Because the 'Swimsuit Issue' is not an original concept…

[TeeYiYi]

…and because I don't understand what's going on at DU.




TYY

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Well, again, Sports Illustrated is not a fashion magazine.

IT is a sports magazine. A sports magazine which makes an exception once a year to show models modeling bikinis - a sort of soft porn kind of thing for any men that get into that soft porn sort of thing and want to buy it.

And that was what the discussion was about. (In case you wanted to know).

[TeeYiYi]

15. McCall's, Ebony, Jet...

...aren't fashion magazines either. Yet, most mainstream publications have been producing their version of a swimsuit issue for going on 100 years or more. I see it as a cultural thing. Going to the beach in the summer, scantily clad, is very much a part of American culture. Check out any beach from Hawaii to Florida, and south through Central and South America and the Caribbean.

I don't personally consider bodies at the beach or the swimming pool to be soft porn.

Anyway, thanks Sarah Ibarruri. I appreciate your post and I did want to know.

TYY

[pnwmom]

48. The question is why any swimsuit pictures need to be posted on a progressive political website.

Not why SI is doing what it's always been doing.

[TeeYiYi]

61. Threads in GD run the gamut...

So, is it your opinion that cat threads, gun threads and pope threads are all par for the course on this 'progressive political website' but threads showing people in bathing suits at the beach should be forbidden?

You know what makes me uncomfortable? The realization that there are more than a few women on DU who are uncomfortable in their own skin.

TYY

[pnwmom]

67. Cat threads, gun threads, and pope threads aren't equivalent to T & A photos. The SI photo

was basically soft porn. If it had been posted in the lounge, it would have bothered a lot fewer people. I don't see why it was posted in G..

[TeeYiYi]

70. I don't see it as porn...

...but I'll concede that it probably belonged in the lounge.

TYY

[pnwmom]

73. Three women wearing thongs, no tops, with their arms around each other,

jutting their bare butts toward the camera.

Why doesn't this fit under the category of soft porn, other than it was published by a mainstream publication?

Imagine the same photo, same pose, same thongs -- worn by three smiling young men. Would that photo have been published on the cover of a mainstream publication? Seriously?

Why not?

[TeeYiYi]

79. Do these covers make you nervous?...

TYY

[Sarah Ibarruri]

121. Not if what I seek is to see nude bodies on a political site. But if I want to see nude bodies...

I think I would go to a soft porn site, not a political site.

[pnwmom]

146. I think soft porn-like photos of women in mainstream publications, as in the SI cover,

are part of why women in general still have trouble being taken seriously in most professional, male dominated fields. I'm not saying this is the sole reason, but photos like these contribute to a general atmosphere that results in women being treated as less serious and capable than men. They are also the product of a culture that treats women as less serious, capable people than men.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024546137

[KittyWampus]

154. You attempt to make anyone commenting on the SI cover as "nervous".

It has squat to do with nerves despite your attempt to portray those who comment as having psychological problems.

[hobbit709]

85. Those old photos were considered on the edge of "racy" in their time.

[1awake]

86. I'm not sure pics from SI need to be in GD

or even why they would be to begin with but... it is no where close to soft porn.

[madrchsod]

188. soft porn?

[whathehell]

137. So sorry about your discomfort,

"You know what makes me uncomfortable? The realization that there are more than a few women on DU who are uncomfortable in their own skin"


Awww...You have our heartfelt sympathy, even though that's only your personal interpretation.

That being said, your concern is duly noted.

[My Good Babushka]

87. It is self-infantilizing

for women, to claim that they need to be protected from mainstream images, on a site for adults. Women have the right to engage with all images and ideas. I support women criticizing the images. We should all take time to think about what images say, but to claim that they shouldn't be brought up for conversation at all is just another form of censorship.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

120. Sure. If I were going to a soft porn site, where it's common to see things like that, absolutely

But not in a mainly political site.

[My Good Babushka]

127. the SI Swimsuit Issue has become a cultural landmark

It is announced on lots of major news networks. You have to engage with the culture as it is. Everyone has their own standard when it comes to what is pornographic.
There has never been more opportunities for image makers and there has never been a greater means for people to disseminate ideas. I encourage all females to use them. To create fashion, art, and even pornography that is female generated.
Sex is not only something that only men enjoy and that women have done to them. Even ideas of sexuality should be discussed. No adult needs to be protected from ideas. Go make countervailing, forceful ideas, as a woman.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

129. So has hard porn, so have pimps, so has breaking and entering, rape, pedophilia.

You on board with those, or you're okay with some degradation and not other types?

[My Good Babushka]

133. I said that no subject should be off-limits

as a subject of discussion amongst adults on an adult forum. That is different from endorsing crime as a good thing to do. Those two things aren't really alike at all.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

135. Wrong. Subjects which degrade women sexually, need to be off limits. nt

[My Good Babushka]

136. That is your opinion. I don't think you progress by limiting and censoring discussion. nt.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. Women already are degraded publicly through the media and the culture. We hardly need more

sexual degradation of women in this political forum.

[My Good Babushka]

144. Who is "we"?

"We" are not guaranteed protection from ideas that we don't like.
Sex has always had a political aspect. I still maintain that it is fair game. Every species of animal on the planet has a means of sexual display, and none so strange, fantastical and varied as the human animal. That should be discussed.
You can go back to the fainting couch, and not participate.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

158. Females and males. There is no biological third gender. nt

[whathehell]

147. Sorry, but soft porn T & A pictures aren't "discussion".

[My Good Babushka]

149. Who are you to decide

what I can talk about and what I can't talk about? How is it any better than a man telling me what I can and can't look at?
It is insulting and infantilizing and hurts the cause more than it will help it. Your women groups already have a bad reputation for being combative, aggressive and rude. It is insinuated in this very thread that I somehow support rape and pedophilia. And I don't even post that much, but I already know that much about DU, that you have an infamously strident reputation.

