Naked Reporting

So I just read a brief article about Rihanna taking her bottoms (but not top) off for a sexy photoshoot. 

Despite being an unabashed perv, and agreeing in general that Rihanna is an attractive woman, I found that I generally don't care.  Call it over saturation, reading stories about Rihanna's nudity is like reading about Lindsay Lohan's drug use or about Asa Akira doing a porn shoot... or a news story about someone's, anyone's breakfast. 

Not News.  Not unless you are terribly, terribly bored with your life. 

That is neither here nor there. 

What was interesting was the way the story was reported.  The, for the moment, nameless reporter gave a vaguely prudish take on the entire subject, though well and truly Cathedral for all that. A woman's body is not source of shame, prudishness and demanding a woman to cover herself up is Patriarchy, don't you know?! 

So, then, the question becomes: How does someone shame Rihanna's nudity while remaining in good standing in the new censorial regime? 

Simple: You mock out silly people look bottomless, how unsexy is all is. 

Now, I elude to the nameless reporter, and in truth this could have been written by a woman or a throughly feminized mangina just fine.  Modern men will deny almost anything about themselves in order to seek approval from their new Feminarchy. I'd say they do it out of a misguided effort to get some sexual reward for their loyalty, but even that must be doubted. Some men, Hugo Schwiezer being the current poster boy, have in fact used Feminism boosting to get laid, but so many men are or seem so throughly feminized that it causes one to doubt their ability to actually feel genuine human lust. 

But in this case, it was actually written by a woman, someone who is not nameless, to whit Rebecca Strokes. 

It occurred to me, as it so frequently does, that women have no business judging what is, and is not, sexy to men.  For some reason they are nigh unto universally bad at it.  Some women eventually learn, by dint of great practice, a few habits that work but one wonders if they are fundamentally capable of understanding male attraction?  Anything outside their limited practice is foreign to them, and thus they judge it by their own standards... and they quite often get it wrong. 

Can I agree with the premise that wearing a bra with no panties is faintly silly? 

Sure I can. That doesn't change the fact that any modestly attractive woman with no panties on is going to be inherently sexy to the average man.  Someone pouring water over the provocatively posed pantiless woman does, in fact increase the sexiness in most cases. 

So mocking all of this as fundamentally unsexy because Rebecca Strokes, a woman and not the intended audience, finds it silly is missing the point.   Because Rebecca Strokes, as a woman, doesn't grasp what men find sexy... even if it is something so entire common and well understood to 99% of the general population that 'half naked and dripping wet' is sexy. 

Of course it is more than possible that Rebecca does, in fact, grasp that it is sexy and that she is merely LYING.  After all, it is well within the Wheelhouse of modern, unspoken Feminism, that the time for female empowerment by tittilatting men is over, and that it is time for the burka to make a comeback.  It is Cathedral to both support female sexual empowerment and to decry anything men might enjoy about female sexual empowerment.  That's the problem with leaderless gestalt social consciousness... it is frequently incoherent and self contradictory.

Of course,  I might not have blogged about it but for the fact that I was reminded of a recent movie review I read about Scarlett Johansen taking everything off for some Sci Fi film (under the skin?) that went on and on about artistic merits and how the bleak pragmatism (or something) rendered it brutal and raw rather than sexy.  Praising it while simultaneously denying it any tittilation, in essence.

Of course, that review was written by a woman. Two anecdotal points, not precisely a plurality but interesting. 

And of course the review was written by a woman. This is a movie that is pretty much all about Scarlett Johansen begin naked, from what I can gather, and Scarlett Johansen isn't just an extremely pretty woman but, in some corners of geekdom THE extremely pretty woman.  The website is owned and administered by an avowedly feminist man and is naturally very liberal in its outlook.

So reviewing a 'Scarlett Johansen OMG NAKEDS!!!' film with a male review verges on the thoughtcrime of objectifying women. Having a woman review the film neatly sidesteps any potential accusations of objectifying Scarlett leveled at the site, avoids the fundamental lie of male feminism, that they ultimately have to deny simple male biology (attraction to pretty women) to remain socially acceptable.  Clearly they can, and do, admire pretty women... but they aren't allowed to mention it.  Sexy talk is permitted, but the attraction has to be purely on a higher plane, based on intellectual compatibility and abstracted sexy talk via the impersonal, visually impaired medium of your average internet comment section.  

Pardon me, but I seem to have just had a minor epiphany regarding the sudden rise of actual insanity in Feminism over the last decade!  I'll be back once I've hashed it out into an organized, coherent post.