Renee at $110,000 Per Pound

Oh lordy. Do ya think we'll start seeing the "Thai Jail Diet" make the rounds when this movie comes out? (Actually, I think RenÈe looked a lot better in "Bridget" than she did in "Chicago." In the latter she looked ill and drawn, IMO.)

"...after being stuck in a Thai prison." So, does the movie end by leaving her there? (Sorry. Couldn't resist hoping for a happy ending.)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031023/ids_photos_en/r1975488741.jpg That's what WW thinks is an appropriate BEFORE picture. Freaking insane. The bad news for WW is that Renee has already planned to postpone her anticipated starvation so she can get another movie out of the 30lbs she gained. I have to assume she won't be thin by Oscar Season, and that's the kind of exposure WW would really want. They'll gladly settle for the no-cost benefit of all the coverage of their offer, though.

From another article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20031013/en_usatoday/11898759 "Gone is the rail-thin gal we saw at a fashion gala in New York in June. She was thought to be about 106 pounds then. Now? Goodbye size 4; hello size 14. A zaftig Zellweger has been spotted out and about recently, often with snacks in hand. She clearly is ready to play the part, for which she gained (and obviously later lost) 20 pounds in 2001." I'm sorry but gaining 20 (or even 30) lbs. is not going to take someone from a size 4 to a size 14!!! And "zaftig"?!?! Give me a freekin break.

Amen, pseu, anyone weighing 126 or 136 pounds is not 'zaftig" & does not need a size 14. These people have no idea of what a real woman weighs or what a normal-sized human being looks like. I watch very few movies, but I have seen her in the commercials for "Chicago" & I thought she looked skeletal. Of course, some people were calling Catherine Zeta-Jones "full-figured" in that movie, God help us! I myself managed to be a size 16 at 170 pounds, & I accomplished that little feat by increasing my usual hour to hour & a half of daily exercise to over three hours daily for over 3 years. For a size 14, I think that I personally (I am 5'6" & hourglass-shaped) would need to weigh somewhere between 155-160. I am getting very sick of this scrawny ideal they are selling, & very worried about what it does to the women in this culture, especially our children.

She only had to gain 30 this time because she LOST an extra ten pounds the last time she had the part because she was so "horrified" at how "fat" she was.

Turtlegrrl, I actually thought Renee gave the weakest performance in Chicago. I was never a fan of Zeta-Jones but she was incredible in that movie. That woman is a bona-fide musical performer. Her stage experience really showed. And Queen Latifa owned every scene she was in. She only had one musical number in the theatrical release, but from what I understand the DVD has an additional one that was cut in for the theatrical.

Puhleeez! This is just craziness. We already know that Renee can gain and lose weight for a part. Now she's going to do it again and WW wants to take the credit? It makes me sick, it really does. (sigh)

Yeah, exactly. Male actors can gain and lose weight for parts and no one bats an eye.

What really irks me about this whole thing is why they had to get a slim actress and make her gain weight. Why not use one of the many actresses who have been told "You're too fat to be an actress"? This has bugged me since the first movie. Besides, Renee doesn't even look fat in the first movie. She's only just approaching normality ;)

It's the hollywood way -- she's not Bridget's weight, but that's okay, she can just eat a buncha junk food and bulk up. She's not Bridget's nationality, but that's okay, she can just affect a really crappy accent and fake everyone out. Then she can get extra press and kudos for her "efforts" which will make people want to see the flick. It's ALL about the marketing. Don't buy into it -- skip seeing the flick.

She's precisely Hollywood's image of an average sized British woman. A very thin American. Hollywood clearly has no interest in casting a fat woman in a leading role, always proclaiming a lack of good fat actresses. Which is because they never give any fat actresses work. I'm almost surprised that they gave Kathy Bates the "Misery" but that was "real" fat and not something they could fake like "Murial's Wedding" or "Circle of Friends" or "Bridget Jones". Of course, the first two of those betray the lie of the no fat actresses as both were played by relative unknowns. When it is someone well-known, you get the lovely PR push that Dreama suggests. You get "buzz" before the movie when the actress is gaining, then after production when she crash diets, then when the movie is released with all sorts of stories about how awful it was for her.