[whathehell]

165. Who's "deciding" anything?. I'm stating a fact. Sorry if that fact doesn't work for your agenda.

"Your womens groups already have a bad reputation for being combative, aggressive and rude".


Among whom?...Sexist men and clueless women?


Sorry to inform you of my supreme lack of interest in either of the two.

[My Good Babushka]

167. It was stated above: "WE hardly need" this discussion on DU

As if you are the supreme arbiters of all subjects. Is that the royal we? So who made you the queen of all discussions?

[whathehell]

169. "It was stated above"?!..Who "stated above"?...It seems you're getting flustered,

because at this point, you're not even making sense.

[pintobean]

156. That isn't soft porn

and it triggered quite a discussion.

[whathehell]

160. I think they are, but the point is, the pictures themselves are not "discussion".

[pintobean]

163. Nothing here is until there is a reply.

That picture generated thousands of replies.

[whathehell]

166. Are pictures, in and of themselves, a "discussion"?

Keep trying.

[My Good Babushka]

171. Yes, of course

illustrations, art, photographs, all contain ideas and can be part of the discussion.
You sure do laugh a lot.

[pintobean]

180. I didn't claim that.

Read it again. It's really short and simple.

[whathehell]

182. No, you evaded the question instead..

Read it again. It's really short and simple.

[whathehell]

181. BWAHAHAHAHAHHA..

It's a "cultural landmark" because "it is announced on lots of major news networks".

Hint: So are Justin Bieber's tiffs.

[whathehell]

139. Sez you..

Once upon a time "blackface" African-American images were "mainstream" too.

I'd say you need to think the issue through a bit more.

[My Good Babushka]

161. Racism can and should end

but human sexuality and the sexual displays of the human animal cannot. And should not.

[whathehell]

168. I see..Racism should end, but Mysogyny should continue indefinitely, lol.

Try again.

[My Good Babushka]

170. I disagree that every nude human body = misogyny

It's spelled misogyny.

[whathehell]

175. You're "disagreeing" with an opinion I never held nor expressed, lol

and the original spelling IS "mysogyny"...Your version is simply the modernized spelling.

Keep trying.

[My Good Babushka]

179. You want to be in charge of which naked people

we can look at and talk about, and which ones we can't.
You can't.
The end.

[whathehell]

184. Some want to be in charge of denigrating language and images of racial minorities.

and they are.

and we will be.

The end.

[My Good Babushka]

217. You are conflating human sexuality with racism, again.

Don't you have a list to go work on?

[whathehell]

223. Um, no, you are conflating human sexuality with Objectification, again

Don't you have a remedial education class to attend?

[Lost_Count]

100. Falls under the broad category of "General Discussion"

So no reason not to...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

119. They were/are social magazines, which cover everything from movie stars, to current fashions, to...

sports, to politics, to anything. And they didn't/don't have 1 issue dedicated to soft porn, like Sports Illustrated does.

[KittyWampus]

153. All those magazines feature fashion and cultural trends. They aren't dedicated to sports.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. Whoa, is it possible that sexual objectification of women has existed for a long time?

That concept seems impossible.

Although not all of those images are on par with the others.

[laundry_queen]

13. LOL, it's has always been so it must always be...

[Cleita]

3. K&R

[msongs]

4. burkhas, the perfect swim suit nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. Only if you are going for a "tied in a sack and thrown in the river" kinda workout.

[question everything]

5. Only 20 images? Why not 50?

Can you really not see the difference between your swimsuits that fully cover the asses and the breasts , and the ones from the current cover that leaves very little to the imagination? Perhaps someone should conduct a poll among the males on DU and find out how many feel aroused looking at the current issue of the porn illustrated.

[Jetboy]

10. I prefer the women in these pictures to the SI ones.

Part of why I despise 2014 is all of the in-your-face sexuality. It actually is a turn off to me. With that being said, I truly don't understand why folks got SOOOOO upset with pictures of models in swimsuits. Being a person who has no time for the trash culture that is 2014, I guess I have an easier time allowing my filter to catch that crap and make it go bye bye.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. They didn't call it the Saturday Evening Post For nothin'.

[sabrina 1]

41. Are you in favor of banning women's bodies from being seen in public?

There are countries that do that. Women would be arrested for showing anything that 'might stimulate or tempt men'!

Burquas are the answer! No way should women dare to 'tempt men' with their bodies!

Is THAT what the Women's Movement was all about? To make sure we women hide our natural attributes in order not to tempt men?

Who knew?

[TeeYiYi]

52. "asses and the breasts"...

That's how you view the female body? You see "asses and breasts" and you want them fully covered, otherwise all you see is porn?

Yikes.

Well, I guess you could try these:



...but I'll warn ya', the ankles aren't covered.

TYY

[RC]

115. Did you not notice that many of those swim suits did NOT have modesty panels?

Think of the children!

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Talking on the phone while in the pool was never a good idea.

I don't care what year it is.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. LOL

that was funny.

[quinnox]

7. K&R. There are very good reasons women have been the subject of both great art

and magazine covers. They are beautiful! Most normal people get that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

122. Art? lol Porn starts are VERY artistic then, eh? nt

[whathehell]

143. I can think of only one, actually - Male Domination. Typically, you confuse Male Preference for

Absolute Truth.

It's what Patriarchy does all the time.

[Corruption Inc]

8. I like these a lot more than cat pictures!

Somebody should post these every Sunday.

[Sherman A1]

65. Agreed

I simply cannot stand cats. I pass by every thread I know are cat threads and trash the ones I unfortunately open with them due to titling that isn't clear to me as I come across them.

[BainsBane]

9. Here is the point

Once again. It really isn't terribly complicated.

Over 180 Duers have said they find the posting of such images as contributing to a hostile environment toward women. Another 145 have recommended a thread (posted in HOF, not even in a forum) saying they hadn't realized just how much misogyny was on DU until recently, and the OP apologized to HOF members for being blind to what some of us have been aware of for some time. The majority of DUers have clearly said they have had enough of sexist flamebait. A handful of others have made clear that they simply do not care what the majority of DUers think, nor are they concerned that Skinner and EarlG recently locked two threads. They have continued to post flamebait and feed the drama. You can come to your own conclusions as to why that is.

