" >If you see sexualization, then that is what you see. >It may not be what someone else sees."
She's showing her tits, Bill. Please show me an adult who doesn't think that's sexual! At this point I'm not even saying it's bad, but to deny it's sexual? " >Generally speaking, exploitation doesn't involve consent." I guess it depends on what "consent" means, doesn't it? Power, who has it and who doesn't, has a huge part to play whether one can be said to truly consent. Do think that blacks working on the railways back in the '40s and 50's were exploited? They did demeaning work, never rose to supervisory positions yet they got decent pay compared to many in their community. Whites got paid much more and had much better working conditions. The fact that blacks "agreed" to the jobs and pay doesn't mean they weren't exploited. " >If it's normal and acceptable, then by definition it's okay." By your definition slavery was "okay". " >If a person is comfortable with the process, then your discomfort is >your problem, and is something that you are trying to project onto >them." Actually I think the problem is that so many are comfortable with this. I think the fact that so many don't see a disparity between portrayals of men and women in the media is the problem. I think the fact that so many see the disparity and are okay with it is the problem. Cheers, frank On 2 August, 2015 4:31:25 PM EDT, Bill <anotherdrunken...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 02/08/2015 2:14 PM, Knarf wrote: >> So there's a photo of a woman naked above the waist and the viewer >> has sexualized her? >> >> Are you serious? > >If you see sexualization, then that is what you see. >It may not be what someone else sees. > >> >> Bruce took that photo knowing that part of its appeal would be >> sexual. And Dorrie agreed to have the photo taken, knowing that sex >> was a part of it. >Were you there? >> >> Does that mean Bruce exploited Dorrie? No. >> >> By agreeing to be photographed in that way (indeed, being part of the >> creative process) was Dorrie being exploited? Yeah, I think so. > >Generally speaking, exploitation doesn't involve consent. >> >> Not by Bruce but by a society that puts a value on the sexualization >> and objectification of women. Being a consenting part of the process >> doesn't mean one isn't being exploited. > >Now it's my turn to ask if you are serious. >Exploitation: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order > >to benefit from their work." > >Was the model treated unfairly? Did Bruce have to threaten her or drug > >her into a stupor to get her to pose? > >The whole "exploitation" thing is a construct of people who want to >control others through shaming them. >If a person wants to be exploited, they will be exploited. >Oops, if they want to be exploited, that takes away the unfair part of >the definition. > > > >> >> We're all socialized to see this as normal and acceptable but does >> that mean it's okay? > >If it's normal and acceptable, then by definition it's okay. > >> >> Men and women are portrayed far differently by the media. Yes, men >> can be sexualized, but in a very different way, and certainly far >> less frequently than women. >> >> My problem isn't necessarily with this individual photo or with >> Bruce. It's that this is a part of the exploitation and >> objectification that goes on every day on TV, in movies, magazines, >> and advertising of all kinds. Women ~are~ treated differently than >> men especially in sexual portrayals, and to the extent that this >> photo is a part of that, I feel very uncomfortable. > >If a person is comfortable with the process, then your discomfort is >your problem, and is something that you are trying to project onto >them. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- 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.
