_moonbeam_

We went to the last showing of Van Gogh, Gauguin, Czanne and Beyond: Post-Impressionist Masterpieces from the Muse dOrsay. Some of my favorite, in no particular order, and by no means are they all of my favorites include





I love how I'm able to do a variety of things with you - from walking naked in the cemetery through the fog, curling up on the couch watching television, adventurous field trips to the toy store, or enjoying things like great master pieces, whether they by visual or audible. There has been no other person to share such a variety of interests with, and I am fortunate to be able to share them with you.

In viewing some the paintings, I couldn't help but notice - maybe wonder is more like it? Either way, I couldn't help but to ask myself, just when did opinions of beauty change? Nudes were depicted with full and voluptuous feminine bodies. Natural and beautiful, I suppose a natural beauty? So when did we shift from this view to the current view of size 0 sticks of what many would argue as beauty? If you're lucky, one might attain this popular look, but in general, for the average person, it's only a dream and a constant reminder that they aren't pretty enough, or thin enough, and will never be viewed as anything OTHER. than. FAT.

This is all sort of sad to me. Maybe because I subscribe to this way of thinking? I'd love to be a size 0, but I know it will never happen. Do I wish to be small because I'm told that it's beautiful, and that I can't be beautiful unless my ribs can be viewed and counted from across the room? If only.

Does anyone else view such thin portraits of beauty as being somewhat pedifilistic (is this even a word?) Thin framed women, and men, remind me of child like figures, so maybe we're all partaking in unconscious allusions of wanting to be childlike? Or just wanting to have sex with children -although that's just sick and twisted, so maybe I'll end this rant here.