My big fat size 10
Model Crystal Renn is what passes for “plus-size” in the distorted world of modeling. Take a look at Ms. Renn, who is 5’9″ and wears a size 10:
To me, Renn looks attractive and robust but still relatively trim and fit, although certainly not skinny. The fact that a woman of Renn’s size is considered plus by anyone is rather sad, although I suppose if a person were under five feet tall and wore a 10 she might be a trifle plump.
Plus-size stores tend to begin around size 14 or even 16, and go up from there, so technically Renn is not plus at all. But to models and those who manage them, 10 is gargantuan, gigantic, swollen, rolling in mounds of flesh. Models used to be bigger, but now the industry’s sample size is a big fat 0 (yes, you read that right, zero), a size that didn’t used to exist when I was growing up. And remember, these are not petite women; they’re tall, and a tall 0 size represents either a rarity in nature or a woman who has starved herself.
Renn is the participant in a recent controversy over what she claims was some overzealous photoshopping of a magazine article that showcased her. For anyone interested, here’s a statement by the photographer, featuring the original photos and the photoshopped ones; I can’t see a ton of difference myself, although the “afters” are slightly thinner.
But I’m more interested in the idea that this woman and her size-10 body represent some sort of fatness. If you go to comment threads on the subject—like this one—you’ll see the raging arguments that have ensued. Many say the idea of Renn’s plus-ness is a ridiculous absurdity, while others claim that a size-10 woman is a fat pig who ought to be ashamed of herself.
And for comparison, here’s Renn in her anorexic days. Feast your eyes:
I vote picture #1. She’s way hot and well proportioned. I believe Marilyn Monroe had a similar build if not a bit larger.
To me the criterion for attractiveness is tone not weight. Who is driving the craze for thinness anyway? Is it guys? I doubt it.
I don’t know, but my guess is, especially in chunky women’s clothing catalogs where these women are, their performance in selling drives the preferred model size. Essentially, big women want to feel smaller so they buy clothes from smaller models in some kind of transference thing. Can’t blame capitalist realities for people’s mental distortions or the fact that these are noted.
In mainstream modeling, sure, I think the argument can be made that a size 0 is arbitrarily driven by magazines, designers, and whoever else. Even then, it is rather difficult to have great sympathy for someone willing to starve themselves for ludicrous pay (the lucky ones, albeit), any more than I have sympathy for jocks who end up gimping around after a decade of two (or more) of hard playing and doping. Or the ones who were all jock, saved nothing, learned nothing, and are now broke and gimped.
Sorry. I have plenty of sympathy for those who need and deserve it. I cannot find a file for this (these) cause(s) anywhere in my book. The Mike Tysons or Luisel Ramos’s are really on their own here.
Mr. Frank: no, Marilyn Monroe most definitely did not have a similar build and was not larger—she was relatively petite. I was actually doing some research on that in connection with this post, and may write about that topic some day.
It is a common misconception based on the fact that at a few points in her life Marilyn had gained some weight. In fact, in one of her most well-known movies—“Some Like It Hot”—she was several months pregnant, which made her appear heavier than usual (her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, by the way).
Marilyn was of average-size (5’4″, which happens to be my height) and not tall at all, unlike Renn. Marilyn had a fairly large bust in proportion, but was otherwise rather slender most of her life, especially as a younger woman—although I suppose not by today’s size 0 standards. Here’s a video that shows her in her slender mode:
Love my woman with a little meat on her bones. But a size 10 is most assuredly not “plus”.
The average woman in the United States, according to the National Health Statistics Reports, is 5 feet 3.8 inches and weighs 164.7 pounds, with a waist measurement of 37 inches. I guarantee you she does not wear a size 10, probably more like a 14 or even 16. This is the AVERAGE for Americans!
Once again the media are insisting we line up to buy rainbows and unicorns, then wonder why we don’t respect them. Renn is beautiful and sexy, but not in the plus size range, not by a country mile. Oh, and men, before you start snickering about how American women are an over-fed herd of cows, note that the average American man is 5 feet 9.4 inches, weighs 194.7 and has a waist size of 39.7 inches. ‘Nuff said.
I want to put in my vote for what makes people attractive. I think it’s a positive attitude, good posture and careful grooming. And tone. Or being a smart, sassy conservative blogger. Just sayin’.
Who is driving the craze for thinness anyway? Is it guys?
