MsKitka.com

It seems like the main complaints the American media gets from fundies these days is that everything they broadcast is soft porn. Entertainers such as Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Janet Jackson, 50 Cent and Kelis are among many troublemakers who have been accused of soft porn, not to mention the many advertisers who have also been accused and blamed of pushing soft porn onto children.

So, what is soft porn?

Trying to find a clear definition of soft-core pornography is very difficult. When searching for a definition on Internet dictionaries I kept getting redirected to definitions of other terms that reference soft-core porn. The definitions for other pornography-related terms like erotica and hardcore pornography usually define themselves by differentiating themselves from soft-core.

The basic definition that I’ve been able to muster from this is that soft-core is somewhere between erotica (artistic nudity) and hard-core pornography (extreme un-edited images of sexual activities). It’s like ordering a medium drink from McDonald’s… not to little, not too much.

The only way to find a more in-depth definition of soft-core is to reference intellectual texts published on the Internet. The following definition was taken from an essay about erotica:

Soft porn: “pin-up-style pictures of semi-naked or naked women and men, close up pictures of female genitalia, oral and genital sex up to including ejaculation.”

Therefore, it seems by this definition that there has to be a certain degree of nudity (at least a nipple) in the image that actually shows sexual acts. In other words, this is the kind of film that we teenage Montrealers growing up in the mid-nineties used to watch every Saturday night on Bleu Nuit.

This is far from the term that Christian fundamentalists have been using to describe certain commercials and entertainment recently. I can understand their concern over sexually-charged images in Britney Spears’ I’m a Slave for You and Christina Aguilera’s Dirty videos, but calling Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton soft-core porn stars for washing cars in their bathing suits is simply ridiculous.

The fact is: none of these women are actually soft-core… sure, they may have stripped down to their undies for a few men’s magazines, but their professional careers have not been tainted by exposing themselves completely in their television acts and making professional porn films.

I believe that Christian fundamentalists are trying to warp the meaning of the term ‘soft porn’ in order to further constrict what we can and cannot see and do. They want to further society’s porn paranoia in order to take scantily-clad women off the television… which is even more restrictive an idea than the regulations that were in place back when Gilligan’s Island was on TV!

In the sixties we were making headway; moving forward towards a more open society that allowed miniskirts and bikinis. Now the fundies are trying to push us back to the dark ages. Why do I feel as if we’re living in a new-age version of the McCarthy era? How can we be free if they are regulating our bedrooms?

A bylaw barring beauty queens:

Toronto Mayor David Miller has issued an apology to Miss Universe after the city barred her from opening a festival on municipal property over concerns about sexual stereotyping.

“It’s unfortunate and silly,” said Miller. “It won’t happen again.”

Natalie Glebova was set to open a festival last weekend at Nathan Phillips Square in front of City Hall, but municipal officials told organizers that the recently crowned Torontonian couldn’t perform that duty if she wore her sash or her tiara, or if she was introduced by her title.

They said beauty pageants and beauty queens were banned from the square by a bylaw that prohibits activities deemed to be degrading to men or women through sexual stereotyping.

So… if Miss Universe is banned from the square for being a beauty queen (i.e. a sexual stereotype of what a woman should be), then why are men allowed to dress as drag queens on gay pride week and raise the gay pride flag in the square?

There is nothing wrong with a little bit of stereotyping. It is obvious that certain fashions are what attract certain people. While most women dress in sexy ‘feminine’ outfits to attract males, so do many gay men… and while most men dress in casual pants and t-shirts and cut their hair short, so do many lesbians. Is there something wrong with this? No. It’s all a matter of preference.

The Miss Universe pageant is a pageant designed to judge the beauty of a woman from a heterosexual male point of view. If this doesn’t cater to your taste, perhaps you should start your own pageant.

I would love to see what would happen if Rue Paul were hosting an event in the square!

One of my coworkers had his hair cut the other day and I asked if he went to the barber. He said that he went to the barber with his daughter and I inquired into what sort of magazines were sitting on the coffee table in the waiting area. He told me that the magazines were fashion and entertainment magazines.

How times have changed.

I remember going to the barber with my father when I was a little girl and really enjoying the atmosphere. There were men playing Italian card games in the waiting area and there were my favorite magazines piled on the coffee table. I don’t remember ever getting in trouble for seeing those magazines, there was nothing wrong with them… in fact, it wasn’t the first time I’d seen Playboy magazine before.

When I was about two years old I ventured into the basement of my parents’ home. I went into the back storage area and started pulling on a heavy box from a low shelf. The box fell on top of me and the contents spread all over the basement floor. When my parents came looking for me, I was happily covered in magazines browsing through the graphic images of sexy naked Playboy bunnies from the 1960s. [Perhaps this is why I have always loved my stuffed pink bunnies better than dolls or teddy bears…]

So, what is so wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Playboy is hardly pornographic; it is a beautiful depiction of the glorious female figure.

Did Playboy magazine teach me anything? No, I had already seen my parents naked when they took showers with me as a child. Did the photos arouse me? No, if anything they intrigued me with their beauty. Did the photos make me feel bad about myself? No, the women always seemed quite natural to me and I figured that someday I would grow into a similar figure… which I did.

Why then, should we block all pornography from children? What is so bad about seeing nudity? We see ourselves and our parents naked during the course of our lives (hell, some of us have even walked in on our parents having sex…), but heaven forbid we should ever see naked strangers in magazines!

