While procrastinating at work today I came across this article on People.com about how Kendra Wilkinson of The Girls Next Door fame will no longer be posing nude in Playboy as she is about to get married. She goes on to say that her fiance, Hank Baskett, is very conservative and
"He gets really mad when I do stuff like that."
Now, I'm not a fan of Playboy and I'm not fan of Kendra particularly either but this still left a not too great taste in my mouth. I'll admit that I did watch the first season or so of The Girls Next Door (UnFeminist Guilty Pleasure for sure!) and got to know a bit about Kendra. She loved being nude and loved Playboy. It was basically her dream to pose in that magazine. She started off as a painted model at one of Hef's parties (which if you don't know means you're naked and just covered in body paint). Now this isn't something I understand per se but it was something she loved. And now she's giving it up for her husband because he's uncomfortable with it.
And why? Why would he get mad when everyone has already seen her naked body grace the pages of Playboy? My only assumption would be because now that they are getting married she belongs to him and therefore her body does as well.
I could understand if she said she was giving it up because it was something she wanted to do once just to get the experience and she did and now it's done. Or some other reason that didn't revolve around her basically changing her personality for a man (which ironically she says in the article she DOES NOT want to do). But the fact that she's stopping because she's getting married...I don't know...
What do you all think?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Kendra keeping her clothes...on?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13217
people make compromises for their partners all the time. why is this objectionable?
Its the way she says it-- "he gets really mad," not "we thought that now that I'm in a serious relationship its a little different."
Now maybe she just phrased it badly, but it sounds like he's using anger (yelling, or whatever) to force her to change something that she originally liked and considered a big part of herself.
JaJa- I think it's objectionable because clearly she is doing it for HIM...not herself.
He must have looked at naked pictures of her before he met her - and found her attractive from those pictures.
So it is totally unfair and hypocritical of him to now expect her to cover up for him. I think the original poster has it spot-on.
This story reminds me of when Joe Dimaggio married Marilyn Monroe. He obviously saw her on screen in all the sexy dresses she wore and found her attractive.
But after they began dating...he expected her to cover up and not be attractive to other men. It's pure..."You're MY property now and you will act accordingly".
And of course - remember that Joe Dimaggio expected this of Marilyn Monroe nearly SIXTY years ago in the 1950's. So the aboove story just goes to show how things really have not changed in the past decades with regards women's bodies being men's property.
Hi, OP here!
Yes nurgetts, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. And good call with the Joe DiMaggio/ Marilyn Monroe link :)
I think Kendra has been utterly brainwashed by patriarchy. Her quitting nude posing for her husband is utterly consistent with her exposing it for other men. Basically, she has already ceded her body to men - now, she's just making it exclusive.
It makes me really uncomfortable when feminists critique a woman's actions by saying she is "brainwashed". How is that any better than saying she's a dumb blond or something equally as offensive?
A woman might make an unfortunate decision and the basis of that decision could be completely steeped in patriarchy, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have her own mind.
What would you call someone who is brought up from the cradle to please men, to look pretty and seductive (but not slutty - Playboy has a type and they are girl next door), to do what her husband wants, to feel fine about strangers jacking off the pictures of her? I call that brainwashed.
I'm reading a book called "Still Failing at Fairness" that shows boys and girls are conditioned in school for their roles of assertive or pretty and well behaved, etc. If you could see how early and often this gender education is taught and reinforced, you'd conclude the same as I do.
We all think we have our own minds, but as a 54-year-old woman who has been a feminist since about the age of 16, I can tell you that I'm still finding out ways in which I am behaving in ways that conform to conditioning and, unfortunately, passing some of that on when I'm not at my most vigilant.
Saying she is "brainwashed" completely denies Kendra's agency and her own thought process. You may not agree with her actions, but it is unproductive to attack her personally and not respect her consciousness in her actions.
The quote is a little hard to evaluate without full context - especially in terms of tone of voice.
