View Single Post
Old 11-21-2014, 09:51 AM   #365
_Hez_
Hez
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 774
Rep Power: 14 _Hez_ beat up jewski
Re: The (new) Fail/Win Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that men have used women's sexuality against them. I mean that there's always existed a sort of double bind where women's sexuality is expected to be readily available for men but at the same time kept at bay. For example today women are expected to balance some sort of ever changing razor thin line between "sexy" and "classy" to avoid being labeled a slut or a prude. This is upheld by, among other things, a constant barrage of sexual portrayals of women and social commentaries about their bodies. There is no equivalent historical or current social phenomena when it comes to men and therefore the parallel seems a bit strained to say the least. Kind of like arguing that blackface should be okay since no white person would be offended by someone wearing "whiteface".
Men have had a very similar line they've had to walk carefully along throughout history -- looking good without looking like you're trying to look good. In roman times if you removed too much hair or wore makeup it was seen as effeminate, these days you'd be called a faggot or a metrosexual. Not much has changed, really. Also, keep in mind that these insults (slut, etc) are used by both genders. Chicks call other chicks sluts all the time and judge them by their looks. You might say that they've been had by the patriarchy, while I'd tell you its a symptom of human nature that people are judged by their appearances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
If you read my first post I explicitly talk about how sexual objectification in itself is not something negative which I think is something that is unfortunately heavily implied in these kinds of debates. However, everything we do exists in a historical and societal context. This means that even though one can see for example Nicki Minaj's Anaconda as a clever expression of self-objectification or an independent assertion of sexuality it can also be seen as a cultural phenomena that promotes the idea of women and their sexuality as a commodity, superficiality as a necessary female trait and women's looks as a central point of self-worth. What I'm saying is that this shirt, which I can't believe I'm now debating, can be seen in a similar way.
Sex sells, everybody knows that, and everybody knows that sex sells regardless of gender. Think of all the handsome pop stars from the 90's like Enrique Iglesias, Lenny Kravitz or Peter Andre, who all made conscious decisions (or at least their management did) to go shirtless and make sexy video clips like Niki Minaj does. You think they would've got ahead if they just wore cardigans in every video clip?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raad View Post
This isn't a simple issue nor have I claimed that it is but if the idea is that we should only take on explanatory models based on their lack of complexity then we'd probably live in the third reich or something by now.
Yes, expressing indifference to an ugly shirt with half-naked chicks on it is surely a slipper slope to nazism.

Last edited by _Hez_; 11-21-2014 at 09:53 AM..
_Hez_ is offline   Reply With Quote