I think it's more about the way they tried to sell that position. "We think that uber-boobs are unattractive and have gotten out of control" actually sounds rather sexist, if you ask me.

But in fact, my point is that first Bitch essentially tells us there's nothing to discuss by completely dismissing the article in question, then later complains that nothing was discussed. What I mean is, I get that she can't be bothered, given the way she was approached, but then why the heck bother us?

I completely agree with your other post. There are lots of interesting questions that could have been addressed, but weren't. To prove that I'm more than just a snarky internet troll, I'll have a go at them tonight after I get home.

I would desperately love to know what kind of magical dream clothes fit better with big tits. I need to find this store something fierce.

</thread derail?>

Ummm... would you believe colored saran wrap?

I can only guess. Comic book hero supplies?

</further thread derail>

Back to the thread, however, I think Shal said it best. Good discussion points, particularly regarding whether or not it's appropriate for men to express opinions on intrinsically women's issues. Personally, I don't see any problem opening dialogue with guys about certain issues, especially ones like this that deal with perceptions on behalf of their gender persuasion -- why do we see implants as opposite to feminism? Because the idea of having them done to impress guys fits the mold of a subservient woman? There are so many motives for modification, and given the fact that many of those motives are geared toward who's looking at the mod rather than who's wearing it, I don't think it's fair to automatically dismiss an entire class of spectators just because they can't experience it themselves. Isn't observation experience in and of itself?

Jesus, I hope that made sense. It's almost two in the morning, after all.

You try and what? Where did you try and be anything but totally snotnosed?

Shalome has been the one trying to make this a more interesting discussion than anything your self-satisfied sneering could ever have managed.

Ha! I certainly hope not. Then again, not all of the ways men
typically address such issues are appropriate...

I believe that the risk of serious complications is higher
than with other body mods, but I'm not expert. Otherwise, I don't
really see any fundamental difference.

I really don't know. It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure
how we would go about getting a reliable answer.

Err... can I talk to my lawyer first, please?

I'm going to side with Bitch PhD every time against the magazine featuring Kevin Federline on the cover.

That to me is the most interesting aspect of this, since the linked article, despite its pretense of feminism, was to me another example of the mainstream media attempting to (re)define an ideal female body image that's defined by the male gaze.

The Details article is really pretty schizophrenic, starting out by stating "no man wants to wrestle with two bloated bags of silicone" and then excoriating women who get implants as "obediently conforming to some caricature of beauty fantasized by traveling-salesman types" and claiming that "That shiny new bosom was fashioned by, and for, men. And you will wear it in public as long as men approve."

So if you get breast implants, you're stupid for pandering to the desires of men, so don't get implants, because men don't think they're sexy? Guh?

Can you really claim to be a "feminist man" if you think that women's body image should be defined entirely by men's desires?

any fake boobs - just don't do it for me. i will not date a woman with breast implants. and it seems that as some women age (around my age) that they are more apt to go for them "to compete" with younger women. its sad.

You have missed the entire point of Bitch_PhD's article, the entire point of the Details article, and most of the ensuing discussion. In fact, you've gone ahead and given an example of the very thing Bitch_PhD was laughing at in her write-up.

I find this amusing.

what uncognitive said.

I think Details magazine, and Cosmo, for that matter, are outranked by the internet these days. It used to be, before the internet that many men and women would be lucky to engage in a tenth of the dialog about gender that is happening today. Questions like "How are feminist women asking us to adapt?" or "What do men like in bed that they aren't telling?". Access to those answers were available but they were more bottlenecked. A man with no feminist he could talk to would have read that article and said "Yeah, I can get behind that voice. I'm going to buy this voice off the magazine shelf." Nowadays he can say whatever he has to say on the internet and get a response and go on to the next adapted thought whenever he has internet access. The age non-political gender journalism has most certainly fallen behind since the internet.

what a wonderful bit of insight... you should write an article about it for the newswire or something