Dove's Ads, Round II

Also of note is this blog entry at Marketing Playbook which includes a link to an NPR story about this very campaign. The overwhelming feeling across the web seems to be positive.

These women are not even fat! They don't even look like the average bodies I see (I'm a nurse). They appear size 8 to 12. And they're all young and toned with "hourglass" figures -- no cellulite, bumps, pot bellies, sags and cellulite. It is frightening that people actually see these women as average, let alone fat or "chunky." I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone or the set of the Stepford Wives. Where is real diversity?

well, they're selling skin care products, which is why they picked people with abnormally smooth skin. The fattest of those women looks like she just came out of some sci-fi cloning pod, her skin is so smooth! Still, this is a lot better than most cosmetic advertising I see, so I'll take the crumb and be grateful

I definitely appreciate their emphasis on non-stick-figure women, but I have to agree with Chile and say that it doesn't seem like much of a stand at all to me. I would say, without question, that all but two of those women can probably fit into a size eight, and I would say the remaining women are probably twelves or fourteens. It's just, what does this campaign say to women who are bigger than the women shown? It still gives me this puritanical sense of "It's fine to be this big (we're giving you this), but any bigger really is excessive." I dunno. I'm currently an eight. And the heaviest of the women probably still has a better proportioned, more even-skinned body than me. I'm reluctant to applaud Dove for giving me women with plus-size model bodies, not real plus-sized women. It seems half-assed.

You know, the first negative thing I noticed about the picture was how pale the one girl is. If I felt like bashing a giant billboard of that demanding they give me "fantasy babes," mine probably would have talked about having pictures of a girl whose skin doesn't match her undies. (No offense against pale people, I just think she'd look a lot better in non-white) I don't think they're fat either, particularly the pale one. I mean, she's tiny. And the girl on the end (Stacy) has an almost little pooch on her stomach! For shame. If you read Jenkins piece, it quotes Lindsey, the one who I thought was the biggest of in the picture, as saying that they are real women, they have real curves, and she herself is between a size 8 and 10?!? Real Women my ass. Maybe it's just because I am a MUCH larger girl that I don't find these girls big, but what the hell? I mean, the average American women is what, a 14? And this ad of "real women" has a whopping size 10 on it? I'm not bashing Dove - more power to them. But the things these people have written about it? I don't find those women big, let alone big enough to cause me to want to dry heave while waiting for a bus. And what about the "If that makes me sound superficial, shallow and sexist -- well yes, I'm a man" line? I'm a pretty big feminist, so this whole "outrage" in the first place is ruffling my feathers, but what is wrong with this guy? Maybe I don't get it because I don't have enough testosterone, but I wouldn't think I would want to point out to the whole world that I was superficial, shallow, and sexist. And if I was a man, I'd be pretty pissed off (and am for you guys anyway) that this guy has the nerve to imply that being those things is what being a man is. I wonder what these guys wives look like, if they have even managed to have one with their witty banter? Or what their wives think when they read that, since I bet you hubby might not realize the little woman is a size 8 herself. I'm going to stop before I keep ranting. No wonder Dove is only using a size 10 - imagine if they actually had a size 14 or even -gasp- a size 22? What is wrong these people? Grrr.

It is my personal belief that the Sun Times gets lots of its money from the diet/pharmaceuticals and much of their antifat rhetoric is because they are paid off. Not that they probably aren't ignorant as well, it easy easy to stay jerks when your palm is being greased! I understand Laura Washington is exploiting the death of Luther Van Dross and using it as an excuse to go off on another antifat tirade. I didn't read it because I would be too angered. I think that fat people should boycott the rag! And as far as men in Chicago not prefer full figured women - HA! Sorry, but that just hasn't been my experience at all!

