The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue came out last week,
and if course like just about any hetero male I bought myself a copy.
Had to try three places to get it, though. Why?
Because some retailers have decided not to sell the issue
because "they" have deemed it too provocative, and it's all based on
the cover.
It features Hannah Davis tugging on her bikini bottom in a
very sexy teasing manner. Now keep in
mind that the swimsuit issue is a huge money making machine for both SI and
retailers, so why pull it from shelves?
It's simple: The "they" people are actually prudes
and over reactive mothers who are outraged/disgusted/pissed at SI having the
audacity to - GASP! - have a beautiful model do a sexy pose for the cover of
the magazine.
Some have even compared it to soft-core porn.
Here is what I say: Please!
You see less at the beach!
Well, if that is the case, what causes a bikini to go from a
seemingly innocent summertime outfit to something "softcore porn?"
Simple: a camera is involved.
It's not just the SI swimsuit issue, either. A glamour model that I am a fan of likes to
post pictures of her shoots on facebook (well, the facebook-safe ones
anyway). Many of these are pretty
dresses, bikinis, and maybe a tank top and shorts or similar. She posted a message that someone sent to her
saying, "stop posting soft-core porn pics on facebook and get a
job." How are those seemingly
innocent outfits "softcore porn?"
Again, simple: A camera is involved.
It's comical that a pretty girl can walk down the street in
a tank top and shorts just fine, for example, but as soon as she has someone
take some pictures of her in said tank top and shorts, it becomes "softcore
porn."
Why is that?
I can only think of one, very dumb, explanation that I heard
one of those prudes say. *Wording
changed around to better fit this blog.*
She said: "When a women is at the beach in a bikini, or
walking down the street in a tank top and shorts, she is doing it because she
wants to wear those things and is NOT doing it to intentionally get people aroused. When a women poses for a photographer in
those same outfits, the objective is to use her body and those articles of
clothing to intentionally try and get sexual arousal out of the viewer. That is the very technical definition of
porn."
Here is why that statement is dumb:
If I see a really hot girl in a bikini, or in a skimpy outfit,
I AM GOING TO GET AROUSED. She hardly
needs to be posing for some photos for that to happen.
Do I walk around getting a hard on every time I see a hot
chick in a bikini or a tank top and shorts?
Of course not, but that's not really the real issue here....
....The real issue goes back to the prudes and over reactive
mothers who think that a beautiful woman posing for a magazine or website and
showing any amount of skin is bad.
Here are the two most common reasons:
1. It gives young
girls the impression that they have to be busty/flawless/whatever to be
considered beautiful and successful.
My answer: NEWS FLASH!
Modeling is a job, and just like any job, there are job
requirements. If you want to be a model,
you have to be a beautiful
woman. Of course, everyone's definition
of "beautiful" is different, but let's just say that if you look like
Momma June from Honey Booboo, I seriously doubt you'll be getting calls from
talent agencies. There are plenty of
good-paying jobs out there that don't require a woman to flaunt her assets for
in front of the camera, and thus aren't looks based. Keep in mind, those jobs have requirements
too. Why pick on one industry for having
a set of requirements?
The funny thing is, you never see the male modeling industry being hammered by other men. That's because we know that it's a
looks-based industry and if you don't have the looks, it's best to try and go
into another profession. Do we complain
that the male modeling industry gives boys the impression that we have to have
a six-pack abs, a chiseled jawline or long wavy hair to be considered famous and try and protest Calvin Klein or Tommy
Hillfiger ads? NO! Again, looks are subjective but to the
modeling industry, it's just a skillset like any other job looks for. Don't have the needed skillset? Look for another job that fits your
skills. No need to tear a whole industry
down.
2. It shows boys that
yet again women are just objects to be fantasized about and leered at, not an
equal person to them.
This gets on my nerves every time I read something like
this. I read a yahoo comment on the
subject that said it best, but because I hate McDonald's I'll change the analogy:
If you force women to cover up with the equivalent of a potato sack to try and
stop boys from having naughty thoughts, then you'll have boys blowing their
load when they open a bag of fries from Five Guys. That, and the prudes who think women should
"cover up," or that mags that show skin be banned, obviously never look at sexual assault
statistics from countries that actually do
make their women cover up or ban anything that shows female skin. Simply put, percentage of rape and sexual
assault is actually higher.
I briefly covered this in a previous blog. Letting someone get off to a two-dimensional
tart in a magazine or website means that it's a lot less likely that he will
find his release on an unwilling live female.
Plus, in countries that enforce conservative dress codes, men are taught
by observation and example that by showing that a woman has to be covered up
from head to toe, that her body is something that does not have to be
respected. That is quite the opposite of
"equal" and that's why the percentage of sex crimes are higher there. So to mothers who complain about the SI
swimsuit issue or any other magazine that shows skin, be happy that he is able
to look at it instead of being in a situation where due to magazine bans and
dress codes that he'll one day explode and try to use force on a live woman.
----
But back to the "just add a camera" issue....
Do you have a girlfriend that can be considered attractive
by most people you know, a nice car (even if you have to borrow one) and a
camera that looks "professional?"
It doesn't have to be a high-end model, because in all honesty to a
non-camera knowing person even a low-end DSLR with a kit lens can look
"professional."
To the people who think that I'm being silly or "ridiculous"
for the observation that all it takes to turn an innocent outfit into something
"softcore porn" is a camera, I urge any guy who has all three mentioned above to
try this experiment:
Have your girlfriend dress in a tank top (Anything with
shoulder straps will do) and jeans.
Sounds innocent, right?
Take your girlfriend wearing that outfit, said nice car and
said camera to a local park. Preferably
if it has a big parking lot. Go into a
corner of said parking lot that looks deserted, and have your girlfriend pose
for you next to the car while you take pictures of her. For that added allure, for some of the
pictures have her slip the straps of her top (And bra if she is wearing one)
off her shoulders for that "off the shoulder" look.
I can almost guarantee you, that within 5 minutes you will
get some "outraged" mother accusing you of shooting "softcore
porn" and asking your girlfriend to "take her top off" (What
would she say about shirts that are natively off the shoulder style?) and to
"think of the children" and will harass you until you say "fuck
it" and leave.
All that, simply because a camera was involved. Not so silly or ridiculous now, is it?
---
In conclusion, this is one of the reasons why a lot of other
countries laugh at some of the stories that come out of the US, that for it
takes to get some people worked up in a lather is to shoot a pretty girl in a
bikini or tank top with a camera. How
crazy is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment