Los Angeles Times
About that JLo advertisement
Re “What a naked JLo is really hawking: Hope in a jar,” Opinion, July 27
While I appreciate that columnist Robin Abcarian can put a positive spin on an ad appearing in The Times showing an overexposed Jennifer Lopez, I have a different take.
I thought I had seen everything there was to see of Lopez at her Las Vegas show, but lo and behold I was unwittingly treated to even more thanks to The Times’ need for ad revenue. The newspaper that day felt more like Playboy than the front section of The Times. I was glad my granddaughters weren’t visiting.
I’m embarrassed to admit I browsed Lopez’s website out of curiosity. There I discovered that, for a mere $65, I could purchase her “targeted booty balm” or, better yet, subscribe for delivery every 60 days.
Pricey? Not if you consider it purportedly works on stretch marks.
Alas, now in my 70s, I’ve decided to be at peace with my flab and refrain from contributing further to Lopez’s bottom line.
If this letter seems a bit crass, consider what you’re putting in your paper.
Jan Judah Torrance
It’s not hope I get from seeing a woman of color displaying her naked body to hawk her cosmetic line. It’s anger.
How is this OK? Way to show boys and men that it’s completely normal to have open access to a woman’s body. Every woman I know who has been touched, groped or assaulted wonders when the shock wears off where some guy gets the idea that it’s OK to do that.
No, JLo is not a role model. She’s a shill using sexual exploitation.
Abcarian forgets to include airbrushing in her list of “excellent genetics, a punishing workout schedule and access to top-notch cosmetic alteration.”
No woman of 53 is ever going to actually look like that without a lot of touching up of the photo. Why the need to dupe women into buying expensive cream that can never come close to making them look like that? Barbara Holmes