on similar lines I was watching (HBO I think) the other night and they had an interview with good old J Ho and she got around to talking about self-images, weight-loss/gain in Hollywood.. She started out saying that the perception in H/w is distorted since she is perceived as fat when she is ideal/healthy blah blah and then went on to say that "its not like I am fat/chubby or 'Ugly fat' like some of the others who seem to have made it hollywood" and later on regarding the whole gaining weight for roles " why would someone do that to their body? why would someone willingly add all the ugly fat to their bodies just for a role-I would just go with the fat suit" Thanks a whole ****ing lot J Ho! And then on some other topic I forget what-probably that ofensive movie that Mel Gibson is coming out with, she was like " how can someone square this with their conscience? offending and insulting so many people" and I am sitting there thinking "Right on J Ho, its ok when you insult 3/4 of America by calling them ugly fat, obscenely fat etc"... sigh hollywood..

Ironically, given that Hollywood actors are known for their activism, Hollywood producers are notorious for only watching the bottom line. Until they're convinced that 'real sized' actors can make money, they'll keep feeding the skeletons who have already made money. I certainly dont' blame Renee for taking the money from WW. Why not? (Especially since we're pretty sure she'll lose it anyway.)

I'll happily blame Renee for promoting a product which by its own admission doesn't work. (Results not typical, remember) Diet industry shills are entirely responsible for their actions in promoting fat hatred. I don't care if they were fat, thin, or whatever. I'm not going to relieve the people who promote the weight loss industry of responsibility for their actions.

Well, that makes sense Brian. I guess my entrepreunerial spirit temporarily overran my outrage! I figure if you're going to lose 30 pounds, why not get paid $3 million for it? Obviously 'why not' is because that $3 million dollars is being used to promote a questionable lifestyle that has deleterious effects on society. Although I like the idea that she might retain the weight for another movie. It's hardly the size acceptance nirvanna we seek, but it's definately a start.

Hmm. I too was thinking the same thing, how many actresses could have played that part as they were? It's almost as though Hollywood wants everyone to believe that people that size don't exist so they have to get an already malnourished actress to gain weight in order to play the part. Well you can pretend that we don't exist all you want but we aren't going anywhere. Get used to it.

this is wrong for so many reasons isn't she rich enough? isn't $20M to butcher a beloved novel enough for her? she needs this extra couple million? 9% of America is unemployed, the budget deficit is an all time high and the poor have become increasingly poorer while social services are being cut each day (i have lost most of my disability benefits due to state and federal cuts) yet this woman is being handed money - money that orignally came from the blood and sweat of women who hopefully, naively joined WW and handed them their 100's of dollars - to become underweight and eating disordered again. that is a slap in the face to all of us who cannot even pay the heating bill. to all of us trying to raise daughters to like themselves, and to appreciate their bodies just a teeny bit. her weight before gaining for this movie was 106 - on the BMI chart, that is "underweight". gaining as much as 42 pounds still keeps her squarely within "healthy weight" on the BMI chart. yes it is true that she can not possibly go from a 4 to a 14 by gaining just 30#. it is about 10# a dress size up to size 6, then 15 per size up from that, and women's sizes are even numbered. she would need to be about 160+ to be an actual 14. Brian is right that after BJ1 she overcompensated and lost MORE than she originally gained to become the incredibly sickly and unnatractively skinny woman you saw at this past year's Oscars. she shows all the signs of bulemia - the edematous face and the inflamed salivary glands that give her the appearance of having mumps - or chipmunk cheeks. her eyes are almost puffed shut. anyone who saw Down With Love will remember that she appeared to have no jawline whatsoever - her face melts into her neck. i've seen it 100 times. her lower rib cage sticks out farther than her breasts. but going up from this into what the holy BMI charts say is a "healthy weight" is called "beefing up" and my favorite, "packing on the pounds". becoming this "healthy weight" she is now "zaftig" with a snack apparently at the ready. give me a effing break. on a similar note, i was checking a web based email and noticed a wordless ad showing skeleton feet on a scale (the scale read 90#) so i clicked on it and was taken to this site. apprently some kind of PSA about eating disorders (notice it does not mention the possiblity of being fat and having anorexia, hm why is that?...) when i refreshed the email page i got instead an ad for eDiets, with pictures of people holding out their now big pants, and, of course, a woman happily on a scale. what message is this? "stop eating so much and lose weight but not too much - stop before you die". its ok to weight 106, but don't dip under 90, i guess. this is nothing but insane.

Very well put Michelle. Ok, I'm new here, someone clue me in on the word 'Zaftig' please.

It's Yiddish. I'm not sure of the exact translation, but it's typically used to indicate pleasantly plump/full figured. It's definitely a positive word.

You can find the synonyms for "zaftig" , as used in English, in Roget's thesaurus. at http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=zaftig I don't know it's exact definition in Yiddish. At 106 lbs, Renne Zelwigger had a BMI that put her in a weight group that exhibits increased mortality compared to women with BMI's between 20-25.

Amen, Michelle. That's exactly the comment I was going to post earlier - that what bothers me the most about this whole Weight Watches thing is that Renee is getting PAID to lose weight by them, while so many women have paid them their hard-earned money to try and lose a few pounds. It's disgusting. And Weight Watchers isn't cheap, either. It'd be pretty amusing if the membership cost mysteriously increases after this whole fiasco. I am thoroughly disgusted by that corporation.

I don't really mind that WW is trying to make money. But.. they claim they are promoting health. How can they claim this and pay Renee to lose weight? Renee is 5'5" right? And the heavy weight is 145 or so? She plans to drop back down to 106 lbs, right? Take a look at WW's table. Look at the healthy weights for a 5'5" in person. 120 lbs to 144 lbs. Remember: Those are THEIR numbers! What bothers me about weight watchers campaign is this: Renee is being paid to drop her weight from a level that Weight Watchers themselves lists as just one pound above the healthy maximum for people bewteen 25 and 45 to a weight WW considers to be 14 lbs below the healthy minimum. WW is paying her to diet down to a weight they officially think is unhealhty!! Is WW trying to send the message: Our numbers are upper bounds? (But we don't quite want to come out and say this... because.. well,...?) My BMI is 21. Based on my reading this is 1-2 BMI points below the value that correlated with optimum longevity for groups of American women near my age. Am I supposed to see the WW ads, hear WW is paying her and think: Oh... Renee is intentionally aiming for 17, I should too? BMI of 17!!!

Lucia, i mind that WW is trying to make money since they are doing it dishonestly, exploitively, at a great detriment to women's health and off the money primarily of women who are the poorest people on earth. Renee only gains weight into the 130's, which further validates your argument. they want to pay her to go from their own stated healthy weight range, into a below -healthy range. you are correct - they cannot possibly promote health, and weight loss. this Bridget Jones tie in may bring them a bit of business, but i have hopes that it will mar their credibility at least somewhat - maybe open up dialogue for once about what the motives and message really are. as of right now, WW is almost universally acknowledged as a "good thing" - some health insurances will even pay a part of the costs. you'd think that Fergie's rapidly Yo-Yoing weight would be enough reason to lay off celebrity spokespeople.

I should have said "I don't mind if they are trying to make money per se. Sometimes trying to make mone, in and of itself, is mentioned as some sort of damning fact. In this case, I do disapprove. WW claims to be promoting health, and uses that message to encourage sales of their product. Paying Renee to for each pound of weight loss from the 130's to the 100's promotes an unhealthy message! It's unhealthy by their own standards! Has Fergies weight yo-yo'd? Ordinarily, I don't keep track of celebrities heights, weights, fitness levels or health -- just my own and my families'. Now I'm going to have to google!

They are trying to make money by selling the modern day version of snake oil. There is a reason we regulate capitalism, and its to prevent companies from exploiting consumers in precisely this way. I don't think this is going to be a budget buster for WW. They've got the money to spare, and what's more, I don't think they are expecting to get anywhere with their sponsorship offer. I doubt Renee will take them up on the offer, given her highly negative response to gaining weight the last time. Something tells me she does not want to be associated with being "fat" any more than she needs to. WW did this for the publicity just the offer garnered them.

While I *highly* doubt it, what if WW is onto someothing there. What if they make a big deal of paying Renee $110,000 per pound she loses until she reaches an ideal weight. Then, they present her, publicly, with a cheque for $110,000, given that she is only one pound over an 'ideal weight'! Okay, I'm done day dreaming.

i wanted to mention that in the BJ2 book, the character loses about 15 pounds in a Thai prison because she has dysentery for weeks. maybe they already filmed those parts? or will they film it after? in People magazine a few issues ago, there was a little 1 page article about how she is 'beefing up" and actually eating food for this role, and there was a teasing speculation about whether her boyfriend can tolerate her weight gain. it included a cryptic quote from him saying something like, "men are such cads" -- insinuating that yes he is put off. this whole Bridget Jones movie debacle is so interesting each time it comes around because i think it tells us a lot about what is going on for women and body image; and where we are as a movement.

You know, I've not been big on conspiracy theories in the past, but I'm amazed at the pedagogical aspects of all this. In other words, this sort of "journalism", for whatever reasons, is very much about training women and men in what their roles are allowed to be in the lowest common denomenator culture (i.e. fashionable, chic, stylish, cable-TV approved). The lesson from that little report is a) the most important factor in a relationship is whether or not a woman's body is under male control, b) male control and perpetual judgement of women is not only reasonable, but common, and not that serious, c) morons are normal, etc. etc. I firmly believe that, just as we need alternative news sources (Democracy Now, non-US sources like The Guardian, etc.) in order to make sense of what's happening politically in the U.S., we also need to create/find/support alternative entertainment media. The mainstream entertainment media is just as much about lying, creating artificial need, creating artificial opinions, manufacturing consent (i.e. to perverse and dangerous practices such as cosmetic and/or "weight loss" surgery) as the "news" media is about selling government lies.

Kell, i've been thinking about your comment for a couple of days now. this is my roundabout reply. early in the last century, women slowly stopped wearing corsets. corsetry was designed to physically mold women's bodies into a ridiculously unrealistic shape that was culturally programmed to be the "attractive, feminine" shape. corsets cause the wearer to be in pain and aware of the corset at every waking moment. breathing and eating as well as sitting and relaxing were difficult and the woman's life was circumscribed by her undergarments (even getting dressed and undressed required help; making it difficult or impossible for lower class women to wear the corset and be a part of accepted society. the uncorsetted woman was "outside" mainstream and pitied/frowned upon). organ systems, formation of the rib cage and tragically, childbearing were all malformed by corsetry. as women began acquring more rights throughout the West, corsetry was softened, then abandoned. but what to replace it? now instead women wear corsets designed of their own flesh. like before we are molded to fit an unrealistic ideal that is 100% culturally programmed. we cannot be successful or loved by men, we are told, if we do not suck it in and lace it up. diets and surgeries make us aware of this inequity every minute of every day. our lives are circumscribed by our weight, and our perception of ourselves as compared to standards set by carefully handpicked "models", and the design of clothing in restrictive sizes and styles that exclude women of average size. restricting food intake, "firming" excersizes, operations, lotions and potions and pills all serve to cinch women's torsos, whether from the inside or outside. a middle class man in 1903 would not want a wife who was not corsetted into the "grecian pose" - wasp waist, arched back, protruding bottom bolstered by bustles - and his modern counterpart is not supposed to be caught dead or dare to marry a woman not "good enough" - not cinched and if need be, bolstered by silicon. are we crazy? or is everyone blind? how does a beautiful girl like Renee get so unattractive and simultaneously applauded for it? look at her older work, she was a very pretty woman before being disfigured by the ED. when i look at vintage pictures of women deformed into 18" waists by corsets, i say "how could anyone possibly think this was attractive?" when will we be able to look back on this era and say that?

