Playboy and the objectification of women

[Terminal Blue]

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.

Err.. nope, I have an attention span.

What terms didn't you understand? I figured the overall post would kind of explain them but I'd be happy to try and explain myself. I spend a lot of my time with other gender students nowadays so we do talk quite technically. If I've lapsed into that, it's my fault and I'll happily try and clear it up.

As I said, this is my field so I get quite into it.

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.

Sorry, but rape is never the victim's fault. I don't care how 'erotically' dressed someone is or how drunk they are, unless they explicitly give consent then the guy who chooses to have sex with them is responsible for his actions. No one ever asks to be raped.

It was okay to say that kind of thing in the 70s, it's really not anymore.

 

[Rutskarn]

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

Of course, this line of reasoning also suggests that games like Grand Theft Auto--which portray people as victims waiting to happen (violence objects, in a sense) and police officers as violent racists--also have a deleterious effect on certain individuals, who would be consciously or subconsciously affected by the images the material presents. These games do characterize the vast majority of human beings as wandering blood-filled mannequins who can be killed with little substantial consequence.

Does anything distinguish this fantasy from the one presented by Playboy? Is GTA, then, a misuse of art?

 

[Seydaman]

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

Good on them.

Nothing misogynistic ere.

What this guy said
If I want to go show off my rock hard abs and beef muscles and huge dick
Well then I will
And I don't want anyone telling me I make my gender lesser because I like being beautiful
Not that I have rock hard abs, and muscles....

Why does everyone think we're guys?

Do we put off some sort of manly image? XD

Common internet etiquette to assume you are a man
I considering saying this guy/gal but said meh in place.

 

[Wintermoot]

yes it objectifies woman that,s what porn does, but it does the same with men. The real reason that playboy is declining is thanks to competitors/free altenratives from the internet

 

[UnwishedGunz]

playboy is not objectifying women (and im not just saying that cause im a guy) the women who star in the magazines are objectifying themselves, playboy doesn't force women to strip and pose for a camera, they do it themselves because it pays money or they like it.

thats just like saying cigarette companies kill smokers when its the smokers who are killing themselves, because they want to.

 

[captain underpants]

The porn industry isn't about objectifying or denigrating women, it's about exploiting men's base instincts to make a buck.

 

[omega 616]

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.

Err.. nope, I have an attention span.

What terms didn't you understand? I figured the overall post would kind of explain them but I'd be happy to try and explain myself. I spend a lot of my time with other gender students nowadays so we do talk quite technically. If I've lapsed into that, it's my fault and I'll happily try and clear it up.

As I said, this is my field so I get quite into it.

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 alcohol.

Sorry, but rape is never the victim's fault. I don't care how 'erotically' dressed someone is or how drunk they are, unless they explicitly give consent then the guy who chooses to have sex with them is responsible for his actions. No one ever asks to be raped.

It was okay to say that kind of thing in the 70s, it's really not anymore.

I will go in reverse order, to mix it up.

I never said it was her fault, although I think it's partly her fault. We both know guys love sex, we both know alcohol makes you more "friendly", now put a girl in an outfit that has her boobs falling out and she is showing the bottom of her butt cheeks walking normally, then add a guy who likes what he sees but he keeps getting rejected.

All I am saying is, if she dressed more reserved it would be less likely to happen, I am not saying go out in a bomber jacket and baggy pants though. Also taking some precautions, like don't walk home by yourself etc.

I Don't know which team you play for but assuming your straight, you see one of those "hunky guy at the beach, wearing dental floss round his crotch" calendars, you think "oh, hello". If you know what I mean.

The guy never thought he would be a rapist or even had any intention of doing it, when he set out that night but alcohol does funny things to people.

Now the first bit ...

If I got the general jist of what you put, does it matter about the details?

I do have an attention span, just not in the mind set to be going all psychological and what not. Very tired at the moment, after exhausting my self for charity (running up and down stairs with heavy bags filled with books from 9-2 with no dinner or pay).

I assume your from the good old states 'cos almost nobody in the UK calls them studies. Also what field? I can't think of a job/field that would have "Gender studies", maybe advertising? I am not ragging on your subject, just curious.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I think it is in a way. The problem is, most of our media sets an unreasonable, unhealthy, and most important very narrow and standardized example of what "beauty" is, when, in my opinion, that is the exact opposite of what beauty is.

