Men-Ups: Pin-ups With Men

I don't know how I missed this, because this is awesome. The entire series of photos is available on Flickr.

As many of you know, I am both the author of this website -- which is, or at least was, predicated on the objectification of women -- and am also a rabid feminist. I live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance. So something that is both pin-up oriented, while also illustrating the ridiculous portrayal and objectification that takes place, fits neatly in between both viewpoints.

It reminds me of the fan-freaking-tastic fan art of The Avengers, all posed like they are constantly posing Black Widow: the booty shot.

Image by Kevin Bolk.

The only way this would have been better is if they had taken the photographs and had a digital painter do the full Elvgren treatment, thus allowing for the hilariously exaggerated facial expressions common to pin-ups.

An important point of discussion is how this posing is assumed to be silly by those making the images, but the posing of the women is not. Obviously, that's the point that they are making, but it is still worth emphasizing that we have had our perceptions of women so wildly sexualized, that utterly stupid portrayals of them are not only normalized, but visually appealing.

This again comes back to something that I have dealt with for years: the non-sexualization of men. The idea of a strongly sexualized male in imagery is almost exclusively associated with homosexuality. And while I would never claim that this particular arrangement has been harder on men than women, it has done damage to us. I have spent my entire life convinced, on some level, that I am unattractive. One of the causes of this is because me, a male, is never portrayed as visually arresting, or sexy. I could never be an object of desire. (I have since overcome the majority of these issues and generally feel alright about myself.)

Oh sure, some men are portrayed as attractive, but it has more to do with their wrapping than their physical form. Their jacket is cut just so. Their car is expensive. Look at GQ or Esquire magazines' covers. The body is not attractive, it is the clothing, the watch, the style that is important. The body is ugly.

Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that the photographer who created these images is himself a homosexual. He must be keenly aware of the dichotomy of male and female portrayals in the media, and that straight men are always portrayed in a particular way.

Obviously, things are changing. Since the 1980's, we've seen an increasing number of media portrayals of the male body as specifically attractive, even though they are not specifically sexualized. Today, we live in an odd mish-mash of media portrayals. We have advertisements that, at least initially, seem to sexualize men but are actually sexualizing women -- advertisements like BOD. In them, the men are still doing something, usually sports, and are not simply out on display, and the message of the ads is identical to those of AXE or any other male-aimed advertisements from the past: get laid by hot women.

We also have Dolce & Gabbana advertisements and their ilk that literally drip with homoeroticism.

I look forward to the day when males are sexualized to the same degree as females. Objectification is fine, because for all of our wondrous humanity, we are also objects to one another. Unfortunately for women in our society, that objectification is concomitant with ignoring of their humanity -- they are reduced to nothing but an object.

There was a time when the male form was seen as a glorious object: Classical Greece. This was replaced with the adoration of the female form in Hellenistic Greece, which has unfortunately remained ever since. I want a return to the recognition of the male form as an object it its own right.

Disappointed By Disney's Frozen

Some early images of Disney's Frozen have come out, and I can't help but be disappointed. Early reports and sketches were giving the impression that the movie would dare to be different, as it were, and contain some non-traditional elements. This stands in contrast to Tangled, which tried desperately to be hip, but was square as a Canadian wheel (South Park reference), and was super-traditional Disney through and through.

And it looks like Frozen is going to be yet another Tangled. The bright-eyed manic pixie female, the world-weary, cynical male. Puh-leeze. I'm going to wait to pass judgment, of course. While I was disappointed in Tangled, and I knew that I was going to be long before watching it, it was still an enjoyable movie. And lord knows, Disney's stuff from the 90's was a constant flow of traditional values, and I enjoyed many of those. I guess that I can only hope for the same from

Legend of Korra Premiers In Less Than A Week

Legend of Korra, which has ditched the title Avatar undoubtedly because of James Cameron's abomination, premiers in FOUR DAYS. Make sure to check out their expansive internet exploration of the main city in the story, Welcome To Republic City.



I'm very excited for two reasons: one, it is a female-centered cartoon, and we don't have many of those. Two, I had many criticisms of The Last Airbender because Nickelodeon is a soulless monster run by brain-eating zombies. As such, they placed limitations on the show that shouldn't have been there and further reminded the market why little boys ran from Nickelodeon and into the arms of the Internet and Cartoon Network.

One of the biggest examples is no usage of the word "die" in the proactive sense. People have died. Characters are concerned that people will die. But at no point in the show does a character actually die, nor does any character say that they will kill someone. Everything is communicated through wan euphemisms. The character of Jet, for all intents and purposes, dies, but that is never said. The show even makes fun of itself later on, which to me was a direct mocking of Nickelodeon's restrictions on the show.

These limitations forced the show into certain narrative dead-ends. Iroh should have died. Why? He theoretically caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the past (the show even states that he is considered a war criminal in the Earth Kingdom), and we are supposed to feel bad about his son? There are certain Shakespearean restrictions on narrative, and there is no redemption for someone who has caused that much destruction.

The trailer for Legend of Korra, and also Nickelodeon's recent overtures to the male market with Dragonball Z Kai, give me hope that this show will have dramatic power. The Last Airbender was a better show than the new Thundercats, but without the fear of real repercussions, there was no drama. Lots of characters died, and continue to die, in Thundercats.

Hunting Husbands? These Comics Can Help.

Second  vintage "thing" post in as many posts, but it's just so great! See the rest of the images at Lady, That's My Skull.

It actually kind of blows my mind that this perspective was accepted, widely accepted, not that long ago. This was only sixty years ago. I mean, my god. If this is the world of less than a single lifetime ago, the feminist movement should be immensely proud of itself. Moreover, if this was the world of the time, it is no wonder that we have the current public debate about female sexuality in the tone that it is. It's because the white men who are driving this idiocy were raised on the very values that we see above, drawn in bold, happy colors, and encapsulated in clean, easy, efficient little blocks. No one needs shades of grey when primary colors will do.

Television Taboos Further Confirm How Stupid We Once Were

See the full series at Retronaut.

The Legend of Korra

I recently ranted about how much I hated the portrayal of Cheetara in the new Thundercats. I then reviewed Thundercats and called it the best action/adventure cartoon in some time. One of the big differences between it at Avatar, which I thought was technically better in most respects, was that there was very little sense of danger in Avatar, since Nickelodeon's ridiculous requirements mandated no violence. Thus, no one ever died. The show even made fun of itself after a character kinda'-sorta' dies, but they never address it. That was the creators giving a somewhat playful middle finger to Nickelodeon.

Nickelodeon has since reformed and is desperately trying to attract boys, a demographic that they essentially abandoned to Cartoon Network, by proving that they too have characters that punch each other.

This creative freedom appears to be in the new Avatar, where even the trailer to the show is more violent that the entirety of the original Avatar. I hope that this translates into a greater sense of danger and drama than the limp-dicked elements of the first series.

But while the original Avatar paled in comparison to the drama of the new Thundercats, it positively mopped the floor with it when it comes to representing female characters.

In Thundercats, Cheetara, who is one of two major female character thus far, is a strong, powerful character who does much to save the day. She is also constructed like a post-Photoshop Playboy model and dresses accordingly. Thundercats imported one of the worst elements of comic book-dom: females are valued as much for what they say and do as for how they look.

Compare this to Avatar: The Last Airbender, where fully half the cast were dynamic, visually distinct females. They are never portrayed in a vulgar, sexualized way. They are portrayed just as the males are portrayed.

The Legend of Korra appears to be putting an even more powerful female front and center. Her body is still attractive, incredibly fit, and feminine, but it is also realistic and not blatantly exploitative. It's excellent.


All that said, I'm not against sexual exploitation. I've never had problems with Playboy, or porn, or general sexual portrayals of both men and women. We are sexual and it's entirely reasonable to celebrate that sexuality in imagery.

My problem is with cultural norms that sexualize women to the detriment of other attributes. There is a persistent theme of women not being valuable unless they are attractive, regardless of what else they might be able to do. In comics, and in Thundercats, this is taken to an extreme with wildly overt, exaggerated, near-comical sexualization.

If we're just selling sex to men, as with porn, that's fine. But with cartoons like this, we're selling a collection of values to highly impressionable kids. We should be selling them aspirational ideals. Ideals of being physically healthy, honorable, strong: these are great things! But continuing to pump our boys and girls full of overt, sex-based valuations for women does us all harm.

Moreover, I think that it is bad business! How many girls are watching the new Thundercats? If Warner Corp's stated demographics are to be believed, it's not many. Compare this to Avatar, which has a gargantuan female following. Opening night, The Last Airbender (**shudder**) at my location was 50/50, with more women dressed up in costumes than men. Of the two other showings that I have knowledge, both had about as many women and men. An inaccurate sampling, to be sure, but it must have some truth.

I'm unable to find the actual demographics, which I suspect skewed slightly male. But what Avatar showed is that if creators legitimately try to attract females, the profits are significant. The Last Airbender was an awful film, and the reviews showed that, yet it still made money. I seriously doubt that those profits would have happened if not for the large female turn-out.

So kudos to the creators of Avatar for being both business savvy and not so blinded by their erections as to create a thoughtful, realistic female form.

New Cheetara Comparison

From athletic B to a thundering D.

I have posted a full review of the new Thundercats here.

Cartoon Network is releasing a new Thundercats show. Aside from the fact that Lion-O is apparently voiced by some prepubescent 15-year-old boy, it was Cheetara that pissed me off the most. (A number of people have pointed out who voices Lion-O. I am well aware that it is Will Friedle. I looked at the cast before writing this. I still don't like the voice. He sounds like his testicles haven't formed yet, which is impossible for a man who looks like a body builder.)

Let's break down the new Cheetara in comparison to the gold standard, the actual Cheetara.


Is there a fucking chunk missing from her?! Where the hell are her internal organs? Why does she look 17, yet have breasts that would net her lifetime membership as a Playboy centerfold?

Why doesn't she look like, I dunno', a woman? A woman who is capable of doing things, like saving the day?

And this is only the beginning. They repeatedly misspell WilyKit and WilyKat in the written media.

They spell the names differently ON THE SAME PAGE.

And as WilyKit so wonderfully illustrates, having a bare midriff is apparently one of the defining characteristics of being female in modern cartoons. Just like in Teen Titans, where 50% of the female population is bare! Except for the outsider goth chick. She's the only one covered. What the fuck is this? The Breakfast Club with 25% more fiber and sexism? And notice how the females have their legs and feet posed compared to the males? Yeah.

Remember girls, don't stand too strong or you risk being intimidating to boys!

Obviously, this blog is somewhat predicated on the objectification of women, but I make it explicit, and also make sure to explicitly state that images are just that, images. Women are not actual objects, they are people! Cartoon obectification, like with Betty Boop, is fun precisely because it is cartoonish. No one has ever aspired to look like Jessica Rabbit or Betty Boop.

When we try to sell narratives to kids, we're selling a huge package of ideas, values, concepts, and images to them. If we want to sell them strong female characters, we need to sell them something that isn't so stupid-sexist. REAL women are not objects. REAL women are capable. REAL women can be strong heroes without also being sexy. When we make cartoon versions of comics for kids, we should avoid copying over the worst aspects of comic books, such as the almost comical level of female objectification and sexism.

Compare this to Harry Potter, because, why not? It's big. It has female characters. Like Hermione. Is she sexy? Does she spend all of her time in skin-tight spandex with her belly button showing? NO! Of course she doesn't! Because she is an actual character, whose values come from her actions and personality, not because she's got a flat stomach.

I mean, what the HELL is next?! Are we going to see a Wonder Woman cartoon where she's selling diet pills, or Tygra offering Ripped Fuel in episode 2?

To the creators of the new Thundercats. Thanks for ass-fucking my childhood memories. Go fuck yourselves. And learn how to spell.

UPDATE: Comics Alliance has a good article discussing the rampant sexism in comics that I see here. It's annoying in the comic book world, but it is positively infuriating in a TV show aimed primarily at children.

UPDATE: I've received more comments on this post than any post I've ever done, so please take the time to read the other comments and responses before commenting yourself.

