Another nude sports figure pointlessly objectified on a magazine cover

[Orrex]

Granted, if I were built like him, I wouldn't wear clothes either. But how can we stand by and let him be displayed this way, in this obviously artificial and deliberately enticing pose?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Oh, him. Since apparently only...

women are objectified, I was assuming at first you meant the slit on the dress being far too high and subjective. That, and the hint of cleavage, certainly objectify her.

[jmowreader]

30. Is that a dress or a towel?

[TreasonousBastard]

36. It better be a dress or...

the hair-on-fire crowd will have another reason to have a fit.

[jmowreader]

63. The HOF crowd doesn't need a reason to have a fit. They just have them.

[Cleita]

2. It's a fashion shoot just like the SI cover.

Let the poutrage begin.

[Orrex]

3. I agree 100%

That's kind of the point, in fact.

[Cleita]

5. Hate to tell you but it will be alerted on before next morning

and a jury will find it offensive because the oh, so clever alerter will have worded it in such a way as to make it offensive.

[pintobean]

64. Will you edit your subject line?

Some of us have poor eye sight and have to view the webs in a zoom mode. That long line of characters, without a space, pushes user names and time stamps off the scree.

[pintobean]

68. Thanks

I had zoomed out, and my face was so close to my laptop screen, I was getting popcorn crumbs in my keyboard.

[Sissyk]

147. LMAO!!

I just spit popcorn clear across the room!

[malaise]

69. ROFL

[antiquie]

4. Oh, my.

I liked the SI cover, too.

[Whisp]

6. So you think men's nudity is exploited in the same way women's nudity is?

hmm, interesting! What planet are you calling from?

[Orrex]

7. So you think men's nudity is fair game for exploitation?

hmm, interesting!

[Supersedeas]

264. apples and oranges

the gender wars are more than just a comparison of strange fruit, the real crux is the power dynamics behind male dominated logo-centric analysis

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I think if people of any gender want to get naked and other people want to see those people naked

still other people ought to get over their big bad selves and find other shit to freak out over.

[mimi85]

28. I totally agree.

There are far more important subjects to discuss. Hell, the pics are probably photoshopped anyway.

[R B Garr]

31. And where will these naked people be getting access to each other?

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I don't understand the question.

But honestly, when people get all bent out of shape over consenting adult behavior, I tend to think they really need other hobbies.

[R B Garr]

41. I didn't understand either what you meant by people getting naked

and other people looking at them. So I was curious how they would access each other...must be pictures (?). But now it's morphed into consenting adult behavior, which is a bit different from public nudity. Anyway, there are always limits on behavior, so it's just a matter of degree. Hobbies aren't really a part of that equation.

[R B Garr]

47. Okay. I know this OP was posted for snark, but I just wanted to see

if the comments could be measured by any objective standards or if you were just teeing off each other to boost your creds.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. But how could you disagree with Betty Bowers on this topic??

Mr. Cuccinelli immediately announced the formation of a national branch of PRUDES, revealing plans for a new, more modest Statue of Liberty. At a cost of $8,900,600 (to come from money previously budgeted for extravagances, like polio vaccines for children who don't even look like Real Americans™), the Lady with the Lantern will soon sport a higher, buttoned collar - so as not to give licentious would-be immigrants an unchaste come-on and, therefore, even further invitation to soil our shores with their swarthy faces. She will also shed her edgy, spiked punk headdress for a charming pink pillbox hat with Jesus-fish hatpin -- and her clingy and all-too-revealing oxidized toga will been replaced by a sturdy calico frock, finished with a ruffled brass apron to signify that she is a stay-at-home statue.

PRUDES issued 655 pages of demands for decency to museums throughout the world, instructing them on what steps will be necessary in order for them to bring their exhibits into PRUDES compliance. At right is a helpful rendering supplied to the Louvre, providing ideas about how to address the "Venus di Milo problem." "Everyone talks about her having no arms," remarked Mr. Cuccinelli, "but the thing that ticks me off is that she doesn't even have a bra! Those Taliban folks had the right idea when they stuck dynamite under statues that offended them. I've given these skipping surrender monkeys three weeks to clean up their act. Or Viriginia is going to secede and declare a Crusade! Praise Mary!"


Responding to the news that PRUDES has ordered 477 alabaster, marble, and canvas fig leaves for the National Gallery and burlap sacks to cover all statuary at Rockefeller Center, Mrs. Betty Bowers put down her Bergdorf bag and said: "Praise the Lord Jesus on a splintery cross! It is about time someone started removing the FDR/Demoncrat porn that litters our once-righteous country. It is high time we replaced all licentious Greek nakedness with Christian crafts - like charming silk floral arrangements in lovely replica butter churns! Glory!"

http://www.bettybowers.com/prudes.html

[R B Garr]

132. Okay, but that's not an objective standard. That's your subjective standard.

Which was kinda my point. We all have subjective standards, so it's just a matter of degree. Some people's subjective standards might be to announce on a message board that they bought a bathing suit. We all buy bathing suits, but not all people announce their purchase on message boards. So maybe that's how they get their jollies. But how does that make anyone else a puritan, zealot or control freak because they don't type on a message board about the bathing suit they bought? It doesn't.

[BainsBane]

50. people don't get out of shape over

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 04:00 AM - Edit history (2)

Consenting adult activity, at least I don't. I have issues with capitalist commodification of women into objects for sale. The issue is not the same for men since their value in society is not determined primarily by their appearance. The media is about commerce, not private behavior. The consenting adults point has nothing to do with the issue and to continually raise it is just plain weird. It's not their choices or behavior that concerns most feminists but rather that wider economic and cultural environment in which these images operate.

I USED to be concerned that liberals were dismissive of women's rights, but now I know most of those same people are dismissive of all rights except their own. As a result I expect no more from them than any random person on any random website. People are who they are. I can't convince them to care about sexism, racism or any other injustice. Most people are fundamentally selfish and entirely unwilling to examine issues in ways that don't benefit
themselves. Discussions of objectification and
privilege exemplify that, though the same tendency is evident in other issues as well.

I no longer get bent out of shape because I have learned to expect nothing. As for those who go out of their way to mock issues of sexism by posting OPs like this, I see them as openly contemptuous of the views of feminists (or in the case of mocking privilege and with it racism, of the views and experiences of people of color).

[BainsBane]

62. do you extend that view about

consenting adults in commerce to Wal-Mart and McDonalds? How about out-sourcing and low wage labor abroad? They are consenting adults. Is it only commerce that bridges on sexuality that should be exempt from critique? Are you uncritical of capitalism and labor relations more generally, or is it only in commerce in bodies and images of bodies that is above reproach?

When we are talking about fashion magazines like Vogue, many are not in fact adults. Models begin as you as 10 or 12 and are made up to look like women.

Your idea that those images don't affect women more broadly is patently absurd. You may not care about the effects but reams of Social science literature establishes that they do. Companies would not spend millions on advertising if media had no influence. Dismissing the
extent to which our society values women based on looks denies what most women experience every day. I guarantee you the women and girls in
Your life are affected by those images.


Lastly, to continually cast the argument in terms of prudery not only misses point, it reveals disrespect for those who make the arguments you continually ignore.

[kcr]

85. Consenting adults

They consent to work for those wages. What's the problem? Why should anyone else even care? They're just meddling libs who don't like rich people or corporations. There should be no discussion of this. Consenting adults working for a living, fully willing to take those wages. No one else's business!

Exact same argument.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

109. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

I'm pretty sure models get paid more than minimum wage. If you're going to claim that their 'consent' is based upon economic duress, then you pretty much have to say everyone who is not independently wealthy is under economic duress because they have to work for a living. I don't recall much political activism, even on the left, spent on trying to improve the pay of people who already make say, some arbitrary income such as $100k a year. It's all focused on the people who make squat, to try and bring them up to a 'living wage'. Not to increase wages across the board.

[treestar]

210. That is not the similarity invoked

The parallel is the argument that consenting adults means it is fine. If you are consistent, then that means you have no objection to people consenting to work for less than minimum wage.

[BainsBane]

273. Walmart workers get paid minimum wage too

as do workers in coal mines and textile mills who develop lung diseases. If all we care about is that employers pay the minimum wage, that doesn't display much of a concern for social justice.

Consenting adults entered into subprime mortgages with lenders. Consenting adults traded credit default swaps. Consenting adults do all kinds of things. That doesn't mean there isn't a negative impact on society as a result.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

276. You misunderstood what I wrote.

I was not advocating that we only pay attention to people until they start earning minimum wage. I was saying that we only DO advocate for people making arbitrarily low wages. Under 20k, under 30k, under 50k, whatever number you want to use. What you don't hear, even on the left, is people complaining that people making 100k or more are making too little.

That's what I was actually saying, not that we should ignore anyone as soon as they make minimum.

[BainsBane]

277. The issue I have is not their wages

The top fashion models are paid a lot of money. I have concerns about how the impact the proliferation of those images have on standards of beauty and how they work to disempower women.

In terms of labor conditions of models, I would be more concerned about hazards like eating disorders, drug addiction, and child labor.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

288. That's fine, and I agree.

It's simply not what my comments were addressing, though.

[BainsBane]

272. You do it all the time

every time you insist the argument is about prudery and exactly like the moral right. You insist on casting it only in the narrow terms that fit your own POV and denigrating as RWers those who see the issue differently.

[BainsBane]

279. In other words

Don't your own tactics against you.

[BainsBane]

271. It is the exact same argument

Yet somehow if it involves sexuality or women's bodies, any sense of social justice is completely abandoned.

[kcr]

280. It is always the same argument.

The "consenting adults" argument is a "la la la la la, I can't hear you!" argument. It's a tactic meant to completely shut down the discussion. It's especially galling to see its use in progressive circles.

[BainsBane]

281. They also invoke the First Amendment

When no one even mentioned bans.

[kcr]

283. Oh, but if you mention anything other than a positive light

You must want it banned. It's the only explanation. The only thing I can figure is it's projection, which makes some of their other arguments pretty hypocritical. Don't like something = wanting it banned because that's how they actually think themselves.

[Cleita]

106. "...I do not respect arguments that I strongly believe are advancing a

pro-censorship agenda, no matter how dressed up in social science literature they may be."

+ infinity





Oh, and my little birds tell me when you are accused of having straw on you, you are being called a liar.

[BainsBane]

156. Yes, you've repeated them over and over

Just as you have systematically ignored arguments I and others make and instead cast them as prudery akin to the cultural right, which goes back to my original point about myopia.

Amazingly, at 4 am I'm not disposed to looking up and reading authors you happen to reference. Perhaps when I get some free time at work I will.

[BainsBane]

165. To answer

Generally all images that reproduce, sell, and advertise unrealistic images of the female body. For me, there is no difference between a fashion magazine and non-violent porn. It's allt he same. I know others disagree, but that's my take.

Images and film that depict and or reenact violence against women.

Images and film that depic and reenact violence.

Which women do they effect? All women. Did you have a daughter who considered herself fat even when she wasn't? If so, she has been influenced by those images. We all are to some extent or another. That doesn't mean they define us and take over our consciousness, but they influence us. One has to consciously work to resist them.

I'm sorry but I do think there is some selfishness (or myopia, if you prefer) involved because you are so unreceptive toward arguments about this particular issue more than any other. I have no doubt I likewise demonstrate selfishness of which I'm unnaware. That is the human condition.

[BainsBane]

167. You've seen no compelling evidence?

There isn't an image in a mass market magazine that isn't retouched or altered. NONE. Not a one.

Unrealistic in terms of the divergence from the ordinary American woman. The gap between what is represented in the media and average women has increased drastically in recent years. Swimsuit models are in general bigger than high fashion models. The high fashion models would scare the shit out of people if you saw them in a bikini. (On the impact of media images of women, see Susan Faludi's book Backlash and the old videos Killing me SoftlyI and II.)

The fact you don't think those images are unrealistic proves my point about their influence.

[BainsBane]

180. It may be the gold standard on DU

but that's about it. They are all related. Whether they have bikinis, couture ball gowns, or no clothes at all, the images all serve the goals of commodity fetishism and are part of a cultural effort to disempower women (Faludi).

Not only does no one's body look like that, those three models' bodies don't look like that. They are airbrushed and altered. All you need do is look at the old SI cover on the other site. Look at old copies of Playboy from the 50s and 60s. The women look dramatically different from the images today. The standard has gotten thinner and the final media product more artificial through retouching, photoshopping, airbrushing, whatever. You're lying to yourself if you think the only enhancement was placement of a title. You obviously aren't paying attention at all. Google it.

The skill involved in modeling is not simply looking good. Many of the prettiest girls can't be models. There are indeed skills, but it has to do with posing, becoming a chameleon and evoking the kind of feeling the client wants for the final product. My point has nothing to do with denigrating models or their profession. Rather it is about the wider impact of those images on society. You have bought the whole bill of goods, not just the commodity but the fantasy that any of it is real. You yourself are an example of the influence of those images.

[BainsBane]

183. No, it doesn't mean no woman ever felt herself too fat

or too thin before the invention of the camera, but it means that the onslaught of images influences many more of us more profoundly. I didn't even think there was a debate about something so basic. Adolescent eating disorders, for example, have multiplied in recent years.

Americans on average are getting fatter and the images are getting thinner. The gap between the ideal media image and the average American is becoming ever wider. Faludi dealt with this and her book is a couple of decades old. It is much more pronounced now.

Staying in shape isn't enough to be in those magazines. You have to be super young (except for the very rare, nearly un-aging women like Naomi Campbell and even she doesn't make SI anymore). All freckles, dimples, teeny areas of discoloration of skin are erased. Waists are trimmed, behinds narrowed, cleavage sometimes enhanced and sometimes minimized. Skin color is changed. Sometimes entire limbs are removed. There has been all kinds of news coverage about this sort of thing.

Anyway, you're dedicated to your position. I get it. I know I'm not going to change your mind.

[BainsBane]

258. Gee, you're worked up

I didn't mention you or say anything negative about you.

I'm guessing you watched the video on un-photoshopped bodies since you rec'd the thread. Hopefully you understand it a bit better now.

It is part of a single media culture that disempowers women and profits huge corporations. There is no question the emaciated woman is unhealthier, but both images are far removed from reality. Those aren't your girlfriends. They are images that profit Time Warner.

[BainsBane]

261. The post was prompted by our conversation

but that's it. There is no reason for you to take it personally. Lord. Have a look at what is said in your little group.

I was hoping you rec'd that thread because you understood the point of the video, not just because there were naked women in it. Obviously I was wrong.

You have no idea how people think about themselves just by looking at them. Some of the highest paid models in the world have been hopelessly insecure, drug addicted, and full of self-loathing. In the other OP in HOF I posted, the woman developed a more positive sense of her self after gaining weight, not when she was super buff.

Constitutional protections? Is that suppose to mean I can't express my views? Who said anything about banning?
You've lost the plot here. Whatever issue this is you have with those magazines goes far beyond anything I've said, and I'm not qualified to deal with whatever it is. I'm not your mother punishing you for having Playboy magazines under your bed. I'm just expressing a different point of view.

[BainsBane]

263. Then why do you go on about constitutional rights?

I offered a critique. I said nothing about taking away your girly mags. Honestly. That same 1st Amendment protects my right to express views that apparently have gotten you agitated. It's not like anything I've said about the impact of media on body image is remotely controversial.

[BainsBane]

267. Part of not giving a shit

is understanding what those images are about rather than pretending they are "attainable," as you claimed. A person doesn't need to read social science literature to do that. But she does need to be able to tell men--and women--who think women are supposed to look like those SI covers to fuck off back to their fantasy land. Case in point, some cretin on Discussionist who out of the blue (and entirely out of context) said to me, any man who would want to date a feminist instead of a "perfect 10" is pathetic. While I didn't say this to him, I know for a fact that any man who refers to women in terms of numbers is an idiot whose ideas of beauty are entirely formed by media culture.

One thing I noticed about Brazil is how much men appreciated the beauty of women around them rather than some imaginary media image of a "perfect 10."

[BainsBane]

269. You said the SI images were of real women

"attainable." You even insisted they weren't photoshopped. That was you. And you then went on to respond to my critique about media images in terms of how Americans were too fat and out to exercise more.

The Discussionist comment is relevant because it shows the influence media images have on everyday understandings of beauty.

For women, resisting media created images typically means refusing to consume them, which is why I quit buying fashion magazines decades ago, despite the fact I like fashion.

[BainsBane]

278. The emaciated bodies aren't impossible either

if one starves oneself enough. That's the result of eating disorders, which have risen greatly in recent years. The Ann Taylor ad is a ridiculously bad photoshop job. Not all photoshop is created equal. The ones that are noticed are really obviously bad or when some actress or other public figure speaks out about a magazine photoshopping her. But rest assured those SI images are altered in some way. All of them are, and I don't just mean sticking a name on. You can deny it all day long, but it doesn't change the facts.

You seem to think the major issue is that you are attracted to the SI photos and think the fashion models are too thin. Who you personally find attractive is of no consequence to me or most women in the world. That has no bearing on the influence of media on cultural ideas about women's value and their bodies.

This is what you did say:

"Unrealistic" ... There, you did it again.

Also Ive seen no compelling evidence that, for instance, the sports illustrated swimsuit cover was photoshopped. The 3 young ladies on the cover- do most people look like that? No, but some absolutely DO. Nor were they starved or emaciated. Nice bodies, not thin to an unhealthy extent AFAIAC.

