Saturday, May 23, 2015



"[H]ow do you raise a boy to respect women
if you can't get your husband, father, brothers
to respect women?
Seems like a circle without end.
But the thing I DO KNOW is
that we as women
are going to have to stand apart
from these backward men,
wherever they are,

....and wrangle our sisters back into line as well.

The demand for
cheap, easy and objectifying sexuality
(on stage like Lady Gaga etc)
is always going to be there.
We have to decide not to supply it.

We cannot mistake THAT for "sexual freedom."
                                                              -bell hooks

* * * * *

(link to bigger picture
Sorry to be rude. But I've seen some younger feminists defend some behaviors that would have to climb 10 flights of stairs to rise to the level of stupid. Deciding that your desire to be mostly naked in public is synonymous with ownership of your sexuality is one of those behaviors.

Thank goodness, by the way,  it seems like two-thirds to three-quarters of black and brown feminists are not  going for this nonsense, regardless of age, no matter how often it's dished out. Some 1000 commenters on a black feminist page recently pushed back against this idea with a clearly articulated "NO!"  They made it clear that there were not "proud" of the Beyonce for "owning her sexuality"  by wearing *the naked dress* to the Met Gala earlier this month.

But there were also half as many who drank the coolish-aide and defended Bey


Dear Misguided Feminist,

Yes, it was bad when women had to be covered from head to toe like American Gothic Woman on the left - in order to be seen as good and worthy of respect. In the times reflected by *American Gothic Woman*  women's  sexually was as good as caged then put in an elevator that was sealed in cement then thrown into the ocean; Women did not own their sexuality in any way, shape, or form. But requiring people (not just women) be clothed in public isn't the enemy of all sexual freedom. Female nakedness  isn't synonymous with owning one's sexuality. If it was men would dress like the model below all the time.

 Male Model Owning His Sexuality
Fashion-ist-oh fashion with a strategic hole
shows a man's flaccid penis
(Paris Fashion Show link below)

The mostly-naked video vixen --who allows men to throw cash at her thong-bare ass then slide a credit card down her crack  is not someone to idolize. Believe it or not, the behavior displayed in Nelly's "Tip Drill" is not something to aspire to in the name of owning one's sexuality.

Rhianna's 2013 or 2014 even more naked dress --the same Rhianna, who has been banned from social media at least once for nakedness(Twitter?) -- may not be exactly the same as Credit Card Ass, who doesn't appear  to deserve a name. But I don't know that Be' and RhiRhi are any free-er than Credit Card Ass or any of the other sisters in the 'Tip Drill' video. (I refuse to provide a link)

The women in that music video were clearly high...high on the attention of men. And people who are addicted to anything, including getting men excited, are not free.

Regardless of what conclusion you come to about Beyonce and Rhianna suffering from the very same addiction as Credit Card Ass and the gang, there's one thing most feminists should be able to agree on:

If what a PERSON is wearing would get her or him arrested in 99 out of 100 grammar schools, that outfit is fit for private dinners, private shows,  and the bedroom, not the street or the stage.

That said, men being able to police women's clothing and behavior should be fought. We, as women, have a lot more freedom and choices about our appearance and our sexiness (or non-sexiness) and I'm glad. And as much as I hate the term "slut shaming" I do agree that slut shaming  should be fought. For so long as the Leonardo Di Caprios are rumored to be screwing 10 to 20 "models" a night sans any name calling --that isn't REALLY envy in disguise-- that battle is on!


showing as much of your ass

as you can possibly get away with

has little or nothing to do with owning your sexuality

but tons to do with

being weak-minded enough

to believe you can't even feel alive


you see desire

in the eyes of every man you meet.*

This is not sexual freedom, sexual ownership, or even sexual power. It never has been has been. It is an enslavement of the mind that is as old as humanity. The feeling of power that depends on the reaction of men is entirely from outside self. And something about Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, and Jennifer Lopez's behavior (Met Gala Naked Dress Competitors) that seems very familiar.

I mean, don't men who have to have a flashy car and lots of money to attract women seem shallow and powerless in very much the same way as naked-as-possible woman? Aren't they flip sides of the same coin?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad feminists gave up trying to B-minus versions of men. The giant shoulder pads of the 1980s were symbolic of that attempt. And I'm glad today's female feminists have decided that there is power in the ways that women do things, in the ways that women approach things. Some of our ways are actually better. And part of seeking equality will be seeking to prove some of women's ways are better and bringing men into the light. But along the way we are going have to be a little more conscious and a lot more self-observant if we're going to look forward and understand that seeking a bad thing's opposite is not always good (American Gothic Woman vs. Credit Card Ass)

Skin and Image Bleaching Controversy Left
Black Face Coat Controversy Right
Romanticizing IKE BEATING TINA in a song, post-feminism claims, not shown

By the way, while intelligence isn't the end-all/be-all of everything good either, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that thinking isn't the strong suite of most actors, singers and whatever Kim K is. They probably shouldn't be looked to for anything except acting and singing -- and maybe their ability to move large numbers of people to support the cause of your choice. What they do or say probably has little or nothing to do with a grown, thinking woman owning her sexuality.

Besides, if a woman's career depends on that woman shaking her mostly naked butt for people who have paid $200 a ticket to see said butt, then where does the ownership of that sexuality lie?

That is, if Beyonce, Rhianna, and Gaga know that they dare not fail to supply the exact sexuality that the ticket holders expect and demand, then don't the ticket buyers own their sexuality? Don't managers and record companies dependent on the naked booty shaking own part of their sexuality too? Couldn't they be sued for turning into Joni Mitchell or Whitney all of a sudden, fully clothed for an entire two or three shows in a row?

I don't think Beyonce, Rhianna, and Gaga own a damn except their material possessions. But maybe that's just me.

Forget Beyonce
"Beyond The Lights" shows a better example of a woman coming to own her sexuality
Good for young teens I would think

(I must admit. Beyonce wore it  or didn't-wear it the best)