<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; naked</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/naked/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Feminism For Bitches</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[female sexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[g4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nerd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nude]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[objectification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[olivia munn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phallus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[playboy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Arboleda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suck it wonder woman!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zelda lily]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=11281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
In response to my break-down of all the ways that Playboy tried to get a look at Olivia Munn's areola, Zelda Lily's Sarah Arboleda submits, instead, that Munn is perhaps just a lying, bitchy idiot with a bad publicist who regularly "flaunts" her "female sexuality" and thus deserves only our mockery. Arboleda:

Let’s say Playboy called [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2167820649_4092bd7e2d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>
<p>In response to my <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/30/consent-and-manipulation-in-olivia-munns-playboy-shoot/">break-down of all the ways</a> that<em> Playboy</em> tried to get a look at <strong>Olivia Munn</strong>'s areola, Zelda Lily's<strong> Sarah Arboleda</strong> <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/07/olivia-munn-was-tragically-unfamiliar-with-the-content-of-playboy/">submits</a>, instead, that Munn is perhaps just a lying, bitchy idiot with a bad publicist who regularly "flaunts" her "female sexuality" and thus deserves only our mockery. Arboleda:</p>
<p><span id="more-11281"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Let’s say Playboy called you up and asked you to be their cover model. Would you be shocked and disgusted to learn that they expect you to be naked in the pages of a magazine that has specialized in nude photos for over fifty years? Really? I’m a vegetarian. It’s like if I walk into a restaurant called “Joe’s House of Meat” and demand to know why Joe doesn’t have tofu stir-fry on the menu. I don’t walk into places called “Joe’s House of Meat.” If Olivia Munn wants to keep all of her clothes on, she probably shouldn’t agree to pose for Playboy.</p>
<p>. . . let me get this straight: an enormous contract was drawn up where every detail of your exposed flesh was pre-approved up to and including the crack of your ass, and your agent or manager was not on-set to make sure that this lengthy and thorough contract was honored? Really? If that’s the case, why bother with the contract at all? Either Miss Munn is lying, or she really needs new people.</p>
<p>. . . why does the model/fake news correspondent capitalize so heavily on her female sexuality? Take, for instance, the cover of <em>Suck It, Wonder Woman</em>. More to the point, which of Munn’s career moves have not somehow capitalized on her sexuality? . . . The easy answer is that Munn wants it both ways. She wants to be able to flaunt her junk for money and fame, but is outraged when people claim that she’s only famous and rich because she flaunts her junk.</p></blockquote>
<p>Some context: Previously, Arboleda had <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010/06/bikini-clad-olivia-munn-thinks-youre-a-fat-bitch/comment-page-1/">called   Munn out</a> for making rape jokes, fat jokes, and jealous-bitches   jokes. Fair enough. In the same post, Arboleda also dismissed Munn as a "bikini-clad"  "Maxim model with bad comedic  timing" whose career is "such blatant  pandering for money and male  attention that it borders on  distasteful,  even sexist." Hmm. And then there was this: "what I dislike about Munn  is that her guy’s girl routine is so clearly an act. If it were genuine,  it would be fine."</p>
<p>I get it. We live in a world where flaunting your junk, bashing other women, and acting the guy's-girl is a pretty effective strategy for getting ahead for a very small group of women, and that is sexism at work. But the solution is not to take the women who manage to squeeze some personal benefits out of that sexism and to tear them down in the most sexist ways possible. Believe it or not, even women who make careers out of "pandering" to this system are themselves constantly battling misogyny&#8212;they're cut down for wearing bikinis, ridiculed for having personal limits as to how their bodies are used, and called "bitches" for <a href="http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2009/07/megan-fox-is-an-ungrateful-bitch/">not being sufficiently grateful</a> for their role. And until we start turning our attention to all those men who get "famous and rich" by "flaunting" their "male sexuality" in order to "pander" for "female attention," we've got a major social problem here&#8212;not an Olivia Munn problem.</p>
<p>Feminism has to be for all women. Even women you think are stupid, naive, or "tragically unfamiliar with the content of Playboy." Even women who <a href="../2010/03/29/american-university-student-newspapers-vandalized-over-rape-apology/">walk   into the wrong room</a>. Even women with bad publicists. Even women with <em>no</em> publicists. Even women who expect professional photographers and stylists to honor    professional contracts without question. Even women who have lied. Even women who have bashed other women. Even women who you think have capitalized on their "female sexuality." Even women who "flaunt [their] junk for money and fame." Even women with cleavage on the cover of books. Even women who sometimes wear bikinis. Even women who don't perform all of these feats of "female sexuality" naturally, even women from whom it's all "an act." Even women you think are bitches. Even women who talk about it.</p>
<p>Sure, most women don't rise to the top of this system like Munn has. But we all participate in it in some way&#8212;we've all denigrated other women, or "flaunted" our "female sexuality," or put on some sort of feminine "act" in order to get by. And if that means that we all deserve anything that's coming to us, then that's it for feminism. So let's keep our focus on the institutions that really benefit from this&#8212;the ones that are so reliably misogynist, coercive, and plain skeevy that our knee-jerk reaction is to blame women for even discussing how misogynist, coercive, and skeevy they are. Because Munn has provided us the Hot Girl's view from the top, and it looks like  a lot of stuffing phallic objects in your mouth and  fighting off men who want your nipples, until you get too  old and are replaced.</p>
<p><em>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/2167820649/"><strong>Gage Skidmore</strong></a>, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/07/06/feminism-for-bitches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Know Your Indecent Exposure Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atchuthan Sriskandarajah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Williamson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indecent exposure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=7187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Ever wondered exactly what you have to do with your penis to be charged with indecent exposure in Virginia? Need to know what sort of aperture you have to be looking through in order to be convicted of peeping? The Washington Post is here to help!

