How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI?

[TerrapinFlyer]

I seem to recall instant outrage over the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover... how it exploits women... etc.. etc.

But the photo of Ms. Jenner is OK?

I am OK with both magazines publishing sexy covers... I like well done photography. I like Playboy photography. I like National Geographic photography. It is art.

...just want to throw some hypocrisy in a few faces!

[Warren DeMontague]

1. I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone choosing to display their body on a magazine cover

so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.

[Gman]

2. Hmmm... This could get good

[Logical]

3. Of course there's nothing wrong with either. People just don't get that. Nt

[RiffRandell]

4. Let's see the answers.

I'm quite curious.

[geek tragedy]

37. so you're not sure what the difference is between Caitlyn Jenner's magazine cover

on one hand, vs the SI swimsuit issue, or Penthouse on the other?

[RiffRandell]

59. We subscribe to 2 out of 3 you mentioned and Penthouse isn't one.

I don't particularly care seeing "Women's World" in the checkout line as it doesn't interest me but it doesn't ruin my whole month, as someone mentioned downthread.

If the cover of a magazine did that to me, I'd consider myself either damn fortunate or super melodramatic.

I've seen some very sexy Vanity Fair covers such as these and just googled the latest Penthouse cover which is mild in comparison so my answer is no. You're on your own on that one though as I have a clean record and some people have itchy fingers.

[geek tragedy]

60. you apparently missed the entire point of the Caitlyn Jenner cover

by judging everything by whether it's 'sexy'

There's a great deal of important stuff going on with the Caitlyn Jenner cover that's not going on with standard issue T&A skin magazines.

Caitlyn Jenner isn't being presented as wanking material. This is telling her story as a human being, on coming out as a woman and as trans.

That's much different than boobs and asses being presented in order to enhance the act of masturbation.

[RiffRandell]

63. I don't consider VF or SI regardless of the swimsuit issue

'T&A' mags.

Like I said, I get it and am saving it for the plane ride tomorrow.

You missed the point as the OP asked about the cover, not the content.

Most people on the cover of VF or SI (or most mags for that matter) currently have important things going on in their lives.

That's why they are on the cover.

I think in 2015, magazines aren't what they used to be in 'enhancing the act of masturbation'. Just a wild guess.

[geek tragedy]

67. the OP was flamebait wallowing in false equivalencies

it had no point other than to "nyah nyah nyah" at feminists, and cynically using a transperson's story as a club in the process.

it takes an astonishing degree of self-delusion to think that the SI swimsuit issue puts women on the cover on the basis of the important stories they have to tell about their personal lives. That's worse than "I read Playboy for the articles."

read this response to this trainwreck of an OP if you're actually interested in learning something:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6771371

[RiffRandell]

69. What a rude post.

I also subscribe to US Weekly, have zero interest in any of The Kardashians but don't freak out if they are on the cover, which is a lot.

It's one issue a year, and maybe making the cover was important to those models. Now you are the judge of who deserves to be on a magazine cover more than others? Wow.

It also takes an astonishing degree of self-delusion to see what's not there and make shit up, which is just about your entire above post.

Love to stay and play, but need to clean my house and pack. Look forward to reading the article!

[AgingAmerican]

70. Some people are control freaks

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

88. and that's, basically, the bottom line.

I don't wake up in the morning determined that I need to tell other people what magazines they're allowed to look at, but, then, I guess I have other shit to do.

[TerrapinFlyer]

114. "it had no point other than to "nyah nyah nyah" at feminists"

totally ridiculous!

I wrote the OP just to show the hypocrisy... and YOUR post is a perfect example.

Don't EVER tell me how I view or perceive art -- especially since my professional career is as a photographer.

Take your paranoia elsewhere.

[geek tragedy]

115. No, there is no hypocrisy, that is the point.

You're accusing people of hypocrisy because they do not share your extraordinarily ignorant inability to discern the differences between T&A skin mags and an Annie Liebowitz portrait of a 65-year old transperson making history.

Treating different things differently is not hypocrisy. You can look it up.

[TerrapinFlyer]

116. Referring SI as a T&A magazine shows your ignorance in advertising and marketing

as well as what constitutes "art".

