Because that is really the only 'big' thing these women have in common. They are all slim and fit so I guess if you are not flat as a board in the chest area you are a pig.

Details got a little heavy handed with the pork analogy. But come on - Details hardly represents what most men, or people, think . Go to Ask Men.com - many of the 'fat' actresses are ranked very highly in their hot babes poll. Monica Bellucci has been ordained the sexiest woman for something like 3 years in a row.

What I found interesting in the porkers list is the fact that most of these women carry all their 'extra' poundage in the bosoms. Liz in her heyday, Rachel Weisz and Kate Winsley and Zeta Jones and Bellucci are all quite slender - it's their bosoms that are ample, and nothing else.

That might be the most savage backhanded compliment I've ever seen. My face is stinging. Which is worse - the idea that the actresses mentioned in the article are "fat" at a size 6 or 8 OR the pig photo and its none-too-subltle message that women are pieces of meat, available for consumption? I think I'll vote for the photo. I like men but knowing there are guys out there who think this way about women really kills my interest in dating.

I think there is something to the curves=tits=sex analogy. Reading this I was reminded of Susan Bordo's excellent essay "Reading the Slender Body" about how slender and hard bodies (which are often more androgynous) are often associated with professionalism while the feminine "curvy" body is sexualized meaning a curvy body makes a woman less likely to be taken seriously as an equal. The little "joke" of this article seems to indicate this--curvy bodies are sexy, a little funny, and are not about health but being visually pleasing to men. Even if the "piggy" references are tongue in cheek and are intended to be ironic it still doesn't necessarily represent greater acceptance of a variety of body types.

And doesn't some magazine do a version of "curves are back!!!" every year or two? It seems to be the "mommy wars" of body image. Yawn.

We are supposed to aspire to be like these beautiful, renowned women (and Lisa Whelchel). And what will we get if we diet, exercise, employ stylists and hairdressers and makeup and surgery and photoshop? And whether we are born with it or its Maybelline, what will our reward be for combining beauty with charm and talent, hard work and photo shoots without end? If we are lucky we will have an article written about us, illustrated by A PIG IN HIGH HEELS. A pat on the head and a banner that reads “fat is back”. Look at these fatties, these fat asses, this buffet of buxom, this scintillating smorgasbord, this all you can eat, this SPREAD. Details magazine wants to tell us we are (potentially) beautiful (if you happen to be gorgeous), but with a wink and a sly smile, and a photo of a pig, “You’ll never be anything, ladies.”

I think it's about time for Broadsheet to institute a restraining order keeping RT at least 10 yards from all fluffy mimbo lad mags. Really, if men started reading (into) Cosmopolitan or its ilk with the intensity that RT views crap that no man I know actually reads, it could be the death of gender relations for the next century.

Tongue slightly in cheek there, but really, the more Broadsheet focuses on tabloid-esque "star-porn" as RT terms them, the more Broadsheet *loses* focus on real women's issues.

That Ms Traister spent a substantial amount of time looking at Details magazine. And she admits it. If you want to spend minutes [hours?] poring over Details magazine, Ms Traister, I suppose that is your right. Protecting the freedom of all means we wind up protecting the freedom of some to waste their time doing things like looking at Details magazine. That's why freedom is a messy and imperfect concept, I suppose.

But even that is not the end of it. Ms Traister takes Details magazine seriously enough to be outraged by it. Details is as stupid, vacuous and pointless as 90% of the magazines sold to women in this country. No doubt I could be appalled by what I read in virtually every single women's magazine in the nation. But I'm not. Because what is the point in being outraged at a product aimed at a segment of the population that has never had an original thought in their lives?

Let me be blunt: Ms Traister, your obsession with famous people and what you think they -- and the reportage about them -- tell us about the rest of the country is an embarrassing waste of time. [Yes, it IS your time -- we've established that.] I suppose I could be impressed by your honesty, Ms Traister, in actually admitting that you look at Details magazine and take it seriously. I suppose I could. Nevertheless, you might consider keeping such facts to yourself in the future.

Next time, Ms Traister, why don't you get outraged by something you read in Foreign Affairs or The Economist [easy to do] or The New Yorker? It won't only improve your rep, it'll improve you.

Is my attitude elitist? Perhaps. But we need a bit of intellectual elitism to balance out the people who look at Details magazine and take it seriously.

Details is a gay men's magazine. Complain to them, RT.

A freaking news site whose editors cannot handle simple grammar.

It's SWINE. Not "swines." There is no "s" on the end of that plural.

Don't you people pay attention when you read?

Kristen Davis is the new voluptuous? Sophia Loren, I can see. Sure, she's known for being full bodied - and she's drop dead gorgeous. But Kristen Davis? Why? If I have to look to her as an example of how "fat is in" I'm still pretty weirded out.

Hi Sick of Grammar Abuses, I just wanted to thank you for the note about the swine/swines. I actually realized my mistake as I was about to publish the item, meant to change it, and then forgot. It's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. Best, Rebecca