This week in the news, anti-porn advocates in Kansas are trying to impose a Sin Tax on pornography. House speaker Doug Mays explains that usually when you tax something, you get less of it and “It’d be nice to have less porn.” Mays is lumping pornography into the same basket as tobacco and alcohol. How is porn related to drug and alcohol abuse? Perhaps Mays has been taking his pastor’s message on porn addiction a little too far.

Addiction is defined as the “Habitual psychological and physiological dependence on a substance or practice beyond one’s voluntary control.” The difference with substance abuse and the ‘addiction’ of porn is that alcohol and drugs are mind/body altering substances. The reason heroine is so addictive is because the drug connects itself to the brain, locking into our cells like missing puzzle pieces, sending a rush of orgasmic euphoria through the body. Pornography has no such physical effect; in fact, it is not ingested or inserted into the body at all. The only mind/body effect from pornography is brought on by our own free will… our own venturing hands igniting masturbation and sex.

That said, have we not banished pornography enough already?

Unfortunately, the Theo-Cons will not sleep until pornography is completely wiped out. But, what can we do? The reason that fundamental Christians can push the rest of us around is because they are organized while we are not. I would suggest starting a coalition for the empowerment of pornography, but any such organization would be ridiculed and dismissed by the public.

The problem is that porn has always been taboo. Although my parents never scolded me for looking at my father’s old Playboys, most of society has always frowned upon the idea. Especially now… with the heavy surge Christian interest groups involved in the government.

At this point, even (former) Christian role model Jessica Simpson is being ridiculed for her latest video ‘These Boots Are Made for Walking’. Apparently, the idiot founder of a militant Christian group called The Resistance accuses Simpson of joining acts like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera into being a “singing stripper”. The most idiotic part of the story is that news agencies are spreading word of the insults like wildfire without even knowing where the insults originally came from. It’s like playing broken telephone. The Resistance is actually a group of complete idiots posing as know-it-alls trying to cause trouble. Jessica Simpson (and Paris Hilton) is completely harmless.

We have to start putting these Theo-Cons into their place. There is nothing wrong with beautiful women washing cars in their bathing suits (hell, even First Lady Laura Bush watches Desperate Housewives!) and there is nothing wrong with beautiful women appearing naked in Playboy magazine. Gees, if anything… Playboy is probably one of the most Christian-friendly porn-mags on the market today.

Out on DVD today… Cleopatra 2525: The Complete Series.

You know you want it.

I haven’t been to a strip club in a while, so when we decided to take our buddy Saddlewood out for his birthday this weekend I suggested a place that none of us had been to before. After checking out some sites like Stripper Web and Stripclub Database I found a strip club that received high ratings from patrons and employees alike, a place called the Kamasutra Club.

This club, nestled off the beaten path of one of Montreal’s busiest streets, had a lot of potential with its interesting Indian-themed decor. As usual, I did not have to pay a cover charge as a woman, but the cover for my three male companions was $5 each (reasonable, yes). We were then escorted to a table and the doorman waited until we handed him a $20 tip… a little rude, yes, but I guess he was thinking the same of us.

The girls in the Kamasutra Club weren’t bad… their bodies were quite fit and natural (I only noticed one girl who had fake breasts). Unfortunately, the lighting on the stage was horrible… the first half an hour of our visit was spent looking at the girls under a single strobe light (which was sort of like flipping pages in a picture book), and after ending the strobe show the stage was still horribly dark… I like to SEE the girls that I’m coming to see. It was the kind of lighting that you would use if you felt self-conscious… but these girls had nothing to feel self-conscious about. Although they stripped nude, I felt disappointed that I couldn’t actually see their naughtiest parts due to the bad lighting.

One thing that struck us about this club was the amount of black strippers. Never had I been to a club before that had so many black strippers… in fact, I don’t think I’d ever seen a black stripper in my life before this! There were at least four black strippers working at the club… most of whom were quite stunning, one of which was too dark to see on stage (watching her strip was kind of like looking at the invisible man stripping off his trenchcoat and hat!) Regardless of the club’s name, there were no Asian strippers working there (that night).

The dancing was quite standard… only a couple of girls actually took the time and effort to use the pole to its full potential. Most of the girls just walked around the stage looking sexy and crawled along the floor like retired actors from the broadway show Cats… it was the most boring ‘dancing’ I’d ever seen. Perhaps I should have handed out my dance instructor’s business cards.

The music wasn’t much better. It seemed as if the club had rented MC Mario for the night and played only the worst dance music remixes ever. I would never have been able to dance to the crap they were playing in that place.

Just before we left, I decided to buy the birthday-boy a lap dance. He chose the same girl that I would have chosen (the one with the boob job) and when she bent down to my eye level to discuss payment, I got lost in her eyes and wanted the lap dance all for myself. Apparently, she was quite good… more contact than at most places. Perhaps we all should have got a lap dance to make up for the pathetic stage show!

I told my dear Zod about my desire to get a lap dance on Saturday night and he promised to buy me a lap dance next time we go to a strip club… I just hope that the next place we go has a lot of contact…

Review (out of 5 stars):
Girls (physical beauty): 3 stars
Girls (dance skills): 2.5 stars
Club ambiance: 2.5 stars (Nice decor, horrible lighting and music)