Is Feminism Still Relevant? - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2013, 09:15 AM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:17 AM
That's not over-analysing- that's just analysis. Media images really should be analysed deeply, because otherwise we are still subject to the nonverbal messaging, but without consciousness of it.

It's totally possible that we have very different reading of the same image. That's fine, so long as we both make an effort to include all the salient details.

Yes, the lack of eye contact and indifferent expression is very common in fashion photography, as it also is in porn. That says a lot all on its own, but I tend to notice it extra when eye contact is one sided. We've all had those conversations when one person is seeking contact and one is withholding it. They aren't great. To be fair, there is one of those in the spread with roles reversed.

Do you really think it looks like he's tending subordinately to her in the full spread? To me it looks like she's issuing an invitation. He's not only upright and fully dressed but seated above her. She's flat on her back, her dress leaves most of her back bare, and her legs are naked and open. He's not offering anything in his hand or touching her with it- she's drawing it towards her body. In short, it looks like she "asking for it", and while there is desire in his expression, it's directed toward the camera, not her. Her pose is blatantly sexual, and his is not.

And no, I don't think it matters much that the shoot was styled by a woman. As Pearl posted about earlier, women internalize sexist messaging just the same as men do. Sexism is sexist, no matter who does it.
__________________

__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 03:36 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:17 AM
A little interesting reading for a slow Sunday

The Orgasm Gap: The Real Reason Women Get Off Less Often Than Men and How to Fix It | Alternet
__________________

__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 06:32 PM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
That's not over-analysing- that's just analysis. Media images really should be analysed deeply, because otherwise we are still subject to the nonverbal messaging, but without consciousness of it.

It's totally possible that we have very different reading of the same image. That's fine, so long as we both make an effort to include all the salient details.

Yes, the lack of eye contact and indifferent expression is very common in fashion photography, as it also is in porn. That says a lot all on its own, but I tend to notice it extra when eye contact is one sided. We've all had those conversations when one person is seeking contact and one is withholding it. They aren't great. To be fair, there is one of those in the spread with roles reversed.

Do you really think it looks like he's tending subordinately to her in the full spread? To me it looks like she's issuing an invitation. He's not only upright and fully dressed but seated above her. She's flat on her back, her dress leaves most of her back bare, and her legs are naked and open. He's not offering anything in his hand or touching her with it- she's drawing it towards her body. In short, it looks like she "asking for it", and while there is desire in his expression, it's directed toward the camera, not her. Her pose is blatantly sexual, and his is not.

And no, I don't think it matters much that the shoot was styled by a woman. As Pearl posted about earlier, women internalize sexist messaging just the same as men do. Sexism is sexist, no matter who does it.

I'm all for analysis of photography. It can be a lot of fun to talk about, though when you stray from the stucture of the photograph and start into the 'meaning' (which is inevitable) things obviously get much more subjective. It often makes more sense to speak about what a photograph means to you, rather than what it meant to the photographer or crew who created it (speculation on that is fun too).
But when you start trying to draw examples of societal ills, things get dodgy. For one, it's completely ignorant of the process of taking and selecting those photos. For the seven photos shown, you can guarantee the photographer shot at least 1500 frames. Probably more. And there were probably set ups that never saw past the capture software. In each of the frames selected, there were variations galore: Looking at camera, looking away, looking at each other, hand on the arm, legs crossed, looking down, eyes closed, chin down, chin up, etc etc. And of those frames, do you know what they were looking for most during the editing process? Whether the shot works and nothing else. It's that simple; a gut feeling about a photo. There was no discussion about male dominance or female subordination. All it comes down to is "is the photo aesthetically pleasing?". Often that's something intangible.
Yes, there are a lot of vacant looks with fashion photography, but it has nothing to do with porn (and to be honest, "vacant eyes in porn" sounds like the opinion of someone who hasn't seen much porn describing what they think porn is like. There is a ton of eye contact. I'm not sure where you're getting that). Fashion photography isn't portraiture, so we aren't interested in a connection between model and viewer. The more engaged the model is, the less emphasis on the clothes. That's really all there is to it. Most fashion photos completely fail as portraits, but that's irrelevant, since it's not their intended purpose. With editorial fashion like we have in Marie Clair, it leans slightly more into the portraiture realm, but only because they've got a celebrity modelling the clothes. Since Cumberbatch is the draw, he's the one who engages the viewer (and even then, it's only occasionally). There's no reason to think it might be otherwise. Find a fashion editorial spread with a famous female and relatively unknown male and you'll see the roles reversed.
I'm not even sure you could accuse this spread of exhibiting traditional gender roles (which wouldn't be a bad thing even if it was). Of the six images, two of them show the woman in a dominating position. I'm not talking about position in frame or symbolism, but the actual role she appears to be embodying.

