"I'm a Feminist, But I'm Also A Victoria's Secret Model Too"

Yes. She can be a feminist. It’s all in motivations, personal values, and perceptions. Just some PLs are RILs and some are purely ab the physical. And then sometimes one becomes the other.

One of my favorite bodies in the planet, Emily Ratajkowski.

Amazing.

BJ99, you're saying a feminist can run around topless in music videos exploiting her sexuality for money, but still consider herself a feminist?

Please explain how that works because I must be missing something here?

Theoretically, feminism simply means that women should have the same legal rights as men, and should be thought of as human beings who are morally equivalent to men. Things went a little off the rails starting in the 1960s, but that's what feminism was originally supposed to mean. So based on that, they can certainly be Victoria's Secret models or anything else.

It’s kinda like how you guys can pay to get your dick teased, or p4p, and not feel like complete rejects. It’s all a matter of how she feels ab it. I’d love to go around topless just let the girls loose, and not bc I’m dying for men to want me sexually as a submissive female. Not everything is from your perspective.

Define which generation of feminist you are judging her statement. Wave one - right for equal political representation. Wave two - equal social rights and wages. Wave three - anti male, female centric where male society is to blame for all the ills of the world.

Yes I can see her being both. It's not so far fetched.

I'm a hard core monger and also a feminist. Most civvie women would consider me a traitor to womankind and claim that I am more guilty of oppressing and victimizing sex workers than men are. They would be wrong, of course but that's how they reflect their feminism. That's not my kind of feminism. My feminism is all about equal opportunity and fair wages, not sexual suppression.

I agree with lopaw and wave 2 feminism (see eyeofodin). I think of feminism as being defined by equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal wages (for equal work). It is a civil libertarian model extended equally to both men and women.
Here's one test--- should a man have the right to make a living in whatever manner he want, even if it uses his body and physical characteristics. Surely he can be an athlete, or a laborer, both of which take advantage of a man's physical characteristics or capabilities. How about a male model or a male stripper or gigolo?

With this model of feminism, I don't see anything inconsistent about espousing equal rights and responsibilities across the sexes and still making a living as a model, stripper or even as a sex worker.

The majority of both men and women in western society agree with the second form of feminism and as has been stated above I see no conflict in her statement. If you are about 50 or older, the second wave of feminism is what was being pushed for in society..... I remember going to ERA marches and my Mom and her friends "streaking" for change as a kid.

If you look at the numbers, the third wave is almost universally rejected (depending on the survey 70%-90%) by both females and males alike yet is what is being taught in universities and pushed as the Utopian movement in the media. Sadly, the advancements made over the last 100 years + of equality feminism are being disregarded as passe by the more for lack of a better term radicalized anti male / anti establishment modern feminism. IMO.

There was a time that an ERA era feminist was glad to have a man hold the door for them, then in the late 70's early 80's the change in ideology started to occur and women would get offended by what was once considered a polite gesture. I make this point as an example of the rejection on third wave feminism...when was the last time you held a door open and got chewed out for it?

The validity of her statement depends on the era you were born, educated, came of age and form of feminism one embraces..

I wonder what would happen if every male in the world turned gay, and then would have no interest in any females anymore. They could do whatever they wanted without worrying about us guys harassing them, because we wouldn’t be in to them. The females would finally be free of us guys.

I wonder if they would want “the good old days when men paid attention to them” back?

Just like anything else, too much isn’t a good thing. There has to be a happy medium.

@warhawks,

Totally agree. I've often wondered the same thing. Unfortunately, I think most women can hold out a lot longer than we can. If we choose to "play chicken" with them, our species will end for sure LOL

Lots of feminists are pro-sex. Most of the San Francisco dancers are more politically and socially aware, and they would fall into this category.

The puritanical feminism is just one strain.

And unfortunately most of our South Bay White dancers would be well described as shit heads.

SJG

@warhawks, I kinda had something like that happen. I’m petite, and in basic training, my uniform was so baggy that I looked like a little boy. So did a lot of the slender girls. We still got attention from the boys, just like other guys get attention from each other. Believe it or not, women can be fun to hang out with, and enjoy men’s company in turn, without getting attention just for their sexuality. I’m still best friends w one of those guys.

Victoria's secret.

https://imgur.com/a/MVbO1

"Believe it or not, women can be fun to hang out with, and enjoy men’s company in turn, without getting attention just for their sexuality."

I call bullshit on this. LOL

Women usually want some sort of special status, and most of the time this does come down to their sexuality.

Not all strains of feminism are anti-sex or puritanical.