There is nothing wrong with pornography in and of itself, but I think the media as a whole, including porn, objectifies everything, although women are a particularly large victim of it, and the objectification is growing for men.

It's what naturally happens when you have an industry that isn't really based on artistic expression, but on making money. The best way to make money on media is for it to appeal to as many people as possible, at the lowest cost, and the best way for that to happen is for there to be a highly idealistic, standardized and narrow definition of beauty. Making films, TV shows and commercials that are original, provocative, highly creative and different isn't efficient, and doesn't have as much potential for mass market appeal. If you want to make money, you see what is conventionally appealing and you give people a highly idealistic, perfected version of that. Just like how in the food industry, you see what kind of tastes people like, and you saturate them with a highly concentrated version of that. That's why soda is so appealing, it hijacks our desire for sweet things by giving us that in highly concentrated, liquid form. You don't want to give them something different, something that they may not like, you focus on those primal senses and exploit them.

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

I love the fact that Playboy is seen as objectifying women, when this was plastered all over the country:
<image width=200>http://www.topsocialite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/taylor-lautner-new-moon.jpg

 

[TheLaofKazi]

*snip*

Everything you just said, agree 100%.

It's not playboy that's the problem, it's the unhealthy standardization of sexuality that is. Our society's definition of what is attractive is limited, and even sometimes harmful to a women's health (being underweight to look skinny enough) and their independence (you have to fit into this mold to look good). Conformity is very prominent in our society, and that isn't any different for sexuality. It's the standard when I think independence should be our focus.

People are very capable of finding just about anything sexually attractive. Look at the many crazy fetishes out there, there are even many for aspects of women that aren't conventionally attractive. Some people even find intelligence and independence attractive in and of themselves in a women. Isn't that great? Imagine if our society managed to expand their definition of beauty and attractive to one that isn't standardized and limited, but one that is rich, accepting, all-encompassing and healthy for the mind, spirit and body. In fact, I think we need to do this for all of the ideals we set for people, not just limited to sexuality.

 

[Au Naturel.]

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

Good on them.

Nothing misogynistic ere.

There we go! You can look good and make money at the same time! That sums it up.

 

[teh_Canape]

I love the fact that Playboy is seen as objectifying women, when this was plastered all over the country:
<image width=200>http://www.topsocialite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/taylor-lautner-new-moon.jpg

so he fucking rips his shirt off, and I kinda expected a six pack, not a fucking beer store

on a side note

oh feminists, when will they ever learn that it's them the ones that make women look worse

Spoiler

take for example, the stuff about chivalry, I personally hold (based on personal experience, mind you), that chivalry was killed off by feminists, I mean, come on, a woman can't expect people to treat her in a special way (gentlemanly, it would be) and at the same time, be treated like equals

because, you know, chivalry to women is based on men taking special care of women, because women are fragile, which feminists find offensive and say that they about as strong as any other men

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

Good on them.

Nothing misogynistic ere.

also, this here lady is right

have this coupon and take it tomorrow to your nearest provider to receive your free internet

Spoiler

 

[teisjm]

Sort of a side-note here, but somewhat relevant.

If women in real porn are just considered "pieces of meat" isn't the men in the porn movie just as much pieces of meat? I mean, they're having just as much sex on film as the women they're having it with.
The difference in most porn is that the camera has little love for the male porn actors apart from their dicks, but that doens't make them less "meat" than the women. They're just not focused on, cause where the women are "attractive meat" the men are "unatractive meat" in the eyes of the target audience which is often heterosexual males. So while they may be seen just as pieces of meat, it goes for both genders, and are therefore not sexist, even if it's considered demeaning, cause it applies to males as well.

If you had to argue that only the women in porn are sex objects, cause they're beeing exploitet (i'm pretty sure they make lots more pr shot than the men on average) would require the assumption that sex is something a woman does for a man, and not something a man and a woman does with each other for the sake of boths enjoyment, and to be fair, i think thats a lot more discriminating than porn.
I guess this goes well in hand with the more or less commmon idea that men are awesomne if they have manys ex partners and women are sluts if they do the same, which is sexism.