I hope it was simply poorly worded (which wouldn't be surprising IMHO - Kendra has her good qualities, but book smarts isn't among them from what I've seen)and 'that's just a part of my life I've grown out of', or 'it's a bit different now I'm in a more exclusive relationship' are more accurate. It could also be a more mainstream-socially acceptable explanation, similar to women turning a man down for a date with 'I have a boyfriend/husband already' when 'Even if I wasn't in a relationship you're REALLY not my type' would be closer to the truth.
That's why I was saying I would feel better if she gave an explanation saying she had just moved on from that phase of her life. I know women that loved things like flashing their boobs and stuff when they were younger and they just grew out of it as they matured.
That's fine if that's the case with her. And it may be. But in the article she made it seem as though it was all about her future husband and what he wanted. Her body was now his. She still wanted to do all those things (play on a stripper pole for example) she just only wanted to do them for him now because she belonged to him. See what I mean? It's offputting.
And yes, it could just be that Kendra being Kendra has worded it incorrectly because she is known as kind of a ditz. But I don't think the part of the article I quoted above in my OP can really be taken out of context too much.
I unfortunately, couldn't read the article (WTH, Firefox?) but it'd just strike me differently if she said it in a purely jokey, exaggerating manner versus showing any real fear of him. It wouldn't be all right, either way, but the former would be less worrisome to me.
As for the question of 'belonging', I have to admit I may not be the most unbiased person on that topic. I'm very monogamous by nature, and would expect anyone I was involved with to at least behave similarly; I wouldn't personally be comfortable with my partner posing nude, etc. for public consumption. If a more nonmonogamous/exhibitionistic nature is equally strong in a potential partner I make no moral judgment about that, but we wouldn't be a good fit. Whether Kendra and her fiance turn out to be a bad match, a compromise but a successful one, or she's also more monogamous by nature than has been apparent only time will tell.
I am monogamous and I do not share my body with others, even in pictures, without my fiance's permission-- and he does the same for me. We decided to make our bodies ours rather than "mine" and "his," with the understanding remaining that we had control over our own health, etc. So I get wanting to take that stance-- saying, I love you, so I'll keep what I share with you private, even if it's already out there.
That said... Her wording does concern me. It sounds like he's said, you can't do that. Which is not the same as, I am not comfortable with that. I dunno, maybe her wording was weird... But it seems off.
I'm guessing, though, that you and/or your husband didn't meet each other knowing that the other was a professional nude pin-up who really dug the job.
Kendra's comment sort of strikes me as a, "I love you, you're perfect, now change" sort of deal. I know that I wouldn't want my partner sharing himself with other people. Therefore, I wouldn't start dating someone who does just that and doesn't seem like he's going to make the decision to stop on his own without my input. There's a whole lotta fish out there who have values that already align with my own, I don't need to shoehorn someone into a role of my choosing.
That's my take, anyhow.
Yes alixana. I completely agree with your take. Especially the "I love you, you're perfect, now change" part.
I've got to say that I'm a little disturbed that everyone's concerned about whether Kendra ought to defer to her fiance, and nobody seems terribly concerned about her role in the porn industry. I know young women have come to see their sexual freedom in terms that include pornography and their right to be in it, but I have to say that this is not a good development in women's rights to me. Anything that continues the objectification of women for the consumption primarily of men - and the problems inherent with being a "thing" instead of a person - doesn't help our cause.
Well, that's not really what this post is about. Even though Kendra and Playboy are the subjects, this could have been about any woman covering up because her husband asks her too. What if it had just been a non-celebrity woman whose conservative husband got very mad when she wore short skirts or low-cut tops?
Discussing the pros or cons of sex work seems rather tangential to the real issues that drove the OP to post this.
How can you separate one thing from the other? These are both feminist issues, and to criticize her fiance and Kendra's choice with regard to him and ignore a choice she made independent of him that is not in the best interests of all women seems kind of schizo to me.
