really...she is plus-size?

at ny fashion week, uber designer zac posen cast plus-size model crystal renn (pictured here) for his zspoke show. needless to say, the idea of putting a plus-size model in a high fashion runway show during fashion week has caused quite a stir.

when renn started in modeling, at the age of 14, she was told to lose almost a third of her total body weight. she did, all so she could attain that model look that was requested and required. once she achieved her size zero, she became one of many unknown models out there looking for work. eventually, after having health scares due to her unhealthy obsession with food and weight (which led to anorexia), she made the bold decision to switch to plus-size modeling. since then she not only became the highest-paid plus-size model in the world, but a bonafided supermodel, gracing the covers of american vogue and harper's bazaar as well as appearing in dolce & gabbana ads. while renn's exact dress size is debated (most say this six-foot model is a size 10, though some say she could be as small as a six), what is not in debate is the fact that those in attendance at posen's show say renn's larger size was barely noticeable.

my point, and i do have one, is...to begin with, the official definition of "plus-sized" is a u.s. dress size of 14 or higher, therefore it's not even proper to consider renn plus-size (even by the standards set by the fashion world). that being said, i think that it is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible for the fashion industry to classify the woman pictured above as plus-size!

ok, before i get any further, lets address the big fat plus-size elephant in the room...with 28 percent of americans officially obese and the average woman in this country wearing a size 14, people may question if by applauding plus-size models we are indirectly promoting obesity and unhealthy living. i get it! as a woman who has battled her weight her whole life and who comes from a family with, lets just say many women of size, let me be clear, i would never encourage, endorse or celebrate unhealthy lifestyles or obesity! (for the purposes of this blog, know i am not speaking about the overly overweight and obese when discussing plus-size, i am talking about run of the mill, in my opinion "average" sized woman.) also, let me say that i am not a women who hates or dislikes "skinny" women, even those who are size zeros (i have many friends who are naturally size zeros that can eat me under the table!)...my problem is with a world that tells women that they need to be size zero thin to fit into society's warped sense of "average."

society not only celebrates but rewards women who are ultra thin (the majority of actresses, models and performers are sizes zero-two). airbrushed and unattainable images of super thin women are perpetuated, leading to a blanket acceptance of this look as the benchmark for beauty. this leaves the majority of women and young girls not only wondering what that says about their shape, but also with unhealthy body images (giving way to a world dominated by weight loss companies and dietary supplements).

society also tells men that this is what they should look for in a woman. a certain gentleman i know (who i love and adore) once famously said to me the following about the look he wants in a woman: "i'm not saying that i want her to have an eating disorder, but i wouldn't be mad if she looked like she did...you know the hungry look." i think he said a mouthful! while i wanted to slap the crap out of him, truth be told, he was just being honest and verbalizing a look that many (not all) men consider ideal.

recently, star of the tv series mad men, christina hendricks (who is very curvy and oozes of sexuality) found it nearly impossible to score a dress for the emmy awards. she told the daily record: "people have been saying some nice, wonderful things about me. yet not one designer in town will loan me a dress...they only lend out a size zero or two. so i'm still struggling for someone to give me a darn dress."

now, speaking for myself (a size 10/12 woman), it has taken me the better part of my life to sorta come to terms with the fact that i have hips, i have (a whole 'lotta) boobs and no matter how little i eat, no matter how much i diet and exercise, i will never come close to being a size zero or two (not that either size would work on my body frame). i have long said, regarding my shape, that on a good day i have an hour glass figure and on a bad day it's an hour and a half! yet, as self aware and knowledgeable as i am, every day i still struggle to try and achieve the unattainable, because at the end of the day, it is still what society says is beautiful and desired.

this is why is disturbs me so very much to see crystal renn called "plus-size" when in reality is she not "plus" at all, but actually quite normal. what's your point?

just 'cause your knocked-up, doesn't mean you can't be a knock-out!

forever 21, a store known for their inexpensive and young trending clothes, recently announced they will be introducing a "love 21" maternity line.

while being launched in five states across the country, three of which (arizona, california and texas) have some of the highest pregnancy rates, the store reps say that's just a coinky-dink: "forever 21 did not create, design or distribute love 21 maternity to target, or appeal specifically to pregnant teens. any relationship between teen pregnancy rates and the locations of our stores is unintentional." needless to say, a maternity line in a store targeting tweens and teen, has raised an eyebrow or two. some question whether forever 21 is profiting from the glamorization of teen pregnancy?

my point, and i do have one, is...when forever 21 launched a clothing line called "faith 21," targeting the plus-sized girl, i don't remember seeing all this buzz about them glamorizing or profiting from obesity(i'm not saying that buzz shouldn't have existed, but it didn't.) we live in a capitalistic nation and i personally think this is a brilliant move for forever 21. in addition to opening themselves up to a new market of consumers, who happen to be teen mom's-to-be (or as sara libby from salon's broadstreet calls it the “temporarily plus-sized” girl"), the controversy is providing them with a lot of free press and chatter.

when a teen mom goes to babies r us to buy stuff she needs, aren't they profiting from that teen pregnancy? oh, and what about the magazines and newspapers who ran stories about bristol palin and jamie-lynn spears, didn't they profit from teen pregnancy? and if a teen girl walks into macy's or target and buys maternity clothes there, aren't they profiting?

look, i am not saying teen pregnancy is a good thing, not at all. and i don't think it should be glamorized. but if a girl goes and gets pregnant because the store she shops in now has maternity clothes...well we have a much bigger problem on our hands! (i can just hear a mom now: "just because all your friends are getting pregnant to wear forever 21's maternity line, doesn't mean you should!")

people spend so much time and effort looking for someone to protect "our" kids, when they already have supposed protectors, their parents. it is a parent's job to make sure their kids are eating healthy, staying safe and not getting themselves or someone else pregnant. but from the looks of things, too many parents either don't or can't do their job (and this is one job, even in today's bad economy, you can't get fired from). but hey, if you can't do your job effectively, don't be surprised when you are maternity shopping with your kid at forever 21.

what's your point?

A(AA) solution to an age old problem

this fourth of july, aaa clubs across the country are doing their part to cut down on the number of people involved in drunk driving incidents with their "tow to go" and "tipsy tow" programs (depending on where in the country you live).

these programs provide free, confidential rides and tows home from any bar or restaurant to anyone who has had too much to drink, even those not aaa members. (program specifics vary in locations, but generally speaking, the ride is only for the driver, not additional passengers and is free up to five miles from the pick-up destination, cost beyond that may apply).

"i work the night shift and have provided more tows home for intoxicated drivers than i can count with nothing but good experiences because everyone is usually grateful for a free ride home," said dan simpson, florida service technician who has serviced tow to go calls for more than eight years for aaa auto club south. "what concerns me is the fact that the majority of people tell me they were going to drive home if tow to go wasn't an option and that's not good since many of these people can't even walk, let alone sit upright on a bar stool."

these programs provide assistance during heavily traveled holiday periods when drunk driving accidents are most common. the full list of events/observances includes: the pro bowl, super bowl, st. patrick's day, cinco de mayo, memorial day, independence day, labor day, halloween and thanksgiving through new year's day.

according to the most recent statistics on the mother's against drunk driving site, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver, with these deaths constituting 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. the tow to go program of aaa south (which is regionally sponsored and underwritten by budweiser) has safely removed more than 11,400 drunk drivers off roadways since their program began in 1998. it goes without saying that these programs should be used as an emergency option after trying to get a cab or calling family members.

my point, and i do have one...is, i think these are great campaigns. these programs keep not only those towed safe, but also the innocent people who could potentially be in harms way by merely sharing the road. while many drunk people think they can still drive well beyond when they should and therefore may not call for these services, if bartenders, waiters/waitress and party hosts call, it could save many lives.

now, while i understand why only the car's driver is towed in these programs (they probably only have one other seat in the tow truck), when possible, i think it could be a benefit to have the tow include the driver, plus one, since most people go out with at least one other person and wouldn't want to leave them behind. additionally women may not want to go in a tow truck with a stranger while drunk.

that being said, in the big scheme of things, the good done by these programs outweighs the small potential improvement suggestion. i applaud aaa and their local sponsors for being part of the solution to the age old problem of drunk driving.

what's your point?

