You know,
I'm with Jessica on this one. I really look forward to a day when journalists stop equating "sex" with "women's bodies." "Sex" is an activity that may or may not involve women's bodies at all. I know that it's hard to believe, but I've been led to understand that gay men do not, generally speaking, involve women's bodies in their sex.
Crazy, I know.
As much as I agree with Jessica about the Slate article, and as much I share her frustration, I can't help but be equally frustrated by the third comment in:
What the sweet holy fuck is up with that woman's ass? It scares me...it looks like she shoved some water balloons up there or maybe a couple punchbowls or something. Yowza.
I'm sorry No, wait, I'm
not sorry-
that's ridiculously offensive, too. I don't know the commenter, so maybe this is par for the course for him/her? But, that's not necessary- the picture of the woman in question is from the Slate article. It's one thing to criticize the article for using women's bodies to sell "sex" while not mentioning the disturbing history of racism implicit in the exploitation of black bodies in the "Hottentot Venus". It's rather another to talk about how disgusting or disturbing you find some woman's body.
I'm really, really frustrated by the quickness with which some people will turn to attacking the physical appearence of other women. It needs to stop.
2 comments:
roy, i thought the EXACT same thing when i read it. i mean, the whole point of jessica's post was to NEGATE that kind of bs.
I wonder if her point was that the photo was photoshopped to a point where it looks scary? Because the way her butt is attached to her waist looks all wrong to me.
Post a Comment