Okay, let's see...most of the women in the Jenkins article thought that the ads were a good thing. Meanwhile, most of the guys were "Oh icky! Ewww! A nonperfect nonairbrushed REAL WOMAN!" From this I conclude: 1)These guys have a massive case of gynophobia, and I can only hope that they aren't exemplars of the male species in general. 2) No woman should ever have sex with these men again. Fer cryin' out loud, what's up with this whole "I'll sleep with a woman who looks like that, but I don't want to see her on a billboard" mentality? Because you know most of these men have dated/had sex with/married a woman who wasn't a size two. And if you can f*ck it without throwing up, you can look at it on the L without heaving. Pshhht. Why can't we see a non-model (not even fat) body in the media without having to hear the Neanderthals grunt? I take that back. It's an insult to the Neanderthals.

The beauty industry is not a friend to women or a friend to fat people, no matter how many larger than size 2 women they put on billboards.

Maybe the Real Doll company, should advertise to the men who dislike the Dove Real Beauty ads. "So you dislike women who don't look like the models. How about a woman who never talks, and is modelesque, but looks like a dead corpse. Real Doll. Sure, so it's a step in the direction of necrophilia. What do you care though? It's better than a real woman who'd care about you, even if she has imperfections. Yeah that's right, you don't want a woman, you want a thing. One less mysogynistic man trolling the clubs rufie in hand. Real Doll, the cure to fake men."

Judging partly from the model in the Marie Claire experiment, I don't see that any of these women could possibly be over a size 12. I would bash Dove for using such young, firm, well-proportioned women as examples of "real" women (they may be real, but they're by no means typical or average). But, judging by all the of the shockingly negative comments, I actually think Dove is doing something radical. If people's eyes have been so warped by looking at skeletons with fake tits that these women look "chunky" and "plump," then peoples eyes need to be retrained. Even twenty years ago you couldn't see the ribs and hip bones on the Victoria's Secret and Playboy models, as you always can now. When emaciation becomes the visual norm and supposed "ideal," people need to be exposed to new images, even if these women are very slender by our standards here. I would welcome having the market be flooded with such images if it meant that anorexia was no longer a beauty requirement.

Perhaps the most effective thing to do would be to write the Chicago Sun Times. Here is the address: letters@suntimes.com And, below, is the one I just sent them: Dear Editor: I am sorry Mr. Roeper can't handle the sight of "real women," on Dove's billboards. Though it's true the unholy alliance between marketing and body image also portrays "fantasy men," the women often seen are not "genetically blessed" as he says, but rather, surgically mutilated and "enhanced." And when "fantasy" includes models whose ribs and hip bones show, you have a far greater problem than self-admitted sexism. You have the constant message to women that it's normal, even desirable, even virtuous, to starve; to take up as little space as possible. While men used in advertising indeed look like "fantasies," you do not see their bones protruding through skin and accordingly, do not have anorexic ideation as the public face of everyday products. (Too, most of the Dove models are sizes 8 to 14--hardly "chunky.") Perhaps if I lived in Chicago, I'd take my size 18 self down to Mr. Roeper's street in my underwear. But then again, he's already admitted he can't deal with real women.

You can contact Richard Roeper too - his name is an email link in the article. Also what's worth noting, here, is that the UK and Canadian campaigns featured at least one woman bigger than all of the women in the US campaign - and featured older women (50s) too.

And we wonder why we don't see models over size 12 even for plus-sized clothes. Anyone who's on a billboard, especially a female, should damn well have to puke her brains out to get there, dammit! -- that's what these people are saying. I mean, do people realize that most of these human pencils they worship don't have the metabolism of gnats? That most of them practically have to kill themselves, living on lettuce and cigarettes, to attain that "ideal look"? And they think this is the way it *should* be? Gah.

Gee, what a surprise...Richard Roeper is making himself look like an idiot simply by opening his mouth. Bad enough that he's a movie reviewer who's never made a film. Now he's an expert on women's bodies and attractiveness when he obviously has no experience with either one. Maybe some chunk women in thier underwear should actually surround his house so he knows the difference...

I know no one means to offend pale ppl, but I find the comment disturbing none the less. If someone had said(if the women were wearing dark lingerie, perhaps), well that woman is too dark to be on the billboard, the crap would hit the fan. Why is it OK to say it the other way? Why is being pale a negative thing? Also, tanning is another dangerous beauty ideal evil that does not need to be propagated.

Also of note: Bill Zwecker agreed with the Roeper sentiment and went so far as to bring up the original, "BUT WE'RE FACING AN OBESITY EPIDEMIC!!!!" argument. Fucker. On the plus side, Gapers' Block - a worthy Chicago website - bashed all of this stupid crap too. Way to go, guys.

These women are considered 'obese'(MAN, I LOATHE that word)??? Good night nurse, why don't they just get skeletons, wrap them in skin with balloons on thier chests, and use THOSE for models everywhere? /sarcasm off

Here's my email to Channel 2:

Bill, Bill, Bill. I'm appalled and disturbed by your sentiment over Dove's new campaign. First off, let's get one thing straight: women generally feel bad about their bodies, and that is a serious problem at any size. And I do recognize that Dove is selling a product here. But "chunky", Bill? These women are size 10s at *best* in an America where the average woman is a size 16. These women aren't even average size, and you've deemed them chunky (along with Roeper, et al.) I find it incredibly telling, too, that in the Sun-Times coverage women applauded the ads while men largely rejected them. I, personally, think they're great. The final point I'd like to make is over your comment that these women are "out of shape". Bill, I'd like to know how you were able to determine that simply by looking at these women. What is "in shape" to you? Size 2? Size 0? Size 4? Size 22? It's entirely possible that one can be healthy at any size - that includes physical AND mental health. This is an era in which we should be encouraging and *celebrating* body diversity, and definitely scoping out how fat people can be just as healthy if not healthier than thin people. It's frustrating, then, when there are people like you (and Roeper, too) who have an obvious soapbox to stand on, a huge audience, and make bull-headed statements. I encourage you to check out the research on health and fat, and the way advertising really does affect people - particularly women - before spouting off again. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further, feel free to send me an email. I've been in the fat acceptance and fat rights movement for several years and would be happy to discuss it. Thanks, - Paul

Zwecker responded to the general consensus as well, and the video is on the CBS 2 site. The ironic thing is that while one person called him out for being "out of shape," the newscast then showed him... working out! On a treadmill! There is SUCH a disconnect here, it's not even funny. If a woman did that same thing, Zwecker would probably call her out of shape or suggest she's doing something wrong. At the end, he did say "forgive me" and that he's a "very pro-woman person." I call BS.

Ummm, I have to agree too that the pale comments are offensive. The first thing I though when viewing the picture was that it was nice to see that skin tone for once. Advertising very rarely includes either really-white or really-black women. On the whole, I like the campaign, though I wish it went further and included different ages, larger sizes, more racial variety, etc. etc. But it's a start.

Zwecker responded to my email: "Sorry I upset you. I appreciate your taking the time to write and articulately express your opinion. Your email is being forwarded to management." Well, I got "articulately"!

Count me in with the "pale comments offensive" group. Saying "no offense" doesn't make it acceptable to say something offensive. It wouldn't be acceptable to say that someone dark-skinned "shouldn't match her undies - no offense." It sure isn't acceptable to say "the first negative thing I noticed about the picture was how pale the one girl is." I have had strangers shriek, "Get a tan!" to me - people who would have been the first to call the news media if someone implied there was a problem with their own colouring. I don't get as choleric as I once did, though; now if someone says something like that to me, I just tell them: Lighten up.

Lighten Up, LOL ;) I know wot you mean, too, Dolley. Also there are the 'well meaning' friends who say, 'You need some sun'. Um no, I don't want any sun, thank you. For one thing, I burn instead of tan(so badly I have to swim at night), and another thing I don't want to risk skin cancer. But then they tell you to use that fake tan stuff, so you can't win :( No one tells darker ppl to bleach their skin, as of course they shouldn't. I just wish it went the other way, too. I've been called a vampyre, and been accused of being evil sitting in a dark room all day cos I'm so pale. Argh!!

When I said LOL about Lightn Up, I meant that is a good and cute comeback. I wanted to clarify that. Oh, I've also been told that a tan will cover my flaws!!! Can you beleive the gall?

