When it comes to promoting a charitable cause, men can put on a rubber bracelet or pose for an artfully-lit black and white headshot, looking concerned. Women, however, seem to best be able to draw attention to their charitable causes by stripping down and smiling, for everything from boobie cancer to victims of sex trafficking:

Kate Moss recently posed naked in the French newspaper, Libération, as part of a global campaign against inequality between the sexes. Sarah Ferguson, former Duchess of York, has stripped for Elton John’s HIV/Aids charity, and Victoria Beckham did the same for skin-cancer awareness.

Earlier this year, Glamour magazine featured another former Spice Girl, Mel B, posing naked in support of the Helen Bamber Foundation, which works with victims of sex trafficking and torture. One leading anti-trafficking campaigner, who asked not to be named, refers to Mel B’s campaign as “get your tits out for trafficking”. Using naked women to highlight the atrocity of those sold into sexual slavery seems a little inappropriate; after all, isn’t there an innate contradiction in using an image that promotes women’s sexual availability to combat prostitution? Michael Korzinski, a director of the Helen Bamber Foundation, simply says that he is pleased that such a high-profile celebrity is supporting anti-trafficking initiatives. Mel B “is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked,” says Korzinski, “unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with”.

Let’s read that again:

Mel B “is exercising her freedom of choice in going naked,” says Korzinski, “unlike the enslaved, brutalised, trafficked women we work with”.

Our head is positively SPINning in the attempt to wrap itself around that statement. How much freedom is Mel B. actually exercising here, though? Why is it that (straight) men don’t seem to feel the same need to “exercise their freedom” or “bare all” by posing naked? Sure, the female body is (when slender, airbrushed and made-up) more typically thought of as “attractive” and “erotic” by the general public. And sex sells, doesn’t it?

But by contributing to this way of thinking, female celebrities who elect to strip for charity are not making a statement so much about the beauty of the female form, but, rather, are contributing to the idea that the best and most noteworthy thing a woman has to offer is her body. Her opinions, her intellect, her humor are all second to her ability to smile beautifully from the pages of a magazine. You’re not promoting a cause. Other than misogyny:

It’s about time that we started challenging this argument more roundly though, speaking out against instances of sexism that are often as nasty as anything seen in the bad old days of the 70s. It is understandable to be wary of criticising campaigns that are being waged for a good cause, but if we hold back, such sexism only seems set to burgeon - and with naked women on all fours posing publicly in cages it has already reached a quite astounding low point. If feminists were to hit charities where it hurts - by organising against them, and refusing to donate to those using sexism as a marketing tool - we just might see the end of this revolting use of women’s bodies.

Palabra. “It’s for a good cause” does not necessarily outweigh or excuse all the damage that is also promoted.

Who is this supposed to help? [Guardian]
Earlier: Hey, Even Vegans Can Parade Around As Pieces Of Meat