Fashion at Naked City

Just a couple of fun items up recently at Naked City to do with sexy/sparkle clothing and presenting a more diverse view of human sexuality than the Patriarchy would necessarily approve:

The Chainmail halter top looks great for a mediaeval/fantasy fiction roleplay scene, but as the remarks say, you wouldn't want to get your body piercings anywhere near it! I love that picture: the sword is beautiful (it's a display katana made in stainless steel, I recognise the design), and the model's body is attractive without conforming to the standard slim figure - she looks like someone who might actually have the strength to swing a sword in battle for real!

The bustiers by Plus Size Plum are awesome-looking. As the song says, "Big girls, you are beautiful". While I have some sympathy with the idea that this is just pandering to "the male gaze", equally, dressing to please another doesn't have to be about "teh patriarchy" (for example, shouldn't larger lesbians be able to dress to please their partners sexually also?), and indeed, the Patriarchy tends to discourage plus-size folks from feeling sexual at all. So, yay for the bustiers!

On a similar note, this site of artwork was linked by Naked City a while ago (I can't find the page where they linked it any more). It features paintings in the style of the pin-up girls of earlier times, with the distinguishing feature that the women in them are all of larger build. They are also very sexy, which strikes another blow at the standardised model of "beauty", which is imposed by patriarchal norms. Again, I can see why some feminists would argue that such things only bring more women under pressure to performative femininity and thus are bad for women, but I think if the cost of avoiding that pressure is that they are forced to feel not-sexual, and thus deny a part of their human nature, then to me that's a problem. I believe it is possible to celebrate one's body as beautiful, without having such celebration be about anyone else's appreciation (except those whom you choose). The pressure is about performing for others (and that can be rejected); the freedom is about being for oneself.

Anyway, all this is just for an excuse to share some fun and sexy sites. Hope you all enjoy them as much as I did!

High Eight, Us?

Something's wrong with me.

I don't know what exactly the problem is, but it feels almost like a poison working on me, which is a new sensation and therefore probably not something to do with my depression (although the effect is sort-of similar).

I have seen in the last few days a number of things I would like to blog about (list below) but somehow whenever I sit myself down at the keyboard to do so, I struggle to find the words I need. It's not that I CAN'T find them, it's more as though I feel as though I don't WANT to, or at least, I don't want to put them on the screen (down on paper, whatever) at all. And I don't like this feeling. It is frustrating, for one thing, because I like having my say on whatever's going on or just burbling about life, love and the laundry list. So far, I've only really managed one thing (the "feminist man" post) and that's it.

Plus, I just hate feeling like there's a bit of me that isn't working properly, and my writing stuff bit of me is quite an important bit (to my mind, anyway).

Hopefully, I'll snap out of it soon, but most of these things will have flowed by and be not worth bothering with any more by then. No doubt there will be other things (may be better things) to write about by then, though. But here's the list of what you guys will be missing out on:

• Women bishops, and the Pope's wading in on the Anglican Church "schism"
• A review, or discussion, of The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent, which I recently finished reading (it's a gripping yarn, I'll say that much, I didn't want to put it down at all!) UPDATE: I did actually manage to write this one!
  
• A comment or two about the "Return of the Favre" saga at Green Bay (short version - while I'd love to see #4 play in the green & gold again, I still side with the Packers organisation on this one)
  
• A response to some of the "anti-porn talking points" posts I've seen linked to recently
• Some thoughts about my feminism, sadism and enjoyment of extreme porn
• A quick look at some of the questions raised by "Britain's Missing Top Model" and some of the immediate responses I saw in feminist blogs (I'd been waiting to see how the show pans out before making my own thoughts known)

If you're really, really curious about what I think about any of the above, then feel free to say so in comments and I'll do my best to give some kind of answer - the more specific your questions, the easier it will be for me to fight off this strange torpor and give an intelligible response!

My first, and probably last...

...offering for HNT.

I love the idea of HNT, but generally I feel unpretty on a Wednesday night or Thursday afternoon, and decide I don't fancy trying to come up with a nice half-nekkid picture of myself to show. But after my recent post on the weird stuff my brain does with music, I thought it would be fun to video myself singing one of the versions that I do in real life, and why not do it topless? So here is the video of my version of "My Friends Over You", sung half-nekkid by a tubby bitch, on a Thursday morning...

Please bear in mind, this was recorded at about 4am! I think it's pretty good, even so.





Oh yeah - the stickers on the guitar read "Settle - Carlisle" (because I visited the railway) and "Brighton & Hove Albion: The Seagulls", who are my local football national league team (that's "soccer" in American English). I have had the guitar since I first started playing, some 15 years ago.

