Mercedes McNab goes commando:
Harmony gets the cover of the November Playboy. See Mercedes getting her kit off , very tastefully! (link goes to the Playboy site so Not Safe For Work).
All Gooners out there might know she is the daughter of Gunners 1970's star Bob McNab.
And all things being equal, why aren't there magazines like Playboy (Playgirl doesn't count) and Maxim for the women who would like to see the hot bods of some of the verse guys as well. I'm sure at least Tony Head would be up for it.
[ edited by RavenU on 2006-10-07 16:09 ]
RavenU | October 07, 18:05 CET
Simon | October 07, 18:11 CET
I wonder if she ever played football and is she any good?
[ edited by demon magnet on 2006-10-07 16:25 ]
demon magnet | October 07, 18:23 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 07, 18:33 CET
Joking aside, the pics are really nicely done and, although I'm sure that RavenU is correct and there is at least a little photoshop involved there (isn't there always?), Mercedes looks incredible, as she always does.
Thinking back to the early years of Buffy I never imagined that Harmony would be a contender for one of the top three sexiest women of the Buffyverse but I'd definately reconsider that now. Lovely lady!
Buffysmglover | October 07, 18:40 CET
pat32082 | October 07, 19:36 CET
Still, airbrushing aside she looks great, toned and healthy (assuming the airbrushing didn't go so far as to actually change her body shape - as with Kate Winslet a while back). As I said in the shortlived non-legit link's comments yesterday, I hope this has positive consequences for her, irrespective of the politics of her choice.
Re: women's version, I guess there's stuff like "Men's Health" you could look at though i'm not sure if they have celebrities in there. I think there's no 'Maxim' or 'FHM' equivalent for women because, frankly, the cultural prejudice is that women are not as base as men and so there's no market for those sorts of magazines. Or rather than a suspicion of sophistication maybe it's the old Victorian denial of female sexuality ?
Either way, kick up enough interest and make the right people take notice and i'm sure they'd start to pop up in their hundreds. If there's money to be made someone'll do it.
(BTW, despite the obvious pun I find "Test-drive the curvy Mercedes McNab" a bit offensive. I'm very far from being excessively PC, in fact I can't normally stand that sort of linguistic over-sensitivity, but the connotations of being controlled, being an inanimate object and basically being 'ridden' are a bit beyond the pale, IMO)
Saje | October 07, 19:57 CET
I haven't looked at Playgirl since the mid-90s when I quit working at a newsstand, but at that time, the pictures in it were mainly, IMO, targeted at gay men, who were also the ones who bought it. The men in them were shaved all over, oily, and posed, as in the gay mags. The conventional wisdom is that women don't like pictures as much as men. I have to agree with that, to an extent, because I've observed men liking pictures to an near psychotic degree. When they started talking to the porn mags, you had to kick them out. I had to 86 one guy who wasn't even in the porn, he was kissing the covers in the women's mag section.
The conventional wisdom is that women's porn is all in words, and you can verify the love of porn in words on any Buffy fanfic site, jvl. But everybody loves a beautiful picture. RavenU, you're a brilliant photographer. If anybody could start something like Slaygirl, it would be you.
And Saje, you confirm my refusal to look at Playboy and similar. I'm sure the pictures are nice but the copy makes my blood pressure spike.
dreamlogic | October 07, 20:20 CET
Pretty simple: Money and marketing. To oversimplify: Men buy visual porn. Straight men buy porn featuring women, gay men buy porn freaturing other men. Depending on whose numbers you listen to, gay men make up 1/9th to 1/49th of the size of the 'straight men' demographic. If you assume that women don't play a significant role (e.g., the number of straight women who buy playgirl are essentially a wash with any lesbians who buy playboy), then erotic magazines featuring men are very to extremely behind the demographic curve. It would take several favorable factors (e.g., less competition in the erotic pictures of men market segment, greater purchasing of porn by gay men compared to their straight counterparts) for it to be profitable, since there are significant fixed costs to producing a magazine.
Of course, these same arguments apply to essentially any niche erotica. Since the Internet can attract paying customers worldwide and deliver content more cheaply than mail or newsstand, it's another nail in the coffin of print niche erotica: what erotic pictures of men you CAN buy, are increasingly likely to be offered online only.
jclemens | October 07, 20:22 CET
SpikeBad | October 07, 20:30 CET
theyarescientists | October 07, 21:04 CET
Pointy | October 07, 21:05 CET
The Jackal | October 07, 21:08 CET
And art is serious, there's no smiling in art, just ask anyone ;).
Saje | October 07, 21:19 CET
pat32082 | October 07, 21:26 CET
theyarescientists | October 07, 21:27 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 07, 21:36 CET
pat32082 | October 07, 21:37 CET
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-07 19:48 ]
Pointy | October 07, 21:39 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 07, 21:48 CET
Madhatter | October 07, 21:51 CET
Pointy | October 07, 21:58 CET
Harmalicious | October 07, 22:33 CET
Pointy | October 07, 22:35 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 07, 22:35 CET
*Nearly as bad as Hex. Hilariously there's an actor from Hex whose one of the leads.
Simon | October 07, 22:53 CET
Yeah, no need to look at Adam's face, we can probably guess at the expression (and it sure ain't grim).
Ah wait, I think I see what you mean ...
(oh bugger, missed it Simon. Still, if it's really that bad sounds like I may have dodged a bullet)
Saje | October 07, 22:57 CET
Madhatter | October 07, 23:07 CET
Madhatter | October 07, 23:21 CET
Simpleba | October 07, 23:32 CET
Lovely, dl, and for me, the copy is the dead giveaway, regardless of the attempts to be tasteful.
I wasn't gonna post in this thread, as I did all my stuff when this shoot was announced. Didn't want to further dignify or bore or discuss ad nauseum the difference between puritanism and my (ever-hopeful) desire for both sexes to achieve equal human dignity in presentation and cultural value. If that's what I mean.
I'll just say that I had fully intended to satirically merge/blend/photoshop (!!!) some photos of male Whedon'verse actors with the Harmony series and couldn't bring myself to humiliate a fellow human being in that way. Dunno what that says, but it says something and that something is meaningful.
Mercedes is certifiably lovely, and I'm sure as a capable actress she produced gazillions of expressions in what I'm sure was an extensive shoot. Many, many people were involved in choosing (and re-touching) these photos and the fact that these particular (mostly) vulnerable-looking expressions were picked was completely intentional. They mostly convey (to me) a sort of wistful desire to be elsewhere, but I may be projecting.
WHEDONesque, god love us, from the sublime to the ridiculous in a few days. It is indeed a thin line that separates the two.
I'm off to buy a mudflap with Alexis' silhouette posed on it...
"Sometimes I wonder if men and women really suit each other. Perhaps they should live next door and just visit now and then." -- Don Weiser
"Because of our social circumstances, male and female are really two cultures and their life experiences are utterly different." -- Kate Millett
“I don’t know what immutable differences exist between men and women apart from differences in their genitals; perhaps there are some other unchangeable differences; probably there are a number of irrelevant differences. But it is clear that until social expectations for men and women are equal, until we provide equal respect for both men and women, our answers to this question will simply reflect our prejudices.” -- Naomi Weisstein
(Oh, and god bless Pointy and Saje for their sensitivity...)
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-07 21:58 ]
QuoterGal | October 07, 23:50 CET
Tonya J | October 07, 23:57 CET
Upon the condition that she truly finds it fulfilling and joyful to do so. But (a very big) if so . . .
Idea: Actresses who decide to pose nude should hire their own photographers and arrange their own shoots, so they have total control over how they are presented and can stick to doing only what they feel best about (at every level--emotional, moral, societal). They may have to take a cut in their posing fee to gain control, but I think the main financial reward is publicity anyway, and I can't see Playboy saying, no, we won't publish naked pictures of Mercedes McNab unless she does them with our photographers. Because their photographers tend not to capture the inner woman, who is the real woman, and the only woman I want to see naked.
Pointy | October 08, 00:12 CET
I get what you're saying, Pointy, but it's not really possible to judge by a few photos where they were obviously going for a certain look, feel, theme, style, whatever, and so asked her to look a certain way, if she had moral or emotional objections to what she was doing.
And certainly none of the photos were lewd or hardcore-esque. They were very tasteful. If a bit too touched up.
pat32082 | October 08, 00:25 CET
2. I've read interviews with women who have posed for Playboy who said the photographers couldn't care less whether they felt comfortable.
3. If you can't judge by a few photos whether she found this photo shoot joyful and fulfilling, then you can't judge from a few photos whether her facial expression is the result of "going for a certain look, feel, theme, style, whatever."
But I do know my personal response to the pictures. Charisma obviously enjoyed herself. Looking at her pictures, I felt glad for her. Mercedes, obviously (to me at least), didn't enjoy herself. I thought, "Poor Mercedes. She usually enjoys photo shoots. Not this one." So the pictures of her make me sad.
My Pointy is rule, women don't have to take off their clothes for me unless they really want to and find doing so fulfilling and joyful. If they're just doing it as a career move, no thank you. I will appreciate their other gifts.
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-07 22:54 ]
Pointy | October 08, 00:45 CET
Of course it is. That's the whole premise of a photographic essay. I could convey all that in 5 or so photos, and they had (at least) sixteen.
And unless you have a gun at your head, or somesuch, you don't "have" to pose nude, in the strictest sense, but we've talked at length before about the difference pressures/expectations, etc. facing an actress as opposed to an actor, a woman as opposed to a man, etc.
And I also believe that many of these pressures are not overt, or stated, or, in such cases, even conscious, just as it is possible that her reactions and inclinations and possible inclinations may not have been either.
Obviously, no one can say how she felt, or what the art directors were overtly intending, beyond the obvious, etc. This shoot is like a million others in presentation, "taste" and thematic statement(s) -- she's nude, she's vulnerable, isn't she lovely, you can have her posed on a desk or up against a wall, or pull her clothes partially off (I would point out that a bra pulled down like that is usually uncomfortable) or just wearing heels like many and many a hackneyed fantasy...
"Very tasteful" is in the eyes of the beholder. But certainly you can convey a mood, a statement, theme, feel, style, etc. in considerably less photos -- I do so as a graphic artist all the time. And, by the way, occasionally subtly & intentionally subverting the mood, and get away with it, if so moved, inclined or offended by the material. It's one of the underground joys of being a commercial artist working occasionally in fields peopled somewhat by the exploitive.
QuoterGal | October 08, 00:46 CET
She looks great.
All photos for magazines or any other medium are photoshopped.
If you don't like it, don't look.
Ginny | October 08, 01:05 CET
ETA: this.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-07 23:15 ]
QuoterGal | October 08, 01:11 CET
Not a lot of frontal nudity this time around. It doesn't take a breain surgeon to figure out why. ;) Still, she's gorgeous, despite the nipular imperfection.
[wcip]Angel | October 08, 01:28 CET
The Jackal | October 08, 01:30 CET
I wasn't saying you couldn't tell by the photos what the theme was they were going for, I was saying that given that they were going for a particular theme, and were asking Mercedes to look a certain way to fit with that, that you couldn't tell by the photos what she was truly feeling when they were taken, as Pointy seemed to be inferring.
That's all.
[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-10-07 23:32 ]
[ edited by pat32082 on 2006-10-07 23:32 ]
pat32082 | October 08, 01:30 CET
ETA If Mercedes is merely portraying a woman who's not enjoying herself, rather than being one, I'm still not going to enjoy the pictorial. It matters, from a feminist as well as a personal perspective, whether women take their clothes because they find it a fulfilling form of self-expression or because they find it necessary for their careers. It matters a lot. Much more than whether she's gorgeous, which she is, and about which there is no debate.
ETA As far as being quoted correctly, I didn't say Mercedes had "moral or emotional objections to what she was doing." I assume she has no moral objection to what she's doing and I don't know what an emotional objection is. I'm talking about artistic nudity that reflects "what they [the actresses] feel best about (at every level--emotional, moral, societal)."
Regarding the theme of the pictorial: What is it? Why would it be inappropriate for the woman in the picture to look happy? What aesthetic value is served by having her face show no joy, no pleasure, no happiness?
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 00:13 to make a little more sense. And then to add some more comments.]
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 00:16 ]
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 00:18 ]
Pointy | October 08, 01:52 CET
I will also say that the perceiver (me) will certainly also filter through their preconceptions and project their own emotions onto the model -- so the fact that Mercedes, to me, looks like she'd like to cut-and-run may says more about me than anything else, and simply be a Fig Newton of my (overly-empathetic-and-story-writing) imagination... But it also might be the subversion of some people involved in the magazine's graphic production. I've done it plenty.
TheJackal:"This may unleash a torrent of more biting sarcasm from QuoterGal, but...I agree with Ginny!"
Nah, I'm done. Seriously, can't convey to you how weary I can feel midway during one these kinds of discussions -- I love you all to bits, but it's been too many years, and too many roads, and too many sexist-but-unconscious-men (& women), and too many discussion groups, post-movie arguments, years spent arguing with art directors, too much photoshopping & strategic air-brushing and cropping, too many, too often, too much.
I'm fifty-one, and there are days that make me feel like little has changed in this respect and this may be one of them.
And yet obviously, I care passionately ("why are you so intense", "take it easy, it's just a magazine/book/story/movie/TV show/joke/relationship/flyer/brochure, etc.") -- hence the bitingness of the sarcasm.
But I think I may be done with this topic for today.
Playboy's Mercedes McNab Commando Spread was neither. Discuss amongst yourselves.
QuoterGal | October 08, 02:13 CET
ajay42 | October 08, 02:47 CET
It's a proud moment for our so-called feminist fandom, I'm thrilled. If people are comfortable with fans getting hot and steamy looking at Mercedes' pics and then associating them with her next time they see Harmony on the telly then that's fine with me.
