Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was over at CNN and I came across this video link. Both Don Lemon and the one the guests seemed to not be ok with this cover, one woman calling it objectification. This stuff seems to be popping up a lot lately when I am on the internet.

I don't know, I look at something like that and I shrug my shoulders and don't see what the big deal is. Am I alone here?

You're not alone if you think Don Lemon is a complete asshat, because he is.

I personally don't think its objectification (reducing a woman to an object), but i will say it's a little risque (i mean, let's be honest. you are literally a micrometer from seeing her lady bits).


That said... i can't tell you the last time something "a little risque" ruffled my feathers.

Objectification implies that the woman in the photo lacks the ability to make her own choices. I seriously doubt that is true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Objectification implies that the woman in the photo lacks the ability to make her own choices. I seriously doubt that is true.

It can also include the illusion of choice. You don't have to show your mons pubis, but if you want to have a career you will.

I have no idea what the point of the swimsuit issue is, other then PG pornography.

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what the point of the swimsuit issue is, other then PG pornography.

My spank material in high school? Seriously, that's what SI was for me back then. Haven't looked at one in years.

I suppose if he thinks that's risque, he should definitely never, ever be shown "The Body Issue" by ESPN's own magazine

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I suppose if he thinks that's risque, he should definitely never, ever be shown "The Body Issue" by ESPN's own magazine

I think the problem some have is not so much that it is risque. Here is my personal take on this, which I think mirrors those of others:

1) Objectification: I'm somewhat "meh" on this issue. I don't think that showing a woman's body is always automatically objectification. I don't think porn is objectification since the women who choose to go into porn know exactly what they are getting into, at least western porn for the most part. (There is a whole other conversation we could have about porn produced in connection with human trafficking). Models "may" be facing more pressure to go beyond their confort zones or face being blacklisted in their career, but I also think that at this point models know what they are getting into when they choose to be models. This particular issue does have a big of a double whammy by having a model show her mons pubis and being within a milimeter of having her clitoris stick out of her suit on the cover, but the "big" story was about having a fatty "plus-size" model inside the magazine.

2) Models being risque: I think that's nothing new at all. Models have been basically naked for quite a long time now, especially in the swimsuit issue. There is a long history of models showing everything but the nipple when it comes to being topless, and it seems like they may be pushing a "the clitoris and the vagina are the new nipple" approach to lower frontal nudity. That's fine, if that is the way they want to go. The swimsuit issue has always been mom-approved daddy-porn and over-the-counter porn for teenagers everywhere, the greatest thing invented since the Sears catalog. But it has always been on the inside. So for me it's not as much about that either.

3) The cover: that's really my only complaint. The almost completely naked woman is eye-level with 10 year olds in every store in the USA. It would be completely normal in Europe and I imagine that our European posters are rolling their eyes here, but it is a step against the grain here. If this picture was on the inside there wouldn't be a story.

Of course society has reacted in a similar way to many previous steps. Pregnant topless with hands covering boobs on the cover and similar pictures. It will just force people to be more open about sexuality with their children, including expected standards (realistic or not) about women and their bodies in society and being confident and comfortable enough to make your own decisions about your own body.

 d-usa wrote:

3) The cover: that's really my only complaint. The almost completely naked woman is eye-level with 10 year olds in every store in the USA. It would be completely normal in Europe and I imagine that our European posters are rolling their eyes here, but it is a step against the grain here. If this picture was on the inside there wouldn't be a story.

Of course society has reacted in a similar way to many previous steps. Pregnant topless with hands covering boobs on the cover and similar pictures. It will just force people to be more open about sexuality with their children, including expected standards (realistic or not) about women and their bodies in society and being confident and comfortable enough to make your own decisions about your own body.

I think we agree on that point... and I know that my time stationed in Germany has shaded my opinions more towards the "it's a naked human, what's the big fething deal?" I react in much the same way over all the public nursing of infant stories, and usually even worse towards those who insist the mother "cover up" Feth that, Neither one of my kids would deal with some piece of cloth covering their heads while nursing. My daughter especially loved staring at my wife while feeding (it really did get to the point where it was humorously creepy) The thing is though, my daughter was born and of an age where she was weened all in Germany, and the public reactions (in reality, its the lack thereof) people had when my wife was feeding has convinced me that the US is far too "puritan" for its own good.

Am I the only one who had to use wikipedia to find out who Don Lemon is?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

3) The cover: that's really my only complaint. The almost completely naked woman is eye-level with 10 year olds in every store in the USA. It would be completely normal in Europe and I imagine that our European posters are rolling their eyes here, but it is a step against the grain here. If this picture was on the inside there wouldn't be a story.

Of course society has reacted in a similar way to many previous steps. Pregnant topless with hands covering boobs on the cover and similar pictures. It will just force people to be more open about sexuality with their children, including expected standards (realistic or not) about women and their bodies in society and being confident and comfortable enough to make your own decisions about your own body.

I think we agree on that point... and I know that my time stationed in Germany has shaded my opinions more towards the "it's a naked human, what's the big fething deal?" I react in much the same way over all the public nursing of infant stories, and usually even worse towards those who insist the mother "cover up" Feth that, Neither one of my kids would deal with some piece of cloth covering their heads while nursing. My daughter especially loved staring at my wife while feeding (it really did get to the point where it was humorously creepy) The thing is though, my daughter was born and of an age where she was weened all in Germany, and the public reactions (in reality, its the lack thereof) people had when my wife was feeding has convinced me that the US is far too "puritan" for its own good.

I'm a mixed bag on stuff like that (nudity in all situations). Breastfeeding should always be fine and people just need to deal with it IMO.

But I do think that stuff like the SI cover does have an affect on boys and girls. It can set unrealistic expectations for women, both for boys about girls and girls about themselves. And I do think that it can create some self-image problems for girls and make them feel like they have to not only look like that model, but that they have to be willing to expose themselves like that model as well. I do have a little girl, and I know that I will have to address things like that cover with her as she gets older. I do wish she wouldn't have to face these issues as early as she probably will, but I will help her through them.

And I think that this is probably the biggest difference between the US and Europe on issues like that. I don't think that European children are somehow more capable than US children to not face the negative effects of over-sexualisation at a young age. But I do think that for the most part European cultures is more open to talking about sexuality than US cultures. And that willingness and ability for parents to actually talk to their children about sex and sexuality and nudity and all things that may make them uncomfortable goes a long way to minimize any negative impact from being exposed to sexuality.

Edit:

tl;dr version:

I do think the cover can have a negative effect on youths, but I think better communication with youths and helping them deal with sexuality and body issues is a better solution than banning stuff.

 d-usa wrote:

But I do think that stuff like the SI cover does have an affect on boys and girls. It can set unrealistic expectations for women, both for boys about girls and girls about themselves. And I do think that it can create some self-image problems for girls and make them feel like they have to not only look like that model, but that they have to be willing to expose themselves like that model as well. I do have a little girl, and I know that I will have to address things like that cover with her as she gets older. I do wish she wouldn't have to face these issues as early as she probably will, but I will help her through them.

And I think that this is probably the biggest difference between the US and Europe on issues like that. I don't think that European children are somehow more capable than US children to not face the negative effects of over-sexualisation at a young age. But I do think that for the most part European cultures is more open to talking about sexuality than US cultures. And that willingness and ability for parents to actually talk to their children about sex and sexuality and nudity and all things that may make them uncomfortable goes a long way to minimize any negative impact from being exposed to sexuality.

Edit:

tl;dr version:

I do think the cover can have a negative effect on youths, but I think better communication with youths and helping them deal with sexuality and body issues is a better solution than banning stuff.

Agreed. I also have a daughter, as well as a son... and the way both my wife are trying to raise them, is in such a way where "people are what they are" (if that makes sense). For instance, my daughter kept saying that "boys can't wear pink, because thats a girl color", I kept telling her that that isn't the case, but she wasn't really getting it (she is only 5 now), so now I am the proud owner of a Pink T-shirt that reads "This is my pink rugby shirt" She used to do the same with toys as well, but I've been getting her and her brother Hot Wheels and "regular" LEGO sets and the like, to hopefully bring her up in such a way where she doesn't think so much on those sorts of gendered terms.

This might be a bit off-topic, but I think that the cover (and conversations that may be resulting from it between parents and their children) is a good jumping board for this.

Like I said previously, I do think that communication between parents and their children is an important tool to help them prepare for issues like this and help kids as they may struggle with self-image problems and being exposed to too much sexuality too soon and then feeling like they have to be sexual when they should just be children.

My girl is a toddler, so I don't have to deal with it very much yet. But I do want to raise her in a way that lets her know that it's okay to be what she wants to be and that she doesn't have to conform to random stereotypes. I do recommend this book to new parents, and while it deals mostly with girls I do think that it is helpful when raising a boy as well:



http://www.amazon.com/Redefining-Girly-Stereotyping-Sexualizing-Girlhood-ebook/dp/B00H6U9U44/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423970658&sr=1-1&keywords=redefining+girly#_

Our girls clothes include all colors, and also many things in "stereotypical" girl colors. I'm not anti-pink, I just don't want her to grow up feeling like she is defined by that color. We try to buy toys in gender-neutral colors, and stuff that only comes in gender colors (seriously, why is there a pink "girl" piano and a blue "boy" piano instead of just a piano) get's purchased randomly from both sets of colors. She has baby dolls and a little truck and a helicopter and other mixes of "girls" and "boys" toys because they should just be "toys". We buy clothes that are fun and that have fun messages, not just stuff that says "pretty girl" and "cutie". It's also stupid to see how many clothes for young girls, toddlers even, is already cut like clothes for grownups: shorts that don't let them play without revealing anything, shirts that are body-fitting for 5 year olds.

And that is my main problem with stuff like the swimsuit issue cover: It just forces a lot of these body issues on our children at an age where they shouldn't have to worry about that kind of stuff yet and where their minds might not be even ready to deal with it. Sex, self-esteem, how to be "sexy" but also strong and sexure in her own body. And I feel that this is something she shouldn't have to deal with until later. If she wants to go through grade school picking up insects and running through mud and playing with construction sets and legos and build a race car with daddy then she should be able to be a kid and have fun without having to worry about getting her pretty pink dress dirty or doing something that's not "girly". And if she wants to be a teenager and college girl who dresses all in pink and dresses sexy and revealing and display her sexuality then she should be able to do that as well.

My job is just to prepare to help her tackle all these issues and try to raise her in a way that she can be strong enough in her own confidence, decide how she wants to express herself, how to be sexual and safe, and help her do and be whatever she wants to be while also helping her understand that she doesn't have to be anything she doesn't want to be.

D-USA-Interesting thing.
It was interesting because yesterday my prof brought in a gay couple that have been together for 31 years. And gender stereotyping at a young age. Ad we came to the reason why we still do it is because it is often the path of least resistance and "Keeping peace"
Likw putting bows on baby girls when they are first born. But relationships are going to be interesting to. I said "It depeneds on who you marry, If I marry someone who is more traditional, I wont put up much of a fight"
I wish people where more enlightened and didnt raise kids into these rigid gender roles.

 Breotan wrote:
Am I the only one who had to use wikipedia to find out who Don Lemon is?

No, not at all. I did remember a row when a TV personality assigned partial blame to a rape victim for not fighting off her attacker hard enough, though, but even then couldn't remember this was the guy.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Likw putting bows on baby girls when they are first born.

Or maybe they do that because otherwise it's hard to tell if they're male of female unless they're undressed...

Why does it matter what gender it is? Does everyone who sees her needs to know it is a her?

Funny Or Die has a pretty good satirical take on it, pretty much sums it all up. Definitely NSFW though.

 Ouze wrote:
I have no idea what the point of the swimsuit issue is, other then PG pornography.

He said, as if that were a bad thing.

I don't think the pose is that risque, or anything new for SI.

 Psienesis wrote:
Funny Or Die has a pretty good satirical take on it, pretty much sums it all up. Definitely NSFW though.

That reminds me of a somewhat less eloquent but modern take on the beaver bit in Breakfast of Champions. Enjoyable read, nevertheless.

 Haight wrote:
... but i will say it's a little risque (i mean, let's be honest. you are literally a micrometer from seeing her lady bits). .

Her bits are either covered or they're not. Why does it matter if they're covered by 'a micrometer' or by a yard?

 insaniak wrote:

 Haight wrote:
... but i will say it's a little risque (i mean, let's be honest. you are literally a micrometer from seeing her lady bits). .

Her bits are either covered or they're not. Why does it matter if they're covered by 'a micrometer' or by a yard?

Curious side-question: if she wasn't shaved and was showing bush, would the reaction be different? We would still be seeing the same amount of her pubis, but I feel like the reaction would be different.

 d-usa wrote:

Curious side-question: if she wasn't shaved and was showing bush, would the reaction be different? We would still be seeing the same amount of her pubis, but I feel like the reaction would be different.

Probably, but I imagine the reaction would be more "Ew, gross!" than outrage regarding a sexual display. Though that tends to follow from hairiness in general, of course women tend to get the short end of that stick in day-to-day terms.

What? When did hairless pubic regions become the norm?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
What? When did hairless pubic regions become the norm?

When the relative lack of body hair became a significant component of the social standard of beauty. So, the late 90's?

And even before that showing pubic hair while wearing clothes wasn't considered titillating so much as gross.

 insaniak wrote:

 Haight wrote:
... but i will say it's a little risque (i mean, let's be honest. you are literally a micrometer from seeing her lady bits). .

Her bits are either covered or they're not.

Never said they weren't covered ; this is not a point i made. I did say (hyperbollically) the were as close to being shown as you can get without actually showing them.

Why does it matter if they're covered by 'a micrometer' or by a yard?

This is being pedantic, you know what the point is. I'll illustrate by a counter point.

A woman walks down the street with a strip of duct tape that goes from her vagina and covers her butthole. There's two pasties covering the nipples.


Does the point you're trying to make with your question still hold ? Of course not. People are going to react.


You see no difference in scale at all in displays of skin ? I'm personally not bothered by it, but i can see why the cover got a little attention, there's some prudes out there. But insinuating that "either somethings covered or not" and that' there's no scale to flesh display is just not correct. Otherwise things like halter tops, mini skirts, and all this other stuff would be just as common at a nightclub as a Menninite's frock. Flesh titillates. That's why people use it in everything from marketing to personal attraction. Insinuating otherwise doesn't make any sense, because it's something everyone knows.


Again i'm not bothered by it, but suggesting that as long as things are covered, then there's no scale of showing flesh, no matter how fractionally small or barely, is a bit obtuse.

 Haight wrote:


A woman walks down the street with a strip of duct tape that goes from her vagina and covers her butthole.

Ouch.

She sounds like Luanne from King of the Hill.