Last year I read a book on the social problems of overweight people that had an entire chapter on men’s problems with weight– most of the chapter was devoted to gay men’s preoccupation with slenderness. I have no idea how typical this is, but after reading the book, I decided to look at the “men seeking men” section of the personals in the local alternative newspaper– and about a third of the ads said “no fatties” or similar words.
As for straight men, I can remember when Sophia Loren and other earth-mother types were considered very glamorous and desirable.
Neo,
It appears that Monroe’s height, weight, and dress size are hot topics on the internet. A confusing factor is the changing dress sizes over time. Also, Marilyn Monroe’s weight varied quite a bit as you suggest. One source has her from 118 to 140 at a height of 5′ 5 1/2″. While there is folklore that she wore a size 16 dress, it appears there is no truth to that. She might have worn a size 12 then which would be 8-10 now.
Baffling this thing called beautiful. Complex. Plus?
I prefer, Plush. As far as I’m concerned, the size 10 model should be the norm and not the exception.
You’ll note her legs are not model-slender, not even plus-model slender. They are esthetically pleasing in an athletic sense.
It would be interesting to know if she had those legs while doing the heroin chic thing or if she worked up to them on purpose.
Plus size? Give me a break. I was laid up for nearly two years after an accident and gained some weight just lying in bed and in traction. When I was able to get up and out to start walking and exercising, I lost so much weight that I dropped from a 14 at my highest, to a 6. I’m 5’7″. First, my friends started ragging on me about being too thin, then the man in my life complained that I was looking like a refugee from a concentration camp. Then my doctor got on me and put me on a high calorie diet to get my weight (size) back to a more normal level. I leveled out at 129 lbs and a size 8-10. I got some curves and boobs back, my skin wasn’t hanging on me anymore, and everyone said, “now that is much better.”
As one who is naturally fairly well endowed, the fashion of the last 30 years has not been a friend. Gay male designers who prefer us all to look like prepubescent boys was the mode and was an enemy of those of us who could never get thin enough to look like a young boy. Marilyn Monroe bodies were out of style and Twiggy came in. With the advent of popularity of breast enhancement, designers are now taking those of us with natural curves into consideration again. Like a “player” male friend said to me one day, “Those really thin girls who look good in string bikinis are easy on the eyes at the beach, but making love to them is like hugging a skeleton.” Ewwww!
If Chrystal has any fat on her, I sure don’t see it and I’d bet that 99% of the average women in this country would kill to have a body like hers.
At first glance I would say Crystal Renn was a plus as well. But I think my meaning of plus is different from those saying she is a plus size.
I see nothing wrong with Ms. Renn’s current appearance (as opposed to her former emaciated one) and would not consider her “fat” at all. One reason designers like rail-thin fashion models (other than possible NAMBLA fantasies) is that they’re looking to showcase the clothes, not the model, and to have a walking clothes rack of a more or less standard size makes that easier to do. At least, that’s what I’ve been told by a couple of people in the clothing/fashion industry (who are not designers themselves, btw).
Living as I do in a country where naturally petite women are the overwhelming norm, it’s nice to see women who have a bit more meat on their bones from time to time. Spice of life and that sort of thing.
Is she single? what? yes, you do look like a match maker, Neo-neocon!
😉
Sara, the problem with breast enhancement is that women can now have huge breasts but are still expected to be stick-thin everywhere else.
In the recent picture, she appears to be (it could well be the outfit) just slightly more plump than instantly appeals to me (but then, I’m way more plump than I ought to be). As you rightly say, “looks attractive and robust but still relatively trim and fit …”
But that ghastly anorexic photo?! FEED that poor woman!
I second what Sara says about hugging skeletons.
Then again, I have been in committed long-term relationships with seriously overweight women, and saw nothing wrong with it. (If anyone’s in a mood to get snarky, I’m not overweight; 6’3″, 190 lbs.)
I’ve occasionally seen very thin women walk by, and had male friends comment appreciatively. My usual answer is that I can’t imagine hugging them, for fear of breaking them in half.
cheers,
DiB
I’d like to ask the Crystal Renn in the red bathing suit out to dinner.
Ah, something libs and repubs can agree upon. Nobody in their right mind could desire a size 0 woman over a size 10.
I always wondered why fashion designers confused thinness with sexiness. There is nothing sexy in looking like one is going to drop any second because of lack of nutrition. Now there is a date, first a movie then the emergency ward. My first thought when I see a fashion show is that someone should buy those models a decent meal.
I always wondered why fashion designers confused thinness with sexiness.
