Re: fanning the flames

[Walt Gilbert]

Not to flog this dead horse, and I'll happily leave it alone after this, 
but I do have to point out that  in your original message on the subject 
you said this:

But here's the rub: showing genitalia and breasts is sexual. It sexualizes the 
women. Even if they consent to it they are being portrayed in such a way that 
shows them as primarily sexual persons *which takes away from other aspects of 
their being*.
[Emphasis, mine.]
That struck me as the premise you were operating from, and that your 
proposed solution -- that is, more balance -- is essentially to portray 
men more frequently in ways which you see as taking away from other 
aspects of their respective beings.

But, if you don't really believe that, and what you're making a stand 
against the generalized denigration and offensive portrayals of women in 
ways that include (though, not in all cases) nudity, I don't see how 
abstaining from viewing tastefully presented images of nude women 
addresses the disparity you've resolved to combat.

Again, I completely respect the choice you've made and admire your 
willingness to stand on principle. It's just that it strikes me as a bit 
misdirected.

-- Walt

On 12/9/2013 9:35 PM, knarf wrote:
I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied.  ;-)

But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the 
underlying premise.

To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women 
and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be 
sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That 
includes but doesn't have to mean nudity.

People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are 
sexualized far more often and in different ways than men.

This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world 
go 'round.

A bit of balance would be nice, that's all...

Cheers,
frank, back to spectating - for now


Walt <ldott...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual
being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is
a
false one.

All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named
Susan
Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith
Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by
just
how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar

happened to know her name.

So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as
it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver

Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just
drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of

a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't
captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan
Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or
sexism, whatever you want to call it.

But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I
developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that

my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in
any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman
any
more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized
my
appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten.

It seems to me that in order to maintain the position that to the
portrayal of a beautiful woman's sexuality is dehumanizing, you have to

start from the premise that sex itself is necessarily degrading to
women
and renders men incapable of appreciating them in a more holistic
fashion. That may be the case for some women and some men, but I don't
think it's true of the majority of us all. And I don't see how
achieving
a greater sense of balance alleviates the perceived problem, anyway.
Instead, it seems to compound it by saying, "Look, in order to remedy
the problem of sexual dehumanization, we're going to have to dehumanize

the sexes more equitably."

-- Walt

On 12/8/2013 6:50 PM, knarf wrote:
They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings.
That's not sexist?
It's "tongue-in-cheek"?

You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because
it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many.
Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and
IT'S NOT OKAY!!!
Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I
don't want to lose friends because of this.
Have a great evening. See you on other threads.

Cheers,
frank



Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul via phone

Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less
exposure than at the beach.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and
follow the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.