God, I hate him. I hate him I hate him I hate him. I hate him I hate him I hate him I hate him I hate him.
I thought we were done playing to the ultra-freaky Jesus-speaks-to-me-from-my-breakfast-spoon types. I thought even George had admitted that we don't give a fuck what the voices inside people's heads tell them. Alas.
The chief of family planning thinks that contraception is degrading to women. Oy.
The chief of family planning also thinks that having too much sex uses up your lifetime oxytocin supplies and leaves you incapable of love.
(Lump of oxytocin fallacy?)
If your strategy has been rally the base, there seems to be no turning back. What support would he have if he did anything else? Everything he's said since the election, including that absurd quote from Vietnam that's being widely reported, seems comprehensible to me only from that standpoint: he's rallying the base more furiously than ever now. So that statements and acts that seem to me like nonsense are what the base, or a big part of it, wants and needs to hear.
Jesus-speaks-to-me-from-my-breakfast-spoon
Thank for making me laugh, AWB. Can't we please impeach this asshole? Pleeeeze?
As darkness fell and the polls were closing on election night, I was in the car heading out to a polling station, and I heard an observer of the evangelical scene interviewed on the local radio about why, at least in our area, evangelical turnout didn't seem to have been energized. The first and most important part of his answer was "George W. Bush was not on the ballot."
I've learned that he speaks for and to this minority like no other politician, certainly no president ever has. I wonder if they'll revere him, as a kind of saint, for years to come? I would guess yes.
George W. Bush has hurt Christianity more than any president in history. The kind of people he plays to are not believers in anything outside themselves. They just use religion to make every feeling they have divine. Shaftesbury calls this "enthusiasm" and explains quite clearly why it is not the same as religious belief.
I ban myself; that was obnoxious.
Wasn't obnoxious to me. Anger on behalf of a distorted religion is justified. I just look on in wonder.
That's not obnoxious. Or rather it's obnoxious, but it's the case. If Christ returned and said, 'Um, guys, remember the part about not murdering people. No more stupid wars', they'd screech he was a Democrat and still continue to worship the GOP.
I'm amused at the complaint of crass commercialism, as if their problem with contraception isn't that it exists but that it's available in well-lit stores instead only through furtively asking your mother, who knows a man....
I'd be okay with his group's opposing the "crass commercialization" of birth control if that meant they'd push for making it free to everyone.
Like the war on Christmas. It's wrong to sell it to you! Here, have some condoms! Merry Coupling!
O Pillebaum, O Pillebaum! Wie treu ist diener Schutz!
It seems like Kerouackque's theories about female sexuality are the exact opposite of St/e/p/h/e/n A. Me/igs. But I think M/eigs would be a better choice for this position, no matter how much we bad-mouth him around here.
7: You are totally allowed to be obnoxious if you bring in Shaftesbury.
I'm enjoying the Latest Comments sidebar:
rob helpy-chalk comments on Lovely. . . rob helpy-chalk comments on Scary . . . Cryptic Ned comments on Lovely. . . A White Bear comments on Scary . . . Lovely . . . Scary . . . Lovely . . . Scary . . .
I think Unfogged has gone off its meds.
16: I dream of a world in which citing Shaftesbury doesn't make me automatically a complete tool. Thanks.
17: We are mad and beautiful here.
The only solace I take in this is, Bush isn't going to repair his damaged image by becoming a moderate. He's not going to work with this Congress and be Mr. Sunny Happy Reagan Doll. He's locked himself in the Oval Office with a bottle of Southern Comfort and a dogeared copy of Ann Coulter's latest, and he'll be damned if the traitors and the feminazis get their way.
The Bush presidency: all over but the poutin'.
Joe, I really wouldn't take that comfort if I were you. The only people who pay attention to women's reproductive rights these days are committed feminists (who already hate Bush) and the lunatic base. I hate to be so cynical, but I really doubt we'll see high-profile Democrats making a big stick about this. Maybe I should get on the phone.
You know, Keroack's never been right since Sammy Sampas died.
He's locked himself in the Oval Office with a bottle of Southern Comfort
SoCo, yasay?. Retardo posits Jackie D. instead...
I totally support the appointment of Kerouac. Ginsberg and Corso can head up HUD, and Burroughs will be the director of the DEA.
Could someone with a bit more contact with the relgious right clarify a point for me? It's my understanding that even most observing catholics disagree with the church's position on contraception. With that in mind, who are appointments like this suppossed to be a pander to?
My contact with protestant religious conservatives has been with mostly the black-evangelical variety. This is one of the few issues where they staunchly agree with liberals. Are white evangelicals really so different?
I think, only from observing the content of pandering like this throughout the years, that there either is or is believed to be a substantial anti-contraception constituency among evangelical Protestants.
26: Catholics as a block are not "the religious right". IIRC they are pretty much swing voters.
Unlike (very devout) Catholics, evangelical protestants don't believe contraception is sinful within marriage, but they do believe wide availability of contraception promotes promiscuity in society. They definitely don't want it in the hands of single people, teens, etc.
I would think more likely, the reasoning is that by nominating anti-Contraception beatniks, the administration can pander to The People Who Direct Evangelical Votes, i.e. heads of evangelical anti-sex organizations. I don't think this is directed at grass roots at all -- nobody who's not engagé is going to even hear about it.
28: I thought the distinction was between nominal Catholics (swing voters) and observant Catholics (not so much). I stand corrected.
29: equating "promscuity" and "any sexual activity", of course.
They are in fact right by the way. It's been proven by economics. If you lower the cost of something, people will necessarily do more of it. Lower the costs/risks of sex, people will have more sex. Econ 101 basics. Supply and demand.
32: You're just trying to piss someone off aren't you?
If there's one thing that demonstrates 'consumer irrationality,' I'd posit it is sexual behavior.
30- I think you underestimate how widely this sort of information gets dispursed through the evangelical community. Even relatively unknown appointments like this. Dobson mentions it on his radio show, Falwell from his pulpit, it makes it's way into lots of newsletters and bits of misc. literature. Of the 10% of the population that even hears about this, at least half will be evangelicals who will cheer. (The other half will be NOW members, who the president doesn't care about.)
K-Lo at the Corner is all kinds of in favor of this position. Well, let me put it this way; she says that "more of this sort of thinking" would be good and discusses the very pious Natural Family Planning of other people. To be fair, some of her colleagues weakly object that adult women should be able to use contraception, but K-Lo abashes them into hypocritical silence. I doubt any of the Cornerites would personally go without contraception, mind you.
It's a nice microcosmic example of how this pandering to batshit crazy fundamentalism works.
there either is or is believed to be a substantial anti-contraception constituency among evangelical Protestants
I have only met a handful of evangelicals who oppose contraception as such, and it is my feeling that in these cases it is merely a personal decision not to use them, not a dogmatic position.
I believe the anti-contraception constituency is opposed only to widely available contraception, on the grounds that it encourages young people to have sex.
Thanks for the explanation guys. But how does something like this not backfire? I mean the pill must be by far the most popular invention in the last 50 years. Even on the corner folks are taking K-Lo to task for this.
Woah, pwned by 29 like 15 minutes ago.
Even on the corner folks are taking K-Lo to task for this.
Nah, they gave up pretty easy. They don't really care enough to stick a limb out.
37, I'd have to say, I have not found this to be the case. There's Catholics, for example, making up a large group of the 'anti-contraception constituency', who just flat out believe the use of contraception is wrong (in that it prevents life/alters the divine plan, that is). And this belief is by no means limited to Catholics--in fact I get the distinct sense that this is the direction most radical anti-choice folks lean. Not so long ago we had the big scandals of pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control, on the grounds that it 'causes' abortions, and then there's that crazy large Jesus family with the 15 kids who just keep having them, convinced birth control is a sin.
In fact, I'd have to say, the folks opposed "only to widely available contraception, on the grounds that it encourages young people to have sex" are the fairly moderate end of the anti-contraception spectrum, by no means a clear majority.
34: LB, that couldn't have worked out better had we planned it...
There's Catholics, for example, making up a large group of the 'anti-contraception constituency', who just flat out believe the use of contraception is wrong (in that it prevents life/alters the divine plan, that is)
Who knows? But I run in relatively conservative evangelical circles in an extremely conservative county in North Carolina, and the majority of people I know would consider people who are dogmatically opposed to contraception of any kind to be weird.
I seriously doubt that many Catholics believe that, even though it may be an official doctrine of the church.
K-Lo at the Corner is all kinds of in favor of this position.
I'll probably get whacked for this (and deserve it), but you've seen pictures of her, right? I've got a pretty good idea why she doesn't think there's any need for distributing contraceptives. I doubt it's ever been much of an issue for her.
See, actually asking people to chastise you doesn't work.
45: You know, with a username like "pooh," "from my --- to your mouth" doesn't really make me think "bash the sexist." It mostly just makes me think "ew."
48: I'm quite cunning that way. The flypaper theory of blog commentary in action.
FWIW, I'd think the exact same thing if Jonah was all in favor of this junk.
45: It made me thing of this --
)) --- ((
that is, think. joke ruined. oh sadness.
and then there's that crazy large Jesus family with the 15 kids who just keep having them, convinced birth control is a sin.
Someone should explain to these people that Jesus would really like it if they stopped having sex.
Yeah, haven't they heard of original sin?
55: is that an allusion to Me and You and Everyone We Know?
Whoa. How do I get HTML to stop me doing that? That's supposed to be a ">", not a ">"
I think we're describing different things.
44.--I had sort of assumed she was married, but her wikipedia biography doesn't mention any such thing. Oh man, now I'm overwhelmed with a terrible pity. She totally is the first to post in the morning and the last to post at night on the Corner.
How awesome would it be if some dashing liberal Don Juan swept K-Lo off her feet and changed her world forever? We need a volunteer. Drymala?
How is it that St/e/p/h/e/n A. Me/igs doesn't have a Wikipedia page where people can go to soak in the crazy?
Usually I have a feminist negative reaction to the "she just needs to get laid" discourse. In KLo's case though it looks like an exception should be made.
swept K-Lo off her feet
With a crane, maybe.
I'm sorry. Please stop with the easy set-ups. You know I have trouble resisting.
Er. JFTR, I kinda have a global reaction to that discourse regardless of the target. (Or, a global sense of shame as to what the conversation would look linked by someone unpleasant.)
No, no! I'm imagining a wonderful Herman Hesse-like awakening, tasteful! romantic! with musical theater and...
Ok, I'll stop. Point taken.
I didn't say I was discouraging Joe, mind you. Extending sexual opportunities to one's ideological opponents is a mitzvah, right?
65: What, his blog isn't enough for you?
70: Oh, admit it Jody. You love the reactionary gals.
Extending sexual opportunities to one's ideological opponents is a mitzvah, right?
Probably, but I don't see what that has to do with Joe or K-Lo.
Just to even the score out, we could mock J-Pod.
What peculiar hair distribution! Barely any at all on the tops of his shoulders, but a fringe around them. I don't know if I've seen that before.
I love the little girl's hat, though.
What's always struck me funny about The Corner is that while pictures of bloggers often surprise me, pictures of bloggers from The Corner always prompt a sort of "yeah, that seems right" response.
75- what is there to mock? The man is a sculpture of perfection.
I don't like all the being-mean-to-people.
a sort of "yeah, that seems right" response.
That was my reaction to your colon photo.
OK, OK, mea culpa. Demeaning the Cornerites was very wrong of me. I ban myself.
82: I think he's kinda cute, actually.
68: I'm sorry I'm still so juvenile as to enjoy mocking people for attributes largely beyond their control. When I think about it, I feel bad too. Which is why I try not to think about it...
The best humor has at least a kernel of cruelty in it, and hey, if I couldn't take it as well as dish it out, would I really venture out in (electro) public with a name of a fuzzy bear (or worse, per Dr. B)?
Seeing B's point that that the fact that the K-Lo's, Hillary's and Pelosi's of the world get this treatment disproportionately over their equally mockable male counterparts is evidence of a pernicious double standard, there is probably a larger discussion to be had on whether we are a little too concerned with being 'nice' and a little too easily offended in general. For example, I tend to think that the outrage over Glenn Beck's idiocy is a little overblown - his questions for Ellison were legit insofar as there is a not insignificant section of people who hold those opinions and to pretend otherwise is just sticking our heads in the sand.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I much prefer these biases or prejudices out in the open. Or it's Friday afternoon, and I want to go home and so am babbling, your pick.
Speaking of assessing looks, take a gander at these two pics. Hot or not?
Wasn't Alameida's very first post here one making fun of K-Lo's looks? Meida's the best.
It's a trick question, btw: the woman in the pictures just died of starvation.
How's that make it a trick question? She was still hot.
She'd have been hotter if she gained a few pounds, but she was nonetheless an beautiful woman. Sad.
84 hangs too low for me to pluck, being the gentleman that I am.
You don't think that finding out you think a starving woman looks "hot" is kinda upsetting?
90/91: But she looks reasonably healthy in those pics -- the side view certainly doesn't make her look unnaturally thin. I knew someone with advanced anorexia, and there was no mistaking that she was at death's door.
I wonder how old those photos are. Seriously, I know perfectly healthy women who are that thin. Doesn't everybody?
No. Should I? The pictures were mostly her face, anyway, which was striking. Maybe if I'd seen her naked I'd think she looked like a skeleton. (That sentence was originally in present tense, but then I realized that was poor taste, considering.) But the pictures are all I had to go on, and the pictures presented an attractive woman.
But I did say she'd have been more attractive if she'd been heavier, and I wasn't saying that just to be polite. She would've been. She'd probably have bigger beamers, too.
94: I disagree somewhat - 'unnaturally thin' yes, unhealthily so, not from the pictures.
Part of it is a taste issue on my end, I suppose - I prefer athletic to waiflike, and in my unscientific survey of friends, most would agree.
Upsetting, sure, but what are we supposed to say here? If we answer "yes" we're glorifying starvation, but if we say "no" we're enforcing the societal standard that women should change their looks to conform to men's preferences. It really is a trick question.
