Miesha Tate Doesn't Understand What Being Naked Actually Means, Shoots on Rousey
Ronda Rousey vs. Miesha Tate. It's the rivalry that keeps on giving, the first real women's MMA feud with any kind of mainstream appeal.
It's also something I figured was over once Rousey thoroughly demolished Tate a few months back, shredding her arm, taking her title and banishing most of her dignity in the process.
But I guess that isn't the case, because Tate is still taking potshots at the Strikeforce women's bantamweight champion. Witness this little outburst from last night:
Any1 else think it's hypocritical 4 Ronda Rousey 2 talk crap about ring girls in playboy but it's totally fine 2 pose "artistically nude" ?— Miesha Tate (@MieshaTate) July 17, 2012
Someone needs to clue Miesha in on what "artistically nude" actually means, because the athletes featured in ESPN's "Body" issue—that's the photo shoot that has Tate up in arms, by the way—does not portray "artistically nude" photographs. It features near-nudes. There's a big difference, you know, because you aren't actually seeing Rousey's business.
"Artistically nude" is what you find in those coffee-table books featuring artsy black and white shots with actual nude people in them. And by nude, I mean nude—not photos with hands and other objects strategically placed to cover up the goods.
Again, she's not actually naked. Was she naked shooting the photos? Sure. Well, mostly. Are you actually seeing her naked? No.
This all seems like deja vu to me. Rousey came from nowhere and earned a quick title shot against Tate by using her mouth and talking her way into the fight. Tate responded by complaining about Rousey's rise being attributed to her mouth and not her fighting skills. Rousey then dismantled Tate using those considerable fighting skills.
Nowadays, Rousey is becoming one of the most famous MMA fighters on the planet, and Tate is still spending her time complaining about Rousey's success. And that's fine, if that's the route she wants to take.
It just seems a little bit like sour grapes to me.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?