It sounds like he's gotten caught in the trap where he doesn't know how to separate race from culture—it's ok to acknowledge cultural differences, but necessary to realize that not everyone of the same skin color is automatically a part of the same culture.

This is why most actors and celebrities should just not be talking about anything other than working on the set of their show/movie/whatever.

"...Short Man Syndrome"

Indeed, Chappelle and South Park turned Kelly into a cartoon character to laugh about and say, "Ah, that's our R. Kelly!"

"One white girl in Winnetka and the story would have been different" - yeah, unless her rapist was a white boy from Winnetka.

Damn, that's a pretty baby.

How are those eyes chestnut? Have they ever seen a chestnut? these are the things I concern myself with.

Also, that baby is cute as hell, even though I'm not a big fan of babies (they're all cute and then immediately super boring)

To be clear, this comment probably wouldn't be in response to yours if it didn't accompany the whole "finally finishes" part of the original article. I can't stand Spencer Pratt, but there are a whole host of reasons people don't finish college "on time." It took me 9 years to get my undergrad in Power, Community, and…

Good on old Flesh Beard for finally finishing. It took me 7 years to get a BA. Then I went back four years later and got a teaching credential. Now, at the tender age of 33, I am a newbie teacher. There was an article in my local newspaper about a man who started as a janitor at an elementary school, he and worked…

"Male gaze" is a term for a theory of a structure, much like "White people" doesn't actually mean every single person who is white, but rather refers to a superstructure of white supremacy. The male gaze is "when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man," so it's really a trope, rather…

Also, one is using women to sell to men and the other is a women in an ad for a product for women. I think that does make a difference.

It has nothing to do with nudity. Ads for expensive things look better regardless of what the model is wearing. If Keira Knightly was fully clothed, would the ad still be glamorous? Yes, because the ad is implying something other than sex. If the Spoller ad model was fully clothed, the ad would still look cheap and…

bingo. women get angry when it seems like pure exploitation for crappy shit. At least more high end ads get away with "arty" premise.

Yes, exactly. And if women's bodies are going to be reduced to an analogue to the product they are selling it isn't about wanting sex to be "infrequent, special, and rare". It's most likely about wanting to be an object of value, if you have no choice in being the object in the first place.

This kind of stuff feeds into the MRA mentality that women only use sex as a commodity (i.e. "of course it is okay to use sex to sell a $2k purse, because women sleep with rich dudes all the time to get shit like that.")

So, evo psych. I was making fun of it the other day and the bros around me were like "it's science!". So I pointed out that earlier in the conversation they had just been making fun of a female-centric sociology curriculum. And their whole point was that sociology isn't science. But psychology is? Both are social…

My (totally unfounded) theory is that nudity for cheap stuff feels trashy and more objectifying. When it's for a luxury good, it feels more like it's supposed to be art, or telling you "this item is so luxurious you'll want to feel it directly on your skin". It's the difference between this:

You mean women don't like photos of other women in raunchy situations shelling cheap shit?

Alternative theory: ads for cheap stuff that use sex are never targeted at women.