A difference in men's and women's oppression

This is just a quick musing, and there probably should be a much longer post about it, but it is late, I'm tired, and the night is annoyingly hot. So here's the concept I've been musing on recently reading a few different blogs on varied subjects within feminism:

"Men are expected to live up to unrealistic standards. Women are expected to live up to impossible standards."

The thought was originally occasioned by a couple of posts about the freakish anatomies of women in pictures that had been adjusted using Photoshop, and a comparison of the physical ideals also presented of men, which were much less freakish but still pretty hard to achieve for men not gifted genetically.

Then by the fact that women wanting a family and a career are seen as somehow being selfish (that is, to work at a job and be a good mother is deemed impossible) - which in turn reveals the unrealistic demands that society makes of male workers (Figleaf has a very good post about how that idea can work. Which produces the novel idea that maybe cutting down on working hours for both might also make both partners more equal in family life too?).

Then by the dual status of women as both a "sex class" and as a "no-sex class", in that women are expected at once to have no interest in sex and yet to advertise as constantly available for sex, whereas men are supposed to see sex as the ultimate prize and always be "up for it" (i.e. only a single status).

In each case, the demands made on men to be seen as "real men" and accepted by society, are unrealistic, but can be achieved by some. For women, however, the demands are mutually incompatible, and/or downright impossible to achieve (since in those photoshopped images, not even the real life women held up as the epitome of beauty can actually physically achieve the shapes presented once the photo has been treated!)

So, men and women are both oppressed by the Patriarchy, but (state the obvious!) not to an equal degree. Men are driven to achieve unrealistic goals. Women are demanded to strive for impossible goals.

Thoughts on this concept very welcome, please!

How do you get success? With fake tits, diet pills and skimpy clothes, of course!

Today's big shock-horror "won't someone think of the children" news story was "Internet Miss Bimbo game for girls attacked by parents".

The thing that struck me was that, ultimately, this story is all about slut-shaming, from both sides of the equation. The complaints were of this tenor:

Bill Hibberd, of parents' rights group Parentkind, said the game sent a dangerous message to young girls.

He said: "It is one thing if a child recognises it as a silly and stupid game.

"But the danger is that a nine-year-old fails to appreciate the irony and sees the bimbo as a cool role model. Then the game becomes a hazard and a menace.

"Children's innocence should be protected as far as possible. It depends on the background and mindset of the child but the danger is that after playing the game some will then aspire to have breast operations and take diet pills."

and:

Nick Williams, from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, said he was appalled when he saw his daughters Katie, nine, and Sarah, 14, playing the game.

Williams, 42, an accountant, said: "I noticed them looking at possible breast operations and facelifts for their bimbos at the game's plastic surgery clinic.

"Katie is far too young for that kind of thing and it is irresponsible of the site's creators to be leading young girls astray. They are easily influenced at that age as to what is cool."

I notice two things about these comments. Firstly, they are both much more about what is "cool" (i.e. "acceptable behaviour for a young lady") and "protecting the innocence" of girls who are "too young" (i.e. preventing them from becoming "sluts"), than about any deeper message in the game. Secondly, they are both made by men who express a proprietorial and patriarchal interest in their daughters' development.

The game's creators also spectacularly miss the point with their comments:

The creators of Miss Bimbo insist it is "harmless fun". Nicolas Jacquart, the 23-year-old web designer from Tooting, south London, who created it, said: "It is not a bad influence for young children. They learn to take care of their bimbos. The missions and goals are morally sound and teach children about the real world.

"If they eat too much chocolate in the game it is bad for their bimbos' bodies and their happiness levels compared to if they eat fruit and vegetables, which reinforces positive healthy eating messages.

"If they are having problems with boyfriends or at work, the bimbos can talk through them with a psychiatrist.

"The breast operations are just one part of the game and we are not encouraging young girls to have them, just reflecting real life."

Which all sounds well and good, but when Mr. Jacquart says that it is "just reflecting real life", I wonder what he really means? Maybe if Nicolas was "Nicola" I might have some doubts about this assumption, but I think Nicolas Jacquart isn't interested in reflecting real life. He is interested in painting a simplified, unflattering, dismissive caricature of his idea of the sort of woman who chooses to have a boob job, or to go into modelling, or who just happened to be born with the genes for blonde hair and a skinny figure. In other words, his objective is one of slut-shaming. But it is also one of shaming any woman who fails to live up to the bimbo ideal, too. In other words, whatever Mr. Jacquart claims about the aims of his game, it ultimately boils down to good old, pure-and-simple misogyny.

Both the parents and the creators miss the point about the game's harmful effects. So what is the point? Well, the point (as I subtly alluded to in my title for this post!) is that the point of success in the game is about a girl's value as a sex symbol/object, as rated by the size of her breasts, how much flesh she shows, and how skinny she is. The game doesn't make these things look "cool", it makes them appear necessary. It makes them appear required. It makes them appear to be the measure by which a woman in today's world can judge her value. It reduces the female form to a commodity to be improved upon and then sold again and again and again. It is the very worst of what I complain about in lads' mags' portrayal of a woman's place in society.