Michelle, I understand and appreciate your point of view, and I do agree with what you said in reference to women now being required to reshape themselves, rather than relying upon their foundation garments to do so; but Iím going to disagree, respectfully, with some of what you wrote. I think we can take it as a given that there are always women who will proceed to the fashionable extreme, whether by tight-lacing or excessive dieting. As far as corsets themselves go, their function is basically to change the shape of the torso from an oval to a round, creating the impression of a smaller waist. The function of the 16th, 17th and 18th C corsets was to create a cone shape with a flat front and breasts pushed upwards (or flattened, in the case of Spanish corsetry in the 16th and 17thC). A properly made and fitted corset from these eras will have enough room for the wearer to actually reach in and lift the stomach so itís supported by the garment unless it is specifically made small to the point of discomfort in order to reduce the waist. There were also alternatives such as half-boned corsets (having half the boning of the standard corset) or quilted waistcoats (sleeveless garments usually having peplums, but without boning). The 19th C saw the development of spiral boning, which allowed corsets to flex from side to side. The 19th C corset, which went in at the waist, instead of straight down in front, did allow for the possibility of greater abuse ñ but corsets are sized for ìspringî (the amount for lacing shut); the wearer of an 18î corset would have a gap of anywhere from 2î to 4î when it was laced shut ñ and possibly more. Corsets varied in price, from expensive ones to very cheap ones, and were considered so necessary that they were provided to the inmates of poorhouses. Lower and working class women definitely had access to corsetry. They also adapted their clothing so that they could get into it and out of it themselves. Very large-busted women who wear properly fitted corsets these days often find that they are more comfortable than bras, offering support from underneath, rather than hanging all the weight from the shoulders. I have designed, made and worn corsets specifically intended for sports (maximum impact martial arts), and found them an absolute necessity. I have gone on a bit here because too often modern writers, many of whom have endured stiletto heels and painfully tight designer jeans, but who have not worn corsets themselves, make sweeping statements about their discomfort. The actual case is: not necessarily. It depends on the intent of the wearer. I expect the woman of fashion, whatever the period, was and is prepared to endure any discomfort to achieve her goal, either through tight-lacing or starvation dieting. The woman of sense is not.

but women are not "allowed" to have sense; they/we must conform. also, the corsetry of today, including reproductions and modern interpretations (of which i as a a person with a passion for historical costume am familiar) are not really comparable to those of 200 or even 100 years ago when less was known about anatomy, and far fewer materials were available. women do not choose corsets or diets freely, girls never chose footbinding. and having the feet bound looser or tighter, it's still binding and it is still appalling. same with corsets. even the stretchy spandex panty girdle, free of boning or fastenings, available at wal-marts everywhere is a sign of submission and body denial, even though i own one somewhere.

Perhaps it is a sign of submission and body denial for you. Personally, I don't care for turtleneck shirts. I think they're among the most uncomfortable things in the world. However, simply because I think they're awful for me doesn't mean I think they are awful for everyone. It really bothers me when people start projecting their feelings about anything and everything onto other people and making assumptions about other people based on what they choose to do with their lives in those areas.

i definitely do not make assumptions about people based on whether they wear those garments, or diet to starvation. however i do make assumptions about what is going on in the culture i live in that prescribes an extremely narrow (literally and figuratively) view of what women "should" look like, and that markets products and images accordingly. for example, if i critisize Weight Watchers (and do i ever!) that does not mean i am critisizing my mother, who used the service. a turtleneck and a bodyshaping device are two very different things; one is designed to mold a woman into a smaller (slightly) more flattering shape to fit closer to an ideal. it is political act to let your belly do what it will without restraint. i remember going into a Lady Grace store after my daughter was born to get a panty -girdle since i had a c-section and had a belly flap kind of shape which embarrassed me. the older woman was pleased that i was "doing something about it" and expressed disgust at the young ladies of today who let their bellies loose. and as she put it, "let it all hang out". naturally i was determined to do just that after having such a conversation.

Hi Michelle, I'm wondering. If you don't like girdles, what's you take on bras? I'm against bras myself. I hate feeling that horrible band across my rib cage, and boning is even worse. Then.. those awful straps. Plus, the lace is often so scratchy! Some women do express distaste at the non-bra choice! Who'd think underwear was such a big deal?

oh man. i hate bras. i wear them though! i wear the Bravado which is a soft cotton spandex thingee with no firm bits. kind of a sports bra with nursing access. i had a friend who never wore a bra and she got a lot of flak for it. larger breasted women especially get a lot of disgusted looks when we go braless. like not shaving the legs or armpits; those uppity women ;^) not doing what they're "supposed" to do. there are some theories about bras and a possible breast cancer link; due to restricted lymph drainage and pressure on the tissues which can cause "activity" in cells. i haven't looked into it though.

What really is at issue, though, is the motivation, and although there may be some body nuetral justifications to wearing a corset, that does not mean it is fair to suggest that this is what motivates the majority of people who wore them in the past or in the present. Every other woman I've ever heard discuss wearing a corset was uniformly clear about what their motivation was, and it certainly wasn't for support. It was because it made their stomach look smaller. Even among SSBBWs. I have a hard time thinking that the corset is widely about something else when its purpose has been so unanimous elsewhere. I have a hard time looking at this is simply "extreme fashion" when its stated purpose is so overwhelmingly for trying to force one's body to conform to an ideal which it does not meet.

