DCU_freeforall table of prompts

Over at dcu_freeforall
Claim: General DCU
Table Description: Crackfics supposedly, but we'll see :D

01.	pineapple	02.	rubber chicken	03.	staircase	04.	no holds barred	05.	tutus ♥
06.	teddy bear ♥	07.	short pants	08.	one big, dysfunctional family	09.	swamp	10.	guilty pleasure
11.	accordion	12.	tuna	13.	roller skates ♥	14.	glitter	15.	Batman Under-roos
16.	peeping tom	17.	cupcake sprinkles	18.	disco	19.	chimney	20.	dryer hose
21.	soup	22.	star-spangled panties	23.	tights	24.	airport terminal	25.	trench coat ♥
26.	Star Wars	27.	shopping mall	28.	forbidden fruit	29.	Christmas tree	30.	vegetable ♥
31.	fuzzy ♥	32.	fuschia	33.	tiki bar	34.	dude ranch	35.	mayonnaise
36.	strip poker	37.	nostril	38.	pitch fork	39.	paisley	40.	evil twin
41.	squee!	42.	not again...	43.	incognito	44.	rain forest	45.	herring
46.	cookies	47.	that's just wrong! ♥	48.	day-glow ♥	49.	show tunes	50.	antique
51.	scarf	52.	Tardis	53.	sleep walk	54.	sand castle	55.	dingoes
56.	limerick ♥	57.	rash	58.	snore	59.	jet-lag	60.	peanuts
61.	ink	62.	dumpster	63.	belch	64.	itchy	65.	coyote ugly
66.	spleen ♥	67.	karaoke	68.	writer's choice ♥	69.	writer's choice	70.	writer's choice

Yes, I am quite mad :P

"I'd Rather Go Naked..."

From The Guardian: Charities are using increasingly offensive images of women to promote their causes, such as Peta highlighting pig welfare. It's revolting, says Julie Bindel.

What's your reaction when the model of a campaign strips to the nude to publicise the message? Aside from Peta, several examples off the top of my head are actresses Milla Jovovich and Eva Mendes for the charity Clothes Off Our Back and the ladies of Calendar Girls. The pictures of Milla and Eva were published in the last issue of Jane Magazine; the latter was more cheesecake, and the pregnant Milla shone in her shoot. And although I haven't seen the movie Calendar Girls, I can imagine from the poster what the months may have looked like.

Personally, I don't have a problem with nudity as long as it's tasteful. Even gratuitous cheesecake intended to raise interest is still within my comfort zone.

Bindel however, wonders why it's acceptable when it can become exploitative. She damns Peta's campaigns, particular this example:

A heavily pregnant member of Peta's staff lent her body to the cause - naked except for a pair of pink underpants - by kneeling on all fours in a metal cage.

It's a shocking image and does it's job in making people pay more attention, but is it at the expense of dehumanising women? Again, that's the point. There's a lot of talk of speciesism, about putting the needs of the human above the animal but seriously-- why isn't it men who are caged, naked in Peta's campaigns?

A weaker example in Bindel's argument is when a group of women, on behalf of Cancer Research UK, ran naked through Regent Park in London for the cause of to highlight dangers of breast cancer. Some of the women who ran had had mastectomies, and the run was to serve as an inspiration for life after cancer. I'm not sure if this is exploitative at all. Sure, men who have survived testicular cancer would never participate in a similar stunt. But the fact that the participants had good intentions and a positive message skews it towards the comfort zone. However, imagine you're in the park when a group of naked women jog by with Cancer Research signs. Without any context, I would be extremely sceptical this was more than a publicity stunt meant to shock people.

Bindel ends by saying it's time people speak out against this use of female nudity even if it's for a good cause because "if we hold back, such sexism only seems set to burgeon". Sexism. In charity campaigns. Who would have thought?