Kate Upton covers Elle: ‘I’m not a toy, I’m a human. I’m not here to be used’

Kate Upton scored a MAJOR magazine cover, y’all. I’m proud of her. She’s harmless and she gets a ridiculous amount of bulls—t about her body and her “look”. Kate covers the September issue of Elle – you can see the slideshow here. I don’t care for the cover image at all. Her hair looks too stiff and the gold jewelry is overkill. But I really like the cleavage-y, shadowy photo a lot. And not just because even I would motorboat her. The quotes from Kate’s interview are pretty interesting too.

On people treating her like a “dumb blonde:”
“People deal with models like they are children. They think they can pull one over on you. It’s actually funny. I’m always like, I’m about to pull something on you, and you’re so focused on thinking I’m dumb you’re not even going to know.”

On the tiny tattoo of a cross on the inside of her finger:
“I was at a photo shoot and I was wearing a cross necklace that my mom bought me, and somebody made a joke like, ‘Why are you wearing a cross? Like you would be religious.’ And then they took [my necklace] away. I was really affected by that. The whole thing made me realize that I do want [a cross] with me, at all times.”

On the fallout from her first Sports Illustrated cover:
“After my first Sports Illustrated cover, I felt terrible about myself for a solid month. Every single guy I met was either married or about to be married, and I felt like I was their bachelor present or something. I’m not a toy, I’m a human. I’m not here to be used. I am a grown woman, and you need to figure your s–t out.”

On dating (she’s rumored to be seeing Dancing With The Stars pro Maksim Chmerkovskiy:
“I really have never had a serious relationship in the industry. I’m just having fun. Obviously I have a very busy schedule at this time in my life, and I don’t put relationships as a priority.”

[From Elle]

Call me crazy, but I like what she’s saying. I even did a little fistbump for her answer about the men who treat her like a “bachelor present”. “I’m not a toy, I’m a human. I’m not here to be used. I am a grown woman, and you need to figure your s–t out.” I hope she actually says that to men. I hope she throws that in their faces.

As for “treating models like children”… you notice that in the very next quote, she’s talking about someone “taking away” her cross, like a child would say “mom took away my toy.” But I get what she’s saying. We all infantilize models specifically and women in general. It’s interesting to hear her talk about it. As for her religion – she reminds me of Jessica Simpson there. Papa Joe always said that people didn’t believe Jessica could be a good Christian girl AND have big boobs.

Photos courtesy of Elle.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

164 Responses to “Kate Upton covers Elle: ‘I’m not a toy, I’m a human. I’m not here to be used’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Anna says:

    CLOSE. YOUR. MOUTH. I want so badly to like her, but she seems like a one-trick pony! Her face looks the same in every picture.

  2. Romy says:

    Why is her mouth always open in photos? Is it to be sexy or does she have a Taylor Swift overbite? No really,do men like the open mouth look,is it for them?

  3. DreamyK says:

    Sarah Jessica Parker did the peacock dress better.

    The story of Upton’s life.

  4. I don’t usually think she’s anything special, but that last photo is STUNNING.

  5. Spooks says:

    I like her. She has a beautiful face and seems smart. They did photoshop her a waist on the cover.

  6. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    I would hope that all Christians…people of all religions really would focus on being decent, compassionate people to their fellow man, than worrying about what someone else is wearing or what they were born with. I would rather have everyone dress and act like Coco Austin-who is probably the nicest person to make it big on reality tv, than act like all the townspeople in The Scarlet Letter.

    I get what she’s saying. It’s like saying that she can’t possibly be smart because she’s blonde with big boobs and is a model. Which, I get that it could be true, because modeling isn’t rocket science, but it still undermines ALL the people in the business.

    • unmade_bed says:

      Not only is she a model…she’s a boob model. They are not modeling clothes in SI. Clothes models are totally different, in my opinion, because they are selling the clothes, not themselves.

    • Sandrine says:

      I don’t think she was even saying she’s a Christian at all. I don’t think this is even about religion. I think it’s the idea that if someone wears a cross (or a medal of a saint or some such thing) then they must be religious, and if they are religious then every single thing they do is up for judgement. I think the girl just wore the cross because her mom gave it to her and maybe she comes from a religious family. I can’t tell you the number of friends and family members I have who are non-religious Catholics but we all have some type of religious iconography or symbols on our person, in our car, and in our home. It’s more about family and heritage than it is about religion. No one should have questioned her or mocked her about the necklace. That story illustrates what a truly cynical, snooty, and intolerant environment the fashion industry really is.

  7. itstrue says:

    I just kinda doubt the “good girl” thing more based on cat daddy. Less on boobs.

  8. break says:

    So she becomes famous by selling/using her large breasts and pretty face… continues to do so, then complains that men objectify her.

    • Babalon says:

      Exactly.

      Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition ain’t exactly the Christian Science Newsletter. Get your s–t together, Boo Boo.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I disagree. A woman has the right to celebrate her figure in some contexts and keep those curves to her self in other contexts.

      Just because you are a model does not give men the right to treat you like they are entitled to your body.

      • Flappydo says:

        One day we women will realize we had a lot to contribute to men treating us and objectifying us the way they do… until we’re ready to take responsibility, it’s not going to change.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I think women have many facets, they wear many “hats”, they can be different things in different situations.

        I don’t think that if a woman looks great while posing in a bikini, that she should be treated as if she is wearing that bikini for the rest of her life.

      • blaize says:

        @Flappydo: No woman is ever responsible for herself or other women being sexually harassed by men. Ever. Men get way too much of a pass to do certain things based on the clothing (or lack thereof), dance moves, and history of women, instead of being held solely responsible for their own actions.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “Men get way too much of a pass to do certain things based on the clothing (or lack thereof), dance moves, and history of women, instead of being held solely responsible for their own actions.”

        I agree. I hate the way society treats men, as if they are children or beasts that have no control or responsibility for their actions.

      • Kitten Mittens says:

        I’m all for equality and being judged on what I contribute rather than my looks, but she’s not doing anything. She dances provocatively and models clothes (mostly undergarments).
        Maybe when she shows another side to herself. An intellectual side or a side that is involved with something to better a community without marketing VS I will buy this from her.
        The rest of this object argument falls on her. She needs to ween out the guys that only want to objectify and learn she won’t be changing their habits anytime soon.

        So, until these things occur she IS marketing herself as an object. One that looks good half naked.
        A good step in the right direction is to never model for that creeper Terry again! If she does take a job with him again this argument holds no water. A model of her name recognition can request another photographer at this point.