Which means they are realistic. Realistic for every situation and station on planet earth? No, but then neither would just about any other scene on a magazine cover, like a picture of a drunk puking in an alley, or a parched stretch of wheat field. It would be "realistic" for the .000000001% of planetary experience it reflects, and "unrealistic" for the rest.

I don't look like the guy in the picture in the OP, either... But I bust my ass to stay in fairly decent shape for my age, and I like it when I look good. I like it when other people notice that I look good. We are creatures to whom appearance matters, at least to many of us. Is it everything or even most of everything? no, but it's something, and I dont think there is anything wrong with it.

You said that the bodies were "realistic," and essentially implied if I had an issue with them, I should go to the gym. That you equate your own going to the gym with those images indicates that you see them as entirely normal, which by extension means that bodies that don't meet that standard are somehow abhorrent, a view reinforced in your comment about going to the gym.

That you continue to deny the obvious, that the SI images are altered, tells me just how invested you are in fantasies of those 2 dimensional women.

I don't deny your right to hold any of those views. I'm just pointing out denying that you advance a certain view of women by actively proliferating those images is a contention that doesn't hold water.

[shaayecanaan]

284. Most porn actresses tend to be full figured compared to fashion models

Porn actresses also tend to be much more heterogenous in terms of racial diversity as well, compared to the fashion industry.

To be honest, given that fashion magazines are almost exclusively produced by women, and for an audience that is likewise virtually all female, I'm not sure how much their output can be blamed on men.

[Evergreen Emerald]

103. Excellent post.

Thank you.

[antiquie]

105. "Most people are fundamentally selfish and entirely unwilling to examine issues...

in ways that don't benefit themselves."

How very sad for you. This statement is the opposite of my six decades of experience and forty years of activism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

110. It also completely ignores the roughly half the population

who consistently vote AGAINST their own interests by voting for the grand old plutocrat party.

[BainsBane]

143. how then do you explain

The hostility toward issues such as racism (privilege)? I've noticed that most are eager to point the finger at Republicans, police, or other external forces but are unwilling to consider their own role in fostering equally or inequality. The hostility toward discussions of violence against women is likewise so strong such threads are declared flamebait, entirely illegitimate. I can tell you that a number of members of color have concluded that too many care only about themselves.

[antiquie]

159. Our perceptions of most people differ.

Our perceptions of the majority postings differ.

I totally understand why people in ethnic/racial minorities could have problems with many posters here. I differ in that I do not assign motivation ("care only about themselves&quot . My thoughts are that their experiences are so removed from mine that they do not or can not understand, or that they are the center of their universe and are clueless -- with all the people they interact with.

To me, your posts are flamebait.

[pintobean]

162. I'll agree with that.

Especially that last line.

[BainsBane]

178. You describe them as flamebait

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 09:31 PM - Edit history (4)

Because you refuse to recognize that an issue that doesn't concern you has legitimacy. To me, telling feminists and people of color that their posts are flamebait demonstrates perfectly the myopia I described. You don't see it as selfishness because you see me and the issues I talk about as illegitimate. Rape matters. Violence against women matters. Racism matters. The arguments you made to me above are the same made to the African American members of this site. It is a clear demonstration of class, race, and gender based notions of politics, truth, and acceptability. You don't consider it selfishness because you see me and the issues I write about as beneath consideration, as not even constituting a self to ignore. The issues I post about concern millions of people around the world, even if you think yourself above them and me.

One member insisted threads talking about the existence of privilege were flamebait, but his arguing that people shouldn't talk about it were not. He could not acknowledge that a view apart from his own had any political relevance. It so happened that his was a view of a white man who doesn't like to think about racism, unless it's to blame Republicans. The same is true for declarations that feminist threads about rape and violence against women are flamebait. They only are flamebait to those who think those experiences and those lives are illegitimate, particularly in comparison to their social security checks or getting their pot stash legalized. To sit in judgement of the concerns of others and call their concerns flamebait is a demonstration of the very privielge and entitlement those threads seek to address.

My guess is you wouldn't call this thread flamebait, but one advancing the opposite point of view would be flamebait. Many others take that same position, whether you do or not. Such a position demonstrates a vision of politics entirely bound to self.

[antiquie]

187. Wow.

You know all that about me. Amazing. And wrong.
Flamebait was specific to your posts, not this thread, not about any subject or any other poster.

[BainsBane]

203. And what makes them flamebait?

Other than you don't like them? Somehow it never occurred to me to sit in judgment over the membership of DU to proclaim which OPs are legitimate and which beneath contempt as "flamebait." If I see something that concerns me, I alert. I don't go about insulting people because they dare to post something that doesn't meet my approval.

Flamebait was specific to your posts, not this thread, not about any subject or any other poster.

You provide no examples, just a proclamation from upon high that my posts are illegitimate because they don't pass your approval. You complain that I assume I know a lot about you? All I know is that you consider yourself and your interests superior to me and my concerns, as is evident in singling me out as a purveyor of flamebait. Most of my OPs are just articles. My explanation of white privilege was basic and straight forward, and got over 120 recs, yet your judgment is superior to the 120+ members who appreciated the post. It is you not they who is qualified to determine that my posts are without value.

You don't give specifics, so what am I supposed to think? There isn't a feminist or person of color who isn't told their posts are flamebait on this site. Whats more we are told that the subjects we post about aren't political or important.

I don't post threads that say Fuck Snowden or Fuck Michelle Obama. I post articles and when I do analysis I try to be thoughtful. I post about rape, violence against women, Chile, Brazil, and history. So you tell me exactly what so flamebaity about "my OPs." Consult my journal. They are there for anyone to see. You declared "my posts," not some, so I expect you should be able to tell me how my last ten OPs qualify as flamebait.

[antiquie]

208. ~

[BainsBane]

259. I figured as much

Nothing to say.

[snooper2]

115. You should be concerned that women in porn make three times the money as men

Unless it's a male on male sex scene, then men tend to make about the same-

[BainsBane]

144. now that you have a cause

I wouldn't dream of muscling on on you territory.

[treestar]

212. That's actually kind of surprising

I would have thought like most things men made the most money. Harder to get them to exploit themselves.

[shaayecanaan]

286. You're kidding, right?

You actually thought that there would be any shortage of men willing to have sex with attractive women? I can see that reality is a problem for you.

Not only are the men paid less, but their employment prospects hinge on them not being disliked by the women. If a woman takes exception to a man, it's generally much cheaper to get rid of him than to get rid of her. Also, it's the woman that sells the porn, no one cares who the guy is, he's just there as furniture.

Given the financial problems posed by the free porn sites, the only male porn actors out there making a quid are those with, um, spectacular attributes that can't be easily replaced. For everyone else it is drinking money, hopefully as temporary as possible.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

123. Bookmarking this one.

[Major Nikon]

40. I've yet to hear a good answer on how it's even possible to exploit someone at $10,000 per day

How the hell does that even work?

If someone were genuinely concerned about exploiting workers, they should save their outrage for those making $7.75 per hour flipping burgers in a hot kitchen wearing a paper hat.

[Orrex]

108. I could endure a lot of exploitation for $10,000 per day.

[Supersedeas]

265. then, there's the fringe benefits

[TreasonousBastard]

39. More importantly is "So what?"...

Ancient art and statuary celebrated both sexes naked but now it's mostly women. If you have a problem with that, explain why it happened and why it's a problem.

[R B Garr]

45. This thread is obviously meant to be a snarkfest, but I don't see any way

that comparisons to ancient art and modern porn are in any way a viable comparison. Eroticism and sexuality have always been a part of mankind, but ancient art was never marketed as such a consumable commodity as is modern porn. When women become commercial goods for mass consumption, the possibility of exploitation exists. Follow the money.

[R B Garr]

51. Well, they certainly weren't watching porn on the internet

They weren't watching webcams. Did they have categorized porn DVDS for sale for the Joe Sixpacks? lesbian porn, gay porn, interracial porn, teenage porn, big bosom porn, small bosom porn, babysitter porn, old/young porn, asian porn, babe porn, amateur porn, threesomes, gang bangs, BBW porn.....gads.

Ancient art being equal to modern porn = laughable.

Yes, we all know about the Romans, and we all know that women have gotten pregnant since Adam and Eve. We even know how they got pregnant, probably even some in *gasp*...orgies!

[pipi_k]

114. Have you ever seen

the erotic images carved/painted into the walls of the Roman bathhouses?

Art? Perhaps.

But it was also intended to be porn.


Their version of the modern computer/magazine/movie porn.

[R B Garr]

127. Oh, I know exactly what you mean.

I don't see how anyone can say that people weren't or haven't been interested in erotica. That's an understandable given. It's just hilarious to compare ancient art on Roman bathhouses or figures carved on cave walls to modern porn, which is immediately accessible on a global scale.

[R B Garr]

253. OMFG. What a pant load. This is about the 3rd WTF as to WTF you are

talking about. Good Lord. Deliberately obtuse is too polite for that mumbo jumbo.



.

