![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
keryxHas everyone seen the 'Skinny' video? Cause if not, you should go watch it. It's not work-safe (women in lingerie and domestic appliances, I kid you not), but I want you to have seen it before you comment. The ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
fatshionistas also linked up a couple of interviews for more context if you want it.
Alright. Seen it?
What? The? Fuck?
I've got to give it some credit as art, in that it can be read in enough different ways that it's compelling and provocative. But there's a big huge hunk of What Were They Thinking in my head watching it.
I am 100% down with the use of actual hot chicks in anything, and could happily ogle all of those [What are they? Models? Actors? Dancers?] women. They're gorgeous, no doubt. Why are they pretty and vacuuming in their undies? What's with the pie? Are they supposed to be the machines and objects they're interacting with?
The stated intent of the video is to show that fat women are also sexy, or beautiful, or however you'd like to label it. And apparently, in order to be sexy, one must be wearing a halter top covered in flour. Or maybe there'll be another version later where a hot fat chick lies back in a car, with the caption "Ultimate Driving Machine".
Is it fetish?
Is it empowering in some way?
Is it just reiterating idiotic objectification of women but putting fat chicks in?
Is it twisting and turning said idiocy by putting fat chicks in? Or by pushing the idiocy beyond normal bounds?
Would it actually convince anyone who disagreed that fat women are hot?
I got all this from the first viewing of the video, but there's something else I want to point out now. In the communities where people discuss this video, I'm now seeing an undercurrent of "those fat chicks are hot, but I am an un-hot fat chick". Which is something I've heard myself saying a lot [I've spare y'all the details, but as I shrink, I get more and more cylindrical and less and less hourglassy, so I'm becoming the Wrong Kind of Fat.]. The comments on fatshionista's latest discussion bring this up, too. It makes me sad. I think this is what was bugging me all along about the fat movement's But Fat Chicks Are Hott, Too! angle - it just broadens the definition of hot, doesn't make it less important or even less punishing if you fall outside of the boundaries, be they bounds of body type, gender, or any other aspect of your presentation and identity. Fat-friendly borderline porn appears to be just as effective at making women doubt themselves as any other variety of borderline porn. Woot! Success!
Yeah. So, I'm torn. I like hot fat chicks and firmly support having everyone else realise they like hot fat chicks, too. It still pretty much sucks that "hot" and "chicks" are part of the equation. [ETA, in the words of one commenter: "If I have to choose between being seen as fat and asexual or fat and oversexed, I'll take the latter!" - that's what separates people on this issue. I think we shouldn't have to choose (and further, if we didn't have to choose, this video could just be hot and not so damned depressing, too.]
fatshionistas also linked up a couple of interviews for more context if you want it.Alright. Seen it?
What? The? Fuck?
I've got to give it some credit as art, in that it can be read in enough different ways that it's compelling and provocative. But there's a big huge hunk of What Were They Thinking in my head watching it.
I am 100% down with the use of actual hot chicks in anything, and could happily ogle all of those [What are they? Models? Actors? Dancers?] women. They're gorgeous, no doubt. Why are they pretty and vacuuming in their undies? What's with the pie? Are they supposed to be the machines and objects they're interacting with?
The stated intent of the video is to show that fat women are also sexy, or beautiful, or however you'd like to label it. And apparently, in order to be sexy, one must be wearing a halter top covered in flour. Or maybe there'll be another version later where a hot fat chick lies back in a car, with the caption "Ultimate Driving Machine".
Is it fetish?
Is it empowering in some way?
Is it just reiterating idiotic objectification of women but putting fat chicks in?
Is it twisting and turning said idiocy by putting fat chicks in? Or by pushing the idiocy beyond normal bounds?
Would it actually convince anyone who disagreed that fat women are hot?
I got all this from the first viewing of the video, but there's something else I want to point out now. In the communities where people discuss this video, I'm now seeing an undercurrent of "those fat chicks are hot, but I am an un-hot fat chick". Which is something I've heard myself saying a lot [I've spare y'all the details, but as I shrink, I get more and more cylindrical and less and less hourglassy, so I'm becoming the Wrong Kind of Fat.]. The comments on fatshionista's latest discussion bring this up, too. It makes me sad. I think this is what was bugging me all along about the fat movement's But Fat Chicks Are Hott, Too! angle - it just broadens the definition of hot, doesn't make it less important or even less punishing if you fall outside of the boundaries, be they bounds of body type, gender, or any other aspect of your presentation and identity. Fat-friendly borderline porn appears to be just as effective at making women doubt themselves as any other variety of borderline porn. Woot! Success!
Yeah. So, I'm torn. I like hot fat chicks and firmly support having everyone else realise they like hot fat chicks, too. It still pretty much sucks that "hot" and "chicks" are part of the equation. [ETA, in the words of one commenter: "If I have to choose between being seen as fat and asexual or fat and oversexed, I'll take the latter!" - that's what separates people on this issue. I think we shouldn't have to choose (and further, if we didn't have to choose, this video could just be hot and not so damned depressing, too.]