I used to read Roeper growing up, I looked forward to his columns! Then when I returned home to Chicago during the summers in college, I read his columns and was a lot less impressed. Now as an adult no longer living in Chicago, when I visit and read the Sun-Times I don't even look at his column! Thanks for reminding me why! What a self-important, self-righteous man.

Just to give Ms. Jenkins a little credit, she wasn't the one who wrote the opinion including the comment about the "bucket of chicken". In the paper edition, they did a he said, she said...some misogynistic guy wrote that. A different woman wrote a counterpoint saying it's a positive thing.

"When we're talking women in their underwear on billboards outside my living room windows, give me the fantasy babes, please. If that makes me sound superficial, shallow and sexist -- well yes, I'm a man." I really don't mean to be glib, but I sincerely thought that Roeper was gay. Maybe he's just trying to come off like a sexist manly-man to combat the rumors.

aces: Thanks, that wasn't clear in the online version. I'll amend the post to note that.

Chanel 2 is another den of media whores. Every second health article is about the dangers of obestiy. They must be competing with the Times for that award given by the pharmaceuticals you featured awhile back. (You know the one to spin fatness as negatively as possible!) Mary Ann Childers their "health" editor can't even say the word fat without cringing. And she is extremely extremely thin herself. Ironcially, she is probably near the BMI that has the worst longevity statistically. So if we are talking about setting bad examples for women's health he needs to look no further that the front door. Also, I forgot to add that I ride the L almost every day and go past that ad and I haven't heard a single person make a comment one way or another. It must be just certain circles. p.s. On a positive note, for anyone in the area who hasn't read The Obesity Myth yet, it is in Chicagp Public Library.

Zwecker actually name-checked "obesity epidemic" when talking about a bunch of size 8-10s??? Is he !@#$% serious?? Does he not realize that the skinnier the "ideal woman" has become, the fatter the "average woman" has gotten, and that it's not mere coincidence? (Can you say "8-year-old girls dieting," Billy?)

About the pale thing- My best friend is about the same skin tone as the girl on the billboard. I would never tell her to go tan, nor think it right for her to use artificial tanning or anything. She's a redhead, it comes with the territory. Just to clarify, when I meant she would look better in non-white, I meant the color of her underwear, not her skin. I personally think that paler people don't look that good in white. My own opinion. And looking at that ad, I didn't see the "fat" people, because there were none, I saw the one girl and thought she had skin just like my best friend, and how that was accented by her white clothing. If it's any consolation, it's not a media driven thing with liking tans. I'm half Puerto Rican. I think my skin looks good, nice goldern brown, since it's been the skin I've seen everyday of my life. I've also had my naturally pale mother (people thought she was the babysitter, we look so different) try so hard all her life to tan to be as dark as me. (She's not the most emotionally stable person in the world.) I just visited her this summer, and she's actually darker than me for once in her life (she still lives in Vegas, I moved to the land of no sun called Oregon). I think she looks bad too. Actually, worse than she would if she was pale, because she has that over-tanned, artifical look, like she's spent hours every day in the sun (which she has). By all means, go natural. If you burn in 10 seconds, than pale is a good thing for you. It still doesn't mean I'd think you'd that good in white. My fiance looks crappy in yellow. It's all relative. And I figured I would offend people. I usually do; I'm blunt like that. When I say no offense, it's more to let you know I'm not trying to persoanlly attack you, I'm just saying what I think, PC or not. Midknyt

