frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:38 PM, paul stenquist <[email protected]> wrote:
Why is it sexist? I think it's mildly erotic and has sexual connotations,
but I don't find it demeaning to either sex. If a man opens his shirt and
lowers his pants a bit, is that sexist as well?
Does something have to be demeaning to be sexist? Portraying someone
as a sexual being first and a person second is sexist to me; you may
not agree.
My dictionary just says this for "sexist": ``prejudice, stereotyping, or
discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.''
That sounds pretty demeaning to me.
"Portraying someone as a sexual being first and a person second" sounds
more like objectification than sexism. And objectification is something
we do all the time, especially we photographers. We silhouette people in
images and instantly make them objects (shapes, forms). We use shots of
random individuals to stand for a general case or symbol -- objects again.
I'm not saying that I'm offended or that such photos ought not be
posted (far be it from me to be a censor!), I just find such "mild
eroticism" (as you put it) to be rather needless and somewhat tedious.
It's just not my thing, I guess.
cheers,
frank
Needless and tedious? I dunno, I think the world would be a much poorer
place without the likes of the Venus de Milo, and Rubin's, Dega's,
Renoir's and Cezannes nudes.
I suppose they could have busied themselves in more productive pursuits,
like painting soap ads.
:-)
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