There have been dozens of threads on this topic. It shouldn't be very difficult to figure out what the point of contention is. There is already another thread insisting that "objectification will always be there." Your post would appear to be in keeping with that sentiment and could easily have been posted in that thread.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. Exactly....this is outright willful ignorance to continue down this path....

no one said women shouldn't do what they want with their bodies...just as you have explained....this is about this being an appropriate place to be sexually judging women's bodies...

WE have (as you just pointed out so eloquently)a space that we want to preserve as a place where women do NOT have to be constantly reminded of their sexuality while having a political debate....

IT is quite simple but there seems to be a contingent that are DEMANDING the right to intimidate women in one of the FEW places they are not judged sexually and be taken seriously...

There are PLENTY of places where this sexual intimidation is allowed.....if someone MUST do that...they are welcome to go there....

But this insistence and demand that it be tolerated here is getting to be a huge pain in the ass...

[The Straight Story]

14. Out of how many members who didn't recommend it? (nt)

[BainsBane]

19. compare it to the pro-objectification threads

that have very few recs. The numbers are overwhelming. It's obvious to anyone who can count. 149 posters recommending a thread in support of the "evil" HOF should tell you something. The excuse that only a few "fringe feminists" care has been proven false. The threads denouncing objectification and sexism have been the most popular threads on DU over the past couple of days.

[Scootaloo]

28. Well, to be fair...

If you added up the recs for every single thread TSS has made in response to this... you might have quite a large number!

Ten recs per thread ,amybe, you're looking at what, two thousand and forty recs from his threads?

I'm saying hte dude churns 'em out like land o' Lakes churns out butter. As in, a lot.

It was funny when I thought of it.

I'mma stop now.

bye.

[Nika]

18. Great video, thanks.

[JustAnotherGen]

81. I still love this video!

Is this a good time to point out that by today's standards - not a single one of those woman would grace the cover of S.I. And why that is? And how a standard of beauty that requires eating pieces of cotton dipped in orange juice is insane? Because that's what some of these women have to do to meet the standard?

Or that at size 6 I would be waaaaay too fat to model? Or that when I modeled Vanity Fair underwear for a local department store's Sunday circular in 1989 at 16 - my dad put a stop to the modeling because they added 15 pounds to my ballet body? And he was pissed my mom allowed me to do that Granny Panty shoot in the first place?

These days - the bulimic ballet dancers body is the "ideal". Let that marinate.

[redqueen]

101. +1

I cannot believe this many people are this confused by an issue that's been a mainstream topic of feminist discussions for decades.

[RC]

117. This is not HoF.

If you don't like to see it, trash the thread.
There are 212,483 registered users here on DU. That 180 number is .0847% Not even .1% of registered users.

[BainsBane]

126. Yet now 171 posters

have recommended a thread in HOF, not even a major forum, where the OP says he has underestimated the misogyny on this site. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=38236 It was the single most recommended thread on DU for the past 12 hours. Whereas the pro-objectification threads have gotten a handful of recommendations. Very few DUers stand with you on this issue. The excuse that only a "small group" cares about these issues has been proven to completely and totally false. By refusing to acknowledge the reality, all you are doing is deceiving yourself. This is 2014. Deal with it.

[RC]

130. Now it is only 170?

When one has a like minded, captive audience, in a protected Group, of course you are going to get a unified response.
Have a problem in General Discussion? Trash the threads out here you don't like. Problem solved.

[BainsBane]

151. 173

There aren't 173 posters in HOF. You're off script. Remember, we're a "small group" of "fringe feminists." You can look at the names as easily as anyone else can. The vast majority of recommenders are not from HOF. You see, being Democrats and liberals, they care about human equality. Shocking, I realize.

Skinner has already said those threads are not allowed. Do you get it? Skinner owns the site and says no. You do not own the site. Problem solved.

[RC]

173. So you are declaring a win and going home?

You know I keep posting that women are people too and we all are deserving of the same Equal Rights. But somehow that keeps getting ignored for finding or twisting or assuming something not said or in evidence to use against a rather thoughful segment of DU anyway.
If you would stop making enemies, you might find you would have more friends. Your views are not the only views around, not by a long shot.
It is easier to get what you want by flattering people and being polite to them than by making demands. You only attract flies and disease with bullshit. But people respond to you in kind. That might be why your world is so dark and foreboding. Or at least it would seem so from reading you posts.

[hack89]

196. Jury results

On Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So you are declaring a win and going home?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4556797

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

What a hostile, mean-spirited post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:15 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It appears the dislike is mutual between these two. I wonder if they would consider putting each other on ignore and saving the rest of us from their display? I don't see the post in question as rising to the level of deserving a hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sounds like a perfect description of BB
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing hidable here.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not really crossing the threshold of being much more than mildly hostile.

As an aside, the Gender Wars on DU are making it suck, mightily.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not only leave it alone, I hope "Baine'sBane" takes the message to heart.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pintobean]

199. Time for a cat's life. /nt

[1000words]

206. lol ... ouch.

Jury wasn't having any of it.

[OilemFirchen]

216. Six to zero!

RC WINS!

If I could recommend a hide result, I'd do so, along with 173 of my friends.

[whathehell]

176. It doesn't have to be HOF...If you don't like the vid,

I'd suggest you take your own advice and go somewhere else.

[RC]

205. I never watched the video.

It Didn't interest me.

BTY, I was here first. You go away.

[whathehell]

222. Wow...What a surprise, lol

Willful ignorance rides again!

[sabrina 1]

118. So you want to hide women's bodies from the public, is that it? Why?

Some countries DO ban any sight of a woman's body because they do not want to tempt men. Should women have to cater to men like that in your opinion? I see women in bathing suits all the time and I have yet to see men falling all over themselves and unable to function at the beach because of it.

If a woman fears that she will tempt men by wearing a bathing suit she is free not to wear one, but she is not free, at least here in the US to tell other women what choices they should make.

I am far, far more concerned about women who wear the uniform of the US Army who are being assaulted and raped regardless of the fact that they are not generally wearing bathing suits. I would like to know why this abuse of women is so prevalent in the armed forces. But I rarely see much concern for that here, certainly no 500 comment threads. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[BainsBane]

123. take your straw elsewhere

I'm sorry that video was over your head, but I really have no interest is that kind of absurd straw. You clearly have no interest in engaging with the actual issue.

[sabrina 1]

131. Are you an admins here with the right to tell women where to post and where not to post

their opinions? Maybe I should go to the ATA forum to make sure that as a woman, I have as much right to MY opinion as you do. Is there some rule here that only YOUR opinion of women matter because I have not received that memo.

Sorry to inform you that you are not the arbiter of women's right to hold opinions that differ from yours. See, I recognize YOUR right to your opinions as a Feminist. But you do not recognize mine. And then you wonder why women's issues are not discussed on this forum and why most women here go elsewhere when they want to do so.

Nevertheless I will continue to state my opinion as a woman here until one of the Admins tells me I have no right to my opinions as a woman. You are not on the list of admins here as far as I know.

Oh, for the record, you are free to post your opinions anywhere as far as I am concerned, women should be free to do so imo as a Feminist.

[madrchsod]

190. yes it does....

but we all have our cross to bear...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. The viewing of people solely as de-personalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with...

... complex desires/plans of their own.

Very good.

[sabrina 1]

193. Why would anyone assume that a woman who has chosen a career, say in modelling

bathing suits and is getting paid substantial amounts of money to do so, is 'de-personalizing' themselves, considering they are doing so willingly mostly as a business decision? This might not be my choice of career, but I'm having a problem understanding why a business decision equates to being de-personalized when it comes to women, but not so when it comes to men? Business is business, isn't it and isn't it great that women can now increase their incomes, if they choose, rather than making it 'shameful' as it often was in the old days when women were expected to stay home, dress like June Cleaver, and be 'modest'?

Seems to me they are satisfying their desires and plans as I have not read that anyone is forcing them to pose in a bathing suit.

I guess I'm missing something in all of this.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

195. Are you asking about swimsuit models specifically? All models? Or Sports Illustrated's

swimsuit issue?

[sabrina 1]

198. I'm asking about women making business decisions that earn them a whole lot

of money, being considered 'depersonalizing' themselves, whether they are swimsuit or any other kind of models, when men can do anything they please apparently, without their choices being called 'depersonalizing' themselves.

Seems to me this is what the women's movement was supposed to do, release women from the constraints of having to comply with a Conservative society's opinion of how they ought to 'behave'.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

200. Such as prostitution, porn, soft porn, making a sexual clown of oneself, etc?

I think it's degrading, and unless they have 0 skills, and are incapable of holding down a job because they have extreme disabilities and there are no social programs, and they have kids to feed, there is NO excuse for degradation.

Next question.

[whathehell]

145. Great video..Thanks. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

12. Lol K&R

[Archae]

16. You didn't go back far enough.

Ancient Rome had their own swimsuit issue too.

[Cleita]

26. Isn't that fabulous?

Even back then, they had beach volley ball.

[Scootaloo]

29. It's photoshopped; they don't even TRY to hide the pixels

[Cleita]

30. I've seen that same mosaic many time for over 40 years.

I like that they filled in details like it might have been.

[Scootaloo]

32. Well, this is going to blow your mind... The one on the left?

Is actually Nicholas Cage.

[Cleita]

34. Why not. He can be cute when he isn't crazy.

[Scootaloo]

44. And when is that, oh pray tell?

[Cleita]

49. You think I like him. No I don't bother with his movies but

I thought you liked him so I was attempting to b courteous.what a joke on me.

[LadyHawkAZ]

38. OK, that laugh was worth wading through this thread

[MADem]

72. No, it's not photoshopped.

It's an ancient mosaic of female athletes from Sicilia--look at the lower right corner of this photograph:

[Scootaloo]

75. ...

[MADem]

77. It did fly right on by me....

Usually a nudge - wink annotation, a tag, a yuck-yuck, something....

will tip me off, but I took you seriously!

I love that doggone rooster, BTW...don't know why, he's probably based on some racist old codger, but he always made me laugh. Maybe it's because he's a racist old codger who gets his comeuppance....?

[R B Garr]

40. Riiight. They probably let them play like that before they fed them to the lions.

Good times.

[Cleita]

45. I've read a lot of ignorant things here lately,

but this so far get''a the prize.

[R B Garr]

60. You must be right, then. It's fabulous beach volleyball for Ancient Romans.

And the girls are decked out in fabulous bikinis. Ah, the good ol' days.

I was actually kind of joking with you, but you're obviously having too much fun stirring your pots.

[Cleita]

62. Oh shut up. I'm not even interested in this stupid shit.

I know. I'm the bad lady now because I didn't believe someone and was mean.

[R B Garr]

71. Then don't spread the stupid shit, either. I guess that's the moral of the story.

Oh well. I had to see for myself after giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I did.

[madrchsod]

192. what!

the romans were as immoral as we are?

oh my god! what am i going to tell the children!

[Tx4obama]

225. I've always found it strange in documentaries they say a French man invented the bikini

My guess is that the French guy saw a photo of the Sicilian mosaic and stole the idea

A caption below for your photo...

The ancient Roman Villa Romana del Casale (286–305 AD) contains one of the earliest known illustrations of a bikini.

[Iggo]

20. And the reason people keep posting this shit ain't original, either.

It rhymes with "flame bait".

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Lame gait? Train wait?

Name Plate?

[TeeYiYi]

22. Check mate? ..nt

TYY

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Nope.

Not unless we want to redefine the parameters of rhyming.

