Double Standard Two Step (NSFW?)

The unofficial dance of the feminist movement, the Double Standard Two Step, should become official.  It’s pretty much the only dance we’ve got, (I say we as a woman, not a feminist, I’m just not much of a joiner) unless you count the Plain Jane Wallflower we seem to love so much.  The dances are simple, in the DSTS, you take one step forward, two steps back, and alternate leads as much as the guy you’re dancing with will let you.  The PJW is much easier, in that one, you just take a seat and wait for somebody else to do the dancing.  Contrary to popular belief, the PJW can be oodles of fun, that’s why so many women eagerly engage in it; the opportunity to snark and bitch about the stumbling, tripping, more popular women getting their corns stepped on, is just waaay too compelling for a lot of women to pass up.  The “Plain Jane” self-designation also takes one out of competition and releases pent-up pressure women might not even know they have, so, understandably, the PJW is the far more popular feminist dance between the two.

Now, let me say that I believe that the first step to equality is to believe oneself to be equal.  If all you’re doing is bitching about rights and freedoms you don’t have because other people won’t give them to you, and that you don’t even really believe you deserve, you’re not only doomed to fail, but will undoubtedly piss a lot of people off in the process.  A person who doesn’t believe herself to be already free will remain a slave no matter how many shackles are removed, locks are opened, or walls and fences torn down.  They’re not going anywhere because, in their minds, they’ve got nowhere to go.

A free and equal person is pretty difficult to cage or control.  They tend to fight and resist even the appearance of containment or dominance, and have been known to lash out violently at people just for offering them gum.  “You think I couldn’t get my own damned gum, if I wanted it?  Do I look helpless to you, or just gum deprived?  Keep your funky-assed gum to yourself, jerkweed, I don’t even like that kind.”  A woman like that is not likely to do the Double Standard Two Step or the Plain Jane Wallflower, she’s more likely to make up a dance she’s comfortable with on the spot, undulating, improvising and coordinating her movement to the music of the moment; convention, tradition, and all other dancers be damned.  If she feels like it.

I bring this up after noticing how many “news” stories here lately involve nude celebrity women.  The tone and tenor of the stories is interesting, too, with acceptance or denunciation seeming to depend upon the whim of the author, the identity of the photographer, and the amount of money paid to the subject.   Notably, women who privately pose nude for free and whose photos are somehow publicly “leaked” seem to face the most public wrath.

Now, as far as I’m concerned, a woman can take any kind of pictures she’s comfortable with having taken of her.  Her body, her business.  She wants to strip and mount a kumquat, more power to her.  Famous or obscure, rich or poor, stunningly beautiful, or unconventionally lovely, waif-like or corpulent, publicly or privately, whatever she wants to do is fine with me.  As long as she’s past the age of consent and enters into the activity with her eyes wide open, I really can’t see why I should care, much less why I should get to vote on the morality of her actions.  After all, I didn’t pose, and I don’t have to look.

Attorney General Eric Holder famously accused America of being a nation of cowards because we don’t like to hold racial blame parties and barbecues on weekends and invite our co-workers.  Something about hanging out a second more than we have to with people we can barely put up with without remuneration, giving them beer, and talking about their slave trading, or kowtowing ancestors just doesn’t seem to be most Americans’ idea of an excellent adventure.  Go figure.  But in another sense, we are a nation of…not cowards exactly, but…well…the word I’m looking for is…teenagers!  Adolescents!  Pimply-faced, barely pubescent, giggly, easily embarrassed, hypersensitive, awkward, gawky, gangly, horny, mental teenagers.   “Oooooo…(fill in the blank) is naked.  Tee heee, look at her…(insert body part).  I sure would like to…(choose one) a) jump her bones, b) put some damned clothes on her, c) pray for her soul, d) all of the above).  Let’s face it, in the presence of the spectacle depicting the awesome splendor of a nude human female, most people don’t know whether to shit or go blind.