And
I get to say that.
Simon | October 08, 02:54 CET
All photos for magazines or any other medium are photoshopped.
If you don't like it, don't look.
It's not a matter of looking or not and yes we know all photos are photoshopped. The point is the line of where it becomes blatently noticible. In this case who ever worked on hers eyes just crossed that line by a few miles, in the overall the photos are not the best given the person they are shooting is as lovely as Mercedes. They do her an injustice by photoshopping her as much as they did. She has done better photo shoots where they did not touch up her appearance as much.
Personally I prefer the other shots like FHM, Maxim, and Stuff because they seem to use all of their 1,000 words, where as these shots don't seem to use 100 most of the time.
Of them there is only 3 that I find interesting, one is the distant shot of her on the couch with the fur, the one where she is crouching on the floor, and the one where she is laying on the floor with her feet on the archway. Those seem to speak to me the most and have the most to say, only problem is they tend to speak to me of lonliness and a bit of sadness. When I look at them those photos make me ache and want to cry, I do not think that was their intention but it is my perception of them.
[ edited by RavenU on 2006-10-08 01:16 ]
RavenU | October 08, 03:12 CET
Well, lets say I grant what QG and Simon have so eloguently maintained, then who is to blame and what should we do? Should we say that Mercedes is somehow to blame? Or is the fault of Playboy? Or is it the fault of the consumer?
I think alot of the debate does center around what Simon said (I chuckled when I typed that) that truly this is masturbatory fodder, and its even more so when you consider what Pointy and QG have said about the theme and appearance of the photos. But more than that, I think this is truly a debate on where we draw the line between freedom of expression and speech and what a free and democratic society cannot allow. So my question to QG, if she would be so kind as to answer, is it worth drawing the line where you would want to if that means that we have less freedom for an issue that we seem, as a race, to be getting better?
To me, there are always trade-offs, and though I dont think that these photos represent the sexism spoken of here, if I grant that it does, is it worth it to draw the line where we do?
I heard a great quote once: "Mr. President, if our children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isnt that too high a price to pay for free speech?"
"No, although I do think five dollars is too much to pay for pornography."
jerryst3161 | October 08, 03:14 CET
Why do you need to blame someone in this situation? The real question is, if we can identify so much problematic with pornography, why should we celebrate it?
ajay42 | October 08, 03:17 CET
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West, "Mr Chesterton in Hysterics: A Study in Prejudice," 1913
ETA: jerryst3161: "So my question to QG, if she would be so kind as to answer, is it worth drawing the line where you would want to if that means that we have less freedom for an issue that we seem, as a race, to be getting better? "
I'm not espousing any less freedom -- I absolutely do not believe in censorship. I do not want to forcibly stop what I see as sexist representation or participation, I want to raise the questions about it. Nothing I've ever said on here can be construed as to mean that. This is not at all about restricting freedom -- it's about seeing deeper into what we see.
(And that quote was from Pres. Bartlet on Sorkin's West Wing.)
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-08 09:12 ]
QuoterGal | October 08, 03:20 CET
dreamlogic | October 08, 03:31 CET
QuoterGal | October 08, 03:39 CET
"I'm not espousing any less freedom -- I absolutely do not believe in censorship. I do not want to forcibly stop what I see as sexist representation or participation, I want to raise the questions about it. Nothing I've ever said on here can be construed as to mean that. This is not at all about restricting freedom -- it's about seeing deeper into what we see."
But if you determine that these pictures objectify women and hurt the cause of feminism, then why shouldnt a moral person such as yourself try to put a stop to it? In other words, is simply raising the question enough when you claim that amount of damage is done? I think that when we claim that something does an incredible amount of damage, the argument cannot be that we simply need to raise awareness, we either need to go the way of censorship (which, like you, I am wholly against) or we need to teach, we need to celebrate (yes, celebrate), and we need to show how we can get to a point where we do NOT objectify women. In other words, I think we need more things like Playboy, such that we can then show how women are not objects and that through a liberal feminist approach we can garner a truly righteous and equal society.
Because in the end, wouldnt it be great if we could have playboys all over the place and not worry that someone is objectifing the women who grace its pages?
ETA: Honestly, I think we should hold this playboy up and revel in its greatness. We shouldnt shy away from it because someone objectifies the woman, we should marvel at the beauty of the female form, we should look at these pictures and love the beauty that is Mercedes Mcnab (and really any female or male), and by example show that our views on women are consistent with both what is right and what it means to be free. Its certainly an idealistic approach, but then im idealistic when it comes to these things.
[ edited by jerryst3161 on 2006-10-08 02:12 ]
jerryst3161 | October 08, 04:04 CET
For instance, if the theme was Alanis Morrisette's "I recommend walking around naked in your living room," then it could have shown her feeling some kind of freedom to be herself when no one is around(except the photographer, of course, but she is an actress and could pretend to be alone).
Also, it looks like the kind of place Harmony would like living in, so a Harm-at-Home pictorial might have been clever.
The only theme I got from the pictorial they did was, "Here is a room full of beautiful objects. One of the objects is feeling either nothing or bad. But that doesn't matter, she's just there for you to look at." Which is depressing. And one of the reasons I shun Playboy.
Mercedes is really funny. "Harm's Way" was one of my favorite eps of Angel Season Five. And she's sexy as can be in her usual photo shoots. But in order to be sexy, you have to be a person, and I don't think this pictorial gave her the room to be more than a body. A perfect body, as far as I can tell, but it was like she was playing one of the 'verse's sex robots programmed by someone who didn't even care if she feigned happiness. Yuck.
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 02:52 ]
Pointy | October 08, 04:18 CET
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 04:07 ]
Pointy | October 08, 04:31 CET
jerry, you're not seriously saying that because I think it's important to raise the issue of and speak out against images that I feel degrade & objectify women, that I therefore & logically have some moral obligation either to support censorship -- which I find equally heinous -- or espouse & do some other activity which you define as "celebratory," which may or may not include advocating for more Playboy-like publications until their impact is blunted? Or some other activity that you would deem enough more than raising awareness?
For one thing, this thread alone backs up my assertion that consciousness in this area, in my opinion, still needs raising. (If in fact, that assertion needed proof.) And I believe that changing consciousness, and conveying it, is what most profoundly changes the world. Prohibition doesn't work (see US 1920 - 1933) and force doesn't work (see Wars: almost any country, almost any year in recorded history.)
Almost equally importantly, these moral issues are, for me, not a question of either/or -- as in, "if you believe in what you are saying, than you can either do one of two things" or "if you really believe in what you are saying, then you are morally obligated to" -- to what? I am morally obligated to do what I determine I must to think, live and feel like an integrated, whole being, whose expression, behavior and activities are as much in tune as possible with what I believe. As I do. This balance cannot be understood or known or judged by any other person than the "moral person" involved, i.e., me.
