Did I read the caption right?

I'm sorry AT, but your blog would take a distance 2nd place if that was my job.

One word: puerile.

Oy Vey.

Tony G.

note to self:

get job at glamour.

Would rather look at furniture.

If I was tired of looking at furniture I wouldn't have opened this website today. What I am tired of, however, is living in a world where women (excuse me, "girls") get equated with inanimate objects.

It is May and Glamour's fashion editor is wearing black pantyhose.

Do any editors at, say, Men's Health or Playgirl really like AT? Really, really like it?

Ahahaha. Wende, I love you.

Funny that nobody seemed offended yesterday at the comments toward Jamie Gray (male) by apparently female posters. I wasn't either.

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/small-cool-2007-news/small-cool-judges-jamie-gray-022526

I'm sure that was different though.

Jon_B,

I agree with you. I am a huge feminist, but I don't find it offensive that people are voicing their attraction to those young women in bikinis. Come on. They are hot. So is Jamie Gray.

Jon_B,

So do we get to see Jamie in a bathing suit, too?

I agree with Vanessa, but a bikini and a t-shirt and "manscarf" are not quite equivalent! But, yes, we AT regulars like to treat everyone as they are all hunks of meat. We are equal opportunity like that.

If I was in favor of promoting anorexia and bulimia in girls and women, I would read Glamour. Since I am not, I don't read such publications. And I don't care to see such pictures on a design website.

I can't believe this is AT. Maxwell, did you really write that post?

Lori 2,

Thank you for your comments. As a mother of a bulimic, all I see is pain, not beauty.

Assuming that thin women automatically have an eating disorder is asinine.

Man, when did this site get so hostile? The digs and jibes used to be witty and tongue-in-cheek back in the beginning. Now they're just mean. And thank you, SomeSteff, for saying what I thought.

SomeSteff-

No one commenting here is making that assumption. I am not sure where you got that from. The point is not what the girls in the Glamour picture eat or what their natural body type is, but rather how, on a societal level, only showing such homogenous images of women in the media affects a population of girls and women who may not fit into that body type or into the prevailing representation of “beauty”. Those images (and utter lack of images showing a diverse representation of people) have a powerful affect on how women and girls view their own bodies, which consequently can affect their health – both mental and physical.

Lori 2--
Thank you for the most level-headed and erudite comment on this thread so far. Obviously beauty, and what constitutes such, is a hot button issue. I am continually surprised that the prepubescent look is still considered "hot" yet people feel outrage toward child molesters--all the while not noticing that the infantilization of women is de rigeur.

I await the nasty onslaught (in hopes it will not arrive)

I think wearing flip flops to the office is tacky, but bikinis? That's a pretty lax dress code! just joshing.

one thing's for sure in all media--sex sells :(

Glamour's office needs a glamourous make-over, pronto.

more importantly, this photo is kind of weird. Doesn't the office have a bathroom or something? Or, if it's a fashion magazine don't they have a little changing area with lights and make-up and things of that nature to prepare the subjects for their photo shoots?

Ironically, Glamour's recent "right swimsuit for your body" issue did show diverse body types, including featuring some who were quite apple-shaped and could easily pinch more than an inch -- I was surprised to see a fashion magazine showing serious bellies above women's bikini bottoms. Used to be, the "different" body types were off by about half an inch from the ideal...

I guess I'm jumping in kinda late, but this post, while not our typical fare, was fun for me because it showed off the quick interweaving of our two blogs, even though were a few miles and many middle management jobs apart.

Magazines and newspapers can't do this type of backflip very easily.

As for the pic, well, I leave that to Glamour to explain.

It ain't our office, for sure ;-)

Aww, looks like someone took an online psychology class.

We all grew up in the same media-saturated environment, but all of us don't suffer from eating disorders. Probably has more to do with innate personality traits and family interactions than with the media. Maybe we should take the time to explain to our children that media exists to sell itself, that advertising is in everything we do and see and that models of any sort (human or otherwise) are designed to be caricatures of reality.

I don't see the big issue. All 3 look good to me. I wish my office looked like that.

Coincidentally, I'm wearing a bikini as we speak.

Hey Lori 2, would you consider supporting a magazine (Glamour in this case) that does promote different body types?

I remember when the cover for Vogue with Renee Zellweger still with her weight that she put on for Bridget Jones that was pulled because the powers that be deemed that such covers would not sell.

Wouldn't it be great if such powers that be saw that issues of Glamour, for example, that do promote diverse body types in women got a spike in sales?

pix plz

Given the comments on eating disorders, I am guessing sending some "Small is Cool" AT t-shirts over to the Glamour girls would not be so smart...

AT is one of the only blogs that I'm never embarassed to have up on my screen at work. Until this post. Could we please avoid this kind of thing in the future and stick to design?