Noticed a few posts on this subject tonight so let me step in and say something: shut up. All of you. This is not the Age of Asses nor the Decade of the Glorification of the Buttock or anything of the sort. It's the culmination of women spending decades selling out talent to sell their bodies instead. Don't believe me? Try this. That, my friends, is Mariah Carey's butt on the back cover of her album - the one that came out in 1999. She was and still is arguably one of the most talented singers in history, and she was still at the top of her game and had no reason to undress on that album cover but she did, a smile on her face and a lollipop in her hand.
That cover marks the one and only time I seriously thought Mariah Carey should have her head examined. Apparently she divorced restrictive Tommy Mottola to get to her end game, which was finally being free to sell her back end. Did it sell well compared to past records where she strictly sold her voice? No. Does that matter? Of course not, because her butt.
I used to think Mariah and her butt were an anomaly (she never did do another album cover anything like that one again) but then last summer rolled around bringing Miley and her butt (latest: it's now even desecrating the Mexican flag). And I felt that same rumbling pit of revulsion in my stomach at seeing yet another Famous Person trading the sale of her talent for the sale of her body and again wondered why these women don't just all work at strip clubs if the titillation and shock value of not just disrobing but avidly thrusting their body parts at the camera/flag/human eye really is the only thing they believe will sell their songs and/or is the only thing that really lights a fire under their own, uh, asses? I mean, maybe they just get off on it? Like, sexually? So why don't they just go do that, already?
So I waited around hoping Miley was an anomaly but by then America had fallen in love with Kim Kardashian's butt (this is someone who became famous not for who she is - which is no one - nor for what she does - which is nothing - but for a sex tape she swears she didn't leak herself) and from there we just, uh, rolled right into Nicki Minaj's butt in her Anaconda video, with honorable mentions going out to Rihanna for walking around without a butt-covering whenever and to Jennifer Lopez and Iggy Azealea's butts (how many of you are now sitting here slack-jawed because I even know who Iggy Azealea is, in spite of advancing age and increasing use of moisturizer - and if you're reading this and happen to think I'm taking a personal shot at you for something you wrote about me by mentioning the moisturizer then yes, I am - this is a personal journal, after all, and I've been waiting years to work that in somewhere)?
I want to make something clear: I don't care if it's a white or black or mixed-race or Hispanic butt thrust up in our faces. I don't care if the butt possessor is young or old, big-butted or lacking in butt, smooth-butted or pock-mark-butted, has a but-her-face or is generally agreed to be gorgeous from head to toe. I care that it's a butt. That doesn't belong in our faces. Nor near our faces, nor our eyes, not online nor off, not unless someone standing next to the butt possessor requests a peek and such request is, for some bizarre reason, granted. (And if you want bizarre, if the above-mentioned people weren't already walking around butt-revealing to begin with, do you think even one of them would grant such a request? Most likely never.)
I care that women still fall for the male patriarchal thing of "Show'em more, baby, it sells more records/TV shows/concerts/magazines/toaster ovens". I care that so many women can't keep their clothes on while they try to make sales, that men use personality and charm to sell things while women use body parts. I don't see a similar rush amongst the more testosterone-enhanced half of our population to sell everything from records to magazines to new cars donning only a pair of BVDs or the male equivalent of a G-string unless they're selling BVDs or working at Chippendale. I see men doing exactly what they've always done: staying pretty much attired unless their work specifically requires them to disrobe.
I care that women continue the trope that ours are bodies are made of mystery and wonder so they must be disrobed at all times as much as possible without breaking the law to show just how great their mystique is! That is pretty much what passes for feminism these days. I'm tired of artists trying to pass this off with excuses like, "It's part of my art" like Miley Cyrus has, to very loosely paraphrase her. So is part of her and Nicki Minaj's art to roll back on chairs and floors and spread their legs with only a strip of something to protect the netherbits from all eyes on them? That's considered art now? (Oh, and BTW, you can thank Beyonce for doing that over 20 years ago: it's not new, but it's just as gross.)
A big butt is not an exciting thing to have for the woman who's got it - especially if she's white, since white society doesn't support a woman having a big butt nearly as avidly as black culture does. I've had one since my teenage years - a big butt out of proportion to the rest of my body that resembles nothing so much as a cross between JLo's and Kim K's - and I am not and have never been one to show it off, though secretly I always kinda thought and still think it maybe it's a great asset to have. In the 80s the few white girls similarly afflicted in white society's eyes had to cover big butts up with sweaters tied around waists (yes, I did that, too, regularly, for years, if I felt my jeans or pants or shorts didn't make my butt seem "slim" enough) and dream of the day we could all look like the "tits on sticks" that so many of us seemed to aspire to. It was awful. I'm certainly not agreeing with any of it. But that was then.
For a girl with a big butt, white or black or brown or purple, then or now, the problem is finding pants - and jeans and shorts and dresses - that fit because most women's clothes are cut for the woman with a much less generous butt. We can't get most of these store-bought articles of clothing over our thighs, or if we're putting them on the other way, as in donning a dress, can't get them to stretch over our butts or our hips. This makes pants legs too short, dresses too tight and clingy across our middles and backsides, and generally causes no end of grief as we watch less butt-endowed compatriots sail in and out of the stores we want to shop in with the clothes we want but can't have because clothes are designed for "them" - not for "us".