Yeah, and I mean living at the Playboy mansion wasn't exactly the height of independent living either. I've read interviews claiming that for the privilege of being one of Hef's live in girlfriends (stipend and free rent and all), the women had to stick to his rules regarding their comings and goings, and were expected to be monogamous to Hefner while of course he can fuck around and answers to no one.
As far as the new fiance goes, well he knows her well; I'll give him points for that. She's already demonstrated which choices are more important and under which conditions. Therefore it's no surprise that he would make such a request seeing as she was more than happy to oblige around her previous partner's somewhat less conventional requests.
I have many problems with the porn industry as well. As I said in my OP I'm not a fan of Playboy. But as alixana pointed out, that's not what this post is about at all. As usual, alixana is right and has summed up correctly why I was driven to post this.
I understand, but when you make this about her fiance, as though that is all we're supposed to get out of this story, you leave an 800 lb. gorilla running around the room. Kendra would not be acquiescing to her man if she weren't already acquiescing to all men. These are not separate issues and should not be compartmentalized. I'm probably not the only reader to color outside the lines you put on the paper. You need to consider that.
If you want to make a separate community post about the porn industry be my guest. That is not what my post is about. Alixana said more clearly than I can, for some reason haha, why I chose to post on this topic instead of the other. I'm talking about changing who one is for their partner and marriage. Not about the horrors of the porn industry.
I see this isn't getting through to you, so I'll stop. But from where I sit, you seem to want to demonize a man, not hold this woman culpable for her several staggeringly bad choices. You asked us all what we thought. Sorry I didn't fall into line.
Whatever. You don't get it.
Derailing for Dummies, anyone? Especially that "False Consciousness" section.
I don't think it's necessarily a derail. She gave up freedoms to live at the mansion, she's giving up nudity and then this:
Ex-Playboy model Kendra Wilkinson has found God.
The former girlfriend of adult publishing magnate Hugh Hefner has reportedly turned to Christianity since moving out of the Playboy mansion to live with her fiance, American footballer Hank Baskett. Playboy model Brittany Ginger - who will be Wilkinson's bridesmaid at her wedding on June 27 - said: "Hank makes her pray before meals now. His family is so religious and he really calmed her down a lot, he's good for her.
Maybe it's poor reporting, but to me this suggests for the 3rd time, that this woman makes a habit of deferring to her male partner on important lifestyle decisions. She's the common denominator here.
Of course I don't know the woman's whole story. She sounds happy. But I think framing the issue about why the fiance is asking her to keep her clothes on misses the big picture.
For example, she knew from the get go that the fiance is conservative. She could have put her foot down on this important issue and asked him to compromise on the nudity. I wonder if the thought even occurred?
Knowing a guy you're dating is conservative ISN'T something you know from the get go. That's something you get to know through the course of dating him. It's not like Hank goes around with a sign on his neck that reads: CONSERVATIVE MALE. However, knowing a girl you're dating who's a famous celebrity (who's famous for taking off her clothes) likes to strip IS something you know from the get go. You know right away that that's something she likes to do, you know that before you even meet.
And did you notice in that line that you bolded from Kendra's friend how her fiance MAKES her pray before meals now? WTF is that?
Oops my post got eaten. So I'll post again:
I see what you're saying, and I agree for the most part; but the simple fact here is that at any point she could have told the guy to go to hell. And people who openly pray at meals tend to be pretty upfront about their values, which is what I meant by "from the get go"--meaning before the relationship got serious and chemicals kick in, lol.
But here's what I don't get. She has the power here to say, NO WAY. Right? He's not her boss! She can make a choice to say, "Baby, posing nude is really important to me and I want you to respect that". But she doesn't.
Does this guy seem controlling? Um yeah (that's why I bolded the sentence). But no more so than her last boyfriend. Only difference from her previous relationship was that the situation was a big ass spectacle that boosted her fame.
When I read the OP I didn't think it was only criticizing the man. I thought it was criticizing both of them-- why would he boss her around like that and why would she put up with it? Why would either of them choose to be together if she loves posing nude in magazines and he gets angry at the idea of his girlfriend doing that?