S02.E02: Tobacco

[Slovenly Muse]

I know, right? From the excerpts I've seen, 50 Shades is complete shit. Go watch "Secretary," people, and stop wasting your time!

[attica]

I read an interesting stat that said the ticket sales for FSoG were highest in red states, with Alabama leading the way. Which suggests that red state ladies are desperate for some fantasy fulfillment that's going otherwise unanswered. A nice safe way (in the dark, in mainstream cinema) to explore sex that's otherwise shamed and punished.

[lion10]

While the sexualization and objectification of women in the SI swimsuit issue is appalling and outdated, for all the reasons StillShimpy mentioned above, I think what makes it extra awful is how mainstream it is, and how much a part of our social culture it has become. Like those clips John showed of male reporters expressing excitement over the new issue. Because it's not porn, and it's from a basically-otherwise-reputable magazine, it gives men that kind of social permission to freely express delight over getting to ogle a new crop of heavily-photoshopped completely phony images of women. The objectification of women, judging them on their bodies, leering at them as nothing more than sex objects, is in this case a completely social exercise, even done without shame on news programs, the way actual porn could never be. And THAT'S what makes it so outdated. It's not just the magazine itself, but it's the (male) public's reception of the magazine. If men were on TV talking about how much they were looking forward to the new Victoria's Secret catalogue, it would be seen as creepy and gross, and yet somehow the rules are different for SI. It's not just the objectification that's the problem, it's the way that objectification is celebrated.

 

 

But ultimately, is it wrong to like looking at attractive people and (for example) not particularly caring what they think about U.S. foreign policy?  Buying is optional and no one's coerced to pose.  I suppose I don't really have a problem with it because to me, it's probably one of the most natural things in the world to like looking at people you find attractive.  If there was a male version of Swimsuit Edition, I wouldn't care less because to me the action by itself is neutral and natural.  If I saw female reporters salivating over such an issue, my thought process would be "Of course straight women and gay men like looking at attractive guys, why wouldn't they?"  It's like getting mad at water for being wet.  So long as the behavior is separated from how you would treat a person in real life versus how you behave when looking at a picture of a swimsuit model, what is the actual concrete harm being done?  Would you prefer if all forms of erotic media featuring actual people was banned since it can easily lead to objectification of the people involved?  Or is it that the objectification is so publicly condoned that you have an issue with?  Is there a way to appreciate erotic media with people you have no prior knowledge of/connection with that doesn't lead to objectification? 

 

I didn't make this post to be combative.  This is a very interesting discussion about an issue I hadn't given much thought to before.

[Slovenly Muse]

I understand your point, lion10. The problem, as I see it, is not that people enjoy looking at images of people they find attractive. It is that, historically, real women have been TREATED like objects or decorations, and were actually considered property for many centuries. Women's worth and value, in the history of our culture, has been assessed based on their attractiveness. Traditionally, men have objectified women in real life, judging their appearances (often right to their faces), treating them like property, or like something to use and discard at will without any real personhood to consider. This way of seeing women as nothing more than things to be consumed by men has led to many years of oppression, reduction of opportunities, inequality, domestic violence, assault and abuse of many kinds (e.g., it was decided only recently that it was legally possible for a husband to rape his wife. Previously, it was not considered rape within the bonds of marriage), and many other real-world consequences that made life extremely difficult for women in our society. It is only recently that attitudes and laws have been shifting away from these old-fashioned mindsets and towards equality, but many people are still living in the past, and still believe that women are inherently less deserving of respect than men, and these old-fashioned prejudices still lead to a prevalence of discrimination, including violence against women, glass ceilings, sexual assault, unequal wages, and unhealthy pressure placed on women to prioritize their "beauty" above their well-being. These things are still happening today, and they are a relic of a time and a mindset exemplified by the Swimsuit Issue.

 

Or, to relate it to your point, you say that as long as there is a separation between the behaviour one exhibits when looking at a picture and when interacting with someone in real life, no harm is done. The problem is that this separation you talk about has NOT existed historically, and it has led to serious consequences that are still continuing today.

 

Things like the Swimsuit Issue and it's exuberant reception by the male public send a message that those outdated modes of thinking and treating people are still acceptable today. If there were an equivalent magazine featuring men, and women were publicly drooling over it (and it does happen, no doubt!), that's not the same thing, because there is no damage being done (apart from the people who are creeped out by having to see it!), there is no historical context of measurable harm that is being perpetuated, and no way in which women (as a group) have ever threatened the legal rights and personal safety of men as a gender. There is no resulting imbalance of power that creates a dangerous situation for men in general. The SI isn't creating discrimination out of a vacuum, but rather refusing to break ties with an old and harmful way of viewing women that people have been combating (many at the expense of their own lives and safety) for decades and has no place in our modern society.

