I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual
being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a
false one.
All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan
Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith
Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just
how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar
happened to know her name.
So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as
it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver
Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just
drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of
a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't
captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan
Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or
sexism, whatever you want to call it.
But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I
developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that
my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in
any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any
more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my
appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten.
It seems to me that in order to maintain the position that to the
portrayal of a beautiful woman's sexuality is dehumanizing, you have to
start from the premise that sex itself is necessarily degrading to women
and renders men incapable of appreciating them in a more holistic
fashion. That may be the case for some women and some men, but I don't
think it's true of the majority of us all. And I don't see how achieving
a greater sense of balance alleviates the perceived problem, anyway.
Instead, it seems to compound it by saying, "Look, in order to remedy
the problem of sexual dehumanization, we're going to have to dehumanize
the sexes more equitably."
-- Walt
On 12/8/2013 6:50 PM, knarf wrote:
They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not
sexist?
It's "tongue-in-cheek"?
You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it
normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many.
Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT
OKAY!!!
Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't
want to lose friends because of this.
Have a great evening. See you on other threads.
Cheers,
frank
Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul via phone
Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less
exposure than at the beach.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
“Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