You don't think that finding out you think a starving woman looks "hot" is kinda upsetting?
Oh please. These pictures weren't taken when she was on the brink of death. She's someone who went on to die from anorexia, we have no idea what state of health she was in when these were taken.
99- true, and if we free the negro slaves we'll be enforcing the societal standard that blacks are inferior to whites and ought to be free if we say they're free.
(preemptive plea for kind treatment from Dr. B)
99: what is per se wrong with trying to make oneself more attractive to potential partners? To my mind it's not that men have a particular standard (because that is inevitable), but that the actual standard (or rather the perceived standard, I'd argue) is not healthily obtainable.
I refuse to believe that simply having some preferences based on physical appearance is fundamentally oppressive.
Do these people look like they're in a happy marriage? Well, one of them killed herself because she was so unhappy with her family life. Looks can be deceiving, I guess.
We've hashed this over a lot, and my position is "Nothing wrong at all with having individual preferences, a problem with analyzing women generally in terms of their deviations from an idealized standard."
With respect to 99, I don't think it was a trick question; that is, I think that 'she doesn't look healthy' is a good answer. The point of the trap is that we're all used to looking at unhealthily underfed women as ideals. (I do wonder, with ogged, what the date of the pictures is -- how long did she work before her death?)
The point of the trap is that we're all used to looking at unhealthily underfed women as ideals.
Well, exactly. Nonetheless, those are the ideals we have. It's a trick question because whatever answer we give will reveal us to be oblivious oppressors (which of course we are, but we knew that already, dammit).
how long did she work before her death?
She died at 23 and had been modeling since she was 13.
oblivious oppressors (which of course we are, but we knew that already, dammit).
Not if we are oblivious.
105- Teo, I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you think saying "no, she looks unhealthy" is oppressive? 99 is incomprehensible to me.
She died at 23 and had been modeling since she was 13.
I think LB was wondering when the last time was that she worked before her death.
And while I do think many models do unhealthy things to stay skinny, she doesn't look anywhere near the brink of death in those pictures.
106: No, I meant, how close to her death did she model? If people were taking glamorous pictures of her on Halloween, and she died November 14th, that's terrifying. If she last modeled in 2004, and she's been gradually starving herself to death since then, modelling probably killed her, but people weren't looking approvingly at pictures of a dying woman.
I'm guessing the truth is closer to the first than the second, but a little googling isn't giving me dates.
Ah, sorry. Well, the article says she was 5'8" and 88 pounds when she died, and she's obviously above 88 pounds there.
Thanks, L. I was looking for that thread but couldn't find it. Brock, be sure to read the whole thing.
We've hashed this over a lot, and my position is "Nothing wrong at all with having individual preferences, a problem with analyzing women generally in terms of their deviations from an idealized standard."
I don't see the difference. If I have a preference than by definition I'm analyzing women, at least partially, with respect to the degree to which their appearance aligns with my preference. Or are you saying that the problem is if my evaluation is based solely on that factor?
The point, regardless of the age of the pictures--in which she's clearly an adult, ish--let's say 18 minimum--is that presumably she didn't just suddenly develop anorexia overnight. I think it's a big fat rationalization to say "oh well in those pics she probably wasn't anorexic yet."
113- I think I already did, the first time. I guess this means LB is in league with the oppressors?
Also, LB's right--I think she looks great too, but it *does* bother me that "looks great" apparently means "looks like she's starving herself."
117: So what's your point? Why are you bringing this up?
110: There was also a woman who collapsed on the catwalk a couple years ago and died. At the time of her last modelling gig, she hadn't eaten anything in days.
115- what? People don't get fat overnight either. It's as if I showed you pictures of an attractive man and asked you if you thought him hot, and you said yes, and I said "Gotcha! You've got a fetish for fat men!" because I have a more recent picture of him 80 lbs overweight.
115 - But the fact that she was sick is really not evident in those pictures. You show us some pictures of a thin, attractive young woman, ask us if we think she's pretty, and pull back to reveal the "AHA! She's an anorexic!" And we're supposed to feel bad, but about what, exactly?
it's a big fat rationalization to say "oh well in those pics she probably wasn't anorexic yet."
Sure, but I don't think we should leverage her death to make how she looks seem worse than it is. Anorexia is bad and unhealthy and kills some people, but not everyone who is skinny (even that skinny) is anorexic or on the brink of death, or even necessarily unhealthy. You're not a sicko if you think she looks good.
118: My guess is to shame us (and by us, I mean myself and apos.) for mocking K-Lo by demonstrating where that kind of stuff leads.
I guess this means LB is in league with the oppressors?
Yes, of course she is. We all are. Do we really have to go through this again.
118: I found it interesting, and apropos given our many discussions over the "wow, what a hot model" threads.
120: C'mon. If you showed me a picture of a guy at the height of his championship eating career, and I was all, "awesome!" and then told me that he'd just died of a ruptured stomach, I'd be somewhat chagrined, yes.
114: Not really, being shallow is fine (shallow, but not in that alone a problem). The problem is in looking at a woman who you, in fact, find attractive, and analyzing her in terms of her deviation from a platonic ideal. The thread L. linked in 111 was sparked by a Details article called something like Fat is Back! and talking about how heavier women were now fashionable in Hollywood. It was illustrated with a picture of a pig in sparkly heels, leading off a slideshow of heavier women including the young Elizabeth Taylor.
A mode of analysis that equates the young Elizabeth Taylor with a pig, is one that's going to drive women subjected to it insane.
(There's a separate problem in treating all women as esthetic objects for your pleasure: Everyone likes looking at people they find attractive, sure. But there's no particular reason that all women should be analyzed in terms of how you might find them more attractive -- go look at someone you do think is pretty, and quit harping on the repulsiveness of the rest of us, wouldja? Not that you, particularly, have done any of this at all to my knowledge, I'm just recapping a long discussion.)
122: I think that probably everyone who is a top model probably has some problems with clinical or de facto anorexia, yeah.
I think it's a big fat rationalization
I really can't find a rationalization convincing if it's over, say, 125.
Good lord these comments are flying fast.
I'm torn. I want to go with the rationalization, and say "obviously she wasn't starving herself yet" or at least, that if she were anorexic it wasn't showing yet, because I think she looks great in the photos. But then that's obviously self-serving.
But equally, we could be fooling ourselves into thinking our initial impressions are scary, absurd, whatever. There's a perverse pleasure to be gained from doing that.
So I don't trust my reactions either way. We don't know when the pictures were taken. I think the Ted Hughes-Silvia Plath pic is a good rejoinder. By the way, Ted Hughes: looks like a bastard, doesn't he?
115: Right, too thin but doesn't look like she's starving. I have a friend who's only about 100 pounds or so (very thin, but not quite unhealthy-looking), but she's only 5'1". That same weight stretched over an addition seven inches would make her look like a concentration camp victim. Take off an additional 10%, and this model had to have looked like a skeleton when she died.
It was illustrated with a picture of a pig in sparkly heels, leading off a slideshow of heavier women including the young Elizabeth Taylor.
That is profoundly fucked up.