Because so many of them are gay men? A couple other of the commenters here have noted that connection, and the gay men I’ve been acquainted with have had a rather strong aversion to having companions even a little on the heavy side. This tendency was much stronger in them than in my much more numerous straight male friends, who would have no issues with dating, or even marrying, heavy-set women. Although I’ve remained a bachelor, I could still be counted in this latter group. Skeletal does not equal sexy in my calculations.
Really beautiful women have lots of curves, are soft, smell good, are intelligent, well-read, over forty, can exist without a man but would rather not if given a choice and like to listen to Sinatra at 3 a.m. while sipping a delightful Malbec. Skinny young women ain’t got a clue. Anyway, that is what I think. And I speak with authority as a geezer who thinks God did a good job in how He put women together.
I wouldn’t say that size 10 photo of Renn portrays her as robust; she looks like a naturally healthy, absolutely trim woman with a low-to-average amount of body fat and much better than average body proportions. Most women I know (myself included) would kill to look like that.
I was recently pleasantly surprised to see the inclusion of models on this site who not only are sized more like your average woman, but also shaped like them. That their plus-size dept. doesn’t start until size 18 is fine with me, too…
Bob,
a company I used to work for is located in Garment District in Manhattan. Our office building housed lots of design firms – architects, fashion photographers, graphic atelier, props rentals, etc. One gets used to guessing occupations of other tenants when stuck together in an elevator.
One category is always unmistakable: fashion models.
Gangly, awkward, inhumanly proportioned, wearing weird clothes. Either sulkily silent or arrogantly loud – both traits, I think, stemming from shyness.
They often have some sort of skin condition, from wearing tons of unnecessary makeup. Few are, indeed, graceful and have beautiful faces; more often they resemble outgrown grasshoppers with their bulbous knees and elbows and tight-skin sunken-cheeks faces. Some have artificially-enhanced breasts, probably to be marketable in underwear commercials.
For some reason they reminded me of a long unhealthy growth on an old onion if forgotten in warm moist place…
Tatyana,
My father was in NYC some years ago and saw a bunch of them getting off a private bus, in the winter. Probably some mass shoot.
They were wearing long overcoats.
He was reminded of the starved, shocked people they’d gotten out of the camps (Mittelbau Dora) and outfitted in surplus Army overcoats.
Same starved look, same eyes (maybe it was the makeup in the NYC case).
Richard – it’s not only makeup (re: their eyes).They were getting into the role for the shoot.
For educational purposes take a look some day at the “American next model” show. Among other fascinating observations you’ll find what kind of stance/image is cultivated for glamor magazines and advertising: nobody wants a smiling/attractive/happy face.
The ideal look is “tortured youth”. Haunted expression, tragic eyes, mask of Pierrot…
I’m with your father, Richard. Ms. Renn looks great to me and I tend to find models rather off-putting; they look as if they are inmates of very chic concentration amps (Bergdorf-Belsen?).
I hadn’t thought of the connection between gay men’s preferences and the emaciated look of today’s models.
Actually, models are not as tall as they used to be… with the requirement to be petite, thin and size “0” – many of today’s models are petite things stacked up in high heals and made to look tall via illusion.
Alex Bensky Says:
July 25th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Now that there is funny. Sick, but funny.
Um, you’re probably the only one who hasn’t thought of that.
Esther Says:
July 25th, 2010 at 3:33 am
Now we’re talking. Yummy!
I worked in the food business and a model was ordering some shrimp and rice to go. She was probably at least 5 foot ten, and really skinny. The poor thing only ordered three shrimp!!! And some rice (one cup). THAT was her lunch. She looked so sad and miserable and irritable. I usually don’t go around feeling sorry for fashion models, but I felt bad for this gal.
That gal in the photo looks wonderful. Really strong and athletic and healthy. Can’t believe she’s considered a plus model though. Although I sort of can, when I think of the model I met who ordered the shrimp.
Several of the comments on this thread have made me feel really bad for fashion models. Although the top ones make lots of money, they really have to sacrifice a lot for it and practice self-denial to an extent that I would find unpleasant to say the least.
And now I would also be reluctant to tell them that I prefer women who are round and curvy, for fear that they would think, “Shit, I can’t please anybody. Which would make them feel even worse about themselves.
Insert close quote after ‘anybody’.
Pingback:Fat | Little Miss Attila
Nobody in their right mind could desire a size 0 woman over a size 10.
