Mediaboss Marketing

(Photo: Getty Images)

Nicki Minaj may have made the term anaconda anatomically infamous, but Jason Derulos anaconda is breaking the internetor at least Instagram. The Talk Dirty singer shared a serious thirst trap with his fans on November 21, posting a #TBT photo of himself on a 2018 vacay in Bali. In the now-infamous image, Derulo walks through a stream in nothing but his little undies, with his *ahem* admiral *ahem* on full display. Theres no smooth way to describe it. Folks, Jason Derulo is carrying a Costco-sized eggplant in his briefs.

The snap was super steamy and left many fans seriously parched. Someone who wasnt parched though? Instagram. On December 4, the social media app removed Derulos post, stating that it went against community guidelines the app has around nudity or sexual activity. And folks, Derulo is *pissed.* Like, anaconda-sized pissed. The singer took to Insta to share the tragic news, sharing a screenshot of the message alongside the offensive photo in question, writing: Fuk u mean? I have underwear onI cant help my size..

A follow-up comment from the Cats star said #bringbackAnaconda. Which, similar to Kanye calling himself the greatest artist of all time, if youre giving your own D a nickname, you need to stop. While Derulos tantrum over the censorship of his bulge is almost as cringey as Drakes court-side antics during the Raptors play-off series, we do feel for the singerbecause censorship, especially bodily censorship over something you legit cant control, is never good. But also, we have to laugh. Because women have been dealing with this issue for a long timeand it seriously has to stop.

While Derulo may be new to this whole censorship thing, chances are that a majority of women and transgender folks arent.

Since the dawn of time (or at least the last decade), women have been dealing with the repercussions of pretty much just existing online; in a time when the female body is super offensive (unless its serving someones desires sexually, that is). Over the past few years, women online have been chastised for posting everything from bikini photos to natural hair selfies to gorge images of childbirth and even editorial photo shoots. In 2014, singer Rihanna was in a months-long spat with Insta when they removed a topless photo of her shot for the cover of Lui magazine. Insta obvi didnt disable her account (its Rihanna, after all), but the Barbadian songstress offish left the app for six months after the tiff.

Read this next: Women Are Calling Out Instagram for Censoring Photos of Fat Bodies

Just a year later, in March 2015, Insta poet Rupi Kaurhad her photo, depicting herself lying in bed with a period stain on her clothing and sheets,deleted twiceby Instagram.

And more recently, women have been censored for posting images of themselves breastfeeding their children.

The big offender in those photos? Nipples.

Because God forbid a woman actually try and feed her child and think its a beautiful thing.

But not only do women often have to deal with having their literal life-giving organs monitored, but essentially their existence as well. Because the app doesnt just censor nipples and boobs, but entire bodies. Several plus-size people have reported having their bikini photos (or even fully-clothed) pictures removed by Instagram for violating community guidelines a.k.a being plus-sized. Which is horrific.

While Instagram currently says that they censor images deemed sexually suggestive, the thing is, they leave a lot of room for interpretation. Examples of images that are sexually suggestive obtained by TechCrunch show a varied and unequal interpretation of what the term means when applied to men and women. One image showed a woman sitting in her underwear while the other featured a close-up of a faceless man clutching his cross. As USA Today writerErika Hallqvist pointed out in a June article, this suggests thatmen are deemed sexually suggestive by their actions, whereas women are deemed to be by just showing their body.

Read this next: I Tried It: Free Bleeding

Because of this, images that *could* be viewed as empowering or body positive (like the aforementioned images of natural body hair or plus-size women) can instead be seen as suggestive when viewed from a male perspective, and means that what *is* considered censorship-worthy is pretty subjective.

Which is infuriating AF. But the idea of censorship guidelines being informed by the way in which people and their bodies are viewed by others rather than their actual behaviour or the images themselves, isnt all that surprising. Because weve been dealing with that backwards thinking forever.

At the heart of the issue is the fact that, typically, womens bodies have long been over-sexualizedand seen purely as objects of desire by those who really should have no say in them *ahem* men *ahem.* This is especially pertinent to Black women and a horrendous history of ownership over their bodies. According to author Amy Bentley, with the introduction of processed baby food in the 19th century, womens bodies began toseem less and less functional and more like objects of desire, and its a mentality thats never really stopped.

Its the reason Janet Jackson was skewered for (accidentally) baring her breast onstage at the Super Bowl in 2004 while Adam Levine was considered a hunk for doing the samein 2019. And its the same reason we tell young women not to wear tank tops in elementary school. Its not the spaghetti straps themselves that are offensive, but how the presence of any skin on a womanno matter their ageis interpreted as provocative or sexual by others. Seriously, its a collar bone Tommy, settle down. But this type of thinking is seriously limiting; it means that almost anything women do: eating, exercising, sunbathing, attending school in a tank top, can be seen as suggestive. And in many cases, it affects the women themselves; with young women being sent home from school to change, ultimately impacting their education.

And one of the most infuriating aspects of this sexualization is the fact that it honestly makes no sense. In an August 2015 interview with Jimmy Kimmel, singer Miley Cyrus highlighted the seriously murky waters around what *exactly* makes the female breast so titillating and offensive. Humans arent afraid of the human breast, Cyrus said, referring to her own outfit in which she donned heart-shaped pasties that showed the skin of her boob, its the nipple thats the issue.

Which begs the question, why wasnt Derulo (or let alone any mans shirtless photo) removed for very blatantly showing nips? What does a little bit of fat behind said nip do to make a breast sexual?

Read this next: Dana Suchow on Learning to Love Her Leg Hair

While Instagram may think that their censorship doesnt have repercussions, it does. With so much disinformation and shame surrounding womens bodies, censorship online can convey censorship IRL as the norm, and lead young women to believe that they should be ashamed of their bodies and the natural way they function. As Hallqvist notes, online censorship reflects a societal fear of the female body and, in turn, promotes the power dynamics that keep the female body sexualized and commodified by men, rather than understood or celebrated by women.

And all together, its just not coolin either gender. Sure, Derulo is being pretty extra with his initial thirst trap; but regardless of whether or not his post was sexual in nature (as is any thirst trap, tbh), censoring anyones body is never OK.

So while we may not be thirsty for Derulos anaconda, we are thirsty for his freedom to post his body how he wants and when he wants. So yeah, #bringbackAnaconda

Visit link:
Hey Jason Derulo, Welcome to Being a Woman on the Internet - FLARE