Well, Roeper IS an idiot.

Maybe not for that, but I'll take shots at him any way I can.

I'd also totally nail some of the chicks in those ads.

Not everyone likes slender women.
Not all women are meant to BE slender.

There's round, and then there's fat. And the truth is, few women look their best when they're overweight. The prettier you are as a woman, the more advantages you have. Pretty by society's standards. In a culture where food is scarce, it's high status to be fat. In our culture, where food is plentiful, it's high status to be thin. I believe this is David Buss and Ted Shackleford's work, but I don't have the journal article with me.

"I'd also totally nail some of the chicks in those ads."

Yeah, some of us like to see a little flesh jiggling while we pound hole.

The girls in that ad are pretty tame when it comes to chunkiness. I'll bet the Chubby Chasers of America break into yawns every time they see it. What grosses me out is that one of them has a navel that's as long as an ass crack. It's weird. She needs to get it sewn up or something.

Maybe they should've asked the Women's Lacrosse team from Northwestern to pose for the ads - with the flip flops, of course.

You should see the size of the billboards they have up around Chicago - particularly in the CTA stations. To say they're in your face does them a great disservice.

> In a culture where food is scarce, it's
> high status to be fat... ...but I don't
> have the journal article with me.

Amy, it's distressing when you say things like this because the tone is that of a teenaged, suburban white girl who's got it all figured out after three dates with halfback on the high school football team. We're talking about some of the moistest, fleshiest feelings in the human heart. These are profoundly irrational and dynamic forces. When you announce that 'THIS looks best,' and 'THAT's the science that explains it,' it comes off as profoundly coddled. And willfully ignorant of the responses of the very masses you hope to dismiss: "Why OF COURSE she's the prettiest... She's the PROM QUEEN! That's the pinnacle!"

Human beauty is in motion, in all respects. People who think they've got it nailed down fall ever further back on the trail. This stuff moves faster than light, and humility is one of the best ways to keep up.

PS- LYT is totally right, yet I have minor issues with the broad on the poster by the escalators near the AMC theaters in Century City. Sure, I'd DO her and LIKE it, but....

Above, read "describe" instead of "dismiss."

But, I'm not the one who has it figured out -- it's data...wide samples, if you'll excuse me for saying so! You might have sex with a certain person -- but if you could have a beautiful woman of average weight with a .7 waist-to-hip ratio...wouldn't you take her over the woman with a big can (I'm assuming) on a poster?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while it's great to have self-acceptance, it's a lie that standards of beauty are a meaningless conspiracy against women. People like to say it's what's inside that counts; but, it's what's outside, too...very much. And the more attractive you are, the easier many things will be for you -- finding a boyfriend, advancing in work, etc. To say otherwise is a lie. Moreover, if you think those women look that good when they aren't lit by professional photographers, you've got another thing coming. Same goes for models, by the way. I used to shoot photostats on the weekends during college (The Stat Store, formerly on 5th Ave and 19th, NYC), if you want to see some bad skin, check out a model who spends all of her spare time coked out of her skull. Makeup and good lighting covers all manner of flaws.

There's no doubt that attractiveness gives one distinct advantages!
When I was young, (I grew up in Hawaii) being the complexion I am was a distinct DISadvantage--pale skinned, red hair. I was harrassed and terrorized for being "different".
It has also been problematic in getting commercial work (I'm an actor) because there tends to be a rule of "one red-head only" for any commercial project. I'm in my 40's now-- "no-woman's land"-- so I haven't done much on camera at all for years.
I knew it was coming, though, so I'm chiefly a voice actor these days.

And attractive shapes differ. I could never EVER be a size 9 again. I will be a 12-14-16 for the rest of my life I expect. But it is a sturdy and very shapely size because I work at it as best I can.
Men adore me. And because I'm not an asshole, women like me, too.

> if you could have a beautiful woman of
> average weight with a .7 waist-to-hip
> ratio...

Does her next-door-neighbor, the one with a merely sufficient .716 w/h, have a nicer rack? A faster smile? More money? Beauty can't be reduced to numbers. Science will try to describe EVERYTHING in the world on a chart, but this most personal judjment defies statistical analysis.