(And BTW, I don't think it hurts the "cause of feminism" -- I think it degrades humanity, more than half of which are female. I have no particular feminist agenda other than wanting to see all oppressed human beings able to enjoy the same freedoms and rights as those that are privileged by virtue of something they were merely born with or into. An unachievable and lofty ambition indeed...)
ETA: Pointy: "For instance, if the theme was Alanis Morrisette's 'I recommend walking around naked in your living room,' then it could have shown her feeling some kind of freedom to be herself when no one is around (except the photographer, of course, but she is an actress and could pretend to be alone)."
Love that song, and that is the photo spread I'd like to see -- produced by Mercedes and with a few other provisos I'd have, including "no smarmy copy." I'd celebrate that.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-08 02:54 ]
QuoterGal | October 08, 04:43 CET
[ edited by Pointy on 2006-10-08 04:31 ]
Pointy | October 08, 05:10 CET
Of course not. My only point is this: if you see something bad its your moral obligation to change it or fight against it, which you are doing by raising awarness. I disagree that that is the way to go in this situation, but I claim no moral objectivity in the matter, it is simply my opinion backed up by arguments meant to make them more than plausible. In my estimation, raising awareness is something that we should do, but its is also my estimation that raising awareness does not do enough to change that objectification for reasons Ive outlined above. Doesnt mean that I am right, for in a world of true moral relativism the best I could claim is that I am relatively correct. But isnt it ok to question the tools we employ for social change even if those tools are personal? Even if Im just arguing against the argument you presented? For me, thats how I change, thats how I know that I am hardly, if ever, completely correct...the opposing views of those willing to debate. Thats what I am attempting here...
I am sorry if it came off in any way offensive, I certainly meant nothing more than to debate.
jerryst3161 | October 08, 05:10 CET
But your approach is simply very different than mine -- I can't imagine saying to someone, "well, if you this, than you must that." It's (to me) a somewhat limited perspective and and a bit black and white about the whole thing.
And it seems to have a touch of the old "how can you say you're a vegetarian when you wear leather." For instance, in my building, I first got our office to recycle, and then induced our floor to do the same.
The fact that I cannot for the life of me get my whole building to participate doesn't invalidate what I see as an achievement simply because it doesn't do it all. Nor does it make it the "wrong" approach because it's just one thread in the whole warp-and-woof of the, "we're running out of resources and we're drowning in garbage." One does what one can, or what one's good at -- as Harriet Vane used to say, "one's proper job."
So, yes, there are certainly many aspects of the "sexism in nudity depiction as it exists today in my society" that are not addressed by my pointing it out or raising objections or attempting to affect consciousness about what many people accept as "given" or "the way things are naturally."
For instance, people that are raising children -- both male and female children -- need to raise them equally and to celebrate their bodies joyfully. That is not my job, as I chose not to have children. I appreciate that some are doing that, my choice doesn't invalidate theirs, and to each their own way. Hopefully, these different paths work together.
And I don't believe ignoring what I find offensive about the Playboy spread, turning a blind eye to its essential emptiness, and just focusing on, "Wow, she's got a marvelous female form" works hand-in-hand with my consciousness-raising goals. To me, that's completely counter-intuitive, and a bit self-servingly disingenuous.
That's more than enough about that. But I really don't have to embrace and celebrate the depiction of the beautiful Mercedes' beautiful female form in a manner that I find sad, depleted, and objectifying, nor do I really believe that your approach is "idealistic" -- I think it's anything but. I don't "revel in its greatness" -- I feel bad that we still need to do this in this way.
(ET: fix one out of, I'm sure, a gazillion typos.)
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-08 03:52 ]
QuoterGal | October 08, 05:49 CET
dreamlogic | October 08, 05:56 CET
Imo, the human body is very beautiful, and sex is a wonderful thing. I myself have enjoyed some very hot and steamy fanfic involving Buffy and Spike. I've had lust in my heart after looking at erotic manips of DB and JM.
My problem with Playboy and other pubs like it is the airbrushed, sanitised view of sexuality they offer. Any "imperfections" of a woman's body are edited out. The women are reduced to Barbie dolls.
In contrast are the photo shoots Amy Acker and Alison Hannigan both did several years ago and the pictures of JM in the In Shape mag and of DB in the bathtub (sorry, I can't remember the mag). They all looked sexy and real.
In this Playboy spread MM looks like a generic blonde. Imho.
Reddygirl | October 08, 06:16 CET
Overall, I love the gorgeous unused shots of Summer Glau from the Serenity poster shoot -- she looks (mostly) real, idiosyncratic, individual, and slightly deranged-and-dangerous. Highly posed, of course, and certainly playing a role, and cleaned up, of course, so "unreal" in many ways-- but like an entity with depth as well as beauty. Like a being. Unbelievably hot.
I'm sorry, but Mercedes almost looks like a plastic mannequin, and one of the photos is so touched-up she looks unbelievably scary, and as if her head was photoshopped onto another body -- which I'm sure wasn't the case.
God help us all. It makes me want to move to a mountaintop in Tibet or something.
QuoterGal | October 08, 06:34 CET
Though I embrace a relative look at life itself, including morality, It really is a difference between our styles because I think there are times when a valid form of inference is "if you this, then you must that". For instance, if you are a christian, then you must believe in Jesus Christ. Its not always true mind you, but it is at times. In this case, our disagreement is over whether the conditional I presented earlier is logically valid, and thats where the debate rears itself. It could be because I am a logician and a mathematician (and I like sci-fi, thats right I am that nerd...uh cool) as well, but I do think thats a valid form of logical interpretation and debate. Not everything is relative.
"And I don't believe ignoring what I find offensive about the Playboy spread, turning a blind eye to its essential emptiness, and just focusing on, "Wow, she's got a marvelous female form" works hand-in-hand with my consciousness-raising goals. To me, that's completely counter-intuitive, and a bit self-servingly disingenuous."
And no where did I argue that we should ignore the problem, I simply disagree as to the very nature of the sexism in question and the manner in which we should deal with said sexism. I understand that some people will objectify the woman in question, but I also understand that men will be objectified as well. What that doesnt imply to me is that these pictures are in any way a "bad" thing or that we need to raise awareness about the people who actively objectify the subject of these pictorials. What I think it does imply is that finding these pictures degrading does more harm than it does good and focuses on the aspects of the pictorial that should not be focused on, but more than that, it allows the mysoginist and chauvanist to run HOW you view these pictures because your condemnation revolves around the idea that some people will objectify the women within them. I dont want to ignore the problem, I want to go about defeating it differently than you, and I want to appreciate art for what it is and not for what OTHERS think of it.
Symbols have no meaning unless we give them meaning. Instead of allowing the chauvenist and mysoginst to dictate meaning, I think we should garner our own. I know we disagree and thats cool. Cheers.
jerryst3161 | October 08, 06:44 CET
Mr R has a subscription to Esquire and their "centerfolds" of famous women almost always make them look smart, interesting, individualistic. Never generic. Same goes for their photos of the men.
