Here, here!
Jack
--- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