Besides, remember Francis Bacon (1561–1626): “There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.”

> People like to say it's what's inside
> that counts; but, it's what's outside,
> too...very much.

Absolutely! But women are right to be angry at fashion industries for describing beauty as a rigid hierarchy with Giselle at the top and everyone else falling lower on a list. Beauty is not so abjectly competitive. It's human nature to compare and compete. But just as lawyers can oversell confrontation, fashion concentrates attention on a tiny number of people or characteristics. Focusing on this microscopic number of people who are certified (by science or by homosexuals) as truly beautiful will not gladden a heart.

If you want more human beauty in your life, you see a lot more if you expand your attention to the beauty of the people you know, rather than trying to be with the prettiest possible people.

And the homosexual angle in the fashion machine has consequences. Women oughta know that the boyish build seen on catwalks ingores a lot of the feeling in men's lives.

> check out a model who spends all of
> her spare time coked out of her skull.

Lord knows I've been meaning to... Been busy at work.

Hey, Amy, you know I'm basically with you here, but Crid's got a point; lots of men like (even prefer) women who aren't so slim -- if that weren't so, you wouldn't see all these chunky girls getting married and having babies, which they are, even as they're getting fatter.

The pornification (and homosexualization) of pop culture can make it hard to see that most men don't really expect women to resemble something from an XXX-video, or a teenaged boy; what women expect from themselves, of course, is a different matter.

If it were a strict scientific fact that all (or even most) men strongly prefer fashionably slim women, you'd see the reproductive rate go down as fat rates have gone up. But that hasn't happened, has it? As they say in business, there's an ass for every seat.

Are we done with this subject yet? Yes, fat people have no right to happiness and thin people should rule the world. And fat American women at the mall are all doomed. And they dress funny and drive SUVs. Wake me when there's a new take on this.
And as for the real women in the ad looking better because they've been photo-shopped, well, yeah, but in real life, they probably walk and talk,too. More than one way to seduce a cat.

> Wake me when there's a new take on this.

Kate! You don't understand! Nowadays we have DATA....

I see that the public revulsion to learning is evident here, too. Crid, get a grip: Amy has never said there wasn't *a* person who would find a large woman attractive. Get your terms straight, everyone!

Kournikova beat a bunch of inactive lovelies in a couple of surveys of the sexiest women, and no, it wasn't because of her wiggle (she doesn't have one), and it wasn't because voters knew anything about her personality (there's that line for the hefty girl: "She has a great personality!"). It was because of her fitness and long hair. Athletes are in the kind of shape they are because that's the optimum competitive form.

In short, Amy is right, and the universe is unfair, and that's OK because if it was you would deserve some of the stuff that happens to you.

Criminy! Where do people come up with some of this stuff? Seriously - if Demi Moore, Jane Seymour, Madonna, Patty Wagstaff, Eileen Collins or Sally Ride took an interest in some guy, that guy would be a total idiot to turn away without a second thought. I know the ladies have a list of their own prizewinners. *That you must make do does not invalidate the plain fact that better is out there.* Wearing blinders is what most people do to be comfortable about their current position, and they are more ardent about the merit of blinders the worse their position becomes. Just be honest. Say that you have what you need, if not everything you want, to yourself if no one else.

There are plenty of fat women who are pretty. Where these women go wrong is in wearing stuff that covers up their waist -- I've written about this. Think about this when looking at a woman from a distance: Having a waist is what tells you she's a woman, not a man; ie, a gynoid vs. android figure. An hourglass figure is actually a (medically measurable) predictor of fertility. The ideal is a .7 waist-to-hip ration (hourglass). I know Kate Moss was not anorexic because she had a .69 prior to pregnancy...and obviously, she got pregnant, so there you have it!

"If it were a strict scientific fact that all (or even most) men strongly prefer fashionably slim women, you'd see the reproductive rate go down as fat rates have gone up. But that hasn't happened, has it? As they say in business, there's an ass for every seat."

But, to respond to Cathy's comment, notice that you never see a movie star with one of these women. The high status men can get the most desirable women -- those who have the hourglass figure, who are not fat, who have youth, clear skin, and symmetrical features -- all apparently evolutionary adaptations; all of which are predictors of fertility. And again, what's high status in a culture, vis a vis bodyweight, appears to be tied to the availability of food in a culture. In ours, where food is plentiful, it's thin women.

Men do the best they can with what they have -- and, fyi, evolution has been just as hard on men. Women evolved to want men of status and power. They care less about men's looks (although, according to data, tallness and symmetry matter). Women, generally speaking, don't want men who are shorter than they are. In fact, according to a Polish anthropologist -- Boguslawski, I believe -- women seem to go for men who are four inches taller than they are. The optimum -- and yes, there are women who will date short men. But they're the exception, not the rule. See Pout From Under on my New Columns page for more. Sorry! I didn't create the adaptations -- I just report the data.

Now I feel the need to measure my waist and hips!

I'm not sure that the trophy wife is really the right measuring stick for the most desirable mate. I think that when you introduce extreme power and visibility, ie, being a movie star or power broker, you also introduce a lot of extra politics into the situation. I think that most men are much more actively attracted to "ordinary" women.

As for the person who said that we should all admit that we're settling for less than Madonna, that there are measurably greater and lesser mates along a strictly objective scale--neither love nor eroticism is quantitative in that way. To better make the point, imagine applying it to one's children. Do you feel like you're "settling for" your son or daughter? Of course not. Neither do people who are in love--or even most people who are in lust.

Kindness, stability, intelligence, trustworthiness, social standing...there are many things that are supremely important as well. I just disagree with the lies being told about beauty not being important, and what is and isn't generally considered beautiful. I know a very attractive woman who is quite a jerk of a person. To a stranger, she'd probably seem very beautiful. I think of her as physically unattractive. Likewise, if you read the column on short people, I mention a study in it -- people who have less than ideal looks are best to be in a continuing group situation, because they tend to become more attractive as they show cooperation, etc., and other good qualities.

It's actually dangerous for the ordinary man to hook up with an extraordinary woman. When partners are not well-matched in terms of their value vis a vis the marketplace, one or the other will tend to cheat or leave -- either because they feel like they aren't getting as much as they should in terms of comensurate value or because they suspect they'll be left.

(All of this pontification here is based on data; very little of it is just something I thought up.) Again, I don't make the facts, I just report them.

Moreover, people seem to be attracted to (by smell and other means) people whose immune systems would combine with theirs to make the healthiest children. It all, once again, comes down to passing on our genes.

"It's sad, too, because being a heavy women diminishes your opportunities in jobs, life, and love."

Dang me! I'd better give back the dreamy and loving husband, the six-figure salary, the year on the Cote d'Azur, the two years in Holland, the glassblowing skill, and the three triathlon finisher's medals. I'd better hurry up and stop achieving, because I'm an enormous US size 20.

I'd better drop the triathlon training, since it doesn't seem to make me skinny. I'll call around to some surgeons instead, before my life tanks - since I'm obviously not worthy of it. Meanwhile, I'd better hide at home, lest I offend the sensitive eyes of the angelic, wonderful, slim humans.

I agree, it surely is sad...that a fellow woman like yourself has to stick her foot on my neck.

That's exactly what I mean. Sure, there are exceptions -- but to be overweight tends to diminish a woman's opportunities. That's honest. I'm sorry it's an unpopular point of view. I used to be chunkier (though, never vast), before I started coming to France and eating reasonably. At least I recognized that I was hurting myself in terms of opportunities. Likewise, short men have a harder time getting girlfriends -- fewer opportunities. Do you deny that if you're a short man, or do you take steps to compensate for it -- either by dating short women and/or by developing confidence, which women find sexy? I don't like lies or self-pity. My friend, the quadriplegic cartoonist John Callahan, rides around Portland in a wheelchair. Because he's anything but self-pitying, to call him a chick magnet is something of an understatement.Typical Callahan: "See my new shoes? I hear they're comfortable."

On the contrary: the concept that fat chicks suffer diminished opportunities is not an unpopular point of view at all. You're hardly the lone voice in the wilderness when you harsh on fatness. We get the meme loud and clear, thanks. To be harshed on for being overweight tends to undermine women's self-confidence; many women much slimmer than I am are crippled by self-loathing. That's guaranteed to diminish one's opportunities.

Where does the meme come from in the first place? Fatness seems to equate with lack of character in a lot of people's minds. I think that Fred/Fredina Q. Public who has never been fat, or finds it reasonably easy to drop weight, assumes that it's that easy for everyone. So, something must be wrong with these here fatsos - lazy, unable to stop eating, lacking somehow in character, morals, or discipline.

You yourself point out that you started going to France and "eating reasonably," resulting in weight loss. I lived near Antibes for a year and I didn't de-chunkify like you did. How could that happen for you and not for me? Unlike you, I must not have eaten "reasonably," is that it? Can't control myself around les petits pains au chocolat? Well, that's not even about my body, it's about my self-control, my discipline, my character. And I can protest, but what I write here doesn't change what you would think if you met me on the street.

If you interviewed me for a job, would you really have a problem with my body itself, or would the issue be that fat women have diminished opportunities (as you have pointed out), should recognize that they are hurting themselves (after all, you did), need to drop the lies and self-pity (that you mentioned), and stop being fat already? Fat women are lacking in self control *and* delusional, apparently, compared to your personal example.

Sure, there are real barriers based on physical type. It's unlikely for dwarves to get work as jeans models. Hulking football player types won't get hired as flight attendants. And I'm hardly taking speed prizes in triathlon. But said physical limitations, in the case of fatness, are caused by what equate to character flaws in the eyes of most, and thus brought onto ourselves, unlike shortness or being wheelchair-bound. So, we deserve all the negativity we get, it's open season, right?

Of course I agree that I would be more marketable if I were slimmer. Also true if I were taller or more stacked. I could run faster if I was slimmer. And I might get paid more if I were male. I might look more executive and impressive if my hair weren't curly and unruly.
Maybe I've faced prejudice every single time I auditioned or interviewed or met a guy I liked the look of, but my batting average on all those things is pretty good. I don't believe that my life would be automatically better and happier if I were slimmer.

I put myself forward as a counterexample in this discussion, but I don't know that I'm so unusual. Maybe I'm a natural go-getter, but I'm far from the only fat chick who is. Meanwhile, lots of slim, attractive people are lazy do-nothings. After all, things come to them; that's what "attractive" means. Go figure.

I like the Dove ad. The women who posed for the Dove ad don't strike me as self-hating shrinking violets. It took some cojones for them to be photographed in big white underwear for a major ad campaign, given what most ad images are like. And I happen to like looking at them. It's refreshing not to see yet another airbrushed xylophone in an ad for a beauty product. If you want to get down to brass tacks, most women in the U.S. are larger than the women in the ad. Expect to see more sucking up to fat women, not less, because we are a large demographic with lots of disposable income. If we respond well to less processed images of women who are closer to average, more will be forthcoming.

The women in the Dove ad are certainly not the sort of women you typically see on billboards in their underwear, but they are all pretty firm (or are airbrushed into that condition). I assume this is not true of most of the women who will buy the Dove product.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume firming creams don't work. It is muscle tone and fat under the skin that determines whether someone is firm or not. If I am right, isn't it true that Dove is deluding women into buying something that won't help them, while pretending to be on their side?

Amy, I love your posts. As a size 4 who used to be a size 12, I am well acquainted with all the ways overweight women rationalize and justify excess weight and how much food they "need" to make it through the day. And their delusions about what constitutes "exercise" i.e. walking the dog for 30 minutes. Once a person can be persuaded that there is no pleasure in eating other than to quell a hunger pang, it's almost impossible to overeat. If women would just admit that it's emotion/appetite rather than bodily hunger that is determining how and what and where they eat, we'd all look a lot better, not to mention be spared current and future "Fat is Beautiful" ad campaigns.

Thanks, Mari...it's a relief to see there are at least a few sensible (and honest) women out there.

PS For anybody who is in need of taking off a few, Diets Don't Work is a great book -- and in keeping with what Mari says above about eating to quell hunger.

