No of course NO woman is responsible for being raped (or much else if you listen to p.c. p-whipped boys and feminazies), just like the guy who strolls into Harlem, or Watts, or Compton dressed in a K.K.K. outfit isn't responsible for the certain @ss beating (and possible rape) that he will endure in doing so.
I mean doesn't EVERYONE have every right to dress how they like?
U.S. culture is renowned for encouraging certain groups not to assume ANY culpability for their actions.
However those who know better have learned to mind their Ps & Qs when dealing with the degenerating society in which we live.
The point is, if YOU look "cheap" you really shouldn't be expected to be thought of as anything other than "cheap," but if aren't the one dressing like you've made a career of being on your back, then you should really be more concerned about young boys thinking you are all a bunch of uptight prudes with nothing better to do than bitch about attractive women making a buck off their looks.
Sure, nobody wants a society where fellatio is as readily available (and maybe even performed) on every street corner like a shoe shine used to be, but a vast majority of the people recognize this isn't the Victorian era of button up collars and garments that cover every inch of a woman from possibly exposing a tantalizing wrist or kneecap!
I find it so ironic that the flag wavers who support such things as middle eastern women being "liberated" of their burkas are the first ones who cry foul here, if a woman is too scantily clad.
Now i know I can't be the ONLY one who sees the irony here. Surely there must be a few guys left who still have a hold of their own testicles. I mean if not, then where do all those kids come from that these people use a the rationalization for wanting to ban every image of a woman who is not over 200 lbs or wearing a business suit?
That's another point as well. If society is so corrupted in its imagery, then why are these people having kids? I mean how irresponsible is it that that they would expect society to change for the benefit of THEIR children? "How will I explain this to my kids!?" is common question in the argument to censor imagery. What should be the standard reply is clear; "Why didn't you think of THAT before you had kids!? Could you be any more incapable of being a parent than to have introduced this id child into world ( or city) where things like this are a pervasive common place!?"
I know this country is a far cry from ever having a modicum of the maturity that Europe has towards nudity, but really is a city or even the world its stands now the bet place to shelter your child, if you are not going to be Quaker and live out in the sticks?
Get a grip people, Its a woman's ass not a public performance of Deep Throat!
- 1
- 2
Buy or Boycott?
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
I, for one, can't quite decide. We see images every day of airbrushed, photoshopped models placed in the most sexual of positions—remember Dolce & Gabbana’s “gang rape” ad? And thanks to technology, models are nothing more than objects to be shaped and molded by marketers, fashion editors and photographers. Moles and acne are erased, eyes enlarged, ears trimmed, hairlines filled, teeth straightened and necks and waists lengthened and stretched. "We're always stretching the models' legs and slimming their thighs," a Manhattan photo retoucher recently told NEWSWEEK. And in some cases hands, feet and even legs are replaced when a subject's parts don't add up to a perfect whole.
So why then am I so offended when I see real-looking women who choose to display themselves for American Apparel—the rare company that doesn't airbrush, manipulate or otherwise alter the photos in their ads? Shouldn't I view them as brave, sexual, confident? Refreshing, even? Hall, of Adrants, says it's easier to detach ourselves from more mainstream fashion images that are so overproduced "they're almost fake … It's like you don't even believe there's an actual person involved in the creation of the ad." With American Apparel "that's like some girl that could live next door to you."
Former porn star turned Ph.D. sexologist Annie Sprinkle says American Apparel's promotions tap into American culture's contradictory views about sex. "They can be fun, sexy and positive," Sprinkle says, or they can be a turnoff—depicted as dirty and ugly. "But that's why it's a great ad campaign," she says. "As a feminist, I like the ads and I like the graffiti [the New York billboard was defaced with]. It makes us think about how we view sexuality."
How we view sexuality has certainly changed: we're no longer living in the days of free love, yet we're bombarded by sexualized images just about everywhere. And younger Americans who've grown up in a MySpace world aren't shy about sharing our own most intimate secrets … with everyone who has an Internet connection. It turns out the photo in the controversial American Apparel billboard in Manhattan was a self-portrait shot by the model herself, 24-year-old Kyung Chung, an amateur photographer living in Paris. "The fact that some people chose to project 'victim' onto that image—an image that I took of myself—is only an indication of their own distorted perceptions about women and sexuality," she tells NEWSWEEK. Ah, beauty … or exploitation: it's in the eye of the beholder.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Discuss