Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women

Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.

To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.

But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.

As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."

Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)

***

Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).

• Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
• They objectify women for money;
• Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
• The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
• And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.

Violent Porn: Now in a Lingerie Store Near You

The British lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur has recently opened a store in Vancouver, and is apparently planning to open new locations in Toronto and Montréal.

Well, this can only mean one thing, ladies: Get your torches and pitchforks ready.

But what, you might be wondering is so wrong about Agent Provocateur? Or is it just me, you know, the no-fun anti-sex, ever-frustrated feminist?

If you don't know the company yet, let's just say that it sells very expensive (i.e. between $140 and $160 for bras, and between $70 and $90 for thongs and panties) "exotic" lingerie. And by "exotic", we're talking porn/escort services-grade underwear.

Like, for instance, bras with no cups that expose the breasts, nipple pasties and tassles, and the like.

You know, the kind of delicate and impossibly uncomfortable stuff that are not made to be worn all day by real women, and that are solely designed to be put on shortly before coming into the bedroom, only to be removed and thrown on the floor by one's drooling partner seconds after.

***

(Side note: Do men really know the difference anyway between average female underwear and the really expensive kind? That is, when they're not buying it as "presents" for their girlfriends?)

***

I know, I know... Isn't that just precisely what the business of any lingerie retailer consists of?

Maybe it is, although it's not my personal opinion. But in any case, what differentiates Agent Provocateur from other lingerie brands is its absolutely disgusting attitude towards women.

First, it uses porn as a form of publicity. If you go on their website (at your own risks - it might trigger very upsetting feelings), the first thing you'll see is three naked females bathing together and lascively posing for the camera. If you enter the website and actually check out the products, you'll notice that they can't just show you the picture of a bra, or even the picture of a fashion model wearing said bra. No, Ma'am. Every single product is displayed via pictures of models shot in soft porn postures or attitudes.

As a woman, I find the suggestion that I can't distinguish between bona fide lingerie advertisements and gratuituous online porn incredibly insulting.

The further you go, the worst it gets. The misogyny is extreme, and its everywhere. On the website, you'll find shoes that will suit you from the "boardroom to the bedroom" (seriously: WTF?!?) and, in the "jewellery" section, you'll find that the only proposed item is a metallic dog collar, complete with a fancy leash and matching (optional) handcuffs. There's even a blindfold with the phrase "Treat me like the whore that I am" written across it.

Classy, I know.

***

As a matter of fact, violent sex and sexual domination/submission seem to be a recurrent theme in the Agent Provocateur imagery. The website namely features "Adventures", i.e. pornographic stories illustrated by pictures and videos, in which L.A. debutantes and 1920's French maids are confined, exploited (in terms of the work they do and in terms of the sex acts they have to perform), disciplined and "taught" to "enjoy" sex.

Yuck. (And this is just a mild one, from the few that I've seen. Yet, it sends a chill down my spine.)

My point is not to make an argument against "rough" sex, certain types of fantasies or erotic scenarios, or even S&M practices.

I just don't like sexual violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women being used in a pornographic manner as part of an advertisement.

Even though there's not a hint of penetration of any kind, and that Agent Provocateur's pornographic advertisements are - mostly - confined to (fake*) lesbian sex, it's not just "soft" porn to me. It's violent and degrading porn, where women are humiliated, hurt, thrown to the ground, and whipped like beasts.

To a certain extent, I can tolerate the ambient sexism and misogyny of our culture, for the simple reason that otherwise, I'd probably shoot myself. But I can't tolerate the mere suggestion that violence against women generally is acceptable, and that sexual violence in particular can be branded as sexy for base mercantile purposes, turned into incredibly violent and degrading - yet easily available - porn and marketed towards women as "luxury" or "empowerment."

For these reasons, I will boycott the Agent Provocateur brand, and will protest by all means (legally) available to me the opening of a Montréal location.

***

* Fake as in "not just some guy's wacky patriarchical, sexist, androcentric view of lesbian sex..."

"Gorno"?!? (aka the WTF highlight of the day)

Some genius has coined this term to designate those horror films about attractive women who get tortured in a sexual manner (e.g. Hostel, the Saw series, or the newly released Captivity).

Apparently, though, the popularity of this genre is decreasing.

According to the L.A. Times:

The reason? Gore burnout.

