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.]
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?
Also, since it is a paraphrase, the emphasis could be on "necessarily"-- as in, he doesn't find all fat women sexually attractive as a matter of course-- some he does and dome he doesn't.
Although, I have to admit it shocked me at the end of the article.
Does no one believe in ineffability anymore?
I can't explain my ineffability beliefs.