    • Elle Kaye says:

      There will always be people such as yourself who will see a person as what they do, instead of who they are. That is a sad fact of life for which she should be prepared. So what if she dresses sexy for the camera? It does not mean she is a sex worker or a woman begging for sex. It means she is a woman who models for a living. Sadly, though, she will always need to educate people on this, for they will always feel the need to label and stereotype.

    • Isabel says:

      She has Cyrus-virus: Displaying the goods, then say she is being objectified/’No one is taking me serious’/ I don’t use my body to sell stuff, it’s my craft that sells stuff.

      God, I need to trademark Cyrus-virus, first thing is earplugs and a mask so we don’t have to listen to and look at whiners anymore.

  9. Kcaia says:

    Wow! What’s not to like about her? She’s sexy and smart, appears to have intellect and be somewhat feminist. Plus she’s a role model for girls and women that doesn’t look hungry. Andshe has a gorgeous mouth!

  10. Kcaia says:

    Wow! What’s not to like about her? She’s sexxy and smart, appears to have intellect and be somewhat feminist. Plus she’s a role model for girls and women that doesn’t look hungry. Andshe has a gorgeous mouth!

  11. Nerd Alert says:

    Good for her and all, but seriously. Close your damn mouth. Maybe people think she’s a toy because she poses like a blow-up doll?

    • Tiffany :) says:

      To be fair…open mouth is the style in most celeb/magazine photoshoots now days. I have heard photographers say that sometimes a closed mouth can create tension in the jaw and around the mouth, but I think the trend is really about making women appear available. Once i noticed it, I see it all the time now!

  12. Nessa says:

    Wow. This is the first time I think she looks legitimately gorgeous. That last picture is incredible.

  13. Talie says:

    She looks best in the last pic, stripped down, not a lot of fuss.

  14. Shannon says:

    Doesn’t want to be called a dumb blonde….but wasn’t she the one shaking her boobs for that creepy Terry guy? First thing I thought when I saw that video was DUMB. BLONDE.

    • mabooski says:

      SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SHAKE HER BOOBS WITHOUT BEING INSULTED. I dont understand how this is a hard concept to grasp.

      • Shannon says:

        Hahahahahaha oh no doubt she can shake those big fun bags. But people WILL judge.

      • Tapioca says:

        If you don’t want people thinking you’re a dumb blonde then it’s probably not a good idea to make it easy for them by reducing yourself down to a pair of tits on the Internet!

      • mabooski says:

        so by that line of thinking anyone who wears booty shorts is a skank right? UGH.

      • raindrop says:

        YES. Thank you, @mabooski.

        The “well, she can’t dress like that/act like that and expect us to take her seriously” line is wayyyyy too close for comfort to the “but she was wearing [a skimpy dress/short shorts/burqa], so she definitely asked for it” defense.

      • Nerd Alert says:

        Sorry, but you should probably expect to be insulted if you wear booty shorts in public. You can also expect to be judged for shaking your tits for Uncle Terry. Maybe not to your face, but behind your back(side). And no, it is not a “right” she has–to not be insulted. That’s not a right anybody has, except maybe Vladimir Putin. It’s not at all like expecting to get raped. Everybody judges; not everybody is a violent creep.

        I don’t hate Kate, I actually think she’s quite a lovely person, very sweet and smart, yes, and a good interview. I would hang with this chick all day and probably have a great time. I don’t get her modeling appeal, though.

      • Shannon says:

        She was shaking her tits to be SEXY. Yes we are seeing it and some of us are judging. It is what it is when you are in the public eye and you are shaking your goods around. People are going to form opinions and some of them will not be good opinions.

      • Flappydo says:

        She has a right to shake her boobs and people have a right to have their opinions about her shaking her boobs..

    • Elle Kaye says:

      Explain to me why she is a “dumb” blonde if she is shaking her boobs? How many brunettes have shaken their assets for that creep, and they have not been referred to as “dumb.”

      Every time I read comments like this, it makes me shake my head. It is thinking like this that is the reason why a woman will have a very hard time ever getting elected President. You can’t look at her and see that she is a voluptuous woman who managed to find a place for herself in a world full of size 0 models. No…if she isn’t spouting off about Newtonian relativity while wearing a proper turtleneck and glasses, then she isn’t legitimate.

      People hide their hatred behind their call of, “but she makes herself look bad when she shakes her boobs” No. You make women look bad when you say that she doesn’t have the right to have fun and shake her boobs. That she is relegated to behaving sternly or without whimsy in order to be taken “seriously.” That she cannot be both sexy and intelligent, playful and serious. That she cannot be a model and be thought of as anything other than an object to be ridiculed.

      Women have had to fight for every right they have. When will fellow women stop keep us down?

      • Shannon says:

        Don’t get me wrong I think the girl is a bombshell but people will judge her for being ditzy. There are all sorts of ditzy women. Doesn’t matter the hair color. Also there are idiot MEN as well.

        The girl is seen as a sex symbol and I’m sorry shaking your fun bags for a perv like Terry is going to make people wonder if maybe you aren’t the brightest crayon in the box.

    • unmade_bed says:

      No problem here with big breasts or nudity, but a major problem with the objectification of women and selling sexuality/sex. Women should be able to walk around town in whatever they want and as long as they aren’t doing it to be seductive, they should expect respect; but Kate Upton objectified and sold herself on a men’s mag and is upset that people treat her like an object.

      • Shannon says:

        Thank you. And then she wonders why people judge her for being a dumb blonde. The SI thing never bother me. It was the Terry video that made me start judging.

      • unmade_bed says:

        I may be a bit of a purist and prude when it comes to selling sex. I don’t think any of it is respectable, SI included. If it weren’t for people who sold/bought sexual images/sex, it would be that much easier for the rest of us to walk around unencumbered by clothing (if we felt like it), without worrying about being harassed. I think it would change the whole dynamic of how we view ourselves and one another. Our bodies would take on new meaning, purpose and power.

      • blaize says:

        Sexual harassment (and worse) would still be around even if women in the entertainment industry never did a naked photo shoot and even if there weren’t people buying ‘sexy’ magazines. These problems were around decades, centuries, and even millennia ago. They just weren’t always called what they are today, or even seen as bad. They occur in all cultures, even those where the things that Kate Upton, Madonna, and Beyoncé have done are taboo.

