Playboy and the objectification of women
- Thread starter Unesh52
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm pretty sure Hefner loves women, sure people take it the wrong way, bu tthey're the ones who are misogynistic.
Ah no problem, I won't hold that against yousummerof2010 said:
Anyhow, to answer your question, I guess "disgusting" wasn't the most accurate word to express what I meant. I think "disappointing" might be more appropriate. Take that Girls Next Door show, for example (in case you don't know what it is, basically it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of Playboy bunnies). That show would have been the perfect opportunity for the Playboy bunnies to come out and dispel a lot of preconceptions and stereotypes people hold about their intelligence and self-respect. They could have used it of a means of building up respect for who they are, so that people don't just see them as a brainless pair of boobs.
Instead, it just features them solidifying those negative stereotypes, and even furthering them by adding vanity, materialism, and reckless "party-girl" behavior into the mix. Or at least that's the impression I got from the episodes I've seen, anyway.
So, yes, their behavior is giving women like them a negative connotation, but that is only women like them. The guys that I associate myself with avoid women like them as much as possible. So I suppose there is some damage being done to the images of some women, and some men are taking this to heart, however one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bushel.
Now, we could go into a huge debate on body image and whether or not we're setting our standards of physical appearance too high for women, but that's a very different Pandora's Box and I don't think that's what you're looking for here
Besides, I think we'd just end up agreeing on that one.
Out of all the arguments put forward by the anti-porn crusaders and self-appointed moral guardians of the world, "objectification" is surely by far the dumbest and most easily refuted, because it's a simple fact that all humans are objects. The whole idea of "reducing a person to an object" is total nonsense, because we're already objects, but of course we're people too and porn of almost all stripes does in fact acknowledge this and pay great (arguably even undue) attention to it - Playboy pictorials frequently included interviews with the girls, talking about their aspirations, dreams and hopes, or at the very least biographical information if it was someone the readers weren't already familiar with. Thus, early feminist thinkers sung the praises of Playboy as a force for the emancipation of women, and even created their own porn, that is, until the feminist movement was partially hijacked by ultra-conservatives such as Andrea Dworkin, who did what they could to stamp out pornography in all its forms, including getting into bed with fundamentalist religious groups (no pun intended) who shared an almost identical mindset.summerof2010 said:
The real reason why Playboy is struggling somewhat these days in terms of magazine sales is that in this day and age the female body has been thoroughly "demystified" and in that environment, airbrushed labia is just annoying, not to mention condescending to the readership. It's tasteless in the sense that it's dishonest. Nobody is going to pay the price of a magazine so they can be lied to about the female body when they can get the real thing elsewhere so easily now. Playboy is still a powerful brand though and will probably survive in some form, especially if they're smart enough to cast off their current modernistic style and fully embrace things like the new burlesque and alt-porn movements.... that remains to be seen though.
I would like to add in women's excercise mags. I bought one for my girl (at her request) without really looking through it first. Except for about a page about nutritious food and half a page about yoga...which was mostly pictures...it was all ads for makeups to "hide your flaws".loc978 said:
To be fair, it wasn't until the abolitionist movement that public perception of slavery really soured.summerof2010 said:
That being said, I think the idea that the two were related is somewhat ridiculous, as the rise of pornography in general coincided with the feminist movement. While I would not attribute one to the other, clearly we saw not only more pornography but raunchier stuff at that.
One final thought on the matter, though people will buy it, the idea that Playboy is "empowering" is ridiculous. It's specious reasoning in the same vein that guys argued sexual harassment was a good thing. I'll probably get flamed for pointing this out, but I'm slowly beginning to suspect that if the Escapist community had been around during segregation, there would be a large number of people here arguing in favour of it. So let them flame me. I mean, I get it. it rocks to be a straight white male in America, especially since you don't even need a reasoned argument to get someone to agree with you, but the idea that a woman selling her appearance off to a group of horny guys who grade her solely by her appearance and capacity as a sex object is independence is, frankly, one of the most counter-intuitive things I've heard in a long time. And people will agree, because ZOMFG TITZ!
What this guy saidPirate Kitty 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....
oh boy.
This is a doozy in the feminist world. Does pornography promote women's rights or hinder?
The way I see it is this. In Playboy, the women are merely there for teh male gaze. They are just here to be watched... by you. They are not a "real" person at that point. They are objects (hence... objectified). Even HH once said that in early playboy pictorals there was a hint of a man's presence. Two wine glasses, a cigar... etc. She is there... for a man.
Are the women beautiful? Sure... but they are unrealistic. Playboy chooses to promote a type of beauty that is only attainable through surgery.
Basically you are asking a HUGE question that even women haven't figured out yet. It isn't as easy as "They chose it." or "They are beautiful so it's fine." There is honestly lots of feminist theory here that is being washed over.
But when it comes down to it, if women have fought for years for equality, yet we still put ourselves up on the pole: something is just weirdness.
For further reading check out Female Chauvanist Pigs by Ariel Levy. Excellent read.
Please don't hate on me too much.
This is a doozy in the feminist world. Does pornography promote women's rights or hinder?
The way I see it is this. In Playboy, the women are merely there for teh male gaze. They are just here to be watched... by you. They are not a "real" person at that point. They are objects (hence... objectified). Even HH once said that in early playboy pictorals there was a hint of a man's presence. Two wine glasses, a cigar... etc. She is there... for a man.
