Playboy and the objectification of women

[Nimcha]

If only people would appear n public as they do in their own home when totally alone.

Yeah but when you're home alone you don't have to look at yourself all the time but when you go out lots of people have to look at you so I don't think there's much shame in making yourself look a little better for their sake

 

[Treefingers]

Women are beautiful. Some women choose to show their bodies off and get paid to feel sexy.

Not untrue. But some women are also forced into it by others or by situation. Don't forget that.

Playboy is a very well respected and high paying magazine - you don't just walk up to them when you're low on cash and get a shoot.

Whilst i'm aware that this thread focusses on Playboy, I'm referring to the industry as a whole.

 

[MassiveGeek]

I've heard several times that Playboy was on the front of the femenist movement a long time ago - and I can see why. It was breaking the image of the innocent, virgin women that were supposed to sit around looking pretty(but not too much, wouldn't want them being whores you know) and would break if you didn't handle them carefully.

From what little I've seen of it, playboy is just women expressing their sexuality in a casual enviorment, feeling good about themselves and what they're doing, while Hugh Heffner enables them to do that. I could be really wrong on this, but I'm only 17 and haven't really had access to the channel they send playboy on since we moved five years ago.

Of course it's terrible with discrimination, but for crying out loud... can't we just relax a bit and let adults do whatever they want with their bodies? As long as no one is hurt by it, then what the fuck, right? If a playboy chick suddenly breaks down and feels like crap about everything that's happened at the mansion, then I'm willing to give this a look again.

 

[MassiveGeek]

did WAAAAAAAAAAY more damage to women than:

Spoiler

Compared to the others, this one actually looks sort of interesting.

 

[Uncreation]

Women are beautiful. Some women choose to show their bodies off and get paid to feel sexy.

Good on them.

Nothing misogynistic ere.

Fully agree. And if playboy will fall i suspect it will be because of the internet, rather than something else. Who reads magazines anymore?

 

[omega 616]

I think it empowers women, there getting paid how much to get nude? Have all these men lusting after you, live in a nice big house, driving a nice big car, having people know your name etc.

(alot of) Men think of women as just pieces of meat anyway, from all the comments I hear about them from "OMG, look at her tits" to "I'd fuckin wreck her everywhere", so it's not like without playboy the male population will suddenly give a greater respect to women.

There is a website were women ask people to dare them to do things, such as answering the door to a pizza guy totally naked, flash in a restaurant etc then post pics on the site of them doing it, so even without cash they would still "demean"/"disrespect" whatever themselves.

Playboy just makes money off them, if the models are ok with it then who are we to stop them.

(although I think the same of prostitutes, if they want to sell there body like that and there are men who want to go there then why stop them?)

 

[Hap2]

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.

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.

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.

Ah, you have made one mistake, I never implied nor argued that a photograph should give another person the idea of who a person is as an individual, only that it cannot do such a thing, it is impossible for it and as a result can be an influence in portraying an idea that may not be true in real life, but one that some people can mistakenly take as an accurate representation of the real thing. If anything I suppose I am siding with Plato, at least in this manner on this particular medium, and the possibility of harm that a form of art like photography can cause if used improperly or in a certain way.

 

[Verlander]

Playboy and various feminist movements appeared in America at the same time, and when the feminists had a go at Playboy, it shocked and hurt Hugh Hefner, who had almost been on their side (it's all a hippie sixties thing, along with free love etc). I believe personally that Playboy does objectify the women, in an absolutely positive way.

Hef points out that it does portray women as sexual objects, because thats what they are. That's what we all are, and if sexual desire didn't exist, we wouldn't be here. He does so in a way which empowers women- they choose to do the shoot, they get paid very very very well to do so, and they become a celebrity in their own right. Many of them are intelligent, and have gone on to great things. It is empowering to take your clothes off. I did it once for a photoshoot (although I am a man), it's very difficult, and at the end you can hold your head high above the prudes.

There IS a Playgirl, although it still maintains a higher male readership than female, but making the objectification of women (and men) a norm is empowering and positive, as many sexually different people are now free to express themselves, scandals are reduced (lowering the impact of sexual scandals on people's lives) and generally I feel the world is a better place for it. Look at countries where the men don't want the women to show their faces?! That kind of control and jealousy is a negative objectification, not Playboy

 

[Unesh52]

Ah, you have made one mistake, I never implied nor argued that a photograph should give another person the idea of who a person is as an individual, only that it cannot do such a thing, it is impossible for it and as a result can be an influence in portraying an idea that may not be true in real life, but one that some people can mistakenly take as an accurate representation of the real thing. If anything I suppose I am siding with Plato, at least in this manner on this particular medium, and the possibility of harm that a form of art like photography can cause if used improperly or in a certain way.

...alright, why is Playboy an improper use of art? porn in general?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Playboy sucks.

It's also way less guilty of objectification of women than Hugh Hefner is in his personal life.

 

[kokirisoldier]

If the women are wise about it then they would quickly understand that they hold the power of pretty much every heterosexual man. Women can make or break your "luck" at a bar or club. They choose. Most of them get filthy ridiculous rich after doing one of those shoots.

No sympathy from me about getting rich by being naked. Your choice, you can manipulate the system (and most money waving men) to empty their wallets for a friggen side boob or a picture of you in skimpy underwear, or nude.