[R B Garr]

255. LOL. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are.

What I think is that this thread is a snarkfest. So you enjoy yourself. I'll do something more meaningful with my time.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. Have you ever seen Roman household statuary? It's almost...

entirely erotic, from what I've seen in exhibitions and European museums. I was amazed by the amount of phallic statuary, presumably having something to do with the erectoral gods. Plenty of artistic screwing going on, though, and undoubtedly plenty more real screwing going on in those baths.

The only real differences I see between now and then are technical-- they didn't have video. I have no doubt if they did porn would have been bigger than it is today.

As far as women are concerned, it sounds like you are extending the definition to include simply pictures of naked women, or even women in suggestive poses. Like Marilyn Monroe in the 60's? Betty Page earlier? Any Hollywood glamor shots? And, speaking of glamor shots, it was always the women sexualized. Ever see Bogart or the Duke in shorts or swim suits. Why is that?

Again, would it be worthwhile explaining how and why women seem to be "commercial goods"? I am curious how we've let studies of the male body in art kind of drift away. Perhaps simply because women wouldn't pay for pictures of skimpily dressed males? There is a market for naked women, but little for naked men, and that does seem a bit odd. There is some market among gay men, although I don't know how big it is, but I have no idea if lesbians have any interest in ogling naked women. If there isn't, it might indicate the already assumed fundamental difference between the sexes in how they deal with visual stimulation.

[pipi_k]

116. This for sure...

Again, would it be worthwhile explaining how and why women seem to be "commercial goods"? I am curious how we've let studies of the male body in art kind of drift away. Perhaps simply because women wouldn't pay for pictures of skimpily dressed males?

At least, for myself, anyway.

And maybe even for the majority of women.

Back starting in the 70s there was a magazine for women called "Playgirl". I never bought it but my sister did.

Quite frankly, I was uninterested in nude man photos...especially those showing their man-bits, which I found embarrassing at best, and rather icky at worst. No offense, guys, but some of us women don't care as much as you do about what your bits look like...size included.


However, show me a photo of a guy in jeans wearing a shirt with sleeves rolled up to reveal well-toned arms, and I'm very happy.

Anyway, my point here is that the magazine, as far as I know, is kaput.


Men, in general, are much more visual about that sort of thing, and while I can sit and roll my eyes at young women who choose to capitalize on their looks, I also feel real sorry for them. Extremely attractive women, it seems, always have to worry about what will happen when time and gravity have their way.

But even then, as someone else stated above, it's sort of hard to think someone making $10,000 per day (or even per month) is being victimized.

[TreasonousBastard]

120. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember...

that after some initial curiosity, Playgirl settled down to be bought primarily by gay men.

So, how do you sell advertising in a magazine supposedly aimed at women but bought and read by gay men?

[pipi_k]

124. That would be

a tricky one for sure, back then...

[R B Garr]

128. See, this how these conversations morph. Of course there is interest in women.

That's a given. What you're saying is just another angle on what I said. But where women are commercialized as a mass commodity, there is more exploitation at any given juncture of that consumerism. How can you separate the consumption of women on a mass global scale from any other commodity.

[treestar]

133. Exactly.

What a false equivalence!

[Orrex]

136. How so?

What, exactly, did I declare to be equivalent?

And why, exactly, would such equivalency be false?

[treestar]

209. The man is not there to titillate women

Or for us to ogle him as a sex object.

Heck, it's probably considered art.

[Orrex]

219. How can you know this? Did you ask him?

Did you ask the photographer? The publisher of the magazine?

You declare your assumption as if it's self-evident.
One can as readily assert that the SI cover isn't intended to titilate and is instead intended as art.

[treestar]

244. It really doesn't show much of him

She's there too, blocking the view. Vogue is to sell high end clothing to women.

I guess you know it when you see it. It looks mannered and set up and arty. It doesn't look sexy. He looks too made up to be sexy. They look like statutes.

[Orrex]

246. Most of that could equally be said about the infamous SI cover

Aside from the part about "blocking the view." It's definitely set up and arty, though "mannered" is kind of nebulous.

Several in this thread have definitely stated that he is sexy in that pose, as have several people I asked in real life, so maybe they "know when they see it," too.

If they look like statues, by the way, that's pretty much literal objectification.

One's mileage may vary, I suppose.

[hunter]

8. I have plenty of naked pics of myself I could post here.

But my most recent are not so hot.

The sun has not been so good to my skin, age not so good to the hair on my head, and the beer not so good to my belly.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Sigh. Y'all couldn't handle mine.

Seriously. It might be too much.

[Skittles]

55. I will handle yours, while I am kicking your ass

YOU KNOW I CAN MULTI-TASK

[Agschmid]

81. I knew skittles seemed different...

Now I know why.

Dang!

[opiate69]

153. Call it a draw!

[txwhitedove]

9. Really don't know who that is, but, thanks.

[scarletwoman]

10. What are these "nude sports" to which you refer?

[Orrex]

11. I'll tell you when you're old enough

[scarletwoman]

12. Don't be silly. I've played nude sports since 1965.

I just didn't play on any professional teams.

[Orrex]

14. I call that a missed opportunity.

[jberryhill]

13. Dogs and horses race mostly nude

[Orrex]

15. Dammit you're right!

This is worse than I realized!

[scarletwoman]

16. So did the original Olympic athletes!

By golly, nude sports has a long and glorious history!

[Cleita]

18. Well the girls had to wear short little tunics with one

bare breast. Shocking! A bare breast and bare legs and feet.

[jberryhill]

34. That was just one time

And I don't believe Janet Jackson did that on purpose.

[Cleita]

37. Wasn't that the Super Bowl, not the Olympics. eom

[pipi_k]

119. So do...

How come we never hear any complaints about them???

[Orrex]

122. Because they are celebrated

In Calaveras county and elsewhere.

[pipi_k]

125. And some

celebrate them as food.

In which case, pants would be a major hassle. Especially denim. Too tough to chew.

[Orrex]

126. I stay away from jean-modified organisms.

[jberryhill]

17. This one has a lot of young nude photos

Preakness winner California Chrome

[Orrex]

19. Unbridled objectification!

Actually, I guess it is bridled.

[jberryhill]

23. Nay!

You are just chomping at the bit to stirrup trouble by trotting out that manure.

[Fumesucker]

25. You are one of the mane instigators on this forum

If you don't quit I'm going to sulky

[jberryhill]

29. That was lame

[Fumesucker]

33. Don't hold back, just trot it on out

I canter understand why you wouldn't.

[Orrex]

75. I think it behooves us to reurn to more stable modes of discourse

[RiffRandell]

235. Although I was saddled with much cricticism at my original post time

on the SI cover, I believe I hit the trifecta.

[opiate69]

245. DUzy!

The whole subthread, really lol

[kwassa]

24. Worse! Bridled Objectification!

Will It Ever End?

[Jenoch]

26. When I was 18 to 23 years old I was built like that.

I surely wish I would have taken better care of my body.

[Prophet 451]

43. Get in line

Back then, I was competing or performing several times a week and looked a lot like that but with more muscle. Now, I'm 150lb overweight and my joints have deteriorated so much, I can barely more and have to walk with crutches.

[Aerows]

27. Oh for heaven's sake

People like to look at people that have great bodies, that's why we have statues that are thousands of years old.

Healthy, fine bodies are always going to be a subject of interest. It is fleeting, yes, because most can only remain that fit for maybe 30 years (meaning about 18 to 48), but let's be honest - a fit, and toned physique male or female is going to want to be looked at.

I have to wonder if some of this is "Well I'm 60 now and mad that I don't look that good" or even moreso "I'm 60 now, and I didn't look that good at 20". I'm sure you were awesome at something else than having a great physique, so don't panic that you didn't get that opportunity. All of us are awesome at something, and we all like to admire mental feats, physical feats, emotional feats and spiritual feats.

Getting in a twit because somebody has physical prowess is silly. Look at Oscar Pistorius, that has physical prowess despite having a disability, but then killed a woman.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I'll take 2, please.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. how sweet, going to share with Lover Boy, I take it. Generous Soul.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

138. What can I say? I'm a giver.

[taught_me_patience]

35. Cristiano Ronaldo is a really beautiful man

and I'm a completely straight hetero male. He can really ball out on the soccer field too...

[Prophet 451]

44. Yum, I'l have both please! n/t

[merrily]

52. Good thing you posted the objectifying photo, then. And the false equivalency.

It would have been a lot easier just to admit you don't get it.

[Orrex]

70. You're right. It's completely different.

The women on the SI cover were wearing bikini bottoms, but this poor devil is totally starko.

[merrily]

202. As I just, just saying you don't get it would be so much easier.

Then again, you'd have to first get that you don't get it. I'm not optimistic that you can get that far.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Difference is....this guy IS an athlete (apparently)

the female variant wasn't.....

Get the difference?

