PLAYBOY...INDIE ROCK....NAKED GIRLS!!!!!!!!!

(sorry)

i mean, it's not like were hating her or beating her or whatever.

on objectification, i'll buy the theory that ultimately porn does suck. it creates laziness. it creates unreal expectations both about body image and sex as an act. but damn, do we have to turn off our appetite entirely?

is it ok to see a person who we feel is attractive and express that feeling?

sex, drugs, and rock and roll... ("it's over.")
m.

#2. "on objectification, i'll buy the theory that ultimately porn does suck. it creates laziness. it creates unreal expectations both about body image and sex as an act. but damn, do we have to turn off our appetite entirely?"

Frankly, if some women wait until marriage for sex, and the rest require a serious relationship, the other guys need some form of release. As Tom Leykis says (and I dont quote this man often), ejaculation is like urination.

I dunno, Sterling, you said that before so I've looked at them a few times -- they were surprisingly okay, way above my expectations, but I'm not sure about "great."

I find it hard to judge magazines on this sort of thing, because when it's just front-of-book capsule reviews it's less "criticism" and more actual "tastemaking," which is a sort of different game. Have you ever read the Entertainment Weekly expanded music section thing?

I'm still not sure how to feel about pornography and the objectification of women. The women ARE being paid...

Certainly not a critcism in any way, nabisco, just saying their editors might circumscribe the writers a bit.

I've never read EW, what are they like?

(for that matter, what are Playboy's reviews like? icky i imagine, not in a sex way, but in a sort of culture-vulture but not-getting it one?)

The other big flaw in your logic is that "objectification" in porn has nothing to do with whether the particular women involved are being paid or not. If you think complaints about "objectifying women" are somehow about porno actresses getting a raw deal, you've completely misunderstood the point.

it is impossible for you to explain what is wrong with that.

but i agree with everything else you said. except the stuff about puddle of mudd.

yr penthouse penpal,
db
ps omg lmao

Men are going to want to express their sexuality and they're going to in the most realisitic possible way (thus the reason sex is still preferred to masturbation), and when they don't have a means to, they'll find a way. It's a necessary evil.

Also, when you say, "male sexuality gets taken out on women who are minding their own business." Are you refering to porn stars or prostitutes? I'm fairly sure they aren't just minding their own business.

The thing that makes me so unsure about the whole pornography thing is, in most porn women ARE being objectified. Especially Asian porn, I mean, honestly, half of it involved women being raped.

to the other guy!!!!!!! : but, see, you never see the people you know naked. you probably don't even know her. she could just be in one of your classes or a friend of your sister's or anyone! someone who crossed a crosswalk you stopped at. and then you can imagine them naked by looking at someone who looks the same way and pretend that you are seeing them naked. it's just a device. ----------- part of it is helping give personality to the girl you're masturbating to, also. ----------

Porno, moron.

This is going to be another one of those threads, isn't it, where certain people display this big inability to distinguish between whether what they're defending is strictly morally "wrong" and whether or not it contributes to some larger system of thought that has bad consequences. It's the same thing on every porn and every objectification-of-women thread. Let's spell it out:

The objectification-of-women complaint is not saying that paying women to satisfy your fantasies necessarily harms you or the woman. The complaint is that lots of individual acts of this create a society in which women are inordinately valued and/or judged as sexual fantasy objects, as passive satisfiers of male sexuality, rather than as independently-functioning human beings with objectives and accomplishments of their own. It doesn't matter who is or is not okay with any particular instance of this; it doesn't matter if lots of women enjoy being objectified or whether lots of men would be fine with being objectified themselves. What people complain about when they complain about objectification is that our culture as a whole, tends to do this hard-core to women, and it's clearly damaging in lot of ways, and some people just happen to feel some effort should be made to keep it to a minimum if at all possible.

I mean, Christ, any guy will understand this instinctively if you put him in a bar full of two dozen other guys staring at his sister's ass.

youre damn right trife threads are always workin!!
at the game for seventeen years. you wanna fight trife then fight these TEARS.

Sorry x-post: Actually I don't think women have objectified men just as much, at least not as publically or effectually -- if part of what you mean by "power dynamic" is that women haven't had access to the right institutions of power to make their objectification valid and prevalent, then yeah, I agree with you. This is also why I pointed out that plenty of people are happy to make objectification a two-way street, which seems to be largely the direction things are moving. (I'm not convinced it's the best direction, though, because there's always going to be more harm to those who resist objectification than benefit to those who embrace it.)

resisting objectification = wearing loose baggy clothing. duh.

resisting the society of objectification = moving into a situation where men don't have the opportunity to *treat* women like objects, which is way different than *looking* at a person like an object, which is sort of necessarily how you look at a person you don't really know (tho of course not always like a sexy object)

baggy clothing used to be a way to resist objectification (for females, not males) until indie-boys started to fetishize it too.

lesson: there is no escape for females. no matter what far out non-standard look adopted, some fucking hipsters will start to think its hottt and start drooling anyway.

My sister can take care of herself, thank you very much. She never needed (much less wanted) any big brotherly "hey, whatchoo lookin' at?" protection from me. (She is now a married mom and on her way to being a kick-ass old-time fiddler.)

And what exactly are you getting at? That guys shouldn't look at women's asses? Or, presumably, other guys' asses either? Look, I agree objectification and rendering other people as passive sex objects is generally a bad thing, and certainly a danger attendant to our culture and society (and, frankly, to most cultures and societies). But that doesn't automatically translate into all ass-looking being bad, or even all pornography being bad. You ever read Tristan Taormino's column? And how about all the women I know who like pornography? Where do they fit in? I know in the doctrinaire scheme of things they're just victims who don't even realize the result of their victimization, but I think it's a little more complicated than that.

I'm still assuming st is just having fun at y'all's expense, and is well aware of the contradiction.

Gee, ya think?!

< /irony> < / irony> < /irony>

ghost world to thread.

This is why I hate these threads: someone always comes along all defensive and goes "What, are you saying now I can't check out someone's ass? Are you saying all porn ever is evil?" No! Go read the bold part again, or something. Look at people's asses -- half of the people out there fucking want you to, that's why the back pockets just magically vanished from womens' jeans. The question is about the sort of atmosphere you want to create for other people to exist in, and the way in which you want to think of them and act toward them when they're in it. I don't care whether you're sister's married or not and it's not about fucking protection, it's about the fact that most guys have some woman they care enough about that they wouldn't like the idea of, say, loads of guys animatedly slavering over and approaching her as pure fresh-meat -- and that realization is surely a start to understanding what objectification is and why it's not a positive thing to just inflict on people. It's not a question of who's ass you're checking out, it's a question of whether your collective patterns of doing thing do or do not contribute to an atmosphere that harms anyone.

anyway all indie-girls have indie-boyfriends coz that's where chicks get their taste from anyway, right?

(i don't wanna keep closing my irony tags coz i'm losing track of how many i've opened)

(also why are we talking in parentheses?)

(which would make them exactly like pornstars anyway, and so we come full circle)

Madonna to thread to tell us what's wrong with this.

the fetishization of hip indie girls is definitely a little unsavory, but i'm not sure i agree with your whole rationale/thesis statement here. what's wrong with sexualizing EVERY GIRL? they all have vaginas right? i think if you asked the 'average' female of whatever stripe or creed, their main beef with the blonde bimbo Playboy image is that it endorses that as the ideal, and that if you have dark hair and glasses and a different kind of figure, you can't be sexy/sexed.

that said, the whole indie boy/girl thing is just creepy. dating people based on what they listen to is arguably more shallow/stupid than basing it on what they look like. I'm glad i found a girl outside the indie dating pool and don't socialize exclusively in those circles. there are some cool people in there, and some fine womens, but i dunno, it's always just felt unsavory to me to want to live in an indie wonderland.

some of these girls are icons ... sure, they're indie icons, but to a subculture of kids, they're the shit. they're heroes. being in the public eye, you have to really be patient with regards to the audience falling for you and having crushes on you. it's gonna happen.

i honestly wouldn't be surprised if these girls were at least asked first about this. i could be wrong. i probably am, but in this world of lawsuits, i wouldn't be surprised. i didn't even notice the "they'll be asked if they'd like to pose" part right away. i knee-jerked and voted. can i blame it on the web? it's not like a wet t-shirt contest. i didn't even look at their little photos and bios. christ, i'm married, it's not like i even went through any sexual fantasy in my head.

does it make it anymore ok? nah.

but there is a little bit of a difference than the office poll example.

honestly, i still think of most of those girls more as musicians than as a "sweet piece of ass" or something. i'd respect neko case more if i liked her tunes. glass candy rocks. the make up kicked ass. catpower i can dig.

m.

the end of the repression wouldn't necessarily end the oppression.

m.

What the fuck? Do you people honestly think I'm some misognystic women-hater?

women being objectified has more to do with oppression than repression
-- Brother James Blount (littlejohnnyjewe...), April 25th, 2003.

Opression is a bi-product of repression.

nabisco, in the middle of such a reasonable post such rhetoric is misleading. suely such behaviour, if on such a mass scale, has some socialising use? sounding out? experimentation? maybe it's replaced the alpha male gettuig to twat senseless anyone who approaches his brood.
cos a lot of typically "female" patterns of behaviour tend to be less overt then people will assume, even in academic settings, it is reflected as some kind of weakness or sobordinacy. in the conssumation of objectification (lord i feel like jesse jackson. the consummation of the objectification of the emancipation proclomation!) but whatever the social status (well, pehaps not when youre ina burqua when it's 32 degrees) some women will still have the tools and intelligence to make the most of it. much as some men will make sucesses of themselves.
the greatest problem with this is the contradiction of trying to organise patterns of behaviour. cos firstly, and obviously, from person to person things vary. but as soon as you've picked out some mass form of behavious that hasn't brought society to its knees already, it's difficult to argue realistically that it's heavily detrimental in anything but the most foced and academic sense.

In the past, I should add, Playboy has actually scored some incredible interviews, features and fiction. If you want to argue against this then you're onto a dead loss - Jimmy Carter, John Lennon, JFK, Malcolm X, Al Pacino - all in exclusive, lengthy, probing interviews that are now seen as among the best ever conducted. Ian Fleming first wrote his Bond series for Playboy as well. The mag is also involved in preservation of film - Hugh Hefner himself helped restore The Big Sleep for instance. Therefore, I'm not going to discuss the magazine without at least some understanding of the positive aspects of Playboy.

The negative side of Playboy is that, whilst the mag likes to claim it sells the "girl next door" it usually sells plastic blonde bimbos and launches the careers of several braindead silicone queens that, if I'm honest, the world really could do without (step forward Jenny McCarthy). Then again, some genuine talents have used the magazine as a spring board into bigger things (Kim Basinger, Sharon Stone, Drew Barrymore) so I find this notion that Playboy might exploit women preposterous - these were still well known women!

The arguement that porn is degrading or whatever has long since been dismissed by many academics, both in feminsim and gender studies.
I can't be bothered having a long discussion about this but if you can't seperate, in your mind, between your girlfriend or the women at work, and an airbrushed image in a magazine, or a porn star - then you need serious help.

Women are not forced into pornography - sure there might be some infrequent case but people are forced into working at Safeway as well - any more than men are. There is nothing wrong EVER with wanting to view or look at erotic/ pornographic images and I would never consider myself above anyone to dictate to them that seeing naked women is somehow harming or damaging them. And as I've said many times - you're on a fucking music forum!!!! As in 'rock and roll'. If you hate sexism so then join a Buddhist sect and throw your records in the bin because all your fave songs will be written by pricks far more sexist (and possibly misogynistic) than anyone posting on this board.

Or even better - go to Singapore and see porn being sold undercover on the streets (as I have) at the risk of serious fines and imprisonment and simply LEARN that there is always a market for sex, wherever you go in the world, and repressing it is dangerous.

I, personally, find the treatment of women in religious practices (female circumcision, covering yourself up from head to toe, no sex before marriage, The Bible preaching 'women submit yourselfs to your husband' etc etc) far more offensive than an image in a magazine or a movie. And if you hate women being naked so much then what about men? Men do porn as well you know (hell, if I was paid I'd do Playgirl!!!!)

By the way, I voted for Sarah Nixey and advise everyone else to do the same as it will make me a very happy man indeed.

1) What makes the men on this forum so sure they can speak for women anyway? I'd vouch that this is demeaning and very sexist indeed!

2) I'm going out clubbing tonight. Would you like me to count the number of women wearing next to nothing in a bid to pull and go home and fuck? Women portray themselves as sex objects in every day life - go out more and you'd see this. Unless you want to turn us into Iran I see no reason that this is a bad thing, but your arguement this female practice must be misogynistic cos it panders to male fantasy!??!

Hmmm. What makes the men on this forum so sure they can speak for women anyway?

I can't speak about how women feel being shagged by two men with a camera rolling because I'm not involved in porn.

And the other men on this thread aren't speaking from experience, I take it.

I can't speak about how women feel being shagged by two men with a camera rolling because I'm not involved in porn.

This has nothing to do with anything I was thinking about, but rest assured I've placed that image in the circular file of my mind.

kewl!

http://www.abc.net.au/newengland/stories/m389460.jpg

oh and btw, the Neko Case pic comes from a shoot she already did for one of those indie pin-up mags. Go check it out duuudes!! Tits!! For real!!

Liking to look at nekkid women = creep.

Thanks for that, I'd forgotten how creepy I was.

P.S. My 'dead average' taste in women is the male norm, live with it.

You could view the Playboy indie chick thing as sexist - it's bascially saying that they CAN and WILL purchase the female of your choice to show her tits and ass and, in doing so, she will be able to forward her career. Not through her music mind, but by what's underneath. Yeah, this can be seen as sexist, but then so can any star in the music industry today - Westlife sell sex to a young audience, albeit cushy and un-threatening and safe. Take That were there to help the girls through puberty. All of this focuses on appearance and the music industry will always sell this. Is this sexism? I'm not sure. Playboy's poll is no more or less sexist than your average Robbie Williams video though.

Misogyny, on the other hand, is the express hatred of women. Cute, sexy, tasteful pictures of undressed females is not misogyny. All porn is not misogyny (and how sad to see some people her believing it is). Misogyny is the 70s/ early 80s 'roughie' films, misogyny is 'The New York Ripper' and Japanese torture movies, misogyny is Max Hardcore, misogyny is Eminem and various rap music stars (Snoop Doog for one). That's misogyny.

Seperate sexism from misogyny please. They are not interchangable.

But thanks to C's presence this thread is basically over, since he can type a lot but he's completely unable to read, and thus completely unable to separate complaints about a culture of objectification from all of these people he imagines are telling him that finding women attractive is a sin. This weird schizophrenia -- arguing with things people never actually said -- is on complete factual display on this thread, where he waltzes in to tell everyone they're misusing the terms "sexism" and "misogyny": do a little word search, Calum, and you'll note that you're the only person to have used either of those words so far!

Just because something *is* that way does not mean that that is the way that it *should* be. Your logic is flawed from the very start. Normal != fair.

I guess this is too trashy for Playboy now

dk r0x etc.

You are very bitter, your posts indicate that you seem insecure in yourself (I'm not criticising this) and angry at those you perceive to be more attractive, sexier, more successful etc etc I feel quite sorry for you. You are the girl in the night club hiding away in the corner.

I never said 'it happens all the time girls are clearly okay with it' I simply stated that some women enjoy being presented as sexy and attractive, and why not? I'd be flattered if someone chose to present me in this manner.

My ex-girlfriend had no problem with Playboy, but she was quite offended by the openness of my ex-flatmate who would openly show her dildo around and speak about shagging. She was also quite taken aback by an old mate of mine who had bedded a lot of men, and indicated a desire to shag as many blokes as possible. Me personally - none of these offend me, it's up to the individual. But by your reckoning Kate, the only type of feminism is the anti-porn, all women are subject to male oppression type of cack that has been outdated for years. Grow up.

P.S. I'm sure Kate is alright, she just has opinions that niggle at me, but that's what make us human, I was probably out of order in what I said.

is everyone too freaked out of looking like an indie square to mention the creepiness of the "we WILL get them" tone of this thing?? yeah yeah indie-alternaland in "just as sexist and backward as everywhere else etc zzzzz" SHOCKAH but the forbidden-fruit aspect of this really does come from playboyINC's understanding of indierock as at least a SYMBOLIC safe-zone from objectification=record-sales pressures. Sure the work that's been done to make that even half-true has been chipped away at for years and wasn't always guided by the greatest of impulses in the first place but a there's a sort Last Frontier co-optation powerplay at work here that's just totally discouraging for anyone who saw any promise in that work to begin with. AM I BEING TOO CORNY?? Fuck is it ever appalling.

(the worst part is i'm now waiting for someone to saunter in and hand me the music-in-a-car-ad chestnut about how GREAT it will be for the winner since the indie scene isn't earning them a living TOM DELETE THE UNIVERSE NOW PLEASE)

I thought punk/indie porn was pretty much a fact of life now.

also sterling otm

i don't know which is more of a drag: that ronan probably means me, or that he's probably right

(bye)

Best username evah!

(# of wrongheaded twats on this side of the argument = 4 or 5? match: trife)

It's strange that we can even have a conversation about this - doesn't it seem like it should be a kind of logical impossibility? I'm really embarrassed.

Just popped by to say this makes no sense.

Toodle pip, must dash now. See you soon.

image posts almost completely absent from this thread. weird. A+ trolling throughout tho.

will take #1 and #3

"Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on an indie chick with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of indie chicks with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times."

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/history/faculty/TROYWEB/Courseweb/Carter%20Playboy%20Interview.JPG