 

[Hap2]

Ah, you have made one mistake, I never implied nor argued that a photograph should give another person the idea of who a person is as an individual, only that it cannot do such a thing, it is impossible for it and as a result can be an influence in portraying an idea that may not be true in real life, but one that some people can mistakenly take as an accurate representation of the real thing. If anything I suppose I am siding with Plato, at least in this manner on this particular medium, and the possibility of harm that a form of art like photography can cause if used improperly or in a certain way.

...alright, why is Playboy an improper use of art? porn in general?

Well, all Art needs an audience, for as I see it Art is a method of communicating what is or can be real within Reality to both artist and viewer. Viewers vary a lot, and not every single one them will agree on what they consider most real to their individual view of overall Reality that they find within, around or about an artwork. One viewer might enjoy the form a work takes, while another might enjoy the feeling the work might express, and so on and so forth. Others may not be so deep, and may take a work at face value alone. Not to say this is wrong, but in the example of that Jesus and Ants piece that is being debated upon in the Religion and Politics forum, interpretations can get fairly crazy and rile people up, even if that interpretation was far off from the original meaning the artist was trying to convey. Say a person looks at Playboy then, and takes the subject, and interprets the women in their suggestive poses to be an accurate representation of what a woman is: an object to be viewed and admired, rather than another individual. They may not consciously and literally think it as such, but their thought process could be influenced by it. After all, there are plenty of things that alter our thought process without us even thinking about it, we are indeed particular beings with a limited perspective based on our experiences and our corporeal forms.

So basically to sum it up, all forms of Art are dependent on their audience as much as their artist, not every single person is going to take a work and contemplate it as one of Art (as the Institutional theory might suggest). Humans each have their own individual perspectives and interpretations, and they can influence one another and become (to borrow from Tolstoy) "infectious", in influencing others. It is never a certainty, but does it make the possibility of Playboy contributing objectifying women possible due to the variety of individual interpretations, even if it was not their original intention? Yes, it does. Just think of the Grand Theft Auto series and its contribution to the ongoing debate as to whether or not video games are harmful. It was definitely not Rockstar's intention to do so, but because of the interpretations of some people, it most definitely does in their perspective of Reality.

Just take note that I do not think it is a bad thing or a good thing, I am only interested in the effect it can cause on influencing human thought and behaviour, despite whether or not it was the intended one by the original artists

 

[Terminal Blue]

There is a website were women ask people to dare them to do things, such as answering the door to a pizza guy totally naked, flash in a restaurant etc then post pics on the site of them doing it, so even without cash they would still "demean"/"disrespect" whatever themselves.

This is what used to be called 'false consciousness'. We don't really use that term nowadays, but we'd still talk about the performative expectations of women or the discourse of femininity, and those are generally more complex and nuanced versions of the same idea.

(Sorry, I'm a gender studies student so this kind of thing gives me a nerdgasm).

The issue is not playboy, at worst playboy is merely symptomatic and I still maintain that a few very small changes would make it infinately less patronizing and insipid in the way it presents its subject matter. The issue is the way male and female fantasies and behavioural expectations are formed which leads women to want to demean themselves for the benefit of a male audience. In particular, perpetuating the idea that being respected by men for your looks and/or sexual behaviour ('everyone loves a slut') is better/more feminine than being respected for your intelligence, athletic ability, wider contribution to society or any of the other paths by which men achieve social respect and legitimacy.

It seems to be a fairly common idea that consent makes just about anything okay, which would be fine if we were raised in a world where males and females were raised with similar aspirational goals and social expectations (i.e. a post-feminism, which we may not be far off relatively speaking but still have a pretty long way to go). Most feminists would argue you need to look at why people consent to things, not just whether or not they do.

I've seen Movie Bob's video on playboy's early links to the feminist movement, and I think he probably knows more about the history of playboy than me so I'll defer to that. However, for the last thirty years at least (a long time in social terms) Feminists have almost never talked about simply liberating sexuality, it's about creating a female sexuality which is not dependent on the male gaze, which allows women to act as sexual agents without constantly having to pander to male expectation in order to be accepted. Playboy may give a small number of women with very specific body-types the freedom to show off those bodies for male enjoyment, but that's not necessarily empowerment. Empowerment comes from sexual self determination, not in existing for the benefit of someone else.

'Cause other women can't find women attractive and sexual, right?

I'm bisexual myself and that's not what I mean at all. If you do find playboy erotic more power to you, but the magazine has always been produced for a male audience. It's in the title 'playboy'. It caters to what are seen as exclusively male fantasies, if you get off on those too then that's kind of cool actually because it's unintended and a bit of a gender fuk, but the magazine caters to men and a male target audience.

Actually, I see that as pretty demeaning to men. It homogenizes and normalizes what might otherwise be a very diverse and interesting sexual landscape. Very few men will ever live the playboy lifestyle, the magazine existed (at least in the past, I'm not so sure about now) to basically teach men what the ideal is and what they should want and aspire to.

 

[omega 616]

snip

I have to be honest, I got really bored after a few lines. It's like if I launched into a big spiel about catalytic converters on cars, after " a catalytic converter is a box on the exhaust system of a car ..." you would be struggling to keep your eyes open. Probably didn't help you used a bucket load of psychology jargon.

The jist I get from it though is, women are expected to bacially be "slutty" so they live up to that expectation. Which is insane, I expect people to be smart, polite and ... proper.

Not going to a club/bar almost naked, getting as drunk as they can in shortest amount of time, then end up outside getting into fight, getting there boobs out or raped 'cos there dressed so erotically but keep batting guys away and are easy pickings due to alochol.

I have tried many times to understand why women do things, like getting treated badly by there partner, yet keep going back to them. Break up! There never going to change.