BY BEN BARTEE
Back in the day, in a simpler time for race relations, Sir Mix-a-Lot celebrated multiracial appreciation of large rear-ends. He welcomed white men into the fold, encouraging racial unity in mutual celebration of a well-endowed female figure.
The appropriated item is literally a body part — the size and shape of which we rather notoriously have no control over. And yet Radke employs more or less the same argument to stigmatise the appropriation of butts as is often made about dreadlocks or bindis…
butts are a black thing, and liking them is a black male thing, and the appreciation of butts by non-black folks represents a moral error: cultural theft or stolen valour or some potent mix of the two…
the cultural legacy of the butt is undeniably entangled with the legacy of racism and eugenics, including a sordid and repellent history wherein certain anthropologists of the white male variety both fetishised the physiques of black women with ample backsides and conflated their peculiarities with savagery and promiscuity.
— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) January 6, 2023
Of course, mayonnaise-faces aren’t allowed to enjoy small European butts either, because that’s fatphobic, which is also racist.
This is another classic leftist rhetorical double-bind, in which there is no acceptable position on an issue for a white cis man that doesn’t serve as evidence of bigotry. The purpose is to stifle dissent of any kind by shutting down an argument before the white man has an opportunity to articulate one.
I could point out here that there is actually good evolutionary reason for a man of any ethnicity to appreciate a well-endowed backside in a partner as it indicates fitness to nourish a baby, or that the stick-figure anorexic beauty standard common in corporate media reflects the aesthetic preferences of gay men, who dominate the fashion industry.
But what would be the point?