You spoke in a previous post about levels of nakedness and power. I'm not sure a women displaying skin is comparable to slavery, so I won't address it beyond this sentence. The strip club reference doesn't hold either. Of course the stripper is going to be the naked one. That's how those things work. Adding the extra layer of "the people who have all the money keep their clothes ON" ignores what the purpose of a strip club is. Why would the patrons not be wearing any clothes?? It also completely ignores the fact that there are many strip clubs where naked men are on stage and fully clothed women are stuffing money in their gstrings.
You're also forgetting about the reverse perspective. You're arguing that a woman's worth is relative to the amount of skin she's showing a man, but then using "clothing most associated with a person with LOTS of money and social power is a man in a suit" to support your view while ignoring the social pressures that puts on men. For every physical pressure felt by a woman, there's an equal financial pressure felt by a man. But that's life

Quote:
Do you really think it looks like he's tending subordinately to her in the full spread?
Of course not I was just making point that you can shoehorn in whatever perspective you like.
(He does look that way in shots 3 and 7, however)

Anyway... not sure where I'm going, but I'm sure there's an interesting discussion to be had
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 06:55 PM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Interesting, but not one mention of natural, evolutionary reasons? The fact is, for reproduction, it doesn't matter if a woman orgasms, so it makes complete sense for a sexual encounter to take place where the male orgasms and the woman doesn't (conversely, a female reaching orgasm with a male who does not results in nothing 100% of the time). There are few selective pressures that would create an environment where a female orgasm is required. The discussion can really be terminated there, but it is rude if a man finishes first and doesn't return the favour.
Their graph on orgasms vs encounters with previous partners makes perfect sense evolutionarily too. A selective pressure that does matter is for a male to 'stick around' and provide for the female and offspring, increasing the next generation's chance of survival. And while it's not necessary, a female orgasm results in the opening of the uterus 'dipping' into the pool of semen, increasing the chances of conception. Thus, it makes perfect sense to increase the chances of conceiving with a partner who has proven his longevity in the relationship.

Evolution: Making perfect sense for 4 billion years.

It can all be explained without biased articles that include excerpts like this:

“I’m all about making her orgasm,” said a man interviewed for their study. “The general her or like the specific her?” he was asked. “Girlfriend her,” he responded, “In a hookup her, I don’t give a shit.”
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 06:59 PM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:17 AM
A female orgasm may not be necessary for reproduction, but reproduction is not why people have sex 99.9% of the time.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 07:11 PM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
A female orgasm may not be necessary for reproduction, but reproduction is not why people have sex 99.9% of the time.
Evolution doesn't care about that (nor does our physiology). Our bodies are built to replicate. Any perceived shortcummings can be attributed to selective pressures
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 07:30 PM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

Evolution doesn't care about that (nor does our physiology). Our bodies are built to replicate. Any perceived shortcummings can be attributed to selective pressures
While I agree with you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a societally-induced factor at work exasperating things.
__________________
digitize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 07:33 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
While I agree with you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a societally-induced factor at work exasperating things.
True, but when an article doesn't even spend a sentence on facts and instead implies women don't orgasm as much because they're worried about looking pretty for the oppressive men, I question their motivation. There are clear physiological reasons being swept aside. And really, those reasons probably account for 90% of the issue.
But you're right. That's why I felt the need to add the bit about it being rude not to return the favour. Just because evolution gives you a shortcut, doesn't mean you have to be a savage about things
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 07:36 PM   #174
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Also, I'm not trying to be one of those insincere douchebags on the internet that say things like "6 inches is average? That small can't be right" (thou doth protest too much), but 4 minutes??
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 09:39 PM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post