Blanket statements like this are hurtful. Wearing a size 0 doesn’t necessarily mean a woman is anorexic. It could just mean she’s small.
Also, designers have been changing sizes over the years. I have articles of clothing that are ten years older and two or three sizes larger than the ones hanging next to them, yet still have the same physical dimensions. Someone who is a 0 this year was (or would have been) a 4 ten years ago.
Well that’s just silly. She looks great.
Also, Marilyn Monroe’s weight varied quite a bit as you suggest. One source has her from 118 to 140 at a height of 5′ 5 1/2″.
Like me! (Except I’ve set my limit at 135lbs and haven’t gone over that without being pregnant). I love that one photo of her when she was still Norma Jean where there’s a little belly roll (egads! No Photoshop!) I hate that whole weird space alien look most of today’s model pics have – it’s not sexy at all. Seems kind of funny that an old picture of Marilyn Monroe would make me feel better about my imperfect self.
the swimsuit photo gal looks great. a woman should have enough flesh on her bones to hide those bones
I only have two word to say about picture number one (the red thingy), Markie like.
GUYS PREFER PICTURE #1!
There’s no doubt about it. Women do the majority of purchasing and they always long to be size zero. The ad firms have sold them on it and that’s what they want. However, men want Betty Page, Marilyn Monroe, and Racquel Welch. There are no size zero models in nudie magazines for men, never have been, never will be.
Marilyn and Twiggy both share the same hip to waist ratio…
Scientists are far more exacting than fashionistas when it comes to the waist, having discovered the waist-to-hip ratio, an odd mathematical reality that governs the rules of attraction to a rather startling degree: Women who score around .7 (their waists are 70 percent the size of their hips) are invariably rated as more attractive by men, no matter what the culture. Twiggy, Marilyn Monroe, Kate Moss, Sophia Loren, and the Venus de Milo all have ratios around .7. Such a ratio, scientists say, signals fertility. As women age, their waists thicken at about the time their fertility declines.
so us horrible men want fertile mates..
and those women who are less fertile have banded together in a collective to limit others fertility too.
if they cant have it, no one can, seems to be the motto in the trenches.. (and if they dont want what i want, then too bad seems to be a cry back in the captains bunkers).
http://www.nyplasticsurg.com/vogue2.html
funny how they get to set a standard and then blame the men for the impossible standard, when its the feminist leaders in magazines created just for this purpose that manipulate women so much.
us men tend to just stand on the side watching the BS sweep over like storms of bizarrness we cater too till the next bizzaro storm (we have to pretend to take seriously) comes crashing through the doors.
some of us have decided relationships with Nintendo are more stable than with someone that keeps any ties and copies the collective at all. otherwise, when they invent some angle, or some renewal of some old propaganda (that never changes!), its like a new storm cloud forming and flying over your life.
As far as the won’t die rumors about movie stars (Rachel Welch, Cher) having their lower ribs removed to make for a smaller waist, Sherman insists that he’s never heard of such an operation actually taking place. “I’m sure, because people always bring it up, that someone’s done it, somewhere,” he says. “But there’s never been anything published about it; no one has ever owned up to performing such a procedure, much less to having had one. To risk your life – your ribs are right there up against your lung tissue – for what would be a relatively minor change in aesthetics would be crazy.”
but as a feminist periodical myth to get their cows upset, its a great thing! especially since the cows will defend the knowledge if someone tries to point out how it hasn’t changed, comes up like seasonal rain, and tends to foment dead relationships (which is their stated core keystone thing they say they promote as a means to their ends)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio
of course, if the womens mags were FOR women and not for feminisms power base, they would have informed women about this over and over, and killed any of the repetitive articles that ignore it.
but unlike redbook and ladies home journal, which lost the competition and forever changed publishing (ie, women abandoned those who had morals for those who didnt because those who didnt were more fun when they lied and visited ill on them. look it up, its the battle of big tobacco and alcohol. the ladies traditional mags refused the adverts, and feminist politicoes had run out of money running their business the way they imagined womens businesses would be. (a home with a typwriter), and so they traded womens general health for power, as tehy died in droves doing what they told them to do (which was to smoke and drink like lads so that alcohol and cigs would give them more money()]
now the jokes on women as they are collecting money to change what they created! (with the red dress game)
gullible whip saws…
[who would rather beat you up for calling it as you see it rather than stop being gullible whip saws]
just note that as theCork says..
guys prefer the healthier women
but why would women who have sworn to destroy heterosexual marriage, destroy free society, and help instal communist society, want to tell women the truth, is beyond me. they would lose their power, and they would then have to give up hurting heterosexual women for wanting mates. they woudl then not be listened to, and the women would stop trying to diet till they looked like they were unisex androgynous cattle, where their form is the last pleasing form that they had (to a gay man) before they changed.
you cant homogenize the population if they keep wanting sexual dimorphism, can you?
you cant turn the cattle who worshiop you and refuse to stand on their own, into slaves if you give them good lives of independent thought.
but hey! who cares, its what women want anyway?
they have so much in the states that they claim will serve their needs. don’t they?
not my problem any more..
i am too old… 🙂
what do i care if people too dumb to see what they are doing walk off a cliff? yelling at me wont change it. even if i change what i say to make people happier, and follow the leaders lines, it wont change reality.
homogenization of the underclass cant proceed unless women do it… men would never want so little for their daughters, and wives, but we have very little choice in the matter since w do what you want, so we can have partnerships and produce.
you want invaders and homogenization and enslavement of your children, that’s what your going to get. calling it utopia doesn’t change it, it just tells you what to pretend to act like.
not throwing out liars is key…
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…..
Wearing a size 0 doesn’t necessarily mean a woman is anorexic. It could just mean she’s small.
True enough, I see lots of natural size 0s around me all the time, but that’s because I live in Southeast Asia, where people, men and women, are generally shorter and with lighter builds than those of us from European stock. But these naturally-small women look healthy, and they certainly don’t starve themselves. I know, I’ve bought dinner for some of them:-) It’s easy to tell the difference between them and hollow-cheeked skeletons whose natural weight would be 20-40 lbs. heavier.
Yes. Some are red. And some are blue.
Some are old. And some are new.
Some are sad.
And some are glad.
And some are very, very bad.
Why are they
sad and glad and bad?
I do not know.
Go ask your dad
Some are thin.
And some are fat.
The fat one has
a yellow hat…
Every day,
from here to there,
funny things are everywhere.
I sense a lot of posturing here. All y’all are showing your enlightened status by joining in the “forgiving” judgment of the larger model. And the elitist prejudice that immediately assume anyone not as thick as you is anoxeric, I find that sad.
Renn is a model. To evaluate her by the same criteria as all those other women who are not paid to make clothes look good is just silly. Have you ever looked at you own photos? Don’t you usually look “fat”? You know that saying about the camera adding ten pounds? Well, if you make your living in front of the camera, you have to adjust for those ten. The measurements quoted are physical, not optical.
A better assessment would require seeing Renn in person.
Yeah, models influence popular perception, blah, blah. Well you all seem happy with the size of women you know in the real world, so what’s the problem? Make the most of yourself whether you are a naturally a rail or a cushion.
Models are hired to sell clothes, and the industry must be hiring thin models for a reason. If women are doing the buying, then women are the reason.
Beauty and attractiveness, though, have nothing to do with modelling and selling clothes. At least not until or unless men are doing the buying.
My wife is 5 foot 0 and a size 4. She’s a size 4 now because she worked her ass off (figuratively) to lose weight that she knew was unhealthy for her. At 54 years old, she has the common sense to know that there is a healthy median for women and men when it comes to weight and is no more interested in becoming anorexic than she is in going back up to a size 16 again.
Our body image should always be based on good health. From what I see walking around in the malls these days, though, there isn’t any problem with people (male and female) who are eating too little. We have become an incredibly obese society, and so picking out the few excessively skinny people out there is really focusing on the wrong end of the weight problem in general.
Ah, curvacious women.
Proof positive that God is indeed male (and has a wicked sense of humor!).
😀
I wonder what her weight is. I would not be surprised if, under today’s draconian BMI standards, she is considered “overweight.”
When people talk about the”epidemic” of obesity in America, I like to point out that the government has revised the BMI tables downward three times since 1981.
Have you ever looked at you own photos? Don’t you usually look “fat”?
Yes. No. (5’5″, 130-135lbs). This whole “the camera adds 10lbs” thing – where does that come from? I haven’t seen it in pictures I’ve taken nor in pictures of me and my friends. I’m inclined to say it’s some rubbish that’s been repeated and passed along so much that people think it’s so.
“Who is driving the craze for thinness anyway? Is it guys?”
There are two factors, and they certainly don’t involve heterosexual men, who innately and predictably love boobs and booty.
Factor number one: as others above mentioned, the homosexual men working in the fashion industry. The ideal of beauty that gets this crowd off, not surprisingly, is the undernourished little boy look. So they recreate women in their own image.
