In the old feminism, Gloria Steinem was once a Playboy Bunny (for real) and it was a good feminism. Today we have the Diana Moon Glampers version of feminism in which there isn't simply to be equality of sexes but also equality of appearance.
References:
WIKI: Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut. Article is a synopsis of the story
"Harrison Bergeron" - Text of the short-story (i.e. quite short and a quick, biting read)
The abstract on the story is the madness of perfect equality and the impossibility of really achieving it even if it were worthy of achieving. The story describes how to assure everyone has exactly the same rights and opportunities ... and what likely consequence comes of that. Diana Moon Glampers is a key figure in the story.
Playboy has announced it will stop presenting full-nude photography in its magazine. (CNN: Playboy to eliminate nude photos from the magazine)
We commend Playboy on making this move and not because it's a move toward propriety but rather it's a step toward reclaiming sensuality. In seeing a buck nekkid woman, there's only one question: would you fuck her or wouldn't you. Fair enough if that's the only question you ask but we observe, at least in your case, it's not a very deep question.
Steinem's purpose in taking a job as a Playboy Bunny was to research for herself the blatant sexism inherent in such a job. She found, not surprisingly, it ran deep but there was a protracted consequence to her research in terms of losing reporting jobs after doing that because people dismissed her for having been a Bunny, regardless of why she had done it.
Note 1: Gloria Steinem is the Always Queen of the Feminists. She's a brilliant woman, in the literal sense, and that includes graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Smith. Her perspectives are always incisive and, here at the Rockhouse, we have admired her and lusted after her for years.
Note 2: she's a beautiful woman. She should spurn this gift and cover her face with charcoal or some such?
Note 3: Note 2 is exactly what Diane Moon Glampers would have her do.
The New Feminism is the Diana Moon Glampers version and, in parallel with it, there's the worship of Kim Kardashian but, here's the treat: she's not worshipped by men but rather by women as a role model of success and, my word, she's such a beauty isn't she.
Um, darlin', hate to break it to you but only a few men regard her as a beauty. Kardashian is probably an intelligent woman and the evidence is being such a devious wench as shown by how she gets herself publicized so much. Nevertheless, there's no evidence of the intelligence, only the backside, the boobs, and the endless parade of oh-so-penetrating Kardashian stares.
How much could possibly be in her head when she names one kid North and the next one South. Does she make a fucking magnet or what? Her only job is to make babies and that's the best she could do for a name? Well ...
And you wonder why the self-image for so many women is a complete piece of shit. The beauty part is it's self-inflicted because men really aren't so interested in Kardashians. Now, if she turned out a porno move and demonstrated some moves, we may watch ... but ... otherwise she's sexy like a head of broccoli with boobs.
Some think I'm obsessed with Kardashian but I'm obsessed by the obsession others have for her when it's obvious she never really does anything, except for one porno movie she leaked years ago.
Playboy pushes away from all of it and this statement is more profound than boobs but rather it goes to the nature of sexuality. The wholesale display of flesh is rarely sexy and it's almost never sensual. One of the sexiest and most sensual dances of all time is the Middle Eastern 'Dance of the Seven Veils.' The dancer is nude behind the veils but her art is tantalizing without overtly teasing and that's the most sensual dance of all, isn't it.
The old man's advice is always the same, that sex is mostly in the mind, and Playboy has always leaned toward intellectuals, progressive thought, and edgy behavior ... and sex. This shows a greater emphasis on the thinking aspect of sensuality and that strikes here as an excellent move for the magazine and for feminism in general.
References:
WIKI: Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut. Article is a synopsis of the story
"Harrison Bergeron" - Text of the short-story (i.e. quite short and a quick, biting read)
The abstract on the story is the madness of perfect equality and the impossibility of really achieving it even if it were worthy of achieving. The story describes how to assure everyone has exactly the same rights and opportunities ... and what likely consequence comes of that. Diana Moon Glampers is a key figure in the story.
Playboy has announced it will stop presenting full-nude photography in its magazine. (CNN: Playboy to eliminate nude photos from the magazine)
We commend Playboy on making this move and not because it's a move toward propriety but rather it's a step toward reclaiming sensuality. In seeing a buck nekkid woman, there's only one question: would you fuck her or wouldn't you. Fair enough if that's the only question you ask but we observe, at least in your case, it's not a very deep question.
Steinem's purpose in taking a job as a Playboy Bunny was to research for herself the blatant sexism inherent in such a job. She found, not surprisingly, it ran deep but there was a protracted consequence to her research in terms of losing reporting jobs after doing that because people dismissed her for having been a Bunny, regardless of why she had done it.
Note 1: Gloria Steinem is the Always Queen of the Feminists. She's a brilliant woman, in the literal sense, and that includes graduating Phi Beta Kappa from Smith. Her perspectives are always incisive and, here at the Rockhouse, we have admired her and lusted after her for years.
Note 2: she's a beautiful woman. She should spurn this gift and cover her face with charcoal or some such?
Note 3: Note 2 is exactly what Diane Moon Glampers would have her do.
The New Feminism is the Diana Moon Glampers version and, in parallel with it, there's the worship of Kim Kardashian but, here's the treat: she's not worshipped by men but rather by women as a role model of success and, my word, she's such a beauty isn't she.
Um, darlin', hate to break it to you but only a few men regard her as a beauty. Kardashian is probably an intelligent woman and the evidence is being such a devious wench as shown by how she gets herself publicized so much. Nevertheless, there's no evidence of the intelligence, only the backside, the boobs, and the endless parade of oh-so-penetrating Kardashian stares.
How much could possibly be in her head when she names one kid North and the next one South. Does she make a fucking magnet or what? Her only job is to make babies and that's the best she could do for a name? Well ...
And you wonder why the self-image for so many women is a complete piece of shit. The beauty part is it's self-inflicted because men really aren't so interested in Kardashians. Now, if she turned out a porno move and demonstrated some moves, we may watch ... but ... otherwise she's sexy like a head of broccoli with boobs.
Some think I'm obsessed with Kardashian but I'm obsessed by the obsession others have for her when it's obvious she never really does anything, except for one porno movie she leaked years ago.
Playboy pushes away from all of it and this statement is more profound than boobs but rather it goes to the nature of sexuality. The wholesale display of flesh is rarely sexy and it's almost never sensual. One of the sexiest and most sensual dances of all time is the Middle Eastern 'Dance of the Seven Veils.' The dancer is nude behind the veils but her art is tantalizing without overtly teasing and that's the most sensual dance of all, isn't it.
The old man's advice is always the same, that sex is mostly in the mind, and Playboy has always leaned toward intellectuals, progressive thought, and edgy behavior ... and sex. This shows a greater emphasis on the thinking aspect of sensuality and that strikes here as an excellent move for the magazine and for feminism in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment