On 18/02/2018 23:28, Mayayana wrote:
"RichA"

| Ugh.
|
|
https://petapixel.com/2015/12/01/ann...new-direction/
|

Depressing, huh?
It's fine to be nude, so long as they're sexually
unattractive. But then there's the question of whether
alleged accomplishment is interesting to look at.
What's the point if it's not nudes? Why women?
But then, does anyone want to spend a month
looking at a CEO or art museum director, just
because they have a high status job?

I saw a local magazine running a "most eligible
20 in Boston" the other day. They can't focus
on attractive women. They can't focus on men
with money. They can't even focus on hetero.
At least one was gay, but it was never actually
stated. So what are they eligible for? Being
desired for anything other than what you might
desire them for? This is getting very awkward.

None of the women was attractive to me. They
were all what might be termed, brassy, suburban
extroverts in jobs like media or management. So
why were they eligible? It seemed the only common
thread among the 10 men and 10 women was a
tendency to be involved and known in public
circles. So.... Fame is still a legal sex object!
Class is not going to be scrutinized in the new
wave of PC fascism. It's essentially an anti-sex,
puritanical, cultural inflammation.



Reminds me of an old Spike Milligan joke. Man goes to his priest,
"Father is it wrong to want to look at pictures of naked women?"
"Of course it is my son, otherwise we would all be doing it".