Reddygirl | October 08, 06:48 CET
What you're failing to address, jerry, is that I find the manner of the shoot degrading, and not the fact of it -- that I'm saying it's impossible for me to simply "revel in it" because that would entail ignoring the presentation -- i.e., wilfully pretending to not know or believe what I do, and ignoring the very objectifying I believe I am pointing out. You disagree that there's a problem with the shoot. Groovy. But that's my point, and, in fact, you beautifully illustrate it. I disagree that these aspects "should not be focused on" and I claim that trying not to see them is wilfull ignorance.
I think that your approach is the one that does more "harm than good" as it ignores and invalidates the reactions of women (& men) who see this as offensive in its objectification and its almost peverse vapidity, but, then again, I believe that consciousness needs to be changed about the very nature of these photo shoots and you don't, so naturally there's impasse on this notion...
"I dont want to ignore the problem, I want to go about defeating it differently than you, and I want to appreciate art for what it is and not for what OTHERS think of it."
You've demonstrably indicated that, in your opinion, the nature of this photo spread does not represent inherent sexism, so it's kinda (again) disingenuous to refer to it as a "problem" and imply you'd "wish to defeat it" when you don't see it that way.
And are you maintaining that this is art? Really?
"...because I think there are times when a valid form of inference is'"if you this, then you must that'.
Well, you made quite the logical leap from me saying "I find the nature of the spread degrading to women" to your "you have one of two choices if you feel that way, and one of them's censorship" -- so your "valid inferences" there seemed fairly limited to only two possibilities that you thought served your argument best, and ignored a whole host of other possibilities that I find equally inferrable.
"Symbols have no meaning unless we give them meaning."
The nature of agreed-shared-reality (culture) necessitates that we will also have shared symbols -- we individually assign them meaning, but we do so also as races, cultures, nations and all the other groups we belong to. This shoot has shared symbolic meanings in addition to whatever meaning you or I individually assign to it. It is those I am attempting to affect/address.
How 'bout this, jerry, instead of me twisting 'round my perceptions not to see this as sexist (as most women have been asked to do against the advice of their brains and hearts for most of their lives) we just start doing the shoots differently? May I ask how that would that be a problem for you?
QuoterGal | October 08, 07:31 CET
Premises in logic are assumed to be true or false for purposes of determining validity. They're never "you" structured. And you left steps out of the formula for valid inference. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Awesome post, QuoterGal
dreamlogic | October 08, 08:03 CET
Ocular | October 08, 08:06 CET
If we study logic through variables then they are not you structured, but the sentence If you this, then must that is a conditional that can be generalized as If A, then B. We can question whether that implication is valid (whether the antecedent implies the consequent), we can go further and attempt modus ponens or modus tollens, when faced with other conditionals we can perform categorical or hypothetical syllogisms on these conditionals, and together these arguments become either valid or invalid and sound or unsound. It also depends on whether we embrace predicate or sentential logic, two different systems of logic meant to generalize philosphical arguments such that they can be seen within variable form.
"What you're failing to address, jerry, is that I find the manner of the shoot degrading, and not the fact of it -- that I'm saying it's impossible for me to simply "revel in it" because that would entail ignoring the presentation -- i.e., wilfully pretending to not know or believe what I do, and ignoring the very objectifying I believe I am pointing out. You disagree that there's a problem with the shoot. Groovy. But that's my point, and, in fact, you beautifully illustrate it. I disagree that these aspects "should not be focused on" and I claim that trying not to see them is wilfull ignorance."
So this argument isnt an argument about social norms or what other people believe, its an argument about what you believe? You arent trying to affect social change, you arent saying that OTHER people objectify women, you simply maintain that you find it degrading to you, but the inherent problem in that is that you arent the one doing the objectifying. However you believe it happens, you believe that these women are objectified, but its also clear that you arent the one objectifing them. If thats the case, then you dont dislike the photos because its all about you, you dislike it because other people react the way they do to it. And I maintain that my last post answers that query...
"You've demonstrably indicated that, in your opinion, the nature of this photo spread does not represent inherent sexism, so it's kinda (again) disingenuous to refer to it as a "problem" and imply you'd "wish to defeat it" when you don't see it that way."
That would be why, in my original post, I granted that it was a problem, I wanted to argue within the sphere that you were operating within. I dont believe there is that problem, but thats not what we were arguing, I tried to present the consequences and what I saw as incorrect notions about the problem in general such that when we got down to it you would come around to my side. Logically speaking, I assumed your side and tried to prove it wrong. If I assumed it was a problem to reveal the logical nature of my position, then it isnt disingenuous at all. Maybe I should have explained that better...
"How 'bout this, jerry, instead of me twisting 'round my perceptions not to see this as sexist (as most women have been asked to do against the advice of their brains and hearts for most of their lives) we just start doing the shoots differently? May I ask how that would that be a problem for you?"
It would be a problem because I subscribe to the notion that we shouldnt fix, what isnt broken. You know its funny, I once got into an argument with a member of the local chapter of NOW that I was apart of, and one of the things she told me was that as a man I am unable to argue feminism. At least without seeming sexist. That is sorta what it sounds like you are saying QG, Im just another man who is asking a woman to ignore what she knows to be correct because my penis disqualifies me from making true arguments about liberal feminism. I am not trying to twist around your perceptions of what you see nor do I think that I should, I am arguing against the argument you presented. And yes, I assumed your position and tried to show the inherent inconsistency in it, but what Amanda from NOW came to realize was that the only thing im interested in is equality. I think you are wrong that these pictorials objectify women, and I think that when you claim they do, you do so because other people do in fact objectify women (symbols gain meaning from people, society, or culture--and when you claim that these pictures objectify women, the pictures themselves arent what objectify them, its the men who employ them as masturbatory fodder or such as that). Im not denying that this happens, hell ive been guilty of it before, but in the end, its not the pictures that are bad, its our reactions to them and THATS why we should revel in them. Because you arent going to affect social change by inherently changing the process or the picture, you are going to do so by changing the heart of those who objectify women.
And yes, I believe playboy is art. But thats for another day.
ETA: I gotta tell you, its lucky that im latino in America because the simple fact that my mothers grandmother was born in Mexico meant that I got a scholarship to any Texas Public School. Of course, I look like any other caucasion American, so really I get dumped on by pretty much everyone for what my ancestors mistakenly held as true beliefs. Im not interested in that, thanks. Im not interested in getting ahead because Im latino and im not interested in getting dumped on because im a white male, what I am interested in is establishing the equality that is due every single person in the world and that includes myself. I dont believe that there is some inherent sexism in a playboy pictorial, and I dont think that that even if there was any that you solve the problem by changing the way the pictures are taken, by not allowing it to happen, or maintaining that the pictures are degrading to the woman in question. I believe you have to change the way we look at playboy (hence, we arent changing playboy because thats a violation of our inherent freedom--and a woman's choice to do these pictures), we have to change the way that those who degrade these women see women in general, and in so doing, we then do not gain the way we look at these pictorials through the perspective of those who look at them incorrectly. But more importantly, we then change the hearts of those who degrade women to the point where we can show them a playboy and objectification wont happen. Where they see women as the beautiful and equal creatures that we all are, and in that sense, thats what im searching for. I hope that thats what comes across when you read my argument.
