> Yeah, the C-span booknotes slot Chuck0 pointed us at the other night
> clearly didn't reveal pro-porn sentiments on the panel.
There weren't any pro-porn sentiments? Not even Strossen? The hip hop guy was interesting, but I thought the panel was very middle-of-the-road, with some of the women looking prudishly shocked when the guy was making light of bukkake movies as being deviant.
> Yesterday, one of the leading sites for _younger_ feminists,
> Feministing, had this to say about thigh high boots.
BTW, I really like the graphics on the Bitch | Lab blog.
> I have no idea what
> these young women are on about, but if they're not being ironic, then
> I'm certainly puzzled why we'd be opposed to thigh highs in order to be
> feminists. The usuall thinking is that hetmen see them as hooker wear,
> thus, hetmen will treat women who wear them as hooker or, worse, their
> horrid, horrid bestial sexuality will rear its head and you'll get
> raped. The same thing I was told about going braless with a tank top at 13!
Wasn't the moderator of the C-SPAN panel wearing thigh highs? She looked pretty academic and tight-laced to me. Thigh highs can be pretty conservative wear, esp. during the winter.
> This is a completely backward, foundationlist, essentializing attitude
> toward human sexuality I don't even know where to start, but it sure
> doesn't bode well for sex-positive feminism if the leading site for
> young feminist women thinks thoughts along these lines, or worse, thinks
> that its a sign of being "low class," "trashy," and "slutty" with a,
> therefore, completely uninterrogated notion of their own racism and
> classism.
No kidding. It's like they are afraid of dressing sexy at all.
I suggest watching "How do I look" which is on cable. It's interesting when they do makeovers of women who think that dressing sexy in one iota is tantamount to selling out.
Chuck