?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Just Don't Assume Anything, Baby.

If you have the Playboy Bunny tattooed on any part of your body, you've declared yourself to be Hugh Hefner's property.

I'm not wrong about this. Despite what many people seem be to thinking, the Bunny is a corporate logo for a soft core mag. Fine, whatever. Got no problem with that. It's just like that Nike logo. You know, the I've-made-the-right-choice-tick logo. Indeed, in many ways, I support the Playboy Bunny more than I support Nike. If a gun was put to my head, and some nasty corporate thug said, "Make a fucking choice, Slacker," then I'd take the magazine over a pair of Nikes. I'd do it with a smile. This is because I've always consider Nike to be a pair of over priced shoes with no socially redeeming value whatsoever, especially when stacked next to my Docs, and the fact that I'm just not really a runner. The bunny, however, comes with naked women.

The point here, is I don't think the Playboy Bunny is the symbol of an evil empire that has made an industry and fortune out of turning women into objects and ensuring that the so-called perfect body image remains one of the most potentially damaging aspects of the female life, forcing the gender to deal with the unrealistic shapes and expectations that this body shape glorifies. I mean, sure, it does exactly that...

But you know, naked women.

Today is the day where I don't sound like a hypocrite. Tomorrow, it's back to normal. Before that: Playboy magazine, fine, whatever. The care factor is zero, but I like naked women. Hell, i like nudity. It's all good.

But what's with the fucking logo? I mean, seriously, am I missing something? Did I drop into an alternate world where the Playboy Bunny is not a corporate logo for a pornography empire? In this world, Hugh Hefner is not a sleazy old man with a group of young chicks hanging off his arm and popping viagra so he can get blown in his limo, right? In this new world, it's clearly a symbol that females attach themselves to with in an attempt to demonstrate their individuality and state that they are not part of this society that supports this specific body type adoration.

No? I'm still in the really real world? Shit. In that new world, I didn't have any doubt, I was socially secure, and I didn't constantly go around fucking up things.

But this is the really real world.

Surely, I find myself thinking, in this world, girls know that when they get the tattoo of black playboy fucking bunny on their body that they are advertising Hugh Hefner's empire?

Why would you do this?

Am I so socially stupid that the obvious answer alludes me?

There's nothing more frightening than kissing your way down a girl to find that she has Hugh Hefner's brand on her skin. It's like ashes in your mouth when your tongue touches it. It's as if a crazy old billionaire has gone around in the night, dressed as fucking Santa, and said, "Ho ho ho, little girls, I have some for you. Close your eyes and lift your shirt, Santa Hugh has something delightful for you. It might sting a bit."

Just stupid.

I've not ever seen someone tattooed with the Nike logo. Probably is some dumb fuck out there with it on his/her skin, but I haven't seen it. I like to think people would pause before getting the Nike logo, just as they would pause before getting Kraft, Coca-Cola, Bantam, or any of the other millions of logos that exist within the world, inked into their skin. It seems so obviously stupid not to want any of those things on you, that I can't help but push the Playboy logo right next to that lot, and then wonder what kind of fucking snow job Hefner has pulled on the world?

I mean, seriously, what's the deal here? Did I miss when Hefner jerked off all over us and we were blinded by his cum to such an extent that a portion of the female populace, deciding it was tasty, would suddenly think that getting the logo on their skin would be a good idea?

Have I gone far enough in this post?

Well, probably.

But still.

Comments

( 7 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
ceret
Oct. 30th, 2004 11:32 pm (UTC)
There's nothing more frightening than kissing your way down a girl to find that she has Hugh Hefner's brand on her skin.

Did you have a particularly interesting Saturday night? Gawan. Do tell.

Personally I'd not complain ;)
benpeek
Oct. 30th, 2004 11:41 pm (UTC)
nah. it wasn't the least bit interesting.

in fact, the comment about me being socially stupid in the really real world is far more correct.

but i saw a girl with the tattoo the other day, and the thought just turned into my head. sounded funny to me.
ironed_orchid
Oct. 30th, 2004 11:58 pm (UTC)
I've seen guys dressed all in nike with the logo shaved into the back of their hair... there may have been tats that the head to toe nike clothing was concealing but some how I doubt it (then again, never underestimate the stupidity of a guy with the nike logo shaved into his hair).
benpeek
Oct. 31st, 2004 02:05 am (UTC)
yeah, i don't reckon you can at any way underestimate the stupidy of a man with nike shaved into his head. probably has it tattooed on his penis or something, so the tick grows as he gets excited.

(it's correct! he screams to his partner.)
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
Oct. 31st, 2004 02:02 am (UTC)
i didn't, and i wouldn't. (i see that logo, i'm stopping and leaving.) but it's funny how people focus on that part of the entry most ;)
bodhichitta0
Oct. 31st, 2004 05:04 am (UTC)
No, I focused on the tasty cum. What an analogy! And really, no matter what men think (allegorically or no), there is just no such thing. :-p

I have a lot of thoughts on the whole porn subject but they aren't for here. So I'll just say logos of any type permanently branded on your body is just in bad taste.

benpeek
Nov. 2nd, 2004 03:17 am (UTC)
shh. it's all tasty ;)
( 7 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )