One of the headlines on a recent edition of the Georgia Straight was "Sexual Freedom: Stripper Defends Her Industry".I thought "this could be cool". I have a lot of thoughts on women being strippers and the stigma that is attached to that. Those thoughts could more or less be boiled down: women have much more beautiful bodies than men; if men want to pay women to take their clothes off then, fundamentally, it's men who are being exploited because, um, they have to pay women to take their clothes off. Whatever. The human form is beautiful and amazing and as long as everything is consensual and everyone walks away happy then it's all good, right?
I read the article and was disappointed. I'll probably ruminate on it further as the days progress, and I might also change my mind on it, but fundamentally I found that the subtext of the article was about outward beauty which I have a problem with because a) it's something that is bestowed upon people arbitrarily and b) I'm not outwardly beautiful.
Anyways, one of the most totally ridiculous statements in this absolutely inane article actually resonated with me (I will shamefully admit):
Freya Metz, a 46-year-old tantric practitioner, began working in the field in her 40s. She said that she had to wait until that time before she fully internalized the fact that she was beautiful. Though she had been told this many times in her life, she remained unconvinced, surrounded by media images that did not reflect her likeness.Yeah, no. I'm not contemplating being a tantric practitioner. The thing that rather resonated was that she had been told something repeatedly, and yet didn't believe it.
I get that.
I have a ten or maybe eleven year relationship with a man who has told me that he loves me and also shown me in a myriad of ways and yet sometimes (often) I still ask him "Do you love me?" and he looks at me - justifiably so - and asks why I have to ask that.
It's a strange place to be: in your mid-thirties and still questioning your validity in regards to relationships or work or accomplishments or whatever.
Anyways. This post was going to segue into themes of domestic life and how I'm totally awesome at it, and how Michael thinks that I am secretly unhappy, but it's kind of late and we have a big run tomorrow and I'm rather tired so I will go to bed and perhaps continue this random and rambling thought process tomorrow.
Night!
It's kind of like that analogy that is always used in couples counseling (and maybe it's not called an analogy, but I can't think of what it's called...) The couple goes to counseling after 60 years of marriage and the wife says "he never says that he loves me!" To which the man says "I told you 60 years ago, if I would have changed my mind, I would have let you know." He loves you, if you begin to wonder just ask me, it shows, and most guys, mine included, would tell you if they didn't anymore or just not come home again.
ReplyDeleteI read the article, if she's so bothered by it she should just say that she's in the entertainment field. Do we look down on actors like Demi Moore, Glen Close or even Bruce Willis (I remember a full frontal of him!) who have bared all or did a good job of convincing the camera of what they were doing? No, it's all in the job... that's entertainment baby!
ReplyDeleteI just felt the article was very biased towards outward beauty and a couple of the paragraphs made me throw up in my mouth a little. I mean, the fact that she is attractive and has a body that men would pay to see and laments that stripping still has a stigma (which - I agree - it shouldn't) is kind of secondary to a lot of other issues that women still have to deal with.
ReplyDeleteI found she sort of linked sexuality with outward appearance and, while visual stimulation is very important, I bet ugly chicks can feel sensual also, plus they probably work at Supercuts or Zellers because our society doesn't like ugly folk.
Wow. I am totally failing to make any semblance of a logical point here.