I'm reading the front page of The Washington Post with the wild hope of keeping up to date.

 

I mean, what do they think they're doing? What did they say to each other as they chose to put this material on the front page — right under stories about Zelensky at the White House, the National Guard in Washington D.C., terrorism in Texas, and Hurricane Erin? Let's revisit the legacy of slavery and balance it with closeups of black asses? It's as if they had to meet a racial quota and brainstormed and juxtaposed the first 2 things they thought of. 

What authenticity means these days.

1. "I am completely comfortable with having voted for Trump. It was my first time because of the apocalypse that was represented by the blue ticket. And so I just don't think there was any rational choice. We had an absolute emergency on our hands and this simple ability to vote for something that was in some way authentic made it the only game in town.... You know... President Biden was not the president in the meaningful sense.... And then at the point that that became implausible, to swap in an empty shirt is such a dire commentary on the state of the Republic" — said Bret Weinstein, in video at X.

2. "The beauty standards themselves are inauthentic — that is, unnatural and impossible to attain without surgical or technological intervention — but the open discussion around how to achieve them has been praised as a form of authenticity by fans, many of whom felt they had previously been gaslit by celebrities claiming their perfect forms were the result of diet and exercise.... Despite an expressed desire to be true to themselves, members of [Generation Z] have said they care less and less about authenticity from influencers — perhaps because the efforts to appear relatable have fallen flat" — from "An Era of Authenticity (or Something Like It)/Celebrities are being praised for openly discussing plastic surgery and Photoshop. Are they raging against a machine they created?" (NYT).

3. "Obviously, we’ve talked about authenticity, and if you watch Mamdani, he’s just electric, which [Kansas Governor Laura] Kelly is not. But they are authentically of their place"/"Her image in Kansas — she’s really leaned into the idea that she’s not a partisan figure. She grew up Republican. She is a moderate Democrat" — said Michelle Cottle, quoted in "There Is Hope for Democrats. Look to Kansas. Two Opinion writers on the Democratic governors who might just save the party" (NYT). 

4. "To say I know how our environment affects people? I have no idea. I really don't. And I don't want to know. I don't want it evaluated. I just want to keep trying to make the environment healthy and good and better — and authentic" — said Pat Murphy, manager of the Milwaukee Brewers, quoted in "MLB-leading Brewers cap best 60-game stretch in club history" (MLB.com).

"Wow. Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I’m sure that will poll well…."

Tweeted Ted Cruz, quoted in "Ted Cruz is latest to defend Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad ripped as 'Nazi Propaganda'" (NY Post).

I already blogged Sweeneygate yesterday, and I wouldn't bring it up again — certainly not just because Cruz weighed in — but it resonates with this New York Times "Opinions" podcast I'm in the middle of listening to this morning:

"Thin, White and Right: The Ideal Christian Woman/How skinny became a conservative calling card."

That's a gift link that goes to the NYT page with the audio and a transcript. Keep in mind that there's an idea that there's something right wing/Nazi about beautiful white women. The NYT isn't quite saying that. The columnist Jessica Grose, interviewed at the link, is working on something (presumably) more sophisticated):

"The wax lips is my statement against plastic surgery. I’ve been very vocal about the genocide of a generation of women..."

"...  by the cosmeceutical industrial complex who’ve disfigured themselves. The wax lips really sends it home.”

Said Jamie Lee Curtis, posing in wax lips and quoted in "'Generations of women have been disfigured': Jamie Lee Curtis lets rip on plastic surgery, power, and Hollywood’s age problem" (Guardian).

Obviously, the word “genocide” is very strong and risks causing offence, given its proper meaning. To Curtis, however, it is accurate. “I’ve used that word for a long time and I use it specifically because it’s a strong word. I believe that we have wiped out a generation or two of natural human [appearance]. The concept that you can alter the way you look through chemicals, surgical procedures, fillers – there’s a disfigurement of generations of predominantly women who are altering their appearances...."

And yet: 

Curtis’s daughter Ruby, 29, is trans.... “I’m an outspoken advocate for the right of human beings to be who they are.... I’m a John Steinbeck student... and there’s a beautiful piece of writing from East of Eden about the freedom of people to be who they are. Any government, religion, institution trying to limit that freedom is what I need to fight against.””

I guess those Hollywood actresses with their chemicals and surgical procedures are not trying to "be who they are" but to be what they feel others want them to be. How "against plastic surgery" is Curtis? When is it "disfigurement"? When does she feel motivated to use the word "genocide"? One might feel inclined to say that each person is free to make their own decision, but when do onlookers judge them harshly? How do we know who is truly finding their real self in these medical cuttings and who is straining to conform to real or imagined societal expectations?

ADDED: Here's the question I was motivated to ask Grok: "Are trans women mostly attempting to look like beautiful women or is the goal simply to look like an ordinary woman (and to 'read' as a woman)? Or is it enough merely to feel, from their own perspective, that they are expressing their own personal idea of womanliness (or femininity) and not focused on what other people think of what they are seeing?" 

"It’s not about your personal political affiliation. No one goes to Pilates thinking, ‘I’m going to be a fascist today.'"

But: "Pilates is... extremely whitewashed. It’s based on wealth. It’s based on thinness.”

Said MaryBeth Monaco-Vavrik, "a 24-year-old barre instructor and fitness influencer," who "studied political science and communications," quoted in "Is Pilates Political? A video about thinness, femininity and fascism has inspired months of debate in the fitness community" (NYT).

On TikTok, content creators offer advice on how to achieve “Pilates arms” — lean, sinewy biceps that do not appear overtly muscular — or, more broadly, a “Pilates body,” which typically just means thin. Ms. Monaco-Vavrik worried that these were coded ways to tell women they needed to make themselves small and take up less space — that rather than building strength by lifting weights....

[Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a professor of history at the New School said,] “I do think that when you look at the dominant aesthetics and messaging around Pilates princesses or Pilates girlies, it definitely upholds very traditional aesthetics of female beauty.... I appreciate that kind of analysis, but it kind of falls apart when you look deeply at it.... Perhaps most foundationally because Pilates does get you very, very strong. Pilates is a really intense workout.”

This gets my tag "MSM reports what's in social media."

Here's the viral video the article is about. It's exactly the video you'd expect from a 24-year-old barre instructor and fitness influencer who studied political science and communications. It's what I'd have said at age 24.

By the way, I just watched a movie made by a 24-year-old woman, and I got the feeling it was exactly the kind of story I thought up when I was that age. Not saying I could have made the movie that topped the Sight & Sound "Greatest Films of All Time," just saying I remember these young-woman thoughts. 

"Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani."

The headline for a Michelle Goldberg column. Excerpt:

“His campaign has attracted Jewish New Yorkers of all types,” wrote Jay Michaelson, a columnist at the Jewish newspaper The Forward. The rabbi who runs my son’s Hebrew school put Mamdani on his ballot, though he didn’t rank him first. And while Mamdani undoubtedly did best among left-leaning and largely secular Jews, he made a point of reaching out to others....

So it has been maddening to see people claim that Mamdani’s win was a victory for antisemitism.... Ultimately.... New York’s Democratic primary wasn’t about Israel.... 

The attacks on Mamdani during the primary were brutal, but now that he’s a national figure, those coming his way will be worse. His foes will try to leverage Jewish anxieties to smash the Democratic coalition.... But don’t forget that the vision of this city at the heart of Mamdani’s campaign — a city that embraces immigrants and hates autocrats, that’s at once earthy and cosmopolitan — is one that many Jews, myself included, find inspiring....

Earthy.  

I was moved to unearth every "earthy" in the 21-year archive of this blog. They're all quotes of other people. I've never once used the word (except for one instance, now corrected, where I clearly meant to type "earthly" ("I didn't think you would be terribly sad to see that Robert Blake has left the earthy scene")).

I'm seeing a lot about the Jeff Bezos wedding, but how do we know he's really getting married?

There are motivations to put on this big show that are separate from any reasons to enter a marriage in the legal sense.

Consider this: "The embarrassing truth Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez haven't revealed about their $20m 'wedding'" (Daily Mail)(reporting that a Venetian official supposedly said no registrar had been appointed for the ceremony).

And here's the NYT: "What to Know About the Wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez/The second marriage for both is taking place in Venice, Italy, under a shroud of secrecy and amid a swarm of speculation": "Italy has a variety of rules surrounding marriage rites, which can involve religious ceremonies, often performed in Roman Catholic churches. The Sánchez-Bezos wedding, however, will be nondenominational, likely of a ceremonial nature."

What I want to know about that couple is why, with all their money, they have, both of them, engineered their face into that post-human fright mask?

Why would the wedding be any less fake than the faces?

And here's Tina Brown: 

The Jeff Bezos-Lauren Sánchez (circa $56 million) Venice-sinking nuptials, tying up every tender on the Grand Canal (and 90 private jets expected), is the big beautiful buster bomb of high-net-worth exhibitionism. Now that the 55- year-old bride Sánchez has proved that landing the fourth richest man in the world requires the permanent display of breasts like genetically modified grapefruit and behemoth buttocks bursting from a leopard-print thong bikini, she’s exuberantly and unapologetically shown that the route to power and glory for women hasn't changed since the first Venetian Republic.

*** 

Sailin’ round the world in a dirty gondola/Oh, to be back in the land of Coca-Cola!

"Their first words to each other when they met were “I love your teeth!' 'I love YOUR teeth!' And then Mike White wrote it as their first lines of dialogue."