I totally agree about the offensiveness of the pale-skin comment. I'm pale (aside from the stretch marks) and I think I look okay... I pointed out the ads to my mom and sister, with the comment that I was really disturbed that the men seemed to have such a negative reaction. Also, that I've noticed something WRONG with several print ads and, looking closer, seen that there is no way that a woman's body could do what they're doing in the ads. The bodies have been photoshopped and manipulated to appear... Different. And I wonder if there will come a time when people have no idea what the human body looks like, naturally. When the embarassed giggles in freshman life-drawing classes at art schools will turn to shocked gasps of horror.) Anyway, about the Dove ads, I have to remember that these are not a social statement - they are commercials for skin-care products. I attribute the fact that the women's skin are smooth and pore-less to the fact that the ads are trying to sell a fantasy. My mother had what I think is an interesting comment that speaks to feminism as much as fat acceptance (though the two are often linked, in my mind). She wrote (and I apologize in advance for any disagreement over politics - let's please just agree to disagree?): "Maybe it is not really an issue of fat. Maybe men are just really, really afraid of women who look like they can, or have had, babies. I never believed it, because it seems like something everyone can appreciate, the amazing workings of the human body, the awesome way life begets life. But maybe that is the issue. Maybe (some? most?) men are terrified by the primal proof that women have this incredible power to do something that men just can't do, no matter what. If it wasn't for us, they wouldn't be here. Their mothers used to have total control over whether they lived or died. (Kind of makes you wonder about the "pro-lifers", doesn't it? I mean, considering how anti-life they can be about homeless people, murderers, and so on.) None of these "regular-sized women" are fat. And they are all smooth and pretty. So it is not the actual esthetics. And I don't think the problem is just that men have been brainwashed by our society to think skinny women are more beautiful. There are men who don't think so. I think that manipulative marketers have given men permission to despise what they fear, and to want women who look frail and weak and not powerful and, frankly, too undernourished, or too young, (ick!) to give birth to a child. Of course, Dove is not exactly aimed at men, is it? They are taking the first timid steps toward a amazing new concept in marketing: Give women permission to be who they are, and beautiful as they are. When they put some woman with cerebral palsy and beautiful skin on a billboard, then I will applaud." I'd applaud, too. But to be honest, I'm applauding these ads little as well.

Goodness, if these women put a bad taste in his mouth, I'd love to see what my size 26 body would do. Projectile vomiting would ensue, I suppose.

About a year ago, Equire had a short piece by Roeper that indicated that he was single and not dating anyone in particular. Now we know why.

Boy, I have to say that I am proud of the residents of my city. Having read the comments on the blog above, most posters were not only positive, but had intelligent and thought provoking insights to share. I think they might be hope for future generations yet!

It seems to me the ads are effective - they're selling a product aimed at women, and women generally like the ads, judging by the comments I've read here and elsewhere on line. So screw Roeper and his nasty, sour comments! It is also amazing to me that the media is so devoid of images of "real people" that this heavily airbrushed photo is so shocking to so many. It's a lovely image but hardly representative of what most people actually look like.

first, i dont tan, at all, i used to work outside never got a tan.. i am white, as in my skin is so pale u cant see me in the snow. i wear whatever i wish to wear so long as i am comfortable, who cares about stuff like that, if i want to wear green with day glow green spots i will, it doesnt matter what people think, if i like it. i have seen that advert, theres a few things that sort of annoy me, the woman who says she has wings, well her arms are covered with fabric. so u cant see.. at least the first set of adverts had real women, the 2nd they look like the same thin people they are not like real people as one poster said.. there are a lot of men, i know them, we like the big and beautiful look of women, but we are so scared that we will be demonised for liking big.. now in the past fertility was linked to size (basically you could cope with the stresses of childbirth), but since modern medicinces have made it easier for everyone to have kids, the idea that skinnier is ok has pervaded the system. Now thats all very well, but there are men who use their mind to over ride that birth feeling, only people who follow their baser instincts without letting their brain work could see that, but today theres a lot of men, who like women, big or not, who have over ridden their own instincts (the sign of civilisation) and decided not to have children. or whatever.. the idea that men want weak women, well thats a myth, in the past the woman ran the household, she had dominion over the house, the servants if any, the children if any, and so on, she did have power, behind the throne. if you ask a lot of men, confidentially, he will confess that he will like strong women(and strong does not mean able to give birth something that any creature on this planet can do from rats upto lawyers.. ), curvy women, but he is told by the press and by a few groups that thats wrong. and men have to watch what they say, incase they are bullied saying they are sexist or whatever, men are demonised so much now that they cant say they like this or that sometimes its peer pressure, sometimes its not.. at least thats my opinion, and i know i know for a fact what i like, and that involved curves and no birth

