Are there women here who are not offended by the SI cover or Kate Upton's spread?

[fried eggs]

I just don't care. They are adults who are free to do what they want. Despite everything I've read on the topic, I still have a hard time finding anything to be outraged about.

Does the fact that I'm not bothered by those pictures exclude me from being a feminist?

[AngryAmish]

1. Not me.

Silly but in the end harmless.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. are you talking about the images themselves? Or the response to them in GD on DU?

two separate issues entirely.

The responses and the things the women around here were subjected to in response has been deplorable.

Did you also miss the threads denying "White Male Privilege" too?

[liberalmuse]

3. If not being offended...

means being okay with women continually being served up on a platter for men to drool over, then count me out. We're better than this. All of us.

[CFLDem]

4. If anything it makes your viewpoint

the definition of feminist.

But I'm sure the league of prudey progressives will show up shortly with their horde of straw-men to disagree.

[Union Scribe]

12. They'll probably start ten threads about this one

over the next few days, makings sure we all remember they're the only Feminists™ on DU.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. I just sort of rolled my eyes, to be honest.

Not so much offended as cynically amused, really...

"Look: here are some girls' asses...because, you know...sports!"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. +1

[seattledo]

165. I don't think you're taking them nearly seriously enough.

They just get worse every year. If we don't make a stand soon, there won't be any stopping it.

[leftynyc]

188. Stopping what?

Men drooling over pictures of half/mostly naked women? You may as well decide to stop the tide.

[Warren DeMontague]

256. Please, elaborate.

[1awake]

197. Okay I'm with you on your assessment

but your last line made me laugh. So true lol.

[Cleita]

6. Me. I'm far more offended with the media depicting mops, vacuum cleaners

and frying pans with a woman attached to the handles. Really, I find this offensive and misogynist, not what a few young, attractive women choose to do to enhance their careers.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Excellent point. Some of the most destructive/offensive stuff flies under the radar.

Note that she's barefoot.



http://ctworkingmoms.com/2011/09/30/dont-sell-me-mom-jeans/

[Cleita]

24. Exactly, what I mean. n/t

[woolldog]

85. What's offensive about that?

Men don't buy mops and swiffer cleaners. Have you ever seen a man buying a mop? Ever? Doesn't happen. Nothing wrong with businesses aiming their ads at the groups who buy their products. It makes sense.

[A HERETIC I AM]

95. Excuse me.....

But I'm a single man and I have bought mops, brooms, dustpans, vacuum cleaners and assorted other cleaning items over the years.

It happens.

All the time.

[RC]

105. I do.

And I use them too.

[mopinko]

107. hubby does all the shopping.

yeah. lots of men buy mops.

[Shrike47]

110. My husband buys all that stuff at our house. He worked in hardware until he retired.

[nomorenomore08]

125. There's aiming at the right consumers, and then there's reinforcing tired stereotypes...

Though I suppose the line between the two is fuzzy enough to be disagreed upon.

[woolldog]

126. Think about the men you know...

how much time do you think they spend mopping?

[Luminous Animal]

152. As much time as the women I know. That is, the men I know pull their weight.

[Feral Child]

210. I'm male.

I'm retired, she isn't, so I keep house.

Learned to mop in the Army, and I'm damn good at it. Pretty picky about my mops.

Just sayin'

[The Straight Story]

26. If I just mopped the floor I would be too. What offends me is all the purple

Looks like Barney exploded in there.

[fried eggs]

55. That ad annoys me. The perfect mom

with her perfect child in their spotless home. If you don't meet that standard, you're made to feel like a failure.

[laundry_queen]

104. yeah, what you said. nt

[nomorenomore08]

128. Totally analogous to how unrealistic beauty standards affect people, psychologically.

I don't have a particular problem with Kate Upton, or anyone else, posing half-naked. The issue is how the likes of Ms. Upton - who would probably be considered in the 99th percentile of physical attractiveness, by most (American) standards - are used to make everyone else feel inadequate. And this affects men as well, to a lesser degree - just look at the David Beckham ads and so forth.

[Scootaloo]

153. +1!

The whole point of advertising - for ANY product - is to make you feel inadequate.

[leftynyc]

189. I disagree

If these sorts of pictures make you feel inadequate, wouldn't that be your problem? There are women more beautiful than I and there are women less beautiful than I - that's life. Is my inability to look away from George Clooney's dreamy eyes his problem? Is he doing something wrong?

[nomorenomore08]

191. It's not the mere existence of very attractive people. It's how they're promoted as the only

acceptable human image that's the problem. Just like probably 90% of heterosexual men, I think Kate Upton is ridiculously hot. But I certainly don't expect all women to look like her.

[leftynyc]

194. I don't know ANY men

who think all women should look like her. She's a beautiful woman - who cares if men want to look at her. I can't believe this subject is taking up so much time and we're letting the perpetually offended turn this into an issue it isn't.

[nomorenomore08]

195. I think there are worthy issues to be raised, but yeah, this particular DU controversy

has probably about run its course. Only so much you can squeeze out of one topic, I guess.

[oldhippie]

219. The fact that you think there are .....

...."the perpetually offended" to even be offended IS the issue to the perpetually offended.

[leftynyc]

230. I had to read that 3 times

before I got it. I'm getting old.

[oldhippie]

233. I was thinking that .....

... there should be a comma in there somewhere, but couldn't figure out where.

[MADem]

164. Hey -- look on the bright side! She most certainly is barefoot....

At least she's not pregnant! Don't they usually go together?

Now, I am gonna roll out one of these tags.

I really think the comment is sufficiently over-the-top that it doesn't need it, but I'm inoculating this post against the perpetually outraged who just might want to think the post was made in a serious, and not sardonic, vein.

Because ya gotta do that, these days!

[1awake]

198. While I agree with you over all

I hate wearing anything on my feet and go barefoot whenever humanly possible (okay so I may be weird). They market to who the buyer is. If anything, this shows the problem, but it's not the cause. Regardless, these adds could be changed to help much more.

[mattclearing]

259. Have you ever mopped with shoes on? Not recommended.

Honestly, this ad is probably more offensive to kids than to women, albeit not by much.

[Tumbulu]

280. What the hell is destructive about that ad?

Seriously, you find an ad depicting someone actually doing something, vs being a sex object as destructive?

Do you find all work demeaning, or just work involving cleaning?

Work is what empowers humans. It is what gives up our intelligence and dignity, whatever the work is. Turning people into objects is the tactic of those making money off of others through scheming and treachery.

What is your problem with work?

[Logical]

98. Thanks for this. Great points. n-t

[Scootaloo]

136. But it's the same thing.

Seriously, this narrative that people only dislike the SI cover because they "hate sexy" is fucking dumb, an artifact of some collective asshats who can't - or more likely, refuse to - grasp social theory concepts.

Your gripe is that a product is displayed as "for women." The Si gripe is that women are the product being advertised. Neither Kate Upton nor the lady in the vacuum ad NYC_SKP posted below are "bad" or "offensive," but the overal industry creates issues of the female image, women's "roles" and so on and so forth.

I'm a straight young man, I'm the target audience of the magazines, and you know what? I can't say I dislike the sight of Kate Upton's chest, either under half a parka or in zero G. But I can still recognize it for what it is, and realize that it's not a step orward for anyone (Well, maybe financially...)

[Cleita]

140. Well, you are not being influenced and most thinking people wouldn't be.

Young men are also being objectified. All those hot actors and models with the hot pecs strutting around shirtless in many venues on screen and magazine ads, it's no different. Hey I go to the gym and see them working out to stay in shape. It doesn't mean I think all guys have to be them. But if they make a few extra pay checks because of their handsomeness, why not? I'm not offended. this old lady likes to look too.

[Scootaloo]

141. Yes, men are also objectified.

Men also don't make 70 cents to the dollar, aren't as prone to eating disorders, and compared to women statistically few of us have to worry about sexual assaults in pur lifetimes. Basically, men are a privileged class over women, even today.

Which means objectification of males is about as harmful to us as the word "cracker" is to white people. It's not a good thing, but we can afford to laugh it off as a minor thing, a triviality, because it doesn't threaten an already-threatened position.

[Cleita]

142. I agree. White men are swimming in privilege. It's well known.

But you don't have to be a swimsuit model to get unwanted attention from men with wandering hands. Trust me. I know.

[Scootaloo]

143. Of course you don't; is that even an argument?

Do the owners of those "wandering hands" see you as a person, or an object? Might media that reinforces the notion of women-as-objects be problematic?

It doesn't brainwash, no - that's impossible. But it does reinforce that something is "normal" when you see it in all the magazines, on the TV, in the movies...

[Cleita]

147. I think we should have venues where we all go naked like

at the beach, maybe. It takes the mystery out of it. Sure women are objects to many even other women. But so are men, treated like so much muscle on a physically demanding job until they can't do it anymore. I realize we are vulnerable being smaller but a lot of this is nonsense. Those models and actresses make more money than any of their peers who are consigned to cubicles for their livelihood. For that reason I'm all for women making money being objectified. You will never be well paid, if at all, wielding a mop.

[Scootaloo]

149. And again, it's not a commentary about hte models, but rather about society

[Cleita]

150. Well society is what it is and it displays a lot of warts and ugliness at times. n/t

[Scootaloo]

151. So shrug and walk away saying "oh well"?

Not that the situations are at all to scale, but I don't imagine that the "wart" of slavery would have been cleared up by just accepting that it's an ugly part of society.

[Cleita]

154. False equivalency.

Women who happily pose for magazines in swim suits or wear them to the beach is not the same as being bought and sold on an auction block.

[Scootaloo]

156. Two things I JUST SAID.

1) It's not an indictment of the models. I don't believe i could have made it plainer than directly saying that, so if you would please stop claiming that's what I'm saying, it'd be nice.

