ABC news broadcast a story with the following tag lines: Is Santa a Bad Example - Health experts worry that Santa sends the wrong body message to children.
For those of you who are fat - whether from habit, genetics or any other reason - how do you like living with "the wrong body message"? Did you know you had "the wrong body message"? OMG! Hide yer "wrong body message"!
Especially if you are a highly fictionalized holiday character who only very loosely resembles an early Christian saint. Bad message, bad saint.
The National Adoption Center in Philadelphia doubts that fat people can be good parents, _and_I_quote_:
"Gloria Hochman, spokeswoman for the National Adoption Center in Philadelphia, said weight problems are becoming more commonly considered by adoption agencies. But she said she didn't know of any agencies with written policies prohibiting adoption by obese people.
She said courts and agencies probably consider weight when placing children because they are concerned about an adoptive parent's longevity and "the ability of the parent to be able to really parent in a healthy way."
So, big parents, can _you_ parent in a healthy way?
I've been thinking about this for some time, and decided I might as well put something up, although it is by no means comprehensive.
A lot of women feel betrayed by how the ideal woman is portrayed in modern culture, especially in advertising. I wanted to put a few images together that span prehistory to contemporary art and see if anyone has any comments to make. I don't really have any predetermined questions, but if something strikes you, I am _countin_on_you_to_share_with_the _rest_of_us. It's a kind thing to do! *mwah*!
I took a picture of my barn cat, Jeeves, the other day and was gratified to find that I had captured more than I intended.
I meant to catch a snapshot of him, but what I got was a great example of Cat-ittude. IMHO, Jeeves is gracing the table saw in the barn with his majestic presence - lol - which is all the more funny because he is anything but majestic. Poor buddy has been terrorized by the barn mice in the past and confidence is, for him, an alien concept.
The light was a surprise, too, the warm autumnal color matched by the grungy bottle of anti-freeze in the background! Very fall/Halloween-ish.
Just thought I'd share. And if I don't hear from you before then, Happy Halloween! Imma be a monkey this year!
We have gotten a bit serious AND a bit tight lipped (don't even go there!) so Imma ask EVERYONE who reads this to reply even if your reply is one word! And if you don't surely some sort of chain-mail-ish bad karma is going to stick to you and you will experience plumbing problems this winter . . . or something.
WHO ARE YOU???
You got scared, reading that, some of you. Don't be. Just pick a fictional person that is you. Gender, age, etc DO NOT HAVE TO MATCH yer actual self and you don't have to explain.
As for me, I know I am not the villain and not the hero, but the sidekick, the always-to-be-relied-upon second. The hard part is picking WHICH sidekick. Hmmm . . . something animal. I toyed with Babe, the big blue ox, of Paul Bunyan fame, but I am not oxen-like. Something bear-ish I should think. Big, with a sense of humor and some fierce loyalty, good with kids. Maybe Baloo from Jungle Book?
I really thought about characters from literature and myth and I am neither mythic nor novel (lol) but much more folksy, so Kipling suits me just fine.
Ok, I always saw Leonard Nimoy's post-Star Trek pursuits as, well, not anything to write about. Today, on NPR, I listened to a story about Nimoy and the process he went through in learning how to photograph VERY large (the story uses the term "obese") women and how he came to appreciate them as photographic subjects AND to appreciate the societal pressures and health issues faced by fat people.
Although the original post I made has been edited . . .
****ARG! LF won't even let me suggest that you find information about this program by having YOU look up the website!!!! I guess if you want to find out more you'll have to email me. SORRY!*****
Is anyone else having trouble with page loading, especially during what are likely to be high traffic hours here at LF? I am getting some very slow loads - frustrating - and it's this site only. Other sites and my email are fine. No pop problems either.
I'm stumped. Any suggestions, or is it a problem with the site, as I supposed?
A completely unscientific sampling of the profiles I have seen turns up a very frequent usage of the word "confident". It seems men looking for women are looking for "confident" women. I am a bit vague on this, so I am asking for help: What do you men mean by "confident"? Are you referring to it in general, or is there a specific area (work, relationships, etc)? Better yet, if you would, draw a word picture of a confident woman . . .