discrimination is thicker than water

on friday, the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability (which makes recommendations to the food and drug administration) voted nine to six against lifting the ban preventing gay men from donating blood in the u.s., putting them in a category with other banned groups like intravenous drug users and people who have been paid for sex.

that's right, according to current fda rules, if you are a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977, you are banned from donating blood for life. this rule, which was put in place in the 80's, before hiv tests were available, is supposed to be a way to ward off potential hiv tainted blood. a study showed that if this ban was lifted, approximately 219,000 more pints of blood would be available each year.

the fda recognizes the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory. the national gay and lesbian task force doesn't quite agree with that: "the committee's decision today not only leaves a discriminatory practice in place, it also puts lives at risk." additionally, the red cross expressed disappointment stating: "while the red cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the fda, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."

my point, and i do have one...is, these stories of blatant government upheld discrimination, make me ashamed to be american. first, this ruling implies that ONLY gay men have a potential risk of acquiring hiv, merely perpetuating outdated stereotypes that hiv is not just a gay disease, but a gay man's disease. in reality. studies have shown that heterosexual sex is the fastest-growing means of contracting hiv in the u.s. and and the most prevalent method worldwide. does this mean we should also include heterosexuals in the ban? if we do, we better line up a bunch of non iv drug-using lesbians who were never prostitutes, because they seem to be the only group still ok to donate! (also, i find it odd that someone who has been paid for sex is banned, but the person who paid them, not so much. what steps are we taking to protect society from the john who potentially gave the prostitute hiv? but i digress...)

here's another thought, you can't identify most gay man by sight (yes, i said most...come on now, you know i love each and every one of you over the top, make-up and boa wearing gay men, but lets be honest, some of you are a tiny bit easier to spot). is the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability therefore keeping us all "safe" by assuming that no one will lie when asked about their sexual history? yeah, 'cause that never happens, right evangelist ted haggard, senator larry craig, representative bob allen or national chairman of the young republicans glenn murphy jr.?

look, while current hiv tests are highly accurate, no test can yet detect the virus 100 percent of the time. that being said, donated blood is put through a battery of sophisticated tests to determine whether it is safe and disease-free.

it wasn't too many years ago that blood from a black person wouldn't have been able to be donated and now, the government (run by a black man with blood that can donated blood), is blatantly and systematically blocking gay right (don't ask don't tell, gay-marriage and now blood donation). nahh, that's not discrimination. god bless america.

what is your point?

the (military) code has been cracked

general stanley mcchrystal, president obama's hand-selected commander in afghanistan, along with his aides, made shocking comments to rolling stone. according to the washington post, they called the national security adviser a "clown," described the president as intimidated and disengaged, disparaged allies and top u.s. diplomats and converted vice president biden's surname to "bite me." the article, whose accuracy mcchrystal has not denied or challenged, has been called an "enormous mistake" by the white house. they also said mcchrystal showed "bad judgment."

at the time of this blogs posting, the president was awaiting mcchrystal's arrival at the white house. speculation has begun that he is prepared to give the president his letter of resignation.

my point, and i do have one...is, as a citizen of our country, we have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. i personally value and treasure this right. however, when you talk about the military, they live and die by a code of conduct and ethics. at its core it prides itself on honor, respect, order, chain of command and discipline. for any solider, let alone one as high ranking as mcchrystal, to outright and publicly criticize the commander in chief during a time of war goes against everything the military supposedly stands for. as a solider, it is not your job to agree with or even respect your commander in chief, it is however your job to respect his rank and carry out his orders. mcchrystal could have first retired or quit and then run his mouth, but he didn't. instead he made the conscious decision to do this interview while actively leading men into battle.

in my opinion mcchrystal's alleged resignation should be rejected so that the president can outright fire him. additionally, i think mcchrystal should be court-marshaled. according to article 88 of the u.s. uniform code of military justice, “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice-president, congress...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

at the end of the day the president needs to be able to trust his commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. how is that possible any more? many are saying that it could do the operation more harm than good by replacing him. but if they don't, what message does that send to the rest of the military? if a general at mcchrystal's level can blatantly disrespect the commander in chief with no consequences, it sets a precedent that others, at every rank, can disrespect their commanding officer and expect no repercussions. i am not sure that is something i would be comfortable with.