Last week, 29-year-old Eric Williamson was charged with indecent exposure [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2295947996_7babec1feb.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="315" /></p>
<p>Ever wondered exactly what you have to do with your penis to be charged with indecent exposure in Virginia? Need to know what sort of aperture you have to be looking through in order to be convicted of peeping? The <em>Washington Post</em> is here to help!</p>
<p><span id="more-7187"></span></p>
<p>Last week, 29-year-old<strong> Eric Williamson</strong> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502468.html?hpid=newswell&amp;sid=ST2009102601282">was charged with indecent exposure</a> after "a woman and her 7-year-old son walked by his Springfield house and saw him, through the window, naked." The woman claims she was walking her son to school one morning when Williamson presented his naked body to her not once, but twice&#8212;first "standing nude in the doorway, " and then "through a large window that appeared to have no drapes." She called the police.</p>
<p>Williamson concedes that he was hanging out naked in his house, but denies that he intentionally exposed himself to the woman and the boy. The police response, Williams says, was extreme. "All of a sudden, I get woken up by police officers, and this guy has a Taser gun in my face," he said. "I'm freaking out. Is this a movie? A horrible dream?" He called Fox News.</p>
<p>The incident has courted international attention to Virginia's indecent exposure and peeping laws. In a<em> Washington Post</em> online chat yesterday, Fairfax attorney <strong>Atchuthan Sriskandarajah </strong>administered <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/10/26/DI2009102601203.html">a quick legal lesson</a> on the peculiarities of Virginia's sex statutes. Can a person indecently expose themselves from the privacy of their own home? By the same token, can passersby who happen to spy a naked person through the window be charged with peeping?</p>
<p>According to Sriskandarajah, indecent exposure must require three elements:</p>
<p>* <strong>Exposure</strong>. Displaying your private parts (breast-feeding doesn't count).</p>
<p>* <strong>Intent.</strong> The question that plagued the <strong>Justin Timberlake</strong>-<strong>Janet Jackson</strong> Superbowl flap.</p>
<p>* <strong>Obscenity</strong>. The nudity must be accompanied by an obscene act to be considered "indecent."</p>
<p>In Virginia, a person can be convicted of indecent exposure even if the exposure occurred inside their own home&#8212;as long as they got naked, deliberately revealed that nudity to passersby, and, like, grabbed their genitals or something.</p>
<p>Virginia's "peeping" statute also contains three major elements:</p>
<p><strong>* Secrecy</strong>. No matter where you're peeping, the peep must be "secret or furtive"&#8212;the naked person can't be aware you're looking at him or her.</p>
<p><strong>* Residential peeping. </strong>In order to prove you've peeped into someone's home, you gotta peep <em>through</em> something. The statute lists windows, doors, apertures, holes, cracks, or any "other similar opening through which a person can see" as acceptable peepholes.</p>
<p><strong>* Commercial peeping.</strong> If the peeping is occurring outside a residence&#8212;like in a "restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, [or] bedroom"&#8212;you still gotta peep through cracks and holes. But this time, you gotta be seeing something naked. According to the statute, that includes "the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast."</p>
<p><em>Photo by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/spine/2295947996/"><strong>rick</strong></a>, Creative Commons License.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/10/27/know-your-indecent-exposure-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shakira Is Back (And Crazy)</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/shakira-is-back-and-crazy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/shakira-is-back-and-crazy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crazy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[naked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shakira]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[she wolf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thriller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[werewolf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=5920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[youtube:v=Zwoqlr43VJ8]
Shakira's latest single. "She Wolf," is about a woman who is sick of being hopelessly devoted to her man, so she decides to go out and fuck other dudes&#8212;werewolf style. Lyrics largely concern the sexual properties of the moon and stuff, but my favorite line is this: "I’m starting to feel just a little abused [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[youtube:v=Zwoqlr43VJ8]</p>
<p><strong>Shakira</strong>'s latest single. "She Wolf," is about a woman who is sick of being hopelessly devoted to her man, so she decides to go out and fuck other dudes&#8212;werewolf style.<em> </em>Lyrics largely concern the sexual properties of the moon and stuff, but my favorite line is this: "I’m starting to feel just a little abused like a coffee machine in an office. / So I’m gonna go somewhere cozy to get me a lover, and tell you all about it." Makes sense. The video, above, features Shakira hangin from her feet in a cage in a nude bodysuit, Shakira dancing in a sparkly intestinal tube hidden behind her closet (complete with wind machine),<em> </em>and Shakira howling. It's<em> </em>"Thriller" meets "Single Ladies" meets "Magic Schoolbus." Shakira Shakira.<em></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/17/shakira-is-back-and-crazy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