I also hate bras, so I have a compromise. I wear them outside, walking, running errands, going shopping, going out to lunch with friends or family, & take them off the minute I get home. I also wear soft cup bras with no boning, & the last ones I bought have those gel straps, which help a lot. My grandmother wore a corset from the time she turned 13 until her death at 90, & could not understand why her daughters & granddaughters did not. She was not given a choice, her mother put her in a corset at 13, that is what they did back then. Also, from what I understand, for many women, there was no breathing room, no room for comfort, for putting your hand down there to adjust things. Just how comfortable do you think you are when you are hanging onto a bedpost while someone pulls the laces as tight as they will go in an attempt to give you a 17 or 18" waistline? Sorry, but natural waistlines on healthy women, even thin ones, do not come in that size. The super-scrawny models of today have waist measurements of 24" or 25", & in my compulsive exercise/starvation stage, when I kept myself underweight & healthy for 2 years, I could never get smaller than 25". And all the stats about miscarriages, liver & kidney damage, & all kinds of internal injuries to these women would indicate that they were not in any way comfortable. I do believe that the corsets & merry widows of today are a very different thing, especially since they do make them in plus sizes, & more for a "sexy" look for a special occasion or play in the bedroom than for every day, all day wear. Many women also wear high heels, but they are some of the most dangerous & unhealthy things you can put on, & wearing them frequently does great damage to your feet, & their sole purpose in existing is to make you "look good" & conform to the image of feminine attractiveness & submission. You have foot pain in them, poor balance, you cannot run to escape an attacker, & you end up suffering permanent damage to your feet, ankles, Achilles, & sometimes your back. I know a young woman who is now a podiatrist, who used to be a competitive runner. She no longer runs, she campaigns to get her patients to stop running & take up walking, & she no longer wears heels, & constantly lectures her patients on their dangers. Just because something is done a lot, some item is worn a lot, & seen as an accepted part of our culture, does not make it harmless, & being a woman should not mean that we have to go along with punishing & mutilating ourselves in order to be comfortable. After all, what's the most uncomfortable thing a man is expected to wear? Perhaps a necktie when he is dressed in a suit or tux, & a protective cup while playing sports. Fortunately, the man I love knows that I am physically unable to wear heels & he hates bras & corsets as much as I do.

I meant obviously that we should not have to punish & mutilate ourselves in order to be accepted. Most of this stuff really IS part of the effort to control women & our bodies, to make us conform to some "ideal", to remind us that women & their bodies are considered to be unruly, dangerous, frightening & that we need to be kept in line, & to keep us feeling insecure & inferior & consumed by the desire to be "good enough", so that we lack time, energy & strength to be our full sizes & concentrate on what is important. I also obviously meant that I kept myself underweight & UNhealthy for two years.

Maybe I'm just an oddball, then. Because if I were made of money, I would so be going out to buy a corset. Not for everyday wear, not to reshape my body, but because every so often, I want to wear one. And maybe that's what I'm trying to say--if I actively choose to wear an article of clothing because it pleases me on some level, why should anyone judge me? Where do we draw the line? At what point do our clothing choices stop being our own and start being a tool of society keeping us down (because that's very much the sense I'm getting from this conversation)? I'm getting two new pairs of glasses this weekend--is the fact that I chose a fun, somewhat funky frame for one pair a sign that I'm buying into the whole fashion thing? Or is just that I want them? Where's the line between looking good for ourselves and looking good for society? I dress to please myself, and sometimes that means high heels and other times it means combat boots. I think both choices are valid. It bothers the hell out of me that because none of you seem to feel that certain clothing choices are appropriate for yourselves that they are therefore valid for no one. Things have become increasingly shrill around here, and I'm not sure I like it.

As I said early in my post, Natalie, the corsets they make now are very different from the ones they made 100 years or more ago. You should wear whatever YOU want to wear, for your own reasons, whatever makes you feel good, comfortable, or pretty. However, you shouldn't let the culture tell you that you MUST wear something in order to be acceptable. I think that the corsets may be more comfortable now & Looser, & I have considered getting a bustier or some such thing for bedroom play. And you DID say you would like to have one to wear sometimes, because you want to wear one, not ALL DAY EVERYDAY until you die, because that is what is decreed that you must do. And, no our culture doesn't decree that you buy glasses you think are cute, it actually decrees that you should be in contacts, if you want to do your part to look your "best." Dress for yourself, for your own reasons, for your own comfort & pleasure, not to meet anyone else's expectations.