And while I have posted a few of them to make a point, I will delete any posts that are basically just swearing at me.

We Finally See Pixar's Princess Merida

This is old news, but I wanted to talk about it.

I can't begin to describe how happy I am to see a Pixar film that stars a female. Hell, ANY animated film starring a female is great news.

Pixar doesn't have a great track record of including interesting females in its lineup. The only director to do it is Brad Bird, who gave us the ensemble cast The Incredibles, with two rich, believable female leads. He also directed Ratatouille, with a strong female secondary character. Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., none of them had a strong, non-stereotypical female. Even Dorie in Finding Nemo was the stereotypical kind-hearted bubblehead.

I think that Pixar lost the chance to lead the pack when they weren't the first to have a female direct a CGI feature. They've now lost that distinction to Dreamworks who tapped Jennifer Yuh Nelson, who won awards for her direction of the opening animation to Kung Fu Panda, to direct its sequel, Kung Fu Panda 2.

Brave was supposed to be directed by its writer Brenda Chapman, who still holds the distinction of being the first female to direct an animated feature with 1998's The Prince of Egypt, but she will instead receive co-directing status. There are rumors that Pixar has actually moved her onto a future production, and that's why she left. I find that entirely plausible. Perhaps they wanted her there all along and decided that the free marketing that they would have received from her being the first female director was nullified by Dreamwork's announcement that Kung Fu Panda 2 was being directed by a woman.

Regardless, directing is one thing, but it's from the writing where the underlying tone and message of films comes. It's actually rather startling to see the differences between films written by men and women. Men produce bizarre, self-referential (and self-important, if I'm being honest) things like Synechdoche, New York, while women produce equally insightful, but much more entertaining works like Juno.

I wouldn't be surprised if the flavor of Brave is entirely different from every Pixar film up to this point.

In Anticipation of Brave

As many of you know, I lament the number of good female characters in cartoons. Unless the cartoon or children's show is specifically aimed at girls, the main character is always a male, and the female characters, while rarely without quality, are usually relegated to the "sassy" class, or the "quirky" class. As an example of this, I recall my double-review of How to Train Your Dragon and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. Both casts had male and female characters portrayed positively, but in Cloudy, she's quirky, and in Dragon, she's sassy. ALL of the depth is associated with why they're quirky and sassy. There's nothing else there.

It's also very interesting how the major production houses are seemingly the ones who stick most closely to these biases. Look at Hoodwinked, which was produced for about seven dollars and a pizza, and compare that to Disney's "irreverent" fairy tale take, Tangled. Notice anything... sassy, about Disney's character? This stands in comparison to a truly original rethink of the Red Riding Hood story. Disney's formulation is bland and stale in comparison, even if it's actually a better film overall.

Pixar has been the most glaring in modern animation. I'm sure that this is because Pixar produces, time and time again, fantastic films of startling imagination, depth, and quality. So the few shortcomings that they do have become all the more apparent. Pixar has one shining star in this regard, and it's no surprise that it's my favorite of their films: The Incredibles. But while this is a great film, it was a true ensemble cast. That was the point. Look at the other Pixar films and you'll notice a distinct shortage of X-chromosomes. And of the females that are there, they're usually drawn thinly (If not thinly, then they fulfill the "sassy/quirky" requirement, like Eve from Wall-E or Dory from Finding Nemo). Truly, the Bonnie Hunt voiced Porsche in Cars was so cliched that it actually pissed me off.

Again, Pixar makes excellent films of timeless quality. I have total confidence that, much like Disney's earliest work, Pixar's films will be loved and enjoyed a century from now. And also, all of the guys who started Pixar were just that, guys. So perhaps it's too much to ask them to step outside of their own gender.

No, I have to. One of the great quests of an artist is to step outside of themself and produce something that is a unique take on reality. Especially with stories, men and women aren't very different. A human story is precisely that, human.

So it's with almost fanatic anticipation that I'm looking forward to Brave. It was to be the first Pixar film to be directed by a woman AND the first one to be written by a woman. Two birds with one stone, I guess. But unfortunately Brenda Chapman is no longer directing. I have complete confidence that sexism had no part in the decision, so there must have been something going on. Perhaps they want to move her to a later project.

