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?"

I think the statement was like the ladder in Lee's office - awkwardly placed for no apparent reason.

Does no one believe in ineffability anymore?

I think the statement was like the ladder in Lee's office - awkwardly placed for no apparent reason.

Nice one.