Are the women beautiful? Sure... but they are unrealistic. Playboy chooses to promote a type of beauty that is only attainable through surgery.
Basically you are asking a HUGE question that even women haven't figured out yet. It isn't as easy as "They chose it." or "They are beautiful so it's fine." There is honestly lots of feminist theory here that is being washed over.
But when it comes down to it, if women have fought for years for equality, yet we still put ourselves up on the pole: something is just weirdness.
For further reading check out Female Chauvanist Pigs by Ariel Levy. Excellent read.
Please don't hate on me too much.
I believe there are large segments of the population (both male and female) that like seeing naked people.
I also believe there are large segments of the population (both male and female) that like being seen naked.
Anyone that wishes to intervene in this situation is imposing their own moral views upon others and seeking to limit the free will of the participants.
Who is the bad guy?
I also believe there are large segments of the population (both male and female) that like being seen naked.
Anyone that wishes to intervene in this situation is imposing their own moral views upon others and seeking to limit the free will of the participants.
Who is the bad guy?
Heard of it, but I never took it seriously.SimuLord said:
OT: I'm in agreement with some of the responses already up here. These women choose to be in this profession. Same with other porn stars, strippers, prostitutes, etc. They choose to take up this profession and rather than get out, they stick with it. No one makes a big deal about men being objectified when they choose these professions. I'm sensing a double-standard here.
ummm... lots of women don't choose to be prostitutes... they get the crap kicked out of them if they don't.juss sayin'SilverUchiha said:
movie bob did a little video about this topic, bond girls i think it was. i'm gonna go with his opinion.
yes and no, it does and doesn't. playboy originally gave women (who were hot) that ability to control a man and have him do whatever he wants. sucks for us guys, doesn't it? that's why we get lots and lots of money and wear bathrobes in mansions while smoking fancy cigars.
at the same time, playboy offered horny and immature teenagers, much like a large composition of the internet today, a magazine full of naked gorgeous women. this prevented them from becoming gay in the future.
unfortunately, this happy circle of perfection was torn when women like hilary clinton started crying out for the "real" womens rights. it's all becuase america got fat and there were a large number of fat lonely cat ladies to go around shouting about how wrong playboy is. same thing goes from all those hardcore christans, mostly from the midwest, who don't understand how powerful one's sex drive is in the mind.
and so, little by little, porn became property of the internet, homosexuality in men rised, and it became more and more "OK" to be who you are. it's all upsetting personally. if Playboy were a bit more accepted, not only would women strive to stay fit to gain some control over men (the thing they always want) but it'd also keep the homosexuality rate down in men.
i'm not saying i have a problem with gays, i'm just saying; religious nutsos from kansas either got to pick protesting gay or protesting straight, they can't do both or else the suicide and homocide rate will shoot up
yes and no, it does and doesn't. playboy originally gave women (who were hot) that ability to control a man and have him do whatever he wants. sucks for us guys, doesn't it? that's why we get lots and lots of money and wear bathrobes in mansions while smoking fancy cigars.
at the same time, playboy offered horny and immature teenagers, much like a large composition of the internet today, a magazine full of naked gorgeous women. this prevented them from becoming gay in the future.
unfortunately, this happy circle of perfection was torn when women like hilary clinton started crying out for the "real" womens rights. it's all becuase america got fat and there were a large number of fat lonely cat ladies to go around shouting about how wrong playboy is. same thing goes from all those hardcore christans, mostly from the midwest, who don't understand how powerful one's sex drive is in the mind.
and so, little by little, porn became property of the internet, homosexuality in men rised, and it became more and more "OK" to be who you are. it's all upsetting personally. if Playboy were a bit more accepted, not only would women strive to stay fit to gain some control over men (the thing they always want) but it'd also keep the homosexuality rate down in men.
i'm not saying i have a problem with gays, i'm just saying; religious nutsos from kansas either got to pick protesting gay or protesting straight, they can't do both or else the suicide and homocide rate will shoot up
Eaten? Not sure what you're talking about by that.yellingatpixels said:
Fine, take out the prostitute part of my post. Point still stands otherwise that a lot of women choose to get into these types of professions when perfectly other professions are available. I'm just saying.
Yeah, comparing the community at large to those in favor of segregation is falme-bait in a can.Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm gonna pull out this analogy I was thinking about, so just tell me what you think of it. Sports fans have favorite players. They determine their favorites by looking at the larger group of players and measuring the relevant aspects of each one's performance. Maybe one guy jumps higher, or one can juke like no other, or whatever. The point is, they pass judgments about the person based on that one aspect of their character. That's the very way "objectifying" is defined in reference to pornographic models, isn't it? I may be able to agree with you that posing nude does not help a person to realize their individuality and self-worth, but I stop at suggesting that such a thing degrades them, as is the case with segregation and sexual harassment. That's like saying "you can't say that selling a guy selling his baseball skills off to a bunch of boozie television junkies is independence."
The point where both of those things become harmful is when the person selling becomes dependent on the validation. Otherwise, it's just a job. I don't see why porn should be vilified, even if it's not exactly making the model's life better (except, you know, all that money and fame and that).
In other words: why is enjoying a nude model different from enjoying an athlete? Why is a model being degraded while the athlete not?