Why be spared them? Fat IS Beautiful. Bones poking out everywhere is what's not beautiful.

Some fat is beautiful. Men actually seem to prefer women of average weight -- average not being what you probably think it is vis a vis the size inflation we have currently, where an 8 is really a 14. The truth is, I think, fat acceptance is a lie, based on an inability by many of these women to lose weight thanks to yoyo dieting -- THE way to put on pounds, unresolved psychological problems, and a lack of understanding about the biology of weight gain. I think the reality is Mari's opinion above.

On a hopeful note, Gary Taubes has shown why the Atkins diet makes sense -- at least as a way to lose weight -- and Will Clower has shown how the French way of eating makes sense as a lifetime way to keep off the pounds. Oh, and then there's exercising. No junk food, either. Which doesn't mean I diet -- I don't. I know better. Deprivation is the key to binging.

Amy, I found this interesting: "Do you deny that [short men (allegedly) have a harder time getting girlfriends] if you're a short man, or do you take steps to compensate for it -- either by dating short women and/or by developing confidence, which women find sexy?"

Now, I found it interesting because you drew a parallel here to height. It seems like it's okay for, say, a short man to develop confidence... but what about a fat woman? Wouldn't "compensating" for weight, in this case, be... self-confidence? Self acceptance? Fat acceptance?

But yet, it's a "lie". Do you see the disconnect there?

If a fat woman's going to stay fat, developing confidence is her best bet.

Short men can't get any taller. Developing confidence is, while not their only bet (developing riches would be another), one of very few.

I wrote about this. See Pout From Under on my new columns page. About the wee men. Not the larger ladies.

Additionally, tall women have a harder time finding mates. I'm tall. I wear heels. And I accept the consequences of towering over a lot of men. Luckily, as a girl who's a height queen, my boyfriend's 6'4". Guess what. While I love him to pieces, if he weren't, he'd be my friend, not my boyfriend.

This could possibly be the shallowest load of drivel I've ever read. Not even interesting. I won't be back.

Consumerism is the be all and end all for we Americans, so the skeletal female who can consume everything yet appear to be starving and eager to consume more, is the ideal companion for a successful male -- the perfect "hungry ghost" mate for Mr. American Psycho!

I see the "fat acceptance" sites are sending ladies over. Ladies, it's neither shallow nor deep, but data about what men want. You can decide you're going to stay fat, but don't delude yourselves that you'll have all the opportunities of a woman of normal weight. And making little cartoon noises about skeletal females consuming everything is just silly. What's sad -- and I'm just guessing from how indignant you are -- is that you've probably been yoyo dieting for so many years (which puts on weight) that it's impossible for you to be of normal weight. Or maybe you just lie on the couch eating tubs of ice cream and never excercising.

OK, lemme get this straight.

You acknowledge that yo-yo dieting slows the metabolism and makes us fat, possibly permanently so.

Yet we're not supposed to accept ourselves the way we are, even if there's no possibility we can ever be appreciably thinner.

Are you manufacturing black capsules with your name on them?

People were not always this fat. They're sedentary and eat too much processed food, especially starch. Eat like a French girl -- see The Fat Fallacy, which has real science in it, unlike that recent book by some French executive, and move your butt and you should lose weight. Regardless, anybody who isn't a high-scorer in the luck of the genetic draw (or can't quite stop eating and lying around on the couch) should do their best to maximize what they can about themselves -- confidence, etc. Black and Latina women who are fat are the sexiest, I find, because they're less likely to walk around like they're fat and ashamed.

What I'm doing is telling the truth rather than remaining politically correct. You can decide, yes, it's likely I'll have more opportunities to me if I'm of normal weight, and I'll also be healthier, or you can stay on the diabetes train and try to find chubby chasers to love you. That's the truth, sorry if it doesn't play well in Peoria.

Your truth is not universal truth. In some cultures, people have always been fat. There are some theories that suggest that the genetic propensity to retain weight may have a correlation to the extent one's ancestors had to endure famine. Maybe some people like being fat. How would you know? You don't know who is lying to themselves and who isn't.

Your truth assumes that everyone thinks, feels and values things the same. That's not truth. That's a need to control, and to feel safe in the assumption that everyone is like you.