...

"There's nothing you can do to a human being on screen that is taboo anymore," says Oscar-winning writer-producer Akiva Goldsman. "Over and over again, people are breaking the boundaries of the body, hurting people, chopping people up, ravaging people…. For things to be truly scary, we're going to have to find new boundaries to tread on."

Great.

People are not staying home because they're disgusted that torturing women in a sexual manner is being marketed as bona fide entertainment. They're staying home because they've become indifferent to that type and degree of gratuitous violence.

Hollywood makes me sick.

Tell your MP to Support Bill C-254

On April 19, Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre, introduced a motion in the House of Commons, requesting that the House unanimously supports Bill C-254, which would provide protection to women under hate speech laws.

As our criminal law currently stands, subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code only prohibit hate propaganda and public incitement of hatred that is based on the colour, race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation of a particular group of persons. Thus, it is still not a criminal offence in Canada to public assert that “all women – or men, for that matter – must die”.

Bill C-254 must be enacted into law, so that Canadians can be protected from the most heinous forms of gender-based discrimination and violence, and that their dignity can be enhanced and preserved.

Yes, folks! The time has come to contact your MP to tell him/her that it will be a cold day in hell before you vote for him/her if he/she doesn’t support his Bill.

Here is a suggestion of what you can do:

1) Find your MP here;
2) Write him/her an email telling him/her to support Bill C-254 (should you lack inspiration, just copy/paste the models reproduced below);
3) Either CC your email to the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Justice, or directly write to them;
4) Tell your friends/family/coworkers/random acquaintances about it. That stuff is important.


***

The Right Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson: Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca


***

In English:


Dear [Your MP/Minister of Justice/Prime Minister],


I am writing to you as a resident of your riding, [your riding].

I have recently learned that Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP for Etobicoke Centre, had introduced a motion to request that the House of Commons unanimously supports Bill C-254, which adds women to the groups protected by the Criminal Code against incitement of hatred, as per subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code.

I believe that this measure is a necessary step towards the elimination of all violence against women, the achievement of substantial equality between the sexes, and, generally, the respect of the fundamental human dignity of Canadian women.

Therefore, as a woman, a voter and a Canadian citizen, I am asking you to support Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s initiative, and demand that you do everything in your power, as [MP for …/Minister of Justice/Prime minister], to ensure that Bill C-254 becomes the law of the land.


I thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Signature]


***

En français :


[Monsieur/Madame - votre député ici],


Je vous écris en tant que résidente de votre comté, [votre comté ici].

J’ai récemment appris que M. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, député d’Etobicoke Centre, avait déposé une motion devant la Chambre des communes demandant l’appui unanime au Bill C-254, qui vise à englober « les femmes » dans la définition des groupes identifiables pouvant faire l’objet de propagande haineuse et d’incitation publique à la haine au sens des paragraphes 318(4) et 319(7) du Code criminel.

Je crois que cette mesure est un pas essentiel vers l’éradication de la violence faite aux femmes, de la promotion de l’égalité substantielle entre les sexes, et tout simplement, du respect de la dignité fondamentale des Canadiennes.

En tant que femme, électrice et citoyenne canadienne, je vous demande d’appuyer cette initiative, et de faire tout ce qui est en votre pouvoir, en tant que [député de mon comté/ministre de…], pour vous assurer que cette proposition ait prochainement force de loi.


Je vous remercie à l’avance de votre considération et vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le [député/ministre], mes sincères salutations.


[Signature]

What the hell is wrong with fashion designers lately?

This is a follow-up to my previous post on the heinous D&G ad campaign.

Here are other equally hateful ads. The first one is from Jimmy Choo Shoes (as part of a campaign dubbed "Shoes to Die For"). Dead girl in mini skirt, car trunk, shallow grave in the desert, mysterious, Black man.

This ad just screams "Be careful, Party Girl. Or the Big Bad Wolf will get you and nobody will ever see the rest of you again."

It even earns extra hate-points for its blatant racism, because of the dichotomy White girl/Older Black man, and the obvious suggestion that another White, upper-class (heck, she's got Jimmy Choo's on!) girl has been sexually assaulted and savagely murdered by an animal-like Black man...