A discussion on the "White Lotus" subreddit draws attention to Charlotte Le Bon’s (Chloe’s) teeth, which are odd, but not as odd Aimee Lou Wood’s (Chelsea’s) teeth, which are very conspicuously odd and are the "White Lotus" teeth that get the most attention. 

The photo at the link is of Le Bon, so if you don't know what I'm talking about and you need to see Aimee Lou Wood, here's a clip:

Lots of people are enjoying the off-the-norm teeth, and I hope this is part of a trend toward seeing beauty in what is natural and not trying to "fix" everything. 

"When those on the creative side of fashion could be using their platform to share progressive values, it seems like many are acquiescing rather than pushing back."

"It’s frustrating to see the industry take a step back."

Said Sara Ziff, who leads a "models’ rights" organization. She's quoted in "Why Ultrathin Is In/When it comes to fashion models, the body diversity revolution appears to be at an end" (NYT).

Extreme thinness among models is “not really new — this kind of thing is cyclical,” she said. But this time around, she added, “it seems to echo the current political climate.”

Political???

"There’s this tyranny of beauty, especially among trans women.There’s this feeling that, if we’re not beautiful enough, we’re not really women."

Writes Jennifer Finney Boylan, quoted in "A 'Weary but Fabulous' Poster Girl for Trans Life Opens Up About Aging/In her fifth memoir, 'Cleavage,' Jennifer Finney Boylan writes about her 36-year marriage, her adult children and why she keeps telling her story" (NYT).

Early in her new memoir, “Cleavage,” Jennifer Finney Boylan describes a moment of reckoning in a changing room. A size 12 dress is too snug....

The problem wasn’t that she’d gained almost 50 pounds in 25 years. “The crisis was that it mattered to me now, as a woman,” Boylan, 66, writes. “When I was a man (sic), I can say most definitively that it had not.”

Is that "(sic)" in the memoir or is the NYT inserting it? I'm going to guess, because of the use of parentheses instead of brackets, that it's in the memoir.

Did not looking good enough matter to Boylan because she was a woman — and that's female psychology — or because she was transgender — and had taken on the task of influencing others to perceive her as a woman? Is it about expressing what's inside you or getting the response you want from other people?

"I used to love feeling her body, her big body, next to me in bed, the softness of it. The extra tummy and..."

"... extra booty was comforting and reassuring. I miss that. The voluptuousness, being able to lean up next to her and feel her, for lack of a better word, draping over me or onto me. That’s no longer an option.... I’ve told her: 'I don’t recognize you. I need a road map.' I think she’s become a different person."

Said one husband, quoted in "How Weight-Loss Drugs Can Upend a Marriage/Doctors warn about their physical side effects, but they can also have unexpected effects on intimacy" (NYT).

When I clicked to read this article, I assumed it was going to be about the loss of sexual desire as a side effect of the drug. I was surprised to see that it was about the loss of desire in the partner who was not the one taking the drug.

But wait, the drug-taking partner is part of the problem (which is that they haven't had sex since she started the drug). She's finding it "easier to say no" to what she doesn't want, but purports to "want to want to have sex." 

If the drug removes the desire for food, why wouldn't it also affect that other physical desire? How closely related are these desires?

As long as we're talking about Grover Cleveland...

 ... I want to state my belief that the most beautiful First Lady was Frances Cleveland (and what a strange romance!).

Noticed while watching this survey of First Ladies:

Asking AI to make a beautiful face more and more beautiful ends up in the same place as a person who gets too much plastic surgery.

But you'll have to go to TikTok to see it: here.

"It’s the people who aren’t artists who sacrifice. Artists somehow stumble onto the best life in the world, and I have no complaints."

Said Gena Rowlands, asked about any "regrets about having sacrificed her life to her art."

Quoted in "Gena Rowlands, Actress Who Brought Raw Drama to Her Roles, Dies at 94/Known for playing on-the-verge characters, she twice earned Oscar nominations for her work in films directed by John Cassavetes, her husband" (NYT).

She sometimes said that if she had not married Mr. Cassavetes, her career might have taken a very different turn: She could have been the blonde in romantic comedies. But, she contended, physical beauty was so common in Hollywood that it was irrelevant. When People magazine named her one of the most beautiful people in the world (she was 69) and asked for beauty tips, she suggested: “Sunglasses are the secret. Sunglasses and a little lipstick will take you to the market.”

Virginia Cathryn Rowlands was born on June 19, 1930, in Madison, Wis....

ADDED: Here's the clip from "A Woman Under the Influence" that I blogged when Peter Falk died in 2011: 

And here's something Mia Farrow wrote that I blogged about in 2009:

One workday, while we were waiting to shoot, Roman [Polanski] was discoursing about the impossibility of long-term monogamy given the brevity of a man's sexual attraction to any woman. An impassioned John Cassavetes responded that Roman knew nothing about women, or relationships, and that he, John, was more attracted than ever to his wife, Gena Rowlands. Roman stared at him and blinked a few times, and for once had no reply.