[pintobean]

72. I didn't realize that

Vogue was a sports magazine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. OH! That changes Everything....this is a FASHION magazine...

good grief this is a very pathetic attempt to turn the tables!

Fashion models are paid to be photogenic....and often near or fully naked.

Totally lame!

Athletes often become fashion models.....fashion models are rarely seen in sports competition!

[Cleita]

107. So if three topless Olympic athletes danced topless on the beach,

then it would have been fine with you?

[Why Syzygy]

56. At least he has his head.

http://christinegallagherkearney.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/trending-headless-women/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/axe-ad-headless-breasts-proves-sexism-advertising_n_1818829.html

[Warpy]

57. It's kind of refreshing to see him nekkid

and her with clothes on. It happens so seldom. I also notice neither one of them is aping a comic book female character with a porn star pose. That's refreshing, too.

It's still a silly cover on a magazine I have no use for at this stage of my life. Still, it's better than the usual run of nekkid women and fully dressed men, the women twisted into poses that will eventually require the services of a chiropractor.

[Orrex]

73. I agree except for one thing

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

His pose is the classic hands-on-hips-and-ready-for-action male posture that's been part of the comic book canon for almost 80 years.

Now, the nature of the pose is different from a female's cheesecake display, but it's still a comic book standard.

[kcr]

86. What's the standard for the ass extended outward pose? n/t

[Orrex]

89. I believe that's the Jim Lee standard

The particular style seems to have originated with Art Adams in the mid-80s, was embraced and expanded upon by Todd MacFarlane, and soon thereafter exaggerated even further by Jim Lee et al.

I found it conspicuous and annoying even as a comic-reading teenager, because I didn't want the female heroes to ass their way through the action. It was more interesting when they actually participated in the action, rather than providing eye candy.

[kcr]

90. I see

Hmmm. There's a glimmer there, in that second paragraph of yours. It's almost as if you could actually see the point some are trying to make, if you actually looked.

[Orrex]

92. The condescending tone is helpful, too.

I love it when people assume that I don't understand a claim simply because I don't uncritically embrace the entirety of that claim verbatim.

It's almost as if someone can't conceive of a differing yet still valid viewpoint, but surely such absolutism would have no place in a progressive mindset.

[kcr]

93. Hey, you posted the OP

Did someone twist your arm? I'm sorry, but I don't see how someone could claim to understand and then post the OP you did.

[Orrex]

102. "There's only one path to understanding." Got it.

Objectification isn't the black/white issue it's claimed to be.
Exploitation isn't the black/white issue it's claimed to be.
Sexualization isn't the black/white issue it's claimed to be.

Given that these are subjective matters almost wholly dependent on experience and context, it's hard to accept that anyone can claim a black/white understanding of any of them.


Can't imagine that you make a lot of allies that way.

[Why Syzygy]

139. I completely agree

Most issues are not one sided. I'm going to skip a lot of the gender rhetoric here.

I just want to say that, knowing how much you care about your children assures me that you treat their mother respectfully. Some of the claims I'm seeing at the other site pertain to women being treated special because we can have (lame ass) babies. Lame ass women getting ATTENTION for having (lame ass) babies. What a crying shame. Yes. We certainly should be persecuted for not allowing men to have babies.

[Warpy]

96. He looks like a southern road crew foreman

His hands are on his hips because he doesn't have a shovel to lean on.

[Orrex]

98. LOL

I thought that was PennDOT.

[Romulox]

101. In other words, it isn't YOUR ox being gored this time, so meh.... nt

[pinboy3niner]

61. They asked me first but I turned them down

At some point, supermodeling just seemed so shallow and empty that I gave it up, along with the mag covers.

I had more, but that's about as far as I can go without busting a gut.

[misterhighwasted]

99. Sad..now we have to settle for this guy.

hehehehe

[msanthrope]

129. How did you even type the first few words with a straight face??? nt

[pinboy3niner]

131. You must have seen photos of me

[Rex]

199. You too?

My spam box if full of offers from GQ etc.. looks like too much shaving and grooming.

[wyldwolf]

71. very provocative.

[dawg]

74. Sure, he's being objectified. Just like the women on the SI cover.

Society doesn't do this to men nearly as often as it does it to women, but it happens.

[WinkyDink]

76. Sad that he goes for the pre-pubescent look. (P.S. Look closely--it's a Spanish mag, so there's no

"we" involved, snark or otherwise.)

And anyone who's never heard of Cristiano Ronaldo.... jeepers!

[Squinch]

77. That SI cover was a long time ago. Did it take you this long (and I notice you had to go global)

to come up with a cover that could be construed to be as exploitive of a man's body?

Because, that it took a long and global search to come up with this kind of proves the point of the objections to the SI cover.

There are a number of important differences, though. First, he's not offering any particular part of his body to the viewer. The cover, really, doesn't offer him up as the SI offered it's subjects asses to the reader. Also, his nudity in this photo has some context. That being said, however, I am not sure what his nudity has to do with clothing and fashion, the topic of Vogue.

And of course he is being objectified. Are you thinking about his great sports talent or any other aspect of his personality or intelligence right now?

[seaglass]

79. Yeah, he definitely needed to be posed in a man thong with his ass to the camera. I wonder

why he wasn't posed like that. Is there something about a man displaying his ass on a mainstream publication that wouldn't sell magazines? There is something unequal about this.

[seaglass]

206. I don't know who all the people are who are against it but there is some reason why

it is not common for men to be posed partially undressed/exposed as women are in mainstream media.

I wonder what goes through the GoT show runners heads to decide it is always OK to show women naked and rarely OK to show men naked. From the few interviews I've read, the actors on the show feel there should be more male nudity - so why isn't there? When something is this obvious there is a reason.

To me it would change the dynamic entirely if there was equity in the way men and women were displayed/portrayed. This is the problem, why is it acceptable for women to be naked and not men?

It's funny that this cover is supposedly a naked guy when he is covered by a woman, in the same way she is a naked woman except covered by clothes.

[Orrex]

83. Haven't thought about the SI cover-thread for weeks, in fact

But then Facebook thrust this naked man onto my screen, and I felt a responsibility to post about it, since he and I are both victims, after all.

There are a number of important differences, though. First, he's not offering any particular part of his body to the viewer.

The women on the SI cover were smiling playfully, whereas this guy is fixing the camera with an intense, smoldering gaze.

The cover, really, doesn't offer him up as the SI offered it's subjects asses to the reader. Also, his nudity in this photo has some context.

The women on the SI cover were wearing swimsuits on a beach, so this likewise provides context. But the naked guy standing behind the clothed woman? I'd say that the context is open to interpretation there as well.

That being said, however, I am not sure what his nudity has to do with clothing and fashion, the topic of Vogue.

Thank you for that--that's basically where I was heading with this, snark notwithstanding. I appreciate your straightforwardness.

And of course he is being objectified. Are you thinking about his great sports talent or any other aspect of his personality or intelligence right now?

Actually, I'm thinking that I wish I had his abs.

[Squinch]

173. Not sure how you found snark in my post, because there was none. But let me repeat my points:

First, covers like this, with a naked man and a clothed woman, are quite rare. Actually I can't think of a single other one I have seen. We both know that magazine covers that show naked or nearly naked women are numbingly common, even when naked women have nothing to do with the subject of the magazine.

Yes, of course he is being objectified. He is on the cover because of his body. He isn't a fashion guy, and the photo says nothing about him except that he is something pretty on her arm.

I don't like that for anyone, male or female, but I see it rarely happen with men, and routinely happen with women. The rarity with which it happens to men may be why you are so sanguine about it.

If every bus you sat on, every street you walked down, every magazine you picked up included many images in which naked or nearly naked men were there for no apparent reason other than to sell product, if the main and overwhelming message that media gave to you about the value of your gender was that it is supposed to provide sexual gratification or decorativeness to the world, if you watched while boys in your life who you love absorbed the unmistakable message that titillation is really all that men are good for, I am certain you would feel differently. I am sure there are many who will find much to nudge each other about and make fun of in this statement, but if you really think about it, I am sure you will see the sadness in the truth of my point.

And though I was not snarking, you certainly were dismissing and twisting the message of those with whom you disagree when you said, "since he and I are both victims, after all."

[Orrex]

176. I was referring to the snark in my OP

And though I was not snarking, you certainly were dismissing and twisting the message of those with whom you disagree when you said, "since he and I are both victims, after all."

As to this point...

I have stated repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere that we all objectify others. The particular form of objectification will vary from person to person and situation to situation, but it's a fact. Unless you can tell me that you fully realize the individual worth and uniqueness of every person with whom you interact, then you, too, are objectifying. When you called to dispute your cellphone bill, did you take the time to learn the specific hopes and dreams of the person who answered? Or did you reduce that person to the bare minimum needed to get you through that transaction? I rather suspect the latter, and that's objectification.

You might assert that this is manifestly different, but it strikes me as a difference only in degree, and I would need someone to explain to me why I'm wrong.

