The on-line news and culture magazine, Slate.com, hosts a section where a writer designated "The Explainer" discusses cultural issues. One piece involves an analysis of the print ads for the new movie, Hitman, on which the co-star is pictured wearing unusually skimpy attire, even for movie ads. The explainer asks, "Does anyone sign off on racy movie posters?" The journalist writes that the actress is "wearing a sheer, red-tinted hanky masquerading as a dress. If you're lewd enough to look between her legs, you'll see the curve of her right buttock and a small genital bulge."
According to the Explainer, when the MPAA rejects posters, it is usually for violence. A recent rejection included an image of a man shackled with a burlap sack over his head. There were fears that many would be disturbed by the image after it became known that U.S. soldiers had been torturing prisoners with a technique known as "hooding."
On the other hand, sheer clothing and genital bulges have become acceptable to the MPAA but maybe not to slate.com. But wait. Here is the strange part: after admitting to her concern about this image, the Explainer seems embarrassed by her reaction. Yes, embarrassed that she was embarrassed.
After her dismay over the image is expressed, we are assured: "The Explainer is no prude." It is with great relief that we learn of the explainer's lack of prudishness because, as we all know at modestlyyours, if you are disturbed by overly sexual imagery plastered in public areas then you are probably a "prude," a word which, today, connotes that one disapproves of sex and may not even enjoy it herself.
A critic expressing concern over an overly sexualized public image = the critic must not enjoy sex. Has this become the new equation? Previous blogs here, essays on the host site, and the other sources and studies referenced on this site support an inverse equation from the above: a sensitive and uncallous attitute towards the erotic reflects a richness and sensitivity in that area of one's life.
The self-proclaimed non-prudish Explainer goes on to chide herself and her initial reaction when she asks, What "offended the Explainer's delicate sensibilities?" Perhaps the Explainer feels pressured to reject and make fun of her initial "delicate" emotions and embrace a more callous stance.
Who is pressuring her? Is there someone who is making her feel like a "prude?" I want to let the Explainer know that she can be brave and rebel! Don't be embarrassed to be embarrassed, Explainer! Why are you embarrassed? Can you please explain?