2) I said the two situations weren't to scale - I was comparing their shared status as "social warts."

[Warren DeMontague]

277. It's not that they're not to scale, it's that you're comparing apples to quantum physics.

"Slavery" ≠ "a picture of women in bathing suits on a sunny beach".

It's not a question of "scale".

[Scootaloo]

282. And still, you intentionally don't get it

It's not about "a picture of women in bathing suits on a sunny beach," it's about the reduction of the female body into advertising space, and the reality that such objectification is harmful to the overall culture due to the unrealistic standards it sets for both genders as well as the reduction of "woman" into "warm body with useful holes."

[Warren DeMontague]

283. Sure

if you say so.

[Tumbulu]

276. are you serious Cleita?

you honestly think depicting women as sex objects is empowering?

[Cleita]

285. I live in a beach area and women in swim suits, seemingly dancing and

smiling are like my friends who go to the beach, wear swim wear, play volley ball, surf and run on the beach and they are having fun with each other. How much fun is a woman with a mop having?

[Tumbulu]

286. You seriously do not see the difference between regular women wearing swimsuits and that cover from

SI that was posted on DU of all places? You did not notice that it was rather pornographic, to put it mildly? (Are you pro porn and anti cleaning of houses?)

You seriously do not see how this objectifying of women is insulting and demeaning - certainly to me it is clear, and I am furious that it is allowed on a board that I support with my time and money)?

Are you just making this up to get conversations going and hackles up?

An ad to sell mops picturing a rather normal looking woman is demeaning? Should she have been dressed like most mom's really look, all bedraggled and sleep deprived?

[Cleita]

287. I really have nothing against porn as long

as the participants are consenting adults. I have nothing against mops either as long as they are used by everyone. Most ads do not depict men doing housework. Bye. I only answered you because we have connected otherwise, but I am leaving DU. I'm just tying up loose ends.

[Tumbulu]

288. Bye Cleita, hoping we get more rain

and sorry to disagree with you on this matter.

[Cleita]

290. There is nothing wrong with disagreement as long as we respect each other.

My bye has nothing to do with you and from what I understand we are going to get a big rainstorm in March. I know. It's too late to make a difference.

[Tumbulu]

291. Oh it is not too late at all, it will make a huge

difference to so many of us.

My heirloom wheat is sprouted, if we get that rain, that is all it will need, nothing more. If we get that rain, perhaps my wells won't go dry. If we get that rain, I might plant milo for my sheep to eat and maybe will not have to kill half of them rather than let them not get enough to eat. If we get that rain it will be so so much better.

So, thanks for caring.

[CJCRANE]

7. The pics are okay but GD isn't the place for centerfold photos

of men or women.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Kate Upton's spread ?

Is that some new fangled synthesised butter substitute you can spread straight out of the fridge ?

[awoke_in_2003]

122. I can't believe it's not butter. Nt

[eShirl]

9. I'm offended that DUers think it's OK to post them here

do you get that???

[Blue_In_AK]

10. I don't care one way or the other.

I guess I'm getting too old to be outraged by this sort of thing. There are more pressing issues in my life.

[WillyT]

28. :hugs:

Crap... I gotta go.

[Blue_In_AK]

56. And back at you, WillyT.

Watch out for incoming. Lol.

[Demobrat]

11. I'm a woman who couldn't care less

if another woman wants to display her body on a magazine cover. I would hope she invested the money for her old age instead of blowing it, but it's not up to me to judge. It's her body.

[Old and In the Way]

13. On my list of outrages -

it's 49,374.

When the other 49, 373 outrages are satisfactorily addressed, this will be my top priority.

Note: I know you asked this of the women of DU...disclosure: I'm a man. Or at least I post as one at DU.

[woolldog]

14. The thing I don't get is

Kate Upton has some curves. She's got some meat on her bones. A lot of the same people oh here who complain about models being skinny are now complaining about Upton being too big up top. You'd think they'd be happy that a model with some meat on her is making it big in the modeling industry. But they're not. You can't make these whiners happy.

[JI7]

16. i deal with swimsuit models sometimes

they are usually grossed out by attention from certain types. they do what they do for the money and sometimes they hope they can get more famous and more money.

[Demobrat]

21. All women are grossed out

by attention they get from certain types.

[JI7]

27. yes that is right, but sometimes people use them doing things like posing in a bikini

as an excuse and try to think it's ok.

[Demobrat]

42. The same idiots

use wearing a short skirt as an excuse. It's not limited to swimsuit models.

[JI7]

51. yes, i'm sure they would do the same to those who are fully clothes

and make any excuse .

[LadyHawkAZ]

17. The SI cover didn't offend

The zero-G boob thing seemed silly, but whatever floats people's boats... or airplanes...

I did think the Upton OP was posted specifically as flamebait, where the SI cover wasn't.

As for the feminism, it just depends what type you feel you belong to- feminism isn't one group, and some groups find sexuality offensive while others don't.

[redqueen]

46. There are feminists who find sexuality offensive? Feminists here were calling out objectification,

not sexuality.

[Cleita]

181. Objectification?

What a load of crap. The women willing posed were well paid and they looked lovely. Are you jealous?

[redqueen]

200. It's sad when women repeat misogynist right wing talking points.

No, women who call out objectification aren't "jealous".

[theHandpuppet]

223. That last comment was really out of line

I'd go so far as to say that is was a classic example of misogyny but I'll bet you wouldn't believe me.

Honestly, that was offensive.

[fried eggs]

48. "some groups find sexuality offensive"

OK that explains it, thanks. I don't find sexuality offensive. I've even watched porn once or twice (gasp).

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I hope you repented.

naughty.

[nomorenomore08]

129. I don't know if it's that, honestly. I don't find sex or even sexual imagery offensive at all

but I find myself in agreement with, for example, many of the arguments against particularly abusive porn. I can also see the problematic aspects of unrealistic beauty standards, without personally condemning Kate Upton for how she makes her living.

I think the assumption that certain people "hate sex" or find it offensive is generally a strawman, and I also wonder at the constant conflation of "porn" with "sex" - almost as if people have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.

[LadyHawkAZ]

161. "Sexuality" encompasses a lot more than just the act of intercourse.

I chose the word deliberately. It also covers things like a person's desires, their fantasies, their attitude toward them, their attitude toward their partners and their partners' desires, self-image and body image, their acceptance or lack thereof of the interests of others, etc. It's not just about "hate sex" as in hate the idea of two people knocking boots. It's also intolerance for any act or desire outside their own experience or interest, and we do have a lot of that here.

[kcr]

18. Well? What do you think? Are you a feminist?

Why are you asking? Do you honestly not know the definition? Or do you just want to join in on the piling on of feminists and painting them as sex hating prudes?

[fried eggs]

52. I think I am. My version of feminism involves equal pay and opportunity

and control over my own body.

[kcr]

64. Okay. I think most who object to the GD posts would say the same thing.

It isn't about prudes and anti sex. It's not even about being offended. For some, the just don't think it belongs in GD. That's my main objection. I think posting stuff like that creates the wrong environment. There's a time and a place. But I agree that it does objectify women. I noticed you hate the ads depicting the "perfect mom" That's how that woman is choosing to control her body as well, by being in that ad. But you still criticized it because of the message it sends. The critique many have over the SI cover isn't about being anti sex. It's about the effect images have and objectification, and objectification isn't about anti-sex. I don't think a woman needs to have her feminist card removed if she isn't immediately and totally on board with the objection to the SI swimsuit cover. But I don't think much of anyone joining in on the piling on and mis-characterizing of those who object to the GD posts, no matter how feminist they may claim themselves to be.

[fried eggs]

68. Your answer really helped!

I want to get a better understanding of how you view objectification. Which of the following 3 options do you find the most troubling:

1) The models look too perfect which puts pressure on women and girls to have perfect bodies
2) Men/women will be attracted to the women or view those specific women as sex objects
3) Men/women will see the cover and then feel empowered to treat other women like sex objects

[Squinch]

84. How about this: If you are working in Elizabeth Warren's office, and you publicly post a T&A

photo prominently on your workspace, would you think that would be appropriate?

If you were volunteering for your local Democratic organization, would you think it was appropriate to post one of those auto body shop-type nude calendars, prominently in a place that everyone passes?

If the answer to either of those is "no," then why? And how is this different? This is a space for political discussion, where half the members are women.

This has nothing to do with nudity. (My favorite neighborhood restaurant has paintings of nudes on every wall. They're great. I have been known to do the nude beach, though rarely due to fair skin. In my youth I posed nude for an artist.)

It also has nothing to do with not liking sex. Sex and objectification should not be confused.

[fried eggs]

97. And how is this different?

You made a good point. I viewed that as different from the examples you cited because a lot of silly things get posted in GD, topics that I would never bring up at work or anywhere official. The question is, should GD get back to basics with only serious topics allowed?

[Squinch]

99. I don't think it has to be only serious topics,

but if you worked in those places, your interactions with other people wouldn't be limited to only serious things, either. Political offices, or any workspaces, can be hilarious.

But everyone seems to get that T&A is disrespectful in that space.

[kcr]

114. For me it's about context

I don't have a problem with people looking at pictures of attractive people. I do think that things like the SI swimsuit issue are an outdated relic, along the lines of beauty pageants, because what does that have to do with sports? It's the context. It's a sports magazine. Why do they have a T&A issue? We're a bunch of sports nuts in my family and we get SI and I just have to roll my eyes every time the swimsuit issue comes around, the way I do at beauty pageants. As far as it being posted here in GD, I think it was just to be deliberately provocative. In real life, people generally don't plaster pinups all over the walls in areas unless they're trying to create a certain atmosphere. It's not about being jealous of prettier women as someone else in this thread suggested.

[JJChambers]

19. I think you're right

People who claim to be feminists whilst at the same time trying to control, or at the very least, express their displeasure with women who are depicted in magazines such as SI:SE, or the Kate Upton photos, are actually anything but feminist. These are consenting, adult women who CHOOSE to be featured in there photographs -- any opposition to this is an attack on women.

Prudes.

[Old and In the Way]

29. This is an anonymous posting board....how can you devine anyone's gender (with some exceptions)?

Just cuz people claim to be a certain gender, doesn't make it so. And if their intent is to create a hostile atmosphere for all people who post here....why would you necessarily believe that they are all 100% committed feminists? Could just as easily be a bunch of RNC college age males enjoying the trollish sport of destroying a progressive posting site. I've only been on this Earth for 61 years...but I've yet to meet any feminist of the HoF persuasion. Maybe they do exist, but I've never seen them in my travels.

[Gravitycollapse]

32. You must not travel much.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Enough....

[Gravitycollapse]

38. Maybe it's the places you travel to that are the problem.

If you keep flying to Siberia, the odds of you finding a palm tree are pretty low.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Do you suggest I travel to, say, Saudia Arabia, for inspiration

on true feminist principals? They have palm trees there, you know.

[Gravitycollapse]

53. You're 61 years old. If you haven't encountered a rainbow spectrum of feminists at your age...

Odds are pretty high you're selectively avoiding such opportunities.

Like I said, don't travel to Siberia and expect to see palm trees. My guess, however, is you very much enjoy the cold weather.

[Old and In the Way]

57. Amazing, isn't it?

Never met any DU/HoF feminists irl. I guess you folks need better marketing strategies!

[Gravitycollapse]

62. You've undoubtedly met thousands.

I'm sure many of them didn't feel like doing a song and dance routine for your own personal amusement.

[Art_from_Ark]

146. I've met a few in real life

Mostly in a university setting. My most memorable encounter was when I was giving a guest lecture about business locations. After the lecture, a couple of the female students approached me and let me have it with both barrels because I had the nerve to say "middleMEN" instead of "middlePEOPLE" in my lecture.

[Luminous Animal]

158. That must of been just awful for you.

[Art_from_Ark]

168. Au contraire

I thoroughly enjoyed the 10-minute tongue-lashing I got for being a "misogynist" who "harbored an inner desire to subjugate women" because I "used the word 'middlemen' instead of 'middlepeople'".

[Luminous Animal]

172. Sorry. Forgot the sarcasm tag. But big giant kudos to you for you to sticking with your

gender specific language.

I myself agree with your principled stance and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CALL MY MAILMAN A LETTER CARRIER. AND I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CALL FIREMEN, FIREFIGHTERS.

Gender neutral language is sooooo hard. And I will, I SAY I SAY, go to my grave defending mocking it.

[Art_from_Ark]

176. Yes, I made a valiant effort to use the word "middlemen" in my lecture

Heroic, even. One time during that 45-minute lecture.

[Luminous Animal]

180. And know doubt, being called on it, has scarred you for life.

(Snort) Those silly women seeking inclusive language. It's as though they thought they were people!

[Art_from_Ark]

184. Yes, those silly women for labeling me a "misogynist",

going on and on for 10 minutes pretending they knew all about me, on the basis of one word that is still standard English.

Now excuse me while I go out and build a gender-non-specific snowman.

[MADem]

166. I travel a lot, and I am with you--I've never met a soul like that in person.

Just here, on this board. Sometimes, I get a sense that it's performance art, at the least. I'm being kind in that assessment.

This is a political discussion board, but people do talk about stuff that isn't political. And it is most certainly not a workcenter. I don't find the comparison that someone made elsewhere in this thread (that this place is like a job site) to be compelling at all.

I think, if someone constantly harped on about guns in the workplace, people might get a bit annoyed, too (and maybe call the cops)....or if they spent their entire workday exchanging cooking/baking or household hint tips the boss might not want to hand out paychecks--but we see THAT on this board too. Thus, I think comparing the board to a workplace isn't terribly operative. This place is closer to a bar, with a lot of booths. They're talking about gaming in that booth, an they're talking about Israel and Palestine in the next one over. At that big round table, there's a buncha people yammering about LBN. Over on the corner of the bar, a crew of folks are crabbing about something called GD. If ya don't like the conversation, pull up a chair at a different table. If someone is a total jerk and gets nasty, tell the bouncers.

Maybe the solution is to create yet another frigging group, called "Post Yer Pin Up Pics and Nasty-Ass Soft Porn Here, Not TOO Graphic, Mind You." There, everyone could post pictures of half naked objectified individuals of whatever gender without excoriation, and people who don't like it could just trash the group and never have to see that stuff. Of course, that probably wouldn't be as much fun, nor would it produce six or seven hundred post threads with thousands upon thousands of page hits--I'll bet that hyperbolic Upton thread and the copycats it spawned have paid a few bills for the admins--so that's a positive to all the drama, I suppose!

I guess Kate Upton's gravity free bosom has now joined the pit bull/Olive Garden/smoking/breast feeding club....it's tiresome stuff. It doesn't enhance the GD experience, IMO...! If it pays a few bills for the site owners, though, I guess it's not a total waste!

[Old and In the Way]

167. I think you are on to something, MADem....

"Maybe the solution is to create yet another frigging group, called "Post Yer Pin Up Pics and Nasty-Ass Soft Porn Here, Not TOO Graphic, Mind You." I would suggest 2 groups, actually - (1) Objectified pics (Trigger warning: male) and (2) Objectified pics (Trigger warning: female)....just for balance. And they'd of course have to have protected status. I'd nominate Mr. DeMontangue to moderate #2 and Redqueen to moderate #1.

Or maybe just ban any gender related discussion because it really is making DU devolve into a very unserious place to discuss real political issues that affect us all.

[MADem]

169. Heh...sounds like a plan! Either option--the PICS solution or the "Ban All Gender Discussions" one!

Of course, that would make the page view count go way down.

I really do think the silver lining of all this carping and crabbing is that the admins make a little money off of the Google ads to keep this private website open and operating!

[Warren DeMontague]

171. crab and carp?

Actually sounds sort of tasty.

[MADem]

173. Would you like the cole slaw with that?

Now I'm hungry!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

179. That totally sounds like something you'd eat in New England.

And yeah, yum.

[MADem]

182. Yeah--I must say, the seafood is a plus when it comes to this neck of the woods!

Having a brother in law who is a fisherman/lobsterman/clammer/scalloper is also a plus! He knows how to cook the stuff, too!

[Warren DeMontague]

185. Stop, just stop.

Yr. killing me.

Although, we get that Copper River Salmon for about 2 weeks every fall, so....

[MADem]

186. Now that's good eatin'!! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

170. No way, man. I'm all about "Weird News", these days.

And it's already got a host.

But thanks.... I, uh, think.

[MADem]

174. Weird News is a great group! There's some wild stuff up in there on occasion....

Another group that doesn't get enough traffic. but has its moments, is the HUMOR group.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. Oh, now you've done it.

No doubt they'll recognize my foul stench once I come aboard.

[MADem]

183. OMG that is the funniest picture I have seen in a long while!!

[seaglass]

201. We don't need another group, just post them all here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=10188

[MADem]

229. That wouldn't work, though.

The venue is wrong. It's the "Men's" group, and like the "HOF" group, they're both protected with a POV. They don't like each other, it's like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I'm reminded of "Battle of the Sexes" shows on seventies television whenever I see the hammer and tongs start up, here.

Perhaps a group off the lounge, or a pinned thread there, would do...?

I suppose, if the page hits help support the site, it's all good. I've been trashing a bunch of these threads, but eventually, when you see them popping up over and over, it's human nature to wonder what the fuss is about!

[seaglass]

237. Not sure why you think it wouldn't work because the thread already exists in the Men's Group.

I don't think they object to people adding to it. In fact if the SI cover was added to that thread there probably wouldn't have been more than a hiccup on DU.

[MADem]

239. Because that is a closed group and not everyone has access to it.

And, as I said, that group and the HOF one are mortal enemies.

They need a neutral playground.

[seaglass]

245. Are you looking for a place to fight it out? Because I don't think people are interested in that.

If DU becomes a place where bikini and soft porn pics are part of the culture, you'll get more posters like the recently banned loose wheel and lose a lot of the quality posters.

[MADem]

250. Actually, I'm looking for a disused corner, accessible to all, where people can throw this shit

and not have it infest GD. And that includes those who like their "cover the candy" beefcake pictures as well as those who think half naked female behinds are "art."

I'd simply like to see GD become GD again. I don't think that will happen, but that's what I'd like. No Show Biz Unless Really Big News....that kind of thing.

People forget that in the days of the moderators, despite the admontion of "no sex threads," that this kind of shit went on all the time--and it wasn't just those sexist men who were doing it, either.

I thought it was kinda dumb back then, too, but no one got pissed off about it. It was much easier to ignore.

If this brou-ha-ha keeps the site operating as a consequence of page hits, well, that's a benefit, I suppose. I'm just tired of the perpetual outrage in GD. Between boobs in space and guns, it's like a parody of itself.

[BainsBane]

293. The reason you don't see it in the workplace

Is that that sexist crap has been prohibited by law for decades. Women don't need to talk about it because it doesn't happen in any workplace where employers follow the law, in any public agency, non-profit, or public building. What you think is so radical has been standard for decades in this country. Jensen v. Evelyth Taconite. Look at Equal Opportunity law. Hundreds of Duers have now denounced that crap as misogynistic and hostile to women. They have exposed this game of blaming a few HOF posters as a complete lie. There is indeed a small minority on this site. They are the ones who think women don't merit respect and don't think women have a right to speak out about issues that concern them. Hundreds of DUers have clearly said they are sick and tired of the misogyny on this site. But you keep defending it and pretending it's only a few posters. Or maybe you can shift to the new excuse that all women's fault anyway, or the ahistorical absurdity that it has always existed and always will.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

281. I have encountered a number of them

Including a couple who make the HoFer's look like pikers.