Precious little is known about Brave, right now. We know the voices and we know some rough character designs, the latter of which look disappointingly standard. It involves Celtic themes and styling and is apparently inspired by Hans Christian Andersen and The Brothers Grimm, which is great. I love both. Braveheart was fantastic, and Andersen and Grimm wrote... some... really disturbing stories, so I'm sure it will all work out fine.

So in conclusion, 2012 can't come quickly enough. This summer, Cars 2 is assuredly going to be entertaining, but the year separating it from Brave will just as assuredly feel like an eternity.

No Good Girls in Cartoons

Considering that the years just keep going by, and cartoons remain distinctly male dominated, I'm beginning to get depressed. You'd think that in the brave new world of CGI films, we'd see at least a few more female protagonists. Or, even better, ANY female that isn't the "sassy" type that drives me up a fucking wall. It's like cartoons with "'tude." Don't know what 'tude is?
This is 'tude. It's this pestilence of bad-assery that has infected cartoons. Catering to boys? Your cartoon better be oozing with 'tude to even stand a chance with the network executives. Your cartoon also better star some confident, yet otherwise strange male, with the standard arrangement of sassy girls and token minorities. Or in my example, have your only two minorities also be girls. Kill two birds with one cliched stone. (On a further note, I love how the fat one is never a girl.)

Even Pixar, with whom I'm practically involved, has never had a female protagonist. It's a fucking boys club. The closest they've ever gotten is The Incredibles. Even there, though, Elastigirl? Yeah. She's still sassy.

That's not to take anything away from Pixar's films. I love every single one of them (except for Cars) and have watched them all over a dozen times. But it should serve as a point of serious consideration for all those in and entering in to the entertainment world. Where are the girls?!

I understand that cartoons skew male. They always have and they still do. But I don't think we've ever sufficiently experimented with girl-oriented cartoons that aren't also terribly sexist in some way. It still seems like a valid hypothesis to say that girls don't like cartoons because cartoons have never been theirs. What bones to they getthrown? Jem (which became more popular with boys), Rainbow Brite, Kim Possible, and... what else? Not much. Now try and make a list of popular boy-oriented cartoons that's under twenty shows long. Just try it.

The vast majority of the cartoons have a male at the center. Strong secondary female characters be damned. The male is front and center in ever group shot. He's on all the posters. He's given the most screen time. Even children's shows are ridiculous!

Make a list of young children's shows that have a female at the center. I can think of very few. The juggernaut, Dora the Explorer, Allegra's Window, and Eureeka's Castle stick most prominently in my mind. And even Dora birthed Go, Diego, Go! Gotta' get that boy in there somehow. Other's include the likes of Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Kids, which is very much an ensemble cast with her husband spider always nearby. Maggie and the Ferocious Beast is also quite good.

Still, most of these are quite new. New as in less than three years old. I also imagine that I could pretty easily dissect these cartoons and find stereotypes being reinforced. Regardless, back to films. The thing that set me off was looking at the lineup of CGI cartoons coming out. How to Train Your Dragon? Boy. Hell, I went to the list of all CGI films ever, here, and counted the films that featured females. I counted three, four if you throw in Home on the Range, If you go yourself, you'll find such gems as Appleseed, Final Fantasy, and Kaena. I just noticed that all of the films are foreign. I'm sure that says something. The fact that all three films were also ungodly bad also likely says something.

Whatever. I've made my point. My rant is done. We need more women in entertainment and we need it yesterday. Movies, television, and cartoons are in a decade-long death spiral that shows no signs of letting up. We need fresh blood and a fresh perspective.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly

I've uploaded a long commentary on the documentary Mickey Mouse Monopoly. It's basically an anti-Disney documentary that argues that Disney corp. holds too much power and perpetuates social problems.

In general, I disagree with everything it argues. The facts are facts, but its interpretation of them is highly selective and erroneous.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly (A Candle in the Dark)

A Fine Line Between...

