Posing Nude is Pro-Feminist?

Yeah right.

I wonder if Gloria Steinem dies a little inside when she reads a fellow womyn young enough to be her daugher spout words like this:

I think [feminists] suffer from lack of knowledge and tunnel vision. How many of those self-important, so-called ‘feminists’ have been on the set when a celebrity shot a Playboy spread? There you go. What is feminist about discriminating a photo shoot just because it involves female (partial) nudity that happens to give men pleasure? Pathetic.

Playboy doesn’t happen to give men pleasure.  Playboy exists for no other reason than to give men pleasure (in exchange for money).  Of all things, ask what it is in and of itself.  What is its nature?  This tart is acting as if the photo shoot were arranged so a woman could express her “power” or “creativity” or “self”.  No, bitch.  The photo shoot was arranged so your naked body could give male readers boners.  That’s why the feminists hate porn in all its forms.  It is implicitly servile toward men.  I’m not going to make Gloria Steinem’s arguments for her; they’re out there for you to find if you care.  I don’t disagree with Gloria Steinem says about pornography on an intellectual level.  Most of what she says is true. 

The difference is merely that she views an industry in which women are exploited for female pleasure (porn) as a bad thing, whereas I view it as some small compensation for every man who has ever devoted his life to assisting a woman in raising a child.  The pleasure derived from pornography probably doesn’t hold a candle to the pleasure derived from motherhood.  Since nobody is truly both male and female, no one will ever know because a direct comparison from the point of view of a single individual is impossible.

Let’s move on.

There are several great reasons why female celebs line up to shoot Playboy: finally a woman gets paid more than a man for comparable work…

There is no comparable work.  Women won’t gamble pretty much everything they have just to catch a glimpse of the nude male form whereas men will.  There is a gigantic market of men willing to pay girls to strip.  The market of women willing to pay men to strip is diminutive by comparison.  Getting nude in front of the camera is one small step away from prostitution.  Female whores probably don’t get paid significantly more than male whores simply because of basic supply and demand dynamics but there are probably a thousand female whores for every male whore (children excluded).

…she gets to set the rules…

“No bush shots” is setting the rules, huh?  I’m glad she can derive such a power trip from such a petty indulgence.  I’m pretty sure the contractual agreement for the magazine to publish nude shots of her sets the rules, and that contractual agreement is negotiated in advance probably with lawyers present.  If Playboy didn’t like the rules, they wouldn’t pay her.

… as many key positions at Playboy are in fact held by women!

Many police offers in the Nazi ghettos were also Jews.

Krupa adds. “She brings in her creative ideas, gets involved in the photo selection and ends up with something she co-created through and through.

Isn’t it amazing how the kind of parlance that idiot liberals have woven into the vernacular can turn posing naked for the world to see into an art form?  Her creative ideas do what, exactly?  Make cock stiffer faster?  If she turns at a 30 degree angle her tits look better?  Please.  I highly doubt she was involved in the air brushing.  Playboy has removed entire anatomical components from Pamela Anderson before to sanitize the shot (apparently flappy labia minora is a turn off for Playboy readers).  They aren’t going to refrain from doing the same with this girl because she’s an assertive artiste.

Our society is used to judging content by its package and label. The word ‘Playboy’ alone doesn’t exactly give most women a warm, fuzzy feeling, yet many of the Playboy photos end up in the most praised photo and art magazines and in critically acclaimed photo exhibitions…

Passing a referendum on society is the perfect strawman.  The problem isn’t with her, the nude model.  It’s instead with society, which looks down upon nude models.  Rather than not be a nude model to avoid the negative connotations associated with being a nude model, it’s much easier to change the worldview of a billion other people.

In general, if someone resorts to passing judgment on “society” when attempting to excuse a behavior they feel is legitimate, chances are their actual arguments don’t hold a lot of water.  It’s easy to enumerate the social ills that result from an overexposure to the naked female form.  Take “ills” with a grain of salt.  We are entering a golden age of masculinism thanks to the abundance of pornography available to every man.  A girl’s primary bargaining tool is her body.  In a world where that body is a closely guarded secret and the likelihood is remote of a man even seeing much less touching a naked female outside of established social rules designed to serve a woman’s needs (e.g., marriage), a man would be willing to sacrifice a great deal of his freedom in exchange for that.  This is the basis of the virtue of chastity.

There are two extremes.  One is Middle Eastern cutlure in which men are so afraid of their own lust that they resort to covering women up with large amorphous ghost sheets in public so they are not sexually appealing and make it a crime punishable by death to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a blood relative.  Another is a society in which women are so freely available that the very concept of a monogamous relationship would be foreign.  America is getting there.  But for Krupa, imagery of naked women is not ubiquitous enough.  Society must not demonize women for taking off their clothes on camera.  Soon it won’t be “on camera” but instead “in public.”  A woman just like Krupa will find a soapbox and talk about how being free to take her clothes off in public and let the whole world admire her body was “empowering” and a bold statement of confidence and style.

Krupa said. “As for movies, over the years violence has become more graphic and bodies more naked even in Academy Award winning films. The excuse that nudity and even full blown sex-scenes are ’artistically required’ is laughable, as that would imply that all movies from the old days (that didn’t contain love scenes) were less artistic. So it simply comes down to ‘sex sells.’ Same goes for fashion magazines. You see A-list celebs and models already going topless in European fashion mags like Vogue.

Hold up, lady.  There’s a big difference between a sex scene in a movie in which the story teller is attempting to share the fact that two characters are having sex with the audience and showing nudity exactly for nudity’s sake.  The purpose of a sex scene is to convey a plot element.  The purpse of posing in Playboy is to allow people to gaze at your naked body.  Most film sex scenes do not show any genitalia in an effort to keep a PG-13 or R rating.  TNA is not a requirement for this type of acting.

No argument that movies in which a popular actress bares part of her body generally have higher box office potential because they lure a certain element (e.g., men) to the theatres who don’t give a damn about the plot and are just waiting for the tit scene.  Krupa is criticizing this element indirectly as part of her two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.  “Movie actresses show their boobs on screen all the time so it’s fine if I do too.”  In contrast to all her previous line of argument, she’s connotating that “sex sells” is a bad thing in films, but uses sex in films as a justification for why sex for sex’s sake, like a men’s magazine, is perfectly acceptable.  It’s amazing how people can get away with arguments like this.  The vast majority of people who read what this woman says will not be able to deconstruct these wild flaws in her thinking.  That’s what this blog is for.

When an A-list celeb or model is going topless in a fashion magazine, it means their downward spiral has begun and they are desperate to keep the spotlight on themselves.  The first warning sign that a celebrity is about to fade into the woodwork is some kind of nude spread in a magazine.  These shoots are the death throes of the entertainment starlet.

Every country has its own culture and sensitivities. It is obvious the Europeans are less sensitive to nudity in the media but more sensitive to violence instead, and in America it appears to be the other way around,” she added.

Referendum on society #2.  This time she’s appealing to the time-honored tradition of everything on “the continent” automatically reigning culturally supreme over we Philistine colonists.

I’ve never heard of children being psychologically scarred by looking at a naked body, but we all know that watching violence has a desensitizing impact on children. Nudity is natural, after all.

Tell that to the juries of the world which routinely convict people (men) of exposing themselves to children and imposing custodial sentences thereto.  There’s a big, big difference between an asexual environment such as a nude beach and an explicitly sexual environment like a strip club.  We could argue back and forth about which bill Playboy magazine fits but I think we all know what the answer is despite what the cheerleaders might say.

Nudity is in fact not natural for human beings, despite what Ms. Krupa might like to believe.  Humans have a natural instict to cover their genitals.  While certainly indigenous tribes who live in very hot climates parade around mostly naked, there are no records of any human culture that did not wear some form of clothing.  A topless tribal lady in a grass skirt is only a few square inches of fabric shy of acceptable pageant wear in the United States.  If a bikini is clothing, so is a hula thong.

At last, the coup de grace:

But back to Miss Krupa’s sexy shoot, shot in London by famed photographer Rankin. It turns out that Hef didn’t initially like the modern, artistic style of the pics and wanted a re-shoot.

So much for art.  Hef wanted something sexy, not something you’d hang on the wall in the Met.  Hugh Hefner is a business man and sex sells.

I declined to shoot with anyone else. Sure, an experiment always comes with a risk for a magazine. That’s why I am so glad that in the end Hef had faith in my shoot and now seems to be all excited about it,” she added.

Translation: “I accepted less money.”

Evan Maxim #2: Good ideas don’t need to be defended.

Based on how much justification Ms. Krupa feels compelled to give for shooting for Playboy, I’d say it was probably a bad idea.  If an idea is a good one, it justifies itself.