wigglewhiz | More Thoughts on Sexual Advertising (Reply)

So! Doubtless you'll have seen the story of the "Too Hot To Handle" bank chick? And you may have noticed that the story has hit the papers again, now renewed and a little sharper due to the revelation that Ms Lorenzana has had - shock! horror! - PLASTIC SURGERY (dun dun DUUUUUUN!)? If not, where have you been? Go read and associate yourself with the story so that you may rant along with me:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/3865079/Too-hot-banker-claims-human-rights-violation

Now - I myself fully cop to having my reservations about Ms Lorenzana and her story, from day one. The photographs... they were so... Facebook-worthy. Posed, contrived, emphasising a very attractive woman's.... well, attractiveness. It smelled a bit like attention-seeking to me, and I wondered if Ms Lorenzana were attempting to launch herself a modelling career off the back of her employment "trauma".

I still have those reservations. I wonder where the new footage that I'm seeing (three times in this evening's new bulletins since tea-time) has come from. Her change of lawyer from one with some interesting sexual harrassment baggage of his own to one so closely associated with Scary Hardcore Feminism is an interesting strategy which is surely not just happy coincidence. The comments attributed to Ms Loranzana re: "Playboy models" (assuming of course that she DID make them and hasn't been taken out of context and blah blah blah) make me roll my goddamned eyeballs in horror over, you know, how far we women have come now that we have decided to sell our OWN bodies rather than have them sold for us! Yay! Go us! <makes empowermenty hand signals>

The revelations that the lady in question has had three breast augmentations (amongst other procedures, but there's evidently nothing news-worthily sexy in - blerg - tummy tucks) presents me with some interesting dilemmas of the Mental Gymnastics variety. On the one hand, my eyes rolled into the back of my head and there was nothin' but whites for a good few seconds when I read/heard/saw that particular factoid. Because, of course! I want big boobs! But I don't want people LOOKING AT ME LIKE A SEX OBJECT, OMG.

However! I have a few problems with writing off Ms Lorenzana's complaint based on that.

She never actually claimed that she didn't WANT people looking at her. I guess from her modelly shots that she's quite comfortable with people looking at her. The sexual harrassment suit she's pressing isn't about the men LOOKING AT HER (whereas she had BOOB JOBS and therefore is a total HYPOCRITE, etc etc), it's about the fact that she was singled out for treatment that other workers were not subjected to because people were projecting sexual attitudes/behaviours on her. Let's not start suggesting she was "asking for it" because of the way she looks (and that she paid cash money to look that way), shall we? There's a slippery slope for ya right there.
My mum had plastic surgery. Recently. It included - OMG - a BOOB JOB. No, not of the 32-DD proportions reportedly acheived by Mx Loranzana, but still - there's not a chance in hell my mother had her boob job so that people would harrass/project/sexualise her. Therefore I really need to stop myself making that assumption about Ms Lorenzana, no?
So she had a boob job. From what I've seen (selective imagery, media manipulation notwithstanding, etc etc blabbity caveatness), Ms Lorenzana wasn't popping out of her shirts. She wasn't wearing micro minis and low-cut tops and god knows what else. She is a bloody good-looking woman, and she was dressed sexy. SEXY, not slutty. She would look very sexy in most of the clothes I prefer to wear. I choose to assume that this is what Ms Lorenzana means with her unfortunately worded "Playmate" comments - she looks good. Her body looks amazing in her clothing - where's the damn problem in that?

If she were wearing mini skirts, those frightening barely there tops that require boob tape rather than brassiere? I might think her employers would have a point in addressng her dress. As it stands, I don't think they have a leg to stand on...

...assuming, of course, that they're not 100% accurate in their assumption that Ms Lorenzana simply wasn't up to the task. Which is a completely different kettle of fish.