One thing that bothers me about SG is that, for a site that is intended to portray women as "real", it wants to define what that real is. It seems that in order to get yourself on the site, you have to be part of this metal+make-up subculture. This is because the site has a specific audience that it is sold to.
You could put up a web server, call it GirlyGirlz or something, and host amateur lesbian pornography. You could argue that the content of the site was real, that the girls were real, because they weren't pretending to be lesbians, but were simply doing what they do.
It wouldn't be real to me. Notice: I said "it", not "them".
It's not what they do or who they are that is fake, it is the way they're presented and the purpose for it. As I understand it, these girls, or "models", are getting paid. That, to me, serves as a motive, and it is the motive that defines the "real" aspect of it.
Let's turn it around. Why not charge these girls instead? Hell, I have a domain and some web space, and I pay for it annually. Why not charge these SuicideGirls a small annual fee for having their pictures up? Misty still gets paid, and no one can claim that these chicks are doing it for the money.
No, that won't work. Why would these real girls want their real pictures up for people to look at, if they didn't get paid?
Now that'd be real crazy, wouldn't it?
|