A while back I posted about this and I've been reminded of it again.
I don't understand how so many women have been convinced that the path to empowerment is to objectify yourself based on publicly posting pictures/videos of yourself as close to naked or posing provocatively as possible without running afoul of the censors.
I just saw a video of a state representative who posted a video of herself from behind, standing on her hands, topless (I think), with a very small bikini, twerking. Leaving aside her physical attractiveness or lack thereof, I wonder what made her think that informed voters would see this and think that she'd be an excellent legislator. Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting she be prevented from doing this. I am wondering what convinced her that this video was the key to her success or empowerment.
I also just saw something related to Britney Spears posting a video from her honeymoon where she's rolling around on a beach, topless, lowering the top of her bikini bottom, etc. I guess I find it a little strange that she'd be publicly displaying herself while celebrating her honeymoon, but I'm a little old fashioned.
Finally, there was quite the stir when the daughter of Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards decided to declare her independence by starting an Only Fans. Surprisingly enough, dad wasn't thrilled to see his little girl entering that world, while Mom decide she'd go there to in solidarity.
Throughout history we've been told that men just "Want a beer and want to see somethin' nekkid" as Jeff Foxworthy puts it. So again, I'm struggling to understand how women putting themselves out publicly defining themselves and their worth by how far that can objectify and sexualize themselves by playing into the stereotypes of what men want, is somehow empowering to women. I guess if you define empowering as making money from a bunch of middle aged perverts who get off on looking at young, naked, women then go right ahead. Make the cash while you're young and desirable.
Disclaimer: I don't think women should be prevented from any form of trading their sexuality for cash, no matter how I personally feel about it. I'm merely wondering how appealing to men's base desires is empowering women.
I just saw an interview with Sydney Sweeney who is an actress on a very popular show. Don't know/care about the show. Apparently her character is involved in a lot of sex scenes or nude scenes, a quick look at her IG shows that she's not shy about her body. In the interview she expressed shock that people were "sexualizing" her based on what she chooses to do on TV or other media. The notion that she has any role in sexualizing herself doesn't seem to cross her mind. Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like people perceiving someone in the way that that person chooses to present themselves isn't out of line. It seems like we should have some degree of responsibility in the choices we make and how others react to those choices. Again, I'm not saying that she should be prevented from making those choices or be punished for them. I am saying that choices have consequences.
15 comments:
How many women are intent on "appealing to men's base desires" and how many are just doing what they damn well please with their bodies?
It's not always all about men, you know?
But no, you don't. Your recent words make that clear, as do your policy positions.
Women have exploited their sexuality in many ways since the dawn of time. To whatever extent that may pay off for them makes it an empowering act. It also makes them tramps and sluts, but whatever. Far be it from me to "tell them how to live". I'm told that's bad.
Well, to hell with any man who would call a woman a tramp or slut because SHE decides in a way that is not pleasing to him.
It's not all about you and your cadre of actual moral perverts on the right.
"How many women are intent on "appealing to men's base desires" and how many are just doing what they damn well please with their bodies?"
When you star off with this kind of bullshit, it seems to indicate that you don't actually read the entire post. I was quite clear that I am not interested in preventing women from exploiting themselves. I'm more interested in who or what has convinced women that objectifying themselves based on their sexuality and appearance is empowering. I'm sorry that you didn't read the whole thing and take the time to comprehend it before you spouted off.
"It's not always all about men, you know?"
https://www.influencermade.com/onlyfans-stats/
Actually it is. Only Fans has between 130 and 170 million subscribers and 87% of them are men. So, it's absolutely about appealing to men who are the primary revenue stream.
Fanhouse which is smaller than Only Fans is showing that 80% of their subscribers are men.
https://www.similarweb.com/website/fanhouse.app/#demographics
Porn Hub shows that almost 70% of it's users are men.
https://www.similarweb.com/website/fanhouse.app/#demographics
When it comes to revenue, then it's absolutely about the men.
"But no, you don't. Your recent words make that clear, as do your policy positions."
