Again, with the respectability politics. If you didn’t give a shit about Kim Kardashian, you wouldn’t go out of your way to talk about her. The blatant hypocrisy of these (white – because it’s overwhelmingly white women chiming in) dumbasses praising Bette for her misogynistic comments about Kim posting a nude photo is nauseating. Especially when the same people were both enraged that Jennifer Lawrence had her publicly shared nude photos leaked, and have been actively fighting to “free the nipple”. Taking a photo of yourself doesn’t make you a whore, a slut, nor desperate for attention. That anyone would scramble to slut shame someone for sharing photos that have absolutely no impact on their lives says a ton, though. The hateful bitches are oh so eager to come out of the woodwork, and display their internalized misogyny, in order to regulate the bodies of women they’re jealous of, but sure to loudly proclaim they couldn’t care less about. The sad part, is that most people involved in this conversation know that Bette Midler ran around in next to nothing, in film and plays, for years, yet bit back at the critics who attempted to utilize respectability politics to police her actions. Of course, this isn’t the first time Bette has spoken down to women for doing the same thing she’s done. Clearly, hypocrisy goes hand-in-hand with old age and body image issues.
As far as I have been made aware, no one has ever told Bette, or any person that they take too many pictures of their faces. Why then, is a different policy applied to rest of our bodies? Are we only allowed to post hundreds of pictures when secondary sex organs aren’t within sight? That women must submit substantial evidence of their depth when indulging in personal reflection, plays into the harmful beliefs that nothing productive nor positive could ever come from a nude photo, and that our bodies are only to be viewed when we are being used as entertainment. Women cannot decide to view their bodies and be proud of what we see without hypotheses being spun on our reasoning, and critique being thrown at us for daring to be naked. Women who have reproduced must never reveal that they have sex, nor that they still possess desirable forms (for how would your child be able to live knowing that you aren’t ashamed of the body they see on a regular basis?). Women are only permitted to be objectified and over-sexualized by men and bitterly repressed women. That is, unless a woman is revealing her body when communicating a “meaningful message”. When a woman is naked, she must only be nude for public consumption, to sell products, and when her “purity” or lack thereof serves as a lesson of what occurs when a woman has too much sex (she’s punished/murdered in a slasher film), or is a “good, quiet, girl who leaves something to the imagination” (intentionally repressed as fuck). It’s bizarre, yet expected, given her less than typical shape, that Kim’s photo was immediately sexualized, when her caption and pose weren’t sexual in the least bit. Nudity does not equal sex, and mothers aren’t actresses on Fox – they don’t need to be conservatively covered to the neck and denied any semblance of self-expression.
As strange as it sounds, if you don’t want to see something that isn’t about you, you don’t need to. Actions should be judged independently. There is also a huge difference between critiquing women for their actions, and shaming them – and only them – for completely natural behavior. Perhaps the time being spent on seeking out all of these nude photos could be better spent working on exploring why breasts and vaginas make you so uncomfortable and an otiose reactionary.
∇ And before the simple bitches show up to attempt wit – feel free to show me where you all went on these rampages when Pam Anderson, and Paris Hilton became famous and were given reality shows for their sex tapes, and and fashion lines, after the fact. I’ll wait.
*sips lemon juice and enjoys the echo*