Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

You should see how upset deep gets when Lena Dunham is naked on screen.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

I think men have it in them to get swoony over a woman for all the right reasons. The boys were always crazy over my sister, who was pretty and well groomed but never, ever sexualized or skin-showy. I know of more than a few men who had the serious hots for the Dixie Chicks, who didn't show a ton of skin and were "as good as men" on their instruments.

Here's a great example of demonstration of social dominance through clothing and posture.

noirfacade: Cocktail Hour | Lydia Hearst, Benedict Cumberbatch by Jonty Davies for Marie Claire UK December 2010

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.

Now, I love Benedict Cumberbatch and I know that models have zero creative control in these shoots, but... this shoot has some seriously sexist body language, and it's absolutely the norm for high fashion magazines.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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.

Talk about over-analyzing.

Let me have a try:

In two of the photos, the woman has her back to the male in an expression of indifference. In two more shots, the woman is posed above the man, physically, and thus metaphorically, holding him down. In the double-page-spread, the woman is reclined on the sofa in a similar fashion to a roman emperor while the male tends to her subordinately (he even appears to be offering her his wrist, much in the same way a vampire would feed from a submissive victim).

Look and ye shall find.

And shall we ignore the fact that the shoot was styled by a woman?

[jeevey]

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]

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

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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

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]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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

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.”

[Irvine511]

A female orgasm may not be necessary for reproduction, but reproduction is not why people have sex 99.9% of the time.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by digitize

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]

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??

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

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?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by jeevey

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?

[jeevey]

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.