But we can.  Look, that is.  We have the technology!  Holy shit, we don’t have to imagine what naked girls look like, or settle for pictures of indigenous women of remote locations nursing in the pages of National Geographic, we can go online and Google.  A search of “nude celebrities” will get you about a gazillion hits of sites featuring famous females romping seductively without a stitch.  I think the reason there aren’t more photos of male celebrity nudes is that naked men romping seductively is kinda wussy.  Naked men like to wrestle.

The latest news of Miss America runner-up, Carrie Prejean, and R&B singers Rihanna and Cassie stripping down and offering up their goodies for the camera, is being met with all sorts of hypocritical outrage from all sorts of hypocrites.  Any criticism of the young ladies for taking such photos is out of line in my book, because stripping down and offering up their goodies is a big part of how they make their living.  Talking shit about them is a big part of how other people make their living.  Like, the Huffington Post.  Reading HuffPo lately has got my “gaydar” on high alert.  What’s up with all the nude chicks, Madame Arianna?  Every time you turn around there’s another “Celebrity Snatch Here!!! (NSFW)” headline in big bold type.  She’s either got a taste for fish, or she’s a fishmonger, and, on the streets, that kind of “mongering” can get you locked up for pandering and procuring.

Then, there’s the “just proves she’s…(fill in the blank) a) immature, b) a tramp,c) stupid, excuse that nude celebrity pseudo-journalism pimps use to titillate the pubescent sensibilities of their mentally adolescent readership.  So, Prejean’s a Bible-thumping, homophobe, hypocrite, (look at that ass!) Rihanna’s a confused, validation seeking victim, (did you see her tits?) whose choice to wear a feminized tuxedo to an awards show is even being offered up as proof of her victimization and love by lesbians, and Cassie’s…well, Cassie’s one of those chicks that don’t like your gum, (yes, ma’am, I have seen titties before).  In Rihanna’s case, the fact that she has appeared nude before in print seems not to matter at all.  Then, it was art, now, she’s a slut/victim.

On the other hand, some women are stars because they seem to love being nude before camera.  Two that come to mind are Padma Lakshmi, Top Chef judge, actress and Salman Rushdie ex, who just recently bared all for Allure (dutifully covered by HuffPo) along with Chelsea Handler and Eliza Dushku, and did the hottest hamburger ad since Paris Hilton washed a car, and Cindy Crawford, recently honored for climbing atop k.d. Lang and shaving her in 1993.  Lakshmi, who told Allure in a follow-up article that she loves “celebrating the bodies of women of all ages and body types,” and, that she keeps her hair amazing looking with jojoba oil, told the magazine in her original layout that she liked carrying a little extra weight because it made her boobs bigger, and that she sleeps and walks around in the nude pretty much all the time.  Interestingly, Lynn Collins and Sharon Leal were also featured in the Allure piece, but, they must not do much for Madame Arriana, ‘cuz they didn’t make HuffPo.

Somebody who does seem to rock Arianna’s boat is Cindy Crawford, but then, she’s been boat rocking so long she’s a pro at it by now.  Crawford, who seems to have a thing about suds, lathered up and put it out there for April’s Allure, too, ostensibly promoting the fabulousness of forty-plus, but really just enjoying the freedom of playing with bubbles while people watch.  At a GLAAD gala last year where she accepted an award on behalf of photographer Herb Ritts for his provacative  ‘93Vanity Fair cover shot of her mounting k.d. Lang for to better mock-shave her, our gal Cindy had this to say:

Crawford chuckled, “I remember k.d. blushing as I climbed on top of her.”

No shit, Cindy.  I wasn’t even there and I could probably remember that if I tried.  Crawford is also famous for, (but not as famously remembered as you would think she’d be, given our national mental age) taking off her panties and giving them to Jay Leno.  Maybe the scandalous provocativeness was mitigated by the virtue shown in paying up when you lose, even at a strip poker game designed to get you out of your panties on national television where the underwear was likely planted behind the couch ahead of time, anyway.

