Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Flour power

In a battle pitting media whore Kim Kardashian against insufferably self-righteous and wholly impractical PETA activists, who would you want to win? Or rather, who would you want to lose least?

I pondered that question when I read at KoreAm that Christina Cho, one of the PETA activists who likes to strip down in order to get horny heterosexuals like myself to forever associate copulation with meat consumption (not sure if that's their intention, but it is the result). 

It seems Christina Cho (seen above) flour-bombed Kim Kardashian, who plans to file charges. 

I don't really care how this turns out, as long as they stay away from my sannakchi



  1. This issue has really got your dander up, I see. Maybe I just didn't notice before, but I don't recall ever seeing you use words like 'wh---' (I can't even type that type word, it's so shameful^) about specific individuals.

    1. Apparently I use it a lot. I think the w-word has lost a lot of its power to offend, in that it is used for someone shamelessly (or shamefully?) garnering some commodity or intangible, like media attention, Internet links, or money.

      I think it needs to be attached to something to become emasculated (heh heh). It will still get you slugged in the kisser if you say it al fresco to a woman. And deservedly so.

      That said, I am tired of the whole phenomenon of people being famous for being famous. Attention span is a finite quantity in most people, and the proliferation of people like the Kardashians, Jersey Whore (see how I did that?), etc., means that quality programming gets crowded out, and national discourse in general suffers.

  2. They get naked to get attention. I would think associating sex with meat consumption would run counter to their goal of making vegetarianism sexy.

    1. I get the whole "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" idea. Naked women attracts eyeballs, and those eyeballs see the message.

      But when they get into things like wrapping near-naked fetally positioned women in "food containers," or do things like this (which, to be fair, isn't PETA but a PETA-inspired protest), then I dare say it appeals to some sick pups' garishly gory inner-otaku. It strikes me as misogynist, to some degree.

      Why aren't men — non-Adonis-type men or even unattractive women — made out to be disfigured and placed in those things.

      Yeah, PETA is also a media whore of an operation.

    2. It's to say, "Oh, look at those poor sexy women trapped in a cage. Don't you feel sorry for them?" To evoke empathy. I suppose using clothed children would be better at doing this, but then you would have complaints about child abuse, etc. These are grown women who willingly enter these cages naked. Less pretty people evoke less sympathy unfortunately.

  3. Millionaire media whore vs.self-righteous activist. Hmmm, gonna have to give that one to the media whore, especially since she probably has $1,000/hour lawyers on retainer.


Share your thoughts, but please be kind and respectful. My mom reads this blog.