[TeeYiYi]

25. Blamegate works. ..nt

TYY

[Warren DeMontague]

55. *

[Bobbie Jo]

209. As does Lamegate...nt

[RainDog]

33. brilliant n/t

[whathehell]

148. Well said. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Okay, just hold on one con-sarned minute, here.

What in the blue blazed jumpin' jehosophat HECK is going on in this picture?

[Cleita]

27. Price 50 cents?

Rather pricey for that era.

[Scootaloo]

31. That's the creation of the universe, according to Etruscan mythology

Ever wondered why you never hear much about the Etruscans?

Now you know.

[Cleita]

36. I know a lot about Etruscans. Ask me.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Apparently it involved an oddly googly-eyed Deity being sprayed with a soda spritzer.

Which is pretty much the same way Alan Guth explains the big bang.

[lob1]

57. Someone's gonna get spritzed with seltzer water.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. He clearly has some sort of fluid buildup in his eyeballs

the seltzer water is the least of his problems.

[lob1]

66. He has a case of bugging eyes, which happens to cartoon men near

cartoon women in bathing suits. Or he's sitting on a sharp object. I'm 74 and I still get those eyes...but these days only when I'm sitting on a sharp object.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. "Quick, we must sound the alarm!"

[JVS]

83. seltzerboarding

[Warren DeMontague]

211. It's not technically torture

unless it comes with an endless stream of lame Borscht belt jokes.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. And we haven't even started on what Jennifer Lopez...

is wearing on the show.

Near as I can tell, women have the right to wear anything they damn well please (or whatever they are told to wear by fashion mavens or politically correct ones) but men are forbidden to look at them or talk about it.

I think that's the way it works on DU. The real world is a little different.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. Are you having trouble finding places to do just that? Because even though I am a woman

I myself could point you to any number of them all across the internet. You know they have this thing called Google....and you can search for anything you want. WOW isn't that amazing??? There are even places that welcome the objectification of women....they would LOVE to hear your opinions on "Female fashions"

[TreasonousBastard]

50. Missed the point again.

[whathehell]

172. No, I'm afraid you missed it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. the point is....you want to be able to harrass women on GD to stifle their voices...

because if you just wanted to objectify women.....you could find millions of places to do that!

[pnwmom]

37. Have you lost your way? Why do you think this belongs on a progressive political website? n/t

[Xyzse]

39. Sadly, my only take away from this post is that

The 4th girl from the left, looks like Maggie Gyllenhall.

[Historic NY]

111. Four of them are showing much too much skin...

[Xyzse]

113. I know.

Look at those ankles.

[Warren DeMontague]

212. I had the same thought.

Perhaps she, like Nic Cage, is a vampire.

[Xyzse]

213. It is very possible.

Just hopefully not the Twilight kind.

[cui bono]

42. Because you don't understand what's going on with DU you decide to try and perpetuate it

rather than simply ask or read the threads and get an explanation?

Disingenuous shit stirring OP. No reason for it other than that.


And btw... it's not whether or not objectification has existed in the past or in other publications, it's about whether it should be posted on a political board that is supposed to support equality for all. All includes women. Objectification of women is sexist and doesn't belong on DU.

And just in case you really did want answers, read these threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522226

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024528423

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125538236

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024548058

[TreasonousBastard]

51. Oh, bullshit...

scantily dressed women are all over the place in our society, including the lingerie ads in the Times that Woody Allen memorialized, and the mere mention of them sending alleged "feminists" into a tizzy just means you'll continue to be teased about as long as you writhe and moan.

Yes-- teased. Some people are having fun poking at some of you because you're so touchy. Complaining about hardcore porn (as if there's any on this site) is one thing, but about mainstream magazines having pretty women on their covers gets ridiculous.

Give it a rest.

[cui bono]

69. You miss the point. It's not the mere mention of them. It's the flaunting of them on a POLITICAL

board. A political board that is supposed to represent and support Democratic values, one of which is equal rights for women.

It's not about the magazines having those covers, it's about posting them on DU and ogling them. If you don't understand the issue then take some time to read about it. Go read the threads, the full threads, at the links I posted. It should enlighten you.

But don't tell me or anyone else to "give it a rest" simply because you can't see the sexism running rampant on DU and institutionalized in our society. You not "seeing" it or not understanding the issue does not mean it does not exist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. False equivalence.....

[tofuandbeer]

46. Wow! That Vogue issue with the phone and cyan theme is awesome!

[TheFrenchRazor]

54. so your whole point is that it's always been does this way so it's ok. we're going to have

to agree to disagree on that.

[KitSileya]

78. Yeah, isn't that one of the arguments they made against the suffragettes?

The women posting these pics because they argue that it has always been like this, and so shall it always be need to learn their history - not to mention get some self reflection. If the suffragettes had accepted the way things were with regards to how women were viewed, the only chance the female posters on this board would have had to influence politics would be through their menfolk.

[awoke_in_2003]

56. Because we didn't objectify...

women in the 40's and 50's

[TeeYiYi]

64. Any woman wearing a bathing suit...

...in a publication is being objectified?

TYY

[pnwmom]

68. The SI models weren't actually wearing bathing suits. They were wearing thongs with no tops.

It wasn't even a fashion photo. Just a bare butt photo.

Yes, they were being objectified.

[Orrex]

91. Surely no civilized nation would allow women to be seen topless in thongs

[pnwmom]

142. When, on a mainstream publication, have you ever seen a similar cover picture --

of three young men wearing nothing but thongs, thrusting their butts to the camera, their arms wrapped around each other, and smiling coyly?

Why do young women appear this way in mainstream publications but not men?

Because if men were used in the photo people would see it for what it is: soft porn. But we're so used to seeing women depicted in that way we don't even notice.

[Orrex]

152. If three male models were posed that way, it would be interpreted as homoerotic

If you want to discuss why women are permitted to be more nuanced in their sexuality than men, then perhaps you should start another thread on the subject.


A certain subset of DU has reacted negatively to the label "prude," but if you can't distinguish betwen "soft porn" and women smiling in bathing suits, then "prude" starts to seem like a reasonable identifier.