[ edited by jerryst3161 on 2006-10-08 07:13 ]
jerryst3161 | October 08, 08:47 CET
You obviously studied logic longer than I did, Jerry. But no, the variables can't be so generalized, because you inserted a mystery operator that called the premises into question. I'm talking about basics here. If you're introducing "you" there has to be a symbol for that, that is fully interoperable with the other ones.
dreamlogic | October 08, 09:39 CET
I think a few people on this thread (me for one) have distinguished between a pictorial that was humanizing (Charisma's expressed her personality, her self-confidence, her delight in delighting others with her beauty, all positive, loving things) and one that was objectifying (Mercedes', which employed her body like an inanimate object).
Actresses controlling the way they are portrayed nude, and consumers discriminating between portrayals that help and portrayals that hurt, can help change people's hearts for the better.
To paraphrase JW, I don't need to revel, I need something to revel about.
And to paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, good night.
Pointy | October 08, 09:40 CET
Actually, I dont think you do. For instance, If you go to the store, then you must have legs can be logically generalized like this If A then B, where A is you going to the store and B is you must have legs. Thats a perfectly legitamate symbolization of the sentence. There are times when one employs predicate logic that force us to use operators such as "All" or "Some" and also force us to be very specific with key that we employ, but from a semantic and sentential logic perspective, its a perfectly fair and valid manner to act. For the rest, I am entirely too tired to continue tonight. Cheers everyone.
jerryst3161 | October 08, 09:49 CET
Truly, are you sure that you convinced the woman from NOW that you are only interested in equality? Or did you just tire her out with the kind of arguments that convinced me that my Philosophy Major was a dead end to actual wisdom, and switched me to English and Drama, where I vastly preferred their brand of "sound and fury signifying nothing."
You keep trying to set the terms in what I can only call logico-philoso-speak that seem to miss entirely the gist and heart and soul of what I'm saying, and you use phrases that seem utterly irrelevant to the way I perceive the world, such as "incorrect notions" and "logical nature of my position." And you seem to think that it's possible to "prove me wrong" -- which bypasses trying to understand what I'm saying about, among other things, feelings and perceptions, and also prevents your truly sharing something that obviously matters to you. At least, you haven't effectively shared it with me.
And I'd lay odds and put up cashy-money that what you are saying is completely anti-convincing to anyone reading this exchange.
Jerry, this was, for me, a discussion that combines how I react to the shoot, with my notions about what it may convey or how it may effect other people, combined with a kind of holistic world view that simply cannot be broken down into only the simple, separated logical strands that form the basis of your arguments.
And frankly, Jerry, I don't believe that your "we can go further and attempt modus ponens or modus tollens" is an actual attempt to communicate with me. I think it's an example of the kinds of things you've said here that prevent actual and full exchange between us. If you're really serious about attempting to persuade or convince people of something, empathy, sympathy and communication skills go a lot farther than waves of unadulterated self-styled logical verbiage. I sincerely doubt that you thought those terms would convey anything meaningful to me.
I don't think that your being a man and having a penis prevents you from making "true arguments about liberal feminism" (though, again, this is not how I would describe either my concerns, position or intent.) Without getting too personal, I would point out that pointy qualifies as a "man," as so do many others on this thread, and I would never presume to disqualify or invalidate anyone's position or perspective on those grounds.
I do think it's broke, I do think it needs fixing, and the evidence of the masculine/feminine inbalance in this world lays about strewn in smoking ruins around us. Mighty oaks from little acorns grow, and I think great injustices can stem -- do stem -- from these smaller imbalances and injustices and inequalities. And I think these smaller discrepancies also represent hologrammatically greater disparities.
I said I was "so done" with this a long time ago, and then I so obviously wasn't. I persisted with what I find in general so repetitive and wearying and downright distressing because it matters to me, and I'm happy to communicate about and discuss topics I think are so important.
I don't argue within someone's "sphere" for the sake or argument -- I say as clearly and concisely what I think and feel about stuff that matters to me. Period. But not on these terms -- to me, they are truly alien and meaningless. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, feel free to email me at the address in my profile -- but not if they think it's about proving me to have some logical fallacy in my position or something -- I truly could not care less. If it's about presenting a point of view that I may not have considered, then fine, have at it. But it needs to be their actual point of view and not something assumed for the sake of some theoretical position. To me, that's truly "masturbatory fodder."
QuoterGal | October 08, 10:22 CET
That's not even remotely your argument. It's more like If A (I have legs), and B (I want to go to a store), then C, I must want to go to the Hustler store, because everybody with legs would want to do that.
I wasn't actually trying to argue that "you" could be a logical operator, I was trying to talk you out of it.
dreamlogic | October 08, 11:14 CET
Mercedes is a beautiful young woman capable (one would think) of making decisions for herself. She's not an object or an icon for the ages. I highly doubt she wants to be either one.
It's a playboy spread. She looks great. Big whoop. Get over yourselves. *eye roll*
Willowy | October 08, 11:45 CET
Play nice. An intellectual discussion about Mercedes' photoshoot makes a refreshing and pleasant change from the moronic "she's got nice tits" posts that happen elsewhere.
Simon | October 08, 12:30 CET
Surely logic must flow from an agreed/true starting point and without that we'll just be going around in cricles. As it is I'm left wondering whether you are saying that porn (or at least playboy) does not objectify women, that objectification is a good thing, or something else entirely.
also
I can't overlook the fact that the pictures seem to me to be 'designed' to appeal to those who, to use your phrase, "look at them incorrectly". I gain that impression from what I 'read' as the intent of the photograher/editor especially when combined with the 'test drive' wording. Don't you see this as of any relevance at all to the role of the pictures themselves - ie their role in context?
added on preview: I got called to the phone when about to post this so sorry if it seems out of sync. It was a response to Jerry at 06:47 and 07:49.
purplehazel | October 08, 13:06 CET
So, good-night and, um, god bless us, every one.
(Also, dreamlogic and purplehazel, I like your brains...)
QuoterGal | October 08, 13:48 CET
dreamlogic said: It's more like If A (I have legs), and B (I want to go to a store), then C, I must want to go to the Hustler store, because everybody with legs would want to do that.
I'd imagine you're kidding here dreamlogic because that's clearly not what Jerry's saying (despite his poor choice of example re: store/legs as purplehazel points out, the idea that some things logically follow from others is a foundation of all our reality). His initial remark was in relation to the fact that he thinks that from QuoterGal's position against the objectification of women must also logically follow a tangible attempt to stop magazines like 'Playboy' being published (since they're partly guilty of the objectifying). Logically his statment could be stated along the lines of "If you are adding 1 to 1, you must end up with 2" i.e. the fact that the word 'you' is in there may make it seem less abstract but it doesn't need to.