Evolution doesn't care about that (nor does our physiology). Our bodies are built to replicate. Any perceived shortcummings can be attributed to selective pressures

Not true. Evolution cares about how we all get along and take care of each other outside of the womb.

Unlike the GOP.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 11:08 PM   #176
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Interesting, but not one mention of natural, evolutionary reasons? The fact is, for reproduction, it doesn't matter if a woman orgasms, so it makes complete sense for a sexual encounter to take place where the male orgasms and the woman doesn't (conversely, a female reaching orgasm with a male who does not results in nothing 100% of the time). There are few selective pressures that would create an environment where a female orgasm is required. The discussion can really be terminated there.
Well, that's really where the discussion of the article starts. The research cited indicates that women are not bad at orgasm. They only climax irregularly or not often when they are having sex with men. That indicates that the problem is not with women's bodies or with evolution's unconcern for her satisfaction, but with the interactions between men and women. And that's what the article asks the reader to address.
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 11:46 PM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Well, that's really where the discussion of the article starts. The research cited indicates that women are not bad at orgasm. They only climax irregularly or not often when they are having sex with men. That indicates that the problem is not with women's bodies or with evolution's unconcern for her satisfaction, but with the interactions between men and women. And that's what the article asks the reader to address.
This is not at all inconsistent with my point. They aren't orgasming with men as often because, as I stated, men are the limiting reagent, so to speak. And the article did nothing to address that, the most obvious and satisfactory explanation
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2013, 11:58 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
This is not at all inconsistent with my point. They aren't orgasming with men as often because, as I stated, men are the limiting reagent, so to speak. And the article did nothing to address that, the most obvious and satisfactory explanation
I think the point of the "With a hookup she I don't give a shit" quote that offended you, is that men are not in fact biologically limited in what they give to their partners. They are physiologically capable of being assholes, but they don't have to be. It's an attitude that we have normalized, but it's not one that must exist. When they care to work at it they are not a "limiting reagent", and the article suggests that we stop viewing the orgasm gap as inevitable. Are you really missing the critique that it's a choice?
__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2013, 12:39 AM   #179
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
I think the point of the "With a hookup she I don't give a shit" quote that offended you, is that men are not in fact biologically limited in what they give to their partners. They are physiologically capable of being assholes, but they don't have to be. It's an attitude that we have normalized, but it's not one that must exist. When they care to work at it they are not a "limiting reagent", and the article suggests that we stop viewing the orgasm gap as inevitable. Are you really missing the critique that it's a choice?
First off, nothing in that article offended me. Not in the least. You'll never post anything that will offend me. I quoted that bit of the article as a blatant example of the bias being presented.
What do you mean by "physiologically capable of being assholes"? Are you implying that men being more prone to orgasm is an act of assholishness?? The issue here is simply that men physically finish first more often than not (the limiting reagent that I'm talking about that you seem to have misinterpreted). Are you really missing the fact that there's a real physical reason and that it doesn't come down to men being assholes?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2013, 03:28 PM   #180
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,095
Local Time: 08:17 AM
I mean that coming off yourself without making sure your partner does is an asshole thing to do, and one that men do pretty often, statistically speaking. The fact that they are biologically prone to go off first doesn't mean that they must, or shouldn't give back. Letting that happen on a regular basis is just being an asshole.

The fact is that our society- our language, or media, our relationship patterns, our sex advice, our imaging of sexuality, our erotica, all privilege male orgasms and male sexuality as the norm. That's the thing to change, on an individual and a society wide basis.
__________________

__________________
jeevey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com