"Why Did Trump Say Kamala Looks Like Melania on This Time Cover?"

Asks Margaret Hartmann in New York Magazine.

Trump complains that the media is giving Harris a “free ride.” The evidence he cites is that she looks too good on the cover of Time magazine.... But the Time cover is a pretty accurate representation of Harris.... [I]t might be a freehand “drawing,” as Trump put it, [but] the photo credit says, “Photo-illustration by Neil Jamieson....”... 

Next, Trump claims Harris looks like Melania on the cover.... But aside from the fact that they are both human women in their 50s, Harris and Trump’s features aren’t very similar....

Trump complimented Harris, saying, “She’s a beautiful woman, so we’ll leave it at that, right?”...

The short article doesn't answer the question in its title. Hartmann wraps up by calling Trump "weird." Why not offer the easiest explanation? Trump loves beautiful women, and he expresses that love openly, even when talking about his political opponent. 

What did Trump do wrong lately that's getting the most attention right now on X?

He said that Taylor Swift is beautiful — and he repeated it too many times and with a weird intensity:

Trump gets weird talking about Taylor Swift and how beautiful he thinks she is.

But this is way less weird and creepy than when he talks about his own daughter.

At least he doesn’t say he wants to fuck Taylor Swift.

pic.twitter.com/PRp1A9lgaL

— Peter Henlein (@SwissWatchGuy) June 27, 2024

Collection of commentary, here, at X.

The pause before the last "beautiful" is — essence of creepiness? — Woody-Allen-like.

"As I applied the nightly serum, I remembered the description, by philosopher Clare Chambers in her book, Intact: A Defence of the Unmodified Body, of 'shametenance'..."

"... all the things we do (like applying 'natural makeup') that contribute to the idea that our unmodified bodies are shameful, that even our ageing eyelids must be fixed.... And then one night I had a terrible dream that my eyelashes had grown too long. They were like a dark black fringe, blinding me, and I woke in a sweat. Shortly after this, I started to read about experts warning of potential side-effects linked to eyelash growth serums, including 'a permanent change in eye colour,' dark circles under the eyes and 'a sunken effect.' At this point my lashes had grown longer, definitely longer, but also spidery and fine...."

From "All of a flutter: how eyelashes became beauty’s biggest business/The eyelash business is worth $1.66bn – and is predicted to grow from there. Why are we so obsessed with our lashes? Eva Wiseman reports on their history and significance" (The Guardian).

That article continues with various other eyelash treatments, so I go looking for more on Clare Chambers and "shametenance." I find this from last year: "A Defense of the Unmodified Body: Clare Chambers Interview/We spoke to the acclaimed Cambridge philosopher Clare Chambers about her new book, Intact, which examines and critiques the urge to alter or ‘perfect’ our bodies." Excerpt:

"I think she’s beautiful — very beautiful! I find her very beautiful. I think she’s liberal. She probably doesn’t like Trump. I hear she’s very talented. I think she’s very beautiful, actually — unusually beautiful!"

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Donald Trump Calls Taylor Swift ‘Unusually Beautiful’ but ‘Liberal’ in New ‘Apprentice’ Book" (Variety).

Also from the book, he says, "She is liberal, or is that just an act? She’s legitimately liberal? It’s not an act? It surprises me that a country star can be successful being liberal." By that time, Swift had transitioned to being a pop star. With pop stars, it would be surprising if they can be successful without being liberal... or just acting liberal. 

Appropriating this video to make assertions about what "what leftism does to you" is deeply sick.

This is what leftism does to you. It destroys the mind, body, and soul. pic.twitter.com/rBHZzp1EeR

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 29, 2024

1. The woman in the video does not say anything about her politics or purport to explain herself in terms of politics.

2. It's a tragic case, and you shouldn't be cheaply triumphing or laughing.

3. If you think the old version of this woman shows a natural beauty she once possessed, then you don't know much about beauty filters and makeup.

4. She was trying to be pretty in the old days, and then she decided to try to be something more like what she felt inside and not like what she had to torment herself thinking society wanted from her. The new look, however, expresses that torment. So she remains, now permanently, in thrall to society’s expectations.

"For Sole-Smith, 'diet culture' has come to symbolize all the crushing expectations under which American women live."

"In her Substack newsletter and podcast, Burnt Toast, she muses on whether hewing to a household budget, gardening only with native plants, or limiting kids’ screen time can be regarded as diets."

From "Let Them Eat … Everything/In the age of Ozempic, the “fat activist” Virginia Sole-Smith is inspiring and infuriating her followers" (NYT).