Which seems to me to miss the idea that QuoterGal believes raising awareness is a way of stopping the objectification of women (i'd say it is) and that raising awareness would also probably a) lead to diminishing sales for publications that objectify women and then b) either those publications change or go out of business, therefore, there's less objectification in the world (swap women for men as appropriate, BTW, we're all objects now ;).
Must say, I know you guys are probably tired (and probably tired of arguing) but a bit of ad hominem (ad huminem ? ;) seemed to creep into the discussion on both sides (in the usual hyper-civilised Whedonesque fashion ;) and i'm also not a big fan of the idea that feelings somehow trump reason. They do for the individual concerned but then in that case all of our bletherings are totally irrelevant since there is only one person concerned whose feelings matter and that's Mercedes McNab.
If she felt exploited or degraded then she was, us feeling it on her behalf (or not) is irrelevant. Pointy for instance doesn't like her expressions - and I can see why - but that is his/our feeling on the matter, we cannot possibly know hers without further information. Similarly, Charisma seemed much happier in her photos but she is an actress so it would seem at least plausible that she could pretend to be happy while dying a little inside, again we don't know and so whatever we read into either woman's appearance is down to our own subjective take.
That said, it's exactly my privileging of objective reality over my own internal state which makes me question jerry's central point (as I see it) that we can continue to publish objectifying photos and yet somehow just change ourselves so that objectification no longer takes place. The external world informs our inner one (unless we're bonkers. Or politicians ;) and so it seems to me that one way to change our inner temptation to objectify is to change outer representations of women which objectify. Given the link between the outer and inner world, i'd say that stands to reason.
(to take an extreme example jerry, if the photos showed Ms McNab dressed, posed and made up to look like a doll - Barbie or whatever - could you still say, "Well, the photos don't objectify, we do" ? I'd say not. The fact that the extensive air-brushing, offensive accompanying text and facial expression don't objectify her by your standards doesn't mean she's not being objectified)
Finally (cue relief all round ;), i'd like to say semi-seriously that I resent the implication that using photos (or mental images) of your gender of choice to masterbate is in someway inherently degrading to that chosen gender. Like, huh ? People have used external or internal images of naked people to arouse themselves (and others) for like, ever. Only if you see the chosen gender as solely being there for that purpose and not as human beings, actual and whole, (which you can choose to do no matter how well taken the photos or de-objectified the subject) does it become demeaning or objectifying. In short, we're all a bunch of wankers (or have been) and I don't see much wrong with that and if being a feminist means not enjoying images of naked women full stop then you can include me out.
Saje | October 08, 13:58 CET
From the previous objectification discussion thread: "Context is all."
As is sleep, which knits up the raveled sleeve of something-or-other.
ETA: re "feelings trumping reason" -- also not my point or premise, that would be as bereft as reason trumping feelings. Which I suspect is where jerry was trying to come from -- but his feelings about the subject kept creeping in and blowing his argument. In my opinion, and as they are wont to do, when overtly or on the surface, left out of the equation.
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-08 12:19 ]
QuoterGal | October 08, 14:14 CET
E.g. when I watch two men kiss in a sexual way, I feel disgust but I can then use reason to 'explain to myself' that this is just because of societal norms, upbringing and basically my own prejudice and that, objectively, there's nothing wrong with it.
(likewise, when I see a steak I feel hungry and want to eat it but reason tells me that, philosophically at least, meat-eating is a bit difficult to defend. I still do eat it though, i'm just a hypocrite in the process - I guess sometimes feelings do trump reason after all ;)
I agree though that it's difficult to completely erase your feelings from any discussion and that, no matter how careful you are, your own feelings on a subject usually come through. Better just to get 'em out there I reckon.
(I also agree you should go to bed, what is it like 4 am over there ? ;)
Saje | October 08, 14:49 CET
Anyone have publishing connections? The collected musings in this thread could make a nice coffee-table book. Toss in a few pictures from the ouvre of the talented Ravenu--non-nude please, or we'll never stop discussing long enough to get the darn thing to the printer, and we're there. Did I spell "ouvre" right? I have enough problems with English words.
jaynelovesvera | October 08, 14:53 CET
I don't know how to say this just right, because I am tired, and prolly running out of the words I usually have access to, but I must say, unless I'm talking about a purely mechanical or somesuch process ("well, the lever is pulled here and then the gear moves there") I would never attempt to erase my feelings from a discussion -- that concept is seems (please forgive me, I just don't know any other way to describe it) so masculine to me, and so inadequate. So working with just one side of the brain.
I don't mean "masculine" as in "you are a man" but as in the concepts of masculine and feminine principles, and in our culture, the feminine-associated idea of "feelings" tends to be regarded as lesser or subordinate to the masculine-associated idea of "reason." Why view erasing one side of this combo as favourable or a goal? I don't, and I don't take it as read, a given, a fact, or a goal.
I want reason & feeling hand-in-hand and working together. I know that sounds completely soppy, but, as I said, I'm tired and can't put it any other way.
"Because equality is not a concept. It's not something we should be striving for. It's a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women. And the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who is confronted with it.
We need equality. Kinda now."
-- Joss Whedon, "Equality Now" speech, May 15, 2006
QuoterGal | October 08, 15:15 CET
and industrious to revise their stupidity,
to edit themselves into intelligence.”
—Kurt Vonnegut
I reckon I might qualify as 'writer' on here jaynelovesvera which might skew the results but thanks man ;).
I know what you mean QuoterGal but I just feel ( ;) that i'm steered wrong less often by reasoning things through than I am by listening to my feelings (as with the gay kissing example above). That is, if I had to pick just one, i'd pick reason but i'm very glad we have both (as I say, feelings help you pick the things to reason about, drive the impulse to think in the first place and generally make life worth living).
In truth though, I am probably quite 'masculinised' (if i'm understanding that term correctly) in that i'm in a technical profession, put a lot of store in abstractions and probably less in people than I should and generally distrust subjective experience as necessarily being a reliable indication of the state of the world (a religious friend once asked me if i'd believe in God if 'he' appeared before me and I replied that i'd assume my own insanity first and require external confirmation of his appearance - I wasn't being entirely serious but I wasn't entirely joking either ;).
That said, I think a lot of 'feelings' are just intuitive reasoning in disguise and i'm all for intuition. It strikes me as a very handy short-cut to correct conclusions quite a lot of the time (kind of like some part of you must be calculating trajectories every time you catch a ball, but somehow we 'just know' how to do it).
(and I was partly just talking about the personal bias which strong feelings can engender, as above where I don't agree with jerry's position but also think it's very important with emotive subjects to take extra care not to mis-represent other people's arguments - or even just to appear to)
Saje | October 08, 15:58 CET
Madhatter | October 08, 17:00 CET
It seems to me that the problem with thinking about this issue through a reason/feeling dichotomy (which is what this discussion has turned into) is that the subject matter itself is about feelings. The subject at hand is not whether a given picture of a given woman compels people logically to think of women as objects (whatever that might mean); it's whether such pictures (in the aggregate, although we are looking at specific examples) make people feel like (or feel like it's okay to feel like) women are objects.