And it is being marketed at young women who are on the verge of discovering their own sexual natures, who are discovering and developing their ideas about how the adult world works, and how they might one day fit into that world. Frankly, I couldn't care less if they find ways to express their just-developing awareness via internet games (which is apparently what the patriarchal Daddies wish to protect their Darling Little Angels from, especially since they have no control over it!) - in fact, I think it's quite a good idea (just as the harmless schoolkid's crush on a teacher is also a test-drive for emotions and responses that will eventually form a part of their interaction with the adult world). What bothers me is that this game tells those girls/young women, that their only value is in that sexual nature, and in having it conform to a totally unrealistic ideal. I don't care if it says that you do so by eating fruit and veg and avoiding chocolate*. Most women aren't able to conform to that ideal at all! Ever! That's why this "Miss Bimbo" game is so damaging. Not because of what it suggests about "cool". Not because of what it does to so-called "childhood innocence".

*And besides, chocolate is one of God's great gifts to humanity, so there's something dodgy in advising people to avoid it, in my opinion.

Is it cos I is big? (2nd "Metro" post of the day!)

This is an issue that really, I was waiting for an excuse to cover, and since I saw this article in today's Metrugh, I figured now was as good a time as any.

Basically, the issue is objectification of people on the grounds of their physical appearance. The title of the article was "Women who love fat men" (the printed version was actually, "When size does matter", but it seems they had to change it for the online version because they already used that heading for a piece about condoms, a year or two ago).

Now, I'm a fat man. No point hiding it, so I don't. Julie felt that my size added to my Dominant presence (see the "tough but soft" references in the article).

However, I don't want to be desired because I'm fat (nor despite it). Strange as it may sound, I want to be loved (rather than desired) and I want it to be because of the person I am. Now, my online name, "SnowdropExplodes", is all about "tough but soft" but that's a description of my personality, not my physical body (if people think the two go well together, then so be it). It's a description of how I approach, in particular, a D/s (i.e. romantic) relationship - and that is what Julie loved about me. She accepted my physical appearance, and found a virtue in it, but that wasn't what it was about.

The only mention of personality in the piece comes from Grace's remark, "I've only dated men who were happy with themselves but that's getting harder to find nowadays. If I suspect a man has a 'woe is me, I'm fat' attitude, I wouldn't get involved. But if he considered himself a Big Handsome Man, then I would be interested. Nobody wants to date someone who hates their body."

But I save my greatest ire for Dr. Viren Swami and his assumptions - the idea that any woman could see my size as a way to dominate me would be absurd to those women who actually know me and my sexuality (as Julie does, for example). I am most certainly NOT "challenging gender assumptions" by being large (I do it by wearing high heels, a corset etc!) In many ways, the things that my size tends to communicate (such as power, strength, toughness) are traditionally "masculine" qualities.

Like I said - I don't want to be reduced to a single feature and objectified, any more than a woman should be reduced to her hair colour or breasts, or any other feature. What makes me an attractive person is what's in my mind (or so I believe) and the fact that I am devilishly good-looking and fat have no effect on that.

Patriarchal Metro (Again)

I’m currently doing a lot of travelling on public transport, and that means that I am frequently getting bored and picking up the freebie rag Metro that I’ve mentioned before, here.

It hasn’t improved in quality, but at the time of the morning I’m travelling, I simply haven’t got the ability to focus enough to read “The Thought of Karl Marx” or whatever other learned tome I have with me. So I browse through it, and reaffirm my disapproval of the paper. It really is a propaganda outlet for the Patriarchy, and just about every day there is some article about putting women in their place. Usually, it’s about putting men in their patriarchy-approved place, too.

For example, that cartoonist who promoted rape-excuses continues to justify jerkish or misogynist behaviour by men. What makes it worse is it isn’t even original (for example, yesterday’s cartoon had the old chestnut, “Every attractive woman I meet, it turns out either she’s married, or I am”).

Today’s edition is no exception, but had a couple of pieces I’d like to point up in particular.

First: “CARTOON CAPERS: Girl power is alive and well in the world of business and now, it seems, in cartoon. A recent study of Disney characters has shown that today’s cartoons are less chauvinistic than in the past. Women are as intelligent, strong and heroic as their male mates. Researchers at the University of Granada analysed 11 female characters and found they were no longer just ‘good looking’, but also smart and sassy.”

So yeah – if you’re a 2-d representation of a fictional woman, you’ve got it made. Shame about the real world, but hey – let’s enjoy watching drawings of women being what real women still struggle to achieve. This link from the UGR Science News page shows us that there are still strong messages about where a woman’s place is, though; she is still expected to be “a wife and a mother”, and Nevertheless, “forming a couple, together with the situations lived by the main characters, communicate the importance of family to children”.

