She's a cutie!

I'll second that.

Rather than the 9-to-5 drudgery to which they have been "liberated" by modern ideology, countless women would prefer to be homemakers creating delectable baked goods and living lives of ease and contentment, while their husbands would happily be the family's sole breadwinners

Um... those countless women are still perfectly free to find a partner who would facilitate that life. It's not like it's illegal now.

The model is gorgeous. The post is a ridiculous white-wash of a tiny portion of history that was oppressive and offensive to women and minorities.

I can celebrate the voluptuous beauty of Reuben's models without wanting to drag us back to the fun-filled 17th Century plague outbreaks. Or appreciate the buxom, bustled ladies of the Gilded Age without wanting to bring back child labor of the 1880s. @@

It's not like it's illegal now.

BUT SOMEONE MIGHT JUDGE THEM! ON THE *INTERNET*!!!

Um... those countless women are still perfectly free to find a partner who would facilitate that life. It's not like it's illegal now.

Hee. I have. And you don't see me baking no fucking cake.

I was hoping the comments would go "Um, what?", but sadly no.

I admit I stopped reading when the first comment didn't call out the execrable bullshit, but seriously...they're all on that page? I did go as far as checking what the website was about, and it didn't seem to be an -ism apologist forum inherently. How bizarre. t /OMC

I could deal with the idealism that's being presented, if it weren't for the assumption that full-figured women can't be accepted if they're not at home Bakin' for Their Man.

I couldn't deal with the idealism, because they're not telling the truth. And also, cavalierly ignoring the other legislated shit other minorities had to deal with.

I kept waiting for some clue that they were being ironic, but it never came.

Nevermind then.

The pictures were great, it's the website's fault for mixing unmixy things.