Well said.
On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
On Nov 26, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I think the term "objectifying women" has lost its literal meaning.
In our PC world it has come to mean depicting women in a way that is
blatantly sexual. However, that being said, I find that a difficult
line to draw. Human beings are inherently sexual. Its part of the
package. I don't know what turns an artful nude into a sex object.
Props? A smile? The display of specific areas of the body?
To which I have to say, so what? I see women and men depicted in
blatantly sexual ways all the time: in advertising. The old ad
industry adage "sex sells" is in full flower. And it still works.
Does it bother me? No, not at all.
It's so hard to draw the line because there really isn't any line.
What turns an artful nude into a sex object is the mind of the
beholder. Beauty, art, pornography, and so many other things are in
the eye and mind of the beholder. The image acts only as a mirror.
People who see pornography everywhere need to look within and find the
roots of their own problems rather than trying to impose their
problems on society.
Bob