I can speak for the Mileys of the world, too, because before I had a big butt? I was anorexic for a few years, sporting a great big fat size O. Everything fits when you're scary-thin (though I often had to shop at specialty stores because some clothes, even at the correct sizes, were just too big on me) but guys don't want you and everyone tells you to just go eat something already. It's even less exciting than having a big butt, which at least gets more looks, more drama in clothing stores as you infuriate every try-on room clerk by rejecting - out of necessity - huge armfuls of clothing every ten minutes, and more drama with women in general as you often get told even when you weigh, say, just 127 pounds on a 5'3" frame as I once did, to get your "fat ass" out of their way because chances are they're jealous of a backside they will never have without major surgical reconstruction.
While I can't speak for why women feel compelled to show their asses (I'm as likely to chalk it up to lack of belief in their own abilities as anything else) I think our society's hunger to show off and view as many women's asses as it can - especially the bigger ones - stems from how we're mostly comprised of afraid-to-live prudes. I think it's because I'm not a prude that you won't see me show my ass anytime soon. And I'm just as bored with the idea of looking at any ass that isn't mine or my SO's. That's what romantic relationships featuring private interludes in private locations are for: looking at asses and anything else you want. Unless I suddenly decide I want to fuck everyone on Earth - at once - my ass is not happening, not online nor off, not even in a bathing suit, end of story. I wish more women would have the self-respect required to keep something - anything - even if it's just their own asses - as sacred.
In other news, my father is doing as well as one can. ( discussion of parental illness )
Signal-boosting much appreciated!
Update, 9-21-14: added new Support request URL.
I just noticed
your Dreamwidth login gets passed to http://mobiletest.me so* (see correction below) the emulator winds up displaying all of your locked entries. I am kind of freaked out about this so I have a Support request in with DW to check if a) it's normal for emulators to get passed our log-in info to be able to display our locked entries and b) to find out if DW staff feels this is a security risk.
I feel it is a security risk - regardless of how they feel about it (no offense intended but oh, happy hell) so until someone can explain to me how it is not a security risk, my question - and my sheer anxiety over it- will stand.
*Correction: as pointed out by ideological_cuddle in this thread, I've worded this issue quite badly from the start. I don't, in fact, believe our log-in state is passed directly to mobiletest.me; rather, I'm questioning whether our logged-in materials are (as he explained, these materials are presented in an IFRAME, allowing even our access-only posts to display in their emulator if we're already logged into DW).
Given this refinement of exactly what I feel is the potential security risk my question stands, with the caveat that I'm not worried so much that our log-in details (such as username and password combos) are getting passed along as I am that our access-only content is first getting displayed in mobiletest.me's IFRAMES and then somehow being scraped and/or stored by them for future use/disbursement.
Sorry for my original wording; on account of it I'm leaving it as-is with strikethroughs added as needed to show where I really confused the hell out of exactly what I'm on about here.
The harder part of the day was that my dad was having a really rough day, and it is very, very hard to see that and know there is little I can do to help.
The interesting thing is that for the past few days I've had Regina Spektor's "On the Radio" stuck in my head. I found this years ago (back when I was still in the Peace Corps) through this spectacular fan-video rec'd by one of my fellow volunteers. That then lead me to the fanfiction that the vid was dedicated to a wonderful work by called Freedom's Just Another Word for Nothing Left To Loose. This fic has become not only one of my favorite fics of all time, but is also far and away one of the best stories I have ever read concerning grief and PTSD.
So I guess it isn't terribly surprising that I have the song stuck in my head. ( The lyrics manage to be both poignant and playful. )
Update, 9-20-2014: After I wrote this post ideological_cuddle grew curious about mobiletest.me and decided to check it out. The first thing he noticed was the page seems to not run true emulators at all but to simply load your web pages up in an IFRAME. I soon made a second post about mobiletest.me informing everyone I'd filed a Support request with DW over my feeling the site might present a security risk after I discovered the so-called "emulators" display your locked entries if you're already logged into DW and are viewing mobiletest.me from within the same browser.
Upon poking around the question of what the exact security risk might be ideological_cuddle and I quickly came to agree that there's a small but definite chance that a site like mobiletest.me could use two scripts - one against the parent page (which holds the IFRAME on mobiletest.me) and one against the child (your website content displayed within the IFRAME) to scrape whatever content from the IFRAME that they want - including, of course, all of your locked entries.
The fact that mobiletest.me's basic and advanced "emulation" doesn't seem to work - or to even exist - was my first red flag that it's not what it seems, but upon realizing that scraping locked content could be an actual security risk for users of the site I am completely turned off, so I'm withdrawing the endorsement you see in the title of this post and below, and I apologize for posting as glowingly as I did without first checking under the hood, so to speak, a bit more carefully before posting.
Original post is as follows:
Got into the Beta and it is the bomb. I can test this blog's responsive design against every major brand and model of mobile phone and tablet out there and even use advanced emulation and both landscape and portrait modes which is helping me to catch and fix a lot of errors both big and small that might otherwise semi-permanently escape my attention. Using Firefox's Web Developer add-on accomplishes many of the same goals just by checking the "View Responsive Layouts" option but because you have to do the window resizing yourself to find and make sure you fix different errors stuff can get by you - not so with this website.