Let's face it. Feminists and religious wackos are intimidated and/or disgusted by every square inch of human skin that they see. They're so resentful of the private parts nature has endowed upon them that the vision of half-naked women only serve as a reminder of this original sin.
And when I say they're resentful of private parts, I'm not referring to their quality, but their existence. Look at another quote from the joint letter:
"What purpose does the special serve except to overly sexualize women and use this to bolster the networks' demographics for young men?"
Could these people possibly display their fear of sex any more clearly? (Memo to feminists: Men cannot fuck your brain. You have a sexual nature. Get used to it.)
There's so much illogic in this anti-underwear crusade I can't even think in a straight line.
- Since when is bolstering the young male demographic a bad thing?
- Since when are young men the sole composition of the Victoria's Secret market?
I'll readily admit to having browsed through at least one or two (dozen) Victoria's Secret catalogs in my lifetime. But unless my memory fails me, I don't recall seeing any sexy, lace Super Jockstraps that promised to provide me with the "extra push-up and cleavage that I deserve". I might be going out on a limb here, but I think just maybe a young woman or two might have watched the fashion show, too. Consider that Mark McGrath, one of People Magazine's "sexiest men alive", co-hosted the show. He sure as hell wasn't chosen for my sake.
The protesting brothers-and-sisters-in-sterility went on to describe the fashion show as a "soft-core porn infomercial".
Now, this is just giving soft-core porn a bad name. There's more to soft-core porn than half-naked women. For one thing, there's fully naked women. There's also half-naked men and so much bad acting that you'd almost prefer to masturbate to Robert De Niro. But the phrase is also a cheap-shot against Victoria's Secret. Come on, a Victoria's Secret model is at least one notch above a Skinemax actress, don't you think?
That the feminists and the religious types find fault in the back-and-forth strutting of scantily-clad women is revealing. (That pun hurts me more than it hurts you.) If the strutting of scantily-clad women is bad, then the human body is bad. It's something that should be hidden behind closed doors - or behind a burka.
Religious zealots have despised the human body ever since Adam and Eve put on the fig leaves. But the feminists, a group that supposedly supports the independence of women, should be especially ashamed. It takes serious balls - make that breasts - to flaunt oneself on a stage in front of millions of people. It shows courage and self esteem, two virtues feminists ought to be praising when they see them, not sweeping under the carpet or behind the curtain.
Ayn Rand wrote that Marilyn Monroe projected "the joyous self-flaunting of a child or a kitten who is happy to display its own attractiveness as the best gift it can offer the world, and who expects to be admired for it, not hurt."
First, the female body-haters need to accept sex as an aspect of their nature. Then maybe they can accept attractiveness as a value, and start showing a little less fear, and a little more admiration.
It just occurred to me. With performances by Destiny's Child and Phil Collins, the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show was like an awards show with the longwinded speeches by overrated leftist Hollywood actors replaced by pleasantly silent, beautiful women. (Granted, most of them could have used a good home-cooked meal or two.) Could this, perhaps, be the awards show of the future? We can only hope.
