Nikki Blonsky to IHeartDaily:

IHD: How have you stayed motivated to make it as an actress when Hollywood is full of size two stars?
NB: People have told me, “If you want to get a job you need to lose weight,” and I said, “Okay, really, then you’re not the person to be around me because I am who I am and I am this way for a reason.” If I wake up tomorrow morning and feel like losing five pounds, then maybe I will. If I don’t, I won’t. I just live life on my standards, on what I believe in… and I feel great about my body. I’m very secure in it. I have no problem doing anything, going to the beach, going to the pool. It’s my body, it’s mine.

IHD: Do you think Huge is going to inspire plus-size women to be confident in their skin?
NB: Absolutely, because my character, I know for sure does not conform to losing weight. She will not conform to trying to look pretty like all of the other girls. She is herself and that’s why I love her and that’s why I feel so blessed to be playing her.

You may know him from “How I Met Your Mother” or “School of Rock,” from his popular YouTube channel, or from his critically acclaimed, extended-run show at Hollywood’s Celebration Theater. Or you may know his sidekick, Lucas Coatney, from season 3 of Idol! He’s Ryan O’Connor, a self-described “big fat gay singing Kathy Griffin, and his big fat gay singing show, “Ryan O’Connor Eats His Feelings,” is coming soon — very soon — to a cabaret near you.

The show tells O’Connor’s life story through song and gab, covering his childhood and adolescence in conservative Arizona, his relationship with a Mormon ex-college-football star from Salt Lake City, and his lusts for everything from food to theater.

Our own Amy K. caught up with Ryan as he was preparing for his national tour’s June 7 launch in San Francisco (that’s Monday night!):

AK: Are gay breakups different from straight breakups?
RO: The truth is, gay breakups just tend to be more dramatic. But I’ve also noticed that the transition from boyfriend to friend is more prevalent in the gay community than the straight community. My boyfriend and I are always going out with exes of mine or exes of his. Truth be told, they’re usually his — I’m not as good at it. My breakups tend to be more abrupt. Besides, it’s not my favorite thing, if I’m going to be completely honest. I feel like if you’ve cut it out, really cut it out. That’s part of the magic of crossing that line — knowing that once you cross it, you can’t go back. If I’ve been naked with you, I can’t un-see you naked. And with my boyfriend’s partners? I try to be the bigger person, but I can’t help but be like, “you slept with it?”

AK: I know what you mean! I have my husband’s ex-wife to contend with!
RO: Oh, that’s even worse! Not only did you sleep with it or live with it — you married it! That’s one of the blessings of not having gay marriage — not having ex-husbands to deal with.

AK: Well, speaking of — what did you think of the Prop 8 experience here in California?
RO: It was so surprising, when the Supreme Court even made that ruling in the first place, and it came as a total shock to most of us. I was single at the time, and suddenly there was this right we didn’t know what to do with. We were all aware there was this tiny window of time when we could get married and have it be legal, and it felt like there was tremendous pressure to partner up — now! It was like a giant game of emotional dodgeball.

Then when Prop 8 went through, it was such a letdown. It all happened at once. I was at Obama’s headquarters in Century City here in LA, and it was this huge ballroom where all these giant TVs were showing the announcement that an African-American had been elected president. And on this tiny TV in the corner with about 15 gay and lesbian men and women huddled around it, and that’s where I found out Prop 8 had gone through. So there was all this hope on one side, and disappointment on the other. But never fear. A lot of people have had their consciousness raised by this. I think California will have gay marriage by 2011.

AK: I’ll take that bet. You talk a lot in your act about being a compulsive overeater. What’s that like on a date?
I’ll tell you, I’m so fortunate because my boyfriend is what you might call a chubby-chaser. Though that has its own complications: if someone loves me for the thing I hate most about myself, could I lose the man I love just by getting skinny? I’ve learned to love myself in a whole new way because he loves my body the way it is. And I have to, too: because if I can love myself at any weight, dropping pounds is just icing on the cake — no pun intended!

AK: What’s the show like?
It’s called cabaret, but I’m going out of my way to make it accessible to people who’ve never been to cabaret in their life. Even though it’s very specific, it’s completely relatable — it’s called Ryan O’Connor Eats his Feelings, but it could just as easily be called John Doe Drinks his Feelings or  Tiger Woods Fucks his Feelings. Because it’s about learning to feel your feelings through music and laughter rather than whatever addiction you have.

To me, it doesn’t make sense that cabaret is not as popular as standup. They’re both storytelling. Cabaret should be as mainstream as Kathy Griffin or Dane Cook. It just takes a few people getting out there and starting it.

Click here for Ryan O’Connor’s full tour schedule!

Weighing the options on March 23, 1998…

Dear Breakup Girl,

Frankly, I am losing interest in my husband; he is not the man I married. We have known each other for a number of years and have been married for about two. The passion is gone. We rarely see each other because of his job and mine (about 12 hours a week if we are lucky). We have had numerous discussions and he leads me to believe he is no longer attracted to me because I have have gained weight (30 lbs.) since we married. The reasons for my weight gain are numerous: #1 would be the period of unemployment prior to my current job and the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the town we live in and I have no friends here. My true concern is how do I keep the flame alive? I have tried seduction, homemade meals, talking, time alone — frankly I am fresh out of ideas.

— Q

(more…)

MSN.com, Match.com, HappenMagazine.com: they’re in a healthy and satisfying 3-way relationship. Meaning that you can find MSN/Match.com’s “Ask Lynn” columns –penned by BG’s alter ego — over at Happen now as well.

This week Lynn hears from Distracted Dan, who is worried about what his online date with think when she sees him in the flesh — but for a very specific reason:

The problem is I have not told her that 18 months ago I had gastric bypass surgery and lost 140 lbs. I still have a lot of loose skin left over (which is not very obvious once I am dressed).

How should Dan handle the situation, and more importantly, his own insecurity? Get the full picture at Happen, then let us know in the comments what you’d do!

Mad! Men! Barbies!

Collect all four! Totally buying a Joan (and then padding her dress).*

While we’re on the subject, what do we think of the new Code Monkey Barbie?

Either way, this is a really interesting and thorough take. (H/T Joy Engel.)

* Or, put another way by a later tipster: “You know how you like Joan Holloway because she’s not a Barbie doll? Oops!”

From the Charlotte Observer: “A forthcoming study by a Duke University researcher and several colleagues confirms what not-so-thin women and short, broke men have long suspected: They don’t get nearly as much romantic attention as skinny women and tall, financially secure guys.” You need a study for that? Here, I got a study. It’s called pay my rent, food, and Netflix. Fund that, science people.

The study, out of the University of Chicago, is still under peer review before publication. But here’s what we know: analyzing 22,000 online daters, researchers found that “women put a premium on income and height when deciding which men to contact.” They did the math: the study showed that a 5-foot-9-inch man needs to make $30,000 more than a 5-foot-10-inch one to be as successful in the dating pool.

Men in the study demonstrated a strong, and depressing, preference for women with a BMI of 18 or 19, which basically means if you’re 5′ 6″ you’ve gotta weigh 115. So okay, women want men who can afford to take them to dinner, but the men don’t want us to eat. This should work just fine.

Sarcasm aside, I’m still annoyed with this study — or at least, to some degree, this article about it — and the way it only, and unnecessarily, perhaps even misleadingly, perpetuates and underscores that same-old same-old depressing, needlessly divisive message: “The only thing men and women have in common is that they’re shallow.” ‘Cause here’s the thing: the article and the researchers talk about what a fertile field for study these online sites are, because there are just so many people on them. Right: there are just so many people on them. That’s why people go in — or at least online — with those faux-“high” standards. Because they can. There are so many eligible singles there, at least in urban and urbanish areas, that you can afford to impose a minimum height or maximum BMI standard. You know? Then later, at a party, you happen across someone who — for whatever ineffable reason — makes your heart go pitter-pat, maybe someone whose attributes you wouldn’t have click-clicked and checklisted, and boom, you give them a chance. I’m not saying some people aren’t shallow, but still.

As the article, to be fair, does state: “Since the study focuses on first impressions and initial contacts rather than marriage, it doesn’t rule out the chance of true love winning despite appearance or income. ‘If you had to sit down and write what you wanted in your dream guy, most girls would write ‘tall, hot and well-off,'” said Kari Castle, a 27-year-old online dater in Charlotte. ‘But in reality, is that the only thing they’d settle for? Probably not.'” Right.

So, I guess, since the study doesn’t really tell us much, the reporter is forced to fill in with dumb cranky unhelpful — and dare I say self-fulfilling — quotes like, “It’s got nothing to do with anything but green,” [said one bachelor]. “If you’ve got enough money, you’ll have women swarming all over you.” Attitude, people! Actually, it might be a guy in the comments who said it best: “If you think women will only like you if you have a sizable bank account, you are the one who makes that happen.”

Loads of props to Psychology Today’s Living Single blog, an excellent source of pro-single advocacy courtesy of perennial BG fave Bella DePaulo, Ph.D. One of their trusty commenters picked up on the singles-bashing embedded in this recent New York Times article about research out of Australia suggesting that  married women may gain more weight than single women. The study in question, conducted over a ten-year period, found that whether or not they bear children, married women tend to pack on more pounds than their never-married counterparts.