121, 122: You really think? When I look at the articulation of her shoulder -- the way the joint is larger than the body behind it -- she looks pretty far along to me. I don't think that's a picture of a skinny, healthy woman. Of course, it's probably Photoshopped within an inch of its life, which means that other cues of illness were removed.
I'd really like to see some pictures with dates.
doesn't look like she's starving
...to death, that is.
128: Then you'd probably be pleased with what fashion photographer Adi Barkan has been doing about it.
That is profoundly fucked up.
It was more complicated than that. I don't want to say "read the thread" as it was long and tedious, but if you want to, read the thread.
Photoshopped within an inch of its life
Yeah, probably.
The thread was long and tedious, but I think it's necessary background for understanding the discussion we're having now.
132- I don't care when the pictures were taken. She's attactive in those photos, even if she died the next day. If she was starving to death in those photos then she certainly weathered it well, aesthetically. Compare again to ogged's 109. Or this poor woman. There's nothing wrong with admitting this.
When I look at the articulation of her shoulder -- the way the joint is larger than the body behind it
Yup. There's a certain 'brittle' thinkg that looks not quite right. IMO, still shots have a way of covering up how bad it is in many cases - I think if we saw the woman in the pic walking around, the problem would be clearer.
Right, the backward slouch gives her body some mass -- there's a lot you can do in a still shot.
definitely don't read the thread.
Ooh, new blog motto!
Yeah, I don't know that there's much more to say about it, except that I think the 'But she looks good!' reaction (which I kind of share -- I wouldn't have guessed about the starvation) is frighteningly informed by the pervasiveness of images of very unhealthily skinny women in the media. (And particularly in the fashion context -- I think you might react to her differently in a picture that wasn't clearly a fashion shoot.)
But if anyone finds a picture with a recent date on it, post a link?
144- yes, 142 meant to say "she looks attractive in those photos". No guarantee at all that she was attractive IRL when the photos were taken. Maybe seeing her on the street, without makeup covering the dark circles, would be horrifying.
She doesn't look emaciated here, but no date on that picture, either.
Yahoo News has more pictures of her. A couple are from one year ago. If you look closely at the one her mom is holding up, you can see that her apparent natural weight is well above her modeling weight, so yeah, she was starving herself. Like I say, a lot of models do unhealthy things to stay thin. And it's fine to say that in finding her attractive, we've fallen prey to unhealthy norms, but it's misleading, or at least hyperbolic, to say that we're finding dying people attractive. I don't think there's much real disagreement here.
You can't tell from those photos alone that she has a psychiatric illness, or even that she's unhealthy.
I think the 'But she looks good!' reaction (which I kind of share -- I wouldn't have guessed about the starvation) is frighteningly informed by the pervasiveness of images of very unhealthily skinny women in the media
But what about healthy women who are teh hott and every bit as thin as the woman in those two photos? Isn't it possible to think, independent of unhealthy norms, that they look good? If not, I'll have to lodge a protest with a couple of cute thin friends -- which reminds me of that Onion story in which picketers protest a Chinese laundry in SF for reinforcing racial stereotypes.
Isn't it possible to think, independent of unhealthy norms, that they look good?
Probably not, actually. The norms are there, and they're going to influence your perception of people's appearance regardless of whether they look a certain way naturally or by severely damaging their bodies.
It is hyperbolic, but it's nonetheless, on a literal level, accurate, no? What's the substantive difference between "fallen prey to unhealthy norms" and "we're finding dying people attractive," other than that the former elicits an "oh dear, yes, ho hum" reaction, and the latter doesn't?
150: Psychiatric illness may be, again, misleading or a rationalization. The woman starved herself because she was a model--not because she was just randomly crazy. It was, in many respects, a rational thing to do. I don't think that all women who diet excessively have a clinical psychiatric illness, and that's the point.
The difference is that we don't generally find dying people attractive.
150: You know, I think you'd have trouble finding healthy women that really match those pictures. I'm not in anyway meaning to say anything negative about naturally thin women. But there are very few naturally thin women who are that naturally thin.
No; we don't generally find people who we *know* are dying attractive.
152: Well, on a literal level, we're all dying. But if she'd stayed the weight she was at in the pictures you posted in 86, I doubt she'd be dead now.
157: Well, yeah, and if so-and-so's MS had only been arrested at some interim stage, they wouldn't have died of it either. So?
152: The latter makes it personal, which is why it elicits a different reaction. That's a rhetorical move that's appropriate in some circumstances, but I still don't see why you pulled it here.
What are you trying to get us to do, b?
161: Not B., of course, but (a) reminding us to look at the system that mocking K-Lo is part of, and (b) just reminding us generally that looking at a fashion model should make you nervous and worried about what it is you're admiring. It's worth being reminded of pretty frequently, so it sticks viscerally, rather than purely intellectually.
"on a literal level, accurate, no?"
No. None of the pictures were taken on her deathbed, to my knowledge. She may have already been suffering from the effects of an eating disorder when the pictures were taken, and she may not yet have been suffering from the effects. That is, she may or may not have been sick. I don't trust any of us to say that she was sick or was not sick. It's not a particularly effective rhetorical move, in my opinion.
161: I have no objection to those goals.
For the record, most of the women I've known who "looked" like they were unhealthy/starving were that way naturally, and were usually told frequently that they looked too thin or would be more attractive if they gained some weight, and were almost all *trying* to gain some weight but were just naturally thin.
Then of course there are the women who look starving because they actually are starving themselves.
158: Look, I personally find it helpful to look at the picture, then go "she was starving herself to death," and then think, what do I find attractive about her body? One of the main things is the flat stomach. So when I look at my own and go, "gosh, I wish it were flatter," and then think about the images I've seen of women with pretty flat tummies and remind myself "those women were anorexic," it helps reset my mental calibrator. Seriously, I've managed to really retrain my eye by doing that sort of thing, and by looking at women (or men) who I initially think "too fat, too this, too that" and paying attention to the attractive things about them. It's a very useful exercise.
But the point is I'm not saying "you should do this." That would be obnoxious and pedantic and tiresome. I'm just saying, given that we talk about women and body image quite a lot on this blog, actually, this is a very interesting and, I think, useful kind of reminder that our standards are neither innate nor neutral.
Sorry for the irritating alliteration there.
I don't know why I care to make that point. She obviously did suffer from an eating disorder, and it was obviously prompted by her industry. I've got no love for the fashion industry; I don't need its images everywhere. If you want to get rid of them, I'm all for it.
Brock, how do you know the women didn't have eating disorders? Because they didn't ask you to hold their hair in the bathroom stalls? Eating disorders do exist.
Don't high fashion models look much skinnier in person than they do in photographs, or especially in "work" photographs that are retouched etc?
I also think that the "this woman you thought was hot died of anorexia, you sickos" rhetorical move is... not effective.
155: Again, I think we could pick out the unhealthy from the naturally thin by seeing them in motion.
165: I've done the same thing, actually, and I agree that it's useful. I'm just saying that if all you want to do is point out that this is an interesting thing to think about (which it is) you picked what I think is a needlessly divisive and polemical way to express it. But that just opens up another can of worms, so I'm done with it.