The second ad is from Marc Jacobs, and is part of a series of advertisements featuring 12 year-old actress Dakota Fanning, modeling an adult line of clothes, which were reportedly tailored to fit her small size.

The Marc Jacobs ads are disturbing on just so many levels. I don't think it's just has to do with the fact that it's inappropriate to have a child as young as 12 model clothes that are designed and marketed for adults. It mostly has to do with the aesthetic treatment of the photograph. I'll be blunt: she looks dirty and scared (notice the blotches that look like bruises on her face and legs), as if she had been kidnapped and confined and a lurid basement, as if she was just about to be abused.

It's beyond distasteful. It's just wrong. I'm so sick of designers using violence against women - and girls, for that matter - as a medium for advertising. It trivializes and normalizes gender-based violence, and even try to represent it as desirable, or rather, as if the abused person was to be envied, for some sick reason...

Thirdly, if you can still stomach more commercial exploitation of sexual violence against women, you can look at the pictures from an episode of America's Next Top Model. This series, titled "Crime Scene Victims", depicts dead women, most of them dressed in revealing dresses or lingerie, graphically twisted in painful - and sexual - postures, complete with gruesome details such as extensive bruising and realistically splattered blood. According to the judges on the show, those pictures are not inherently degrading, nor disgusting. Rather, they have described them as "absolutely beautiful", "extraordinary... very beautiful and dead", and "powerful".

(Featured: "Strangulation" and "Pushed Downstairs")

Face it ladies: "Abused", "raped" and "dead", are the new "beautiful".

***

On another, sadder note, a verdict is expected shortly in the trial of a second male charged with first-degree murder, in the matter of the tragic and brutal death of 13 year-old Nina Courtepatte. Other individuals have been charged with kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault and first-degree murder, and are presently awaiting trial.

Ironically, Nina Courtepatte, who was described as a bright and cheerful teen, aspired to become a model.

Because all women dream of being gang-raped... as long as they're wearing D&G, duh!

NBC recently reported that Dolce & Gabbana pulled an ad featured in American, Italian and Spanish publications, due to the public outcry and - for once - governmental pressure, on the ground that it was offensive to women.

The ad shows a woman in a struggling pose and wearing some sort of bathing suit or underwear, with stylettos and blank look on her face, pinned down to the ground by a half-naked man, while four other men are gathered around them, watching.

This ad just make me want to vomit. It's just sick, sick, sick, sick, sick. But what is even sicker is the response from the dimwits at D&G, who justified the ad as merely reflecting an "erotic dream", a "sexual game" or a "fantasy rape". They also went as far as to say that they couldn't see how the ad could be interpreted as representing rape or promoting violence, and quickly added that they really "loved" women.

No shit. Surely, this picture provides a good illustration of healthy and empowering heterosexual social interactions.

Can't you feel the "love" they're talking about?

In Canada, when a couple of men gather around a woman and pin her to the ground to express their "love" to her, it's called sexual assault, and it's punishable by imprisonment.

I don't know what I find the most offensive: the glamourous depiction of rape in the ad itself, D&G's adamant denial of the character of the ad, or their suggestion that women fantasize about rape.

Oh right, not just rape. Gang rape. Don't we all dream about it?

In addition, D&G made a couple of other deeply troubling statements.

First, they suggested that even if the ad was indeed offensiven and did in fact depicted a rape, absent of overwhelming evidence of the widespread social harm thereof, they were justified in running the ad.

"The effects did not arrive in Italy until after the poor Spanish reaction [to] the ad. We understand that in Spain there is a truly important social emergency as far as violence against women [is concerned], which is why we did not want to offend anyone, so we immediately withdrew the image from all Spanish press."

So what the people at D&G are essential saying is that it's justified to use blunt references to rape, or rape myths or stereotypes, as an advertising medium in any country where violence against women in general, and rape in particular, is "not a problem anymore".

Another creepy thing about D&G's response to the negative public reaction to the ad was the dismissive tone in which they rebutted the criticism and trivialized the issue of sexual violence against women.

"We are sorry that unfortunately other campaigns also weren't understood, but we want to reaffirm that we never had the intention of causing noise or controversy in any way."

For comments, rants and hate mail, please write to the brilliant minds who "love" women so much they want to bring us closer to our true desires at:

http://eng.dolcegabbana.it/corporate.asp?page=CommentsEnquiry