    • Isabel says:

      The video was her dancing in a too small bikini, while everything fell out.
      It was supposed to be sexy. She is famous because she is sexy. Then why complain about people staring at your boobs? If your whole image is based on your curves people are gonna look at them and sadly there is still a stigma that pretty and busty ladies can’t be smart, classy or good parents.

      Look at the average sexy model’s twitterpage: insults everywhere.

      • Shannon says:

        Perfect description. “Too small bikini while everything fell out.” Totally ditzy video and yes, very sexy.

        If Kate doesn’t want people objectifying her, maybe she should just do high fashion spreads like this one. But no, T&A is what sells. THAT is why she’s even famous to begin with. Stop complaining, Kate!!

  15. mabooski says:

    “I’m not a toy, I’m a human. I’m not here to be used. I am a grown woman, and you need to figure your s–t out.”

    YES. MA’AM!

  16. Kate says:

    She really, really bores me. She’s a fine SI/second tier VS model, she’d be good for low end skin care ranges, mid range jean brands, that sort of thing, but she’s not editorial material and I really don’t understand how she’s gotten this far. Every editorial I’ve seen of her is interchangeable, and high end and couture clothes wear her. It’s not about her shape either, there are so many larger models than Kate who are 100 times better. Tara Lynn and Candice Huffine for example have a similar, crowd pleasing kind of beauty, but far more presence.

    • Amanda says:

      I agree. I just don’t see her as a high end model.

    • stellalovejoydiver says:

      She is with IMG, the best model agency out there who are pushing her hardly, also the mainstream fashion world seems to like her.
      The same goes for skinny models like Cara Delivigne, she is a horrible model, but she is the new it model for some reason.

    • MaiGirl says:

      ITA. She just isn’t a very good or very versatile model. She is very pretty, but a lot of models who are very good are a little strange looking because that is what makes them interesting to photograph. Kate is just boring, and you’re right, high-end clothes wear her. I don’t hate her or think she is stupid (maybe a little vapid, but she;s young), but I don’t see much to write home about.

  17. CTgirl says:

    I don’t have a problem with her – she’s not on my radar. But I do have a problem with people who flash cleavage everywhere bitching about being objectified.

    Darling, no one can objectify you except yourself and this comes off as “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

    • Kcaia says:

      But she’s a model. She can’t go into photo shoots refusing to show cleavage, or wear certain outfits, and her career wouldn’t be what it is if she didn’t take certain gigs. I mean, no one cries objectifying when David Beckhams package is on a giant billboard, or even when Jen Aniston shows HER breasts in a movie, for that matter.

      • CTgirl says:

        No one cries “objectified” at Beckham because he doesn’t care and doesn’t moan about be objectified. But to fight against being considered a ditz or being objectified when your career choice is to show your cleavage seems a little dumb. Either enjoy the ride or get off the ride but don’t bitch about the ride.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Yeah I mean, Beckham is a world-class athlete, known for more than just his looks (although that obviously didn’t hurt his career) and Aniston is an (albeit mediocre) actress, so while image is a component to their success, it’s not the defining factor.

        Upton is part of an industry that continually perpetuates the objectification of women (whether intentionally or not) and is based solely on appearance so it does strike me as a bit off-base to complain about it. If your job is as a paid mannequin, people are going to have trouble seeing you as more than just your image. Society’s problem? Maybe, but that’s the reality of the industry she’s in.

        That being said, I don’t blame the girl for wanting to be considered as a human being, not a prop, but then maybe she should have chosen a different career path?

      • Nerd Alert says:

        OKitten, from my brain to your keyboard. Seriously.

        The nature of her job is to be objectified, that’s her paycheck. She should expect this sort of behavior, and she should confront it, like she’s doing. Just because she knows people are going to treat her like a child doesn’t mean she has to stand for it. Does anybody here think someone would take a necklace from Naomi Cambell or talk to Cindy Crawford like a stripper? Seriously, imagine the cajones it would take to suggest taking jewelry from Naomi. Just because it’s to be expected, doesn’t mean it’s to be tolerated.

      • Kcaia says:

        But DB would have no need to complain bc him being objectified does not cause him to be judged by the masses, or treated with less respect and dignity, and if it were a woman of more modest curves, less sexuality, it probably wouldn’t stir up the same kind of response as it would for Kate. Terry R shooting KU topless is considered soft poorn, another model it may be considered art. I don’t blame Kate for the industry or sexualization in the media, bc these things occurred before she was born. I just wish women were treated equally whether they’re thin, curvy, sexxy, fat or homely. Every person should be treated with respect based on their personality and actions only, imo. I’m hoping girls like her may start changing societys perception of thin as beautiful. If ones naturally thin, good for them, but I hate that women starve themselves just to be a size 2 or 0.

      • unmade_bed says:

        “her career wouldn’t be what it is if she didn’t take certain gigs”

        My career would be a whole lot better, too, if I had no morals. We all are responsible for the choices we make, and “success” is not an excuse.

      • blaize says:

        @Unmade bed: Has no morals? Really? So whether or not a woman has morals are determined by things like sex and clothing? L.O.L., Somebody needs to read The Purity Myth A.S.A.P.

        A lot of (ignorant) people believe that whether or not a person has morals is determined by their conforming to ‘traditional values’. So if a person doesn’t follow those ‘rules’, they automatically have no morals. I don’t think I need to tell you all the problems that are caused in the world by that mentality.

        Morality are standards of right and wrong. They can differ from person to person. A person can wear revealing clothes and even be naked but have morals. And a person can dress conservatively and have none. So let’s not make morality about purity or the clothing that one wears. This isn’t 1950, Mam.

      • Jenna says:

        @blaize: Chill. You might want to re-check unmade_bed’s statement. I believe she was referencing herself when she commented on morals and success. Who are we to know what she means by that?

      • unmade_bed says:

        @blaize and @jenna – Yeah, there was a lot of reaching there in response to what I said. I probably could have worded it better, though. I said what I said in response to a previous comment:
        “But she’s a model. She can’t go into photo shoots refusing to show cleavage, or wear certain outfits, and her career wouldn’t be what it is if she didn’t take certain gigs.”
        My career typically suffers when I apply my morality and conscience to it, turning down jobs, clients, etc. I was just saying that if certain gigs went against what Kate Upton believed in and how she wanted to be portrayed, then she didn’t HAVE to take them. Being successful is nice, but there are things that are more important to me.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ NerdAlert *high-fives*

        @ Kcaia: “But DB would have no need to complain bc him being objectified does not cause him to be judged by the masses, or treated with less respect and dignity”

        Eh, I disagree. Athletes that are attractive like Beckham, Tom Brady, Jeter etc DO get a rash of sh*t for being “pretty boys” from opposing fan bases and the media alike. Tom Brady comes to mind for me (because I’m a Pats fan) because around here, people often talk more about his appearance than what a talented athlete he is–they just don’t take him as seriously as they should because many perceive him as “handsome”. Also, they often question his intelligence because of the way he looks, when the guy is obviously an intelligent, well-spoken dude.

        Ryan Lochte? Same bag. Although, he isn’t the sharpest tool in the tool shed, his looks have made him a pretty big punch-line for late-night talk show hosts, as well as given him a large female fanbase that really could GAF about his swimming ability. I think in general, men just handle being objectified with ease because objectification of men has never been as pervasive as it has been for women, nor was objectification ever used to keep a man down or “put him in his place”.

      • anon33 says:

        Oy, I actually watched a couple episodes of Ryan Lochte’s show. He truly is a good-looking moron. He seems kinda sweet, but he is the opposite of bright.

      • Bijlee says:

        @okitt It was so much easier shitting on Brady when I didn’t know how well educated and smart he is. Even Gisele is smarter than people give her credit for IMO especially for the industry she works in and she cares about the environment and all that. And he seems to play a major role in his other sons life…he seems like a nice dude dammit!

  18. Zorbitor says:

    Don’t objectify me! Pay to see my tits!

  19. Jenna says:

    Eh, she’s not even a real blonde. As for Kate, I have no problem with her. She’s cute and harmless. I just refuse to fawn over her because she’s busty and is being labeled as ‘curvy’. Girl, please.

  20. Maria says:

    i know some will rage about it but if you are a model whats your job? to be an object. models arent paid to be kind or intelligent. to improve the world or do hard work.
    they here are for visual pleasure and they sign up for it because they want it not because they are forced to do it.

    and why do you pick such a job? because you want to be known as the clever girl? or because you love the attention your looks attract?

    the woman in the subway riding next to the pervy guy shouldnt be objectified but she is getting paid to be the object of desire.

  21. Umm..no says:

    So typical…objectify yourself to MAKE boatloads of money and then blame everyone else for thinking you’re nothing but a toy!

  22. Dani says:

    I mean if you don’t want to be treated like a piece of meat…how about not showcasing your boobs and assets every other chance you get? I don’t know…just a though.

  23. Shelley says:

    How can anyone find that last photo beautiful? She looks to literally be holding a fox by its tail. Unless that’s a remarkably good fake, that is repulsive. Real fur is ugly, and I’m disappointed to see it.

  24. Katie says:

    You’re not a toy, yet you chose a modeling career and you’re becoming a cleat chaser. It seems to me that not only are you here to be used, you’re happy to be used. Also, you are a dumb blonde. Don’t confuse intelligence with being a famewhore/willing to do whatever you need to do to be/stay famous.

  25. Ira says:

    So Elle magazine decided to put two girls in the same dress the same month how lame!

    Dont judge me but actually I like better on Kate

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/08/article-0-1B3292D4000005DC-307_634x819.jpg

  26. Rita says:

    “I’m not here to be used”….but if you pay me, I’ll make my boobs bounce.

  27. Lamont says:

    Erm, Kate’s already scored Vogue, US, UK, Italia and Brazil. This is NOT her first major fashion mag cover

  28. Georgina says:

    Normally think Kate is harmless, but I have a big problem with someone who makes their money by pushing their tits up on the cover of men’s mags or doing the Cat Daddy in a swim suit crying foul about the objectification. No one held a gun to her head to get her to agree to SI, etc.. She needs to either quit complaining or choose not to pursue that kind of work in the future…can’t really have it both ways.

  29. Sophia says:

    It is a magazines POV to interview her, so really if she has an outlet I can see why she would use it at this point. As for her mouth being open, when models shoot, they usually take a slight reverse sigh. That relaxes the face. Overall, I really did like her safari themed shoot better- was that in Vogue?

  30. the artful dodger says:

    I think saying she deserves to be insulted and objectified because of her career and the less than classy ways she has promoted that career is a bit harsh. We would never tell a lawyer they deserve to be made fun of and deemed a horrible person because of their job and things they have done while fulfilling that job.

    • blaize says:

      Because for thousands of years we have been socialized to believe that a female is only ‘respectable’ if she covers up…. among other things.

      • Emily C. says:

        And that once you have big boobs, that’s it, you can’t be smart/good/respected at all. And if you’re pretty, it’s even worse. Oh and blondes are all bubbleheads on top of that. And how dare she make money off her looks — she should be fine with being treated like an object because of that. Because a woman who is seen in a sexual way automatically loses all right to respect.

        Misogyny soup.

      • unmade_bed says:

        For the record, Blaize, I don’t have a problem with nudity, and I am a good feminist. Going around shaming commenters who recognize irony for misogyny and ignorance is misguided.

  31. InvaderTak says:

    Typical. I feel a rant coming on..

    Now she’s famous and gets “better” magazine covers and covers more than the lad mag scene and she suddenly becomes Pinocchio.

    I’m angry about the two-faced nature of this. KU here was every man’s fantasy girl for a while. A job she used social media to campaign for. She said, did and dressed for the part. She wasn’t asking for respect from these men. She needed their attention for her own ends. And now that she’s covering magazines focused on women she’s whining about being treated like crap, looking for sympathy from other women and trying to make a vaguely feminist statement.

    Why should I respect that? Her previous actions suggest she was fine with being men’s fantasy material. She promoted herself into the role! Does she care about being objectified for real or is this another line to get where she wants?

    Edit: Just to clarify, my objection is strictly with Kate Upton and what she says vs what she has done. I agree that no woman should be objectified and marginalized simply because they are women, or pretty or whatever. But it seems to me KU volunteered, and now either doesn’t like the job or was told by a publicist what to say to appeal to Elle’s target audience.

    • Emily C. says:

      I fail to see how having a job being pretty and, yes, fantasy material, is incompatible with being respected as a human being. Do we say Robert Pattinson should be okay with being treated like an object, or is some kind of hypocrite for having a “sexy” persona?

      Anyone who wants to fantasize about someone they think of as an object is gross anyway. But there is no reason a woman cannot be sexy and respected at the same time. This idea that once a woman is overtly sexual or arouses men, she is fair game for treating like shit, is misogynistic and it is part of rape culture.

      • blaize says:

        Exactly. Nobody says Channing Tatum doesn’t deserve respect, and look at him.

      • InvaderTak says:

        That’s not what I’m saying. Sexy and respectable are not mutually exclusive. I’m saying I think KU is saying/ doing what an audience wants to hear. She wasn’t upset about the attention at all until she started doing interviews with magazines targeted to women. I’m not so much discussing the issue as questioning KUs authenticity. She comes off as pandering to anyone and everyone to me.

  32. QuietAmyMtl says:

    wow,seems like some of you ladies are equating being blond with having the after effects of fetal alcoholsyndrome…how middle ages of you. oh and youre all just jealous because she is totally gorgeous with an amazing body and youre, well, NOT!

  33. Melissa says:

    I agree with her that some people tend to see models as disposable toys they can use and throw away as they please whether in person or online. However, Kate had a major role to play in how she is perceived.

    She’s harmless, but getting thinner by the minute. It’s usually like that with models/actresses that the industry would consider “curvy”, they talk about it ad nauseam, then go around and lose the weight subtlety.

    Like someone else mentioned, I think she is (or her people are) over the sexy-man-fantasy image and now she (or they) wants to play the talented, intelligent, well read, but ALSO incredibly beautiful model/actress.

  34. drea says:

    Really? Considering her previous body of work, the part about feeling terrible is a bit confusing to me. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I think I’ll have to wait and see. It’ll take years, because the stench of Terry Richardson is that hard to wash off…and that’s even assuming this cover isn’t STILL, in some way, thanks to him.

  35. Meg says:

    I find it funny that joe simpson took pregnant teens in his home who were runaways or kicked out by their parents. then what happens to his own daughters? jess has two kids out of wedlock, ashlee had a shotgun wedding and was divorced shortly after that.
    I don’t know why people don’t teach safe sex. Communities that teach abstinence only have the highest teen pregnancy rates and STD rates as well

  36. Bella Bella says:

    Ugh, I just think she is gorgeous! I wish Leo didn’t like girls 90 pounds and under because Leo and this Kate would make the prettiest babies.

  37. Elle Kaye says:

    What is with all the “dumb blonde” references? Seriously. Especially from woman. Are you really going to perpetuate these sexist stereotypes? This kind of bigotry?

    It really turns my stomach. Women should know better. And if you don’t, then go read some books on women’s struggles.

    She is working in one of the few industries where women are paid more than men. The rest of us are earning roughly 80% of what men earn. I would say that is very smart thinking on her part.

  38. Raquel says:

    Here’s the thing–If you treat yourself like a toy, people will view you as one. I’m all for respecting women, and for women being able to be sexy without being sexualized.

    Still, when a young woman who has based her career on drawing attention to self-objectifying she is says something like that, it just makes me roll my eyes. Quit being pretentious; people don’t respect someone who doesn’t respect herself.

    • Emily C. says:

      Posing sexily is not being an object or saying it’s okay to be treated like an object. Sexuality does not make a woman an object. Being overtly sexy, making money from being overtly sexy, and respecting onesself are all perfectly compatible.

      • unmade_bed says:

        How so? Just because you string those sentences together doesn’t mean they hold any water.

      • Raquel says:

        Yes, but there is a difference between posing sexily, being sexy, and banking your entire career on being a sex symbol. If Upton had any dimension to her career, at all, that was not posing in tight clothes with her mouth agape, I would see her as a legit career woman who expresses her sexuality. But she doesn’t, and so I see her as a chick who makes bank on her sex symbol status, and then has the shallow gall to whine about how people see her as a sex symbol.

        I’m as feminist as they come–but she doesn’t get to have it both ways. Feminism is about respect and power. Upton is as complicit in the infantilization of beautiful women as it gets. The notion that someone who trivializes herself should not be viewed as trivial is not feminism, and I refuse to rush around and affirm women who behave like that. It is just self-indulgence dressed up in faux-feminist theory. There’s a reason they didn’t call the movement haveyourcakeandeatittooism.

        That’s the difference. If Upton weren’t a sex object she would be Kate NoOne–and she damn well knows it. I find it highly annoying when women hop on board the chauvinism express, buy a ticket to the top, and then whine that they are viewed through a chauvinistic lens…as if they are the victims. No one is a victim of a situation they create for themselves–especially if they created the situation for their own profit.

      • minimi says:

        @Raquel (I love this sentence of yours :D )

        “I find it highly annoying when women hop on board the chauvinism express, buy a ticket to the top, and then whine that they are viewed through a chauvinistic lens”

        Best sentence ever to explain why every women involved in the over-sexualization seen on the media are really part of the problem and not some random victim…so whining about it is quite funny, when if it wasn’t for this chauvinistic society she would have no job.

      • blaize says:

        @Raquel: “The notion that someone who trivializes herself should not be viewed as trivial is not feminism, and I refuse to rush around and affirm women who behave like that. It’s just self-indulgence dressed up in feminist theory.”

        Well thank goodness you’re not the only feminist in the world, and therefore don’t get to define everyone’s feminism for them :D . Feminists don’t all agree on every single subject. I’m a feminist too, and I see the whole “She dresses this way/has done that over there, so what respect as a human being could she possibly expect or be entitled to” idea as only two steps away from the dangerous words of that police officer from a few years ago.

      • Raquel says:

        Minimi–thank, you. Glad to know I’m not the only one who gets fed up with it.

        Blaize–haha, well, thank goodness feminism, as a theory, is based on reason, and therefore you have to use premises and arguments that have merit and logical backing to justify your positions :) . Otherwise, I really would be about two unfleshed-out, undefined steps away from saying something akin to some unproduced quote made by some unnamed police office some undefined period ago.

        I never claimed to be queen of the feminists, and I certainly don’t think everyone agrees with me (debate would be boring if it did). But, you have to present your position intelligently. With facts. Not blanket attacks on someone, just because they made you feel bad about your little idol.

        She deserves respect as a human. All humans are merited human rights. Not being viewed in the manner that you present yourself, however, is not a human right. Dressing a way to express yourself as an individual is one thing. Dressing a way so that someone can pay you moolah because your ass makes moolah for them is self-exploitation is quite another. And, self-exploitation and self-respect are two incongruous things.

      • unmade_bed says:

        @Raquel – You sound incredibly intelligent. I am so glad there are feminists out there like you.

      • Raquel says:

        unmadebed–thank you, you’re sweet. I’ve been enjoying your posts very much, as well.

    • blaize says:

      Right….. because self-respect is determined by modesty. Good girls avoid posing sexily and wearing certain clothes. This proves that a female has self-respect and is deserving of respect. If a woman does not conform to these rules, she has no self-respect and should not be expected to be treated with any as a human being.

      Serena Williams? Is that you?

      • Raquel says:

        Ho, hum. Go back, and read what I said. Carefully, use those reading comprehension skills 7th graders get tested on with three-sentence paragraphs and MC bubble blank sheets. Debate just isn’t interesting, if your opponent is not capable of at least that. Of course, if your opponent is only capable of making blanket attacks and insults, at least the ‘debate’ is funny, if a bit one-sided :) .

      • Mich says:

        @Raquel

        I don’t think I’ve seen you around these parts before but I sure have fallen in love with you fast.

      • Raquel says:

        @Mich–aw, *blushes* thank-you!

      • blaize says:

        @Raquel: Great job Derailing Using Intellectualism!

        The reason why I and other women on this post have such a problem with the whole “If you treat yourself like a toy, people will view you as a toy…People don’t respect someone who doesn’t respect herself” mentality that you and others have expressed on this post is because, like Raindrop said on a comment higher up, it’s similar to the “If you dress like a (), don’t be surprised if you get sexually harassed or worse” attitude. I know that since you’re also a feminist, that’s not what you’re saying. But the two arguments are connected, whether people realize it or not. It’s a slippery slope.

        And Kate Upton is hardly my idol, by the way. I barely know anything about her other than the fact that she’s a model. This has nothing to do with my opinion of her. Nice try though.

      • Raquel says:

        blaize–what is derailing using intellectualism? Is that calling someone out because they spew insults and launch blanket attacks, instead of building coherent arguments like seven year olds? Then, I suppose I shall have to derail further.

        A slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is nothing but poor critical thinking. So, no, stating that a woman who actively promotes and profits from being a sex object is hardly a martyr when she is seen as a sex object is not the same thing as rape justification. They are not connected.

        People who accuse others of rape-justification, merely for stating a perspective that is not held by themselves, are not critical thinkers, or feminists. They are just silly little assholes who think their lowbrow, shock-value accusations constitute a substitute for an actual coherent thought. I don’t think very highly of those people.

      • blaize says:

        @Raquel: It’s not a logical fallacy. There are many books and websites that discuss how society deeming certain females as ‘not respectable’ (or worse) based on matters of clothing and sex is connected to society justifying sexual harassment/assault against females based on matters of sex and clothing.

        If you want to learn more about Derailing, look at the site Derailing for Dummies.

      • Raquel says:

        blaize–Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. If I said that my spending 3 dollars on coffee today might cause me to spend twenty on coffee by the end of next week, that is a fallacious statement. It is more or less the very first fallacy that gets talked about when people talk about logical fallacies :) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope .

        “Many books” is not a source. I could just turn around, and point out that “many authors”–especially the ones churning out books on social issues–are unqualified crackpots who couldn’t string a coherent argument together :) . Glenn Beck is a published social commentary author, for crying out loud–I’m not going to rest any argument I make on ‘many arguments’ written by that man.

        There is no equivalency between the opinion that candid complicity in a sexist industry gives someone no leg to stand on when they complain that the sexism that they themselves have actively promoted for their own gain throughout their ‘careers’ bit them on the ass and rape justification. Again, people who slap such labels on others who express viewpoints differently from them, are just shrill assholes trying to ‘argue’ with lowbrow tactics. Unless they can actually build a coherent argument to make their case. A fallacy-free one that doesn’t rest on ipse dixit sources :) .

        I don’t actually care to explore derailment. Coming as it does from someone who seriously did not know that the slippery slope was a fallacy, I doubt the notion is a widely-discussed sociological phenomenon.

    • Elle Kaye says:

      @Raquel,
      What you actually said was, “Dressing a way to express yourself as an individual is one thing. Dressing a way so that someone can pay you moolah because your ass makes moolah for them is self-exploitation is quite another.”

      So, if she dressed sexy for herself, that is fine, but if she dresses sexy for the camera and gets paid for it, then that is self-exploitation? Because she should not be paid for her looks?

      Doesn’t that put every person with a specific skill in that category? An artist who paints for themselves is fine, but if they sell their work then they are selling out? The singer who sings in the shower is fine with you, but don’t dare sign a recording contract for then they are considered a media-whore.

      Your arguments fall short. You are saying that a person does not have the right, in your world, to market their outward features because it is exploitative. That she is infantilizing women by her behavior. She cannot jump up and down in a bikini and then expect to be taken seriously. Because you deem it so.

      That is sexist nonsense. No one looks at Channing Tatum and says “now there is dumb blonde man,” because he takes his shirt off and plays silly characters on film. No, it is fine if he exploits his body in every film and on every talk show he appears on. Women love that. But another woman had better not try that same thing, because she will be labeled a bimbo. A stupid.

      That double standard is so out-dated. She plays a character for the camera, nothing more. If you cannot, or will not, separate the two, then that is your choice. But I refuse to judge anyone for the job they do. People deserve respect. I don’t believe that the sanitation worker who picks up my trash is covered in that same trash all day. No, it is his job. It does not define him.

      • blaize says:

        Amen!

        You seem very tolerant, open-minded, and above the whole slut-shaming/victim-blaming/double standard game. May you always be that way :)

      • unmade_bed says:

        @Elle Kaye – The point is, if you are paid for your looks, and your look is of a blow-up doll, then don’t complain about people treating you like an object.

        “No one looks at Channing Tatum and says “now there is a dumb blonde man,” because he takes his shirt off and plays silly characters on film.” I will simply say, I beg to differ ;) That is exactly what I say about Channing Tatum.

      • Raquel says:

        I actually said a great deal more than that, over the course of several postings. Taking two quotes in isolation, giving a meaning to them that a. never existed, and b. can be gleaned within the larger arguments that I have been consistently making is a.not the same thing as arguing with the points I made and b. making straw men.

        I refuse to see Upton as a victim, because she is a perpetrator. That she got caught in her own web–the social damage that she has profited from consensually perpetuating, among other things, a completely sexist Fantasy Girl trope for a sexist industry, and never had a problem with it while the going was good–does not make her a victim. I am not going to rally around her little cause. That is my distilled argument.

