I haven't read the other letters posted, so I may be repeating a point here. But this article cries out for angry protest letters. It's as if the author wrote it with some anticipation of rage. I love controversy as much as the next person, but I'd prefer not to have it generated through racism, sexism, and stupidity.

Of course, I'm enraged that Ms. Dickerson, who I would assume to be an intelligent woman, would use her intellect to castigate a cultural group for daring to look at the body with sense. I'm enraged that this same intelligent writer wouldn't be looking at more important issues facing this same cultural group and the nation at large.

I suppose that like Camille Paglia, Ms. Dickerson may thrive on letters like my own. I wish she wouldn't. We get too much right wing, bigoted prejudice in the mainstream media. I don't need more of it here on Salon. Salon doesn't need Bill O'Reilly's on staff. Bill has quite enough voice as it is. If Salon's writers want to generate controversy, why don't they do it by voicing views from the left-wing, views that we don't generally hear?

Ms. Dickerson, please do better for yourself and us. I'm not generally a fan of Dr. Phil, but he might ask an appropriate question: How is writing like this working for you? How is it working for anyone?

P.S. Ms. Dickerson and Ms. Paglia are both women. I know that we have a tendency to find it easier to castigate women. However, I hope Ms. Dickerson does not hide behind this truth to bolster some sort of victim/martyr image she may wish to hold for herself.

She is castigating women. She's slinging the stones. The fact that she is a woman (and Paglia is a woman) makes the stones hit harder. Since I feel (as a woman) I've just been hit by a misogynistic stone telling me to go get a smaller backside, I would contend that Ms. Dickerson is not the issue I write against. (I'd write the same if Glen Greenwald wrote this, or any other male writer.) I'm writing against her identification with (and spinning for) sexism and racism.

I suppose that the whole point of an article is to present a "point of view" that is strong and even controversial but this "ass" article was filled with rude, unhelpful information. What do I care if Ms. Dickerson doesn't like the bodies of certain black women? What do I care about her weird relationship with her own body? And what do I care about her ambivalent attitude about many of her fellow African-American women -- which she says is because she cares about their health?

It would seem to me that many of her negative feelings stem from the early conflict with her own mother. If she wanted to write about that, perhaps it might be have been more interesting...it certainly it would be less rude. This article was too dogmatic to be interesting. I can't believe that an African-American woman who grew up with a mother who wanted her to be less buff and who is a part of a culture that has such varying degrees of female beauty, but who decided to be a gym nut and food fanatic -- and a scold -- doesn't have a more nuanced and interesting story to tell than the one she did.

And to all the people who spend their time "worrying" about fat people who are not professionals who or who haven't been asked for their help -- it is none of your damn business! You don't know whether it was sexual abuse, mental illness, physical illness or some other reason that has contributed to somebody's obesity. Just take care of yourself and deal with your own problems. I am sure you have plenty.

The only way I know of to keep weight off for more than 5 years is not to gain it in the first place. It's been demonstrated that diets don't work (and a Danish study showed that losing weight, far from increasing health, greatly increased the likelihood of death within the next five years). Even stomach-stapling doesn't always work.

But for those who are still a healthy size, it's almost always possible not to gain the weight.

As a guy, I can say that Buffie is hot. I'm white, by the way, and not a big-butt fetishist.

Our culture is just weird. There's medically healthy and athletic bodies, which some men find attractive. There's model bodies, which some men few find attractive. And then there's women in strip clubs and porn where the women tend to have more T&A. Men like pronounced T&A. It might be cultural, but I'll bet there's a big genetic component.

In the end, people like what they like, not what they "ought" to like. Why is there all this discussion and scrutiny? I never read a long article exposing why people like potato chips or chocolate, or soft sheets and hot showers - but shouldn't - and criticising how it's ruining our culture.

Totally true, but most type 2 diabetics are obese. However, a person can appear thin and still have unhealthy levels of body fat. I'm sure that a tough love medical system could identify those who have some cause of their diabetes other than their rotten health habits.

This article is offensive on so many levels I don't know why it was even printed. According to Dickerson anyone who does not live on spirulina and soy and work out incessantly is an unhealthy menace to society. Not only does she offend the vast majoity of us that aren't rail thin, but she also manages to offend other ethnic group's standards of beauty. I think Buffie has a lovely body, and for Dickerson to say she is obese makes it obvious that Miss Dickerson is an idealogue. Idealogues are blind, and you would have to be blind to say that Buffie is fat.

Great article. If you are one of the many who blast Debra for this article, you are part of the problem.