Dear Editors,

So I have been reading and looking and well … sorry folks, but, I do not see what the big deal is! Now the “twins” are not all that remarkable, except for, “Hey! Good for her! She looks great!” There has been some conversation about what children will think of this ad. Sorry, again, but the Telegraph is not a kids paper. Shan Wells is not drawing bunnies, and unless I missed it, there is no kid’s page filled with funnies and puzzles and connect-the-dots dragons, like the Carvers’ kids menu!  The horoscope page has great imagination, beyond my teen-age niece’s comprehension. The independent, forward-thinking, progressive paper, with a readership to match, I thought. With all this continued controversy are people asking the Telegraph to behave like the other paper? No matter, my little girl does not break out the crayons for the Telegraph.  

Perhaps, you would prefer women be depicted as in the ad placed by the Bank of the San Juans in the same issue: circa 1950s and carving a ham? Nostalgic, but really I’d rather have my rights TODAY than then. Perhaps a return to the Carvers ad opposite the “twins” (maybe they should kick down to the Starlight for all those extra look-e-lous), this ad circa 1970s, should this be the order of the day. Nope, sorry still, I’d rather my rights today. You know Roe v. Wade was 1973, not very long ago! And we are still fighting to have protected sex, or not, choices, choices. Women have not gotten far but hell we have made some progress!

Further, and most importantly, I really fail to see how this instance of advertising is representative of the demeaning treatment of women. Ladies, did women fight for (and are still trying to protect) the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies, minds, money, etc., etc., to have other women pass judgment on us? This woman does not appear to be under duress, therefore I would have to conclude that this is, indeed, an example of her right and freedom to be posing for such a picture. This is the conversation that I have had with my child, not one about the birds and the bees – that is a jump that we, as adults, make. The equation of her show of skin is made sexual by the parent, not the child. This doesn’t really mean anything to your kid unless you make it mean something. Now if she were copulating in the ad, this would be of consequence, and covered under an entirely different set of rights and constraints on the media, already covered by our justice system, which this instance does not measure even briefly to the standard of consideration.

Now, my little girl knows a few things, cursing while driving is appropriate under the general guise of a specific set of circumstances. When you are of an age to drive, you may drive, when you are of an appropriate age to use curse words, you may curse. Whether or not you do either well is a matter of prudent thought and practice. When she is old enough to use this information, or skill, she will be given the choice to drive or curse. The woman in this ad is of an appropriate age to wear scant clothing and to drink alcohol. The combination of which is also being taken to issue, the two may have taken place for this ad, again her right and choice!

As for how well clothed she is, I may add that the garment choices for teens at Durango High School and on the streets of Durango are all covered (or uncovered) by the very right this women is exercising. These young ladies are barely covered, and what is more, the women picking them up from school or the local store are no more clad than their offspring. Good for all involved, glad we can be free to do what we like. There was absolutely nothing irresponsible, negligent, nor remiss, about this ad.

Can we concentrate on something that is of more consequence?

– Gina M.K. Kramer, Durango

High on the Haute Route

Dear Editors,

I just received an e-mail from a friend in Durango with this from your newspaper: A backcountry ski hut has been approved for Ophir Pass, between the communities of Silverton and Ophir, outside of Telluride. The Silverton Standard reports that the hut is to be located at an elevation of 11,800 feet, putting it higher than any of the 10th Mountain, Braun, and other backcountry huts between Silverton and Winter Park. The developers of the hut are Bob and Karen Kingsley, of Telluride.

We run the Hinsdale Haute Route, a hut to hut ski system on the Continental Divide south of Lake City. We have been operating the Colorado Trail Yurt at 11,800’ for over 10 years now. We also have the Fawn Lakes Yurt (currently out of operation but scheduled to be up and running again by next year) at 12,130 feet. Please check out our web site at www.hinsdalehaute route.org

I believe there is also a yurt around 12,000 feet near Leadville now.

-Best regards, Jerry Gray, via e-mail