On Sun, 24 Oct 1999, Kristina wrote:
> I don't think it's so much that it's "sexist" to discuss the quality of
> body parts. What can be offensive or at least hurtful is the underlying
> assumption that a person is of a certain worth (or not!) because of (and
> only because of) the quality of those body parts.
In my case, I feel like it's just plain tacky. Period.
> Plus, we don't really have control over our bodies beyond a certain
> point so seeing people judged on the basis of ONLY their physical beauty
> or lack thereof makes people believe that they, as people, have worth
> based solely on that beauty.
People who see me now have a hard time believing that I was anorexic in
high school -- at 168 lbs. I happen to have very large bones and a much
higher muscle mass than average. My natural weight is probably around 220
(but I really wouldn't appear to weigh anywhere near that much). Strange
genes just gave me Ahnold calves (literally).
So, when Twiggy was in fashion when I was in high school, I took a lot of
shit because I was "fat." Unlike other anorectics, I was getting it from
*external* pressure rather than internal. You could count my ribs. My
pelvic bones stuck out. But I had mondo calves.
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
"Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator
"That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
