at first glance, this is comical.
on the other hand, it's yet another example of how nearly any statement of female beauty beyond "lips, hips and tits" can be made light of, or even backhandedly insulted.
particularly intriguing were the comments by women who seemed all too ready to throw their own vulvas under the bus, but that's probably a whole other entry.
consider this passage:
Ladies..baby girls.. precious dolls. Please understand that what the Vagina IS, what it SYMBOLIZES, and what it DOES, is what’s truly beautiful! It is factually amazing from both an engineering, psychological and physiological stance! Women, your inner working are absolutely awe inspiring and never let a mufugga tell you otherwise...
And yes I know, Boo-Boo, many of you are going to step up and say some shyt like: “My man isn’t complaining so fugg you, you fat, milk-dud head, Mr. PoPo looking ass bitch!” Dammit girl, only thing your man is thinking of his how it feels when HIS OWN ugly ass genitals are up in yours. Be honest with yourself, baby, do you really think your man is going to be like:”Hey baby… your pussy looks like a roadside bomb.” NO… he isn’t. This is the same fool who lovingly lies to your ass when you ask him if you look fat in that new skirt, and ladies..if you’ve got to ASK, then yes you DO look fat in that new skirt. Shiiit, your man aint trying to lose pussy privileges even if it does look like your ovaries set off a low-grade nuke in your shyt.
If your vagina DOES look like one of these shyts here, STOP lying to yourself, baby-doll. Your shyt is not pretty, and it should NEVER be made into a piece of Jewelry. [emphasis added]
so...other than the fact that you did just tell us otherwise, you're saying you can respect a woman's inner workings as long as you don't have to deal with the outside ones? in that case, how are you pleasuring us--nay, do you really even know us--if you're unwilling to truly see our most intimate areas?
i would ask everyone calling genitals "ugly" to consider this question: what are the consequences of an aesthetic that does not recognize the inherent beauty of the parts which join to create us, bring us into the world, and through which we express love and affection?*
in the wake of the violent gang rape of a 15 year old richmond, california girl, these attitudes speak to so much more than bumping uglies {pun intended}.
during a lively twitter discussion, honey_shun rightly noted, "[these attitudes are] a thread in the fiber of the clothes worn by those who can stand by and watch the torment, rape and torture of a young girl..." a torment that has not just scarred her life, but the lives of at least four other youth as well.
obviously, we are not suggesting a direct connection between a fundamentally humorous blog entry and the richmond high school insanity, but it must be noted that he didn't choose to rant about the necklaces' horrible workmanship.
when women are not held up as beautiful and worthy, they can be knocked down as ugly and worthless--as the sum of their parts or for their parts.
when we can determine that the physical manifestation of the gateway to life is something that "should never be made into a piece of jewelry" {even as personal charm for the wearer, under her clothes; even if it is only worn during bleeding time; even if it is to rest on a personal, sacred space. these options were never even considered or discussed...} we have lost sight of something precious and important.
yonis are as varied and unique as the multitude of women who carry them. every woman has a right to find herself beautiful and not have her uniqueness challenged by an immature lover.
seems that anyone as old as slaus and 'nem ought to know better.
*in whatever configuration, gender expression/sexuality notwithstanding. although the reference to the biological process of conception obviously suggests hetero activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment