Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

I am familiar with that concept as: promise rings. Thanks for the explanation and video.

Edit: Maybe a soccer versus football thing (USA V. UK).

Correction; purity ring not promise ring.

 

[Depulcator]

If it gets more beautiful women to show their tits, I'm all for it.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Untill some famous black women protests weave and perm, I'll take none of these social statements seriously.
though a pretty woman going against stuff that make s them appear more pretty is kinda useless to me in a way... It's the thought that counts, I guess

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

first off, what picture of Kaley Christine Cuoco are we talking about here?

This? (Safe for work)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2741508/Kaley-Cuoco-responds-leaked-photo-scandal-cheeky-Instagram-snap.html

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Answer me this: is this "social statement" actually going to do anything? Is Keira Knightley posting an "au natural" photo of her tits on the internet going to make magazine editors stop Photoshopping pretty naked ladies to make them look even more impossibly pretty? Fuck no.

Did anyone give a shit when Madonna posted a picture of her unshaved armpits a while ago? No they did not. The world continued, society didn't shake off its standards about women and nudity, and the only thing that changed is people have a new image of Keira Knightley to work their shafts over.

Raise awareness? Gimme a fucking break. Who is Knightley really doing this for? Answer: herself. She defeats her own "message" by having to resort to showing her breasts to attract attention. Which is what she wants. To attract attention. Poor little Keira bitching about the embedded practice of the inherently sexist fashion industry's airbrushing, while no-one makes any kind of nudity-related "social statement" against FGM in Africa and the Middle East. But I doubt any of you First World ladies want to show us your vaginas "FOR FREEDOM!", do you know?

I hate egos. I hate people that I once respected selling out like this. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. I hate what feminism has become. I hate the fact that, when you label yourself a feminist, people automatically think of a misandrist caricature who complains about petty things like this and only believes they have anything worth saying because of their status. Fuck it. Fuck them. Fuck everything. Miss Knightley, stick to your fucking films and don't pretend to be some kind of activist when you don't know shit about misogyny or anything like that. Fuck off.

 

[Scow2]

I know I fully support equality in expression of male and female bodies. If a guy is allowed to show a bare chest, so should a woman. Desensitizing people to "Ooh, boobies!" will also probably go wonders toward reducing the objectification of women as well. "It's a shirtless woman" as opposed to "Ooh! Boobies!"

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

Answer me this: is this "social statement" actually going to do anything? Is Keira Knightley posting an "au natural" photo of her tits on the internet going to make magazine editors stop Photoshopping pretty naked ladies to make them look even more impossibly pretty? Fuck no.

Did anyone give a shit when Madonna posted a picture of her unshaved armpits a while ago? No they did not. The world continued, society didn't shake off its standards about women and nudity, and the only thing that changed is people have a new image of Keira Knightley to work their shafts over.

Raise awareness? Gimme a fucking break. Who is Knightley really doing this for? Answer: herself. She defeats her own "message" by having to resort to showing her breasts to attract attention. Which is what she wants. To attract attention. Poor little Keira bitching about the embedded practice of the inherently sexist fashion industry's airbrushing, while no-one makes any kind of nudity-related "social statement" against FGM in Africa and the Middle East. But I doubt any of you First World ladies want to show us your vaginas "FOR FREEDOM!", do you know?

I hate egos. I hate people that I once respected selling out like this. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. I hate what feminism has become. I hate the fact that, when you label yourself a feminist, people automatically think of a misandrist caricature who complains about petty things like this and only believes they have anything worth saying because of their status. Fuck it. Fuck them. Fuck everything. Miss Knightley, stick to your fucking films and don't pretend to be some kind of activist when you don't know shit about misogyny or anything like that. Fuck off.

Yep, no one can make someone look into the things they are commenting about. I hate it when that happens. Maybe vaginas for freedom has a chance. If only people looked into the things they were commenting on. People could tell the difference social statements and personal choice. If only people looked into the topic that they are commenting on. I do the same I have not looked into free Africa, because I am to busy commenting on this thread. Maybe, I should look into the topic that I am commenting on. I guess it is just my ego to, comment on a topic without looking into the topic. More people should look into topics before commenting on them.