I'm SO TIRED of seeing things about women ALWAYS come down to 'the awesome power to be able to give birth'. This makes me ill. It's NOT an awesome power, all animals can do it. Can't people think about women as summat other than walking wombs? I honestly don't think men are scared of that curse they are lucky not to have. They HAVE been conditioned by the media to like 'fantasy babes'. If this 'afraid' mess were true, then men would have liked these size 1 females since human time began. I'm not slamming anyone, I'm just tired of everything female always coming down to that one thing. The pale thing: OK, no one looks good in every colour, however it would not be right for me to say that I'm not fond of the looks of natrually dark ppl cos I've had pale skin all my life. Also, please tell your mother to stop the sun, cos it is extremely dangerous now a days. That worries me. Everyone should love the colour they are, and accept everyone else colour, too. You still have not addressed why you said the pale girl in the pic is a negative thing. Regardless of wot she wearing, that is a pretty harsh statement. How is it bad, too, that her paleness was accented by her clothing? It's not nice, or acceptable, for someone to say that it was bad that someone's dark skin was accented by their clothing. I know; I'm blunt, too.

Casey242, I think you missed my mom's point. Not all animals can make babies. Only FEMALE animals can. And there comes a point where female bodies (of most animals) that are starving cannot make babies. Now, human animals seem to be the only ones who covet a body that looks so thin. Why? And we've really only started coveting it in modern times: as television and mass media were developed, as women gained social power of one kind or another, etc. In modern times I think it's interesting that when women gain power (the 20s, the 60s) the fashion of the time demanded that women be unrealistically skinny. I don't really like children, don't ever want them, and if it didn't have hormonal implications I'd see if I could have my womb taken out. It's not a "curse" to me, but I just don't have any strong positive feelings about that aspect of my womanhood. Still, I actually do think it's an awesome thing, the way life begets life. There's no machine that can do what flesh and blood and fat and bone can do. I love my body not for how it looks, but for what it can do. But then, I like watching gory operation shows on TV, with limbs and faces being reattached, or nature shows that show such a beautiful diversity of animals, and I marvel at the awesome thing that is biology. And after years of watching them I still think sunsets are awesome too, so maybe I'm just green and un-cynical that way. I don't know, mercurior, I think that you're romanticizing the role of women throughout western history. Think Henry XIII (for households with servants, which most didn't have), or the rule of thumb. And on a personal note, I've known many more men (and women, for that matter) who seem angry when I, for example, give a strong opinion, than those who engage me on equal terms. Although, thinking about it, when I’ve been less fat people have acted more receptive to my opinions than when I've been more fat… Hmmm… Anyway, I think the Dove ads are a nice little start. Better than the alternative.

Not to beat this pale thing into the ground, but all the comments gave me an interesting insight. I wasn't offended in the least bit about that comment, despite the fact that I'm the extreme kind of pale where you kan see my veins through my skin. I truly love my skin color, and avoid the sun at all costs to preserve it. I think my true and complete acceptance of this aspect of my appearance is why I don't get offended if people disparage paleness, or make every effort to get themselves tanned (yep, just like leather!). It's a particular challenge here in Norway where everyone wants to be tan, everyone assumes everyone wants to be tan, and people still lay out in the sun. I think tans are ugly, as a matter of fact, and that people look best with their natural skin color, whatever that might be. I really and truly don't give a rat's ass about what other people think about pale skin, 'cause I love mine. Now, I contrast that with my acceptance of my body. I most definitely am affected by comments about weight. I think that's probably because my acceptance of my body is far from complete. Although it's uncool to admit it in these quarters, I'd prefer to be thin, and think I look better the thinner I am. I've got a looong way yet to go on the road to accepting my body and truly finding it beautiful, no caveats. So Midknyt, thank you for the comment--I learned something about myself from it and the discussion it spurred! :)