And my sisters, please don't feel left out. If you have questions or comments, I always feel privileged to hear 'em!
Ok, so last night I watched a director's cut of "Dances with Wolves" that included footage missing from the original release. It made me think.
I liked this film when it came out. I enjoyed hearing the Lakota language and subtitles were no problem. The film was lovely to look at as well. Then I learned that they made the movie for around $14 million. WOW! No way you could do that now.
What impressed me the most about the original release was emphasized by this cut:the amount of story in the film; plenty of relationships explored as well as some lovely cinematography.
Recent blockbusters cost a lot more, have huge special effects budgets and treat the story/relationships in a cursory manner, so . . .
I want Hollywood to change. I want to see those budgets going to making 4-hour films (yes, I can sit through one that long) that are rich stories. Cut the effects budget and give us more substance, please.
Anyone else feel the same way? Or, if not, howcome???
I don't know what fall is like in yer neck of the woods, but here in eastern Kansas we are celebrating Sprin-tumn.
Sprin-tumn is that flashback mini-season where the green comes back to the grass after the summer's heat and the days are clear and blue and cool-but-warm-enough and the trees have bright, fresh-green leaves.
Alas, it doesn't last long. The temperatures will start putting plants to sleep and we will slide into the browns of autumn soon enough.
Let me know what you think of this time of year (my personal favorite!)
A few of the threads posted recently are dancing around the idea of attraction/commitment and I want to add a new thread to the weave we have going.
Studies (you know how I like research, turns me on!) have shown that, aside from sharing core values, it's the little things that make a relationship work, or not.
How you act when you're sick. If you are the Camille type, prostrate in bed and needing constant round the clock care and your partner is the "Cowboy up!" type . . well, maybe the doctor is single . . .
Housekeeping: Not just neatness, but how laundry is folded, toilet paper en-rolled and toothpaste tubes scrunched. Ah, the grit in the sensitive membranes of a relationship!
These little things may be ways of letting ourselves know that something bigger is going wrong, but they are (statistically) good indicators about the likelihood of the relationship continuing.
So my question is this: We are told to open ourselves to consider profiles when, at the same time, we know that if something about them bugged us at first, it's likely to bug us more later. Hmmm . . . So what do we do? Are you an open, I'll-try-anyone-once person, a carefully considered, targeted dater or do you try to find some balance? AND have you always been this way, or have you changed over time?
OK! New question: Do you really, truly believe someone when they say they have absolutely no preference as to body type? Or those people who are looking for "slender, athletic, Big and Beautiful/Handsome". If you are skeptical, why? If you think people really can have no preference, what reasons do you have?
Amy (working in secret for the Pew Research Center, NOT!)
Right, so Huffington Post has partnered with Slate.com to provide a page where interested parties can compare statements given by the Democratic candidates to Charlie Rose and Bill Maher. While not comprehensive or suprising, it is useful.
The site also allows users to vote for their candidate of choice. As of today, mah man Obama was in the lead with 36%, 5 points ahead of Hilary, hence my current complaint: why do I get the feeling that that the Powers that Be in the Dems are pushing Hilary on us?
My circle of admittedly liberal-leaning friends all say that if Hilary gets the nod, she won't get their votes. She won't get mine either. When she touts her experience all I hear is "Washington Insider". Dang, she continues to maintain that she was misled on Iraq. HOW???? I wasn't misled on Iraq, nor were many of my friends. We all questioned the sources used by Dubya to make his case for war.
Obama doesn't have the experience that Hilary does, God bless him. He hems and haws when he speaks on occasion, and now we know that he snores and all. Ok, he's human, but I see a genuine-ness about him that is compelling to me. I don't want the Democratic Party making my decision for me.
What I fear is that some deal has been made in some smoke-filled room and that money and influence is going to back Hilary because she understands how the wheels of Washington are greased. I say get the grease out! Vote Obama and damn the nay-sayers! Woot!