Oh, hello New York Times, it's so nice of you to come! I've been wondering when you were going to show up. Unfortunately, the spinach artichoke dip is a bit cold and the champagne has gone flat. Most of the guests are pretty tired. I don't know if you heard, but the party started about 50 years ago.

Our newspaper of record finally published their "omgz big butts are a thing now lol" piece and it is as inane as all the others, if slightly less offensive. At its core, the article is just very, very lame, right down to the headline, "For Posteriors' Sake."

There must be some sort of roadmap or guide being handed out for writing these types of articles. Hey, let's write about big butts, let's but center it around a white lady. Of course mention Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncé, because those are the only gluteus-endowed celebrities we know. Throw in plenty of ass-related anecdotes that don't really support the larger theme and definitely make sure to continue to ignore the influence of black and Latina women throughout the discussion.

The piece begins by introducing us to Jen Selter — apparently she's the only woman on earth popular for having a shapely behind — who says the same insipid shit she always does. I really wish Selter would just sigh and admit: "Look, basically I realized that I could make a lot of money doing this, particularly as a white girl, so I ran with it and am riding the wave because mama's trying to put a down payment on a two bedroom, pre-war apartment on the upper east side."

Advertisement

Written by Marisa Meltzer, the whole piece reads like a stream of things your self-appointed "hip" aunt would say.

And as any SoulCycle devotee will report, there is a large and varied repertory of songs in praise of the posterior, including Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" and Major Lazer's "Bubble Butt."

Cool, that has nothing to do with anything. What are you saying? Big butts are cool now because in some SoulCycle classes they play a song about big butts that came out 22-years-ago? PROOF.

Advertisement

Naturally there is some fine Columbusing going on where we're supposed to pretend like women weren't proud of having a voluptuous backside until recently.

The rear is fast becoming the erogenous zone of choice in America, vying for eminence with breasts, abs, legs or, for those of us who came of age in the early '90s, Linda Hamilton's sinewy arms in "Terminator 2." Captivating back-end views of amply endowed personalities have stirred the popular imagination, prompting many women, it would seem, to chase after gawk-worthy curves of their own.

But then, oh ok, we'll admit that this isn't exactly new instead of just saying that it's not goddamn new AT ALL.

Not that this is exactly new. Celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Jessica Biel, Rihanna, Serena Williams, Pippa Middleton and Beyoncé (who, on her tour that just ended, wore a bodysuit with the tush cutout) have all been praised for their behinds.

Advertisement

Jessica Biel? I know she felt like she had to throw a white woman in there, but is Jessica Biel the best you could do? What about Coco Austin?

To her credit, Meltzer does interview Erika Nicole Kendall, the creator of the blog "A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss," who throw some much-needed cold water on the unrealistic body fantasies some women hold onto.

"When I ask them what kind of imagery they have in mind, it's usually somebody who has a large behind and small legs."

The problem is that "there is an almost cartoonish expectation of having this tiny waist and oversized behind," said Ms. Kendall, who wrote an article in Ebony last year about the dangers of trying to achieve the perfect behind.

Advertisement

But then we round things out with this:

Cleavage, Ms. Selter maintains, can be transformed only through surgery. A full, pert behind, she said, "shows hard work."

Except literally not at all when butt implants and injections are now widely known about and utilized.

Advertisement

Look, I'm not against talking about butts. I clearly LOVE talking about butts! But there are so may different ways to discuss this subject and its new visibility and appreciation in the mainstream without acting like it's a novelty. It is truly baffling to me how difficult that is for people to understand.

WHATEVER, New York Times. I would say "better late than never," but never would have been preferable.

Image via Getty.