SI swimsuit issue: good or bad?

[cr47t]

(Warning: this subject is not for those below the age of 18)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-issue-empowerment_us_58a33d4be4b0e172783aa11e?section=us_women

Yeah yeah I know Huffpo is very left but this article spoke to me a lot. I agree with it that objectification is a big problem in our society's culture and I think that the SI swimsuit issue is a part of of the problem. What is your opinion?

Discuss.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If the women in question are fine with it, I don't see why you or anyone else should be able to tell them how they display their body is a wrong. 

[Just Crouton]

"They are consuming the images of these women as sexual, inanimate objects."

 

It's human to consume images of people as sexual, inanimate objects. It's really not a big deal, unless you're treating people like sexual, inanimate objects.

 

"That’s because the unspoken truth is that Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue is not a triumph of female athleticism, agency, or empowerment. Instead, it is a descent into sexual objectification."

 

What unspoken truth? I'm pretty sure this has been common knowledge since the 60's.

 

"But shouldn’t we inspire confidence in our daughters that stems from inherent worth and cultivated talents, rather than their fleeting youthful appeal to men’s sexual interest?"

 

There's no confidence to be found in having the discipline to exercise regularly, show your hard work to the world, all while making money? Okay.

 

"Women of all shapes, sizes, and ages deserve more than being reduced to body parts for another’s sexual desire."

 

Welcome to modelling. Also, yes.

 

_____

 

I guess she couldn't complain about the women being too skinny considering they got a fat chick.

[mido9]

But shouldn’t we inspire confidence in our daughters that stems from inherent worth and cultivated talents, rather than their fleeting youthful appeal to men’s sexual interest? The key about self-objectification is that once the cultural tone has been set, and women have received the message that they’re products on a shelf, they begin to internalize this concept. The Orwellian double-speak surrounding publications like Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue, and sexual objectification in general, is as shallow as it is pervasive. Confidence or agency based on another’s approval or desire is not true empowerment—it is in fact an abdication of power.

Women of all shapes, sizes, and ages deserve more than being reduced to body parts for another’s sexual desire.

 

Women have more to offer than their bodies, and women who have achieved remarkable feats like participating in the Olympics do not deserve to be put back into the box of male sexual accessibility in order to promote body positivity.

You can still be proud of things other than your body, but SI is not for that, there's a lot of magazines which show that one fat woman scientist or woman engineer or Belgian Health Minister who weighs as much as Boogie and Jontron combined(specifically the news), but there's also a lot of women who worked hard to get a fit body and want to be able to get a man with it, or etc, it's not mutually exclusive.

 

Also, no women really think that "well all I'm good for is sex because these models are on the stage and they have perfect curvy bodies and I don't". Like, legit very very very very few and most of the time when they ask someone if all they can be good for is looking pretty they get told "nah you'll be fine just be smart or funny or loving" and they move on.

 

Like seriously, fat people who want to be loved in society can lose weight, or they become smarter, better parents, more lovable, and they know that, and in fact it might be better to marry a smart fat women than some stereotypical dumb blonde who might be really good in bed but you wouldn't want to be with for a long time.

[cr47t]

@above: Allow me to respond so we can continue this conversation;
 

If the women in question are fine with it, I don't see why you or anyone else should be able to tell them how they display their body is a wrong.

I understand that they seem to be fine with it. What I personally don't understand is why they are fine with it.
 

1"They are consuming the images of these women as sexual, inanimate objects."
 
It's human to consume images of people as sexual, inanimate objects. It's really not a big deal, unless you're treating people like sexual, inanimate objects.
 
2"That’s because the unspoken truth is that Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue is not a triumph of female athleticism, agency, or empowerment. Instead, it is a descent into sexual objectification."
 
What unspoken truth? I'm pretty sure this has been common knowledge since the 60's.
 
3"But shouldn’t we inspire confidence in our daughters that stems from inherent worth and cultivated talents, rather than their fleeting youthful appeal to men’s sexual interest?"
 
There's no confidence to be found in having the discipline to exercise regularly, show your hard work to the world, all while making money? Okay.
 
4"Women of all shapes, sizes, and ages deserve more than being reduced to body parts for another’s sexual desire."
 
Welcome to modelling. Also, yes.
 
_____
 
5 I guess she couldn't complain about the women being too skinny considering they got a fat chick.

•  
• My worry is that the portrayal of women as sex objects may cause predators to act on said portrayals. This is probably unlikely, I know, but in an age where we have such a portrayer in the Oval Office (source: access hollywood tape) could heighten the likelihood.
• I acknowledge that "unspoken" is probably the wrong word to use. Due to it's persistency, I feel that "unaddressed" would be a better word.
• I feel you're missing the point that article made there. It's fine to exercise regularly and show the work to the world. The problem is when the people involved use said work to sell it on the sole subject of sex, even if it's disguised as athleticism (in this case) or some other topic.
• Modeling does not have to be about sex(ual appeal), and it was never meant to be - the way I see it, modeling was meant to help convey how clothes -- normal, everyday clothes -- would look, and was meant to be more about fashion than about sexual appeal. Alas, the directors running the shown have morphed it this way and that into the abomination problem it is now.
• I don't get your point, nor how this is important to the discussion.