The photos don't look that bad to me. I agree that people have become acclimated to seeing hyper-thin models as normal. I also think the BWI minimums they instituted in Spain make sense.
I also think the jonah goldberg probably looks better in real life than in his photos:
http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=82&cid=278
166: Yeah, it's interesting (and bothersome) to me that the immediate reaction by most of you guys seems to be to quickly point out that the picture doesn't prove anything. Well, no shit--but doesn't it give you pause for thought before reaching for the "but" shield?
Anyway, I'm not advocating getting rid of the fashion industry or the images. I'm saying that as individuals, we can make things marginally better not with knee-jerk anti-fashion leftism, but by seriously investigating our own aesthetics and hopefully getting other people to do the same.
Eating disorders do exist.
They do indeed, and they're more common than I think most guys realize.
167: Yeah, I had a moment of realizing what a dimwit I was about these things with a woman I knew in college -- terribly underweight, and complaining about being frail because of it, and how difficult it was to keep weight on given her dietary problems. Which were that she was vegan, and 'allergic' to legumes and most grains, and fruit or vegetables with too high a sugar content, like carrots -- she lived on quinoa and green leafy vegetables. Wasn't until a couple of years later that I realized, in retrospect, that that was an eating disorder.
170: Well, I really didn't think I was being especially divisive. I didn't, in fact, call anyone "sickos."
You're an ass, text. I've known plenty of people with eating disorders. My wife was bulimic when we met. I know these women weren't because we were good friends and talked about these things. And they talked about wanting to gain weight. And I saw them eat very healthy portions on many different occassions.
Is it possible they were hiding an eating disorder? Sure. But not likely. Again, I knew them pretty well (at least several of them).
This is the worst argument evar. She was attractive. It is very sad that she died, and worse that she died due to anorexia. But maybe the problem isn't so much that our beauty standards are so crazy, but that we've allowed beauty to mean so much to us.
B, in focusing solely on the standard, is merely re-inscribing the problem!
In fact, on re-reading the thread, I honestly and truly believe that the sense that I'm being mean or polemical is entirely in you guys' heads. I posted a couple of pics and then a followup comment and did so in pretty neutral language. I think what I've said in discussion hs been likewise neutral and certainly not personal. Feeling defensive does not necessarily mean you're being attacked.
175: Yeah. I think that the perception of divisiveness comes from understanding you to have been saying: "Look, I show you this picture of what is apparent to me and all decent people to be a starving woman, and you think she looks hot? Pigs." I think the comments where you note that she looks good to you too in those pictures -- that you share the same fucked up esthetic -- have been overlooked.
I might be an ass, but I embarrass myself on this website slightly less often than you do. You have no basis to say whether those women had eating disorders or not.
I don't think that all women who diet excessively have a clinical psychiatric illness, and that's the point.
Neither do I, but if she died of anorexia nervosa, she died of complications from a mental illness. It's hardly surprising that it's so widespread among models -- modeling gives anorexics a rationale (and a job), reinforces their perverse body image and puts them in a place where they can feel more normal, among other anorexics. So to the extent that she'd likely not have died if she hadn't been a model, sure, she starved herself because she was a model. But she didn't starve herself just because she was a model.
You know, I think you'd have trouble finding healthy women that really match those pictures.
I can think of at least three that I see regularly. Of course, we're talking about just those pictures, which I didn't think showed a shockingly thin woman -- fashion mags generally have far worse, at least from what I've seen.
176: Brock, I call shenanigans on the "I knew the well" defense. These diseases wouldn't be the problem that they are if they were obvious.
175: B, I think you could have been clearer on what point you thought you were making with your reveal. To the extent you were saying something along the lines of LB in 161, that's fine. But the "you sickos" reading is not a stretch.
I don't think B is being aggressive.
181: You don't think that there are women who become anorexic as models, who wouldn't have in the absence of those pressures?
I can think of at least three that I see regularly. Of course, we're talking about just those pictures, which I didn't think showed a shockingly thin woman
Maybe my eye is off, then.
The comment that really set me off was 93. I read it in what may not have been its intended tone. I agree that b's other comments here have been fairly neutral in tone, including 86 (which I still maintain was a trap).
180 to 176, obviously. And B, if you weren't being divisive, you were using an overblown rhetoric. I hate you all.
Don't high fashion models look much skinnier in person than they do in photographs, or especially in "work" photographs that are retouched etc?
I think so...this would suggest that they are in fact thinner than even our society considers to be the ideal, and they are so thin because
A) they are competing with each other to be the most modely model, which means the thinnest
B) in their capacity as actual people modelling at fashion shows, rather than as photographs, they do not function as sex symbols, but as mobile clothes racks to show off a designer's creativity.
I embarrass myself on this website slightly less often than you do
What does that mean?
The "ass" comment was too harsh. The tone of 167 seemed especially condescending, which is what I was responding to.
I agree teo, considering that I was in fact trapped...
175: perhaps I'm just being sensitive. But it seemed like the goal of your post was too... I dunno, make people feel guilty for thinking that some girl who died of starvation was hot, when actually she was rail thin? Except no one actually said she was very hot, and runway models are well-known to starve themselves and do lots of drugs so that they can better display exotic clothes designed to be shocking and over-the-top to get the designer name recognition so that rich women buy his "normal" dresses.
I agree with 185. 93 would be better if it referred to "we" rather than "you".
189- 93 was to me, I think, not you. If that makes you feel better.
185: 93 was a direct response to 92; I was boiling down the essence b/c I thought that 92 was highly defensive and tending towards nit-picking, and I wanted to cut to the chase rather than getting sidetracked on some distracting argument about whether or not two pictures constitute definitive evidence of starvation, unhealthy beauty standards, or a warped sense of aesthetics.
How is 92 defensive and nit-picking? It sounds like an honest expression of an opinion, to me.
193: Okay, but it definitely seemed like you were just trying to guilt-trip Brock.
That people feel guilty when x is pointed out doesn't mean my intent is to make them feel guilty. I'm actually on record as being anti-guilt over this kind of thing, since feeling guilty just makes people defensive and gets in the way. It's not your (or anyone's) *fault* that they think skinny chicks are hot--everyone thinks skinny chicks are hot, duh. The issue is why do we think that, should we (as a society) think that, and can we (as individuals) try to learn to think other things?
I mean honestly, people. Why do the harridans of the world need to reassure you that they're not attacking you personally if they're making what is essentially a good point?
Plus I didn't even use the word "fuck" at all today.
Of course the ideal is unattainable. If the ideal was attainable, women would attain it and then they wouldn't need Jenny Craig any more. Or Weight Watchers or Conde-Nast or Barneys or whoever wants to sell them some shit.
If male desire is deformed, there are deformed by the same forces that make women crazy.
Why do women find these images compelling? It's women who buy Vogue. I'd be willing to bet that what a lot of men (and probably women) are finding attractive in these photos isn't the thinness but the delicate features, big, heavily made-up eyes and flirty poses. They'd find her attractive if she was 10 pounds heavier. At her height, 20 pounds heavier. It's in media pitched to women that models have been growing thinner and thinner and thinner. The men's magazines always lag behind a few pounds.
