General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsanother year...another SI swimsuit edition war...predictable and sad
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the General Discussion forum).
Humans are visual creatures....we react to visual stimuli.
Sex sells.Nothing will change that fact.
There are male models out there who's purpose is to titillate females...there are female models out there who's purpose is to titillate males.....it is human nature to look and it sells.
We can debate objectification for the next 1000 years and 1000 years from now sex will still sell
Get over it and lets fight some meaningful battles
WhiteTara
(29,706 posts)bikini pants pulled half way down with her waxed non pubs showing. Yep, we're visual alright and women are just the object to view.
Sports? Where's the pic of the hunky man with his waxed non chest hairs showing and him pulling on his under pants down on his waxed non pubs? I mean men are the sports object.
And Backwoods, this is the battle. Are we as women human and due respect? Or are we just there for your viewing pleasure and therefore unworthy of respect and are just objects?
Take off your pants, maybe I'll buy some motor oil.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Look at Muhammad Ali or the millions of other athletes, both male and female, that have sacrificed their minds and bodies for the sake of entertainment. Are they "objects" as well? If the answer is yes, then I'm not sure there's much to talk about. If the answer is no, then someone is going to have to explain the whole concept in a way that makes the least bit of sense. At least swimsuit models don't have to worry about not being able to climb a flight of stairs or form a coherent thought when their career is over.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)WhiteTara
(29,706 posts)the sake of entertainment", indeed that is objectification. Maybe that is the breakdown in communication. As male, society says you get to obectify, so it might be hard to draw the line between a sexualized picture and sacrificing their minds and bodies for entertainment. To me, that is objectification. So, I guess there isn't much to argue about. We have different opinions.
OTOH to say which victim has it worse, who can say? Who knows what happens to a swimsuit model when her career is over, no one talks about her, so one might assume she is a throw away too.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Cheryl Tiegs was on the cover 45 years ago and is still working as a celebrity today. William (Refrigerator) Perry hocked his Superbowl ring and was working as a bricklayer at one time. So there's plenty of examples of successes and throw away people any way you stack it. Were some of them victimized? Perhaps, but no more so than your average McDonalds worker and arguably considerably less.
The concept of "objectification" can just as easily be applied to wage slaves. When virtually everyone is objectified, the term is basically meaningless. The only reason it gets any air time is because the concept is applied to sex, and sex sells. The guy who came up with the whole idea of applying it to sex (and yes it was a guy), thought women were being "objectified" if they had sex outside of marriage. It was the original free milk/cow line of Victorian thinking.
Exhibit A
(318 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)I have never opened a Sports Illustrated and never looked at a cover passed seeing the title. I have no interest in hyped up sports and I don't really understand what models in "swim" suits has to do with sport. Now at one time a sporting woman was a euphemism for a woman who earned her living as a prostitute. Not saying the women gracing the cover and pages of SI are that kind of sporting woman, but what is their sport that they are in a magazine dedicated to athletics, swimming?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Two months until The Masters.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)rurallib
(62,413 posts)are hard to defend as sports. Golf and bowling.
Way back in my youth when bowling was still a going thing and a place to socialize I knew several bowlers who couldn't even find the alley until they had a six pack in them.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)just picked up a burner2 driver from the shop......lightly used is the way they described it
Can't wait till spring to hit it
Logical
(22,457 posts)betsuni
(25,500 posts)featuring men chefs pulling down their aprons while seductively leering into the camera... oh, never mind. Sex sells to people with no facts in their heads. Anyone who refers to women as "females" ... oh, never mind. Predictable and sad. We can debate cluelessness for 1000 years and 1000 years from now the clueless will still be good customers of mindless advertising. Get over it and lets fight some meaningful battles like knowing the difference between "who's" and "whose."
crim son
(27,464 posts)There are people out there who'd like women to drop the whole "feminist" debate as well. Issues like equal pay, domestic abuse, maternity leave, enforced prostitution, etc. etc... they've all been done to death! Why don't we just drop it and focus on the really important stuff, like the Superbowl?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Perhaps I've missed the threads?
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Jesus.
Off to the bin you go
CrispyQ
(36,462 posts)on edit: I sure miss the unrec button.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.