It’s not the findings themselves that slant anti-single; it’s the totally facile, clueless quote that another (female) egghead, asked to comment on the study, got away with. I’ll let DePaulo sum up what sucks about it:

“Before I tell you her answer — which was just a guess — imagine what answer would have been proffered if it were the single women who got fatter. Probably that they are home alone sitting on their couches eating ice cream, in a desperate attempt to sugar-coat that bitter man-less taste in their mouths.”

Buh-zing, DePaulo. Here’s the real quote:

“‘It’s interesting and brings out some important points,’ said Maureen A. Murtaugh, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Utah, who has published widely on weight gain in women. Perhaps, she suggested, a more active social life may help explain why women with partners gain more weight.”

Marrieds have more active social lives? Don’t people usually assume the other way around? Oh wait, I get it… because singles, mortified of revealing their grotesque, table-for-one faces in public, eat tear-soggy dinners under the covers of their twin-sized Murphy beds.

“‘Think of going to a restaurant,’ Dr. Murtaugh said. ‘They serve a 6-foot man the same amount as they serve me, even though I’m 5 feet 5 inches and 60 pounds lighter.’”

Okay, I’m thinking of that… that has nothing to do with being married. And btw, way to sneak in an elbow jab toward us glamazonly-tall girls. And also btw, I’m married, not incapable of asking for a doggie bag when I judge that titanic slab of man-meat I’ve just been served too much for my delicate belly.

As the blog entry notes about studies of marriage in general: “Even when marrying has a bad* effect, it will be attributed to something good.” Lots more juicy stuff here.

*Ever non-fat-phobic, we’d stop short of saying that gaining weight always = “bad.” But point still taken.

Via The Frisky:

“Any time I do a red carpet, I feel vaguely confrontational. I feel like, ‘All right, now somebody’s going to come on the red carpet who doesn’t have a stylist, who did her own hair and makeup, who’s wearing a $25 dress from H&M. I have cellulite. I have big hips and big thighs. And you have to look at me.’ I feel like people have to pay attention to somebody who would typically be invisible.” — Diablo Cody

Ya know, I don’t automatically get offended by the word “fat,” or even the term “fat girl.” After all, one of my favorite Guides to Life was written by a body-positive fat girl.

But something about this grossly-named product from Bliss really exfoliates me the wrong way. Could it be the headline “rub-a-dub blub?” The idiotic and spurious claim that rubbing “Himalayan pink salt” on your hynee is a valid alternative to healthy diet and exercise? Maybe it’s the barely literate mis-use of single quotes.

No… no… I think it’s definitely the name-calling, and my niggling fear that tubs of this and its corrollary product, “FatGirlSlim,” will be left in the lockers of “less-than-perfect” women and girls across the globe. (All this when apparently we’re “officially over skinny.” Oh, wait.)

Hey, I’m all for kicky and edgy marketing copy. But this just sounds like advertising by way of sorority hazing.

It’s election time and we’re ALL poll-crazy. But do we really believe that a pregnant woman’s weight directly affects her child’s political leanings? Or that American women “prefer computers to men?” Well, maybe this fella. But that’s not my point!

The Telegraph reports that Yankee ladies “prefer” to spend most of their waking hours with their computer, not with their suitor (or their family, or their Exercycle).

Oh. Oh?

1. “Women.” Women? So there’s no difference between your grandma and your boss? Kay.

2. Men. We’re not going to address men’s computer usage: time at work, time at Warcraft, and stuff like that? Oh.

3. “Prefer.” Do I prefer to write, read, communicate, be employed? If women were not at work on the computer machine, does that mean that men would also quit their jobs so they could cuddle and take walks all day? Give me a billion dollars and we can all go start a commune (with wifi, or I ain’t stayin’)!

Sounds like the researchers may not understand what computers actually do, or how relationships actually work, for that matter. What if I’m talking to friends and family on the computer, and what if I do that in intervals all day long? What if I’m wooing a man? What if I’m on the laptop while on the couch with my mate? What if I’m buying us movie tickets? What if I’m shopping online? What if by shopping you distinguish shoe shopping in person from buying foot spray and diaper wipes for the menfolk and babies online because I’d rather spend my meager free hours not running errands?

This study doesn’t address the millions of social science studies showing that, despite working as many hours or longer than men, women still do most of the household chores, cooking, child-raising, man-pleasing, key-finding, vacation-planning than their male counterparts.

If women did NOT spend more time on the PC than on exercising, they’d have to work out more than 9 hours every day. Does that sound right to you? But the study makes it sound like it’s unfortunate that we don’t. I think they also just called us fat.