Much like love and hate, there's a fine line between celebration and exploitation. I've been thinking about this a lot more, recently, as I continue work on my various vixens. Obviously, most of the cartoons I mention are from an earlier time and all have a degree of sexism apparent in their creation. But as with anyone classified as a vixen, an element of sexuality is required. But at what point does that sexuality stop being a celebration of sexuality and femininity and instead mutate into sexist exploitation for borderline pornographic purposes?

It's such a difficult slope to navigate. I'm a straight male, for one thing, and I like looking at women. While the various vixens with which I work are all very cartoonish, there are enough characteristics of humanity in them to elicit a sexual response. But I'm also an artist. I love art. I contemplate beauty. I appreciate the human form, both male and female, as an amazing product of evolution and of my own perceptions of it. It's a disquieting thought to think about where the line is drawn in my mind. Where does my enjoyment of, and work with, the female figure stop being artistic and just become lascivious?

As a straight male, I'm beginning to come the conclusion that it's impossible to separate the two. And that right there may be one of the most persistent seeds of sexism. Even if artistic drivers are what nurture a love and appreciation of the female figure, my id will always sexualize the work to a great degree. I think that this has the unavoidable result of coloring my perceptions. Coloring how I view, understand, and appreciate the art on which I work.

The above mentioned fine line is no better explored than in genre films. Hell, some filmmakers have built their entire careers on celebrating the exploitation, *cough*Tarantino!*cough*, be it black, asian, or gangster films. And perhaps that evinces a greater depth to the problem. There is, in fact, no line between celebration and exploitation. Exploitation can become celebration, and what was once artistic can become exploitative. People making chop-socky exploitation flicks didn't ever think that, fifty years in the future, people would look back on these films as a celebration of a time and an ideal, however flawed it may have been.

It's hard for me. I want to be artistic, but I'm also a powerfully sexual entity. I actively try and separate my sex from my art, and I suppose I succeed to a degree, but the very existence of this blog shows that I have failed/succumbed at least in part. Namely, you don't see me making a Cartoon Hunks blog. I also assume that Freud was at least somewhat right, that the id does drive behavior. The impetus, the basic psychological fuel to do things arises from the primal drivers inherent to our most basic functions. Architecture from a need for shelter. Clothing from a need to keep warm. Fine cooking from a need to eat. And portraits from a need to connect with humans and have sex.

Still, does all of that result in an inescapable sexism? Is it literally a part of my work? Am I sexualizing these creations to the detriment of the character and creation? I don't think so, and I hope not. While the fact that females are both humans and sexual prospects, at least from the straight male perspective, I must always look at them through two lenses. It's annoying that I must be ever vigilent with myself. Making sure that possible sexual attraction doesn't affect me. Making sure that while my mind may be in conflict, my actions are measured and egalitarian.

So while there is obviously a degree of sex in these images and in the work I do, that my chosen work is sexual is no surprise. That the images I draw are of attractive women is no surprise. I am celebrating what I enjoy, even though that very celebration seems to necessarily require exploitation. I am exploiting the female figure for visual pleasure. I don't think that's inherently sexist, though. My fantasy world is exactly that, a fantasy. And I recognize the difference between the real world and the one banging around between my ears. I also strongly feel that there is little that is pornographic with my images. Pornography implies an artistic creation where almost no thought is given to the elements other than sex. And even there, the raunchiest of internet porn has artistic merit to it; the person making must have at least given some thought to angle, lighting, sound design, etc.

The images are sexual, celebratory, exploitative, and artistic all in one. Sexism may have had a part to play in their creation so many decades ago, but those who were sexist are long-since dead. Much like Quentin Tarantino, the exploitation is over, now it's time for the celebration.

Feminism and Betty.

In my first post to this blog, I commented on Betty Boop as a feminist symbol. She is sexy, she is fun, but she is also accepted and well-liked. This was a pretty revolutionary concept back in the day. I said that the only thing about her that I think is still sexist is that even though she's overtly sexual, she is not sexually active. It was this idea that even though a girl can be social and outward, being pure, i.e. a virgin, was the desirable state.

Apparently, Candie's, the teenage girl clothing company with Britney Spears as its mascot, has started a new... thing... called the Candie's Foundation. Supposedly, this foundation is all about educating parents and children on the problems of teenage pregnancy.