Every time someone on DU mocks a Walmart customer or derides a fast food worker or dismisses a cop as a pig, that's objectification. I am not even persuaded that objectification based on sexuality is worse than any other form, and if we're talking about widespread oppression then frankly I'll assert that economic objectification is far more profound and pervasive than sex- or gender-based objectification. After all, women are 51% of the population, but the economically objectified (those treated as consumer-machines or cast aside entirely) number somewhere above 98%.

So when I poke fun at the firestorm that resulted from the SI cover, I do it knowing that each of those three models will likely earn more from that cover than I will earn in my professional lifetims. If they're being objectified and oppressed, then what the hell is being done to you and me and the rest of the 98%?

[alp227]

239. Really? Do you even know what sexual objectification IS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a "sex object". Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity. Objectification is most commonly examined at the level of a society, but can also refer to the behavior of individuals.

There is no denying that it happens all over magazines. Face it.

[alp227]

242. I read your post. Essentially you'd rather the discussion be about empathy instead.

It seems that it's critical of the tone & word choice, not ideas. Am i wrong?

[Squinch]

186. When someone mocks a Walmart customer or dismisses a cop as a pig,

there is no inference that the Walmart customer or the cop are there for the use of others. I think this is the element that most men do not understand, and here is why: women routinely run into men who are overt about their belief that women have no valid purpose except for the use of men, for men to have sex with. I am guessing you have no idea how common it is for women to run into this attitude.

The constant barrage of images of women's bodies (and almost never men's bodies) used to sell product commodifies women's bodies. It makes women a commodity. Commodities are things to be used. The constant commodification gives the clear message that women are there primarily to provide gratification. Women routinely run into men who have absorbed this message. You probably have no concept of how often that happens in an average woman's day. There is no corresponding commodification of men, or of Walmart customers or of cops, that gives a message that they are there to be used by others.

Now, there is where some idiot will chime in with, "I'd love to be used for gratification," which only shows how little the speaker understands the experience being described.

[Orrex]

190. I don't accept that it necessarily proceeeds that way.

It is asserted that violent video games lead to violent behavior. This is poorly correlated, if it correlates at all.

It is asserted that heavy metal music leads to violence and suicide. This is likewise poorly correlated, if at all.

On what basis do can we assert with confidence that sexualized imagery necessarily leads to the objectification of women? How is that claim fundamentally different from claims about video games or heavy metal?

I reject the claim that I, a fairly typical representative of the American white male, generally objectify women because of images in the media. I also don't accept that I'm special in this regard; if I can somehow distinguish a sexualized image in a shampoo commercial from an actual living woman, then I have to suspect that other males are equally capable of making that subtle distinction.

The constant barrage of images of women's bodies (and almost never men's bodies) used to sell product commodifies women's bodies. It makes women a commodity.

That's an interpretation. It might equally be claimed that the linking of a product's image with of a sexualized female image is intended to associate that product with sexiness. Why must we infer that the advertiser is seeking to reduce the woman? That's an inferential leap, with no indication that it must be the only correct conclusion.

Women routinely run into men who have absorbed this message.

How can you know this? Do you read their minds? Do you subject them to intensive psychological screening? Or do you observe their behavior and decide by fiat that it must result from what you identify as objectification of women in the media? At best, I submit that you make deductive leaps of greater or lesser validity based on what you see (just as men do, in fact).

I am very confident that some men do exactly what you describe. I am equally confident that other men do not but are perceived to do so. And I am confident that still others are assholes who would be assholes even if they'd never seen a sexy ad in a magazine.

I am guessing you have no idea how common it is for women to run into this attitude.

You are free to guess as you please. Do you accept that men commonly run into attitudes about which women have no idea?

I'm not claiming that men and women are equally oppressed. However, it seems that on DU men are routinely told what they think and what they know and what they can't know and what they can't understand.

[Squinch]

195. When sexualized imagery is as constant as it is, and when it portrays only one

sex in the vast majority of instances, it isn't that it leads to objectification, that uneven and constant representation is objectification.

This is not like saying that violent video games lead to violent behavior, it is like saying that violent video games are violent.

You say, "if I can somehow distinguish a sexualized image in a shampoo commercial from an actual living woman, then..." But that sexualized image in the shampoo commercial is an image of an ACTUAL woman. When you distinguish that sexualized image from the woman, what is it that you would call what you are doing?

You say, "Why must we infer that the advertiser is seeking to reduce the woman? " I am not inferring that the advertiser is seeking to reduce the woman. I am stating that the advertiser is seeking to sell a product. The advertiser is using the woman's body as a means to do it. The advertiser almost never uses a man's body to do so. Because a woman's body is more acceptable as a commodity in our culture.

How do I know that men have absorbed the message that women are to be used? Because they say so. Overtly. Baldly. Clearly. It really doesn't require that one psychologically screen a man to know that he has absorbed this message when he has already stated something to the effect of, "Women are only good for one thing."

You say, "on DU men are routinely told what they think and what they know and what they can't know and what they can't understand." I am sorry if it offends you, but there are things that men do not experience that women do. Just as there are things that men experience that women don't. I know how it feels to be a woman who lives in a culture that routinely uses women's bodies, and almost never men's, to sell shit. I know what it is like to run into those guys, on a regular basis, who make it clear that they think that women are only good for one thing. And you don't. I think men on DU are routinely told that there are things they can't know simply because they don't seem to want to believe that completely obvious point.

[Orrex]

196. Fiction =/= reality

This is not like saying that violent video games lead to violent behavior, it is like saying that violent video games are violent.

But they're fictional violence rather than real violence, and anyone with a minimally healthy mental state can recognize this. Why is objectification of other fictionalized imagery (i.e., advertisements) equated to real objectification of actual women? What justifies this leap?

You say, "if I can somehow distinguish a sexualized image in a shampoo commercial from an actual living woman, then..." But that sexualized image in the shampoo commercial is an image of an ACTUAL woman. When you distinguish that sexualized image from the woman, what is it that you would call what you are doing?

Clearly I am distinguishing a fictionalized representation from an actual person. How on earth do you experience media imagery? Do you believe that Sigourney Weaver actually is Lieutenant Ripley? Or do you manage to separate the portrayal from the person?

And if you are able to make that distinction, why do you assume that men can not?

the advertiser is seeking to sell a product. The advertiser is using the woman's body as a means to do it. The advertiser almost never uses a man's body to do so. Because a woman's body is more acceptable as a commodity in our culture.

That is indeed one interpretation. At least two other interpretations are equally justified:

1. Advertisers perceive that men respond less positively to ads featuring men than women respond to ads featuring women. Therefore, women are chosen to appear in ads because both men and women are likely to have a more positive reaction, thereby improving the outcome of the ad.

2. Advertisers recognize that women make the majority of purchasing decisions for the home, so ads present women as a "kindred spirit" for the likely target audience of those ads. This is also consistent with #1 above.

Why is your assessment automatically more valid than either of those?

I know how it feels to be a woman who lives in a culture that routinely uses women's bodies, and almost never men's, to sell shit.

What about women who don't feel that way? Are they not women? Are their experiences less valid than yours? Why does your interpretation trump theirs?

I know what it is like to run into those guys, on a regular basis, who make it clear that they think that women are only good for one thing. And you don't.

How do they make this clear? Do they say it? In what contexts? In what settings? I ask because I have never known a man who truly thinks "that women are only good for one thing," and believe me I've known some assholes. I'm curious as to the context that affords you this insight, beyond the scope of the particular brief interaction that you have with these men. And, if you're drawing a conclusion about their character as a whole from that brief interaction, how is that not the same as equating a woman to a non-representative image of her?

I would ask that--for the moment--we exclude such online idiocy as gaming forums where grotesque sexism is clearly articulated and unambiguous, because I don't think that's representative of the larger issue. I am happy to have that discussion--and we likely be enjoy overwhelming agreement--but it strikes me as tangential to the point we're exploring here.

I think men on DU are routinely told that there are things they can't know simply because they don't seem to want to believe that completely obvious point.

I certainly don't dispute that you perceive objectification as you've described; I'm simply asserting that your perception isn't paramount, nor is it as self-evidently true as you are arguing it to be.

[Squinch]

200. You say, "what about women who don't feel that way."

I'll say, "What about women who DO? Why does YOUR interpretation, Orrex, trump theirs?" African Americans have experiences that I don't have. I don't use Ben Carson's or Allen West's arguments to tell them they are wrong in their interpretation of their experiences. And I don't tell them that their experiences are invalid because Ben Carson doesn't agree with them. I am not qualified to say to an African American person, "No, you're wrong when you tell me that you experienced that." I have the good sense not to be offended by the idea that they are better interpreters of their experiences than I am.