I don't believe the subject of "rape architecture" or "the sexual economy of trick of treating" has come up here yet, nor vitriolic bigotry against heterosexual women. My ex also encountered some while she was lobbying in support of the California Paternity Justice Act who held some interesting opinions, such as in "certain communities" it is a statistical certainty that every man has an unsupported child so whether or not a man is actually paying child support for his offspring is a technicality... because statistically he has at least one unsupported child of his own.

However...

I also know somebody who is working on a controversial development project who has spent the last four years masterfully trolling a local message board with a persona of a foaming at the mouth anarchist environmentalist. Her made-up dude has been offered op-eds in the local paper, television interviews and could probably be elected to city council in that ward.

[BainsBane]

292. Why woujld women care about equal rights?

If we were truly women, we would know our place was to be deferential to men. Hostile environment is defined by equal opportunity law as based in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Evidently you think it is Republicans and not Democrats who care about equal rights. If we were real Democrats, we would realize we had no right to speak in public, that our role was to pretend to be less intelligent than men and to always defer to their wishes.

During these 61 years you have been on the earth, did you ever hold a job with an employer that followed labor law or go to a Democratic Party office or any public building? Because the girly pics you seem to think are emblematic of liberal values have been prohibited in such places for decades. There is nothing new about any of this. See Jensen v. Evelyth Taconite. See what the EEOC has to say about what constitutes a hostile work environment.

Hundreds of DUers have denounced that stuff as misogynistic. Are they all Republican plants too? Anyone who cares about equal rights must be a Republican because you think Democrats don't care about women's rights? I'll give you a hint. Go on over to the cave and read what they post. They agree with you and anti-HOF pals 100%. This world has changed a lot in the 61 years. You think asserting equal rights and challenging your privilege is a hostile environment. The law sees it quite differently.
Women and people of color are majority voters in the Democratic Party. That means we are human beings who count and have rights. The party does not belong to you, and there is nothing liberal about disrespecting women's views and rights.

Of course many of the more serious manifestations of misogyny occur outside the reach of equal opportunity law and are far more dangerous that what we can see online. Domestic violence is a key example. Some men feel entitled to beat their wives, and when their wives finally have enough and leave them, they take their rage out on random women on the internet. So yes, posting girly pics is actually pretty mild in terms of the broader misogyny in American culture. But as Bjorn Against pointed out, what opened his eyes to how serious the problem is was not the pics themselves but the absolute disrespect with which women who have expressed their concerns have been treated. Sometimes, that can point to far more serious underlying issues.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. Just so people understand how useless the jury system is on this website...

I think you're right
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4530430

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Calling feminists on this board prudes?

Are you fucking kidding me? This is trolling in its purist form.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Feb 19, 2014, 07:44 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Offense to the term prudes, but the rest is just opinion and not directed at any one individual, so it doesn't meet the personal attack standards.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: These bullshit attacks on feminists need to stop. "Prudes" is over the top. And go away.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: alert is bogus
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am sick of these gender wars, I think there are prudes on this site, but I also think there are misogynists who are purposely trying to antagonize. This post does seem antagonistic so I am voting to hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a valid opinion, not stated in a rude or hurtful way. Alerting on it is an attempt to control someone's opinion, and hence, the conversation.

[nomorenomore08]

137. It really is Exhibit A for a lot of the bullshit that gets flung around here. Though most are more

subtle about it. I almost think the guy was joking but, nah... Sadly I don't really believe he was...

[R B Garr]

144. I hear you. Pointing out derogatory words only gives them more ammuntion

to pester and vex you. They ("they&quot only value information from posts that contribute to their ability to piss people off. Someone I posted to earlier today regarding the use of the word prudes now seems to have adopted the word as his new favorite club and posts this smilie with it:

The fun and games abound.

[etherealtruth]

67. Really? I missed that completely

I thought some human beings were stating that a magazine purportedly devoted to sports had a wealth of accomplished female athletes that they may have chosen if they truly wished a cover to be an homage to women... some expressed concern that beautiful women were photographed and then airbrushed and posed to achieve unrealistic looks (when real women are beautiful "as is&quot ... I saw some posts concerned that the discussion was better suited for the lounge or other forums. I do not recall any of the posts criticizing the choices of other women (they may be there, but that was not the spirit of the debate)

... but ma'am, I respect your right as a feminist and a woman to feel however you feel about a subject and to express it. We don't all have to agree on every detail of every issue ... we just need to respect one another as autonomous beings

[leftynyc]

190. I may have missed something

Has Sports Illustrated claimed this issue is to honor women? Or is this something posters here think it should be about? I think it's merely an issue that is getting a bunch of men to part with their money so they can look at beautiful mostly naked women.

[etherealtruth]

192. SI has never claimed that

... of course their goal is to get folk to part with their money ... if you read through the thread there are posters that claimed it, however.

I actually do not care about SI ... the only objection I have is the posting in GD. If you are posting in GD I would hope the goal is to discuss the topical issues surrounding the cover ... if the goal was to titillate, post it elsewhere.

[The Straight Story]

20. Here is what Kate Upton had to say about the three ladies on the SI cover

Kate Upton ‏@KateUpton Feb 14

OMG! So happy for @LilyAldridge @chrissyteigen and @NinaAgdal!! What a gorgeous cover!! Loving the booty for vday!💗

http://twitter.com/KateUpton

[Old and In the Way]

30. She's objectifying them!

Another patriarchal lackey!

[d_b]

206. Lols

[malaise]

22. Haven't seen it and don't plan to see him

Never watch SI pics - read articles I search for or that are sent to me.
I don't give a damn who wants to watch hald naked women. Not my business - sorry.

[WillowTree]

23. I, for one, couldn't care less about either one.

[noamnety]

25. Not being personally offended

doesn't mean you aren't a feminist.

but if you think "It doesn't offend me personally, therefore it isn't creating a hostile environment for any woman" or "therefore it isn't problematic despite many women voicing strong complaints about it" is a valid argument, then I'd suggest reading more about feminism.

Maybe somewhere there was a black guy once who wasn't personally offended by drinking out of a separate water fountain. That doesn't mean the separate fountains weren't racist.

[fried eggs]

65. Did the pictures create a hostile environment or the responses to the pictures?

I'm trying to understand. I'm open to changing my mind. Your separate fountains analogy doesn't make any sense. Am I a self-hating sellout if I'm not offended by a woman in a bikini? There are men and women who will think dirty thoughts when looking at the cover. But there are also hard working women (SI staff and the models) who are now set for life financially due to their contributions to the issue. I applaud that.

[noamnety]

88. Individuals can definitely be sellouts

who get ahead financially by doing things that benefit themselves, but come at the expense of others (directly, or indirectly). There are women in the Walmart family who have gotten very rich because of their corporate decisions, but I don't think supporting them just because they got rich is inherently a feminist position.

The separate fountains analogy, I brought that in because it seemed in the OP that you had somewhat decided that the issue isn't a real issue for real feminists, because you personally aren't offended by it. I think it's a decent analogy because there really may well have been some folks who had fountains basically all to themselves instead of having to share it with 50 other germy people who used the white fountain. So the policy could have been good for them personally. And a lot of people may have felt it wasn't even an issue worth fighting - you know, really, what's the big deal, everyone gets the same water, who is it really hurting? Why not solve war, poverty, real issues, instead of fighting to get rid of separate water fountains?

I'm sure if that was still going on now, we'd have DU wars about it and a very vocal segment here would complain about all the threads about separate fountains.

But fortunately, there were people at the time who recognized that it was creating a hostile environment for black people. If you examine WHY it was hostile, I think you'll move a little closer to understanding why people have a problem with nonstop exposure to certain types of messages in the media about what it means to be a woman.

[Squinch]

90. Wow.

I think you've pretty much said it all.

[laundry_queen]

109. + a million. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. yeah, i dont give a shit. nt

[msanthrope]

33. I'm too tired from actually fighting for the rights of women to notice the mental masturbation.

The only person on this board who ever got away with sexually harassing me is a woman.

[Chorophyll]

34. Offended? No.

But I don't want to see them on a political discussion board that's supposed to be progressive. DUers who want to see boobs and butts have many, many internet-based options for doing so.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. +1

[Old and In the Way]

41. Very true.

And I'm more than willing to see a moratorium on all gender bashing postings here.

[MadrasT]

45. +1

[theHandpuppet]

226. It's Lounge material

I would prefer GD be devoted to discourse on political issues and at least appear to be a progressive website.

[R B Garr]

35. I think it was mainly posted to goad people into reacting so their posts get hidden

and to spread a few right wing talking points about feminists.

[Chorophyll]

43. I agree. nt

[A Little Weird]

49. That was my impression too.

I'm surprised by the anti-feminist sentiment that seems so prevalent here.

[sufrommich]

40. I notice there are no outraged " not this shit again"

and "give it a rest already" posts in this thread . Funny that.

[pnwmom]

50. I don't think there are many women here who are offended by that cover per se.

But there are many who wonder why it was posted on a progressive political site.

Not a men's sports site, or an entertainment site -- but a site that is supposed to appeal to all progressives, both male and female.

[theHandpuppet]

203. Exactly.

Succinct and well said.

[peacebird]

54. I'm not offended by them at all.

[JaneyVee]

58. I'm not at all offended. But it's pretty shallow discussion for a political forum.

Maybe we can have a pop culture forum.

[tavernier]

59. Oh please, get over it.

I'm damned near seventy and still like to show off my curves, but I think I have my priorities straight when it comes to the serious things in life.

Geesh, lighten up!!!

[OilemFirchen]

60. I'm horribly offended...

by threads with photos of Glenn Greenwald.

Shouldn't they be moved to Creative Speculation?

[babylonsister]

61. I'm not and

have avoided those threads like the plague. I have more pressing things to consider.

[Xolodno]

63. My wife...

...thought they were fine. They are adults making their own decisions, right or wrong. Simply hiding this stuff like some sort of quasi Sharia law isn't the answer to end women or men being "objectified". If fact, I would argue that it contributes to the problem.

People's attitude about sex and the human form needs promotion of maturity. But what we have is a Beavis and Butthead attitude where people say "heh heh heh....boobies", because we promote that "boobies" are something mysterious...so the juvenile attitude remains. If the attitude was like my wife's "they look sexy" and move's on. The market for this would be very small...and such discussions like this wouldn't even take place.

On the flip side, eradication of "sex objects" isn't the answer either. This where people get "uncomfortable"....there are times when I or my wife want to be treated like a piece of meat. It fulfills a base, but temporary emotion. I don't expect to come home every night and find her wearing subjective attire and playing a role that appeases us both. In fact, I nor her would want that as our relationship is based on far more and I think many can relate to this. But on the occasion where its a warranted sexual and sensual need that we agree and consent to...is not wrong.

And we look at "sex objects" in the media not say "heh heh heh...boobies", but rather get ideas and open up the imagination.

Sex sells these days and illicits behavior of "shaming" because of immaturity. If the view of sex were changed as something normal and healthy the discussion of the SI issue would be our favorite beaches to go au natural and the zero g would make us long for a time when you an your partner can experience intimacy in zero g.

There are a lot of problems with Americans attitude toward sexuality...but shaming it only makes it worse. As it adds to the mystery and sense of forbidden which creates its own allure.

The SI issue doesn't bother me, in fact, I forgot SI did a swimsuit issue. And when I saw the cover....I didn't care, nor did my wife...actually surprised to find out SI still prints a magazine.

[fried eggs]

160. Great post!

[scarletwoman]

66. I could not give a shit less about the SI Swimsuit Edition or the Kate Upton photo shoot.

That being said, it's the act of bringing those things into DU that pisses me off, since it's clearly meant to rile people up and nothing more.

The thing is, our mainstream American culture is vapid, shallow, superficial, and soulless. Using scantily clad women for marketing purposes is merely one aspect of all the many factors illustrative of the fact that our culture is vapid, shallow, superficial, and soulless. And, frankly, it's far from the most disturbing manifestation, imho.

I don't in the least begrudge these women their chosen method of participating in the capitalistic marketplace - if they can make money at it, they are welcome to go for it as far as I'm concerned. As long as we participate in this capitalistic system by working for someone other than ourselves, we are all selling ourselves to one degree or another.

I'm 64 years old - way past the point where anyone would pay me for posing nearly naked for a magazine cover. But when I was young I was definitely hot, and I thoroughly enjoyed flaunting my power to attract the attention of men - and women, too, for that matter.

Humans are going to groove on looking at their sexy looking fellow humans of either sex, no matter what. I don't see any shame in that. We're biologically wired for that.

The only shame I see in the most recent spate of DU "gender wars" is in some DUers deliberately posting stuff that they know is going to cause an uproar. The SI Swimsuit Edition and the Kate Upton zero-grav photo shoot are NOT political issues. They're just part and parcel of the cultural vapidity and capitalist system we're all swimming (so to speak) in. So, if someone wanted to critique these things from those perspectives, I'd be all for it. But that's not at all what the mindset was behind posting them.

sw - yes, I AM a woman.

[DontTreadOnMe]

73. "But that's not at all what the mindset was behind posting them"

Mind reader?

[scarletwoman]

77. No, I'm a post reader.

If you can find anything in either of the OPs in which the SI Swimsuit Edition cover or the Kate Upton photo shoot pictures were posted that referenced policital, cultural, or social analysis, let me know. The Kate Upton photo shoot OP was locked by Skinner, but perhaps you can still dig up the SI OP.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. The original thread was posted by a woman

The fact that a picture of 3 attractive people in bathing suits on a beach can send this place into a week's worth of Fukushima-level meltdowns, says a great deal as to why I don't take a lot of it real seriously anymore.

It's like when Miley Cyrus caused half GD to explode in a furor of cranky, twerkdignant, get-off-my-lawnitude. Demographically, this place aint exactly what you'd call 'with it'.


Sorry, to be the bearer of bad news.

[seaglass]

204. Why exactly does it matter that a woman posted it? I see this point made repeatedly and I honestly

don't get what the difference is between if you (for example) posted it or Riff posted it.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. Because the OP is asking specifically about women's attitudes toward the thing.

That's why.

[BainsBane]

294. My, you've got the script down pat

A woman posted the thread. Objectification--which didn't exist last week--now is all the fault of women. Suddenly absurdly ahistorical excuses are proposed: objectification has always existed and always will. Advertising depends on it because ...what? Advertising has always existed. Talk about an overload of derp. Former college history professors turning in their graves.

The original thread resulted in exactly the shit storm it was intended to produce. Jeff admitted it was posted to cause offense, and it did. Only it turned out the little game backfired. People saw the complete disrespect with which certain men, including the members of your group, have treated women who objected to those threads and have said enough with the misogyny. This is not befitting of a liberal site. They have said it is hostile and want it to stop. Yet a few don't care that hundreds of people have said enough. How could our views and our lives possibly compare to what a handful of men want . They couldn't possibly go to another site to look at bikini pictures or ctually buy SI themselves but instead MUST post them in GD where they can offend as many people as possible. The whole stunt has backfired and exposed the charade that only a few feminists care about this stuff. Hundreds of DUers have said they are sick of the misogyny. Skinner locked a thread and even alerted on some posts himself. But what we do any of us matter? What a few men nostalgic for the early 1960s, before all that messy Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity law, want is far more important than what anyone else thinks. That is, after all, what privilege is about.

[Quantess]

71. I haven't seen them, but I fully agree there is no reason to post them here.

I don't really care, but then again, I have not seen the photos. Seeing the photos is not on my to-do-list, because I don't really care.
I have no interest in seeing the photos or discussing them.

[Autumn]

72. None of that bothers me. Women and men can do what they want to do.

I just can't get outraged over peoples attitudes on things like that.

[Maedhros]

74. Not offended, but annoyed.

I'm male, but littering a political discussion forum with softcore porn (and baby animal pictures, while we're at it) is counterproductive.

There are hundreds of sites on which to view that content. I come here for meaningful discussion.

[TeeYiYi]

75. My career has been in advertising for the past 35 years;...

...more specifically, print advertising and publishing. In addition, I did some modeling for newspaper and other print publications in the late 70s and early 80s. I've been on both sides of the camera. In my private life, I've spent a considerable amount of time, sans clothing, on beaches from Hawaii to South America.

Those bodies on the cover of Sports Illustrated are not an anomaly to me. They're the norm. I'm in my mid 50s now and my body is still only a slightly older version of that same body that I had in my 20s.

I consider myself to be a feminist but even more so, a humanist. My world view includes not just women's rights but human rights for all...be they male, female, white, black, gay, straight... Human rights; for everyone. That's my thing. I'm a humanist first and foremost. I trust people to make decisions for themselves.

I respect Kate Upton and the women on the cover of SI to choose for themselves what's good for them. I watched the video of Kate Upton in zero G. It looked to me like nothing more than a location gimmick; an expensive step up from your typical wind blown, fan involved photo shoot. The production crew was completely professional and I think they lucked out and got a few good shots.

So, no... I don't completely understand the outrage, but I respect my fellow DUers' right to be outraged. That's why I stay far away from those threads. Just because I don't personally understand it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the passion of the women who believe in their cause; my cause. I appreciate the women who, in the name of feminism, fight for gender equality on my behalf.

TYY

[dorkzilla]

76. Couldn't care less

Doesn't offend me, don't care, if I see a post I don't care for I ignore it. I'm not judge and jury, whatever floats your boat is okie-dokie with me.

I'm also not going to waste my time being outraged and tell people to do what I tell them because I'm the final fucking arbiter on what makes some officially a feminist. To me, being a feminist is not giving a flying fuck what anyone else wants me to act like or what category they expect me to fit into. I do what I want, when I want, and don't dare try to tell me what to do.

I'm a friggin honey badger!

[polly7]

80. Perfect! +1,000,000.

[LadyHawkAZ]

108. Honey Badger Feminism!

I like it!

[Warren DeMontague]

117. I like your answer.

Careful, though, saying you reserve the right make up your own mind about stuff too much will get the word "libertarian" spat at you--- by members of angry mobs demanding that you be removed from DU, arrested, sent to the dungeon without dessert, or some such similar shit.

[BainsBane]

78. Do you respect the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

That provides the legal basis for prohibitions against a hostile environment? If so, those images don't belong on DU. It's one thing for people to have them in their home and another to use them in public spaces. If you think Civil Rights law doesn't matter or that DU should be exempt from promoting a welcoming climate for diversity, that is of course your choice.

Also note those were posted with the expressed purpose of offending and provoking feminists. Skinner locked the Kate Upton thread and told the GD hosts similar threads were not acceptable in GD. It is a means of marking territory to show women who don't tow the line that they aren't welcome here. That is the intent of creating a hostile environment, which is why it is illegal in any public agency, non-profit, or place of employment that follows the law.

I have never worked at a place or visited a public building or Dem party function where such pictures were displayed. For decades it has been clear such things are not acceptable because they are hostile to women, as defined by law. That this comes as news to some people around here makes me wonder where they have been the last few decades.

[OilemFirchen]

92. Are you out of your fucking mind?

The CRA doesn't cover private message boards on the internet. It doesn't cover content of any media whatsoever.

Thought I'd read it all...

