The Student Room Group

What is the spite for women who pose provactively or nude really about?

Scroll to see replies

Kim can be sexually liberated and a Mother at the same time, yes the two can go together.

Lmao, who says that kim is supposed to be a role model? She isn't forcing anyone to look up to her. Kayne doesnt seem to be bothered by her pictures so maybe her children will adapt the same mindset?
Original post by Observatory
They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.


Her talent is in the marketing and sales fields. I would describe her as a businesswoman rather than an artist.
Original post by Smack
Her talent is in the marketing and sales fields. I would describe her as a businesswoman rather than an artist.


Is she doing that herself? AFAIK she is famous because of connections, and quasi-prostitution (the sex tapes, this, marrying celebrities).

I don't think we're talking about Martha Stewart or Oprah here, who are clearly talented entrepreneurs as well as talented self-promoters.
Reply 23
Original post by Observatory
They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.


Everyone is vain, it's just that some aren't too vain to show it.




These are interesting and valid points. But I would argue that society would be better if mothers such as Kim weren't so heavily lambasted for posing nude or provocatively. And if there wasn't such a stigma around it, there wouldn't be a problem for the kids. So it's kind of a circular thing. If you criticise her, you feed the vicious circle that creates the problem, but with the good intention that she gets out of the circle so her kids aren't harmed. If you defend her, you're feeding the circle in the sense you're encouraging her to be a part of it, but with the equally good intention that by being positive about it the vicious circle will eventually die out for ever.



I agree, its title and rather feeble attempt to give itself some mystique are its downfall. It basically just an ethical philosophy. A very good one though.
Original post by KingBradly
Everyone is vain, it's just that some aren't too vain to show it.

Well I can hardly argue with that fortune cookie logic.
Original post by Observatory
They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.


I'm sure there is some kind of market justification or what they do.
Original post by Observatory
Is she doing that herself? AFAIK she is famous because of connections, and quasi-prostitution (the sex tapes, this, marrying celebrities).

I don't think we're talking about Martha Stewart or Oprah here, who are clearly talented entrepreneurs as well as talented self-promoters.


I certainly do not think she is doing it all herself, but I do think she made some right decisions for her "brand" and knows how to market herself to remain relevant to pop culture. If she didn't, then pop culture would move on to someone else.
Original post by Smack
I certainly do not think she is doing it all herself, but I do think she made some right decisions for her "brand" and knows how to market herself to remain relevant to pop culture. If she didn't, then pop culture would move on to someone else.

This is what wiki lists under Career beginnings:

2007–09: Career beginnings
Kardashian attending the Tribeca Film Festival, 2009

In February 2007, a sex tape made by Kardashian and Ray J in 2003 was leaked.[17][18] Kardashian filed a lawsuit against Vivid Entertainment, who distributed the film as Kim K Superstar. She later dropped the suit and settled for US$5 million.[19][20]

Kardashian got her start starring in a porn film for $5m. She was able to do this because the guy was already semi-famous. Her entire career has been made by reflecting others' fame. She is now famous for being famous. She is a recurring character in a celebrity soap opera, but one of the few who is in that soap opera for no other reason than that she has appeared in previous episodes.

I grant that doing this is a skill of sorts. But I suspect that her family connections to lots of famous people were a bigger enabler than her intrinsic talent. To answer the OP, the spite toward Kardashian is precisely this: she has absorbed a huge amount of money for nothing of any cultural worth, unlike most people even in pop culture.
Reply 28
Original post by Observatory
Well I can hardly argue with that fortune cookie logic.


Spare me the sass, when you actually think about it this becomes self-evident. Just look at Corbyn; his whole image is about how image isn't important. He wants everyone to see him as a humble, down-to-earth bloke. Thus he is being vain by trying to show everyone just how little vanity he harbours. Or look at Muslim women who wear veils; their dress pretty much screams out "Hey! Look how modest and humble I am!".

Everyone sees themselves as the centre of the universe. Even people who hate themselves are obsessing over themselves and how they feel others see them.

Everyone is vain. It is unavoidable.
Original post by KingBradly
Spare me the sass, when you actually think about it this becomes self-evident. Just look at Corbyn; his whole image is about how image isn't important. He wants everyone to see him as a humble, down-to-earth bloke. Thus he is being vain by trying to show everyone just how little vanity he harbours. Or look at Muslim women who wear veils; their dress pretty much screams out "Hey! Look how modest and humble I am!".

Everyone sees themselves as the centre of the universe. Even people who hate themselves are obsessing over themselves and how they feel others see them.

Everyone is vain. It is unavoidable.


I don't mind people who see themselves as the centre of the universe if 1. they keep it to themselves or 2. it's at least partially justified.

Bringing up the religious is a good point. Kim Kardashian is like a Jehovah's Witness who keeps shoving leaflets in the face of a lot of people who are simply not interested.