I know a number of women who aren't bothered by the SI cover at all. Why do your delicate sensibilities take precedence over theirs?

[pnwmom]

157. Yes, the cool girls are all with the boys on this: EROTIC photos of young women.

So what? This is a progressive political site, not a men's entertainment site. If women and men are supposed to be interacting intellectually here as equals, then erotic photos -- homoerotic or otherwise -- don't contribute positively to the atmosphere.

And photos like the SI cover, so pervasive that they're even on a progressive political site, contribute to a culture that continues to treat women as less serious and capable as men:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024546137

[Orrex]

162. Why do you belittle those women as "girls?" That's the language of the patriarchy.

And, again, why must your preference be given priority? Must DU tailor its content to the most prudish common denominator? Why do you claim greater authority than women who are comfortable with themselves? What makes you the expert who gets to scold DU for purveying "erotic" "soft porn?"

a culture that continues to treat women as less serious and capable as men:

Your assumption that women are (or should be) so delicate that they'll be shattered by a lingering glance certainly doesn't suggest that you believe women to be as serious and capable as men.

[pnwmom]

164. Your arguments will make sense when similar erotic pictures of young men are as commonplace

as they are of women, in mainstream publications. Till then, they contribute to an atmosphere that trivializes women as compared to men -- just as calling them "girls" does.

(You were right about that. So I'm changing "guys" to "boys," since this is all about high school, and the cool cliques.)

[Orrex]

185. Post as many pictures of young men as you wish. Who's stopping you?

I'm not sexually attracted to men, but I'm not blind and can appreciate the aesthetic appeal of a well-formed male. If you're asserting that males should be more free to express nuanced sexuality, then you'll get no argument from me. I certainly don't find it threatening or trivializing.

My local grocery store is selling the SI swimsuit issue. In addition, it has about a half dozen magazines featuing very fit and scantily-clad men on their covers (e.g., Men's Health and various wrestling and fitness-themed magazines, depending on the month), along with a similar number of magazines featuring fit and scantily-clad women. Is this good or bad?

Till then, they contribute to an atmosphere that trivializes women as compared to men.

That's true only if you consider sex to be inherently trivializing, which likewise contributes to the overall impression of prudishness. Further, you seem to assume that finding one woman sexy necessarily means trivializing all others. Why in the world must that be the case? Are women so indistinguishable, in your opinion? Are men unable to distinguish between them, in your view?

I find a certain comedian to be very funny. Does that mean I must consider everyone in that comedian's demographic to be equally funny? By what esoteric method am I able to discern one individual from another? Surely I'm not the only person to possess this mysterious ability!


I respect your choice to change "men" to "boys" in that context, but the issue shouldn't be dismissed as a disagreement between cliques, unless you're prepared to have someone in a different "clique" declare that their assessment of a given issue takes precedence over your own.

[pnwmom]

186. Why would I, when I don't think erotic photos belong in a place for political discussions? n/t

[Orrex]

189. Well, it's a reasonably open forum.

Discussions of photography contests, the Olympics, cat surgeries or Chinese mustard don't belong in a place for political discussions either,but they happen all the time. Do you propose banning any discussion that's not purely and explicitly political? I'd like to know how we might police such a forum.

Or are you merely expressing your preference that this particular discussion not take place? If so, then you're free trash threads and set up your keyword auto-trash filters.

[pnwmom]

191. If cats are ever able to participate in serious political discussions, maybe it will be time to

remove cute kitty photos from G.D.

I don't propose banning anything. I just wish some people would show enough respect to women not to post T & A photos that they know are likely to offend many -- or at least, to post them in the lounge, where no one goes for serious political discussions.

[Orrex]

201. But some women don't find it disrespectful.

Certainly the woman who posted about the SI swimsuit issue didn't find it disrespectful, nor did a number of women who posted in the thread. Must we defer to anyone who claims offense? I'm offended by threads that equate pets to children; can I demand that these be shunted to the Lounge?

Even calling for those threads to be posted in the Lounge is problematic, because it merely kicks the can. What about the photography threads? What about the Chinese mustard threads?

If cats are ever able to participate in serious political discussions, maybe it will be time to remove cute kitty photos from G.D.

Okay, that made me LOL.

[pnwmom]

203. So? Some people have never minded other people's cigarette smoke either. How many times

did I see that used as an argument for smoking cigarettes everywhere?

If people want to enjoy T & A photos, there are plenty of places elsewhere, including the lounge, where they can be viewed without offending anyone.

[Orrex]

208. We can discuss cigarettes in another thread if you'd like.

If people want to enjoy T & A photos, there are plenty of places elsewhere, including the lounge, where they can be viewed without offending anyone.

So you are in favor of banning certain discussions that you find objectionable.

The SI thread didn't include any graphic nudity nor objective disrespect of women. On what grounds should it be relegated to the Lounge? Would Boticelli's Birth of Venus be banished to the Lounge? It's clearly a graphic and unrealistic portayal of the female form. Should we excuse it because of its artistic intent? I imagine that the SI photographer would assert that photography is art as well.

Unless you can articulate (and support) a clear reason why the post should have been banished to the Lounge, then I'm afraid that it comes down to your own aesthetic preference, which really isn't a basis for policy.

[pnwmom]

215. No, I didn't say it should be banned. I said I wish people would respect

the feelings of many (if not all) women enough voluntarily not to post T &A photos in G.D.

[Orrex]

219. That's an impossible task.

It's not porn. It's not graphic nudity. It's not violent. It hasn't been demonstrated to be hostile to women.

All that we know for sure is that a certain small (and entirely predictable) subset of DU's women has found it objectionable enough to make accusations of homoerotic pedophilia, uncontrollable masturbation, and weird-o confection-based cannibalism. Honestly, if I can piss off a crowd that voices such preposterous objections, you can bet that I'll go out of my way to do it.


You're asking the entire assembled membership of DU to preemptively self-police just in case some critical mass of critical women might be miffed. There are web forums that offer these sorts of constraints on subject matter. Heck, there are at least five groups on DU that offer a specific safe haven for women. What you're asking is that DU be sanitized to such a degree that no woman will ever have to risk seeing an image or reading a word that might upset them.