I do so love the unproven claims, that show no indication of actually understanding what I've actually said.
Art,
I'm not disagreeing. I'm merely pointing out that in this world of third wave feminism, it seems strange that women's empowerment looks exactly like them appealing to men's sexual fantasies. But as I said, I'm not suggesting that they be prevented from doing this, just wondering about the mindset that confuses objectifying oneself in a sexual manner to appeal to random dudes on the internet, with empowerment.
I mentioned Jasmine Rice at least once before. She managed to go from poverty to Wharton, graduate, and decided to start Fanhouse. She did so to give the content creators more of the money they earned. I could be wrong, but going from poverty to an Ivy League graduate degree, then to founding a successful startup company, sounds a whole lot more like empowerment than flashing one's ass for dudes on the internet. Even if it does come on the backs of women objectifying themselves.
"Well, to hell with any man who would call a woman a tramp or slut because SHE decides in a way that is not pleasing to him."
And Dan captures the faux moral high ground, and decides he has the power to condemn someone to hell.
"It's not all about you and your cadre of actual moral perverts on the right."
Because there are obviously no "moral perverts" on the left.
Epstein
Maxwell
Franken
Kennedys
Clinton
Weiner
Conyers
Filner
Mendoza
Silverstein
Und so weiter
Of course to actually have "moral perversion" there would have to be a universal, objective, defined, standard of morality.
It's clearly idiotic and absurd to try to paint "moral" perversion as a partisan issue exclusive to one side or the other. Yet somehow that idiotic absurdity is exactly what we got.
Yeah, Craig. It's amazing that in Dan's fevered imaginings, someone like me referring to women as tramps or sluts based on their clothing choices means I'm trying to control them. They're free to dress how they like, but few dress for reasons other than to "look attractive". That, too, is not a problem in and of itself. The reality is that a great deal of, if not most of, women's fashion is intended to make them look attractive to men. And the point of fashion which exposes more is to appeal to men. Some women take this as far as they think is legal, and in doing so come off as incredibly slutty. I'm not even saying I don't enjoy the show. I'm just honest enough to acknowledge that honorable women aren't likely to dress in that manner. Honorable women generally dress in an appealing manner which isn't slutty.
What's more, one is far more likely to hear women describe other women as slutty or tramp-like based on how other women dress. Indeed, it's as common as Dan is stupid...which means, to a great degree!
Art,
What's more baffling to me is that Dan simply chooses to ignore what I actually said, as well as the point of the post in his rantings.
Let me be clear. A woman who decides to wear a bikini or to dance in a way that Craig or Marshal finds suggestive is not a tramp. She's not a slut. She's a woman who decided to wear a bikini and dancing the way that she wanted to.
Women are not beholden to sluts like Marshal and Craig for approval. To hell with your presumption and arrogance. But the pharisees and the rapists, no doubt, would approve of your preening.
Let me be clear. Dan clearly hasn't read what I've written, but is simply expressing his approval of women behaving any way they want, with no restrictions (like common sense, or context).
Given the reality that no one has claimed that our "approval" is the issue here, it seems strange that this false narrative is what Dan has chosen to pursue.
Well, that's how Dan rolls. He needs to demonize, even when it means advocating for bad behavior...most of which he hasn't the honesty to acknowledge is bad in the first place.
And therein is another problem in dealing with the likes of a Dan Trabue. The issue isn't the issue. Only using the issue to disparage his betters is the issue. That's why he dares to compare us to "the pharisees and the rapists". But then, those of the Dan Trabue ilk don't hold sway because of their dishonesty and lack of morality. They can call me anything they like, as every disparaging remark indicts them and elevates me. Matt 5:11-12.
Art,
It seems like the most important thing to Dan is that he be right on whatever the issue under discussion is. He seems to be willing to engage in all sorts of contortions in order to be right, regardless of what he ends up defending to do so.
And there again, Dan doesn't have the moral aptitude for even knowing what "right" is.
Oh, he knows what right is. It's whatever he defines it to be.
Post a Comment