If you read the link, you’ll find that the professor claims that it "shows that today’s cartoons are less male chauvinist than those in the past" and that "both girls and boys can learn through female profiles appearing in the films. They see these profiles and they can perceive and assume some kind of message."

All I get from this is that the professor is congratulating Disney for not being quite as bad as they were 50 years ago. But the underlying message hasn't actually changed. Women are still supposed to want to be mothers and wives and partners FIRST, even if now they are allowed to have other jobs too. "Sassy" and "smart" are all very well, as long as you stay where you're supposed to.

At a guess, I reckon this has already been covered in the feminist blogosphere – the date on the University of Granada story is nearly two years ago! I guess the Metro wanted to beef up their Patriarchy-affirming coverage today.

* * *

But, they also ran a "60 Second Interview" with some guy called Greg Gutfield, who was editor for Men's Health in the USA and Maxim (which I class as a "Lad's Mag" by the terms of my post on hardcore versus softcore porn) in the UK. I just wanted to pick out a couple of answers he gave about his editorship of those magazines:

You edited Men's Health in the US, too. Doesn't it just make men feel depressed?

...I was one of the guys who came up with the abdominal craze. 'Lose your gut in five minutes' – I came up with those cover lines. I'm culpable for this horrible phenomenon.

Has it got out of hand?

It's turned men into women. Men are now thoroughly obsessed with their bodies when they should be obsessed with being successful.

Look at that last answer.

Do I have to explain to any of you just how disgusting I find that? As a feminist, of course, but also, and most fiercely, as a man. I rest my case.

I'm not going to talk about the Metro any more. Suffice to say, when I'm benevolent tyrannical overlord, the Metro will cease to be. They are scum.

Footwhere?

Razor Mick sent a comment:

Dude, where the hell do you find heels that fit?

The answer is that many men who choose to wear high heels have feet that are somewhat beyond the range stocked by the average women's shoe retail outlets. I'm a UK size 11 or 12 (depending on the manufacturers) in men's footwear, which means a definite size 12 when buying anything with a pointed toe (i.e. women's shoes). The average male shoe size in the UK is something like size 9. Here's a conversion chart for the non-UK readers.

Most retailers stock women's footwear up to UK size 8 so the average tranny-in-the-street does not have the same option of just walking into a store and trying things on for size! (that's the obligatory 'privilege' reference for the political readers...)

However, there are specialist suppliers of transgender apparel who cater for those whose bodies' characteristics do not conform to their gender identity, and several of them specialise in footwear. I believe most big cities in the UK have at least one such retailer doing business on the high street. There are also plenty of online retailers who supply mail order footwear, where it is possible to select a style and height of heel as well as the style of shoe or boot. My 4" heel boots (which actually put my foot at the same angle as a 3" heel would an average woman) came from Hay-way Shoes, which sadly has since gone out of business ("sadly", because they were a good supplier), but there are plenty of other sites that stock larger sizes - google "transgender shoes" and the first page has all manner of retailers ready to help! This site lists the US sizes as well when you look at their selection.

I noticed that if I were a woman, I would be US size 14.5!

Where has all that woman gone?

Photoshoping A Big Girl into A Model - Click Here for more great videos and pictures!


A few thoughts about this piece.

Aesthetically, I'd have stopped about 1 minute in - in other words, when the big model was no longer heavily overweight, but about the average for a healthy woman. The skinny freak at the end of the show was kinda pretty, but way less interesting than the original picture. At both the start and the finish, curiously, I felt that there was something not-quite-right about the picture, like the proportions were wrong for the size of person it was showing... It couldn't possibly have been a set-up, could it!?

Politically, there's two intertwined issues with the clip. Obviously there's the "unattainable beauty" aspect (incidentally, I recall Shulamith Fireston's observation that if it was attainable, it would no longer be considered beautiful), but there's also an observation about the presentation of the clip by its creator.

Look at the title he gave it: "Photoshoping a Big Girl into a Model" (sic) (my emphasis).

The person posing for a picture (photograph, painting, whatever) is a model - that's pretty much by definition. The assumption underlying that title is that a big girl can't be a (professional) model. It looks as though the original picture was taken in a proper studio (although whether a professional one or not is impossible to say).

Another definition of "model" given in my dictionary is "a standard of excellence". This, of course, feeds back into the first question about unattainable beauty. Why is that skinny freak considered a standard of excellence? I guess I'm just the sort of person who automatically finds reality sexier than spoon-fed fantasy (the stuff my brain conjures all by itself is a different story!)

I am left kind of wondering whether anyone's done the same experiment with a photo of a tubby bloke, though...