[Squinch]

93. Well, below I said that there were a lot of women here who were not in agreement

about this, but who were actually discussing it like adults and not fighting.

But I guess I was wrong.

[OilemFirchen]

94. I parsed every single word of your post in every way imaginable.

And I cannot make heads nor tails of it.

What's this about adults and fighting?

[Squinch]

96. This thread was an actual discussion among mostly women. They were disagreeing and stating

their opinions, and no one was hitting high C or being nasty.

Right up until, "Are you out of your fucking mind."

[OilemFirchen]

100. Oh, I see.

I harshed your dharma.

I'll button my lips, then.

[BainsBane]

103. Not explicitly, no

but this is a place that is meant to have some lose allegiance to the Democratic Party, which values diversity. If you think diversity shouldn't matter on this website and that DU should not follow policies that are common in public places and Democratic party offices, then you can say so. If you think diversity and equality are not important, so be it. But I'm not going to let anyone get away with pretending there is anything liberal about creating a hostile environment for women and people of color. It is supremely reactionary. People do not get to pass off reactionary efforts to create a white male dominated space as liberal because it's not. It's eschewing decades of progress.

Additionally, 167 people recommended Warren Stupidity's thread arguing those pics contribute to a hostile environment.

Note that I did not say the law controlled DU. I explicitly said if one thinks DU should not promote a climate of diversity, "that is of course your choice." It is not a choice in places governed by the law.

[OilemFirchen]

112. Seems to me...

that a goodly percentage of the women on this thread found no offense in the post. That might suggest that your "hostile environment" canard is just that.

And no, DU has no "lose (sic) allegiance to the Democratic Party".

And no, DU has no obligation to "follow policies that are common in public places and Democratic party offices".

And no, the individual posters here are not DU. They are contributors to a message board. They are free to say whatever the hell they want, "reactionary" or not - and suffer the consequences... or not. This is not an amen corner.

[BainsBane]

123. When did I say it was an "amen corner."

Is that what you call an environment that welcomes diversity rather than seeks to exclude? Those pictures were deliberately posted to provoke and mark territory. There is no doubt about that. People can believe what they want. I would like them to be honest about what it is they actually believe rather than pretending stuff they know seeks to exclude and promote hostility has any other purpose. There are some people on this site very uncomfortable with the progress of the past half century and express that discomfort in a variety of ways, often targeted against women and people of color. I know full well I can't force people to value equality and diversity. People will believe they want. But when they pretend liberalism involves deliberate disrespect and hostility to women and people of color, I am not going to stand quietly by. Reactionary is reactionary. It makes not one bit of difference which party a person claims they vote for. In fact, a number of these people have openly said they are not Democrats and do not intend to vote for Democrats.

There are always some people that go along with discrimination. That doesn't make it right. And the fact is Warren Stupidity's thread got 167 recs. The SI one got 22 and the Kate Upton one about 5. That is a clear difference, despite your anecdotal observations. More importantly, Skinner locked the Upton thread and told the GD hosts threads like that are not acceptable. Clearly he is not so keen on driving Democratic Party's major constituencies off this site. Think for a minute about how it's possible for a Democratic site to have so few African Americans? If you've ever canvassed an African American neighborhood, you know they are overwhelmingly Democratic, as polling data also shows. Yet many have been driven off this site. They have seen DU as hostile toward them. Do you think that truly serves the interests of Democrats? Do you think it wise to continue to support threads hostile to women as well?

[OilemFirchen]

135. Chin music, chin music, chin music and then...

"And the fact is Warren Stupidity's thread got 167 recs. The SI one got 22 and the Kate Upton one about 5."

Thanks for bringing this up. I've noticed that's an ultimate fallback for the various Stridency Societies here. So fucking what? There are cliques here (and everywhere on the Internet) which attempt to validate their righteousness by waggling numbers like this. Those numbers are not meaningful representations. They are not statistics. They are not measuring sticks. They're a tiny glimpse of momentary social dynamics. And they are as valid as internet "polls", which is to say utterly useless.

OTOH, were we to use your standard, and were we to assume that the Stupidity numbers represent feminists, and the SI misogynists, you've dashed your own narrative. It would, for the sake of argument, state that there are 22 woman-haters out of a population of over 200,00 members (.0001%). And yet, we're led to believe that the site is overwhelmed with insensitivity to women, as evidenced by some vague, unsubstantiated perception.

There is hostility here, of course. I simply think you have your mumbers nixed up.

[pintobean]

118. I think she's convinced herself

that this is a workplace.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125537310#post18

[opiate69]

124. Not only that,

But that it's her place.

[OilemFirchen]

138. Looks like here cubemate got an unpaid leave.

[pintobean]

139. Lol.

Still flagged for review. I wonder if there's a limit on how many times one can be in that status before they just say enough is enough.

[Vashta Nerada]

120. Do you consider your local grocery store for promoting a hostile environment by openly selling

the swimsuit issue of SI? I see it at every checkout line. Or how about magazine stands? Are they creating a hostile environment for displaying the magazine? Bookstores?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is for the workplace, schools, and the government, not private websites. DU is a private website.

[BainsBane]

157. That isn't the same thing at all

Those stores don't display the images in areas where customers or employees see them. They simply sell magazines.

I know that the law doesn't control DU. But is there some reason that DU shouldn't follow procedures intended to be welcoming to diversity? We are supposed to be Democrats, and the Democratic Party is majority women and people of color. Why should the content of DU be driven by a minority within the party and on the site? Warren Stupidty's thread shows far more members think the pics create a hostile environment than those who want to see them here.

Besides, they were posted as flamebait, to cause trouble. Don't you think there is enough drama without that crap?

[Vashta Nerada]

163. People don't see SI at checkout lanes?

What grocery stores are you shopping at? I see them at the checkouts at Coborn's, Walmart, and even Byerly's. Hell, I saw the SI swimsuit issue at the St. Cloud Byerly's right at the checkout line.

And yes, there is too much drama going around. However, all sides are just as guilty as the next for starting it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

148. Or you could just not click on the thread.

It's not like they're hanging on the office wall.

Still, they're a pretty childish diversion on a political discussion board.

[msanthrope]

199. Who, precisely, is your employer if DU is your workplace????

Have you told Skinner, Elad, and EarlG of your declaration that this is your workplace? I'm fascinated by this...could you tell us the terms of your employment?

[BainsBane]

207. Try reading the rest of the subthread

That should clear up your confusion with my post.

[msanthrope]

208. Oh...I read the subthread...I still wanna know when you got hired. nt

[BainsBane]

211. Here. perhaps this will help

http://dictionary.reference.com/

No one hired me at the local Democratic Party campaign office either. Keith Ellison never hired me, Mark Dayton never hired me, and Al Franken never hired me, but every single one of them maintains an environment that welcomes diversity. Why? They are Democrats who care about the people who vote for them and they value equality and diversity. Everyone is entitled to see the word as they want. Lots of peopled don't give a shit about anything but themselves. They don't care above equality or social justice, and that is their right. We all are free to determine our own values in life.

The public library never hired me at the local court house or municipal building either. The public parks and recs facilities never hired me, but they all maintain hostile free environments. The local grocery store didn't hire me, Target didn't hire me, and none of the businesses or non-profits hired me, but despite that they maintain inclusive environments that don't promote hostility toward major swaths of the American population. Target even has Muslim employees who wear Hijabs. Horrific I know. All those different people, looking different ways. It's just so . . . modern and civilized. I'm guessing al that has something to do with being in the 21st century rather than 1960. Not everyone likes progress, but there is nothing they can do to change it. I suspect hostility toward that progress is why some work so hard to create an online space that recaptures an era before civil rights, before equal opportunity law, and before anyone but them had any but the most minimal rights. It truly is horrible to expect people operating in the pubic sphere to treat others as human beings rather than disembodied objects for their own lust or rage, but that is nonetheless the norm in the real world and has been for several decades. All of that is due to that horrible Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Republicans are so keen to dismantle.

If these concepts are still confusing to you, that is entirely your own problem. My effort at what Skinner refers to as "education" is now finished.

[pintobean]

212. It seems she knows better

Since it is a private company, they have no responsibility to do anything they don't want. After that, it's up to us to choose whether we want to participate. I've become addicted to the site myself, but after spending 5 months volunteering here, I decided I can no longer do so. I can't control what is and isn't allowed, but I can control whether or not I donate my labor (which I estimate at 10-20 hrs per week over the past 5 months).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125531213#post74

[opiate69]

213. Yup.. and,

this must just stick in her craw something fierce:

. I can't control what is and isn't allowed

[pintobean]

215. That line is why I bookmarked the thread.

It was very interesting for me, personally, at the time. But, the other content relates to her posts here.

[opiate69]

274. "And, lo! There was much consternation and knitting of brows across the land"

[msanthrope]

214. volunteering here? on behalf of whom? I hate missionaries. nt

[LeftyMom]

79. I'd prefer to say that I'm aware of the intent to marginalize feminism in online spaces.

The current tool being used isn't really the point. The point is that there's a concerted effort on the part of a fairly small number of DUers to shout down feminists and feminist ideas.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. No, but the fact that you appear to lack the empathy

to understand why people would be upset over the picture and now you seem to want to stir the pot and upset people all over again would mitigate against you having an genuine feminist leanings.

[RainDog]

82. doesn't bother me

I checked out both, then hid the threads. I'm not the target audience - but I'm sort of weird maybe, too, b/c I don't get celebrity crushes. But that's just me. Although that scene in Fight Club when you could see where Brad Pitt's thigh connected to his torso...was pleasant to look at. And Idris Elba, just existing... but I don't get crushes. lol.

btw, there was a thread at The Root where some guy wrote a poem about not being Idris Elba, telling his sweetheart he's not a movie star, but he's done this and that... and other men added to the tweet by saying, "I'm not Idris Elba, but I'm the guy who brought you your cell phone on girl's night out...) LOL.

