In the last few weeks there has been a lot of talk about asses, in fine language butts, which is the same thing, as it is the same thing with boobs and breasts, and now it has given us the former. We live the festival of the tit, although not so much because it did not reach Eurovision, and for me that is why they have, some and some if we are guided by the networks, so much mania for Chanel's butt. That if she is hypersexualized – for 25 euros the answer, names of musical idols that do not go there. What if the singer's clothing is not for a contest of this type –for 25 euros the answer, names of festivals in which sexual glam is absent–. What if the lyrics of the song are rude and sexist –for 25 euros the answer, names of lyrical poets who have triumphed in life–.

Last week Kim Kardashian literally got into the dress to kill (for Jackie Kennedy and a few others) by Marilyn Monroe; she didn't see her butt, because she didn't fit inside her, and she had to cover herself with a kind of shawl, since we already have a new piece of clothing, in addition to the loincloth, the top. No one more hypersexualized than Kim Kardashian and Marilyn, rest assured, but they didn't talk about it at the Met gala, because they already take it for granted? Because they've gotten used to it and don't even see it? reached according to what level can you do whatever you want? Possibly the thing is going that way, of a distribution of placets and bows, some for being who you are, others for being who they are and those who give you the thumbs up. Chanel did not pass the sieve, it seems.

As if he didn't have enough with traditional machismo and its dandy headlines, or with the paramachistas who take the opportunity to indirectly attack feminism on account of their victory at the Fest, they also have to deal with the machismo coated with feminism of those who decree what is progressive –the tit– and what is heteropatriarchy –the ass–. Chanel has the right to teach what she wants because she has it for that and for that we have shouted “freedom”, because if she is only going to be to replace dictations, we are going wrong. Reducing a singer's triumph to her movements is as if Elvis hadn't hit the boom boom with his hips or Tom Jones hadn't owed his chest hair a Grammy. And for the record: I like them both very much.