Trying to erase feeling from the conversation renders the point of the conversation moot.
Similarly, trying to argue only from a personal-feeling-centric point of view ("this is how these pictures make ME feel") also ignores the main point of the discussion (the effect of such pictures on the whole).
Can one revel in the human form? Of course. Should one? Of course. Can one revel in de-humanized, objectified depictions of the human form? Of course. Should one? Maybe not, but we all do so all of the time, and it's probably a basic part of human nature. (This is not to say that it's okay nor is it to say that we shouldn't try to avoid it, and it is certainly not to say that we should ignore the way that certain groups of people get reduced to objects much more often than others.)
[ edited by Septimus on 2006-10-08 16:19 ]
Septimus | October 08, 17:58 CET
Imo, CC's spread was beautiful but MM looks posed like an inflatable doll.
Reddygirl | October 08, 19:18 CET
Yes, I was kidding there, but I wasn't entirely kidding about the logic stuff. Jerry claimed to be a logician. Logic is an attempt to reduce (reduce as a technical term, not pejoritive) reason to a formal system, like mathematics. All statements and arguments can be expressed in symbols. Premises must be either true or false, and introducing "you", or "self" is problematic. How can that be properly symbolized?
Logic isn't very useful outside of the theory of computer science, and it's of absolutely no practical use in working with computers. There's a reason why only total dweebs, such as me, study it.
dreamlogic | October 08, 19:37 CET
Best,
Counselor Troy
Pointy | October 08, 19:39 CET
The topic in hand, Meredes decides to show off her birthday suit. So? I see no problem with it. She's a grown woman and if she has no problem exposing it, I have no problem staring. I'm a mature male afterall.
Which beings us to the main topic. Censorship. Yes, boys and girls, it's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? I feel that's different for each of us, but should that information be denied from you? How does that make you feel? Enough, stepping off the box.
BTW, Mercedes is looking nice. Grrrr....
Madhatter | October 08, 20:19 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 08, 20:28 CET
First of all, this isn't about having a "problem with sexuality." I don't think anyone has suggested that it is, or that sexuality, nakedness, sex, etc. are dirty or bad. The
argumentdebate going on here is about exploitation and objectification, which are different from sexuality (one hopes), or about NOT finding the photo spread particularly aesthetically/sexually satisfying.Secondly, the "main topic" is not censorship. Again, no-one has advocated censorship, even those who find the spread distasteful or offensive or ugly or whatever. So, while there is a "slippery slope" that could lead to censorship, I'm fairly confident that rational discussion and criticism of things that one finds socially troubling need not be a step down that slope.
Septimus | October 08, 20:38 CET
(I'm joking. Although they are compellingly bumpy).
Anyway, as Simon said, it's wank bait. People pay money to get pretty pictures of MM in Playboy. I wouldn't say it's anybodies fault - supply and demand. Personally, I'm not interested.
gossi | October 08, 20:39 CET
But not for the reason gossi thinks!
Pointy | October 08, 20:47 CET
I'll be honest and say I don't really see the big deal here. Certainly whatever may be offensive/questionable to some about these pictures can't be worth spilling this much ink over...
BAFfler | October 08, 21:06 CET
Madhatter | October 08, 21:10 CET
The problem with this photo spread is not that Mercedes is naked. Yay for that, I'm a big fan of the unclad female (or male) form. The problem is that the photos do not in any manner say "Mercedes" to me. No personality, no whimsy, no sensuality beyond what was plainly dictated by the photographer. There was nothing to distinguish this from any other of a thousand similar shoots in these pages, and I think she deserves more than that.
C. A. Bridges | October 08, 21:33 CET
rkayn | October 08, 21:45 CET
jaynelovesvera | October 08, 22:17 CET
Septimus | October 08, 22:30 CET
Madhatter | October 09, 00:27 CET
Mercedes is a beautiful young woman capable (one would think) of making decisions for herself. She's not an object or an icon for the ages. I highly doubt she wants to be either one.
It's a playboy spread. She looks great. Big whoop. Get over yourselves. *eye roll*
Thank you Willowy for typing what I'm thinking! Saves me the button pressing effort. *hugs for everyone*
Alan | October 09, 00:58 CET
What I was discussing in this thread
The depiction of women in Playboy and other venues in popular culture as objectifying, dehumanizing and commodifying & its significance in a number of respects, sexism, and later, how we can find a common language and communicate, masculine and feminine principles, and a few other tributories that led off these main streams.
What I was not discussing
Censorship, sexual repression, Mercedes' ability & right to make decisions, whether naked pictures of women & men should be created & enjoyed, whether pornography should be created & enjoyed, feelings as trumping reason, sexuality as degrading to females, the definition of true feminism, the "question" of Mercedes' obvious loveliness and whether it's somehow wrong to wank off looking at nude or sexual photos. I also wasn't talking about a host of other subjects that were somehow extrapolated from my comments.
Posters' reactions seem to vary from finding the subject stupidly & overly-serious to edifying and stimulating. All that's groovy, too. As someone who has frequently sought to understand the deeper meanings of the expressions of popular culture, being exhorted to "Chill out" and "Stop taking this so seriously" are not unfamiliar reactions, though a little surprising to find on WHEDONesque. We are fans, after all, of, among other productions, a TV show that has spawned a veritable slew of academic explorations of its popular culture icons, and which was created by a feminist writer/producer. I imagine one's reaction to this discussion reflects one's opinion of this subject as valid or worthy of discussion, for whatever reasons.
Do I spend this much juice daily on Playboy and on the all-to-frequent and non-naked dehumanizing depictions of women in popular culture? No, of course not. I live in the world, as do you all, and could not possibly spend all my days feeling this much, expressing this much, and trying to communicate this much about phenomena that occur with such regularity. Nor would I walk into someone's house and remotely feel called upon to comment upon their possession of Playboy, wank mags, pornography, or almost anything else. I went into this subject with you all because, for the most part, I respect the intelligence, creativity, communication abilities, and all-around aura of good faith expression that usually prevails around here. I don't do this often, and rarely with this amount of people. It matters too much to me to frequently and indiscriminately expose myself this publicly about some principles I believe so profoundly and subjects about which I feel so strongly.
But do I feel that this thread is somehow a over-spending of "ink"? No, what else should I be doing? This exercise sharpens wits, improves writing & communication skills, forces the examination of one's beliefs, exchanges ideas and shares emotions, spurs creativity, and contributes to having an examined life. This, to me, is a pretty damn good use of my time.
Do I want to do this all the time on WHEDONesque? No, of course not, how emotionally and intellectually impossible, and, not incidentally, what a bore.
But it was interesting to see what y'all thought about this subject, and how y'all communicate. I enjoyed it.
ET: fix grammar...
[ edited by QuoterGal on 2006-10-09 02:55 ]
QuoterGal | October 09, 04:52 CET
Why did you email Dreamlogic a link to the pictures as surely you are then cobtributing to that process
garda3