Judge Not

On sunday, my brother sent a text asking whether I'd seen Kelly Rowland on Page 3. Sorry...come again? Kelly Rowland? The Sun? Page 3? Surely there is a mix-up somewhere. I was stunned to silence. All that kept ringing in my head was the clientelle of readership The Sun drew. Yes, its the most widely read paper in the UK, but it also has a reputation for producing trashy material, with little or no substance. And not to mention, its Page 3 is infamous for showcasing the muck of society, and promulgating the desire for all women in the UK to aspire to don fake boobs and lipo up the fat they can't burn off in the gym.
 Knitted Cape : Primark | Maxi Dress : Oasis | Tank top (layered) : H&M
Reading the captions of Rowland's pics enraged me more...the paper was outright mocking her, and the 'role model' persona she'd been prancing around with, as a judge on X-Factor. This was like spitting on the face of her upbringing, her career, and most importantly, her religious background. My brother, as a plastic surgeon (read HIS take on Kelly's pictures) questioned what exactly her pictures represented? That women could only feel sexy, or be socially accepted as aesthetically pleasing once they'd up'd their cup size by going under the knife? COME ON!
 Watch : Guess | Studded Pumps : Urban Outfitters
We get that it takes time for a female to feel like a woman in her own skin, but we're tired of looking at all that skin, thank you very much Miss Rowland! I mean, if its not the nipple slips, its the uber-raunchy Rihanna'esque videos, with unacceptable-before-watershed lyrics to boot. I mean, 'lay it on me'? 'I'm down for whatever'? And these aren't even embedded in the bridge somewhere, these are the titles and blasted choruses of the songs. Like, WTAF?!?
Sex appeal is something that most women aspire to exude, or struggle to tame; its the way in which its packaged thats most important. 'Lady in the street but a freak in the sheets' is probably the most recycled words in the black community. Through the years, I've endured several conversations/debates among guys over who they'd smash/bang/bone (depending on the generation in question), and it all boils down to simple bodily arithmetics; Boobs + Small waist + Bum/Hip  i.e. the unattainable ratio of 36:24:36. But what strikes me as odd is when they throw a beanpole into the mix, and passionately argue that she trumps the lot, ample assets and all. Thus, I beg the question (that was inspired by a fellow tweeter on my timeline yesterday), are guys actually attracted to the assets, or the confidence of the woman carrying those assets? Many men have assured me that its not so much what the girl has got, as much as working with what shes got...and it upsets me that it took a silicone filler for an attractive woman like Kelly Rowland to deem herself as sexy enough to pose nude on a cheap spread.

Onyxsta says...BLEURGH!! Rowl model my arse! This XXX-Judge is on the bench, and I'm ruling that she's guilty as charged. Xisses