Factor number two: the catty nature of women, who are more attuned to arbitrary status cues, and enjoy judging other people on such a basis. What do women want, after all? What other women want! Perhaps Nietzsche had it right– women aren’t even shallow.
Neo, she was “ideal” in an era when 26-24-36 was the “ideal” — as such she was certainly more hippy than the ideal of today, which is closer to a 34-22-34, I think (with ‘D’ cup tits, of course, LOL).
Part of this, I’d suggest, ties to the lowered element of child-bearing in the female of our society — a woman with wider hips is generally going to have an easier pregnancy (I believe that’s the case, anyway), so, in a society where 3+ children is the norm, it’s better for women to have wide hips. This is even more true in a pre-industrial culture where overall strength and solidness is a survival trait.
As society has de-emphasized the child-bearing element of femininity, so, too, has the ideal become more slender and less “bulky”.
And while I grant that men do have some say in this, the real drivers are women, not men. If they didn’t buy the clothes, the designers would be making what they DID buy.
> When people talk about the”epidemic” of obesity in America, I like to point out that the government has revised the BMI tables downward three times since 1981.
Indeed. While that lowered BMI index may correlate to lower incidences of certain types of disease, it also contributes to a vastly increased paranoia about self-image at all ages.
Frankly, I’d take the increased incidences of certain types of disease.
Who came up with women sizes? And how exactly does a size zero explain the size of a pair of jeans in the two dimensional waist and inseam world we guys live in? I just don’t get it.
Regarding the BMI, I seem to recall hearing once that Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been considered *obese* during his prime physical condition years.
The guy who actually invented the BMI (during the 1800’s) was knowledgeable in astronomy, math, statistics, and sociology – but not medicine.
Yes, we have lots of fat people in America. Poverty manifests itself in the U.S. not as starvation, but as obesity, as many of the poor live on fast food and snacks. Even those of us from the middle classes are often not as svelte as we once were. I know I’m not. High-stress jobs, long commutes, households where both parents work, lack of exercise, and widely-available and easily-affordable fast food options combine to have many of us say, all too frequently, “Screw it, I’ll just drive through (put name of fast food joint here)”.
Exercise to fight obesity? That’s a laugh!
Here’s how my Monday went:
Up at 6:00AM, take the dog outside.
Since he’s recently had surgery due to a back injury, he’s a lot slower so it’s around 6:40 before I can even begin to get ready for work myself.
Secretly, I think he’s doing it deliberately just to pi$$ me off and make me late.
7:00AM, hit the road.
Marvel yet again that they don’t actually charge admission to hop on the wild ride that is the beltline and interstate.
7:30AM, arrive at office, unclench fists from steering wheel, go inside and make face at general lack of applause and no red carpet at my arrival.
7:30AM to 12:00 noon, sit at desk doing my job.
12:00 noon to 1:30PM, sit in weekly Monday office meeting wherein the boss provides lunch – from a fast food joint.
1:30PM to 5:00PM, sit at desk doing my job.
5:00PM to 5:45PM, drive home.
5:45PM to 6:30PM, take dog out again.
By 6:30PM, the wife has supper on the table so I take 45 minutes or so with the wife and kids.
7:30PM-ish, start working on the dryer that went on the fritz.
11:30PM, test dryer after reassembling parts by wincing and gingerly plugging cord into receptacle.
IT WORKS! IT LIVES!
Do happy dance, take shower, go to bed.
Today, just a variation of yesterday in one way or another. Same $hit, different day.
Who in hell has time to frickin exercise?!?!?
This post, and subsequent discussion, remind me of a very sad, poignant letter submitted to Dan Savage (aka “Savage Love”) many years ago. Dan Savage, for those unfamiliar, writes a nationally-syndicated advice column, which has its origins in Seattle’s “Stranger” publication.
Dan Savage mainly deals with letters from readers wanting advice on their love/sex lives. As a gay man, he gets lots of letters from gays/lesbians struggling with their sexuality and how to “come out”. But that’s not the sad part.
The saddest letter I ever read was from a young man hopelessly attracted to obese women. In a world where just about every variety of attraction is deemed to be acceptable/politically correct (men/men, women/women, threesomes, orgies, S&M….) here is a young man so afraid of what people might think because he DARED to be attracted to overweight women.
I often wondered if the letter writer was brave enough to take Dan’s advice and open up about his attractions.