Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI? [View all]Orrex
(63,086 posts)71. Lots to unpack there.
Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 02:44 PM - Edit history (2)
The promotion of the idea that women are for sex and/or male entertainment has negative consequences for women.
If the claim were that women are only for sex and/or male entertainment, then I would agree. However, I have literally never met a man who expressed that view. Even the men who were famously caught cat-calling Shoshana Roberts 108 times almost certainly don't think of women only for sex and/or for male entertainment. Rather, they likely think that it's acceptable to treat some women that way at some times in some contexts.
But even that's not the pure evil that we might suppose it to be. Every time you interact with someone without regarding that person as a distinct individual with unique thoughts and feelings, you are objectifying that person to some degree or another. Did you cut someone off in traffic? You objectified them. Were you rude to a customer service representative? You objectified them. Did you allow your gaze to linger admiringly upon some anonymous person in a crowd? You objectified them.
Let her or him who has truly never objectified anyone cast the first aspersion.
Further, the idea that woman can also be for sex and/or for male entertainment if the women choose to be seems both entirely reasonable and entirely consistent with my experience.
Few mainstream, grocery store magazines blatantly exist to promote that idea alone.
I would submit that no grocery store magazines promote that idea alone, especially not Maxim or Sports Illustrated. On the other hand, Cosmopolitian has worked that angle for decades, with its super-sexy models and several articles about "how to drive him wild in bed" featured on every month's cover right there in the checkout line. It was a great day when I was grocery shopping with my six-year-old and I suddenly found myself having to explain what "how to give him amazing orgasms" means.
Those that do, will not be viewed favorably by men and women who do not believe that the idea that women are for sex/male entertainment should be promoted.
Maybe, but such people are probably fewer in number than you think. Pornography rakes in over $55 billion annually, more than 2X the box office totals of the top ten mainstream films of all time, even adjusting for inflation. And that's every year! What are we to make of this?
I recognize that certain women and men will continue to try to uphold the tradition of women being viewed primarily as sex/entertainment for men.
Well, you recognize it, but what then? What do you suppose can be done to rein in that $55 billion industry? Either a tiny handful of people will each continue to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of porn annually, or else a very large number of people will continue to uphold the tradition that sexuality can be expressed and enjoyed in many different ways, even if other people find those ways objectionable.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
133 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI? [View all]
TerrapinFlyer
Jun 2015
OP
I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone choosing to display their body on a magazine cover
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#1
so you're not sure what the difference is between Caitlyn Jenner's magazine cover
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#37
Referring SI as a T&A magazine shows your ignorance in advertising and marketing
TerrapinFlyer
Jun 2015
#116
Some people got really mad about Laverne Cox posing nearly nude for Allure, too.
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#10
My point is, if Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, or anyone else chooses to take some or all of their
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#85
what is difficult is that we are talking about both aesthetic issues and political issues.
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#90
I would also like to ask you again about the context of the ancient Indian art you posted.
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#92
A lot of ancient cultures didn't have the distinction between sexuality and the sacred, that we do.
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#95
I think one of the biggest objections to the definition of "art" as it stands today
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#100
and it is ever thus. Look at the history of art and you see how this is played out.
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#103
I am fascinated by the implications of Pollack's "Full Fathom Five" and Johns "Flag".
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#107
Sure, and Magritte is getting at something pretty fundamental with that "pipe" that is not a pipe.
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#108
"How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI?"
Snobblevitch
Jun 2015
#11
Didn't the SI swimsuit model look as if she was about to rub one out?
WorseBeforeBetter
Jun 2015
#16
The big DU battle over the SI cover took place with the '14 issue IIRC
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#18
Then why did the same anti-nudity, pro-censorship people bodyshame Laverne Cox?
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#101
"I think being proud of ones' sex, sexuality, and sexiness is an unqualified good ...."
prayin4rain
Jun 2015
#105
I think as far as the '14 SI issue went, the 3 women on the beach looked pretty happy to be there.
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#106
I remember this song from the kids' CDs I used to have playing constantly
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#111
I'm reluctant to re-hash the various SI threads, but a different interpretation is possible.
Orrex
Jun 2015
#51
I can't know that is there without looking. Also, my child isn't a grown up. n/t
prayin4rain
Jun 2015
#94
One major difference between these two trios and the one on the SI issue in 2014
KitSileya
Jun 2015
#46
I know little about ancient Indian art, but is this the sacred art of the temple?
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#62
What Bernini did in sculpture with the "Rape of Persephone" is another example of what art
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#86
Duchamp's Fountain differed from Warhol's Brillo boxes and soup cans in one important way.
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#61
It is quite an interesting photo. I think Liebovitz did a fine job of displaying
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#39
I was also put in mind of old swimsuit pinup graphics. The sort that would be called "erotic"
KittyWampus
Jun 2015
#43
Do you remember the photo she did of a naked John Lennon curling up with Yoko,
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#83
It's just bait. If the OP actually wants to LEARN there are certainly enough non-dense people in
seaglass
Jun 2015
#50
people can get all deeply wrought out about a magazine cover showing 3 women smiling on a beach
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2015
#54
My comments have been limited to the question of whether the SI cover was just as much
CTyankee
Jun 2015
#65
People also seem to milk that scenario for all it's worth in order to continue validating their bias
LanternWaste
Jun 2015
#72
When Sports Illustrated does a cover of a 65 year old actual athlete in a one piece, call me.
Bluenorthwest
Jun 2015
#53
Larry Wilmore pointed out that Caitlin Jenner was the oldest woman to ever appear on the cover of VF
applegrove
Jun 2015
#130