Do you honestly think that women are that delicate? My wife would kick my ass if I ever accused her of being so fragile!

[KittyWampus]

155. straw man. the argument isn't about "civilized" or "allowing". It's about the intent of SI

and how appropriate it is for them as a SPORTS magazine to publish soft porn.

[Orrex]

202. Argument by assertion. You are declaring it to be soft porn.

Others do not find it to be soft porn. Who says your assertion is paramount?

SI's intent is to sell magazines and advertising, the same as it is for Writer's Digest and Field & Stream.

[OilemFirchen]

95. Life Magazine July, 1964...

and I avoided the other pic in the spread because... nipples:

[OilemFirchen]

97. BTW, here's what happened when Toni Lee wore a topless maillot on a public beach:

Posted without editorial comment.

[whathehell]

177. Sending posts to yourself, lol?

[OilemFirchen]

218. WTF are you on about?

It's quite common for posters to extend their contribution by making additional comments.

This the first time you've visited the internet?

[whathehell]

221. BWHAHAHAHHA!

If you says so...

[whathehell]

178. ..and your point is?

[OilemFirchen]

187. No "point" actually, merely an observation.

My interlocutor stated that:

The SI models weren't actually wearing bathing suits. They were wearing thongs with no tops.

As was Peggy Moffitt, fifty years ago, in Life Magazine.

You're free to dismiss it, if that's your wont.

[whathehell]

220. That's what I thought..

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

and I believe the word is "want" not "wont".

[pintobean]

224. This might help

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wont

[whathehell]

226. This this might help you..

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Point-Across-Seconds-Less/dp/0671727524/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1393296055&sr=8-3&keywords=how+to+make+a+point

[ErikJ]

59. Huffington Post has dozens of sex story links.

Which can be a challenging distraction for me trying to read a political article. I'd rather they didnt but DU is very tame in comparison in that regard.

[Orrex]

90. HuffPo is an alt-med & celebrity gossip site with occasional political stories

[malaise]

76. LOL

I'll never understand it.

[JustAnotherGen]

80. DU is not where I come for fashion discussions

At all. Ever.

Said this in another post - I don't discuss fashion with men who loudly proclaim that, "I have bought jeans in 15 years and I prefer unadorned women!"

Okay - these guys would throw up in their mouth if I go on about the woman at work (literally) who was wearing peep toe white shooties with black opaque tights and a grey gabardine pin stripe pencil skirt last week.

Because that would be mean, elitist, narrow minded, shallow - and irrelevant to what we discuss at DU.

But thanks for posting the Vogue cover. I'm posting the cover to the September issue of Vogue this August and I will be inviting everyone to support me in the orgy of awesome the September issue of Vogue is!

[My Good Babushka]

82. And something for the ladies

Aw yeah!

[Inkfreak]

89. Well. I'm going to get a tophat for swimming now.

Cause, that's awesome.

[My Good Babushka]

92. Of course you must

or else everyone will think you're of low birth.

[Old and In the Way]

116. The 2 guys on the extreme left appear to be suffering from objectification.

[bravenak]

204. The guy in the ostrich pose pulling his nipples, is my kind of guy.

I like his personality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

210. They look cold.

[JVS]

84. If you think that's weird, you should have seen the fucked up shit they had in Omni magazine.

[NaturalHigh]

140. In Omni?

Really? I didn't read it much, but I just remember a few good sci-fi short stories.

[Triana]

88. Only thing I got out of this baiting, narcissistic post and this thread...

...is a couple more people to put on ignore.



It seems to me that no matter how long (or how or why) pretty women have been featured on covers of - any type of publication - men could more considerately do their visual masturbations elsewhere than on a political site which is designed to be inclusive. After all the internet(s) are huge. Do you HAVE to do that here in front of *everyone*? There's something to be said for keeping some things to yourself - for your own private pleasures - rather than T & A'ing everyone on an entire political site for your own personal pleasure. It's not that it's wrong. It's that it should be done ELSEWHERE. Out of consideration for your fellow female HUMAN BEINGS on this site, which is political in nature, not SI in nature. But narcissists would have their own personal "needs" pleasured in public with no consideration for if or how uncomfortable their doing so makes anyone else.

And THAT m'dear, is the POINT, IMO. To me, this is like men scratching their gonads in public. Or, like someone picking their nose in public. MUST you? Really?

[CrispyQ]

93. So because we've always objectified women we should continue to do so,

is that your point?

This site has gone into the shitter.

[geek tragedy]

94. Becaues those were the golden days of gender relations. Women never had it so good as when

they didn't have the right to vote.

[MineralMan]

96. Yes. The same crap has been going on for years.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Using sex and objectifying women is good business, apparently. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. It also doesn't mean that pinup shots are appropriate for GD on DU.

This feels like stirring something brown to me. You went to a lot of work to create this post, too. That must be worth something.

[azurnoir]

102. I'm going to ask you a question

what about the models themselves the ones that participated in this photo shoot are they victims? How do they figure into the equation?

[MineralMan]

105. I doubt that the models consider themselves to be victims, but that's

not really the point. That's what they do for a living. That's not where the objectification comes in, really. Nobody here on DU knows those models. Few people know those models. For those viewing the photos, the models are not individual people. They are women dressed in a thong and no top. I'm talking about the SI models, of course. The models in those older photos and ads are wearing suits that leave plenty to the imagination.

Still, though, the images are of unnamed women and are designed to sell products. A number of the older photos were in publications read mostly by women, unlike the SI article. Still, all are designed to sell something, not to identify the women in the photos as individual people.

Sex sells. It really does. So, it gets used to sell.

In all of those photos both today and back then, the women represented some standard of beauty. But, they are not individuals who people want to know personally. They are objects in bathing suits. For some, they may stimulate the desire to buy a swimsuit in hopes of looking like those women. For others, they stimulate something else altogether. But the models don't matter as individuals. They matter only because they represent some standard of beauty. The models are individuals, of course, but in the photographs, they are objects wearing swim suits or less.

