General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBecause the 'Swimsuit Issue' is not an original concept…
and because I don't understand what's going on at DU.
TYY
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)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
(8,028 posts)...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
(108,978 posts)Not why SI is doing what it's always been doing.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(8,028 posts)...but I'll concede that it probably belonged in the lounge.
TYY
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(8,028 posts)TYY
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)I think I would go to a soft porn site, not a political site.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(55,894 posts)It has squat to do with nerves despite your attempt to portray those who comment as having psychological problems.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)1awake
(1,494 posts)or even why they would be to begin with but... it is no where close to soft porn.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)"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
(2,710 posts)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
(21,043 posts)But not in a mainly political site.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)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
(21,043 posts)You on board with those, or you're okay with some degradation and not other types?
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)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
(21,043 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)sexual degradation of women in this political forum.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)"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
(21,043 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)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
(29,067 posts)"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
(2,710 posts)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
(29,067 posts)because at this point, you're not even making sense.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and it triggered quite a discussion.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)That picture generated thousands of replies.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Keep trying.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)illustrations, art, photographs, all contain ideas and can be part of the discussion.
You sure do laugh a lot.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Read it again. It's really short and simple.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Read it again. It's really short and simple.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)It's a "cultural landmark" because "it is announced on lots of major news networks".
Hint: So are Justin Bieber's tiffs.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)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
(2,710 posts)but human sexuality and the sexual displays of the human animal cannot. And should not.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Try again.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)It's spelled misogyny.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and the original spelling IS "mysogyny"...Your version is simply the modernized spelling.
Keep trying.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)we can look at and talk about, and which ones we can't.
You can't.
The end.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and they are.
and we will be.
The end.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Don't you have a list to go work on?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Don't you have a remedial education class to attend?
Lost_Count
(555 posts)So no reason not to...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)sports, to politics, to anything. And they didn't/don't have 1 issue dedicated to soft porn, like Sports Illustrated does.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That concept seems impossible.
Although not all of those images are on par with the others.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)msongs
(67,405 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)question everything
(47,479 posts)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
(792 posts)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
(80,708 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(8,028 posts)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
(25,592 posts)Think of the children!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't care what year it is.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that was funny.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and magazine covers. They are beautiful! Most normal people get that.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Absolute Truth.
It's what Patriarchy does all the time.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)Somebody should post these every Sunday.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)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
(53,032 posts)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
(21,115 posts)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
(48,121 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)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
(25,699 posts)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
(546 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)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.
I cannot believe this many people are this confused by an issue that's been a mainstream topic of feminist discussions for decades.
RC
(25,592 posts)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
(53,032 posts)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
(25,592 posts)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.
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
(25,592 posts)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
(39,171 posts)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
(18,101 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Jury wasn't having any of it.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)RC WINS!
If I could recommend a hide result, I'd do so, along with 173 of my friends.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I'd suggest you take your own advice and go somewhere else.
RC
(25,592 posts)It Didn't interest me.
BTY, I was here first. You go away.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Willful ignorance rides again!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(53,032 posts)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
(62,325 posts)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
(58,162 posts)but we all have our cross to bear...
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)... complex desires/plans of their own.
Very good.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(21,043 posts)swimsuit issue?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)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
(21,043 posts)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
(29,067 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Archae
(46,327 posts)Ancient Rome had their own swimsuit issue too.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Even back then, they had beach volley ball.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I like that they filled in details like it might have been.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Is actually Nicholas Cage.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I thought you liked him so I was attempting to b courteous.what a joke on me.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's an ancient mosaic of female athletes from Sicilia--look at the lower right corner of this photograph:
MADem
(135,425 posts)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
(16,953 posts)Good times.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)but this so far get''a the prize.
R B Garr
(16,953 posts)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
(75,480 posts)I know. I'm the bad lady now because I didn't believe someone and was mean.
R B Garr
(16,953 posts)Oh well. I had to see for myself after giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I did.
the romans were as immoral as we are?
oh my god! what am i going to tell the children!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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 (286305 AD) contains one of the earliest known illustrations of a bikini.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)It rhymes with "flame bait".
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Name Plate?
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Not unless we want to redefine the parameters of rhyming.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What in the blue blazed jumpin' jehosophat HECK is going on in this picture?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Rather pricey for that era.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Ever wondered why you never hear much about the Etruscans?
Now you know.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which is pretty much the same way Alan Guth explains the big bang.
lob1
(3,820 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)the seltzer water is the least of his problems.
lob1
(3,820 posts)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
(80,708 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)unless it comes with an endless stream of lame Borscht belt jokes.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)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
(21,115 posts)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
(43,049 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because if you just wanted to objectify women.....you could find millions of places to do that!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)The 4th girl from the left, looks like Maggie Gyllenhall.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Look at those ankles.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Perhaps she, like Nic Cage, is a vampire.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Just hopefully not the Twilight kind.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)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
(43,049 posts)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
(19,926 posts)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
(21,115 posts)tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)to agree to disagree on that.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)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
(34,582 posts)women in the 40's and 50's
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...in a publication is being objectified?
TYY
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)It wasn't even a fashion photo. Just a bare butt photo.
Yes, they were being objectified.
Orrex
(63,210 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(63,210 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(63,210 posts)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?"
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(63,210 posts)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?
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
(108,978 posts)Orrex
(63,210 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(63,210 posts)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?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(63,210 posts)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
(108,978 posts)the feelings of many (if not all) women enough voluntarily not to post T &A photos in G.D.
Orrex
(63,210 posts)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
(55,894 posts)and how appropriate it is for them as a SPORTS magazine to publish soft porn.
Orrex
(63,210 posts)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
(7,143 posts)and I avoided the other pic in the spread because... nipples:
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Posted without editorial comment.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)It's quite common for posters to extend their contribution by making additional comments.
This the first time you've visited the internet?
whathehell
(29,067 posts)If you says so...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)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
(29,067 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)
and I believe the word is "want" not "wont".
pintobean
(18,101 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)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
(63,210 posts)malaise
(268,997 posts)I'll never understand it.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)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
(2,710 posts)Aw yeah!
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Cause, that's awesome.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)or else everyone will think you're of low birth.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I like his personality.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Really? I didn't read it much, but I just remember a few good sci-fi short stories.
Triana
(22,666 posts)...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
(36,464 posts)is that your point?
This site has gone into the shitter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)they didn't have the right to vote.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)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
(45,850 posts)what about the models themselves the ones that participated in this photo shoot are they victims? How do they figure into the equation?
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)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
(45,850 posts)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
(146,308 posts)whether the photo is an objectification of women. The models are anonymous, pretty much.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's really not about individuals but a question of are women promoting the objectification of women
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)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
(4,299 posts)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
(30,481 posts)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
(45,083 posts)the same.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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
(21,043 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Economics juxtaposed ... I find it interesting from that angle, too.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Same thing republicans do with all the negative posts and 'free' publicity.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...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
(8,028 posts)...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
(22,336 posts)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
(29,067 posts)Wow. Color me shocked.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)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
(17,339 posts)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
(58,162 posts)Mrdrboi
(110 posts)If a Woman wants to do that sort of thing so be it.
RC
(25,592 posts)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
(29,067 posts)rather than that of your dick privileges.
ecstatic
(32,704 posts)thucythucy
(8,050 posts)So has racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc.
Still don't appreciate having my face rubbed in it on DU.