...so it's not just women who feel pressured sometimes by celebrity culture. It's nice that those guys handled it with humor.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I also think that people might have an easier time if they didn't interpret "that person looks nice"

To implicitly mean "you (and anyone else who does not look like the nice-looking person) don't."

My wife thinks that beefy guy on True Blood who plays alcede, is hot. He looks nice, to her. Does that mean she's going to leave me for him? is it an implicit condemnation of my body, which, while in decent shape for my age (if I may say so myself) aint nowhere near the chisled workout status of that dude?

No. It's not. Because we're grown-ups, reasonably secure about ourselves- and each other.

It is just not a big deal. At all.


i would post a picture of the guy but I want to be sensitive about hostile environments, and whatnot.

[opiate69]

102. t I want to be sensitive about hostile environments, and whatnot.

damn straight.. don't make me get OSHA on your ass!

[Warren DeMontague]

113. She's not my type, anyway.

[RainDog]

132. don't take this personally

cause, you know, everyone can't be a horn player.

I'm not trying to create a hostile environment. I'm just joking around with you b/c ppl on DU used to be able to do that and it would be nice, within bounds, to have a better atmosphere. maybe a cease fire would be good.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Heh

[RainDog]

134. ...

[mainer]

83. More like wistful for my youthful body

It's been a while since I could wear a bikini.

[Luminous Animal]

162. Nobody is too old to wear a bikini. Which is ONE answer to objectification.

An "old" woman (and apparently too old is age 40) wearing a bikini is going to told that their stomach is slack, their butt is too flat, their thighs are too spread, and their breasts are too saggy.

It is fucked up that we perpetuate those restrictions as a society. It is fucked up that we internalize those images.

[redqueen]

205. Exactly. Thank you

[tammywammy]

87. My $0.02

I don't think the original SI post was that bad or done with ill intentions. The news did talk about it being out. I think the Kate Upton thread was unnecessary and rightfully locked.

[Squinch]

89. This is actually an interesting question to me. And let me ask YOU a question.

Before I ask this, given the nastiness that has surrounded this discussion (though much less so in this thread ,) let me say that there is no snark in this whatsoever. I am simply curious:

Have you ever worked or studied in an environment that you would characterize as hostile, in terms of sexism?

I have not in many years, but I have had the experience.

[fried eggs]

106. No. Maybe that's the disconnect I have

And I want to clarify that I'm not trying to put down anyone for feeling the way they do. I genuinely wondered if perhaps there's something wrong with me for not feeling the same way.

[Squinch]

111. It is clear that your curiosity is genuine, and since it is finally being discussed civilly,

so is mine.

I also am wondering if the experience of a hostile environment explains is the difference.

I have worked in some VERY hostile environments. It's unbelievably demeaning and soul crushing. One characteristic that was common to the worst was prominently or frequently displayed objectifying images of women. I see that and some other things (jokes that disrespect women, a spoken or unspoken dress code that emphasizes women's sexuality but not men's, expectations of traditional gender roles - like women getting coffee) to be canaries in the coal mines. If I see those things, I expect that women will, very quickly, lose all voice and authority in those places.

So this might explain my difference of opinion from yours.

[fried eggs]

115. My work environments have been 99 to 100% women

And I work from home a lot. I can't imagine having to go through what you have. Sorry.

For me, those threads were no different that an Olive Garden or circumcision flamebaity OP. Goes in one eye and out the other.

BUT with that said, I think you and others are doing a great thing by staying vigilant and speaking out when you see the potential for sexism.

[Squinch]

119. In some ways, it was a great education about people, and I'm long out of it.

I switched careers about 15 years ago.

But I have to say, I'd never subject myself to anything that even suggested that experience again. So I'm not sure if it's vigilance or just a constitutional "Hell no!" that's been beaten into my brain.

Have a good night, and congratulations for starting the ONLY thread where real discussion of the topic took place!

[Squinch]

91. One other observation:

Many women here, with very different opinions on whether this is OK or not. But we aren't fighting. This is a discussion.

Don't know what the significance of that is, but it IS significant.

[valerief]

101. Trash. nt

[AgingAmerican]

116. It's all about drama

And control. Initially there may have been a point to it, but that has long been dumped on the wayside.

[RiffRandell]

121. Honestly, I started it and after having several days to think about it

my answer is not at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Hey- Didja catch the one where you were compared to Phylis Shlafly?

You know, Phylis Shlafly, the anti-porn activist.


Sure, seems legit.

[RiffRandell]

196. No, but not surprised.

Well, shit. Makes me feel so much better about being compared to a dog (that's what's is referred to now...a comparison) as the above one is so much worse.

[840high]

127. I'm not bothered by

the pics. I am bothered by people going to bed hungry, no jobs. A magazine cover is so unimportant in my life.

[Sissyk]

130. Didn't bother me in the least.

I see that every summer at the beach, lake, and pools. As for the booty tooch? That's modeling 101 for commercial photography. They are models.

What I don't understand is the response. The title was very explicit. Something like:

2014 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Addition Revealed

A title can't get anymore revealing than that.

Hide thread can be your friend. Instead, it's back on the first page with over 700 responses. lol!

[alphafemale]

131. meh. They chose to do it.

Some people would take that choice?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

145. *yawn*

[KitSileya]

155. I am not one of them.

I was offended, because I had hoped that on a so-called progressive message board I wouldn't be bombarded with the same pictures I see everywhere else. I am outraged, because I had hoped to find allies against the objectification of women on a so-called progressive message board - knowing how much it influences the boys and girls of today's society.

I am a high school teacher, I see every day the effect this wall-to-wall saturation of 'perfect' bodies have on girls and young women - how 5'7" 110lbs girls are watching their weight, how they are discussing surgical procedures to make themselves more like the pictures, how they believe that if they do not look perfect, they are failures. I see how that same saturation of perfect bodies have an effect on the boys and young men, too. They disregard anything that is coded feminine, especially showing emotions, which is very harmful to their mental well-being (and contributes to the suicide statistics that are used here on DU to show that men 'have it worse than women' - of course with a complete unwillingness to discuss how to reduce the suicide rates unless it involves bashing feminists.)

Do I think the models who posed for the spread are bad? No, modelling is one of the very few professions where women out-earn men (and doesn't that say something!) and if they can earn good money and are willing to do the work, I say, good for them. But I am worried for them. The modelling environment is riddled with weight pressure, which is very harmful. Their careers are very short, in most cases, and they are putting off getting an education and a lasting profession.

Had the SI swimsuit edition been the exception, then it wouldn't have mattered much. But go to a drugstore/news agent, and look at the covers of the magazines. Compare the covers that feature women and the covers that feature men, and see how they differ. Then think about what that does to a culture. Do you think that a culture that for the main part views women as objects has nothing to do with the increased push back against reproductive rights? That it has nothing to do with why there are 17% women in congress, why on film, a crowd with 17% women is seen as gender-equal, why there are aisles and aisles of pink toys for girls, and why boys are taught to eschew anything feminine? Do you really think that it isn't connected?

I know that on these threads I am posting in the wind, seeing as I am seen as a HoFer, but I will end my 'screed' (to pre-empt the use of a dog whistle word) by saying that the posts on SI and Kate Upton et al was disappointing. What I feel isn't anger, it is contempt. Perhaps I expect too much of a Democratic message board - but if so, that is the saddest thing of it all.

[cinnabonbon]

221. +1

Especially agreeing with this:

What I feel isn't anger, it is contempt. Perhaps I expect too much of a Democratic message board - but if so, that is the saddest thing of it all.

[KitSileya]

247. Thanks for that.

For the most part I feel like I am posting in the wind here on DU - probably because I am 6-9 time zones away from the continental US. Your evening is my night.

It also amazes me how many refuse to actually read what we post. We don't disparage the models, we don't say men shouldn't be attracted to women (and vice versa), we don't say men should never look at women, we don't say women should wear a burka, we don't say sexuality is bad. We are saying that these covers don't happen in a vacuum, that they and their ubiquitous ilk have an effect on most women and men, that posting these kinds of pictures on DU made many women uncomfortable, and would they please listen to us when we explain the how and why of it. But is seems that they deliberately will not hear, and that we just want to be mean when we try to talk about it.

It is clear they want to drive certain posters off the board, and perhaps they will succeed. But that tells me more about why the Democrats seem unable to succeed in the polls and in Congress that they would like to admit. There are plenty of posters who bemoan the lack of spine in the Democratic party who have no problems showing their spinelessness on DU - and who are ample counterparts to the Republican "sheep" they decry for working against their own good.

[Waiting For Everyman]

252. I agree, and I'm a woman definitely not a HoFer.

[treestar]

159. It does not bother me in itself

I wouldn't know a thing about it if not for DU.

It's more that it's just one more thing - the idea behind it - and that continues on and on in many different ways. So it would be nice to have a world of men who didn't care for that kind of thing. Which someday will happen. It's not like any of them will actually have actual sex with those girls, for real, let alone their airbrushed versions, which are not even real.

Men who want real women instead of fantasy women get laid for real.

[Violet_Crumble]

177. It didn't bother me either...

But having spent the 80's drooling over Keanu Reeves, and the early 90's over Eddie Vedder, it's not just men who enjoy fantasising over the unobtainable. And amongst all that drooling, I managed to get laid for real!

[treestar]

202. But where they cute?

The real guys, I mean!

[exboyfil]

175. I don't look at SI Swimsuit

Don't read the mag either. I did flip through the selected covers on the Internet, and I thought the one that I was most interested in (the one I might approach at a beach party if I was single) was Sue Peterson from 1965. It might be because she looks the most like my wife when I first met her?

The rest - well lets just say I am glad my daughters don't go out in public like that. Guess that makes me sexist.