Another point, the OP actually mentioned this.
Of course women in porn or erotic pictures are seen as sex objects, cause thats whats beeing displayed, the same way the guy who fixes your car is seen as a mechanic, and the guy doing your tax papers are seen as an accountant. Doing porn/nude pics is their FREAKING JOB! and unless you know them personally or got some stalky thingy for them, you're just gonna see them as a personification of the work they're doing, just like everyone else doing all sorts of other jobs.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I never said it was her fault, although I think it's partly her fault. We both know guys love sex, we both know alcohol makes you more "friendly", now put a girl in an outfit that has her boobs falling out and she is showing the bottom of her butt cheeks walking normally, then add a guy who likes what he sees but he keeps getting rejected.

All I am saying is, if she dressed more reserved it would be less likely to happen, I am not saying go out in a bomber jacket and baggy pants though. Also taking some precautions, like don't walk home by yourself etc.

Loving sex and having sex with someone without their consent are very different things. Call me dogmatic, but I refuse to put any blame on the victim. While I resent the social impetus on women to dress erotically or to pose for magazines or whatever, I'd never deny that people have a right to wear what they want and act how they want, and that includes doing so without the fear or risk of being assaulted. The kind of guys who think like that need to learn to take rape seriously, and while it wouldn't be a bad thing if people didn't dress like slags, on principle I'm not placing the rights of a rapist over those of the victim.

People don't dress like that because they're saying 'please rape me', they do so because they feel sexy or like getting attention. 'Attention' shouldn't mean sexual assault.

Don't take it personally. I'm not accusing you of being a potential rapist or anything, it's pure principle.

I Don't know which team you play for but assuming your straight, you see one of those "hunky guy at the beach, wearing dental floss round his crotch" calendars, you think "oh, hello". If you know what I mean.

You've got my sex wrong, I'm a bisexual (for want of a better word) man. It always makes me grin a little when people get that wrong though, so don't worry, I'll take it as a compliment.

And yeah.. I've been to clubs where people routinely get nearly or actually naked, a few of them blisteringly hot. It's nice, but it doesn't give me any desire to ruin their evening and possibly their life by imposing myself.

If I got the general jist of what you put, does it matter about the details?

From what you said, I don't think you got it quite right.

I'm not saying you or anyone on this site is actually coercing or expecting women to act 'slutty' but, and it's really hard to explain this without using feminist terms so bear with me..

While women can now achieve most of the same things as men, they don't get the same recognition or sense of worth from doing so. A woman's worth is always measured much more by her attractiveness to men than by anything else she achieves. This is why the ultimate goal of so many women is to model and why so many women would want to appear in playboy. Sure, we have male models, but how many little boys grow up wanting to be male models?

It's not down to individual men, it's a wider social thing that women can only achieve value for being beautiful or being sexually desirable to men. I'm not even saying that women who act like slags are beautiful or sexually desirable (far from it most of the time) but they're still playing for male attention, as that's still the primary thing that determines a woman's worth.

I do have an attention span, just not in the mind set to be going all psychological and what not. Very tired at the moment, after exhausting my self for charity (running up and down stairs with heavy bags filled with books from 9-2 with no dinner or pay).

That's cool. I'm sorry if I sounded dismissive. Like I said, I'm used to talking to people on my course so we tend to speak in quite technical language without thinking. I've actually encountered similar complaints from my non-course friends, so clearly I need to get better at explaining myself.

I assume your from the good old states 'cos almost nobody in the UK calls them studies. Also what field? I can't think of a job/field that would have "Gender studies", maybe advertising? I am not ragging on your subject, just curious.

Nope, I'm from the UK, but 'gender' sounds stupid (even though it's the title of my degree) so it's just easier to call it gender studies.

Most people who take my course wind up in government, working for NGOs (particularly those who deal with gender issues), academic publishing and other general Masters level jobs. I'm personally applying for a PhD and would like to teach at higher education level, but there aren't many departments and there aren't likely to be any more opening now that the government has decided to fuck the entire higher education sector hard, so that might have to change (or I could move to the states).

 

[AstylahAthrys]

I don't really have anything against Playboy. I dunno, maybe it's because I'm not exposed to it that I don't really care what it does. I feel like the tabloid and fashion magazines do more harm to the female mind than Playboy does because it's not meant to say "Ladies, you're supposed to look like THIS" like the magazines at the checkout counter do.

As far as objectifying women, I really doubt it does it anymore than any pop musician. The only difference is that Playboy shows boobs. Besides, it's not like Playboy models are being forced to pose topless because they're crack addicts in need of more crack money, they're women who want to show their body and aren't self-conscious about it. I actually respect that a lot.