While it certainly may not be fair to assume everyone who wears a corset does so as a means of contracting their body into a more desired shape, that does not also mean that it is fair to assume that everyone who wears a corset does so for body nuetral reasons. I do think it is fair to be concerned about "fashion" when the stated purpose is to manipulate one's body into something unnatural. That's not fashion. And while there may be some body neutral motivations for wearing a corset, when the motivation is stated as an expression of body hatred, I do think it is a cause for concern. No matter how body hatred manifests itself, we should be free to discuss it and to look for solutions for it.

My issue is that you're assuming that everyone who wears article of clothing "foo" is doing so because they wish to change whatever part of their body "foo" is intended to cover, reshape, minimize, enhance. I find that it is fairer, overall, to assume that people are behaving in a body neutral fashion until I can find out otherwise. In other words, I don't make assumptions about the motivations of people I don't know. Isn't size acceptance supposed to be about accepting other people's bodies as they choose to present them and not imposing on others our vision of what their bodies should be? I mean, all this railing on about how people shouldn't wear garments which change the shape of their bodies is--IMO--just as bad as someone coming in here and saying that we all should wear garmets to change the shapes of our bodies. My thinking is that it's supposed to be about choice. Educate people and then let them make their own damn decisions.

I don't think anyone here is continuing to assume that everyone who wears a corset is doing so out of body negativity. I think that your point that there are body nuetral reasons for wearing it has been generally accepted. Nevertheless, I don't think the the generalization about the majority motivation is at all unfair. It is always impossible to know the motivation of everyone, but that shouldn't be used to silence discussion when there is a good reason to make a generalization. It may be flawed, and I'm open to evidence showing so, but you haven't provided any. An alternate explanation merely shows that any generalization must be understood as not being completely uniform. It doesn't mean that the experience of so many as to what the motivation generally is is untrue or unfair. And when the motivation is body hatred, it should be our concern. Individual body hatred hurts us all. When that is what motivates someone, we shouldn't have to accept it. We may not be able to force change, but that hardly means we should be prevented from advocating for it. People will always be free to disagree with us, so choice doesn't play an issue here. But if one side isn't allowed to make its case, how can we affect change? If people are doing something, anything, as an expression of their contempt for their body, we should feel that this is something that should be changed.

Of course body hatred is an issue. I think you and I are looking at the same problem from two different starting points. I believe that unless one knows specifically what someone's motivation for doing foo is, that one shouldn't take issue with them for doing foo. My understanding of your position is that you are going to make a general assumption about foo, and assume that unless you know otherwise, that the motivation for doing foo is that general assumption and act accordingly. I'm very much a live and let live type of person. I dislike people making assumptions about me based on my external apperance, so I work at not making assumptions about others based on their external appearance. Most people I know don't wear clothing they find to be uncomfortable on a daily basis. When they do, it's for a specific reason and typically for a specific occasion. I do wonder, though, what you think about extreme body modification and extreme modes of dress that do fundamentally change what we would consider to be the natural shape of the human form into an unnatural one--but which may feel more natural to the individual choosing to do such things to their body?

What do I think of people who do extreme body modification? Simple. I don't understand what makes them want to do it. This has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting. There are lots of things people think or do that I don't understand. They are free to do it before I understand (or without trying to make me understand. Often, what's it to me?) I assume there are things I think or do that other people don't understand. Luckily, I can do them without first making every person on the planet understand.

Does the word masochist relate to anyone here? Frankly, if I lived a hundred years ago when these devices of torture were in high style...I'd have chosen to work in a saloon or house of ill-repute so I could let it all hang out baby. No pleasure from pain here.

THANK YOU! Renee gaining 20-30 lbs could not possibly take her from a size 2 (or size 0 which I suspect she was at) to a 14! And if Bridget Jones (as portrayed by Renee) is deemed overweight and in great need of change then we are in a lot of trouble. And she looked ill in Chicago. Very healthy in BJD, though.