Boobs are not bad.
Recently, I saw a post on Facebook about an underpants ad, and how the underpants ad was bad because it implied women were possessions or something. To me, it mostly implied underpants. Nice underpants. Underpants I proceeded to look for at the store named in the ad, but could not find.
I don't know how exactly underpants = women as a possession or as less than men or as merely a thing that boobs are attached to. I didn't actually put all that much thought into it (because I was busy being mad that I could not find the underpants.)
Then today, I really started thinking about it again. I even went so far as to act out an underpants ad myself, and while I did feel like I'd done permanent mental damage to my dog and possibly one of the neighbour-kids tall enough to see in the window, I did not feel like a possession of any kind. I just felt like a person wearing underpants.
|What I believed I looked like.|
|What I probably actually looked like.|
Of course, this has inevitably led me to question society and religion and politics and why that store advertised underpants then didn't have the underpants IN THEIR STUPID STORE when I went in to buy them.
Mostly, it makes me wonder why exactly we don't like naked stuff. Obviously, that's not directed at everyone. Most of my friends are rather partial to naked stuff. Some of us have spent untold hours discussing naked stuff. At any given moment, there is a 97% chance I am only five seconds away from thinking about naked stuff. Hell -- one of the things that keeps me from walking in front of a truck some days is the knowledge that I can do a Google image search for "Chris Meloni naked" and will, in fact, get to see Chris Meloni naked.
|I erred on the side of caution and picked a cropped version, but trust me -- there's wiener down there. Lots of wiener.|
When I look at that picture, I certainly don't think of Chris Meloni as a possession. I think of Chris Meloni as someone who is probably fun to have a shower with.
Likewise, when I look at THIS picture, I don't think of her as a possession. I think of her as someone who is wearing a bra that costs more than my car.
|And also perhaps as someone who is about to go thermo-nuclear and annihilate us all with her radioactive ladybits.|
And I highly doubt anyone looks at THIS ad and feels sorry for David Beckham because he's being treated as a possession. They probably feel sorry for him because apparently a badger climbed into his underpants and has decided that's where it's going to live now.
My point is this: Boobs are not bad. Weenuses are not bad. Ladybits are not bad (unless they are glowing, in which case FUCKING RUN.)
Obviously, we should probably not dance about flopping our bits-and-bites in public, but I feel like every time someone says something along the lines of "OH GOD -- NUDITY! MY EYES ARE BURNING AND MY SOUL IS FALLING OUT MY ASSHOLE FROM SEEING SOMETHING SO TERRIBLE," then we are further convinced that naked is bad. In some cases, naked IS bad. And sometimes illegal. But mostly, naked is just naked. Instead of looking at an underpants ad and thinking "That poor woman," maybe we should be thinking "Holy shit, that chick is making a frigging fortune by wearing underpants. Lucky bitch. I wear underpants just about every other day, and I don't make shit for it."
When people -- especially women -- make a big deal about how showcasing the female body is taking power away from women, THEY are taking power away from women. They're suggesting that a woman is so fragile a creature, that the mere sight of her body will launch her backward through time and space, to a world where she will no longer be allowed to vote.
Please shut the fuck up, You People Who Say That Crap. I could walk around with tassles scotch-taped to my nerps and feathers sticking out of my butt like the world's most awesome rooster, and I'd still be exactly as powerful as I was before I did it. In fact, I'd probably make some new friends and people would buy me presents and stuff.