I am pointing out YOUR hypocrisy in that the 65-year old transperson sure did show a lot of "skin" in the cover portrait, but of course that isn't "real T&A".. yeah right!

And in addition, some very famous photographers work on the SI covers... so you mentioning the "but Annie did the shoot" is even MORE hypocrisy.

SO keep digging your hole...

[geek tragedy]

117. Yeah, the SI swimsuit cover with three models pointing their ass cheeks

at the camera was all about art and social consciousness.

[TerrapinFlyer]

120. So you are the judge for what is art??????

Keep digging!

[geek tragedy]

124. You're free to insist your precious skin mags are 'art' and equal to

Liebowitz's portrait of Caitlyn Jenner.

It is not hypocrisy to disagree with you, however. No matter how angry it makes you to have people dismiss wank mags.

[TerrapinFlyer]

127. "precious skin mags"... yeah. It is very clear where your mind is at.

It's only art if it gets approval from your mind... the definition of a HYPOCRITE!

It is my professional JOB to provide images to "wank mags". And I like it, and it pays well.

All the pay goes into my PRECIOUS bank account. So I can afford to buy more gear to create MORE images.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Why cant art and social consciousness be about sex and sexuality?

who says?

[geek tragedy]

122. They can be and often are.

The English Patient's love scenes were way hotter than any porno could be.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. I wouldnt know

I fell asleep somewhere about 2/3 into the first VHS tape. IIRC there were two.

I did discover Monica Bellucci during the 90s though, so there's that.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. "itchy fingers"

[ornotna]

5. Well I think

The VF photo was much more than just a "sexy" cover. It was even more than art. I don't see how they even compare.

[fishwax]

6. I don't see the similarity

[Kelvin Mace]

7. Well, they are both massively Photoshopped

[guillaumeb]

8. This post was alerted on. I cannot imagine why.

I was Number 4.

I think it takes tremendous courage to do what Jenner or Manning did. Perhaps they will be a hope and inspiration for others in that situation.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I can.

[Major Nikon]

19. You don't need much of an imagination either

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. Predictable

The usual suspect gets uncomfortable with reasonable questions.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. The polite thing to do is post the results

[guillaumeb]

82. Done.

On Tue Jun 2, 2015, 10:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026770562

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The covers aren't comparable, this is pure shit-stirring and borderline meta. This person isn't looking for reasonable discussion, they're calling out duers as hypocrites with no basis. Makes DU suck

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 2, 2015, 10:26 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you think the covers aren't comparable, post a comment that says so.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion in a topic where any opinion can be called shit stirring.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is right on. Face up to it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[WinkyDink]

9. The amount of skin revealed is quite different.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Some people got really mad about Laverne Cox posing nearly nude for Allure, too.

A whole bunch of really nasty attitudes on display over that.

[CTyankee]

68. I have the context for you...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/04/16/laverne-cox-poses-nude-to-inspire-black-transgender-women/25882783/

[Warren DeMontague]

85. My point is, if Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, or anyone else chooses to take some or all of their

clothes off, because they're proud of their body or just because they feel like it, I don't have a problem with it, in fact I think it's a good, healthy, positive thing.

And that applies to the SI Swimsuit models as well.

I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept for some to wrap their heads around.

[CTyankee]

90. what is difficult is that we are talking about both aesthetic issues and political issues.

Or at least I was in differentiating the Jenner photo and the SI cover. Jenner's photo has a context, a meaning, a philosophy behind it as expressed in the 22 page article that accompanies it. That brings it into a different aspect than the SI cover which had no such context.

[CTyankee]

92. I would also like to ask you again about the context of the ancient Indian art you posted.

I don't know much about Indian art as I explained earlier, but if what you showed was done in a context of sacred art, it had a purpose, a meaning that reached into the souls of people who encountered it in ancient times. There is a reason we revere and preserve such precious art. And there is a reason we mostly throw out old magazines (I know some don't because it is to them representative of our culture today and I accept that).

[Warren DeMontague]

95. A lot of ancient cultures didn't have the distinction between sexuality and the sacred, that we do.

Also, dubiously defined concepts like "objectification" weren't part of the lexicon. At least, not until JHVH showed up with his proscription on graven images, the fallout of which Charlie Hebdo can tell you all about.