There might be a theme here?

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Did anyone give a shit when Madonna posted a picture of her unshaved armpits a while ago? No they did not. The world continued, society didn't shake off its standards about women and nudity, and the only thing that changed is people have a new image of Keira Knightley to work their shafts over.

Don't be sexist. I'm sure plenty of women will have good "fun" with that image too

 

[briankoontz]

We might want to step back and realize how curious this debate is - a good percentage of Hollywood and related glamour industries are built on carefully crafted human bodies, often naked or "better than naked" and nobody protests that, but when naked images are publicized, with or without the consent of the women, OUTSIDE of these industries, outrage results.

When Hollywood does it it's "artistic license", when women themselves do it it's "immodest", and when hackers do it it's "intrusive".

I'm concerned about consent in the cases of normal human beings. Most humans don't want naked images of themselves publicized, due primarily to modesty and "fitting in", which would be harmed when all of their neighbors avoid images of themselves naked being publicized and they are the exception.

The images in "the fappening" are of women who DO want naked, or "better than naked" images of themselves publicized - many of them have shown themselves naked or "better than naked" within a context which maximizes the market value of those images - they are paid by Hollywood, fashion magazines, and/or mass media at least partly FOR their bodies.

So the only real criticism that can be made is that these women didn't want THESE images publicized - they don't want images which DON'T provide themselves with direct monetary gain and which are not properly photoshopped and otherwise maximally glamoured to reach the gaze of the public.

Can the critics of "the fappening" at least realize a certain degree of hypocrisy and ridiculousness in their position here? Women whose careers are based partly, some mostly, on revealing their bodies have their bodies shown, just not in a glamoured manner, and for no direct financial gain to them.

Who does "the fappening" help? Who does it hurt? Like I said before when "the fappening" first broke, it hurts the glamour industry. Not in some dramatic over-night devastating way, but the more images are presented by hackers and by the women themselves, the less power the glamour industry has since previously they had a monopoly over images of these women's bodies. The more people look at images provided by hackers and the women themselves, the less they look at images provided by the glamour industry.

If a movement can be developed to support the release of naked images of in-demand human bodies, then the most rewarded people will be the early adopters. Jennifer Lawrence is the face (um, and naked body) of the movement, so she gets the most fame from it, but others who step forward will likewise receive fame and acclaim.

This is a very good thing that's happening, and I hope other women step forward to take control of their own images.

Men can do so as well - there's nothing wrong with flaunting pecs and packages. Just like Jennifer Lawrence, male "early adopters" can receive fame and acclaim for being a frontrunner.

This is a real victory for feminism - regardless of how things go with men, women did it first. Well, hackers did it first.

 

[mysecondlife]

Its not anything new. I know PETA did the whole "I'd rather be naked than to wear fur" promotion which features celebrities.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm concerned about consent in the cases of normal human beings. Most humans don't want naked images of themselves publicized, due primarily to modesty and "fitting in", which would be harmed when all of their neighbors avoid images of themselves naked being publicized and they are the exception.

The images in "the fappening" are of women who DO want naked, or "better than naked" images of themselves publicized - many of them have shown themselves naked or "better than naked" within a context which maximizes the market value of those images - they are paid by Hollywood, fashion magazines, and/or mass media at least partly FOR their bodies.

So the only real criticism that can be made is that these women didn't want THESE images publicized - they don't want images which DON'T provide themselves with direct monetary gain and which are not properly photoshopped and otherwise maximally glamoured to reach the gaze of the public.

Can the critics of "the fappening" at least realize a certain degree of hypocrisy and ridiculousness in their position here? Women whose careers are based partly, some mostly, on revealing their bodies have their bodies shown, just not in a glamoured manner, and for no direct financial gain to them.

That sounds a lot like "you can't rape a prostitute/slut".

Its not anything new. I know PETA did the whole "I'd rather be naked than to wear fur" promotion which features celebrities.

You guys do realize that that campaign is not actually explicit in nature, right? That though they are photographed in the nude, they are photographed in a way that you cannot actually see anything that is actually considered indecent?

They are rather sexualised, though.