- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 0
- 56
-
Sparkle (2)
Dear Mr. Gunn,
May I call you Tim? You can call me Audrey. I figure the less formal we are, the better chance I have of being able to convince you that there is a real person underneath the additional 200lbs I'm carrying, and worry less about what double-digit dress size I am.
Before we move any further though, please know that I'm not comfortable at all wearing my customized fat dress around. Up until recently there were 150 additional pounds of flesh to be heaved here and there. It's slow going, but the point is, it's going going and soon to be gone! While I am one of the many morbidly obese that you see walking around, I'm not one of these ladies who choose to flaunt my flesh so-to-speak. I'm starting to believe that the real beauty is what's inside and how I see myself. I don't believe there's anything beautiful about being obese. However, I also don't believe it's what people should focus on when meeting me for the first time, or basing their initial reaction to seeing me, on. I don't believe it's OK that they gasp in shock and horror when imagining what size I wear. Alas, they do. The focus is the number . . . whether it's my weight or my dress size.
So, Tim, I happened to come across a couple of comments you recently made about Kirstie Alley's dress size. Can we take a moment just to laud Kirstie's accomplishment of achieving a healthier weight? Can we say a little prayer that this time she's able to keep it off and has dealt with whatever demons she was battling that caused her to balloon to an unhealthy weight and then yo-yo back and forth? Maybe we can just sit here for a minute and admire the fact that for a 60 year old woman, she looks pretty damned amazing? Actually let's forget the fact that she's 60, it's just another number!
Kirstie Alley looks spectacular!

Back in the October 3rd issue of the People Magazine interview with Kirstie Alley, she claimed to now be in a size 6 dress. You argued that she probably wasn't actually a size 6, yet closer to an 8 or a 10. Then after making a cutting comment like that, probably realizing you sounded like a condescending superficial fashionista, you added that you thought she "looked fabulous!" You went on to state, "People are too size conscious." And then followed it up with another zinger, "More importantly, how do you look in your clothes?"
Why did you feel it necessary to even argue Kirstie Alley's claims about what size she wears? You live in world dominated by men and women who don't wear realistically sized clothing anyway! Your world consists of women like this, and then labeling it 'haute couture' . . .

While this might be the norm in your world, in the world I live in, I can't figure out whether she's got a role in a movie about third world starvation, or if the outfit she's modeling is being marketed to anyone larger than a premature infant? Only a man in your world would make a comment like the one you did about Kirstie Alley's dress size and thenmention how fantastic she looks!
Your world reinforces the notion (a notion that millions of pre-teens and teenagers the world over think is the ultimate desire) that the number on the label is the most important thing, only then followed by how great someone looks, and of course how great they look is a direct result of that number.
Who cares what Kirstie Alley's actual dress size is? For that matter, you, more than anyone should know that the American women's sizing system is skewed beyond belief. Your world is focused on fashion that the average American woman could not even get one leg into, let alone her whole body. A Costume National, Dries Van Noten, or Alexander McQueen creation would not be marketable to the average American woman nor is it designed to. Perhaps that's part of the problem. A problem which you no doubt condone when you insist on focusing on a woman's size first, rather than who














