queerbychoice (
queerbychoice) wrote2006-07-08 12:12 am
Ironized Yeast for Keira Knightley
"Now there's no need to have people calling you 'skinny,' and losing all your chances of making and keeping friends. Here's a new, easy treatment that is giving thousands healthy flesh and attractive curves--in just a few weeks! . . .I think the endless advertisements for diet programs these days would be significantly less annoying if there were any advertisements mixed in with them that promised to help people gain weight. At least then there'd be some acknowledgment that there at least is some such thing as excessive skinniness, and of people who want to gain weight and have trouble doing so. It still wouldn't be ideal; ideally, there'd be no advertisements claiming that either weighing a lot or weighing very little would cost you "all your chances of making and keeping friends" or signify that you must automatically possess certain personality traits ("skinny, anemic, nervous people"). But it would be less bad than the current situation, I think. Currently, to the extent that our culture has any concept of such a thing as "too skinny" at all, the concept is only of anorexic women who wish they were even skinnier. There's no concept at all of the fact that gaining weight can be as difficult as losing it, or that anyone anywhere would ever even want to gain weight.
Skinniness is a serious danger. Authorities warn that skinny, anemic, nervous people are far more liable to serious infections and fatal wasting disease than the strong, well-built person. So begin at once to get back the rich blood and healthy flesh you need. Do it before it is too late!"
Meanwhile,

no subject
no subject
no subject
Keira is in denial. I recall seeing something mention that while she admits her family has a history of anorexia, she is unaffected.
An article I read said that the health risks associated with being overweight start to be comparable to those of being underweight at around BMI 35+, between obese and morbidly obese. Perhaps we could throw American cheese at her, and a square will slap against her skin and mess up her whole system.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't mean to fight anyone else's battles, but people who ignorantly hate you will invent the means to justify it regardless of logic. It is equally ignorant not to acknowledge that some people CAN choose, as it is not to acknowledge that some are born that way. If the same scenario equally applied to all people universally, we'd be the same and there would be no different sexualities in the first place.
no subject
no subject
As for your boldface statement, it is my opinion that the belief in a "gay gene" harms gay rights. Please see my FAQ questions "Does the idea of choice encourage homophobes to say that queers don't deserve equal rights?" and "What is the difference between essentialist and social constructionist techniques for fighting homophobia?"
But even if the belief in a gay gene didn't harm gay rights, the denial that any of us can choose to be queer still certainly harms the rights of queer by choice people, who comprise approximately 8% of the queer community (see the link on that page to the Internet Survey of Queer and Questioning Youth, under #3). For the mainstream queer community to decide to sacrifice the rights of the approximately 8% minority of queer people who choose to be queer is just as bad as for the mainstream human community to decide to sacrifice the rights of the approximately 10% minority of all people who are queer at all. Queer by choice people have a right to be able to talk about our experiences and not everywhere encounter people trying to tell us that we're the only ones who've ever felt such a thing. And I intend to continue asserting that right.
Eh.
Teh Gay is not a disability. Gay rights are not concessions graciously accorded to those unfortunate souls whom fate has denied a normal libido. Nothing about same-sex attraction makes it less complex and bewildering than the heterosexual kind; maybe "by choice" vs. "no choice" is a little bit of a false dichotomy anyway. But even if it weren't? There's no reason why we should all have to pretend like we had absolutely no say in the matter at all just so the religious right can have a little smug pity mixed in with their hate.
Burn!
funotherwise perfectly legitimate arguments you're missing!Oh, well.
(Somehow, knowing that my unholy love of bad Internet humor makes white noise of everything else I say only makes the flame of that illicit passion burn all the brighter. And I spent a good fifteen minutes typing up that comment, too. Sigh, sigh.)
Re: Burn!
no subject
Imagine any heavier person using the same argument! "I owe my ample body to my father." This argument always irritates me for the reasons you cite above. Whether or not Ms. Knightley is deliberately that thin, it's unhealthy and she needs to change it. I remember thinking the same thing about Calista Flockhart. Sometimes people should be encouraged to gain weight, but our crazy, thin-prizing society will rarely do it.
Thanks for the link!
no subject
I know it's none of my business, but. . .
Ok, maybe she does get a naturally toned body from her father, but that is not it. Doesn't "toned" imply the existence of muscle mass?
no subject
1) As a biologist, I remain firmly of the opinion that the gay-is-genetic remains entirely unproven, as does the queer-by-choice. I've seen interesting indications in both directions, but interesting indications do not constitute proof either way. And given that we still have difficulties understanding the full nature of sex, gender and biology in comparatively simpler corals, we've got a long way to go before we fully understand sex, gender and biology in humans.
2) Now the more personal bit:
I've lost a lot of weight, completely unintentionally, over the last year thanks to a combination of medical stuff, stress and so on. Which made me extremely amused to read your "skinny, anemic, nervous" description, since that's exactly where I am at the moment.
But here's the kicker: I haven't been dieting, and it took me six months to realize just how radical the weight loss was (I was focused on other stuff) and another three months to decide to try to do something about it, a resolution that immediately ended when I realized that the stress and excitements of this past year weren't ending. I am wondering if Keira Knightley is in the same position right now, especially since she has clearly gone beyond even the Hollywood skinny factor, to the point where it could be decidedly detrimental to her career, since let's face it, Hollywood likes skinniness, but Hollywood also likes breasts, and Knightley no longer has them. (In previous movies, she did. In the latest Pirates movie, they're gone, and that's not just the result of costuming.)
Here's the other kicker: Everyone, but everyone, has assured me that I will "rapidly" regain the weight.
Possibly. The weight loss happened mostly over a six month period last year (and it wasn't entirely caused by negative things; I was also exercising a lot more than I'd been previously); the last six months have not reversed the trend in the slightest. But I think that perception is so widely held that no one thinks of marketing any weight gain products aside from the muscle build up things sold in health stores -- the assumption is that it's easy to gain weight, difficult to lose it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh, well. I can't say she wouldn't look better with more body fat. And the same applies to me.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-11-05 05:32 pm (UTC)(link)