:(

Well, then let's name more names. Cough.Prudence.Cough. This must be the only member of the group that made things non-universal.

And that's ok. I have no problem with Prudence taking objection to things, and arguing her side of a differing point of view. But to say that things were non-universal - when she was the only person still arguing - is, imo, a bit disingenuous.



And to add even more potential fuel to some flames: If Disneyland has the right to tell me to shave my mustache and cut my hair and take off that earring, I think they have every right to tell me to lose 20 pounds.

If there is such a thing as the "Disney Look," then certainly how much you weigh can be a factor in achieving that "Look." And, you know what? If an employer has a "Look" that must be matched, I'm gonna take that as not-so-subtle code that fairly good looks are required for the job. Some jobs are just like that ... and I, like others, would have to look elsewhere for employment. Life's rough.

Here is my disconnect - if this really was a show, there would be a director whose vision would presumably be played out by the cast. Is the directors vision an attempt to recreate an authentic environemnt? Is this an ideal representation? a fantasy? if so is it a sexual fantasy as well?

What characters are the "cast members" really playing? What is their background, their motivation? or are they not characters at all but rather stage decoration?

If Disneyland is a show - then really go out there and make it one, the half-assed version doesn't do it for me. It's a nice metaphore and all, but I don't buy it.

I'd say that I see it as fantasy world improv. Make it up as you go along but stay in character.

The "character" would be "the nicest store clerk you've ever met." The scenario is one much like that Twilight Zone episode involving the town of Willoughby (sp?) which is a romanticized version of an old man's past. Everyone is cordial and things are simple. There is no "backstory" because the idea is that things are not that complicated - everyone is a smiling and helpful, and that's all they need to be in this hyper-reality.

Not to put words in anybody's mouth - but when one puts forward a personal disclaimer statements like "weight doesn't factor into your own personal view of what is or isn't attractive." but follows up with a condemnation for Disney attempting to change those norms, It really puts into doubt the initial disclaimer statement.

Either Disney's change doesn't matter to you becasue they aren't upholding your personal notion of attractiveness in the first place. Or it does matter becasue in part you share (at least some) of the societal norms.

Claiming that you have friends that are fat or ugly really is of little consolation.

Disney can put forward whatever standards they want, but I'm not sure the "scale test" is delivering what they really want (increased sales? reduced sexual harrasment suits? reduced costs? a more flexible workforce? cheaper labor? etc?)

Cool - so in your directoral vision, would those clerks necessarily be a size 12 or less?

I thought it wasn't possible to be hurt any more by this thread. Now not only am I fat and ugly, but all conflict is my fault. Thanks for kicking me while I'm down. I suppose that's what I get for letting my guard down.

Oh, Pru, I hope that you didn't get that impression from my posts!

Prudence, you are some piece of work. There's a big difference between saying you're the only one offering up the opposing point of view (which I specifically said was ok for a message board - jeebus, that's the essence of discussion!) and saying it's all your fault.

Your arguments are valid, your points are persuasive ... but please get off the pity train and stop taking everything so personally negative.


* * * *

Euro -- I am not one who ever claimed, in this thread or elsewhere, that I don't find fat unattractive. I do indeed find it physically unattractive. It's simply not the factor on which I base my relationships. The people I'm friends and lovers with have 6,322 other factors of attraction - - some negative and most of them positive.

And for the record, I don't equate fat with ugly. I simply equate fat with not as physically attractive as possible. At least fat can, in most cases, be changed. There are plenty of other physical traits, impossible to alter, that I find unattractive. Any one of those traits are also but 1 in 6,322 that I evaluate in terms of friendship. And yes, the physical attraction traits take on more value in establishing a romance, and have practically no value in establishing a friendship.



* * * *

And I do see the Disneyland CMs as more like stage dressing than characters. But extras are cast with requirements, just as are stars. Being that CMs have speaking parts, their roles - as I see it - fall somewhere between extras and stars (perhaps Cameo would be the best analogy). A detailed back-story or method-acting motivation would not be necessary (though I would not be surprised if many CMs came up with that stuff on their own).

Ok - let me try again - the friendship relationship thing is a distractor, another personal disclaimer statement - but if I distill your agruments it comes down to:

Disneyland is a show and shows should have people over X lbs becasue that is unattractive to society in general and somehow ruins/lessens the show for you.

And I can see how someone might take offense at that, regarless of claims of other factors, friends, relatives, etc.

I guess I have to pose to you the same question I posed Jen - Why does the "show" require a CM's size 12 or less?