Well, thank you sjbrodwall. I'm glad you learned something about yourself. :) Alright, on the pale thing one last time: Casey242 - I don't see where there would be a problem in you saying you aren't fond of the looks of naturally dark people because you've had pale skin all your life. I don't have that type of double standard. As for my mother, believe me I've tried, but as I said (and really wasn't kidding about) she's not the most emotionally stable person in the world. I, by some miracle, have managed to get her to not think she needs to lose 30+ pounds before my wedding to look good, and I'll take that over her possible skin cancer any day. It's a long complicated thing with her, always. As for addressing why I said the pale girl was a negative thing - you totally misunderstood me. Maybe that's why everybody's touchy. :) I don't always do well without vocal expression with the words. (If in doubt, I lean towards sarcastic) What I meant, when I said that, is that looking at the ad, the first negative thing I noticed was that one girl was really pale. And then that was about it. I was using it to point out that those girls aren't fat, not in the least, and if there hadn't been the lovely drivle about how fat they were, I probably would not have noticed they were supposed to be "real women." So that was my comparison about it. When the schmucks at the Sun-Times looked, their first reaction (or so they are telling us) was dear lord, look at the fatties! My first thing I noticed when I looked at it, because I read the article first so was expecting 300 pound women from the way they were going on, was wow, look how pale that one girl is. It's what I noticed, not that they were fat, because they're not, and was saying if you were going to write a whole editorial complaining about the ad, that would be the only negative thing about them I could see that kept them from being "fantasy babes." I do love the color I am, and I accept everyone else's color. But you agreed, no one looks good in every color. I don't think she looks good in white. Sorry. If you really want to know, I'm pale for a Puerto Rican. There's irony for you, huh? I get teased by my fiance because he's darker than me but he's only a quarter black. I generally pass for white with a really good tan, although it's not something I try to do. I'm proud that I'm Puerto Rican. As you guys are getting all upity and saying that no one would say the same things about a dark skinned person, and how you are harassed to get a tan, tell me this: Has anyone ever denied you an available apartment because your skin is too pale? Because for some odd reason, my father has the worst luck in having apartments suddenly become unavailable when he shows up in person to rent them. Have you been denied any teaching about your ethnic heritage, culture, or language because you are pale? Because I don't know a damn thing about being Puerto Rican, nor can I even converse with half of my family that still live there, because my father was afraid I would grow up with an accent and be treated to the same discrimination he has faced all his life. Has your paleness ever caused someone to think you were an illegal from Russia, even though you're American, and not even of Russian descent? Because most people on the west coast assume hispanic = Mexican and Mexican = illegal. Most of you offended have said you don't think people look good with a tan. If you saw me, you'd think that's what I have. I'd say we're even. Midknyt

I agree that at least Dove is trying. Yes, it's not as far as they could go, but baby steps are better than no steps. Sometimes, the more people are challenged, the more they resist, so if you can begin presenting an idea of "beautiful" that is slightly outside the norm of what is usually seen, well, you're raising the bar. Maybe the next time, you can present something even farther from the common media presentation of beauty. It's generating a dialogue. And if it helps one woman look in the mirror and begin to see the beauty of her form, I can't help but think that's positive.

This comment at poundy.com is scary:

None of the women in the Dove ad is fat or unfit, yet here in Manhattan someone took a fat black marker and scrawled TYPE II DIABETES across one of the posters. Are people so brainwashed by media images that they can no longer see what a real, healthy, normal woman looks like?

Um, for what it's worth, a fast scroll revealed a couple of warnings that tanning is dangerous, one opinion that tanning is ugly, and a number of objections to the observation that was made twice that "the first negative thing I noticed was that one girl was really pale." The people, pale and otherwise, who are posting are trying to make the point that paleness, in and of itself, is not a negative. Any more than any other skintone is. That's not "uppity." That's pretty civil, considering.

