Yes, this is a Kim Kardashian related rant. And yes, I am aware that the internet is currently saturated with memes and articles about this issue (I use the term loosely).
And no, I don't care.
In case you have been living under a rock, Kim Kardashian has yet again sent seismic waves flying off the Richter after posing for the front cover of New York City based magazine, Paper. It was shot by renowned French photographer Jean Paul Goude. And it featured an enhanced version of her bare ass.
Big freaking deal.
Let me start off with the disclaimer that I am neither a fan, nor critic of Kim K. I haven't watched a minute of Keeping up with the Kardashians, nor do I follow her activity in the gossip columns. All I know of her is through pictures. And frankly, I think the media furor and backlash related to this set of photos is uncalled for.
The backlash is mostly related to these three arguments:
1. She got famous off of a sextape
2. Her backside in the editorial is heavily photoshopped
3. She's a mother
 Ok..let me start with her background.
Yes, she did get famous from a sex tape. And yes, obviously that, in hand with her reality TV stardom is equivalent to the noveau riche of celebrity. But guess what? Success might strike, but it doesn't last unless there is some talent and/or business acumen in the equation. Case example, Michael Costello. He competed in Season 8 of Project Runway and was continually being accused of being a 'fake designer' because all he did was drapery. He got the spotlight off of a reality TV show, and yet he now has a household name raking in clients like Beyonce, Carmen Electra, Serena Williams, Delta Goodrem, and Christina Millian. I'm pretty sure the 'glorified draper' stigma has been dropped from his name because he earnt his position as a talented designer.
Regardless of her intelligence, values, and how she found the spotlight, it is undeniable that Kim Kardashian is a style icon of our generation. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. The great majority of girls you will meet (even though they might deny it) all follow her on Instagram and keep tabs on her outfits. And if you have a look at some of these pictures, you can't deny that she is indeed both beautiful and elegant.
What does that establish? The pretension that she has a solid imprint on the fashion world, and that not everything has to be flung back to how she first entered the public eye.
 It's photoshopped.
I think she has had enough experience in the public eye not to go for such an overtly doctored picture. It's not photoshop. If you had any clue, you would know that it is in fact Jean Paul Goude's artistic trademark to exaggerate his subject's main features. That is, and has always been, his aesthetic.
He has a technique of physically remodelling his photographs with tape and paint to achieve these exaggerated silhouettes. But what I dont understand is why it's such a big deal for the photograph in question to convey an unrealistically round behind, when nobody says anything about this model's unworldly long legs. No one said anything about it giving 'unrealistic expectations' to young girls; no, it was simply considered fashion. So why is KK's photo any different?
 She's a mother.
So is Miranda Kerr. And looky here, Miranda actually did a similar shoot. But noone said anything about Miranda, other than "our girl from Gunnedah" being a little "saucy...yummy mummy". And she's not the only mother to do so. Just google 'Natalia Vodinova naked', and you'll have a field day. So yes, there is undeniably a double standard wedged somewhere in here.
"But Miranda is a Model; that was in the name of fashion.
Kim is just doing it in a slutty way."
Firstly, we just established that Kim Kardashian has a solid position in the fashion world. She has indeed even graced the cover of Vogue (albeit controversially). Now let's take a look at the pictures in question; they are not overtly sexualised with long flowing wavy hair, a sultry gaze, shot mid inhalation, in a provocative pose. She just looks like a laughing, confident woman, comfortable in her own skin. And her expression in the butt picture looks a little too high-brow to be slutty.
In all honesty, I like it. I like the fact that she is a curvy woman being involved in a fashion related/artistic shoot, and that it's more whimsical than sexualised. How come in fashion it's only acceptable if you're really thin, or plus-sized? And once the curvy threshold is hit, things immediately jump to being overtly erotic?
Think about it. Why do you think curvy (actual-curvy not euphamism-curvy) girls are the most sexualised by their male counterparts, and yet the most insecure about their bodies? This disparity rises from the chasm in their representation, making their attractiveness primarily related to their sexual allure, leading to their being overly objectified by men, and feeling guilty/self-conscious because their fellow females either see them as unattractive or indecent. There is very limited representation of them being fashionable in an elegant or artistic manner.
I say fuck that, I'm glad Kim Kardashian got shot by Jean Paul Goude, and I think this overreaction is mostly symptomatic of our society's attitude to curvy women and fashion/art. I'm glad shes digging her heel in, and if she breaks the internet on the way there then so be it.