[azurnoir]

106. but that's the point

these are women that are making very good money and yes using their looks to do so-why the choose this can be called into question, however without their consent none of this would be possible which is why I asked

[MineralMan]

108. And my point is that the models have nothing to do with

whether the photo is an objectification of women. The models are anonymous, pretty much.

[azurnoir]

110. again though without the models themselves none of this would be possible

it's really not about individuals but a question of are women promoting the objectification of women

[MineralMan]

124. It is always about the individuals when individuals are involved.

Do those models think they are objectifying women? I doubt it very much. Not all women care about the objectification of women, so how the models feel about it is irrelevant. Objectification is a concept, not a concrete thing. The models agreed to pose while wearing very little. I'm sure they were very well paid, and probably got flown somewhere fun for the shoot. I doubt that objectification of women crossed their minds.

[antiquie]

107. They say...

Feb 18 (Reuters) -

Models Nina Agdal, Lily Aldridge and Chrissy Teigen were already at the top of their game, but the trio say anything is possible after gracing the cover of the Sports Illustrated 50th Anniversary Swimsuit Edition that hit newsstands on Tuesday.

[NCTraveler]

98. Because hating Obama because of the color of his skin isn't an original concept.

Because hating lgbt is not an original concept.
Because killing foreigners isn't an original concept.
Because providing the most vulnerable with healthcare is not an original concept.

I find it truly hard to believe you thought for one second before posting your op.

[Autumn]

99. Very interesting contrast. The more things change the more they remain

the same.

[treestar]

103. Those are all pretty old

In very early days of the women's movement, before it had any effect. It was accepted back then as were Jim Crow laws.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

128. Very good point. Before the women's movement, anything went. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

109. Bathing Suits. How quaint. Wonder the cost difference for all that fabric vs. the cost of the thongs

Economics juxtaposed ... I find it interesting from that angle, too.

[Sunlei]

112. good post. Even the negative publicity and posts help sell more issues!

Same thing republicans do with all the negative posts and 'free' publicity.

[Sunlei]

114. anyone notice? the pre-airbrush kneesock photo...one of the woman has face of a baby on knee!

[randome]

132. Maybe a way to stop all these redundant and unnecessary posts is to point out...

...that the assumption can be made -absent evidence to the contrary- that those who feel the need to endlessly talk about female bodies...are those who aren't 'getting any'.

In other words, they are 'exposing' themselves for all to see.

Just a thought and not necessarily directed at you, TeeYiYi.

I will now return to ignoring posts of this nature.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[TeeYiYi]

134. I think some people at DU are overreaching...

...on the subject of objectification and porn. It is my opinion that not every image of a woman is objectifying her and certainly not every image of a woman in a bathing suit or shorts and a tank top, or whatever she chooses to wear, should be considered porn. I'm not saying that objectification doesn't exist. What I am saying is that the concept is subjective and open to interpretation.

At what point does my choice of swim attire make me a victim of objectification? Just the simple act of showing up at a public beach makes me an object? If I wore a muumuu would that make me any less an object in some people's minds? (An object of ridicule, no doubt, but no less an object.) If someone photographs me, will that seal the deal?

Is it possible that women make decisions about their bodies based on what fulfills them personally as fellow human beings and that it might have nothing to do with how they want or expect to be perceived by men? Is it possible that some women don't give a rat's ass what men think of them?…or what anyone thinks of them, for that matter, because how they view themselves is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day?

Intent should play a part in whether something is actually an example of objectification or not. It would seem that objectification is in the eye of the beholder. If I want to go to the beach to take in the beauty of nature, soak in some sun and feel the ocean waves against my bare skin, that's my decision. It's a decision made by me, about me and for me. Solely me. It's not about how someone might view my decision to go swimming in the ocean, sans clothing or otherwise. I'm not objectifying myself. If someone chooses to perceive me as a victim of objectification, that's on them and their warped view of reality. Someone's skewed opinion of how or why I exist is not my concern.

For people to claim that every situation involving a woman is somehow objectifying her is to take steps in the wrong direction by taking her power of autonomy away. Removing her power to make decisions about her own body and how she views herself and presents herself in this world is just another form of subjugation; only in these instances, especially here at DU, it's being perpetrated by women claiming victimization where none exists and on behalf of other women who don't happen to agree and who can think for themselves.

TYY

[gollygee]

150. I would say

if you're choosing a bathing suit and heading out to the beach, you're a subject.

If you are hired by someone else to wear a bathing suit chosen by someone else to be photographed by someone else in a setting chosen by someone else and posed by someone else to be looked at by someone else, you might be being objectified.

Here's a definition:

Objectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm. Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object:

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

[whathehell]

159. Is that what you think?...Really?

Wow. Color me shocked.

[NaturalHigh]

141. I remember seeing a picture...

of Bret Hart's mom (yes, I know that's kind of creepy) in a swimsuit at a New York public pool in the 1940s, and I was very surprised at how much skin was showing back then. Not exactly string bikinis, but not burquas either.

[GoneOffShore]

174. Thank you for the look back at over a century of advertising

And cool photos and illustrative art.

I hope folks appreciate it for what it is. And don't get inflamed about what it isn't.

[madrchsod]

194. i like this one from 1909

[Mrdrboi]

197. I'm not entirely sure whats the issue here?

If a Woman wants to do that sort of thing so be it.

[RC]

214. The issue is that women must be free to do what they want,

as long as it conforms to the consensus of a self-chosen, women dominant group of DU people that think they know better than the rest of us, what is good, or not, for everyone else.

[whathehell]

227. Yes, I'm sure that's the "issue" you're concerned about, lol

rather than that of your dick privileges.

[ecstatic]

207. IBTL nt

[thucythucy]

228. So the use of T & A (objectification of women) has been going on forever.

So has racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc.

Still don't appreciate having my face rubbed in it on DU.