Tuesday, 9:32 p.m.   Nude Vs. Sex I was on a forum I frequent, maybe someday I shall join to get my angry "feminist" opinions through but for now I'll just browse and read what people have to say. There are people out there who call themselves feminists, advocating for women's rights, who clearly know nothing of what they're talking about. Often times, they're doing exactly what they're against - stereotyping women and placing them in roles. It's not about equality at all anymore, it seems, it's a revenge war so that women can be the better treated ones than men. This is not fair. This is not Feminist In My Opinion. This is sexist. Pornography is sexually explicit images. This is Pornography. Paintings of naked people does not pornography make. In this same fashion, neither does nude photography. They were, in the article I was reading, discussing the Playboy Bunny logo. They say it advocates porn, and child pornography because some 10 or 11 year old is wearing it. I have never read through a playboy magazine but after reading this I'm sorely tempted. I'm under the impression that all it is is pictures of women who are naked posing for a camera and getting paid for it. And this is not all (oh yes, there is more). There are articles and fiction stories and this does not constitute as porn. Naked does not equal sexually explicit. Why is the naked form so controversial? Playboy is not porn, it is nudity. It is women who freely chose after being asked to pose nude for the camera. Many of the people behind the camera are female. They are not exploited, they are not forced, they are paid. This is a form of expression, a chance to be free, and so what if an ugly 49-year-old man somewhere bought it and is now masturbating because he is aroused by naked women. Is this not natural? Is this sick and perverted and unnatural? Just because he's looking at these women in the magazine and getting aroused does not mean he will see every woman on the street as an object. And as for children wearing the logo, So What. I, myself, find the playboy bunny icon to be cute. I wouldn't buy clothing or anything with it on, just because I don't particularly like paying to advertise something, but I can still think it's cute. And so can they. And if you want to blame the parents for letting their child advertise a magazine enclosing pictures of nude women who got paid well and enjoyed what they were doing, because this is wrong somehow, then okay. If I had children, I wouldn't buy it for them but again, that's because I'm a strictly thrift-store type person. If they found a shirt that fit in a thrift store and wanted to get it, I'll gladly shell out a few bucks for it. I wouldn't mind my children advocating the coming of women's freedom and leaving the oppression of a conservative housewife image behind. I would even explain this to them. I would tell them what playboy was and ask them if they still wanted it. And, by God, it's cute! It's cute like Bugs Bunny is cute. At least they're not piercing their bellybutton. Anyway. that's my two cents. We're good.