WWE Diva Kaitlyn's Erotic Photos and The WWE Double Standard
WWE Diva Aloisia recently made waves when she was 'fired' from the WWE just days after being announced as a participant in the all Divas incarnation of WWE NXT.
The real reason behind this 6 foot 9 divas storyline firing was the sudden surfacing of unflattering erotic photos of Aloisia online that are not exactly the best representation of the WWE's current PG era. The photos displayed an admittedly out of shape Aloisia in poses wearing risque outfits, as well as suggestive poses of the Amazonian diva with a female companion.
Aloisia is not nude in any of the photos, and specifically addressed this in an open letter to the fans following the controversy when she stated:
"I answered 'no' [when asked if she had ever posed nude], because that’s the truth. If they had asked me if I ever posed suggestively, I would of course have answered 'yes,' but there’s a big difference between suggestive and nude."
Aloisia's replacement on WWE NXT is the buxom, bodybuilding (quasi) blonde, Kaitlyn. Going forward in the NXT competition, it could be safe to assume that there are no outstanding erotic photos of Aloisia's replacement, right?
Almost on cue, pictures of Kaitlyn in more than suggestive poses have also surfaced online. While viewing Kaitlyn's photo gallery brings a smile to my face as a red blooded, African-American male, the jaded wrestling fan in me had to question the apparent double standard that seems to be developing.
There has been no backlash or repercussions handed down against Kaitlyn, following the surfacing of photos are far more graphic in eroticism than that of Aloisia's, in the heart of a PG initiative instituted by the WWE during politically sensitive times (Linda McMahon's senate race).
Despite posing with a female companion (as Aloisia did), and posing in pictures where her breasts are exposed, by virtue of Kaitlyn wearing a see thru shirt with her nipples being covered by Janet Jackson like star shaped stickers, Kaitlyn has not been fired or removed from the company in any way, shape or form.
In fact, the WWE has seemingly turned a blind eye to Kaitlyn's erotic photos. Apparently, the company (or its sponsors) may be more comfortable seeing a traditional all American body builder in scantly clad clothing than an overweight giant in a photo shoot that can hardly even be considered softcore Amazonian porn.
A similar double standard took place following the real firing of Daniel Bryan (Bryan Danielson), when Bryan was seen on camera choking WWE announcer Justin Roberts with his own tie.
The firing was instigated by an unnamed WWE sponsor, or somebody with significant stroke with the company, and the reason behind the firing was that the 'tiegate' choking incident was not congruent with WWE PG, family friendly programming. Daniel Bryan's case was further harmed by the fact that the WWE had banned choking following the Chris Benoit tragedy.
Yet a similarly graphic choking incident that occurred after the Chris Benoit double homicide, where Randy Orton choked John Cena with a Singapore Cane during an 'I Quit' match, resulted in no such punishment for one of the WWE's top stars.
The WWE's issues with double standards give the company the luxury of not having to set adhere to any type of responsible precedent that should otherwise be set by a publicly traded company with a defined mission statement, one of which happens to be family friendly programming.
Controversial incidents such as the 'firing' of Aloisia due to erotic photos, or the release of Daniel Bryan due to choking, are disappointing to me personally yet understandable given the circumstances.
However, this should be a precedent that should not be followed when the WWE sees fit, or when it is more convenient to make an example of those who breach company policy.
Big Nasty is the editor of The Big Nasty Athletic Dept. Log on to twitter at twitter.com/bignasty247 and follow him until he presses charges! Friends of Big Nasty's hang out at facebook.com/bignasty247.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?