Boob
Copy this link for a short URLCameron Moll’s blog was recently brought to my attention for an article he wrote on American Apparel. The truth is, my friends, enemies and asexual creatures of the code: I love articles like this. Not only does responding to them emphasize the godless hell-bound creature I am, but it solidifies one of our great moral dilemmas: How funny are boobs?
Questions of Morality.
I don’t have kids. I think we should address this head-on as a big indicator of where there’s a difference between Mr. Moll and I. I’m not really nervous about how these things affect kids. So my “what’s moral” gauge is a little different, but I don’t think we should make a country that’s for kids only, as I don’t live in one. In fact, I think most children know what’s up sexually (vaguely and nervously) by at least the 5th or 6th grade if not younger. For many people, who forget what it was like to be a kid, they retract in horror when they discover a boy might know what a vagina is at age 11.
Turns out (as I discovered much later) that we’ve all grown up with our respective reproductive organs from age 0. It also turns out that they’re very very funny looking. Finally, as you age, you learn that the act of intercourse itself is probably one of the most humorous things on God’s green earth and it’s great! It’s a mess of body types and preferences, socks-on humor. It’s probably one of the greatest things you can do on this planet, so what’s to be afraid of?
Coming from an overweight unattractive background, I know that the idea of a naked body can be repelling. Each morning I wake up with my respective vomit-bag and stare into the mirror into the endless void of my fleshy sadness. I get that I’ve coerced my girlfriend to stay with me by lying and saying “there is no world outside this apartment”. I also respect that people probably don’t want to see me naked. I respect those boundaries and don’t wander naked around the city (...yet). I see a picture of a fully-naked women with just socks on and I laugh, because that’s funny! Also, it’s superficial (which would’ve been a better argument) as pretty people are allowed to prance around naked on billboards while I remain captive for the good of humanity.
Repression
In my opinion, repression is the worst kind of education… especially in cases where the knowledge comes naturally to human beings. We are naturally inclined to have sex with one another. We’re naturally inclined to be attracted to and attract a mate. We are naturally inclined to judge our mate’s attractiveness based on societal and psychological ideals. It’s not as if knowledge isn’t going to creep out. There’s nothing we can do about it ever. There will never be a boycott on sex or sexually related material that makes any sense or solves any problem. There are bad seeds in this world, sexually. People who break the social contract and do horrific things. They are villains. However, a picture of a woman spread eagle is not pedophilia.
Real education begins with someone comfortable enough with the subject to know its faults and humor, to talk about it. If material is misleading or explicit, then the only people who lose out are those who would try to remove it or not talk about it. If you’re afraid of sex, or your children or grand-children learning about sex (which they will and most-likely not on your terms) or seeing the naked human form, it’s better to address it head-on then to ask someone to hide it. Stop trying to protect us, because it only harms us.
Show me a man for whom pornography has ruined his life/marriage, and I’ll show you a marriage that has been saved by its allure. It’s a tit-for-tat argument that no one can win. But, I digress, you’re missing the most important point…
Really, boobs are funny.
They really are. In fact, all “sexual” body parts are really funny: be them male or female. No matter what billboard or who they’re on.
There’s a beauty to them, absolutely, and there is the enchantment of the unknown and undiscovered that we all see in each other physically and sexually. There’s also the fact that we’re all just bags of water gettin’ it on sometime, and that’s the greatest joke of all.
Hey Moll, Squeeze this!
As man, who by trait is a designer which by many-a-definition is about communication, why not talk about the submissive positions that females take in American Apparel ads?
Of course I would counter with the concept of female empowerment through sexuality (a subject which I make no claim to know about, but it’s an awesome counterpoint).
Or why not ban them for their founder’s mischievous conduct in the work place? Sexual Harassment? Check. Walking around naked? Check.
Of course, I would counter with the very fact that it’s a known factor when working at American Apparel: so much so there’s a disclaimer. Much like revealing yourself as a gay man in the military, it’s not a great solution at all, but you should know what you’re getting into. Also, it’s not the best counter so this is a pretty rock solid argument I’ve made for you and I didn’t even need a half-assed quote from a book whose title should be indicative of its merit in our moral relativism tiff we’ve got going here.
