- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I had no idea how many up-tight attitudes towards talking about anything of a sexually based nature in terms of the first lady, president, or any other political figure still abound.
I found the piece to be highly amusing, funny and informative. So what if the author talks about Michelle’s butt and what it may it may not symbolize? I liked that Kaplan discussed the nuances of race and body image in terms of American culture, history, fashion and the media, and found nothing degrading or insulting about it at all.
It’s not as if her discussion of Michelle Obama was somehow limited to judging her from her derriere alone; far from it. Why the outrage? What’s so wrong about looking at body image, sex and how this works in terms of a presidency enmeshed in the media age? After all, Barak Obama shares a strong physical presence, and was viewed as sexually attractive by many supporters, including myself and many of my male and female friends. Though this is not why I ultimately support or do not support a candidate, it is a factor in the decisions of many, and seems a fair topic for discussion. Candidates from Palin to JFK have been 'sexualized' in peoples minds for decades; why we can't speak about such things in an open, adult manner demonstrates how uncomfortable we are as a society with our bodies and sex in general.
I would like to thank Salon for an excellent contribution, one that rises above the media ‘fashion talk’ of recent weeks.
