Feminism and nakedism
Women obsessed with showing off their body images (and seductive "parts") ignore reality. Their bodies will fail them over time. Chelsea Samelson writes an interesting perspective in the New York Post. (Reported in "The Week")
In my opinion, although a woman's body image is fascinating when enhanced by nature or creative fashion, the female who depends on her nakedness to draw attention to herself is living in a translucent bubble. People are only fascinated with her nakedness until the bubble bursts.
Age is one ephemerally transition, whereby a woman will eventually have the brutal experience of comparing an aging image with her narcissistic youthful delusion.
When a woman is introduced - any woman- the initial response will be to her personae. She's attractive based on her first impression. Sexuality is second to her personae. Women who sell their sexuality first and personae second are only as interesting has their body allows. In other words, after you've seen their breasts, what's next? On the other had, women of mystery reveal themselves a little at a time, the Gypsy Rose Lee (an artistic exotic dancer) effect, and an aloofness remains her attraction to others.
Here's what Samelson says in New York Post:
Are celebrities (and likewise our own acquaintances and even some friends) who post naked (or even near naked) photos of themselves empowering themselves, asked Chelsea Samelson. That's the contention of Kim Kardashian and her many defenders, who've insisted it's "slut shaming" to criticize her habit of tweeting photos of her naked breasts and butt- a stunt many other celebrities are now competitively imitating. Please. Kardashihian is perhaps the most famous woman in the Western world, yet all she has done is to flaunt the fact that she has "a physically attractive body". Her appearance is everything, "and she lives for validation of her sexiness and desirability." That's not empowerment. Indeed, it's not even feminism. "It's the mindset of body and breasts over brains." Wen celebrities promote their careers this way, "women everywhere lose". If you want to see truly empowereed women, you won't find them taking naked (or near naked) selfies. Rather, you'll find them graduating from college at higher rates than men, "running companies, running for office, and running the hoems that are raising America's next generagtion". Today, a woman "can do anything in the world she wants to do." Why would she define herself by her breasts?
Moreover, while breasts sag over time, a woman's sexuality improves with age when she maintains her beauty through modest attention to fashion and by keeping herself sexually aloof.
Just check out Leonardo DaVinci's "Mona Lisa"...and follow the example the artist created. She's still here.
Mona Lisa retains the essence of the feminine mystique- it's her fashion and her modesty
In my opinion, although a woman's body image is fascinating when enhanced by nature or creative fashion, the female who depends on her nakedness to draw attention to herself is living in a translucent bubble. People are only fascinated with her nakedness until the bubble bursts.
Age is one ephemerally transition, whereby a woman will eventually have the brutal experience of comparing an aging image with her narcissistic youthful delusion.
When a woman is introduced - any woman- the initial response will be to her personae. She's attractive based on her first impression. Sexuality is second to her personae. Women who sell their sexuality first and personae second are only as interesting has their body allows. In other words, after you've seen their breasts, what's next? On the other had, women of mystery reveal themselves a little at a time, the Gypsy Rose Lee (an artistic exotic dancer) effect, and an aloofness remains her attraction to others.
Here's what Samelson says in New York Post:
Are celebrities (and likewise our own acquaintances and even some friends) who post naked (or even near naked) photos of themselves empowering themselves, asked Chelsea Samelson. That's the contention of Kim Kardashian and her many defenders, who've insisted it's "slut shaming" to criticize her habit of tweeting photos of her naked breasts and butt- a stunt many other celebrities are now competitively imitating. Please. Kardashihian is perhaps the most famous woman in the Western world, yet all she has done is to flaunt the fact that she has "a physically attractive body". Her appearance is everything, "and she lives for validation of her sexiness and desirability." That's not empowerment. Indeed, it's not even feminism. "It's the mindset of body and breasts over brains." Wen celebrities promote their careers this way, "women everywhere lose". If you want to see truly empowereed women, you won't find them taking naked (or near naked) selfies. Rather, you'll find them graduating from college at higher rates than men, "running companies, running for office, and running the hoems that are raising America's next generagtion". Today, a woman "can do anything in the world she wants to do." Why would she define herself by her breasts?
Moreover, while breasts sag over time, a woman's sexuality improves with age when she maintains her beauty through modest attention to fashion and by keeping herself sexually aloof.
Just check out Leonardo DaVinci's "Mona Lisa"...and follow the example the artist created. She's still here.
Labels: Chelsea Samelson, Mona Lisa, New York Post, The Week
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home