Isn't it a bit surprising, then, that they mention nothing like condoms, birth control, or family planning? Yep. They mention nothing but abstinence. And isn't it interesting that the only problem they mention is pregnancy? Not STD's, or injury. No, just pregnancy. And isn't it even more interesting that Candie's spokesman is Britney Spears, a woman in the running for worst celebrity mother of the decade. And isn't it even more interesting that the "Teen Ambassador" for the newly-formed foundation is Bristol Palin.

Really? Bristol Palin? As though teens across the country look up to her? This is the same Bristol Palin who's baby-daddy spends his life on the talk show circuit bashing the Palins. The same Bristol Palin who recently called abstinence "unrealistic." Yes, one could say she can now speak from experience, but I don't buy that. The "do as I say not as I do" is a real problem, regardless of what the anti-drug ads say. It's like telling your kids not to smoke pot when you can't remember 1976. It's like telling your kids to not dress like morons when there are photos of you in knee-high rainbow socks and Madonna-cones. It doesn't work. Because your argument must logically entail that you are a worse person now than you would have been had you not made such a fateful decision.


If you argue that you like your life now, and seem alright, you have no ground. This is unlike those who speak out against drunk driving after creaming someone, because it is a highly plausible statement that, yes, life would be better today had they not made that decision. Bristol is unlikely to say that, since that would entail saying she hates her own child. Which she could say, and if she did then I'd believe her, but until she says "I wish I did not have this child," she can shut the fuck up.

I haven't even dug into the actual campaign yet! Seemingly, the whole shebang is predicated on the idea that "I'm sexy enough to keep you waiting."

On my blog A Candle in the Dark, I talk about hidden 'isms. I mentioned this in response to anti-prostitution crusaders who were running on an underlying assumption that female sexuality must be protected, while male sexuality is predatory and can be given out willy-nilly. Read into the underlying assumptions of that sentence. The "you" is a male, who is obviously a lascivious animal, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to get the girl to not wait. This also assumes that the full weight of stopping teenage sex is on the female, because men can't be expected to control themselves. Boys will be boys! Hyuk!


Let's think about the mixed messages involved with this. Candie's sells sex. Walk into a Kohl's. All they sell are hyper-sexed teenaged models, covered in sexy gear, to girls who want to be sexy, and then they say to not do anything with it or about it. Sex is bad! But still look sexy! This cheesecake is terrible for you! But look at how delicious it is! It's not just ridiculous, it's disgusting.

Now for that photo, ignoring that the model is apparently 35, it seems like the sentence is shooting for something closer to "I'm confident enough in myself to keep you waiting." That's fine. But it doesn't say that. In fact, that sort of statement is antithetical to Candie's advertising, which is based on "You're not sexy until you have this clothing," which relies on a lack of confidence. If I'm sexy enough to make someone wait, I'm sexy enough to not need Candie's clothing. They certainly don't want that.

It's also a logically inaccurate statement. Being sexy has nothing to do with someone's capacity to make someone else do something nor does it have anything to do with their own self worth in this capacity. It's like saying "I'm tall enough to keep you waiting," or "I'm Caucasian enough to keep you waiting." If it was talking about a girl's self worth, that's acceptable, but then it treads even-more dangerous ground since that implies that the woman is worth it to wait, but any man who would need "no" fucking printed on a t-shirt isn't worth the time, and if the man is worth the time, he'd either not need the slogan or there's no reason to wait. No reason except dogma, that is.

Now, let's get into the consequences of following what Candie's seemingly espouses. They want girls to be overtly hyper-sexed, flaunt it, and then be a cock-tease. BE SEXY!!! But nooooo touchy-touchy. Get those boys HARD! Then condescend to them for being such horny animals. It's an absurd message. The point of sexy is sex. A person portrays a particular image for a particular reason. I dress in a suit for work to appear professional. It's the equivalent of "I'm professional enough... to not work for you" after being offered a job. It's retarded.

Abstinence, The "Sexy" Way (Jezebel.com)
http://www.candiesfoundation.org/