general mcchrystal should feel ashamed that by granting an interview with rolling stone, he has smeared what, to this point, was a highly respected military career. (and if i can speak directly to the general for a sec... really? rolling stone? that is the publication that you choose to give the story that will haunt you the rest of your life? my friends and i have played the game, "if you are the lone survivor of a plane crash, who would you give your interview to?" i gotta tell you general, rolling stone never makes anyone's top ten. do you not have any media advisers around you at all? i'm just sayin'...)

what is your point?

taking a bite out of crime

almost forty years ago, sonnet ehlers, a then 20-year old medical researcher, met a devastated rape victim who looked at her and said "if only I had teeth down there." ehlers promised that one day she would do something to help victims like her...and today she has made good on that promise: rape-aXe.

according to cnn.com, this female latex condom, which is inserted like a tampon and has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks inside to attach on to a man's penis during penetration, can only be removed by a doctor once it lodges on. ideally authorities will be on hand to make an arrest at that time. ehlers, who sold her house and car to launch the project, plans on distributing 30,000 free devices during the world cup in south africa. taking drastic measures to prevent rape is nothing new to women of south africa, which has one of the highest rape rates in the world. some women have gone so far as to insert razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.

a man who finds himself on the receiving end of a rape-aXe (which was designed with the consultation of engineers, gynecologists and psychologists to make sure it was safe) will find himself in, what one can only assume will be, at the least, discomfort. according to ehlers: "it hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on...if he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

ehler, a mother of two daughters, said blind dates and traveling in areas a women may not feel comfortable, are examples of times to wear the rape-aXe. she visited prisons to speak with convicted rapists who, according to her, said a device like rape-aXe may have made them rethink their actions. after the trial period at the world cup, rape-aXe will be available for about $2 a piece.

not everyone is sold on this product. some critics say it's not a "a long-term solution and makes women vulnerable to more violence from men trapped by the device." victoria kajja, from the centers for disease control and prevention in uganda, said it is a form of "enslavement" that reminds women of their vulnerability. "the fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." she does say however that "it allows justice to be served."

my point, and i do have one...is, i don't think this device reminds a woman of their vulnerability anymore than when she puts mace in her pocketbook. sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't need to worry about being sexually assaulted, however, we live in the real world, so if this is what some women need to feel safe and secure, more power to them. i wonder how long it will be before we see this item on law & order svu? what's your point?

good god...seriously?

if you are redeeming yourself from a thieving past, have a potty mouth, a bad attitude and are catholic, today is your lucky day!

that's right, the movie the blues brothers was officially sanctioned by the catholic church this week, with the vatican's official newspaper calling it a "catholic classic" and recommending it for catholics everywhere.

the movie, which celebrates it's 30th anniversary this year, is about two blues performers (john belushi and dan ackroyd) from a catholic orphanage who grew up to a wild life of crime (the characters started as a skit on snl). throughout the film the lead characters repeatedly say that they are on a "mission from god" to save the orphanage. (for those keeping score, another notable religious reference from the movie includes: "jesus h. tap-dancing christ! i have seen the light!") the official vatican newspaper l'osservatore romano devoted no fewer than five articles to the blues brothers, anointing it as a film with a catholic message.

it is worth noting that the church did not always find this movie to be quite so pious. in a review of the movie 30 years ago by the united states conference of catholic bishops, they referred to it as having "rough language and crude situations" as well as saying that certain scenes were "spectacularly unfunny and uninvolving."

there are some in the church that take issue with this recent cinematic endorsement saying that by increasing their use of pop references, l'osservatore romano is trivializing the vatican. a web-columnist for the national catholic register says they should instead be "devoting its pages to more spiritual and lofty matters related to the faith."

the blues brothers now joins the ranks of other vatican-endorsed films such as the ten commandments, jesus of nazareth, and it's a wonderful life.

my point, and i do have one...is that the catholic church never ceases to amaze me! drinking, debauchery and violence is a "catholic message?" no wonder they are dragging their feet when it comes to abuse within the church! additionally, when did the vatican become the siskel and ebert of religion? ("i give this movie three crosses" or "the maker of this movie need to say ten hail marys and ask for forgiveness.") what's your point?