I don't even know how to respond to this. With respect, it's just not logical to me at all.
*advertiser censored* shaming is trying to cause a woman to feel embarrassment about being a sexual being. It's about trying to make someone feel slutty for being a normal person. It's about depicting as slutty, normal sexuality. It's not about criticizing a woman for crassly approximating the misogynistic interpretation of sexiness (actual sluttiness). You know, the kind of sexuality created by men for men? I mean, if you are interpreting *advertiser censored* shaming as criticizing actual slutty behavior, or characterizing the behavior, mannerisms and style of hookers as negative, then you have a vastly different understanding than me.
There is a usefulness for shame. But the kind of moral relativism you appear to be espousing basically states that right or wrong is always subjective or contextual or cultural and thus ever criticizing behaviors as wrong is inappropriately judgmental.
Sorry, friend, I find that to be ridiculous.
I absolutely see something wrong with selling sex for money. I mean what dream world are we in when prostitution is seen as just another job choice? Should it be legalized and regulated? I think so. Do I hate women who sell sex for a living? Of course not. Do I feel sorry for them. Absolutely. Would I ever want my daughter to do such work? Hell no. (Would you?)
You say I am demeaning sex workers/strippers/*advertiser censored* actors by ascribing a negative connotation to what they do. No, they are demeaning themselves. And most do so because they have no other way out. 99.9% of female prostitutes, strippers and *advertiser censored* actresses have been molested as a child. What is portrayed in most *advertiser censored* is not reality. It is a depiction of certain men's views as to what is sexually exciting. Most women find it to be incredibly debasing and anti-feminist.
Stripping? The current most predominant form - like the kind Miley was imitating - was again, created by men for men.
Having sex with strange men for money? It is an exceeding rarity that these women enjoy their work. I see prostitutes come into my office on a weekly basis. I know the reality of their lives. I have heard the stories from men who frequent prostitutes as well. Being beaten or robbed by Johns. Having sex while past the point of exhaustion. Having sex while blood gushes form their vagina from overwork and disease. If you think any negativity surrounding this work is subjective, I don't know what to say. There's no point in talking further. That takes moral relativism to such a degree that we might as well say no one should judge pedophilia because whether or not getting turned on by little kids is right or wrong is purely subjective.
Yes, IMO, prancing around like a stripper or costuming oneself like a prostitute is negative. It's gross, it's sad and it's pathetic, when coupled with nothing else. "Sluttiness", which is what this is, with no message, no talent, no artistry, is crap. Not art.
And that's what our conversation has been about.
Miley Cyrus was an exploited child star who grew up to have money but not much of anything else. She had opportunities to be someone. Instead, this is what she has become. I have a problem with that.
I find it ironic that the very behavior feminists used to decry as an example of violence against women and the exploitation and degradation of females by the patriarchy is now being embraced as a positive example of self-expression, when exhibited by very young stars who have been served up on a platter by their stage parents to money grubbing, soulless producers.
Please. This is just sad to me.
