with diet tips.

Has anyone else noticed that these stupid “baby bump” pictures are usually just a picture of someone with a relatively flat stomach with a slight curve. Oh my god!!! An actress with a curve to her belly! She MUST be pregnant! You can’t see her pelvic bones sticking out!

Not to be sexist, but I think the decision to go with that pic is 100% female from beginning to end. (see author & photographer) Beyond this Details is a magazine with a large (possibly pre-dominant) contingent of gay male editors, writers & contributors.

I don’t think any heterosexual man came within breathing distance of the decisions that went into that article. Blaming hetero men in any way, shape or form for the attitudes & photo for that article is IMO, unfair & mis-leading.

bylines & attributions

From where I stand, the problem is both ends of the spectrum. We DO have an obesity problem in this country. And we DO put too much emphasis on being very thin. The average folk in the middle tend to go unnoticed by the media, but it isn’t because we’re inventing the extremes of the spectrum. They’re both very real.

Do you have a guilty conscience? Are you a bit paranoid? A bit oversensitive? Or just a bit thick?

Not once did the OP blame “hetero men” for these images of women. She blamed the magazines and the people who worked for them, as well as the more general culture that perceives any woman over a size 4 as somehow porky.

Just because a woman does it, or a gay man, doesn’t make it any less stupid. And just because a hetero man didn’t make that particular editorial decision doesn’t mean that hetero men are somehow absolved of responsibility for the cult of body image that is so prevalent in American society.

By the way, starting off a post with “Not to be sexist, but…” is generally not the best way to demonstrate your lack of sexism. Did you know that some of my best friends are Jews? :rolleyes:

Absolutely.

But we don’t need to make the obesity problem seem worse than it is by implying that women (or men, for that matter) with perfectly healthy physiques are somehow ugly and porky just because they can’t fit into a size 2, or a 28" waist.

When I read the thread title, I thought, “Oh, Courtney Love must have another court date.”

Bolding mine.

Hmmmm…d’ya think there could possibly be a CONNECTION between the two? The media force feeding women with the idea that body image should equal self image?

That pig in heels is hot hot hot!

Aw, fuck off, Sam…what did that cute little piglet do to deserve being compared with Courtney Love?!
:stuck_out_tongue:

What kind of <check forum> fuckwit tells a lady that she’d look better if she did something? That’s just fucking wrong. Tell the wanker to piss off. (single exception - “baby, you’d look better without so many clothes on”)
Of course, I’ve NO idea what “size ten” means, and frankly I don’t want to know
Second, I drool over scrawny chicks mainly because there are so few scantily clad curvy chicks around. I can’t imagine they’re very cuddly. And they probably are rather fragile.

Third, I’m fairly sure that someone is about to smack me for at least one of those comments.

Who are these weak-minded women who base their body image on what’s in popular magazines? Do they need smelling salts, too? C’mon. :dubious:

That’s a pretty petite pig, in any case.

If you think it’s confined to magazines, might i suggest you leave your basement once in a while and take a walk in the real world.

You skinny minnie! I’m jealous! 30 pounds and you’re a 2? Wow. Lucky, lucky you. I’ve been struggling between an 8 and a 10 for two years now. I don’t really care, and I never weigh myself anymore.

Have you forgiven me yet, please?