Did the article make you think? Did you decide to dig beneath the surface to see what Ms. Kaplan was really writing about? No. Instead, you and the vast majority of posters chose to launch immature, ad hominem attacks against Erin Aubry Kaplan, Joan Walsh, Salon, those readers who thought the article of value.

The article made me think. I remembered the story of the Hottentot Venus, googled it, read it, analyzed and related it back to Ms. Kaplan's story. I took the time to think and place Ms. Kaplan's article in a social/cultural/historical context. TRenee also took the time to think about and analyze Ms. Kaplan's article and place it in a social/cultural/historical context. As a black woman her input is very important in furthering the discussions sparked by the article. I am sure there are other posters who have taken the time to actually think about(rather than react to)Ms. Kaplan's article. Yes, assezmalicieuse, there are people who actually interact with what they read in an intellectual manner. Unfortunately, these people are few and far between and our voices get drowned in the noise that passes for intellectual engagement on this sight. But nothing is stopping you from thinking and engaging intellectually. But I think you would rather make mischief than think.

Actually, last time I checked, I was a black woman who has heard all the standard drivel about black "butts, hair, lips, etc ad nauseum and could care less if Michelle Obama had an apple "booty" or was as flat as a board. For your information, Cecilbeanie, one can actually find more intelligent discourse on the sexualization of the black female form (aka Hottentot Venus) written by black (and white) intellectuals who could have made a much more cogent point on this matter better than Ms Kaplan could on her best day. All I can say is if an article entitled "First Lady Got Back" is what was first required for you to engage in any kind of thought-provoking analysis on the sexualization of the black body:male and female, I feel that says far more about you than it could ever say about me or anyone else who chose to see this article as anything more than an lazy exercise in narcissistic, racial navel-gazing.

Of course, Michelle Obama is no "Hottentot." But that was not the point I was trying to make.

I just did some quickie research on Sarah Baartman in Wikipedia. She was born to an ethnic Khoisan family in the Eastern Cape of So Africa. Apparently a characterisic of Khoisan women is steatopygia (a high degree of fat in and around the buttocks) and elongated labia. These characteristics regarded as a sign of beauty by the Khoisan. Not so for white Europeans, who viewed her body as freakish and ugly. I could not find any picture of her other than a caricature. But, frankly, even though it is caricature and looking through 21st century eyes she doesn't look freakish.

The point in bringing up Sarah Baartman's story was to note how important it is to acknowledge that women like Sarah Baartman were and continue to be exploited, abused and objectivitied. This article celebrates the fact that we can look at Michelle Obama and see her for who she is - a beautiful, intelligent, autonomous woman. Her "booty" does not define her rather it is simply a part of everything, both internal and external, that goes into making her the woman she is.

Salon you suck ass. The article is not cute or clever. Please no more of this crap.

One day Salon (rightly) objects to the "mommification" of Michelle Obama, but a few days later it has no qualms about the objectification of the very same woman under its own banner. ?!

It is a simple matter of taste. And good sense. This is not about politics or race or anything else.

I was going to write an angry letter, but before doing that I read most of the letters already published. Rosenkavalier on pg 17 expressed my views perfectly, so I am just going to quote him verbatim.

@ Joan

The idea is not that having a black first lady will narrow the scope of what we talk about. I think the idea is that devoting an entire article to an intelligent, educated female public figure's ass is simply beyond the scope of discussion to begin with. I was much more offended by Gary Kamiya's piece, for example, which reduced Sarah Palin into a piece of meat (many, many letter writers were and I'm frankly surprised to see he's still writing after that one). Ok, Sarah Palin is hot, ok, lots of people like to comment about it. But if you're going to attack her, by all means do it on the issues, a place in which she is exceedingly weak in the first place.

Same with Michelle Obama. If you're going to venerate her (the way Kamiya villified Palin), don't do it based on something which sexualizes her and dehumanizes her as much as her ass. There are plenty of reasons to respect and admire Michelle Obama without stooping to the level of publicly analyzing her body. A ghetto booty may be a symbol of power among black women, but it's no more real a power than the power that pageant looks gives Sarah Palin: It just makes her an object for men's desires and fantasties, and subsequently, of women's jealousy or admiration over that power. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that booty power is anything more glorious than that.

I'm a bit disappointed, Salon. Your article on lolcats was much more worthwhile and entertaining than this one.

Thank you for your thought-provoking response.

You write: "For your information, Cecilbeanie, one can actually find more intelligent discourse on the sexualization of the black female form (aka Hottentot Venus) written by black (and white) intellectuals who could have made a much more cogent point on this matter better than Ms Kaplan could on her best day."

1. For your information, I have posted two letters that discuss the Hottentot Venus (Sarah Baartman). In those letters I suggest that the issue of the beauty (and "booty")of black women is highly charged and Ms Kaplan's POV can and should be placed within a cultural/social/historical context.

2. I do not know Ms Kaplan so do not know what she can or can not do "on her best day." Perhaps you know her and can speak to this better than I.

You also write: "All I can say is if an article entitled 'First Lady Got Back' is what was first required for you to engage in any kind of thought-provoking analysis on the sexualization of the black body:male and female, I feel that says far more about you than it could ever say about me or anyone else who chose to see this article as anything more than an lazy exercise in narcissistic, racial navel-gazing..."

1. You really have no way of knowing when I "began" to engage in "thought-provoking analysis on the sexualization of the black body," do you? So, I think this remark is just a bit gratuitous, don't you?

2. Please explain why the catalyst for engaging in "thought-provoking analysis" must itself be of high intellectual quality? Intelligent, creative people can find food for thought in things that ordinary people would not deem worthy of a second look. If you can not see that the theme underlying this article is a very serious one than you clearly just want to spout off. The serious theme underlying this article is the way black bodies have been sexualized, exploited and abused throughout history. I do not know if Ms Kaplan intended to do a "deep" article but whatever the case, one certainly can't miss the connection. And her article can, of course, serve as a springboard to a deeper engagement with this subject.