        I never said that a woman who dances in a bikini should not be taken seriously. Don’t strawman me like that; It’s annoying.

        Shakira dances in a bikini, P*nk dances in a bikini, Brooke Shields dances in a bikini. I take them seriously, because, respectively–Shakira builds performances drawing from her Lebanese heritage out of dancing in a bikini that combines a serious physical discipline with music she herself creates, she travels the world, attends universities for things that interest her; and speaks four languages; P*nk creates intelligent music that derides sexism and its perpetuation, no matter who is complicit (I bet a lot of people here have a problem with the song ‘Stupid Girls’ which is more or less my point, lol), and Brooke Shields took on Tom Cruise for pretending his hack religion gave him a right to comment on how she dealt with PPD. They dance in bikinis; I take them seriously. Because they do serious stuff.

        What has Upton ever done to be taken seriously? Nothing. But she wants to be, apparently, just because. I’m not going to affirm that. Especially when, she has been merrily complicit in carefully crafting and marketing via social media campaigns an image of herself as a vapid, titillating little twit.

      • Raquel says:

        And, no, Channing Tatum is not the male version of Upton. He is the male version of the horde of lousy female actresses who can’t do their jobs but are, obnoxiously enough, in 5 movies a year because people like their asses. He acts- badly or not, he chooses scripts, memorizes lines, works with directors, and delivers them for movies that he then promotes. That’sshe doesn’t sell tangible things (just a grossly distorted & photo why people call him an actor.

        Upton just sells an image of herself as a sex object. She models, but shoped version of the female form and the annoying Fantasy Girl trope). And, you know what? There are no men who get paid as much as she does, attain the fame that she has–merely for clenching their butt cheeks and making a vapid sexy face at the camera. We could address the reason that this is so (why society only exalts young women who act like merry little sex objects, and not men who do the same–but I think these forums are a little to strawmany and hysterical for the seriousness that topic deserves.

        I’m not going down the generalized rabbit trail where we say ‘if men did…’ and then disappear into hypothesisland. I will just say that if this was all JGL did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yEVAELCa2c —I wouldn’t take him seriously, either. Of course, if that was all he did, he wouldn’t be famous. Unlike Upton. So, he has to develop real skills (no, skills do not evaporate when you turn the big 4 zero, or when you gain a few pounds), and be an actor, instead.

  39. Emily C. says:

    I really like her, and she’s quite beautiful.

  40. Bijlee says:

    She’s so boring. Lol revolutionized the industry. Blonde and a couple more pounds do that. Man I would be a freaking rip in the space time continuum.

  41. NerdMomma says:

    Agh. I want to like Kate and I agree with her that she absolutely shouldn’t be objectified, treated like a child, or dismissed in any way. I think it’s very rude that someone laughed off the possibility of her being religious. Yet all she does all day every day is set a standard of beauty and body type that the average woman cannot live up to- Kate has access to Photoshop, for example, and we regular gals can’t do that to the images we present to the world. So, thanks to Kate Upton and the women like her, WE ALL get objectified. She is part of the problem for US. I think she should confront that at some point.

  42. unmade_bed says:

    Kate said, “After my first Sports Illustrated cover, I felt terrible about myself for a solid month.”

    So that explains why she took her top OFF and squeezed them together for the second cover?

    And a whole month to feel bad? Wow, that is SUCH a long time!

    I’m sorry, but she sounds so dumb here, and anyone who tries to argue for the validity of what she is saying does, too.

  43. Sandrine says:

    The bit about the cross necklace/tattoo is pretty impressive, I must admit. As a not-very-religious born-and-raised-Catholic myself I know how she feels. For some people religion is just part of our culture growing up, and despite whatever lifestyle or environment we find ourself in as adults we still feel the power of that protection and the guidance of that value system. It stays with a lot of us. I would never let someone take my cross from me. It would be like trying to take me away from my family, my heritage.

  44. Daniel says:

    I don’t see her acting, singing, directing, writing, or creating anything, just posing for pictures with her boobs popping out, so no I can’t take her seriously. She’s a model, doesn’t matter if she’s got a brain or not, what she’s promoting and showing us is her body, which she makes money showing off. I get sick and tired of models bitching about this or that mostly for “not being taken seriously”, well you don’t have a “serious” job that contributes ANYTHING to society, period. Do something like write a play, direct a movie, creative something original, then I’ll take you serious as an “artist”. Otherwise, shut the f*ck up, seriously.

  45. Mich says:

    Meh. She is still so young. I’m going to give her a pass for not understanding the full consequences of her actions. Sounds to me like she has learned some important lessons the hard way.

    Put yourself out there as a jackoff figure for men around the world and accept that a good number of those men are going to treat you the same in person. That is just reality. Doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. It just is.

  46. Norman says:

    I can’t help but say she is crying crocodile tears, Kate had a choice when it came to doing SI wearing butt-floss and she had a choice when she did her little dance that was banned on Youtube. She knew how the reaction would be from the observers. Stop with this fake moral outrage. I think Kate Upton should be more concerned with the obvious overuse of airbrushing for her Elle shoot and what it says to young women than guys pleasuring to her SI picture.

  47. Ennie says:

    I like her.
    I understand her complaints. There is always a bad side of a job. Hers has a lot of perks, well paid, traveling, meeting people, etc. But you will be viewed as the picture project. Like the baddies in a soap opera may get haters for who they pretend to be. Or maybe famous actors get tired of smiling and waving, but the real professionals will smile even when they are tired. If they complain, they will be called for their hipocricy and told to get another job, that it comes withthe territory. What those men say speaks more about them that what she does. They are the ones who do not deserve respect.
    A bit like if one goes to a conservative area or country and because you are wearing spagetti straps you are asking for disrespect.
    She is ambitious, and is making it even with her “flaws”. I like it.
    In regards to uncle terry, if other much important artists would say no to working with, or befriending him, that would be something to see.

  48. Ginger says:

    She is such a gorgeous girl I really don’t know why every photographer wouldn’t want to work with her. Plus she seems to be very sensible and professional. I love that simple photo of her with the book. The posing and the color are perfect.

  49. videli says:

    I feel for her, I think she got a lot of crap from industry pervs, and snotty matrons, and possibly skinnier colleagues. I wish her well in her acting career.

    Maybe it’s unfair, but she can’t have her cake and eat it, too. She can’t let herself be photographed like an inflatable on the SP cover and then shoot the message: this model does not approve of your fapping fantasies.

    A very intelligent knickers model? Cameron Russell. Cameron basically admitted that being pretty is a privilege, and she paid her way through college because of it.

  50. Jennifer12 says:

    I like her to an extent, but you don’t pose provocatively and then complain about being objectified.

  51. Bijlee says:

    The second photo seems so awkward.

  52. emmessann says:

    I think it’s fair for someone to say “Here are pictures of my body. Pictures are objects. Go ahead, objectify them,” and then say “I am a human being, not a picture. Please demonstrate that you understand the difference, and when you meet me, do not treat me as an object.”

    She may not care if all of us objectify her, because we’re looking at pictures. It is different if a man at a bar objectifies her face-to-face, and can no longer comprehend that she is a human being because there are objects with her image out there.

    It’s related to “if a woman runs naked down the street, does a passing man have the right to grab her and rape her?” Obviously no. In every circumstance, her running down the street does not create some special new privilege for men. They can’t intersect. No version of the act of running naked, even the deliberately sexy and provocative ones, changes the fact that raping her is a different, criminal, immoral act.

    In the same way, choosing to make pictures while understanding her image will be objectified, does not create some special new species so that she is no longer a person, just an object who can rightly be treated as one face-to-face, or fairly discussed as an object who deserves what it gets instead of a person. Pictures, even sexy ones, are different from a human being. They don’t intersect.

    People who show they can’t tell the difference between appropriate treatment of a picture, and of a human being, are saying more about themselves than her.

    • Kim says:

      I agree when it comes to fashion magazines but women posing almost naked/in very skimpy bikinis for a magazine read primarily by men about sports (S.I.) sends a whole different message. Basically it says that women are “sport.”

    • Elle Kaye says:

      I could not agree with you more. It is curious how people respond with such disdain to an attractive woman when she states that she isn’t taken seriously. Even if she were a banker and said this, people would have no sympathy for her. It is a sad statement on how women view other women, and how they support. or refuse to support, them. Especially if they are young, sexy, and attractive. They are viewed as competition, and something to be taken down. Studies have been done on female behavior and how they view each other. It is not flattering. Perhaps it is time women learn to evolve.

      • Katniss says:

        if anything your negative generalizations on women and opinions dressed as facts support your statements more than any actual facts on women hating other women

        i am a women
        and
        if she was a banker or had a career that was based on her INTELLIGENCE and was treated like a piece of meat and not taken seriously
        yes i would have sympathy for her

        but its the fact thats shes making a living off her BODY
        (breast implants) and whining about not getting taken seriously that irritates PEOPLE
        not just women

        you want to be respected and taken seriously?
        dont get into a shallow industry with a career that requires nothing more than posing with your clothes off and being photographed

        cant take the heat
        stay out the damn kitchen

  53. bsh says:

    she photographs really well but it’s a fact that she has an average body. She’s tall and have long legs, right, but we all saw her candid bikini pics from the set of that movie with Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann and, honestly, I don’t find that so special at all. Not much athletic also.

  54. Runs with Scissors says:

    Elle Kaye and emmessann have it right.

    Raquel, you aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are. You were schooled in the debate but you’re too busy patting yourself on the back to notice.

    • Raquel says:

      I never claimed to be smart, and I don’t pat myself on the back.

      I just think that name-calling, blanket attacks, personal digs, and the like are poor substitutes for reason & respectful debate (which I was never formally schooled in, btw) :) .

  55. Raquel says:

    blaize–the Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. It’s the logical fallacy people usually discuss first when they talk about glitches in critical thinking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope.

    “Many books” are neither a source, nor an argument. I can say that I disagree with “many authors”, who are unqualified crackpots. And unqualified crackpots tend to really churn out books on social commentary.

    I am not really interested in “learning” about “derailing”. I doubt that it is mind-blowing stuff. :)

    • Elle Kaye says:

      Wikipedia as a source? That is hardly scientific fact. It did make me laugh, though!!

      “Slippery Slope” is a figure of speech, a metaphor. It means that choices you make now can have dire consequences later.

      For every tough decision that a person makes, they worry that it is the right one. What the consequences might be. Will be. This phrase is rooted in history, as are so many terms we use today.

      To judge her because she used this phrase is to judge millions upon millions of intelligent Americans who use common phrases every single day.

      Tolerance is not to be over-looked.

      • Raquel says:

        Wikipedia is a source when something is public knowledge. Behold, what happens when you type it into Google. Or, is the first page of Google not a good way to figure out what public knowledge is? Anyhow, I see lots of “fallacies” there, not “FoSs” and “metaphors”.

        Even if it were a “FoS’ or a “metaphor”–we don’t base arguments on those. Or this “debate” feels like a red, red, rose.
        https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=f9172ea0944cf0c8&q=slippery+slope.

        And, rape-accusation is a nasty thing. People who accuse others of rape-accusation unsubstantiated & willy-nilly are nasty people. When people are nasty, I don’t care if I am mean to them. One of my things.

  56. Kim says:

    If she doesnt want to be treated like a toy then she shouldnt act like one. Posing for the cover of a SPORTS magazine in a bikini makes women perceived by men as toys/sport.

    • Katniss says:

      agreed

      its like that victoria secret model who quit her wings because she realized it “wasnt about the fashion, its about titilating men”

      ya dont say?

      if youre going to act like a bimbo dont be so surprised when you get treated like one
      even if you know youre not…
      you need to know how human perception works, the industy youre in
      im not saying dont parade around in a bikini for mags and such
      just dont expect to be respected when you arent doing something that garners it
      or treated like you have a brain when youre not using it to make a living

    • Raquel says:

      THIS x 100. Hearing a Sport’s Model–someone who makes bank perpetuating an industry that displays female bodies that are stripped of humanity to a testosterone-fueled readership like meat–complain about the chauvinism she validates (when it happens to her, not to women in general, I noticed)…

      …It’s kind of like hearing a Halliburton exec complain that his country buys hugely expensive things that critically need to work, and they’re all duds.

      And, you are spot on with disagreeing to the whole ‘saying people who disagree with me are rape justifiers’ thing. Saying that a woman who promotes x should not complain when x raped happens to her, is saying that, say, a drunk woman shouldn’t complain when she gets a public inebriation charge. Drunks shouldn’t complain about inebriation charges–they usually court them. They do not, however, court rape. Only in a rapists’ sick little mind.

      I feel that it is either a gross inability to discriminate between two unlike statements, or a tactic to shut down arguments made by others. Probably both.