You say that you have never experienced a man saying that women are only good for one thing. Well good for you. This simply proves my point. It's like me saying, "I've never experienced scrotum pain so I'm just going to conclude that it doesn't exist." And in saying "You need to specify how, when, where," and assuming that I am drawing conclusions from brief interactions, you are revealing your opinion that my experiences cannot possibly be valid because you don't share them.

I am not referring to gaming forums and your fights of fancy about why the advertising industry puts lots of naked women and few naked men in ads don't bear any resemblance to any of the research I have ever seen.

I had thought there might actually be a discussion to be had here, but your argument seems to pretty much boil down to, "Your experiences probably never really happened, so your conclusions can't possibly be as good as mine. Also, the unending and ubiquitous use of women's bodies - and almost never men's bodies - to sell shit has nothing to do with commodification of women. Because it doesn't."

Which is all drivel, of course, but I am sure you will disagree. Have fun with that.

[Orrex]

204. Here's what it is. Here's what it always is:

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 07:49 AM - Edit history (3)

You're saying that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, and anyone who doesn't accept it completely and unquestioningly is in league with Republicans. You dismiss as "flights of fancy" reasonable alternative viewpoints, which I suspect you will now further dismiss as "unreasonable." If you were a man, I would rightly call that mansplaining.

I believe that you haven't experienced scrotum pain. I do not believe that you have met many men for whom women truly are "only good for one thing." I believe that you think you have, but if I made a similarly absolutist statement about how women think, I don't believe you would let the statement stand unchallenged. Instead, you would likely continue to insist that your view is correct and that all views differing from yours are therefore inherently wrong.

You are saying, as you always say, that alternative interpretations are impossible because yours is and must be right, and you condecescendingly dismiss the possibility of discussion because your opinion isn't swallowed whole. You say, as you always say, that you want discussion, when in fact you want people to say "I agree of course."

Will you accept my statement telling you how you think, or will you challenge it?

Have fun with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

205. Where and what contexts have you experienced that in?

You said you regularly run across men who are overt in their belief that women are only good for one thing. Orrex asked you where and in what context that happens, and I'd like to know as well. In real life I've never heard any man say anything like that, so I'm curious what sort of circles yr moving in. It's just that yr saying that as a woman, you can speak about women's experiences, while Orrex as a man can't have an opinion. Okay, let's run with that. I'm a woman, and I haven't had any sort of experience like that. So, whose experience is the valid one? Maybe they both are?

[Squinch]

232. Violet, your post is very welcomed. Your question, "So whose experience

is the valid one? Maybe both are?" is the first acknowledgment in this sub-thread that my experiences have actually happened, are not figments of my imagination, and might actually be valid.

I have no problem with the idea that your experiences are valid. I have made no statements to indicate that they are not valid, and I would not. I am simply insisting on the validity of my experiences. Acknowledging both is not a problem for me.

I will describe in general terms where I have observed this kind of thing if you like, but please be aware that this argument with Orrex began as a discussion of the fact that the vast majority of naked or nearly naked images in our media are images of women, and the vast majority of those are used to sell stuff. My contention is that this inequality in itself constitutes objectification of women, and commodifies women in a way that men in our culture are not commodified.

I find this a much more interesting topic, and would like to hear your opinions of it. But if you feel we must compare our relative experiences of creepy assholes, I am willing to describe in general terms where I have run into them.

Though, as I have said, that line of discussion is less interesting to me, I am willing to engage in it with you because it would be a comparison of our experiences of this. It would not be someone who cannot experience any version of this telling me how wrong I am about my experiences.

[intaglio]

78. Yup he is - so is she

Your point is what?

Because guys are made objects of lust, gals can be used in the same way?

Or is it that this poor little multi-millionaire will suffer exploitation as so many models do? or that men will be whistled over and comments made about their 6 pack?

Sheeesh - take your bland, fake talking points elsewhere

[Orrex]

97. Ah yes. The old "shut up" refutation. Classy!

Or is it that this poor little multi-millionaire will suffer exploitation as so many models do?

Kate Upton has a net worth somewhere north of $3 million, so you're saying that she won't suffer exploitation? Thanks for clarifying!

or that men will be whistled over and comments made about their 6 pack?

They certainly are, and they're readily derided for flaws in their appearance, too. Do you believe that this is not the case?

[intaglio]

113. Yup and she is an exception - but you would be blissfully unaware of that

In your world exploitation of women doesn't occur.

So as to my main points that
1) he is being objectified and
2) does that fact in anyway excuse the exploitation of women?

Oh ... I forgot women are not objectified because a very few men are - silly me

[Orrex]

117. I'd love to be able to pick people's arguments for them, as you do.

In your world exploitation of women doesn't occur.

That statement is objectively false, so either you're lying or you're preposterously ill-informed.

Which is it?

So as to my main points that
1) he is being objectified and
2) does that fact in anyway excuse the exploitation of women?

1. Yes, obviously he is.
2. No, obviously it does not, nor have I claimed that it does.

Oh ... I forgot women are not objectified because a very few men are - silly me

Since I have never made that claim, I don't know why you're attributing it to me.

[intaglio]

118. So why post this ridiculous OP

Oh, yes men are oppressed, of course ...

[Orrex]

121. Why do you presume to tell people what they think?

Last edited Tue Oct 11, 2022, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Oh, yes men are oppressed, of course ...

Since that isn't my point, why do you attribute it to me? Would you be comfortable with a man telling a woman what she thinks?

As posted previously:
1. Objectification is not the black/white issue that it's claimed to be.
1. Exploitation is not the black/white issue that it's claimed to be.
1. Sexualization is not the black/white issue that it's claimed to be.

Although you yourself clearly don't hold this view, there are those who feel that objectification is or must be predominantly sexual and/or that men are seldom exploited or objectified. Perhaps the OP seems ridiculous to you because you yourself don't hold those ridiculous views.

Therefore, the OP (which you call ridiculous) is addressed to those who do.

[intaglio]

152. Ah, the MRAs who insist that men are objectified and oppressed

These poor little mites. Do you think they feel that women shouldn't complain because they don't or that their suffering is so great that they are entitled to make moan?

[Orrex]

154. I have made no claims about MRAs

Do you think they feel that women shouldn't complain because they don't or that their suffering is so great that they are entitled to make moan?

You are asking me to speculate about the feelings of a group of which am not a member. I don't know what MRAs feel, so I can't answer. Why don't you ask them?

[pintobean]

157. MRA is the claim when they've got nothing.

Find some extremist bullshit on the internet and start associating it with people you disagree with. It's as lame as it gets, but they think it works. I just don't see how they can think DUers are that stupid, but apparently they do.

[Cleita]

150. Oh, not to worry. 99% of us will never be asked to pose naked on the cover of

a fashion or sports magazine. We have a better chance of being being hit by a rock from Mars. The best chance we have of making the cover of a magazine is getting our mug shot on the cover of 'Busted' if we run afoul of the law.

Do not open the link if you find cartoon breasts offensive.

http://bustedmagazine.weebly.com/

[Why Syzygy]

80. Men objectify

athletes all day long. Example. Michael Vick. Who cares if he is a brutal animal abuser. He can play sports!

[ProfessorGAC]

94. Not Sure That's True

There are still folks who loathe him that are big sports fans. I'm one of them, and i'm not alone.

In this case, since he did his time, i'm willing to give him his second chance at life like anybody else who gets convicted and changes their behavior accordingly. Doesn't mean i support HIM. I just support his right to get on with his life now that he's paid the price.
GAC

[Why Syzygy]

140. I can buy that

I'm not sure he would have the same opportunity if he were, say, a teacher. But who knows.

The point remains, I think, that part of the sports experience for men is about objectifying other men.

[sufrommich]

82. You guys aren't getting enough bites over at Discussionist?

[Orrex]

84. Who are you talking to?

I haven't spent even 30 seconds over there.

[underpants]

87. My wife's not so secret crush

Texting her now

[Ohio Joe]

91. Racists, creationists, teabaggers and MRA's...

Can it be a coincidence that they all use bad arguments to justify their particular brand of hate?

Racist: 'BUT I SWEAR THIS IS REVERSE RACISM!!1!'

Creationist: 'I DON'T CARE IF IT FITS THE FACTS OR REALITY!!1!'

Teabagger: 'BUT MY FREEDUMBS11!1'

MRA: 'All good stuff... I can use a bit of all of this'

Being out and proud about ones hate is ok these days.... I don't know why we allow it.

[msanthrope]

137. Which do you think Orrex is? A racist, creationist, teabagger, or MRA? nt

[Ohio Joe]

151. which do you think?

[msanthrope]

155. I'm asking you, since you brought it up. I'll be happy to share my opinion of Orrex after you tell

us which of the four he represents.

[Ohio Joe]

158. ahhh .. you are looking for alert fodder

I think you are out of luck here.

[msanthrope]

161. No--I'm looking for you to define what your post meant. nt

[Major Nikon]

163. I'm pretty sure it was meant as a hit and run

[Ohio Joe]

171. A hit and run... Where I respond... Several times... Over a few hours...

I expect you just have another meaning for hit and run then everyone else.