I've had the experience of looking at photos with another designer, a young woman, who pointed to a tiny bulge (which was actually a muscle, I think) in an otherwise taut, athletic body and said, "Look, she's not all that." Granted, she's an asshole, but why does her assholishness take this particular form? Is that the internalized male gaze talking or the internalized contemptuous gaze of the beauty and fashion industry?
I'm not seeing this one out to the end. Happy Friday, all!
LB, it's not that anyone's eye is off. It didn't register with me that way when I first glanced at the photos, and when I went back to look more closely after learning that she's died, it was with the memory of seeing someone I knew when she was hospitalized (I still cringe just thinking about it -- I hadn't seen her in months, and I involuntarily let my shock show when I saw her horribly emaciated arms). I just thought 'Hmmm, yeah, thin, but kind of like Dana, and Erika, and Sarah, and Sarah..."
I think that "she's still hot" sounds defensive. And he asked how it was a trick question, so I explained: it's a trick question because you see the picture, think "hot woman" and then find out that she died of starvation. I *presume* that that makes people go "ulp." But that doesn't mean I'm trying to lay a guilt trip; it just means that that "ulp" moment is, hopefully, enough to make us think about where it comes from. And I said right up front that it was a trick; it wasn't a trick I was playing *on* people, it was a trick I was hoping you guys would be interested in examining.
Wait, you knew this woman? Or am I misunderstanding and you're comparing her to someone else you knew who was hospitalized for anorexia?
Look, b, I agree with everything you've said here. I'm just saying that if you didn't want people to get all defensive maybe you should have mentioned some of the stuff in 196 and 200 a little earlier.
And anyway, Brock's enough of a man that he didn't get all scared of my 93. There's no reason everyone else has to get all huffy on his behalf.
This comment is made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Or am I misunderstanding and you're comparing her to someone else you knew who was hospitalized for anorexia?
Yes, this.
202: I presume that you guys aren't a bunch of knee-jerk defensive dorks. Especially since we've *had* the body image discussion, and since you all *know* me and mostly like me, most of the time. JEEZ.
I guess I'm just upset because I really do think this is an important and interesting issue to discuss, but I don't think this has been a productive discussion of it and I'm trying to figure out why.
"I'm saying that as individuals, we can make things marginally better not with knee-jerk anti-fashion leftism, but by seriously investigating our own aesthetics and hopefully getting other people to do the same."
ok, I'm not leaving just yet. The above quote is incorrect. We can't make things better for fashion models by investigating our own aesthetics because our own aesthetics are not the fashion industry's aesthetics. I don't prefer rail-thin women. My own "lookism," if it were to be enforced, would not result in starvation, whatever other negative things it would cause. There is no reflection I can do to change the realities of the fashion industry. It is not driven by my personal predilections.
Knee jerk anti-fashion leftism, on the other hand, might do some good.
Why do women find these images compelling? It's women who buy Vogue. I'd be willing to bet that what a lot of men (and probably women) are finding attractive in these photos isn't the thinness but the delicate features, big, heavily made-up eyes and flirty poses. They'd find her attractive if she was 10 pounds heavier. At her height, 20 pounds heavier. It's in media pitched to women that models have been growing thinner and thinner and thinner. The men's magazines always lag behind a few pounds.
Of course the ideal is unattainable. If the ideal was attainable, women would attain it and then they wouldn't need Jenny Craig any more. Or Weight Watchers or Conde-Nast or Barneys or whoever wants to sell them some shit.
I've had the experience of looking at photos with another designer, a young woman, who pointed to a tiny bulge (which was actually a muscle, I think) in an otherwise taut, athletic body and said, "Look, she's not all that." Granted, she's an asshole, but why does her assholishness take this particular form? Is that the internalized male gaze talking or the internalized contemptuous gaze of the beauty and fashion industry?
Why is anti-fashion leftism knee-jerk? Nobody's going to make anybody throw their Manolos on the bonfire. But it's quite helpful to be aware of where the pressure is coming from.
I thought that 92 was highly defensive and tending towards nit-picking
I presume that you guys aren't a bunch of knee-jerk defensive dorks.
The "how was it a trick question?" question was mostly facetious. Trick questions aren't supposed to have an answer; the answer here was "yes" (IMO). But I knew what you meant.
"everyone thinks skinny chicks are hot, duh."
This is the issue. Everyone doesn't think skinny chicks are hot. The woman was beautiful despite being over-thin.
The woman was beautiful despite being over-thin.
This is basically what Brock said in 92.
For the record, I still like B. And I'll wisely refrain from defending myself from charges of being defensive.
I think part of it is that the undatedness of the photos makes it really hard to tell exactly what we're talking about. I'm not sure if I'm talking myself into thinking that she looks really unhealthy, or if I'm right -- I'm surprised by the people who think she looks skinny but healthy, but I'm not convinced enough that you're fooling yourselves to argue hard about it. But I think it's possible that some of the pictures we're looking at are of a woman at a time when her body is digesting itself in an eventually failing attempt to stay alive.
The difference between "Here's an attractive picture, but under the pressure to look like this, the model snapped and later starved herself to death" and "Here's a picture of a woman in the process of starving, and yet it looks like what we find conventionally attractive," is a big and disturbing one, and I am genuinely unsure of which describes those pictures.
All my comments are coming 12 comments too late.
I second 203.
I can't believe text is signing off with 198, without answering 188. Especially after I unilaterally apologized.
Or if women attained the ideal, then there would be no way to tell who was desirable or not, and so it would cease to be the ideal.
As for the personally attacking / feeling guilty / etc. - I guess it seems like the underlying point is not sufficiently... something... to warrant the rhetorical trickery. People screw up their lives trying to make themselves attractive, sometimes fatally?
I'm sad that she died, but for some reason the new minimum BMI limitations on fashion shows rub me the wrong way. Maybe it's my weird American Protestant Capitalist Mindset, but if someone wants to dedicate their existence to a goal and work so hard at it that they burn themselves out in the name of achievement, well... why not? I mean, I don't wish it on anyone, and I certainly don't wish it on people's families, and there are clearly power imbalance issues at stake, but... the troubled and ultimately self-destructive greatness resonates.
What I like about this thread is that when it's all said and done, K-Lo will still be ugly.
what sort of explanation do you need, Brock?
I mean, this girl was a model. She rose to the heights of a career where the job requirements are to be skinny and attractive (independently). The philosophy graduate student with the eating disorder who is much skinner than she looked in those pictures is sad and disturbing, especially when I wonder how changes in her weight would change her attractiveness. But models... different.
Oh - and the second paragraph of 215.
if someone wants to dedicate their existence to a goal and work so hard at it that they burn themselves out in the name of achievement
WTF? What achievement? She had great genes, she made a lot of money being a walking clothes rack, then she died.
The pathetic thing is that this girl grew up in that world, and really never stood a chance.
She made a lot of money by being paid to be attractive, would have been recognized by millions in her native country, etc etc. It's like bicycle racers who take dangerous performance enhancing drugs. Why? So they can ride a bicycle faster than anyone else! No greater purpose, just single-minded devotion to a cause. I wouldn't want to race against them, because I'd lose, and I think that they should be kicked out for violating the rules when they get caught, but I don't think it's morally wrong, for them to do it, or for me to say "damn, they ride that thing pretty fast."
