"Girth and Nudity, a Pictorial Mission"
I wanted to be down with this article--and I was until the sharp U-turn at the end where "fat women" once again become a distinct class of people about whom one can generalize. I'm willing to give Nimoy the benefit of the doubt here. He may have been responding to a question about whether or not people would think he had a fat fetish, and who knows what the reporter paraphrased as "he doesn't necessarily find them sexually attractive." But boo! to both the writer and the Times for their cluelessness.
Imagine how ridiculous and offensive it would be to say, "I don't necessarily find _________ people sexually attractive, but I do think they're beautiful." And even if it weren't, what a shallow way to think about sexual desire in the first place--as though one body could be substituted for all other bodies of a similar size and shape.
I need to write more sex poems.
Comments
Down with the article too. I think the U-turn is created by a clumsy question and he's trying his best to answer.
Congrats, btw, on the recent poems and Cornell. Happy for you.
Posted by: Paul | May 14, 2007 08:48 PM
I think it's jejune of the journalist to equate beautiful and sexually attractive, especially when talking to an artist about aesthetics. My husband, who's an artist, works with models all the time in his artwork. It's as ridiculous for me to be jealous of a nude woman as it is of an arrangement of McDonald's toys. He's seeing shape, line, form. How puritanical that we as a culture equate look with sex.
Posted by: Pamela | May 15, 2007 05:54 AM