Playboy and the objectification of women
- Thread starter Unesh52
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would actually agree with that. Playboy is actually better for the overall image of women than Cosmopolitan, now what does that tell you?loc978 said:
This is unbelievably well stated. You are 100% correct with this paragraph.summerof2010 said:
Playboy has the most tasteful and artistic adult pictures you will find. These women choose to do these photoshoots, and are paid good money to do so. There's nothing wrong with Playboy, or with a woman using her natural beauty to make some money.
I think people are making a mistake by connecting the objectification of women with the women's personal choices (it sounds like people are confusing the concept of 'objectification' with the concept of 'oppression'). How is it relevant to the argument against the possibility of objectification in society, by arguing and appealing to the question of whether or not the women had a choice? I mean, a person could purposefully light a forest fire, or accidentally drop a match and cause one, but the result would still be the same, a forest fire. Objectification can still happen, despite whether or not it was the person's choice.
Do I believe Playboy contributes to objectifying women? Yes, it is not the sole contributor, but it plays its part, it sells women as images (things) to be viewed and consumed. Regardless of choice of participation, all of who they are as an individual, their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc. are not experienced through photographs of them doing poses that are only suggestive of one thing alone: sexuality. The photograph's primary purpose is to be a product for the magazine, one to sell women as objects of sexual desire to be consumed, an image, a thing that is not a woman, a representation of individual human beings. This can influence the overall concept of what a women is or should be, just as any other experience can influence an individual. And if the influence becomes prevalent and spread enough, then yes, it is quite possible for it to affect overall society.
Do I believe Playboy contributes to objectifying women? Yes, it is not the sole contributor, but it plays its part, it sells women as images (things) to be viewed and consumed. Regardless of choice of participation, all of who they are as an individual, their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc. are not experienced through photographs of them doing poses that are only suggestive of one thing alone: sexuality. The photograph's primary purpose is to be a product for the magazine, one to sell women as objects of sexual desire to be consumed, an image, a thing that is not a woman, a representation of individual human beings. This can influence the overall concept of what a women is or should be, just as any other experience can influence an individual. And if the influence becomes prevalent and spread enough, then yes, it is quite possible for it to affect overall society.
To the first part, thank you. I was trying to say that earlier, but no one seemed to get it. The woman's choice in the matter has little if anything to do with the topic at hand.Hap2 said:
Anyway. You're right, those magazines can affect the perception of what a woman is supposed to be. What it suggests they're supposed to be is sexy and desirable. As I was saying, this is an important part of being a woman (and a person, really), but you wouldn't want that to be the only thing women are about. That's what objectification is. It's not Playboy's place to portray women as intellectually able or physically capable. There are other mediums for that. The phenomena of women being objectified doesn't come from any one thing. It comes from many influences acting at once. Optimally, we have influences that show us all the aspects of the feminine identity, including sexuality. Women aren't sex objects. But they are sexy. And that's ok.
Besides, the way you've written it, it's like you expect everything involving a woman to be a broad and accurate representation of that person's life and character. That's kind of silly, don't you think? It's like asking a radio political commentator to include a bio that discusses his feelings on the works of Michaelangelo and his dreams for his family. No one cares about that when they turn on their radio to hear political commentary. But they don't jump to the conclusion that all people who have an opinion on politics only care about that one thing, because they know politically opinionated people who do have other interests. Even if they didn't, it wouldn't be the radio programs fault; it's just an unfortunate circumstance of the society that person was in.
Not untrue. But some women are also forced into it by others or by situation. Don't forget that.Pirate Kitty said:
Would hardly call the magazine itself misogynistic, since they're women that look good, and tastefully show off how attractive they are, and are paid and respected quite handsomely for it- and at least personally, I consider Playboy models as models, and don't associate the same kind of sexual promiscuity that you would, say, a Pornstar.
Also, there's a common joke where people say that they "just read the articles" in issues of Playboy. And while this can be funny in a sort of "yea, yea suuuure" Playboy actually does have some very good writers and articles in them about a range of subjects outside of Sex or Naked Women
Also, there's a common joke where people say that they "just read the articles" in issues of Playboy. And while this can be funny in a sort of "yea, yea suuuure" Playboy actually does have some very good writers and articles in them about a range of subjects outside of Sex or Naked Women
It's funny because the original feminist movement was about women wanting equal freedom to express they're sexuality as men... making playboy and pornography in general part of the feminist movement... now it's just gotten fairly ridiculous...<.<
I suppose there isn't really a market for it, not to be confused with a lack of demand..just a lack of profit. I could be wrong but I don't think you can reliably expect a women to subscribe to a pornographic magazine as well as you can with men.Zeeky_Santos said:
Men are formulaic with their fantasies to an almost linear relationship. At least, that is what I think
Nope, the original feminist movement was about getting the government to acknowledge that women could vote without their poor 'ickle brains melting. It was about equality before the law long before anyone could talk about sexuality in public.Sacman said:
And it's a moot point. Playboy isn't an expression of women's sexuality, it's an expression of men's sexuality. I'm not inherently anti-playboy, but I do think there are questions to be asked about how women are represented in that male sexuality. I certainly think we could make it a little less insipid.
And there is a playboy for women (Playgirl), it just sucks. Most women aren't that impressed by seeing out of context pictures of naked men with a semi.
Here's why pornography flourishes - because there are thousands upon thousands of young women who would rather take the easy route out and get fucked on screen for fast money than go get an education and a real job. Women have almost as large a role in the objectification of other women as do men.
However, I cannot really protest this too strongly because I enjoy the female body and I like fapping.
However, I cannot really protest this too strongly because I enjoy the female body and I like fapping.
http://www.playboy.com/articles/hugh-hefner-philosophy-manifesto-01/
This is the 1962-1966 ongoing discursion Hefner gave of Playboy's nature and the controversy surrounding it, so if you want, the source can make his own case on the matter...
This is the 1962-1966 ongoing discursion Hefner gave of Playboy's nature and the controversy surrounding it, so if you want, the source can make his own case on the matter...
Pirate Kitty said:
loc978 said:
Both of these pretty much sum up the thread
and I doubt hef's gonna have to sell the mansion, if the bookstore I work at's any standard we still sell plenty of playboys
Playboy is bad for a woman's image? Funny I thought:
and:
did WAAAAAAAAAAY more damage to women than:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playgirl
I've seen billboards in France advertising shampoo where the female model was topless. Americans really need to stop being such prudish twits and stop considering sexuality such a taboo. The argument here isn't if pornography objectifies women (it doesn't) and should instead be about why people get in such a huff over it in the first place? Because Jesus told you it was naughty?
What? Are you guys that sheltered? It's called, unsurprisingly, Playgirl.Kaboose the Moose said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playgirl
I've seen billboards in France advertising shampoo where the female model was topless. Americans really need to stop being such prudish twits and stop considering sexuality such a taboo. The argument here isn't if pornography objectifies women (it doesn't) and should instead be about why people get in such a huff over it in the first place? Because Jesus told you it was naughty?