 |
|
|
||||
|
Playgirl editor is Republican... and seemingly shallowNow I realise I haven't read the entire article, but the press release doesn't make me inclined to put in an international postal order to do so. She writes: "Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed -- two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they'll do anything to get it. And I'm not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I'm talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all." "The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?" Now... where to start with this? Should I be concerned about her depiction of power and greed as being sexy? I mean, sure, power is fun in a play/bdsm context and all, but greed? Since when has sexual greediness been something that women enjoy? The kind of greed that takes but never gives? Should I be concerned that she has equated the violence of a war-loving man with a good lover? Or perhaps I need to worry that she's fallen for the political ruse used by those eager to fight the war in Iraq of "toughness", "strength", "action", "willpower" and all those other macho euphemisms that were thrown around so monotonously at the time? It seems that she equated going to war with alluring masculinity. Now I can understand having a thing for the tough soldier-type, but she's talking about politicians here. But you know, it's not those things that disturb me about the above two paragraphs. The real concern here is that the editor of a semi-feminist Playgirl magazine should take on the topic of political affiliation in such a shallow manner. When I read that Zipp had written about her reasons for being a Republican I looked forward to an interesting piece on how she balances the ideological differences between supporting a conservative party and working as a pornographer. I wanted to hear her thoughts on the abortion debate, and her views of homosexuality, and hear her reasons for voting the way she did. Instead, it seems her political affiliation has been decided according to her perceived notion of the sexiness of right wing politics. Well gee, thanks for that. It’s not a huge step for thinking feminism, is it? And if it’s just a puff piece, why send out a press release trumpeting that Zipp has taken on “sexual politics with insight, conviction and a refreshing new spin.” Now, I realise I may be drawing a few too many conclusions from a mere press release. In all fairness I should have the full article in front of me. But those two paragraphs alone are enough to make me wonder at what’s going on here. Perhaps my standards are too high… Posted: Friday 18th March 2005, 2:22 AM Back to the Blog
|
|