1 You can still be proud of things other than your body, but SI is not for that, there's a lot of magazines which show that one fat woman scientist or woman engineer or Belgian Health Minister who weighs as much as Boogie and Jontron combined(specifically the news), but there's also a lot of women who worked hard to get a fit body and want to be able to get a man with it, or etc, it's not mutually exclusive.
 
2 Also, no women really think that "well all I'm good for is sex because these models are on the stage and they have perfect curvy bodies and I don't". Like, legit very very very very few and most of the time when they ask someone if all they can be good for is looking pretty they get told "nah you'll be fine just be smart or funny or loving" and they move on.
 
3 Like seriously, fat people who want to be loved in society can lose weight, or they become smarter, better parents, more lovable, and they know that, and in fact 4 it might be better to marry a smart fat women than some stereotypical dumb blonde who might be really good in bed but you wouldn't want to be with for a long time.

• What do you percieve SI to be for, then? Also, I would appreciate it if you could explain what "mutually exclusive" means in your argument
• Of course no women think that of themselves. My concern is that a not insignificant amount of men might think of women something along those lines -- that is what I percieve as one of the consequences of objectification.
• It's not that easy to lose weight or become smarter, especially the former.
• If what you are saying is that a person's inner personality is more valuable than her physical shape, I would agree with that, and that would be precisely one of the reasons I so dislike the SI swimsuit issues and other similar portrayals - they make it all about the body, and not at all about the mind. That (the hyper-focus on the body) needs to end, in my opinion.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because Humans are lustful sexual creatures? 

[cr47t]

Because Humans are lustful sexual creatures?

Not neccesarily. You're generalizing. Very few, if any, people fit that description, others have fetishes or other stuff like that, some don't know better, and some know that these generalizations (the ones SI makes in those issues) are false.

[mido9]

 

1. My worry is that the portrayal of women as sex objects may cause predators to act on said portrayals. This is probably unlikely, I know, but in an age where we have such a portrayer in the Oval Office (source: access hollywood tape) could heighten the likelihood.
2. I feel you're missing the point that article made there. It's fine to exercise regularly and show the work to the world. The problem is when the people involved use said work to sell it on the sole subject of sex, even if it's disguised as athleticism (in this case) or some other topic.

Can I just uh, talk about this for just a second?

 

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment is sexual harassment. EVERYONE knows that women are not just a pile of meat, like not even serial rapists would think of women, or any specific woman is purely just tits and curves just because there's a lot of lecherous mags on the internet dedicated to tits and curves. Also, even if they did that's sexual harassment which is illegal and they know it. Really, it doesn't happen, it's possible and could in like 0.0000000000001% of men, but it does not really happen.

 

Also, if you want to sell your looks to some lewd mag you should be able to do that, and if there weren't enough people who are lewd enough to get all these magazines, there wouldn't be at least 50 lewd sites, 5 good lewd mags, and the playboy magazine running for like 40 years now.

[cr47t]

Can I just uh, talk about this for just a second?

 

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment is sexual harassment. EVERYONE knows that women are not just a pile of meat, like not even serial rapists would think of women, or any specific woman is purely just tits and curves just because there's a lot of lecherous mags on the internet dedicated to tits and curves. Also, even if they did that's sexual harassment which is illegal and they know it. Really, it doesn't happen, it's possible and could in like 0.0000000000001% of men, but it does not really happen.

I wasn't sure how often it happened (none counts) so I did put in;

 

This is probably unlikely, I know,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, if you want to sell your looks to some lewd mag you should be able to do that, and if there weren't enough people who are lewd enough to get all these magazines, there wouldn't be at least 50 lewd sites, 5 good lewd mags, and the playboy magazine running for like 40 years now.

The thing about this scenario is SI is a sports magazine, and is meant to be a sports magazine, that is what they should be doing, not pulling off the kinds of things they do in the swimsuit editions. (Besides, they only do that very little, I think it's once a year, but I'm not sure) so comparing it to playboy and all those kinds of products is kind of like comparing a collection of soccer balls and basketballs to a pile of dog poo. They're hardly, if at all, alike.

[Just Crouton]

 

@above: Allow me to respond so we can continue this conversation;

 

I understand that they seem to be fine with it. What I personally don't understand is why they are fine with it.

 

•  
• My worry is that the portrayal of women as sex objects may cause predators to act on said portrayals. This is probably unlikely, I know, but in an age where we have such a portrayer in the Oval Office (source: access hollywood tape) could heighten the likelihood.
• I acknowledge that "unspoken" is probably the wrong word to use. Due to it's persistency, I feel that "unaddressed" would be a better word.
• I feel you're missing the point that article made there. It's fine to exercise regularly and show the work to the world. The problem is when the people involved use said work to sell it on the sole subject of sex, even if it's disguised as athleticism (in this case) or some other topic.
• Modeling does not have to be about sex(ual appeal), and it was never meant to be - the way I see it, modeling was meant to help convey how clothes -- normal, everyday clothes -- would look, and was meant to be more about fashion than about sexual appeal. Alas, the directors running the shown have morphed it this way and that into the abomination it is now.
• I don't get your point, nor how this is important to the discussion.