And what struck me as the most shallow was not even your attitudes on fat. It was your comment about if your boyfriend wasn't so tall, he wouldn't be your boyfriend. In my perception, that's shallow and sad. Not everyone is that externally focused or cares that much about "image" and "looks".

And not every woman confines her perceptions of her opportunities in life by what men want. Your apparent assumptions that everyone thinks like you in that regard are laughable, and your suggestion that anyone who claims otherwise is "lying to themselves" is just plain ignorant.

You know, I am okay with people not agreeing with me, and with having differing opinions. If it's just another person's opinion, no big deal. But someone with your perception of reality, who thinks they've cornered the market on "truth", calling themselves the "Advice Goddess" is a scary thing.

Ah, but it is not my truth and it is a universal truth; ie, "culturally invariate." This is not my opinion; I'm just the messenger. Again, instead of all of you people who are spouting off here, I suggest you dig into some anthropology data. Karen, I'm too tired to look up whose study it is, but maybe it's David Buss' and Todd Shackelford's -- educated guess...that what level of fatness is preferable in a culture is connected to what is high status and what is high status is connected to the availability of food. In a culture like ours, where food is abundant, it's high status to be thin. In the Kalahari, it's high status to be fat. Either way, men prefer a woman of average weight (you'll have to read the research for that, too) with a .7 waist-to-hip ratio. The adorable and brilliant Professor Devendra Singh did that research in...34?...37?...countries? Meaning, it's culturally invariate...ie, pretty damn universal. Why am I so tired? Because I just ran seven miles...something I do a couple times a week. Why? Because if one doesn't exercise, one becomes fat. Now I'm going to have the other half of my petit filet mignon from last night. Why the other half? Because portion sizes in this country are enormous, and eating the whole thing will make you feel like a stuffed goose...and put on weight.

PS I'm The Advice Goddess because I lost the trademark on my former name, and Terry Rossio's suggestion, "Amy Alkon, Opinionated Bitch" seemed like it might substantially cut into my income stream vis a vis which papers could sneak me in.

Oh, I just read your bit about how sad it is that I wouldn't date my boyfriend if he were 5'4". What I am, Karen dear, is honest. People have stuff they are and aren't attracted to. By the way, if you read my column Pout From Under, you'll note that even the divine 3'10" Selene Luna won't date men shorter than she is (can't really imagine where she'd find them). Boguslawski, I believe his name is, the Polish researcher, found that women prefer men 4 inches taller than they are.

Karen, people have hard-wired preferences. Men want young, beautiful women (reflecting fertility) -- see Donald Symons, Evolution of Sexuality: "Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder." And women want men with MPI - male parental investment. Is this sad or not sad? It's simply the facts. Women care less about men's looks except for tallness and symmetry. And guys, according to a study out of UofM, really feel much more secure with women who are their subordinates.

What's wonderful about data is that it tells you what you need to do the best on the mating and other markets. You can ignore it and stay home and shovel mashed potatoes in your face. Or you can get up off the couch and go for a little run. Personally, I find a little Jill Scott, Aretha Franklin, and Hedwig on my iShuffle and seven miles give me quite a lift -- spiritually and in my what would otherwise be my jiggly white ass.

Oh, and PS Advice Goddess is a joke. Not being a feminist, I have a factory-installed sense of humor, which I use with great frequency. If you read further on my site, instead of stewing indignantly over all the non fat-approbating parts, you'll note that I'm not exactly pro god or religion.

Anyone can find publications, theory and opinion that supports their version of "truth", in just about any field of research. Big deal. I found a description of egocentricity that I think fits people like you to a "T". Have a nice day! :)

It's data -- very good data -- not "publications, theory, and opinion."

Do you regularly look at covariate analysis? Do you know how to tell if researchers asked the right questions...if the study is flawed...do you know what "valid" means in terms of a study, or "reliable"? Etc., etc.

Sure, there's a lot of data out there -- but I spend days every week reading studies and I know how to tell a good study from a shit one. Do you? Or, as I suspect, are you just lazily saying, "Sure, there's a lot of data out there." Hmmm...I vote for option B!