Not rising to a demand that I say something a jury would hide is not running away.... But of course, you knew that

[Major Nikon]

197. All the name calling with none of the risk, eh?

Very clever and brave.

[Ohio Joe]

207. Brave... You mean like when an MRA tries to troll people into getting angry?

Like that?

Poor, poor oppressed white men... So brave they way they soldier on in the face of oppression...

[Major Nikon]

227. I would never call you a troll or a MRA

But if the shoe fits...

[Ohio Joe]

229. heh... where is this being brave you spoke of?

Too funny

[Major Nikon]

233. You were brave?

Links or it didn't happen.

[Orrex]

164. Whoa--the pressure's on!

[Ohio Joe]

174. pfffftt.... Bwahahahahahahaha...

heh... We have very different ideas on what pressure is... Too funny

[misterhighwasted]

95. well I say..mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm & I wish that irrelevant person in the sheet

would move out of the pic.

Is it warm in here? maybe its just me

[Romulox]

100. Apparently, we're going with "but that's DIFFERENT!!!1!!!!!" with no followup or explanation. nt

[Squinch]

191. I think you might have missed all the posts that said, "Yes, it's exactly the same kind

of exploitation."

[Romulox]

213. I don't see ANY of the "social justice" brigade throwing a fit, so I'm calling hypocrisy. nt

[Squinch]

221. That's nice, dear.

[Orrex]

222. Credit where due

Although Squinch and I have agreed on very little in this thread, she has indeed stated explictly that it's wrong to exploit the man in this way.

[Romulox]

223. That poster honestly isn't who I had in mind. I doubt the sincerity of others on this issue. nt

[Orrex]

224. Fair enough (eom)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

104. Ditto with your 'Granted' sentence.

If I were in that sort of shape, I'd be dressed in as little as possible all the time too. What is he? Vaguely looks like a swimmer, but swimmers don't usually make mag covers. Soccer maybe?

[Cleita]

111. Futbol (soccer) I believe. eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

168. Correct.

It's Cristiano Ronaldo, who plays for Real Madrid in Spain's top-flight league (La Liga) and for the Portuguese national team. He's generally considered to be one of the two or three best strikers in the world.

And pretty damn easy on the eyes, I have to say!

[Cleita]

170. Oh, very easy on the eyes.

There's a young man at my gym who is as handsome and dark as him. I have a hard time keeping my eyes off of him, he's so cute, but I can't come across as a lecherous old lady can I?

[libdem4life]

130. He's European, this is in Spain and she's had an "objectifying" boob job.

Nice manicure he has, too.

Objectifying infers being taken advantage of just for "fill in the blank" and with Ronaldo, that could not be further from the truth. He is better in futbol and wealthier than god. These folk regularly go to nude beaches, too. Besides you can't see his you-know-what or her nipples, so there.

Better take another couple of looks just to make sure, however. LOL.

[Cleita]

172. I wonder if the bank felt objectified, when those two took their big fat checks there for

doing this shoot. I doubt if they did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

134. They don't look at the pictures...they buy it for the articles.

You know, like Playboy.

[whistler162]

182. Thought you meant this one.......

[Maedhros]

184. If this post is meant to somehow imply that concern over the objectification of women

in our society and media is invalid, because men are also occasionally objectified, then it has to be considered a failed attempt.

Photos, out of cultural context, don't tell the whole story.

[Orrex]

185. Nope.

I'm implying nothing. I'm stating outright that we are all objectified and we all objectify.

[Maedhros]

189. I would have a hard time believing that men are as objectified as women,

at least in the way you imply.

I still call "fail."

[Orrex]

192. Objectification takes many forms

In the aggregate, I'd say that we're all objectified to about the same degree.

I still call "fail."

Swell.

[Eleanors38]

188. What's he got that I ain't got?

show off.

[Lunacee_2013]

193. Well, if both genders are being equally objectified now,

I guess I'll reply in the same fashion some other people do when it's a naked lady on the cover.

The woman in the dress should move a little more to (my) right.

Just kidding, just kidding!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

194. I don't get to see them very often!

It's nice to see a nude man - even if it 'half a one'

[Rex]

198. I see what you did there!

Flipped it around on the guys! You are going places! That's four red crayon check marks...very impressive.

[Cleita]

201. There are half naked young, handsome men in women's fashion

magazines all the time, especially the glossy high fashioned ones. Pick one up sometime and see for yourself.

[Romulox]

217. Different. Different. DIFFERENT!!!1!1!!!. (You are also "anti-intellectual" for noticing.) nt

[Rex]

238. It IS different, now for my amazing reason as to why...

because.

[treestar]

287. It is different. Those magazines are trying to sell fashion

any men in them are not there to be ogled. They are part of a fashion spread.

Men who are objectified for women to sexually ogle might be found somewhere. Problem is OP didn't find one.

The only place I've seen them objectified might have been Playgirl magazine or the soap operas. To get acting jobs on those men have to be handsome and work out enough for their muscles to be defined.

[pintobean]

289. What fashion is the nude man

in the OP promoting? There's no profit for the industry in nudity. He's there as eye candy.

[treestar]

290. Heck, I don't know

But he's on the front of a fashion magazine. The woman's towel? They are looking upscale, as promotion to the upscale clothing touted inside. It's an atmosphere of upper class artsiness. To get you in the mood for more such photos and the type of clothing worn in those environments.

Most of the photos inside are of women wearing those fashions. In similar atmosphere's. With a lot of effort going into the presentation, to make it look appealing to women who are interested in fashion.

He's not there to make straight women ogle him sexually. As some posts below show, she needs to move from in front of him for us to do that! We don't even see his six pack. If he were there for us to leer at, she would not be there - he could well have pants on - but we'd have to be able to see his muscles to judge his body.

I have seen it done - talk of men who appear shirtless in soap operas will get some internet comments of women ogling. So it is possible. Not an equal opportunity thing yet, though. OP would have been better off finding some of that in the effort to claim we do as much ogling as they do and that it is accepted and that there are men whose bodies are exploited for it.

[Rex]

237. Four red crayon check marks is very impressive for a DUer.

Most only have 2 check marks in blue crayon.

[NCTraveler]

211. Funny that a certain group didn't post this op....

yet are mentioned multiple times for their outrage. Blatant anti-intellectual shit stirring.

[Romulox]

214. They've DOMINATED this board with whining about THIS VERY issue. Now radio silence? nt

[NCTraveler]

215. This anti-intellectual shit stirring op is proof that they alone do not.....

"DOMINATE" this board with whining about this very issue. Did you even look at the ops whining before posting something misleading. Who's op is this?

[Romulox]

216. "Anti-intellectual"? Um, no. Just a functional memory of last week. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

218. Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious to the deliberately obtuse.

I appreciate it.

[R B Garr]

225. +1. And as usual, they are in a race to the bottom. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

228. what makes it even more ironically hilarious is the post below this one.

I swear the shit just writes itself into some parody of sad, sad, sick humor.

[R B Garr]

236. I noticed that, too.

Who knew that writing about wearing a swimsuit makes one intelligent. Truly laughable stuff.

[Cleita]

220. Seems they have been replaced by dumb and dumber. n/t

[pintobean]

231. No, no

The "intellectual" trump card has been played. Game over.

[mwrguy]

226. That woman needs to move out of the way

She's blocking my view.

[LaurenG]

230. I'd like to have her move 6 inches to her left

I need to scientifically and objectively look this over to see if you are right.

[LaurenG]

247. Nice one

:highfive:

[Orrex]

251. Only five?

That sounds even less optimistic.

[LaurenG]

257. Just trying to be realistic.

[RiffRandell]

234. I just noticed this thread today after returning home

from the grocery store and admiring Emma Stone on the cover of American Vogue and Angelina Jolie on the cover of Elle in the checkout line.

The pose looks fine to me, but I don't freak out over magazines covers. I just cause them.

[wickerwoman]

270. ... with a sexy woman draped over him like a scarf

because that's exactly the same as taking female sports figures, putting them in bikinis and posing them with their asses in the air ready to be fucked.

This picture tells boys "Train your asses off and one day you'll get a hot chick like this one."

Whereas the SI swimsuit cover tells girls "Train your asses off and one day you'll be hot enough for men to want to jerk off over your picture."

Find me a legit picture of a female sports star in a power pose with men literally hanging off of her adoringly and we can talk.

Something like this:



or this:



or this:

?6

are the equivalent of this:



not the cover you posted.

[alphafemale]

282. I just think it is a stunning photo of two gorgeous people.

Beauty like this was the reason people once carved a likeness into marble.

We have this thing called photography now.

[Blue_Tires]

291. Diego Simeone and Athletico are about to undress and expose C.Ronaldo completely later today

in case anyone was interested

[In_The_Wind]

292. Oh my

[img][/img]