 

 

1. .

 

 

4. How is it a problem? They're fulfilling a natural human desire to look at titillating images while presumably making a crapton of money doing it. These women are working hard and making a living.

5a. Yes, but products are supposed to look visually appealing, which is why clothing ads have cheesecake models and hunky guys and not cafeteria ladies and dad bods.

5b. "modeling was meant to help convey how clothes -- normal, everyday clothes -- would look" Since when?

5c. "and was meant to be more about fashion than about sexual appeal" It is about fashion. We see cheesecake models because nobody's dumb enough to use an ugly model to sell their sexy clothing line.

5d. "Alas, the directors running the shown have morphed it this way and that into the abomination it is now." How's it an abomination?

 

 

 

1. they make it all about the body, and not at all about the mind. That (the hyper-focus on the body) needs to end, in my opinion.

 

 

That's because modelling is about aesthetic. The model's job is to look good, not to think.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Dudes don't complain about the posters of Taylor Lautner or Zac Efron or whoever the funk chicks think is attractive now.

 

Was Starlord being shirtless in GotG needed? Of course no.

 

Calling stuff like this an abomination is just distracting people from the actual social injustices going on in the world and gives feminism a bad name.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Dudes don't complain about the posters of Taylor Lautner or Zac Efron or whoever the funk chicks think is attractive now.

 

Was Starlord being shirtless in GotG needed? Of course no.

 

Calling stuff like this an abomination is just distracting people from the actual social injustices going on in the world and gives feminism a bad name.

Feminism has a bad name cause it's become misandry

[cr47t]

4. How is it a problem? They're fulfilling a natural human desire to look at titillating images while presumably making a crapton of money doing it. These women are working hard and making a living.

5a. Yes, but products are supposed to look visually appealing, which is why clothing ads have cheesecake models and hunky guys and not cafeteria ladies and dad bods.

5b. "modeling was meant to help convey how clothes -- normal, everyday clothes -- would look" Since when?

5c. "and was meant to be more about fashion than about sexual appeal" It is about fashion. We see cheesecake models because nobody's dumb enough to use an ugly model to sell their sexy clothing line.

5d. "Alas, the directors running the shown have morphed it this way and that into the abomination it is now." How's it an abomination?

 

 

 

5e That's because modelling is about aesthetic. The model's job is to look good, not to think.

 

4. The problem is that it can portray all women as something that clearly doesn't apply to all of them, and while it may not lead to sexual harassment from men (as Mido corrected me) it can lead to other misunderstandings and mistreatments from either gender. (ex. body shaming)

 

5a. "visually appealing" is subjective to one's standards for what visually appeals to them, which varies from person to person. Some people find cheesecake material/hunky material visually appealing and some people don't. It all varies, but the suggestive material drowns out the material that would appeal to those who don't like/want such suggestiveness. The point is, today's modeling only caters to one of these viewpoints, the lewdest ones, and not nearly enough to the more moderate preferences.

 

5b. I was just under that impression, I don't know the history, but there are (this is also my perception) plenty of models who don't even try to sexually appeal and are still employed.

 

5c. I think I misspoke, I meant "meant to be more about fashion without sexual appeal". And again, saying something along the lines of "cheesecake is what looks good" ignores the fact that different things look good to different people.

 

5d. I was a bit riled up and I guess "abomination" was an exaggeration. I've edited it to say "problem". But in any case, I view it that way because today's mainstream modeling has (in my view) become indistinguishable from straight up pornography. I just can't tolerate that in my presence.

 

5e. For the third time, different things look good to different people. Some people prefer the more lewd setups, some people prefer just the less lewd setups. Today's mainstream modeling just doesn't seem to care nearly enough about, let alone cater to, the latter category (those preferring lese lewd setups).

[vla1ne]

"To each their own" has been lost to time hasn't it? 

 

put simply, some people want to look good on camera, and others will pay good money to see those good looking people, it's a normal desire, and there's nothing at all wrong with it. nor is there anything wrong with people wanting to profit from it, be they the models or the viewers or the producers (assuming consent of all involved). also, it's not objectification, we don't want to see a good looking vase, we want to see good looking people. sure, it can give people fantasies, but literally, who cares? so long as you can tell the difference between your fantasies and reality, (and act accordingly) i see nothing wrong with imagining your kinks wherever and whenever you damn well please.

 

this article is basically, a person upset that there exists a magazine article (SI), that has a target audience (men who like fit women). that's it. no, SI does not need to expand, it knows it's audience, and it knows who they like. so as long as the people posing, are posing of their own free will, then there is nothing wrong with this, or any, swimsuit magazine.