There is no "hard wiring" universal to the human species. With the possible exception of an infant's instinct to suckle. That leaves genetics and conditioning, as influences in human behavior. And those vary among the species. Hence, no universal "truth".

The nature vs. nurture debate has not been solved. If it had, there would be no need for further research, would there?

The primary motivator for research studies is not scientific truth. The primary motivators are funding and notariety. Hence, most reseach studies are biased in favor of the appearance of success. They are manipulated to prove what the researcher wants to prove.

It seems to me the study results you tend to favor smack a bit of an Aryan Nation mentality. Can I just say, "Yuk!"

Um, Bud, while you're talking so loudly out of your ass, do tell us how many of these studies you've read to form this opinion.

"The primary motivator for research studies is not scientific truth. "

How many researchers do you know, and how do you know what their motivation is?

Aryan nation mentality? Please. I'm a Heeb from way back (now and atheist) who got chased around and called "dirty Jew" for most of my childhood.

Bud, quite simply, you're an ass.

The fact that you are an atheist makes it clear to me that you do not subscribe to the fact that we are all CREATED differently by a GOD that loves and cherishes us just the way we are. We do not have to believe you when you say the fat is unattractive, because you as a human being have no right to tell other human beings that how they were created by GOD is wrong. You need to seek some type of counseling or just walk around blindfolded so that you won't have to suffer through the fat that offends you so much. Jesus loves you, even though you do not have to common decency to not judge others by how they look. It is the content of our character that matters, not you narrow, hateful opinion.

God Bless

I'm not setting standards, just reporting them. You believe in Jesus? Because somebody told you he exists? That's not very intelligent. You should read the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of evolution -- one of the entries above. Yeah, Jesus loves you, but the guy doing the hiring down at Acme Widgets prefers a receptionist without an obscenely fat ass. Again, these are the facts, based in data. I'm just reporting them. Why is it important to report them? To counter the delusions promoted by the fat acceptance people who tell their members everything's just dandy with being obese. Now, I think self-acceptance is a very good thing -- but tempered with honesty about what needs accepting and what needs changing, post-haste.

Someone should tell Madelaine Albright her opportunities in life would have been better if she'd lost weight. Bella Abzug, too. Maybe you could show us that study where so many more thin women have been chosen secretary of state.

I guess women who want more receptionist opportunities really should listen to you. LMAO

Bud, it's possible to succeed despite handicaps -- look at Stephen Hawking. But, it's idiotic to ignore data (and just common sense) that being fat is a handicapper in many, many ways.

PS Use of LMAO, etc., also says a lot about a person!

Too funny, Bud. I find it's such a shining example of their egocentricity when they're so easy to bait.

I'll be sure and let Madelaine and Bella know you classify them as "handicapped". How ridiculous.

I'll be sure and let Madelaine and Bella know you classify them as "handicapped". How ridiculous.

Uneccessary duragatory put downs and name calling says a lot about a person, as well.

Mashed potatoes? Fat asses? Etc? Childish, at best.

I'll be sure and let Madelaine and Bella know you classify them as "handicapped". How ridiculous.

Uneccessary duragatory put downs and name calling says a lot about a person, as well.

Mashed potatoes? Fat asses? Etc? Childish, at best.

I think her put downs and name calling may be a clue about her real motivation and underlying issues. I don't think it's about "truth".

I think there's a whole lot of low self-esteem and hate going on here. Self hate, and otherwise.

This is modern agony aunting? Gott in himmel.

And no, the primary motivation for research these days is not scientific truth. In a recent study, 75% of scientists admitted that they had at times fudged results to suit those who commissioned the studies. Governmental studies tend to be more honest than most.

Oddly enough, members of minority groups are allowed to be bigoted about other things. As a minority myself, I don't like to think about this too much, but it is undoubtedly the case.

Well, I actually KNOW many of the anthropologists whose work I use, and I see their work dissected once a year at an international anthropology conference. Devendra Singh, David Buss, Julian Paul Keenan...they're not fudging data. I'm sorry that you must cling to the idea that fat is beautiful and would be beloved but for some conspiracy headed up by Anna Wintour. That is your point, right? Karen, just because you dislike hearing that it's preferable to be of healthy weight rather than obese, doesn't mean I have low self-esteem or that I hate anyone. On the contrary, I feel sorry for fat women -- especially for those brainwashed by the "fat acceptance" movement.