I dunno.
217: That's a good point, I was thinking some of the same things. Consider, for example professional athletes. They do do terrible things to themselves in search of an ideal. I'm not even talking about steroids here - study after study has shown that athletes in high impact sports (read: not baseball) are generally Not Quite Right after they stop playing. And young men devote overmuch attention towards a goal which is unlikely to be attained. I'm not sure what my point is, other than I think it's interesting that we all say "that's terrible" when it manifests itself in the fashion world, but think "well, that's the price of glory" in athletics.
225- I suspect it was intentionally Churchillian....
I kind of think "That's terrible" about the sort of sports that use you up too, but I recognize that I am not the norm. Did anyone else ever read the David Foster Wallace essay about the tennis player -- some 80th best in the world no one you've heard of kid, who DFW hung out with at a tournament? Even in the absence of a whole lot of physical damage, the one-sided emptiness of the life was kind of horrifying.
207: I think that knee-jerk anti-fashion leftism is too easily dismissed, ala marching with puppets. We've all seen it, and we've all seen the defenses against it: I can't help what I find attractive, the ideal ass-to-wasit ratio is X, blah blah evopsych bullshit, the market demands, etc. Whereas *intelligent* commentary about aesthetic body norms is actually pretty rare, and I think it would be a lot easier to do if we could talk about things on a different level than "I personally *like* women with a bit of meat on 'em."
B, I don't know what level you are after here. You can't tell us we all think skinny women are teh hott, and then complain when we disagree with you. Don't you think it would be more effective to, I don't know, boycott fashion magazines?
A better sports parallel than bike riding might be boxing, where brain damage is frequently the "price of glory".
the chronic injuries really, really bother me about football.
I think that woman looks stunning but too thin in the first picture, just unhealthy in the second. I doubt she weighed 88 pounds in either.
And I don't think modeling agencies rely on evo-psych bullshit in justifying the use of very skinny models. I think the decision is made on an economic basis.
228 -- Yes, and that was a great piece, even not liking tennis. I would recommend.
I think that sports using people up is pretty widespread. I almost can't watch the Olympics anymore for remembering acquaintances who dropped out of high school and college to train full time. If I knew half a dozen of them, in my small, unpopular sport, there must be so many of them in all the other sports. You can't keep perspective at the boundary of being great at something, but they'll be paying those costs for a long time.
230: I don't mean "you all" personally, each and every one. I mean "we all" as a synonym for "society in general."
And I don't really buy fashion mags.
228: It is terrible. For every Venus Williams there are probably thousands of kids with wrecked childhoods because all they did was play tennis. There are a fair number of people in motorcycle racing who spend all their money driving their kid around the country so he can break his collarbone or get his finger mangled before he realizes that he's just not fast enough.
Like I said, it's not for me - I'm content to be in some sense mediocre. And I feel kind of sad for the ones who destroy themselves and miss. But the ones who destroy themselves and make it? I dunno.
There are also those who are just so supremely naturally gifted that they can start in their late teens or early twenties and still compete at a world level. I'm not sure which is more impressive.
I really thought someone would jump in with a "203: 'in cheek' s/b 'in his cheek'", but you're all really letting me down tonight.
You could say a similar thing about some of the performing arts but at least you can keep performing them for a much longer portion of your life. I think if you want to be super good at any particular thing there will obviously be costs, but it seems a particularly empty victory with sports and fashion modeling in that you can never stay on top for more than a few years anyhow no matter how hard you try or how little you eat because they are tied to being young.
OK, I will admit that I laughed until I cried at 67, but I despise K-Lo for being a dimwitted scold, not because she's fat, and I would have assumed that her birth control needs were met by her personality rather than her appearance. Does that help at all?
228 -- Yes, and that was a great piece, even not liking tennis. I would recommend.
What piece? I've read the Tracy Austin piece, and the Swiss-guy piece. How much does he right about tennis? Jeebus.
How much does he right about tennis?
I think he competed in college.
I don't think society in general defines Teh Sexy as uber-thin women. It may be that it does, and I've already been fully indoctrinated. If the photos were taken a week before the model died, then I may have been fully indoctrinated. But if not, then I'm not convinced that I have been.
It might be that we think too highly of beauty itself--I think jmcq mentioned this upthread, but maybe it was someone else--and that causes women to diet dangerously past the ideal weight, whatever that ideal is.
Even in the absence of a whole lot of physical damage, the one-sided emptiness of the life was kind of horrifying.
I'm curious about this. My recollection was that DFW went to great lengths to emphasize the fact that the subject of the piece was happy -- just not happy in any way that DFW recognized.
The piece was a celebration of his ability, combined with significant reservations about that sort of life, but I think it would be a misreading to see it as unambiguously negative.
235: Yeah, taking a step back I don't really understand it at all where there is no real incentive to be so devoted, despite having spent a good part of my 20s doing just that. It would be much easier to just plan a vacation to Florida every year.
High school -- he talks about having been a semi-successful high school player because his capacity for playing reliably matured a couple of years early, and he could beat better players by just not screwing up. And then the people who were going to be really good got good and blew him off the court.
I think of boxing as different, for some reason. Much more physically damaging, and I think it was Mark Kleiman who had some bit about the misguidedness of it ("you have an amazingly powerful computer - it can speak languages, is self-aware, can write books, etc. you have an amazingly delicate servomechanism, that can grasp and manipulate in ways that we still can't fully recreate. what can we do with these two? how about if we take the servomechanism and use it to whang on the computer until the computer gives up and shuts down! brilliant!).
And it's not just sports. Look at wildly successful people in any field, and they'll be deeply screwed up.
244: I was horrified, I don't think that DFW was.
So, basically, we've come to the conclusion that in a winner take all society, people will pay tremendous costs to win, that those costs might not be worth it for the people who make it to the top, and almost certainly aren't for those who don't Win Everything. Hmm.
242: Yeah, I think he was regionally or nationally ranked prior to college. But still--it's tennis. And I've not been overly impressed by the few sports articles of his I've read. Good, not great, with insights I've seen before. I wonder how much of his value in writing such articles is that he brings in readers who would not normally read sports articles.
239: Yes. And the downfall is usually ugly and sometimes fatal (google "Justin Strzelczyk" for a particularly sad story.
It's not even the winner-take-all nature. The first person to run a marathon died as a result of it. Who am I to say "it's not worth it?"
Someone who thinks the fate of my country doesn't hang on getting news of a battle back home?
Really, I think considering starving yourself for a professional modelling career tragic greatness is completely screwy.
I wonder how much of his value in writing such articles is that he brings in readers who would not normally read sports articles.
I think this must be a lot of it, because I too find his sports stuff pretty banal.
how about if we take the servomechanism and use it to whang on the computer until the computer gives up and shuts down! brilliant!
This is great. But also, you can't get any more damaged than dead, which is why I think BMI limits for models are a really good idea. Why not lower the bar? It's certainly no more arbitrary to exclude over-thin girls from the business than it is to exclude normally-thin to average girls. The extremely thin girls can do what extremely thin boys do to raise their bmi--weight-lifting and protein drinks.
