deep
Blue Crack Addict
Would I be wrong in saying that feminism is very much alive and relevant on cable television?
Uber popular HBO programs like GAME OF THRONES and GIRLS display it every episode.
Very wrong
Would I be wrong in saying that feminism is very much alive and relevant on cable television?
Uber popular HBO programs like GAME OF THRONES and GIRLS display it every episode.
What about Girls is feminist?
GAF, what is your idea of feminism? What examples can you give that GoT and Girls display feminism in every episode?
THRONES shows this all the time. It's one of the prevailing themes of the show, if not the prevailing theme. Maybe GIRLS is a bit of a stretch, but I was in fact thinking of the pornography angle that Irvine mentions.
The dudes, meanwhile, get more leeway. I'm not saying that there aren't super-hot guys that get a lot of shirtless time, but there's also plenty of scenes revolving around naked politics that don't star the Khal Drogos or Gendrys. A male character can have a little bit of a potbelly in a shirtless scene and still be taken seriously as an agent of power and change in his universe; when a female character does it, she gets lambasted for daring to assault our poor, defenseless eyeballs.
Maybe this is just my own internalized sexism. But guys' onscreen nudity always gives me the impression of being so deliberate, like creators sat back and debated whether or not his dong was necessary for plotting purposes. By contrast, female nudity comes off as almost knee-jerk, like of course a woman's sexual appeal (or lack thereof) would have to be an integral part of her character. Like a female character couldn't be smart and wicked and badass without visually proving to us that she has a smokin' hot body to boot.
Audiences seem way more willing to grant that a male character can have more to offer a plot than just his hot bod; a naked female character (and whatever actress plays her) tends to get reduced outside of the show to her breasts first, brain second. (Link NSFW)
There are exceptions to every rule, obviously. I'm sure that there are shows out there that star a lot of women being fully-clothed and badass while nubile young athletes lounge at their feet and idly thumb their own abdominal muscles. Generally speaking, though, I haven't seen many. (Also, um, if that specific show I just described exists, please direct me to it post-haste.)
In a perfect world, I would be all for TV shows and movies that showcase all manner of naked-ass bodies, behaving realistically and interestingly and in ways separate from and integral to the plot. But until that happens, I'd rather push for no boobs at all.
To me, to tie this to feminism you'd have to argue that it's a form of sexual empowerment for an average looking woman to have sex with a hot guy. Just not sure that I'm quite there yet.
Oh yeah. Showing their boobs for the sake of straight men is female power
This article reflects my attitude to prevalent female nudity on TV:
If I See Another Bare Breast on Television, I'm Going to Scream | xoJane
It is true that for a woman to express her sexuality or femininity, she has to show skin. It's been that way for long time. Just look at red carpet events like the Oscars or such. The women compete on who looks the sexiest whether by showing some or a lot of skin, while men uniformally wear tuxedoes that cover up their bodies. Yet, a man can express his sexuality and masculinity simply by how he presents himself: his voice, his stare, his stance. A woman has to show her cleavage, her legs, and in some cases, highly suggest she is not even wearing a thong. Why can't the way a woman carries herself be enough? By society saying that a woman needs to show skin in order to be a sexual being, you are putting her worth on her body rather than her confidence and personality.
I know I sound like a staunch conservative here, but there is some truth to what they say. I'm definitely not saying we should all wear burqas or boring outfits like Orthodox Jewish women wear. But honestly, can't the way we present ourselves be enough to be sexy? Many women say feeling sexy comes from within, not by how much of their bodies they show.
While it's true that the female body is beautiful and generally both sexes enjoy looking at them, the fact that women are almost universally portrayed partly naked to be sexy, is a mark of their subordinate status and our sexualization of their subordination. Consider the that in BDSM imagery, the sub is always nude or nearly so and the dom is more fully dressed, regardless of sex. And that in a strip club, the people who have all the money keep their clothes ON. And that the clothing most associated with a person with LOTS of money and social power is a man in a suit. In slave owning societies slaves have often been kept naked, and stripping is often a part of public punishment for criminals. The wearing of clothes is a marker of social power and always has been.
When we as a society can get really, really swoony about a woman in an expensive well cut suit.... well, that'll be a marker of real progress.
I guess Britney Spears wasn't kidding when she sang "I'm Slave 4 U".
The only celebrities of any kind I can think of who came across as sexy while not being overtly sexual were The Corrs. With the exception of their "In Blue" cover where Andrea was leaning over showing some breast, I can't remember seeing a pic or video of them posing like porn stars. They were/are outrageously gorgeous, they knew it and that was how they presented their femininity. They also used their personalities, which had more substance than many women in the entertainment world. I think some men swooned, or were even entranced by them, more so than with other women.
In this photoshoot the man is fully dressed down to the cuffs in every single image. The woman is exposed- either breasts, back, or translucent clothing in every one. In most of them she is reclining, looking up at him. He's avoiding eye contact with her in several, and only looks at her once. There are only two in which she is not physically posed lower than him. In one, she's touching and looking at him, demonstrating a request for attention, while he stares away from her. In the other she's in a dominant stance and dominatrix clothes- full coverage but see through, overtly sexy- and he seems to be anticipating loosening his belt.
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.
Of course not I was just making point that you can shoehorn in whatever perspective you like.Do you really think it looks like he's tending subordinately to her in the full spread?
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
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
While I agree with you, that doesn't mean that there isn't a societally-induced factor at work exasperating things.
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
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.
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?