[leftynyc]

187. I couldn't care less

They're models, this is their job, it's not illegal, nobody is forcing them to do this and there is obviously a market so they're supplying a demand. Other than my usual disdain for designers who think women are built like young men, this, in no way at all, is a problem for me.

[stevenleser]

209. I'm going to make everyone mad. I don't think it should have been posted here AND I dont think it

should have offended anyone. It was a person in a bathing suit. Do we not see that when we go to pools and beaches? When an attractive man or woman in a bathing suit at a pool or beach passes by, do the folks who found Upton's image caused a hostile environment run after them screaming to cover up?

And no offense intended against whoever posted it, but I don't think that OP belonged in GD because it simply had no political worth.

[seaglass]

218. Doesn't make me mad - ever have anything to say about kitty posts in GD?

The rest I expected from you, you don't understand and that's ok.

[stevenleser]

234. I understand just fine.

I disagree with the Kantian/Dworkian/Nussbaum thinking on objectification.

On Edit: I don't think Kitty posts belong either. On the other hand, I haven't seen a Kitty post blow up into 12+ additional OPs and well over 1000 total comments so it hasn't prompted me to post yet.

[pintobean]

236. Well, the kitties have never

been near-naked. The way things go around here, I could see a blow-up over that.

[stevenleser]

238. LMAO, kitties are always in their birthday suits! nt

[pintobean]

241. Okay, you've forced me

[stevenleser]

249. Gaaaaa! No nude cat pics!

[seaglass]

240. Your post did not reflect disagreement it reflected not understanding. n/t

[stevenleser]

243. No, YOUR most recent post reflected non understanding. Mine reflected disagreement. nt

[seaglass]

246. I know you are but what am I. Geez. I feel like I'm in middle school. n/t

[stevenleser]

248. I explained to you how I understand but disagree. You seemed to not get it. nt

[seaglass]

257. I was speaking of your first post, not your second. n/t

[RainDog]

284. Nussbaum also had this to say

via wiki cause it's a good explanation: Nussbaum's work in moral psychology to probe the arguments for including two emotions—shame and disgust—as legitimate bases for legal judgments. Nussbaum argues that individuals tend to repudiate their bodily imperfection or animality through the projection of fears about contamination. This cognitive response is in itself irrational, because we cannot transcend the animality of our bodies. Noting how projective disgust has wrongly justified group subordination (mainly of women, Jews, and homosexuals), Nussbaum ultimately discards disgust as a reliable basis of judgment.

Turning to shame, Nussbaum argues that shame takes too broad a target, attempting to inculcate humiliation on a scope that is too intrusive and limiting on human freedom. Nussbaum sides with John Stuart Mill in narrowing legal concern to acts that cause a distinct and assignable harm.

In an interview with Reason magazine, Nussbaum elaborated, "Disgust and shame are inherently hierarchical; they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected with restrictions on liberty in areas of non-harmful conduct. For both of these reasons, I believe, anyone who cherishes the key democratic values of equality and liberty should be deeply suspicious of the appeal to those emotions in the context of law and public policy."

What I find in my life is different povs have interesting things to say, but I don't have to just blindly accept as a whole someone's view, even when I can find agreement on other views. This view by Nussbaum is interesting considering her view of objectification in porn. I think objectification falls short when removed from the societal ECONOMIC and all the impacts upon choice and action this has when homosexual porn is included in the view of what constitutes porn.

I find I often agree with your take on issues here, tho.

[gollygee]

228. I don't think anyone was offended by it

we were offended by it being in GD and the junior high locker room aftermath.

Hmmm even then I don't think "offended" is the right word. Annoyed maybe.

[stevenleser]

235. Yes, they were and said as much when they raised the idea of a hostile environment. nt

[gollygee]

244. Noting a hostile environment

does not necessarily mean you find something personally offensive. I believe the standard is that you have to find it offensive, OR oppressive, or intimidating. I would say that most complaining feminists find that those posts make GD an oppressive site for women. And I think some of the posts are actually intended and designed to be that way. Although some women might be personally offended by the SI swimsuit edition or Kate Upton's breasts. I don't know.

[stevenleser]

253. That is trying to make way too fine a point of it. nt

[Vashta Nerada]

289. Your post is spot-on.

SI swimsuit issue is no different than the beach. I wonder if those who got offended by the SI cover also get offended at the beach. And I wonder if they get offended at the grocery store at the checkout line. That's where I see the SI swimsuit edition cover. I saw it at the checkout in five different stores.

You know what else is crazy? Someone actually tried saying that the SI cover created a "hostile environment" here and even eluded to the fact that this forum is essentially her workplace.

[Democracyinkind]

216. You actually believe that people are offended by the pics?

We have the lounge, exactly for such threads.

Keep that shit there, or I, and many others will lose interest in DU. That's about the extent of the issue.

[sabrina 1]

217. Yes, it's just doesn't register on my list of things to be offended about. I am offended by

the treatment of women in all of our Wars, our female troops, the women victims of those invasions, speaking of women's issues.

Women making choices that earn them lots of money isn't up there with my concerns about women who need it, nor do I feel the decisions of OTHER women to choose a career in modeling or whatever, harm other women in any way, unless they want it to.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

220. I guess I'm late to the game.

What's the controversy?

[pintobean]

224. Near-naked butts

on beautiful young women.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

225. Good heavens!

Fucking barbarians!

[pintobean]

227. I knew you'd be able to fill in the gaps

of my very brief description. There's been multiple threads and several thousands of posts on the subject, but you've summed it up beautifully.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

231. It's like there's nothing else to worry about ...

Environment, wars, financial catastrophies, etc. Now we have to gin up controversies.

I'm not minimizing the very real concern regarding patriarchy, sexism, misogyny, etc., but this smacks of the heavens are falling.

[libodem]

255. The thongs looked like bad wedgies

And the bootie scooch as Tera Banks calls it looks like an L5-S1 subluxation. Great concern for their comfort. And some people's eyes. I wasn't particularly bothered, harlot that I am.

[RiffRandell]

232. Me! It's all on me!

Although I want some cred for a spirited discussion!

[libodem]

258. And wicked wedgies

[In_The_Wind]

262. Wedgies were so darned uncomfortably.

[libodem]

272. No shit

Well, maybe a smear.

[The Straight Story]

260. I double objectified because I looked at this:

http://www.thelocal.ch/20140218/si-swimsuit-models-vie-with-swiss-scenery

Article on one of the models who posed in Switzerland for the SI issue - I saw the castle in the background. Which means I now expect all places that people live to look like castles. Or something like that.

I admit it. I desired that castle. And the lake. I now expect everything I see to have both in them.

[RiffRandell]

261. Shameful.

I'm not one to talk as my eyes were completely locked on Norman Reedus from The Walking Dead today on Kelly & Michael.

[R B Garr]

264. LOL, you didn't post any discussion. Remember? You just posted pictures.

The only discussion I've seen you participate in is about other posters and now to kick this thread again and make this all about you.

It's a trap!

[RiffRandell]

265. I didn't say I posted a discussion.

It certainly sparked one, even though no one is forced to respond to posts. That was one hot topic!

[R B Garr]

266. You said you wanted "cred" for a spirited discussion, but you didn't discuss anything

That's serious lulz right there. You're not very credible.

And who said I was offended? More assumptions on your part. I just read your posts and responded to the bullshit.

[RiffRandell]

267. Go for it!

We're discussing it right now!

[R B Garr]

268. LOL @ you editing your post to delete that part about being happy you offended me

to which I replied that you didn't offend me. I just reponded to your bullshit.

"Me! It's all on me!"

It's a trap!

[RiffRandell]

269. I deleted it prior to your response because you are

trying to bait me into a hide. Sound familiar? Keep it up...just hanging out watching the MEN'S hockey game, which I discussed in another thread, but you didn't see that one apparently!

[R B Garr]

270. Thanks for admitting you were happy you offended me.* It's obvious that's your goal.

It's a trap!

Maybe I'll see some MEN playing sports today, as well. I'm so cool about MEN that I can even type MEN in all caps, too.

See, this is apparently the only level of "discussion" about MEN that you are capable of.

*edit to add that you didn't offend me. I just responded to the BS in your post.

[Mrdrboi]

242. I really dont see the problem here.

Its their choice if they wanna do that or not.

[Polly Hennessey]

251. Not me.

I am not outraged. Seems as though she had a good time and it did look like fun. The female body is not something I get outraged over and those photos are not anti-woman.

[3catwoman3]

254. As I stare my 63rd birthday in the face a few short weeks from now...

...I must say that zero gravity boobs sound pretty appealing.

The Carl Jr ad in which Ms. Upton attempts to mate with a burger was pretty crass.

[HappyMe]

263. I'm not offended.

There are more important issues.

[RebelOne]

271. I am 75 years old and have always been a feminist,

but at my age, I could care less.

[libodem]

273. Word!

[Warren DeMontague]

275. They don't count. The only valid "progressive" position on sex and nudity is Rick Santorum's.

Thus it is written, you can't challenge it, and if you dare to disagree with liberal progressive luminaries like Phylis Shlafly, Judith Reisman, and the Meese Commissionon on topics like this, you should get the hell off DU, because you're not really a progressive.

[GRACIEBIRD]

278. not offended at all

It's the choice of the young women. If they want to be models, so be it.

And no one should feel guilty for looking at naked human figures.

There is no shame at admiring the human body, male or female. A proper fit body is a thing of beauty. The lines, the curves... it's frankly exhilarating.

[Tumbulu]

279. I found them demeaning and I also think there is something wrong

with your attempt to vilify and or ridicule my feelings and perspective.

To attempt to milk men of their imaginary money and or power by utilizing the cheap tactics of implied sex is the backbone of the exploitive consumer society I thought we are all trying to get above.