You know, Paul, I am of the opinion that most young men (under 30) in Manhattan do not really *look* at most women in general. They sort of zone them out. (This often includes the women they work with, as well). I think they actually look at length mostly at online images and porn. Most of them dislike American women, anyway, and fantasize about foreign (read "submissive") women who basically won't talk much to them. So in a way you might say they really do not inhabit the "real" world a lot of the time anyway. When it is shoved in their faces in the form of an ad featuring real (well, "realler") women, a frightening disconnect occurs. And you get a sociopathy (as evidenced by the "type 2 diabetes" scroll) that is also visual psychosis.

I guess I have mixed feelings too - I'm happy they used bigger models (though frankly those women look to me like what I think "real" models should look like - they have curves and bodies, theyre not walking coat-hangers). But damn, if they represent "real beauty"? My skin was not that perfect the day after I was born! My hair is NEVER that good. (And although I'm close to the "pale girl" in skin tone, my skin is never that evenly colored). Frankly, I'm appalled that people look at this billboard and complain the women are too chunky or too fat - the women on the billboard look like athletes to me. (And, like I said, what I wish real-clothing models looked like - then I'dhave at least some idea of how things would look on me). I'd be a lot worse offended if they put up one of those Calvin Klein billboards from the 80s - you know, the guy lying there in his tighty whities and not much else - although I like looking at guys as much as the next straight chick, I really don't want to be seeing an 80 foot tall man's crotchal bulge at 8 in the morning when I leave my house. The Dove billboard is not offensive.

Cool on being ChildFree, Violet :) Here's where we differ: I do not think it's any awesome thing that females can spawn. I do not love my body cos it could theoretically begat 'life'. I do think it is a curse for precisely one of the reasons you mentioned, this body is so tied to that awful theoretical function that if you remove the uterus(yukk), you have serious hormonal complications. Also, for the time of the month thing. I don't think any man wants these things at all. Sunsets are beautiful and awesome; this is not. I do wish this skinny expectation thing would stop. You're right about why women covet it. It's shoved in their faces all the time, on TV, in movies, on the 'Net, in advertising. It makes me not want to get out of bed sometimes. No matter wot I do, someone is making me feel horrible about my body. Boy do I know about how different you get treated when you're not fat. I used to be a size 1, and ppl were so nice to me. Since I've gotten fat, lots of those same ppl are mean or just plain ignore me. SJBrod, I also think ppl look best in their natural skin colour. Midknyt, I don't know too much about being Polish, and have you seen how many 'Pollack' jokes there are? Good luck with your mother. I'm glad you got her to stop trying to lose weight. I'm still worried about her getting cancer. Skin cancer is one of the most deadly forms. Maybe one day you can get her to stop sunning so much. Oh, you meant 'negative' in that is one of the things that kept them from being 'fantasy babes'? I'm confused. I truly don't think I'm being uppity. I totally agree, Dolley. That is a HORRIBLE thing for that person to do, Paul. Why they don't scrawl 'ANOREXIA' on the skinny models? Not that they should, but you know wot I mean.

>>>'What I meant, when I said that, is that looking at the ad, the first negative thing I noticed was that one girl was really pale. And then that was about it. I was using it to point out that those girls aren't fat, not in the least'

One of the gals is really pale and would have looked much better in black or even red. I look better in green than in my beloved purples or greys. I don't think there is anything wrong iwth saying "wow, that pale gal would look better in any colour than white, I really don't think that colour flatters her"... or that it would be wrong to say "What a shame. That Hispanic gal is really pretty, but darn that colour doesn't suit her... why didn't they dress (heee) her in pink?" Or "That black underwear is barely visible against that model's skin, white or red would have been a better choice"? I must say, I like pale skin and I think that the white underwear looks awful on that gal. She doesn't look as good as the others because she looks washed out. A different colour would have been better. Different lighting. Something. End of statement. From a purely esthetic point of view, she's not as much of a good shot as the other women. In black, or red or something other colour she might have looked perfectly fine. In different lighting, with a different background. It's just not as good a photo of her as the others, her skin is too pale under those conditions. I re-read most of the discussion and I honestly think it wasn't meant as racism or even nastily, just that that one women is not as nicely showcased as the others. Question: what's with spelling what wot? I see it done by some people and I know it's consistent, but I don't get it! :-)