Or how about just saying they’re not good ads because you can’t even see the shirt!
No, you chose sex. The argument that sex doesn’t sell is entirely negated in this case because it’s an industry built on sexuality. Clothes stopped being a utility the moment ties entered the scene. They are selling sex-appeal, with sex. It’s not a novel concept. I bet you look dapper in those AA shirts, Cameron. Sexy, even.
Who gives a shirt.
I don’t know why you wrote that post. Why couldn’t you just not purchase their fine 100% cotton made-in-america shirts and carry-forward? You wanted to make a moral stance, publicly, against explicit sexuality? Peeps been doing that for ages with no success, because we as species, love sex! You can’t stop us! We’ll keep doing it ‘till the last bomb drops AND taking pictures of it to sell stuff! Why not get behind something with real importance and moral relevance for the now?
We all know how this ends
Nothing really happens, you’re just being a big penis who drew a line in the sand and I get called a troll… and that’s funny.
Side note:
I’m sorry Greg Storey, but Cameron Moll isn’t buying a Twitshirt
Tweet Comments
To comment on this article you can use a hash tag #hmft_42 or click this link.
There are currently no comments for this tweet. Tweet one?
Comments
By Paul Burton on Nov 24, 2009
I’m going to assume two things. First, given Mr. Moll’s previous home location and his moral stance on salacious advertising that his religious views are rather conservative and that Mr. Meyers comment “real importance and moral relevance for the now?” is the height of pointed irony (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008696951_newsline02.html).
Second, I’m also going to assume that any wife who is concerned about adorning her aging body in an ongoing effort to remain “appealing” to her husband has spent a fair amount of time and money in Victoria’s Secret ... Boobs are funny and so is the near-guaranteed double standard in play concerning AA advertising.
I guess that makes three assumptions and two trolls. Cheers and thanks for the laugh.
By Matthew Anderson on Nov 24, 2009
Thanks for the brash life lesson disguised as a laugh, Kenny. This is a truly epic post.
By Chance on Nov 24, 2009
“We are naturally inclined to judge our mate’s attractiveness based on societal and psychological ideals.”
To preface, I agree with many of your points (education, repression, double-standards) but I feel inclined to comment on the above quote. I agree, it is perfectly natural to be attracted to our mate but when our ‘psychological ideals’ are influenced by our culture and our culture says ‘this’ is sexy it does not follow that ‘this’ is naturally sexy (or is the way things were intended to be.) Just because culture says so does not make it so. It is cultural idealism, rhetoric and propaganda like this that lead much of a society to believe that some of its members were not human and could then justify their sub-human treatment.
By Kenny Meyers on Nov 24, 2009
@Chance
It’s a fair point, but I don’t think of it as a natural phenomena. It’s a nature and nurture issue. Perhaps we are naturally attracted to large breasts or dominant alpha males because of motherhood and protection, respectively, or is it a cultural thing? It’s hard to distinguish.
People are mistreated because of cultural norms like this. It happens, and I think the best way to deal with it is to talk about it and explore lines of comfortability. I think we develop culture as a way to protect ourselves and uphold traditions and maintain a connection to each other. The “cultural” norm has been used as a weapon in the past, and also as a benefit for our society (museums, art, architecture). Also, challenging cultural norms have lead to some of the most horrific and beautiful things. Context is king in this case, and I wish I could respond with a black and white yes or no, but I agree and disagree at the same time.
AA’s advertising, provocative as it may be, also relies less on airbrushing than others. So that’s +1 for the natural beauty of women.
Thanks for commenting and doing so thoughtfully on a place where there is a picture of me wearing a fake beard.
By Erwin Heiser on Nov 24, 2009
Reading this, I was reminded in the best possible way of the late great Bill Hicks… funny while preaching the truth. Awesome post.
By Keith on Nov 26, 2009
Wish I’d said all that, Kenny!
As for “Show me a man for whom pornography has ruined his life/marriage, and I’ll show you a marriage that has been saved by its allure”, I’d be inclined to add, “Show me a man for whom pornography has ruined his life/marriage, and I’ll show you a life/marriage that had pretty serious problems to begin with.”
By Luker Duker on Dec 1, 2009
you said boobs.
troll+1