 

In short, it is completely acceptable to find people attractive, and to enjoy looking at images of people you find attractive. But it is also important to recognize that there is a greater context to consider when EXPRESSING that enjoyment, and that when men are encouraged to treat or discuss women like objects, there is potential harm being done. It is perfectly okay to look at a picture of a woman and think she's hot! (Hell, I do it all the time! ;) But when there is a public spectacle made of men judging women by their looks, or valuing women based on their appearance, then it is at best insensitive, and at worst actually harmful.

 

I appreciate your non-combative question, and hope I have responded with the same tone! You're right, it is an interesting and nuanced subject, and definitely worth taking a moment to consider from more angles.

[stillshimpy]

Cosigned on everything SlovenlyMuse just put out there and then additionally: 

 

 

 

But ultimately, is it wrong to like looking at attractive people and (for example) not particularly caring what they think about U.S. foreign policy?  Buying is optional and no one's coerced to pose.  I suppose I don't really have a problem with it because to me, it's probably one of the most natural things in the world to like looking at people you find attractive.

 

Of course, everyone likes looking at pretty people. But the swimsuit issue is celebrating bodies to make those particular women look sexually attractive.  I get that what you're saying seems to be , "Is there anything wrong with that?"  Arguably, yes.  A bunch of alluring body parts with no visible flaws, or irksome needs like real women have.  It's removing the concept of a person in full and making them into something pretty to look at.  

 

 It's natural in that we all have a sex drive, but it still diminishing to women as a whole and we're still fighting for equal pay and to have agency over our own bodies. <----This is why it is not comparable to say "if there was an issue featuring men...."   Issues of equality for women are not some thing from the past, they are still very much being fought for in this day and age...and not granted.  Why is that?  Does it have something to do with objectifying women as pretty and attractive things as a way of life in this country?  I don't know, but something contributes to a societal view of women as having less worth and fewer rights.   Honest to goodness, every time the subject comes up, I have to deflect the concept that I'm a shrew for calling attention to that.  How screwed up is that? Even bringing it up will bring accusations of impropriety (Patricia Arquette on stage at the Oscars being shamed for time-and-place ) or having no sense of humor, as well as some dude feeling like all women should "Take it as a compliment."  
 

 

If there was a male version of Swimsuit Edition, I wouldn't care less because to me the action by itself is neutral and natural.  If I saw female reporters salivating over such an issue, my thought process would be "Of course straight women and gay men like looking at attractive guys, why wouldn't they?" 

 

If there was a male version of Swimsuit Edition, I wouldn't care less because to me the action by itself is neutral and natural.  If I saw female reporters salivating over such an issue, my thought process would be "Of course straight women and gay men like looking at attractive guys, why wouldn't they?"

 

I wouldn't care either if it wasn't a symptom of larger, longer continuing societal problem.  Tell you what, on the day we have equal pay, equal representation in politics, complete dominion over our own bodies and choices about birth control that are not dictated largely by a governmental body of men and I will buy every  guy I know a copy of the Swimsuit Issue, if it still happens to be around.  For both genders and all other variations in between.  I can make that offer with wild abandon knowing how very unlikely it will be that it will a) happen within my lifetime b) if it does, there will still be a Swimsuit issue.  

 

Men don't walk down the streets to a chorus of wolf-whistles and offers to get busy with them from perfect strangers as a way of life.    They shouldn't have to, but neither should women and treating women's bodies in such a "it's a grand tradition, let's all partake!" way contributes to that continued problem.  

Edited February 24, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Chaos Theory]

Also girls still think these women in the Swimsuit Issue and the like are how they are supposed to look. If they don't there is something wrong with them. Yes men have the right to look but girls are looking too and they are getting a different message.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[lion10]

Also girls still think these women in the Swimsuit Issue and the like are how they are supposed to look. If they don't there is something wrong with them. Yes men have the right to look but girls are looking too and they are getting a different message.

 

I get the other arguments, but this one is on them and their parents.  Same with the type of music they listen to and the shows they watch.  

[dusang]

I get the other arguments, but this one is on them and their parents.  Same with the type of music they listen to and the shows they watch.  

 

You can have all the body-positive messaging possible at home but in the world every girl is inundated with images like this.  No matter how many times your parents, friends, loved ones, or even your own rational mind tells you these are insane, unrealistic, unattainable beauty standards achieved primarily through starvation and Photoshop this shit gets to you in ways big and small.

[stillshimpy]

I get the other arguments, but this one is on them and their parents.

 

Emphasis mine.  

 

I can't agree with either assignment of responsibility, but the one I put in bold is the one with which I strenuously disagree.  It is not "on" girls, young women or women that the standards of beauty we currently prize are actual fiction.  Not just "wow, only ten percent of the population are ectomorphs" but rather "no, that's actually a computer enhanced and fictionalized image" .  

We are highly programmable people.  It's part of the reason there are cultural differences throughout the world that greatly influence a person's behavior and what is deemed acceptable.  There are a lot of cultures where staring at someone is not considered rude, as a for instance. Our attitudes about what is acceptable and even "good" are essentially programmed into us by the society around us.  

 

Try thinking of any other attitude that has undergone a change within your lifetime.  In mine the issue of marriage equality and gay rights has undergone a (very welcome) sea change, in great part because media representations changed.   

 

Disney movie representations of girls is another area where it is easy to spot media messaging and its importance. 

 

There's so much pressure on people, but women in particular, to be a size and shape that is approved of in our society.  Hell, I'm really aware of the problem and I'm not immune.  I workout six days a week to stay the size I want to be.  You can sell me almost any face cream by telling me it will do something wonderfully anti-aging and again, I'm super aware of how screwed up those messages really are.  The least valuable thing to a society that anyone contributes is in their outward appearance, so there's even a very strong argument to be made that prizing superficial appearance as much as we do is a detriment to our actual society.  

 

The piece on Last Week tonight really only vaguely touched on the issues of "Why is this still a thing?" because mostly it's just amusing. Honestly, for as dead serious as I've been in the last two posts, the issue of the Swimsuit Issue is mostly amusing to me for all the 'print media in its death throes' reasons I've stated.  I admit I have at least a little wicked glee at the thought of that death because that stuff is damaging to young women.

 

But it really isn't great for our world when half of the population has to spend time and energy combating screwed up societal messages.   It would be awfully nice if parents got to spend more time encouraging their kids, of both genders, to be any of a huge number of things that benefit us all: engineers, nutritionists, nurses, doctors, teachers ...artists, actors, painters....merciful Zeus the list of 'great things you can do in our world' is almost endless.   Even if it was "on" parents to try and combat those unrealistic messages, and I don't believe it is, it would be so much better for our actual world if they didn't have to spend time parenting so many "no, you don't actually suck, you're not bad, those images are ridiculous" messages.  

 

I really appreciated that Last Week Tonight at least touched on the subject and I also appreciated that it was done with a sense of humor, but there are a lot of far more serious reasons that this stuff isn't good for anyone. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by stillshimpy

[possibilities]

It's not just girls who get the message that "this is what you're supposed to look like." I think boys also get the idea that "this is what women are supposed to look like, and this is what I'm supposed to expect and find attractive." When it's a totally manufactured image, and not even representative of a viable reality, you're skewing a lot more than self-image. It's not like we get a lot of access to realistic naked bodies to study. There's a whole cultural mythology that is so twisted, it just compounds itself in sexual and psychological and even physical health convolutions that at some point, if we want to actually enjoy our lives and live in reality, as a people we ought to start at least trying to unravel. But there's too much profit in maintaining ungrounded expectations, it will probably never happen.

[fastiller]

I so want Oliver to cover this tidbit:

 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures.

[Kel Varnsen]

But ultimately, is it wrong to like looking at attractive people and (for example) not particularly caring what they think about U.S. foreign policy?  Buying is optional and no one's coerced to pose.  I suppose I don't really have a problem with it because to me, it's probably one of the most natural things in the world to like looking at people you find attractive.  If there was a male version of Swimsuit Edition, I wouldn't care less because to me the action by itself is neutral and natural.  If I saw female reporters salivating over such an issue, my thought process would be "Of course straight women and gay men like looking at attractive guys, why wouldn't they?"  It's like getting mad at water for being wet.  So long as the behavior is separated from how you would treat a person in real life versus how you behave when looking at a picture of a swimsuit model, what is the actual concrete harm being done?  Would you prefer if all forms of erotic media featuring actual people was banned since it can easily lead to objectification of the people involved?  Or is it that the objectification is so publicly condoned that you have an issue with?  Is there a way to appreciate erotic media with people you have no prior knowledge of/connection with that doesn't lead to objectification? 

 

I didn't make this post to be combative.  This is a very interesting discussion about an issue I hadn't given much thought to before.

Also thinking about this, is appreciating someone who looks good in a swimsuit, any different from appreciating someone who can dunk a basketball or throw a football really far (which is what Sports Illustrated does every other issue)? Neither really benefit society other than making people happy so in a sense both are kind of objectifying people. And no matter how much I try I am never going to be able to dunk like Kobe Bryant or hit a homerun like A-Rod so isn't that just as unattainable?

Edited August 14, 2015 by Kel Varnsen