SJG

Feminism, *real* feminism, not that feminazi shit, does not preclude being sexy, or using the sexiness of one’s body for personal gain. It does not preclude being a VS model, nor a stripper, nor even a prostitute.

*Real* feminism is simply about being in control of one’s own life, without being limited by social conventions or other people’s notions of what a woman should be or do.

*Real* feminism allows a woman to be a construction worker *and* a housewife. If *she* desires it.

Some feminism is anti-sex, some is pro-sex.

The first strain is more from the Victorian Era reform movement.

The second is more from Simone de Beauvoir's 1945 'Second Sex', and is developed in the same way as is Existentialism and Marxism.

SJG

One of de Beauvoir's ideas in Second Sex is 4 archetypes for women. And then she wants to be able to break these down, as women should not have to be cast into one of those.

And of course we all understand this, Wives and Mothers versus Aunts and Lovers. And then Good Girls vs Bad Girls.

And yes, most women do seek to be able to transcend these restrictions.

And yes, this is a strong current in feminism. And those who follow it are not going to want to restrict female sexuality and sluttiness.

SJG

georgemicrodong nailed it A real feminist may not agree with a woman's decision to be a sex worker or lingerie model but she will support her right to make that decision.

As with any other movement, others have coopted the term for their own political purposes. Some to attack feminism by painting it as something it is not and others to lend support for their own fringe ideas that would get no support otherwise.

We mongers and PL's should support feminism. Women should feel empowered to undress for those willing to pay them.

Feminism is whatever the hell they want it to be I guess.

I thought the most recent wave of feminism was about being better than men and attempting to get superior rights by claiming they need equal rights at the expense of men and deception. Example, talking about means of enforcing equal pay that would restrict men's rights to work certain jobs or require a percentage of women into certain positions based on gender instead of qualifications. This may not be happening but I read when it comes to equal rights for sports programs and equal funding, they shafted men in many examples. I read men overall were more interested in playing sports by a 4 to 1 margin over females. New laws over the last decade or two enforced equal funding for programs based on gender. To pay for women's teams where there wasn't much interest and funds were tight, in many cases they had to stop funding for both sexes is what I read. Many men's teams in different sports were disbanded because there wasn't that much interest in the women's teams. Feminists were perfectly fine with this. Can't find enough female members for a sport, well then, the men's team can't exist either.

It's like talk of equal pay. The latest wave of feminists like to talk about equal pay like at 76 cents to the dollar instead of equal pay for the same jobs and work. 76 cents to the dollar groups the pay of everyone, female waitresses compared to male engineers and everyone else and then arguing that's not fair that one gender doesn't makes as much as another gender on average. They don't argue for a female engineer to make as much as a male engineer doing the same work because you don't find much difference if any. I can imagine this progressing at the detriment of men by our government cutting funding or adding funding for females who want to major in higher paying degrees. Both men and women might apply to study and women in the future might work the laws in their favor at the expense of men by claiming unequal pay across the nation and cut funding for scholarships or use tax payer money and restrict funds for males to study STEM degrees. I see the latest wave of feminism as anti male. The younger male ME generation I read has rejected marriage in large numbers and women will pay a price I believe. I have a negative view of feminism based on all the anti male unfair policies feminists have been imposing all in the name of equality. I usually stay quiet since it seems like the feminazis have won.

In one respect I'm not for equal rights. If war breaks out, I'm not in favor of drafting eligibility young women for combat or boot camp. I'd rather see them stripping. With the law changed young women will get drafted if war breaks out. I think a draft is more likely with a democrat in the White House though. Some democrats think war is less likely if a draft or confiscation of young people's labor becomes mandatory. I read that makes war more likely since war becomes less expensive for our government. Hence a draft becomes more likely with someone like Hillary. To be equal young women should get drafted in equal numbers as men.

However things will not be equal. Women will not likely be in combat in equal numbers and if they are, due to many women not being as physically strong as men, they might put men's lives in jeopardy not being strong enough to pull an injured solder out of battle.
I'm ok with progressive taxes and equal pay for equal work but I don't care for all the feminazis talk about unequal pay of waitresses versus engineers and everyone else thrown in. If I make more money, I'm ok with paying more tax. When I was younger I was ok with the possibility of getting drafted for combat but never liked the idea of the draft. I still don't like the idea of drafting young females for combat. I expect the US to be one of the first countries to do so to be equal when we are not in many ways. Each sex has advantages in general. Ok I'm rambling on after waking up in the middle of the night. Sorry.

If we had an edit feature, I would just delete my posts and say

Yeah, what flagooner said.

No kidding. TLDR ;P