Some people are interested, of course, and that's great for them, but she's so lightweight it's mostly people with low intelligence, poor taste, not a lot else going on in their lives.
Reply 30
Original post by Observatory

Bringing up the religious is a good point. Kim Kardashian is like a Jehovah's Witness who keeps shoving leaflets in the face of a lot of people who are simply not interested.


She isn't really though, because stuff only appears about her on the kind of sites or TV channels that people who are interested in her visit.

Original post by Observatory

Some people are interested, of course, and that's great for them, but she's so lightweight it's mostly people with low intelligence, poor taste, not a lot else going on in their lives.


Maybe true. But I don't really understand why people hate her for that.
Jealousy*
I think some people can't get over Kim K's success in the holly-wood because her first power move was a porno that a lot of people said that she and her mother shopped around. I can't hate but if that is true, I can't congratulate from a moral perspective. Other than that, all Kim has done in her life is by her savvy business skills and knowing what's hot or not.

Emily on the other hand is a bit different, I don't get why people are getting uptight about her "Arty" nudes when she has been doing it for a long time, even before appearing on blurred lines.

Most of it is hate, people think they are better than them and feel they need to knock them down a peg. I doubt a lot of people really care about this issue.
Reply 33
It's ok when Kim K does it.

But not Lena Dunham.
I think they, and this whole culture in general, perpetuate an unfortunate feature of our society whereby perhaps the most "prestigious" thing for a woman to have, the quality that the world values, admires and envies most in her, is her sexual attractiveness.

(It's ironic that some people think this is women's liberation and feminism at its finest, when the fundamental purpose of a woman's sexual attractiveness is to please men. Essentially it becomes a case of their self worth being most majorly dependent on how much men like them).

Girls can get a barrage of compliments, attention, fame and fortune for doing something as easy and as useless as taking their clothes. As for the last woman to win a nobel prize for a scientific discovery - most of us probably haven't even heard of her. I wonder what kind of incentives this is supposed to offer to girls who are growing up in this era.

Not that I'm pinning the blame entirely on Kim Kardashian et al. because although they help to perpetuate this aspect of our culture, they're primarily symptoms of it. It's more deeply rooted than that.
(edited 7 years ago)
Maybe if we don't pay any attention to them, they'll go away.
Original post by AlmightyJesus
it's only females that oppose women being nude. why would a man dislike it when a woman is naked?


Nudity has its place. At home, in a spa or sauna, on designated beaches. As a form of protest such as PETAs 'I'd rather be naked than wear fur' or the World Naked Bike Ride where nudity is to show vulnerability of the cyclist in our car culture.

Where page 3 or other nudity/toplessness is used to sell right wing peddlers of hate such as the Sun, to promote bad karaoke or to sell tat, then there is everything to dislike about it.
Original post by barnetlad
Nudity has its place. At home, in a spa or sauna, on designated beaches. As a form of protest such as PETAs 'I'd rather be naked than wear fur' or the World Naked Bike Ride where nudity is to show vulnerability of the cyclist in our car culture.

Where page 3 or other nudity/toplessness is used to sell right wing peddlers of hate such as the Sun, to promote bad karaoke or to sell tat, then there is everything to dislike about it.


women can do what they want - if they want to sell their body image to a right wing paper then that's their deal. nudity shouldn't be illegal anywhere too, for that matter. to ban something, you ought to ask yourself "am I willing to use violence to make this happen?" because how to you enforce a ban without force? just because a policeman is doing the violence, they're doing it because of people supporting certain prohibitions; they're the agents and the people are the principals. I don't support using violence to stop people being naked. that's stupid.
(edited 7 years ago)
Some of the comments here have really infuriated me. As a woman with big boobs I am constantly thrown with insults whenever I wear a top that someone with smaller boobs wouldn't be given second looks of. Comments like 'you've just got them out for attention' 'you have no self respect' 'boys don't like that'

1) THEY'RE BREASTS FOR GOD SAKE THEY AREN'T EVEN A SEXUAL ORGAN - THEY ARE LUMPS OF FAT IN WHICH YOU FEED A BABY WITH WHO GIVES A :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin: IF YOU HAVE THEM OUT?

2) No self-respect? Self-respect has NOTHING to do with nudity and sex. If you respect yourself, your body enough to do whatever the :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin: you want, you have self respect.

3) Seriously, we couldn't care less what boys like and don't like. I wear whatever I want for ME because it makes ME feel confident - not for the viewings of anyone else. Because I enjoy wearing it and I want to.

Seriously, why is everyone so hung up about Kim K (and the fact she's supposedly 'talentless', she admits that herself) and every other celebrity and what they're doing? Like everyone spends their only life judging others and critiquing others, just get on with your own life and stop with the jealousy and negativity.

over & out

Spoiler

Obviously it is their body and they should also be able to do whatever they like with it.
However, I feel like a lot of people do not think it is modest and that it is over-sexualising females in general.
How serious would you take your doctor or lawyer if they posed nudes? On the other hand, if we are to
judge women like Kim K, we should also tell men to stop posing nude as well, right?

Quick Reply