HuffPo has been all over the Rihanna, and PreJean photo stories, too, as well as whatever “scandals” preceded them, however, in the case of Cassie, her exploitation of P. Diddy’s casting couch is not really getting much negative play.  I suppose after Prince, R. Kelly, and other producers, Diddy included, have made it almost standard practice, the idea of sleeping your way to success is no longer considered a bad thing.

Perhaps today’s conflicting social moral attitudes are responsible for the perceptions surrounding the questions of morality and responsibility when it comes to the behavior of young women today, especially with regards to their sexuality.  Are they really being exploited, or exploiting themselves, when they pose nude for whoever, for whatever reason given?  Or, are they exercising their power, choosing to display themselves in any way they see fit, primarily for their own pleasure?  More importantly, as far as I’m concerned, who gets to judge?

Many hardcore feminists of whatever wave of feminism they ascribe to, will denounce, deride and decry any woman uncovering herself at any time when men might see.  I suppose to them it seems victimizing, a willingness born of years of subjugation, for women to unnecessarily submit to demands born of the male libido, or, some other such…stuff.  Similarly, the staunchly religious will take pretty much the same position, that it is just plain wrong to be nude in public or private, anywhere, at any time, for any reason.  Okay, you can bathe, but, be quick about it.  Even sex doesn’t require full frontal nudity, and there are always blankets and darkness to aid you in hiding your sinful, dirty, nudity.

But, why is it okay for Miss America contestants to parade around in bikinis and strapless stilettos, attire one would never wear at the beach, and be judged solely on their appearance, yet, if that same woman took similar pictures sans one or two inches of cloth, she could be vilified?  Unless of course she told everybody to fuck off, then they’d love her again.  Rihanna and Cassie make videos where they wear as little as possible, hump and hooch the air and/or random, horny hoodlum looking guys, and, nobody says “boo.”  And don’t get me wrong, this is not an indictment of black women and “black” music, whatever that is, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, Pink, Gwen Stephani, Fergie, etc., and the legions of nameless, sometimes faceless, hoochie-humpy hotties, including the Daisy Duke clad country cuties, in all sorts of music videos are testament to the fact that girls just wanna have fun, nude, and nearly thus, and guys and girls will pay to watch them.  So, what’s politically correct when it comes to acceptable standards of behavior for young women these days?  For young feminists, for your daughters?

While researching this post I came across a treatise on the societal implications of the sexuality of hair and shaving that pretty much made the case (one of many) that a Western woman’s decision not to shave her body is proof positive she’s a lesbian.  What does that say about women?  What does it say about men?  Is it even fricking true?  It seems we make a lot of sexuality assumptions based as much upon our parentally, societally, and religiously imposed perceptions as our own personal values, assuming we are even capable of forming them independently given the clouds we are raised under.

Which brings me back to the question of feminism and today’s young women.  It seems to me, that the greatest exploitation they face is from media pimps, unconcerned with morality, or even sexuality at all, who only care about  their bottom line.  They are the true pimps, willing to package a story about a woman and her actions in any way that sells most advertising space, regardless of the woman in question’s motivations, or the consequences she faces.  Whether she is innocently exploited by a slickster with a camera and a line, (fat freaking chance, gimme a freaking break) or, if personal photos taken for her own pleasure are stolen by computer hackers unconcerned with her emails, PIN numbers, bank and credit card info, etc., and motivated only by a desire to hunt for her coded “me doing myself naked” photo file, (fat freaking chance, gimme a freaking break, see above) or, as is most likely, she took some naked pictures and released them to create a stir and make some money down the line, the willingness of men and women to exploit that, and ascribe dubious moral standards to her actions, is the biggest “sin.”

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?  Seems to me, it depends on who’s doing the dancing, who’s doing the watching, and who gets to judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6zdhHLvT7k