By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
By Andrew Galvin
By R. Scott Moxley
By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By R. Scott Moxley
Here at Nippies, we do not "promote surgically enhanced, over-exercised, consistently binged and purged exoskeletons" like Stacy Davies' "review" insinuates ["Nippies: Patch of Freedom," May 23], nor do any of us have those things. We are all average sized B-cup women trying to create independence, pride and self-reliance by creating a company that expresses and encourages personal freedom. Our goals are to create products that encourage women to feel confident with her own uniqueness. Our PR materials do not market Nippies as a replacement for clothing but as a replacement for a bra.
Nudity doesn't equal sex as Davies' article suggests, and that is exactly the attitude that has held women in objectification for so long. I am amazed that she insinuates that if a woman shows part of her breasts, "she is a big dirty slut aching to blow someone." Did Gwyneth Paltrow look like a slut in revealing her bare breasts in her black sheer dress at the Oscars' last year? If you see a nude person, do you think that person must want to have sex with you? If a women goes braless in her strapless dress, is she asking for sex?
Davies also leads "the weekly guy" to ascertain if he saw a woman "like that" (I assume, one who is not wearing a bra but wearing Nippies under a shirt), she must want to have sex with him (or anyone available, for that matter). What if a girl wasn't wearing anything under her shirt? What would she be asking for then? This is the same attitude that brings out the inane argument that women who are raped must have asked for it.
I am unsure why Davies' chose to misrepresent our marketing materials and product objectives so maliciously. Her article has damaged our reputation and skewed the public perception of what our company stands for, to something that we are actually against. It saddens me that another woman takes this archaic, sexist attitude toward our company and our product.Christine Benidt www.nippies.net Stacy Davies, who thinks sluts are hot and whose Nippies article has over 64,000 hits on the web, responds: Christine, have a drink. And remove your rage-colored glasses. I began my Nippies article by pointing out the misogynistic laws that bind women's nipples. And check out of Fantasyland: most men (and women) who see a girl wearing gold, glittery butterfly decals on her breasts will think the girl is easy–or at least stupid. Does this mean the girl actually is easy or stupid? Of course not. Does the showing of her Nippies means she deserves to be groped, catcalled or raped? No, and I never said that she did. I did say people will think she's easy and stupid–and they'll think that a lot, trust me. You're right, women are still objectified. But women know that, and many of them use that power and even like that power. But over here in America–the America founded on a puritanical ideology that still keeps us much less free than we realize–Gwyneth Paltrow did look like a slut at the Oscars. And I think people want to have sex with me whether they're nude or not. But that's just me.
Regarding Jim Washburn's article "Force of July" [June 20]: Why go to war, you ask? Simple. Because it was the right thing to do. So sorry you disagree. Sucks being a minority, doesn't it? Here's some cheese for your Bordeaux. Have a happy Fourth.Marty McKeever Charlotte, North Carolina The editor responds: We'll take your word on it, Marty, seeing as few people know about how much it sucks to be in a minority as someone living in Jesse Helmsville. By the way, as of this writing, there are still no WMDs and the liberated Iraqi people–those who weren't exploded–today showed their appreciation by killing two more of our sitting-duck soldiers. Are people from the South born stupid or do you guys have to work at it?
NO PROBLEM WITH PORN
The letter I sent regarding the lack of coverage on the FCC decision ["Letters," June 27] was not meant to be taken literally; that is, I don't jerk off to ads in the back of the Weekly. I suppose sarcasm is lost in this medium. Anyway, my gripe is that the front of the Weekly boasts an itinerary of music, politics, film, clubs, theater, art, food and sports, yet the coverage regarding the FCC decision, a monumental one, was relegated to one paragraph while other things, as previously noted, received far more attention.
I've no problem with porn or nude ladies, I just think the Weekly let one slip by allowing an important decision to go by with scant mention. I don't expect an in-depth Noam Chomsky-like analysis, just proper emphasis.Enrique Avalos Santa Ana
Dave Wielenga, you're everything that is wrong with human life, because there is something totally wrong about you living to whatever age you are to be able to write the vile garbage that you do about people like Bob Hope ["Hope Springs Infernal," June 6] who you wouldn't make a pimple on his ass. So go fuck yourself, you pinko asshole. Same to the rest of your asshole staff. Man, you people really suck! Why don't your anonymous cowards get some balls and face off on those people that piss them off so much?Jack Ryan Laguna Niguel The editor responds: Jack, you're certainly entitled to your opinion and, if I'm reading it right, that opinion is you think Dave Wielenga is really hot! Well, duh, he'sDREAMY. I mean all that talk of ass and sex with his pink you-know-what . . . hey, wait a minute. I didn't see all this stuff about sucking the staff and the bit about our balls. Listen, Romeo, Dave's a friend of mine and if you think I'm going behind his back for a few minutes of pleasure–no matter how intrigued I am about that urine/face thing–you're out of your golden-showering mind. Dave doesn't need another fast-talking, Nippies-wearing heartbreaker like you. He learned his lesson with Don Rumsfield.