Playboy and the objectification of women

[Gralian]

I think the pressure on women to become super skinny tanned models thanks to magazines and celebrities is far more misogynistic than any softcore porn industry. (Let's face it, most of playboy's magazines feature more 'artistic nudes' than anything else - it's not like the level of debauchery found on proper porn websites and the like)

 

[SadisticPretzel]

The only problem I have with it is society's blatant double standard. Nude women are perfectly okay, and most things won't sell without some kind of sexual tie-in. Lesbians are the hottest thing in the world, and if you dare disagree, you must not be human.

Naked guys? Two guys getting cuddly in public? Sin against nature! Kill it! NOW!!!!

 

[voetballeeuw]

Holy shit I thought this was going to be a hate on Playboy thread, but I am gladly surprised. I agree with all your points. You are a beacon of reason and logic in a world where these attributes are stifled.

 

[Lilani]

The only problem I have with it is society's blatant double standard. Nude women are perfectly okay, and most things won't sell without some kind of sexual tie-in. Lesbians are the hottest thing in the world, and if you dare disagree, you must not be human.

Naked guys? Two guys getting cuddly in public? Sin against nature! Kill it! NOW!!!!

That has a lot to do with the fact that, in an artistic sense, the female figure is the embodiment of beauty and sexuality. History has proven this time and again, and none better than the Greeks and Romans. They loved the female figure. It's just so soft, warm, gentle, curvy, and balanced. A perfect visual representation of physical sexuality, grace, and intimacy.

The male figure, on the other hand was mostly used to express strength (both physical and mental), vigor, athleticism, valor, and power. All of those rippling muscles were each individually highlighted so that not a single part of that figure could be called weak or vulnerable. That is how males are "supposed" to be. Not all frail and cuddly. They must be capable of being the "man" of the household.

So, when you get down to it, it seems what you really have a problem with is gender roles

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

Playboy displays beauty. Therefore, it is art. Of course, all art becomes more interesting when it´s debated, which is the case.Nothing new here.

 

[JoeThree]

Yeah... Playboy's the wrong target here. You want tasteless objectification and the setting of unrealistic physical standards for women (though not misogyny, really)... look no further than Cosmopolitan, US, and People.

Ironic that the magazines made FOR women do the most damage to them.

 

[DiMono]

If women didn't like it, they'd stop posing in it. Last I heard, the scale of nudie-mags from tasteful to tasteless was basically Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler.

 

[internetzealot1]

Are they being forced to work for Playboy? No? Then there's nothing wrong.

 

[SadisticPretzel]

The only problem I have with it is society's blatant double standard. Nude women are perfectly okay, and most things won't sell without some kind of sexual tie-in. Lesbians are the hottest thing in the world, and if you dare disagree, you must not be human.

Naked guys? Two guys getting cuddly in public? Sin against nature! Kill it! NOW!!!!

That has a lot to do with the fact that, in an artistic sense, the female figure is the embodiment of beauty and sexuality. History has proven this time and again, and none better than the Greeks and Romans. They loved the female figure. It's just so soft, warm, gentle, curvy, and balanced. A perfect visual representation of physical sexuality, grace, and intimacy.

The male figure, on the other hand was mostly used to express strength (both physical and mental), vigor, athleticism, valor, and power. All of those rippling muscles were each individually highlighted so that not a single part of that figure could be called weak or vulnerable. That is how males are "supposed" to be. Not all frail and cuddly. They must be capable of being the "man" of the household.

So, when you get down to it, it seems what you really have a problem with is gender roles

Eh, maybe. I don't really have a problem with the whole "Women are expected to be in the kitchen" routine, other than that I can't cook to save my life. If I could, I wouldn't have a problem being the go-to person.

I do resent the whole "barefoot and pregnant" idea, though, so maybe it's just the sexual gender roles.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

eh, always been more a hustler guy when it came to the magazines (I.E. when I was young, lacked a computer, and found stacks of old porn mags of my fathers).

Like someone else said, it's not the objectification of women doing this to the industry, it's just the abundance of free porn. And it's just getting more abundant as time goes on especially with the creation of "Tube" sites.

Fun fact: A lot of those YT-inspired porn sites have been getting in copyright trouble for posting...get this...copyrighted porn that someone ripped off a DVD. How strangely ironic that porn would actually be late to an Internet trend!

Aug... not to get off topic but that never works out well for anyone. Porn and the entertainment industry in general needs to evolve and find new ways to earn off content then merely supplying it.

 

[Numb1lp]

The women aren't being forced to take their clothes off, so if they want to, good for them. More power to them. Who is anyone else to tell them they're wrong for doing it?

 

[Wereduck]

I don't find anything about Playboy to be objectifying. In fact, I'd say the feminist/femiNazi movement are much worse in that area, because they don't think these women are capable of making the rational choice to go in to that line of work. And I seriously doubt Playboy's financial troubles are because of tastelessness, I'd say it's because who doesn't download porn from the internet anymore?

This, absolutely. We all seem to have pretty-much the same take on this issue but you've said it most concisely. Well said comrade.

 

[SimuLord]

eh, always been more a hustler guy when it came to the magazines (I.E. when I was young, lacked a computer, and found stacks of old porn mags of my fathers).

Like someone else said, it's not the objectification of women doing this to the industry, it's just the abundance of free porn. And it's just getting more abundant as time goes on especially with the creation of "Tube" sites.

Fun fact: A lot of those YT-inspired porn sites have been getting in copyright trouble for posting...get this...copyrighted porn that someone ripped off a DVD. How strangely ironic that porn would actually be late to an Internet trend!

Aug... not to get off topic but that never works out well for anyone. Porn and the entertainment industry in general needs to evolve and find new ways to earn off content then merely supplying it.

Not commenting one way or the other about copyright, just making an observation.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It was just a cheap topical joke.

I've seen pictures from playboy, they're tame... You're free to be disgusted by that if you so choose, but the notion that nudity(airbrushed nudity at that)is all it takes for something to be obscenely sexual seems to me like a pretty crass simplification.

Honestly, I think your average music video is more sexually suggestive than a static image of a nude woman. They're rife with close-ups of men with big abs, women with big asses...and everyone is shiny and oiled up for some reason. And all that pelvic thrusting...dancing, I think they call it.

 

[viranimus]

Yes. You have a choice, either you accept that the objectification is by women and not of women. Or you accept the notion that women are fragile little things unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality and incapable of making decisions for themselves.

I tend to think more than anything its a tool in the box to compensate for the bullshit notion of penis envy by creating an equally bullshit notion of penis guilt.

 

[Unesh52]

I think if the hundreds of years pornography has existed and the thousands of years male-dominated societies have existed hasn't completely objectified women, nothing ever will.

But... they have been...

Or at least that's what the skit was asserting.

EDIT: I take this part back, if it's alright. It's petty and sounds mean.

Incidentally, why do you think it's disgusting?

Holy shit I thought this was going to be a hate on Playboy thread, but I am gladly surprised. I agree with all your points. You are a beacon of reason and logic in a world where these attributes are stifled.

Oh god. Well... thanks brother :8)

[sub][sub][sub]Geez, you'd think my ego would break from that much stroking...[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Macgyvercas]

Snip

Let me put it this way: My sister suffers from anorexia, and thinks she's not pretty the way she is, so I kinda have an issue with media that tells women they aren't pretty enough or smart enough or anything else enough as they are.

That really applies more to the tabloids than to porn mags, but you kinda get the general idea.

 

[profit0004]

I would say any rag that gives tips on how to lose weight is quite likely far worse for women in general than playboy.

Reason? Women do not look to playboy to define themselves. They do look to these so called "beauty" magazines.

The effect is more crippling for the long term health and emotional wellbeing of female gender than anything else I can think of at the moment in America or Canada.

 

[Tdc2182]

My stance has always been, if they are going to strip and do obscene things voluntarily, I will enjoy it. The girls make their own choices, and it seems like they like being "peices of meat" (though a good deal of them are actually rather intelligent, the stupid girl next door routine is really just an act)

EDIT: Man, the image I added won't show up.

Maybe... maybe you should be careful about what image you want up. XD(had to be done)