Monday, March 06, 2017

Sex and Opinions

Remember when people were all, "It's a shame that Jennifer Lawrence had her privacy invaded when her Apple account was hacked!" and then some people were all, "But she didn't care about her privacy because she took the pictures in the first place!"? That second group of people is a bunch of idiots. Their argument is like saying, "You must not care about modesty because you get naked for a shower EVERY DAY!" Context matters. I don't invite the world in to watch me shower. Jennifer Lawrence should be in control of who sees her naked and when.

And then an entirely different group of idiots were thrown off by Jennifer Lawrence's Vanity Fair photo shoot because she was (gasp!) naked in it. "Look," they said, "she must not care about her modesty after all because she's naked in a publicly-accessible venue." But the problem was never concern for modesty or public access to views of her. It was sovereignty over her body, which sovereignty should reside with her at all times. If you understand why marital rape is a thing, you should be able to understand why Jennifer Lawrence should be able to do full-frontal nudity without undermining her claimed violation of privacy with her Apple account.

Last week, a new group of idiots saw pictures of Emma Watson (also in Vanity Fair, actually) and said, "She's a hypocrite because she's previously said women should be viewed as complete persons and not just as sex objects, but now she's using her attractive body for attention." This isn't hypocrisy, people. A "complete person" INCLUDES a sexual component. Just because she wants it known that she has opinions, she is not arguing that she no longer has breasts. She can have both (opinions and breasts, that is, not just left breast and right breast) at the same time.

Lastly, let it be known that I read all 800 pages of Vanity Fair and there were nowhere NEAR this many nude babes in the version I read. There was a surfeit of satire, but no boobs. Thanks a heap, Thackeray!

No comments: