This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Strangely fitting in a grotesque fashion."
11973 members | you are not logged in | 26 October 2020


June 10 2014

Chloe Bennet featured in June/July issue of Esquire magazine. In the "gentlemen's magazine" recurring "funny joke from a beautiful woman" page.

The published-on-paper edition also includes Patton Oswalt in a father's day feature but I could not find the corresponding content at the online site.

Uh oh. I think I have a new crush.
sooooo... "beautiful" in this case means "as naked as we can get them to be", right? oh, men... so desperate for even the slightest peek at some female flesh, it's so incredibly sad. just go and watch some porn. nothing wrong with it and at least it's honest.
I'm not sure, but aren't you implicitly saying she's not beautiful, if you're saying that "beautiful" in context just means scantily clad?

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2014-06-10 19:48 ]
Women who work with Esquire know exactly what they're doing and part of being a feminist is sticking up for a woman's ability to have a choice in all aspects of her life...including posing in Esquire.

I roll my eyes at the entire "gentlemen's magazine" concept, but Esquire and GQ and the ilk actually do have some good writing in them. And if you look at Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, or any of the popular fashion magazines, you'll often see models just as scantily clad, whether in advertisements or in pictorials.

[ edited by the ninja report on 2014-06-10 20:23 ]
@KingofCretins not at all, I'm saying that I wasn't expecting to see her half naked after reading a title like "funny joke from a beautiful woman".

which of course is incredibly naive of me, because in context of a "gentleman's magazine" of course "beautiful" means at least half naked.

seeing "erotic" pictures of actresses who I watch on (non pornographic) shows always makes me uncomfortable. I just don't want to see them that way which is why I usually try to navigate my way around them. didn't quite work here and it pissed me off. can't unsee it now. but yeah, was my fault for not expecting exactly that. in my defense, this is a joss whedon site, so I kind of felt like giving the benefit of a doubt.

@the ninja report, I'd happily fight for her right to do whatever the hell she wants to do. if it's something as disappointing and embarrassing as this I just don't want to see it, that's all. fashion magazines aren't my thing either for reasons slightly different in nature but same category, really.
Tsuliwaensis: There are reasons and reasons, or more eactly people have varying motives. The only Playboys I've bought this century (and stopped well before '99) were the ones featuring Charisma and Mercedes precisely because I already liked them. Altho on the wholeI prefer a glimpse of a small part of a real person on a sidewalk or on a bus over seeing more in paper or pixels.
Have you had trouble attracting male viewers?

Um, have you seen the women on our show? The answer to that question is no.

Maxim, March 2002, an interview with Joss Whedon on the occasion of the release of Season 1 on DVD.

I bring it up because... Esquire or GQ aren't on any turf that the source material of the man this site is named for doesn't also occupy. I didn't see Chloe Bennett in that article in any more state of undress, or at least knowing titillation, than I saw her in on Agents of SHIELD at at least a couple of points. I'm not sure why it's okay if she's doing it as part of the Action Girl variant of the Ingenue that I think a solid argument could be made is a Whedon invention, but not if she's just, as herself, answering the stock men's mag questions of what pick up lines might work or telling a joke she knows *shrug*
Tsuliwaensis: I'm a bit offended by the generalization you made about men. I feel like I see just as many shirtless men in media and plenty of bare butts as well. In fact, I believe the only nudity in the recent X-Men movie was Hugh Jackman's bottom, and the target demographic there is male-leaning. Can we argue that women are exploited more in our society? Sure, but not without plenty of "Magic Mike" to go around.
KingofCretins, Tsuliwaensis It comes down to, I think, the whole "objectifying celebrities" problem - "She's totally hot!" "He's a beefcake!" How about instead "He's an incredibly talented actor who happens to have an appealing face" or "She totally brings her character to life, and she's easy on the eyes to boot"? If you're going to "glorify" something, why not the hard work and talent the actor brings to the role, rather than their sex appeal?

Look at it another way - how fair is it to other actors on a particular show who aren't necessarily attractive, but put in just as much (or more) effort to making their character believable? If, say, Bill Paxton were a regular of SHIELD from the beginning, but Brett Dalton got all the attention because he was "more attractive;" does Bill not matter because he doesn't have a sculpted body? He's been an actor a lot longer, but (in this case) he would be shunted to the side in favor of "the hottie."

And who makes these decisions, anyway? I liked Spike as a bad guy, trying to thwart the Scoobies every chance he had, but I never found him (or James) sexually appealing. And yet do a search for "James Marsters Spike" and I'd be willing to bet the top 10 pictures are going to be poses w/his shirt off or unbuttoned, or he's giving "hot, smoldering" looks to the camera. (I'm not saying he's not attractive, or that the people who do find him sexy are wrong. It's a matter of opinion.) Those pictures have nothing to do with the character of William the Bloody, and everything to do with using the man's body as titillation. Yes, he agreed to those pictures, but I seem to recall reading an article where he said he didn't like being treated as "a sex object."

Because that's what these types of photo shoots do - they reduce a human being to the shape, size and fitness of their bodies and attractiveness of their faces - that's not them.

Do you get what I mean?
ShadowQuest: I agree, but not evryone is enough of a self-taught critic to pick up on all those details, in other words, not everyone can register that. (I admit being mostly unable to separate liking the character, being physically attracted to the actress, liking the storyline as written and directed, and liking her for her acting talent.)
@Jelly, the majority of the target audience for naked dude pictures are gay men. the few straight women who enjoy them are just very vocal about it, especially on the internet, making it seem like it's more of a thing than it really is. female desire and male desire are two entirely different animals, and it is the male desire that focuses on the visual and often enough the visual alone. when looking for sexual partners, it's very important for men that their partners have beautiful bodies (whatever that means for the individual), it doesn't hurt if they come with a pleasant personality, but it's not necessary, especially when it's just about casual sex. for women it's exactly the other way around. a pleasant personality (again whatever that means for the individual) is the number one priority, if that person happens to have a nice body, it's a bonus, but nothing more. so, erotic material for women tends to be less visual and more focused on ideas, situations, moods etc.

now, one isn't better or worse than the other, both are human nature and absolutely fine. but they don't exist in a vacuum, they do have consequences, and sometimes they're bad ones. especially when the sexual education people received left out all the important stuff, like sexual pleasure, consent and context. most sexual education is focussed on how babies are made and that's it. now, how does that prepare anyone to deal with complexities like desire?

uneducated boys and men tend to disrepect what they desire. uneducated girls and women tend to confuse male desire with affection and male attention with self-validation.

put those two together and you know why pictures like that make me uncomfortable. and sorry for being so heteronormative here, but once I start to include all the sexual variations I'd still be typing next week...
But you are still making generalizations. What you are saying does not describe my life and my experience. Personality has been very important to me in finding a partner, and plenty of my male friends have chosen mates based on personality match first and physical appearance second. I've also been "friend zoned" by plenty of women because they wanted a guy who was better looking than me, even if he was a total jerk. My point is, you can't say "all men are like this" or "all women are like this". Everyone is different.
@Jelly, yes, indeed. which is why I never said "all men" and "all women" etc. I was talking about the majority of people and their tendencies. statistics are always close to completely meaningless when it comes to the individual, but they are important to understand social behavior of cultures as a whole. and just because something is in your nature doesn't mean that it's part of your identity. like I said before, education is the key. once you are aware you can adjust. maybe you enjoyed a particular psychohealthy upbringing that formed you into someone who sets himself apart from the average male. it then doesn't surprise me that you would surround yourself with other people who were equally lucky or who made a concious effort to arrive there. you know?

good for you for being different and setting a good example for others, that's awesome. but you still are the exception. most people - male and female - are stupid and uninterested, how's that? sad and true.
Reading this discussion, I expected her to be wearing a lot less.
Very cute.

She's very funny on twitter and instagram. Comes across very grounded and a very typical goofy 20something

So based on the above, and the 2nd post in this thread, I now realize I'm depressed and sad and need to watch some porn. Any particular type of porn? Plot driven? Reality style? "Heteronormative"? I didn't know I was so desperate and therefore didn't plan accordingly
I like Chloe's acting. It has gotten better as the show has progressed. And the next to the last episode, she is brilliant when she is explaining to Ward how he is a Nazi. I could see the Joss hand in that. I loved it that she said she was going to puke, instead of saying "Oh Ward I forgive you". Her anger and hurt just hurt me too.
agreed. such a tease.
Yeah, the girls from BUffy would never do this type of stuff! *goes back to "reading" the girls of Buffy FHM UK he still has*
I don't like seeing a thread derailed to discuss one poster's general opinions. Please stick to the topic at hand, Tsuliwaensis.
seeing "erotic" pictures of actresses who I watch on (non pornographic) shows always makes me uncomfortable[...]

Fwiw I do think it's worth pointing out that there is a HUGE difference between eroticism (overt sexuality with a purpose) and pornography (overt sexuality for its own sake) ONLY the latter of which is in any way destructive.

[ edited by brinderwalt on 2014-06-11 06:22 ]
@sunfire, how did I not do that?

I can't give anything else than my opinion, if people react to that and discuss it, that's outside of my power. it shows interest in the subject matter though... and I'm not quite sure how that's a problem.

if there's anything else to discuss, say for example how funny the joke really was or how beautiful everybody thinks the actress really is, I'm certainly not going to stand in anybody's way to discuss that, am I? if that's more interesting for people, go ahead...

@brinderwalt, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. how is overt sexuality for its own sake without purpose? and how does that make it "destructive"? in general I don't have the slightest problem with either (eroticism or pornography) in the right context.
If you want to query what an admin said, please do send us an email about it. It doesn't get discussed on site.
We're done here - Simon

[ edited by Simon on 2014-06-11 12:49 ]
The important thing here is, did everyone know that Chloe was basically Robin Sparkles? Because I want to see a video. :)
Simon this might be a good time to remind folks how to contact the admins.
At the bottom of each page, there's a link to the contact email address.
After reading this thread I had a funny visual of a scantily clad Bill Paxton giggling and telling jokes for our viewing pleasure.
Well I'll be darned. I've been using the contact us button on the "About" tab to contact admins. I never noticed the link on the bottom of the page. Silly me.
Thank you Jelly. That was very...sparkly!

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home