The women in the Dove ads are of a healthy weight, and that ad has nothing to do with the fat acceptance movement, you stupid bitch.

That you actually know the researchers pretty much shoots your credibility all to hell. Lack of objectivity, of course.

Your background explains a lot. I know many women from Jewish backgrounds who have an unhealthy relationship with food, and a poor body image. And they do tend to project that out onto others in not so kind ways.

Fran Drescher and the characters in the Nanny were a comic representation of that. I find you to be much less amusing, and much meaner in your approach.

Maybe I'll do a study. :)

Good point, Vana. It's the ignorant, inflammatory response to the Dove ads that interested the fat acceptance folks, I think. Not the ads, themselves.

Dang, I just found some pics of Anna Wintour. She's seven years older than me, and she looks a good twenty years older than me. The looks go fast when skinny women age, don't they? Can't she afford plastic surgery, or is it not very effective for some women? Geez, Amy, pray it is for you. We know you're all about the looks! :)

Oh, nix on the praying. Atheist. Right.

Vana, logic tends to be a better way of proving your point than name-calling. Karen has to publicly attack other women by name as unattractive.

Anyone have any evidence that praying does anything more than soothe irrational minds? I find action tends to be a far superior mode of getting what you want than sitting around asking imaginary friends to give it to you. When a four-year-old is murdered, is that because she was a nasty little brat, and she deserved it? When a four-year-old is rescued, however, why is that something nice god did? Are there really four-year-olds out there who deserve god's retribution, or, as all evidence seems to point to, is the world a random place?

If only some of you had intelligent arguments. But, you don't. What IS your argument anyway? That fat people are insanely attractive? They aren't. And the "fat aceptance" movement would better serve them with a truth about health and what will get them further in love and in life movement.

Most hilariously, here's Karen, who thinks it's "shallow" (see above) to even discuss societal perceptions of looks, who's knocking Anna Wintour for hers. By adding the age she got to Vogue from an article on Slate (she was 38 in '88 according to Slate), she's 55 now -- and looks pretty good for her age, I think. Karen, do post a link to a picture of you, and we'll all assess your looks.

Also, what's so silly here is the notion by Karen above that looks don't matter. They absolutely do. If I gained a lot of weight and didn't dress as alluringly as I try to now, my boyfriend probably wouldn't be attracted to me. Sure, he might LOVE me, but he probably wouldn't want to have sex with me. Just reality. Attraction just IS, it's not aspirational. Nobody looks at some unattractive girl across the room and says, "wow, bet she's got a great personality." They never get to meet her at all. And that's the point of my railing against "fat acceptance." It's damaging to women. Accept reality and you'll go much, much further.

I was being funny, Amy. I do think Anna Wintour looks good for her age. I happen to look REALLY good for my age. I don't tout my religion to anyone, or criticize anyone's beliefs. I used the word as a euphemism, and the following comment was meant to be funny. Lighten up.

Byt the way, I've read some of your columns now, and while I have no doubt some people find them humorous, I don't. I don't find your writing funny at all. That's only my opinion, of course.

I actually find this comment exchange much more amusing than your writing. Isn't that funny?

I think, Karen, you're desperate to feel superior to me, and if you need that so much, I'm happy to help in any way I can.

In fact, you're sooo desperate, you're posting under more than one name. Oops, same IP address!

View all comments from this unregistered commenter Vana
View all comments from this IP address 67.171.180.186

View all comments from this unregistered commenter Karen
View all comments from this IP address 67.171.180.186

Oops...seems Karen and Bud are also one and the same:

View all comments from this unregistered commenter Karen
View all comments from this IP address 130.94.121.244

View all comments from this unregistered commenter Bud
View all comments from this IP address 130.94.121.244

Karen, this is pretty pathetic. I'm going to close this comments thread. Take your multiple identities elsewhere -- as you threatened you would before. It would be a gift.