I absolutely did not, and am not sure why you got that impression.

whoa! no need to be so strident. I said that I "think" that you thought the former. I was wrong, sorry.

Because the article is somewhat about that.

That's interesting. I seem to have skipped right by that because I read it as being about self-acceptance and being viewed as socially and artistically on equal footing. Not about 'we're sexy too!'

I was intrigued too by the email he shared from a woman who isn't considered obese but envies the comfort she perceived in the women photographed. Years ago, I participated in an eating disorder group with women who were all roughly twice my size. I was sort of segregated until, eventually, one of the women said that she hadn't understood that my concerns were the same as hers. Our habits were similar, our outcomes the same, I just looked different. It made for a really good conversation.

Interestingly, one of the women in that group was a third degree blackbelt in karate. She showed us pictures of her qualifying tests. ita's comments about krav bring those images forcefully back to my mind sometimes.

Off to rescan the article.

I wonder exactly what the question was -- I know the article says "his own attitude toward fat women," but his answer is different if he's saying "Fat women are beautiful to me, but not necessarily sexually attractive" versus "The fat women I photograph are beautiful to me but not necessarily sexually attractive."

(Note that the "doesn’t necessarily find them sexually attractive" is also a paraphrase, not a quote -- I can't judge Nimoy from those two lines at all because I don't know what he was really asked or what he actually said.)

Anyway, the first version overgeneralizes to such a huge degree that I have to roll my eyes at it no matter what you sub in there for "fat women" (thin women, blonde women, tall women, whatever). The second is much more specific and reasonable.

Dude. Not strident. Just startled. I thought I was having a discussion of the impact of the statement--not so much the statement itself. Totally not a personal discussion for me.

my reaction to it is completely irrelevant here. I'm just wondering about the impact of that statement--I can see it having one like ChiKat had. And that might detract from the general positivity of the article, which I think is remarkable in its rockingness.

This was exactly my reaction. The last bit just seemed irrelevant and potentially distracting from the overall benefit of his attitude and work.

Jessica, you make a very good point about the question to which that statement responded.

I seem to have skipped right by that because I read it as being about self-acceptance and being viewed as socially and artistically on equal footing. Not about 'we're sexy too!'

My general take on the thrust of the article was "Leonard Nimoy isn't looking at fat women the way society does...let's explore that, and the ripples that sends out."

So, yeah, it's not primarily about who he wants to have sex with, but beauty and sexual attractiveness are intertwined in our society, so the question doesn't strike me as unreasonable, unexpected, or out of context.

There's a ladder in my office. It's empty, so I am not really sure why it's here, other than to remind me that it's Monday and that I haven't had enough coffee yet, but there is one.

It's an article about women in the NYTimes -- of course it's going to eventually come around to "yes, but are they fuckable?"

[eta: Which isn't to negate ita's point here, but the NYTimes is not lately known for its enlightened views on modern womanhood.]

Ha, Jessica!

"yes, but are they fuckable?"