An image of the mysterious bondage shopper. Image source: the AsiaOne forum.
For a long time on this blog I've been decrying the way mainstream media, particularly the fashion industry, use "bondage" to describe all sorts of things that clearly are not bondage. But there are a couple of heartening signs that people are catching on.
Somebody snapped a bunch of what appear to be cell phone pics of a scantily clad woman doing her shopping in a supermarket with her naked butt hanging out. It got picked up and described as an S&M outfit by the folks on the Asia One forum where it first appeared, then got picked up by The Stir and described as a "Fifty Shades of Gray Bondage Outfit."
The heartening part was the comments section of The Stir article, where readers were quick to point out that:
1) The outfit had nothing to do with Fifty Shades of Gray
2) The outfit had nothing to do with bondage, either, it was just a generic hooker kind of outfit.
3) Since all we saw of the outfit was the back side of the wearer, it could have been a man we were looking at.
To make things even more ironic, The Stir article was illustrated with a picture of a woman who was actually tied up.
I love it when I see readers keeping bloggers and media honest. Can you imagine the blowback, say, Cosmo would get if its articles always came with reader comments?
Of course, I rarely see such comments, because I am always right. Well almost always.
For the record, this is a naked woman, in bondage, in public. Thank you, Public Disgrace.
No comments:
Post a Comment