Content, People!
There was an opinon piece in the Oregon Daily Emerald a couple of days ago that really burned my biscuits. At first, I thought this girl was just naieve, but then I realized that I've heard her view more than I care to think about. I shant keep you in suspense any longer...
She wrote about womens-rights group on campus protesting the depictions of women in such fine publications as Playboy. Basically, she argued that if the women know what they're doing, it should be viewed as an artistic expression of their hot bodies. Moreover, she claimed that the magazines themselves don't objectify the women, it's the men (and women) who read them that make the women objects (if you haven't already ripped this apart logically, I'll do so in just a moment. Promise). Then, she proceeded to qestion such works of art as the Sistine Chapel, which have depictions of naken women, and why the heck-fire aren't people throwing a fit over those naked ladies? Her summation was that if the women want to pose, its their decision and (somehow) bolstering the image of women.
HOW CAN PEOPLE POSSIBLY THINK THIS?!?! Here I go...
I'll start with her logically unsound argument that the women aren't objects that people make them objects, blah blah. If this were actually true, the women posing in Playboy could be seen as artistic representations of the female form, RIGHT? Well, I have a really, REALLY hard time swallowing that when I open the mag and see a girl with a see-through baby doll dress and her legs splayed this way and that. If the "art" was supposed to not make an object of women, why are they always portrayed with that "commere baby" look in their eye and posing in sexually suggestive positions? By saying these pictures don't make them an object is to deny what entails a sexual object. No duh bitch, it doesn't turn them into a friggin' tomato. The women are already objectified BEFORE the overweight 47-year-old gets his grubby hands on the mag. They are, BEFORE this point, wankin' material, waiting to be wanked to. Moreover, it degrades a woman to be represented "artistically" in a magazine that also has "how to" sex columns, dick enhancement creams ("rub it on and your penis grows!") and advertisements for escort services. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of pop art pieces which could really play with this notion. But creating art for the purpose of intellectual conversation and creating "art" to wank-off too are completely different. And don't try to refute that, because if you do you're Satan.
Second point... SISTINE CHAPEL?!?! What the FUCK?!?! Here's where intent comes into play. Like I said before, Playboy is created for the purpose of wanking off. Okay, fine. Maybe some of you read the articles, but you're still supporting the sex machine. Why not read articles in the Smithsonian? There's naked women in there. Or perhaps National Geographic? That's what I thought. Sorry, back to my point. Michelangelo created the Sistine chapel for the purpose of divine worship. He created a work that tells a story and the naked people have a part in the story. "But Patrick!", you say, "There's stories with naked people in Playboy! Why, it's stories about plumbers and police women! Stories with pictures and people being naked!", you exclaim. "Ah, true", I say, "but those pictures always cumulate (heh heh, cumulate) in the women on all fours, with the man, uh, well you know." That being said, the pictures of naked women in the Sistine Chapel are to please God. Even if you're not a religious person, it is rediculous to try and argue that Michelangelo painted this masterpeice for the purpose of objectifying women. You know what? Nevermind. I TOTALLY forgot about the part of the Sistine Chapel, right near the front if I'm not mistaken, that shows Mary Magdalene bent over a sofa with her voluptous breasts hanging in full view, licking a cherry and smiling a sly sexy smile. Oh yeah, that part.
Playboy objectifies women. If you believe otherwise, you totally suck.
ADDENDUM: After reading Ben's piece on this subject, I have a completely different view on this subject. You should read it too, lest you wish to become a sucky agent of the devil.
She wrote about womens-rights group on campus protesting the depictions of women in such fine publications as Playboy. Basically, she argued that if the women know what they're doing, it should be viewed as an artistic expression of their hot bodies. Moreover, she claimed that the magazines themselves don't objectify the women, it's the men (and women) who read them that make the women objects (if you haven't already ripped this apart logically, I'll do so in just a moment. Promise). Then, she proceeded to qestion such works of art as the Sistine Chapel, which have depictions of naken women, and why the heck-fire aren't people throwing a fit over those naked ladies? Her summation was that if the women want to pose, its their decision and (somehow) bolstering the image of women.
HOW CAN PEOPLE POSSIBLY THINK THIS?!?! Here I go...
I'll start with her logically unsound argument that the women aren't objects that people make them objects, blah blah. If this were actually true, the women posing in Playboy could be seen as artistic representations of the female form, RIGHT? Well, I have a really, REALLY hard time swallowing that when I open the mag and see a girl with a see-through baby doll dress and her legs splayed this way and that. If the "art" was supposed to not make an object of women, why are they always portrayed with that "commere baby" look in their eye and posing in sexually suggestive positions? By saying these pictures don't make them an object is to deny what entails a sexual object. No duh bitch, it doesn't turn them into a friggin' tomato. The women are already objectified BEFORE the overweight 47-year-old gets his grubby hands on the mag. They are, BEFORE this point, wankin' material, waiting to be wanked to. Moreover, it degrades a woman to be represented "artistically" in a magazine that also has "how to" sex columns, dick enhancement creams ("rub it on and your penis grows!") and advertisements for escort services. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of pop art pieces which could really play with this notion. But creating art for the purpose of intellectual conversation and creating "art" to wank-off too are completely different. And don't try to refute that, because if you do you're Satan.
Second point... SISTINE CHAPEL?!?! What the FUCK?!?! Here's where intent comes into play. Like I said before, Playboy is created for the purpose of wanking off. Okay, fine. Maybe some of you read the articles, but you're still supporting the sex machine. Why not read articles in the Smithsonian? There's naked women in there. Or perhaps National Geographic? That's what I thought. Sorry, back to my point. Michelangelo created the Sistine chapel for the purpose of divine worship. He created a work that tells a story and the naked people have a part in the story. "But Patrick!", you say, "There's stories with naked people in Playboy! Why, it's stories about plumbers and police women! Stories with pictures and people being naked!", you exclaim. "Ah, true", I say, "but those pictures always cumulate (heh heh, cumulate) in the women on all fours, with the man, uh, well you know." That being said, the pictures of naked women in the Sistine Chapel are to please God. Even if you're not a religious person, it is rediculous to try and argue that Michelangelo painted this masterpeice for the purpose of objectifying women. You know what? Nevermind. I TOTALLY forgot about the part of the Sistine Chapel, right near the front if I'm not mistaken, that shows Mary Magdalene bent over a sofa with her voluptous breasts hanging in full view, licking a cherry and smiling a sly sexy smile. Oh yeah, that part.
Playboy objectifies women. If you believe otherwise, you totally suck.
ADDENDUM: After reading Ben's piece on this subject, I have a completely different view on this subject. You should read it too, lest you wish to become a sucky agent of the devil.
posted by Infused Confusion at
11:53 AM
9 Comments:
I totally agree with you about all of this, but it brought a new, separate idea to mind...do you think the Mona Lisa is smiling because she's a porn star? That would explain a lot. Wouldn't art historians blush if they found that to be true.
By
Sara, At
4:09 PM
There is another aspect of porn that is overlooked- the effect on the men that read it. If there is a 16 year old guy that is looking at a playboy, that woman is turning into his idea of what women should be. Smiling, naked, willing. They don't talk, think, or feel. They are ready whenever you want them. I think this can lead to severe distortions in one's mind of what to expect from women. If you start looking at porn at a young age, your perception of women is slowly skewed and distorted. Your spead-legged babe isn't going to tell you no, real girls won't tell you no either. She is there for your enjoyment, and I may be wrong but if you approach a real woman, an imperfect woman (of which even those playboy models are, because obviously nobody is perfect, but computer editing makes you believe otherwise) with that attitude, you are going to be rejected so quick your little chaffed pecker will spin. Bottom line: porn will mess with your mind. It will lead you to believe that the perfect woman is a 34DD 105 pound pop tart. I beg to differ.
By
cmo, At
4:20 PM
Chris, awesome point. Sara, LOL! Actually, they recently discovered that she wasn't necessarily a porn "star", more of a porn "enthusiast". She was watching Back Door Sluts IX when the portrait was being painted.
By
Infused Confusion, At
8:20 AM
If she were alive today, I bet she would get all kins of emails about "back door sluts" and "naughty housewives meet babysitters" etc. You sign up for one free porn site...
By
Sara, At
10:21 AM
And Chris, good good point. I hate the model of perfection that people hold as the standard for beauty. It comes from other places too, though, like TV, magazines, movies, etc. It's a nasty social disease to (1)Show women something that they "should" be, although most cannot, and (2)To show men something that they "should" be able to have, which is also impossible. We are mentally fucking ourselves up, which will only lead to us getting further and further from that ideal, depending on how many doughnuts you eat to combat the depression :-)
By
Sara, At
10:23 AM
I'm composing a lengthy responce to all of this... but's so lengthy that I'm posting it on my blog instead. I started it on Saturday, but I got busy on Sunday and didn't have time on Monday. Hopefully I'll finish it tonight (Tuesday). Anyway, I'll be both Satan and I'll suck.
By
Ben A. Johnson, At
11:14 PM
http://benajohnson.blogspot.com/2005/05/on-pornography.html
I still love you though. :)
By
Ben A. Johnson, At
6:05 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Ben A. Johnson, At
6:08 PM
Read Ben's post!!! It's an unbelievably sound argument.
By
Infused Confusion, At
1:26 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home