I think starving yourself for a professional modeling career is a tragic decision, but it seems different than starving yourself for some hypothetical frat-boy financial analyst, or even worse some actual frat-boy (which is the behavior that thinking unhealthily skinny models are hott encourages).
Brock's photo in 142 is probably a hoax (mildly nsfw)
That 142 photo is top google image hit for "anorexia", but the "fathers for life" site is pretty crazy.
crazy anorexia article:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/health/anorexia1.htm
crazier gay nazi article:
http://www.fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/pink_swastika.htm
Okay, hoax. My apologies. There are plenty of other, non-hoax images of anorexia available, if anyone wants to look.
Huh, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think it was anything but a hoax.
I think this must be a lot of it, because I too find his sports stuff pretty banal.
I like the details. Like the image of the slightly crazed tennis player in an early round screaming at the audience that he considers insuficiently attentive, "Don't mind us, we're just professional tennis players trying to earn a living."
I also appreciated his musings on the fact that the difference between top player (say the number 60 and the number 80 ranked players) are both very small and very very difficult to overcome.
Nick
I don't know why I decided to sign that last comment. It wasn't particularly noteworthy.
180/220 genuinely upset me, and from now on text and I are enemies.
Shotguns in the quarry is how we do it out here. Ask Emerson.
That's how they do things in New York.
after making fun of K-Lo's looks I repented and wrote her an apologetic email. since then we have corresponded a few times. I feel worse about making fun of her than about making fun of J-Pod,not because he's more hideous, and not because she's a woman, but because I worry she's actually unhappy. she seems like someone who would really like to be married and have kids, a lot. it seems unfair that whatever mojo is working for the repulsive male NROniks isn't working for her. then again, bless her, she's dumb as a bag of hammers. but so relentlessly upbeat! I'm just hoping we slide down the slippery slope to legalized polygamy and Mitt Romney makes her junior wife #4.
See, see!!! This is why no one should ever be mean to anyone. Now my brain is all cluttered up with worries about whether K-Lo is happy, and that's just wrong.
bless her, she's dumb as a bag of hammers. but so relentlessly upbeat! I'm just hoping we slide down the slippery slope to legalized polygamy and Mitt Romney makes her junior wife #4.
And this, of course, has me giggling like a fool.
New Unfogged Collective Action: find K-Lo a man.
Sometimes I wonder if K-Lo is happy....but then I remember how lucky she is to be a totally unqualified person with no coherent opinions who somehow got an incredibly cushy job that consists of signing on to the internet and blathering about whatever pops into her head. She doesn't even write in paragraphs.
signing on to the internet and blathering about whatever pops into her head.
Hey!
Oh. Well, I suppose no one's paying me.
oh, LB, that's just because we think that the crass commercialization of paying women for their labor is demeaning to them. we love you too much to treat you like that.
Alright, Brock, if you're seriously upset, send an e-mail to the linked address. Life is too short to make eternal enemies on cock joke blogs, and this thread is tedious enough as it is without our drawing foils or whatever we've got to do.
263: Grenade Launchers in the temple, pwn3d u r teh sux0r, I M L337,
(etc. etc. etc.)
Which were that she was vegan, and 'allergic' to legumes and most grains, and fruit or vegetables with too high a sugar content, like carrots -- she lived on quinoa and green leafy vegetables. Wasn't until a couple of years later that I realized, in retrospect, that that was an eating disorder.
Very late response, but I'd like to know more about this, LB. I have a friend who severely restricts her diet because of supposed "stomach problems," and she exercises constantly. It worries me. Greatly.
Also, that DFW essay was good.
OT, but the "Loser" part of this is pure awesome.
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650208013,00.html
text, I'm not going to email you, it's not that big a deal. I'd rather just be nasty to you from here on out. Besides, at this point only a substantial cash payment could satiate me. I'm certainly not interested in getting together to draw foils, although that's a nice euphemism, especially here on the condom thread. I can't believe you'd think that would make things up to me, anyway, you horny bastard.
276 -- "This is a problem that can only be solved incrementally -- one computer user at a time" has an ominous tone to it. What do you think they are planning to do to one computer user at a time? I hope they don't do anything rash.
Very late response, but I'd like to know more about this, LB. I have a friend who severely restricts her diet because of supposed "stomach problems," and she exercises constantly. It worries me. Greatly.
I had a friend like this, and I of course also worried about her -- she was thin in an obviously unhealthy way, her hair and nails were brittle, she was always experimenting with not eating things because they upset her stomach, she also exercised all the time, etc. etc. It seemed she must have an eating disorder. Then one day she told me she'd just been diagnosed with celiac disease, and now (having eliminated gluten from her diet) she positively glows with good health. A surprise ending!
279 - I know someone just like this! (One of the women from 164, in fact.) Amazing difference.
Everyone with weird dietary issues should get tested for food allergies. Several of my friends who've done so have been surprised with positive results, and been much better off for it.
"I'm certainly not interested in getting together to draw foils"
some people just don't know how to accept a pity fuck with grace.
What do you think they are planning to do to one computer user at a time? I hope they don't do anything rash.
I'm kind of curious as to how the FBI knows this. Does google publish this or something? Or does the FBI request it from them?
I think vaguely that it is publicly available -- I remember having seen statistics like this about Google searches on various web sites in the past.
279, 275: That's possible. The public explanation for her dietary weirdness was systemic candida, that anything with sugar in it would feed the yeast, and at the time I took it at face value. My retrospective opinion was formed by noting that literally anything with food value in turned into a problem, and she didn't even eat all that much of the calorie-dense foods she claimed to be able to eat; she wasn't tucking into huge bowls of quinoa, just nibbling on leaves all day. But it is possible that there was a genuine health problem that hopefully she figured out.
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that your assessment of this person's eating was incorrect, just sort of free associating to a next-door anecdote.
i am so jellous!!!!! i could have looked like that!!! but they stopped me........
the person above who said that....
wtf?
are you thick or sumat?
people like you anger me! :@
eeeee thats nastii y would you wanan look lke that! x
That's Horrible Id Never Want To Look Like That I Used To get Called Anorexic But I'm Sorry But I Never Looked Like That! I No It's a Disease But GET OVER IT!! You Might Die Over Not Eating! Id Rather Eat To Be Honest!
I wonder just exactly what's going on here.
Ok ok now everybody who has seen this just think about all the positive and all the negative pionts about this.
As i am a doctor i have seen this many times.
but nothing this survier.
its simple.
Just don't do it!
i hope people really think twice about this.
thankyou.
This is a terrible disaster gone wrong!
no1 should be that thin
i sshould know i used to be one of them!
god she must be 5 stone!
EAT MORE MEAT!
she better start gaining weight soon or she is gonna die
DOCTORS ORDERS!
This is a terrible disaster gone wrong!
no1 should be that thin
i sshould know i used to be one of them!
god she must be 5 stone!
EAT MORE MEAT!
she better start gaining weight soon or she is gonna die
DOCTORS ORDERS!