[CTyankee]

96. I have absolutely no distinction between sexuality and the sacred.

That was entirely my point. The art that you showed was sacred. It represented deeply felt meaning in people who viewed it.

As I have told you previously, I hold art as what has meaning, whether sacred or otherwise, as defined art. Do you get it now?

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Meaning is subjective, isn't it?

I'm not claiming that the '14 SI swimsuit cover is high art, but "deeply felt meaning" is likewise subjective.

Im sure there's some real kinky photoshoots- Mapplethorpe springs to mind- which would set off some folks' "porn" alarm bells, but likewise also have a lot of deeply felt meaning behind them. Oftentimes lust is deeply felt, etc.

[CTyankee]

99. "deeply felt lust" is not the question to me.

But you have to have some metric for art. Mapplethorpe is in museums, the SI swimsuit cover is not. Why?

[Warren DeMontague]

100. I think one of the biggest objections to the definition of "art" as it stands today

and it's been raised, in various forms, by everyone from Warhol to Banksy-

is, that it has become a bit of a sham.

[CTyankee]

103. and it is ever thus. Look at the history of art and you see how this is played out.

One art style plays out and a new one takes its place. On and on.

I am actually planning an art essay in GD for a future discussion on Warhol. And perhaps one on Jasper Johns. And Jackson Pollack. In fact, I am planning a trip to MoMA just to view its current exhibition of Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans which I hope to turn into another art essay here on DU in GD. I hope you will join the discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Absolutely.

Right on.

Edited to add: I think that part of our uncertainty as to what constitutes valid art right now has to do with uncertainty about who we are, as a species. Plus the "conversation" that art represents has gone in so many different directions as our communication and interconnectivity has expanded exponentially.

Add to that, the rapid-fire technological changes which have affected everything from media to means of expression.

[CTyankee]

107. I am fascinated by the implications of Pollack's "Full Fathom Five" and Johns "Flag".

Pop art had a significant impact on what we consider art today.It all started with that damn Magritte. He got my head so screwed up a few weeks ago, I was beginning to think I was crazy. Surreal art and me, not so much...http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026643263

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Sure, and Magritte is getting at something pretty fundamental with that "pipe" that is not a pipe.

And it ties into both the concept of objectification AND the Western Monotheistic prohibition on graven images, which I've had kicking in my head for the past few hours-

the specific thing I feel Magritte was going for, there, was the idea that our semantic representation of things are not the things themselves, right? The menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory.

I do think that the early monotheists were groping around for this message too, but in typical human religious fashion, they took a fairly decent piece of advice intended to enlighten and turned it into a "no hats on the beds" cultural OCD prohibition.

The idea that a word or image for "God" necessarily diminishes the actual, infinite, ineffable God or at least our understanding of it... this is, in many ways, similar to the idea that a sexy picture of a woman (or a man) reduces or diminishes our understanding of women (or men) in general.

I think this sells the human animal, and our capacity not just for symbolic logic but for meta-understanding of our own symbolic logic processes, short.

[Snobblevitch]

11. "How is the current cover of Vanity Fair any different than the swimsuit edition of SI?"

While I have only seen a couple of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition magazines, and that was many years ago, I am quite certain SI has never had a photo of a 65 year old wearing a swimsuit.

[Person 2713]

58. Good answer

[JI7]

12. Jenner is an actual sports figure

[Warren DeMontague]

14. And Vanity Fair is anything but a Sports Magazine.

Odd, huh?

But let's be honest. It wouldn't matter if it was Penthouse or Better Homes and Gardens, some people just get mad about scantily clad attractive people looking happy in bathing suits.

[peecoolyour]

13. Nothing is wrong with either of them.

If someone wants to pose for a photo and a magazine wants to print and sell it and people want to buy it and look at it...

That's all that should determine what goes on it or in it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

16. Didn't the SI swimsuit model look as if she was about to rub one out?

I thought that was the issue, not so much the skin. Perhaps I'm getting magazine covers mixed up...

[Warren DeMontague]

18. The big DU battle over the SI cover took place with the '14 issue IIRC

which was 3 women standing on a beach.

I think it was more about their butts, than anything else.

[aikoaiko]

32. Followed by the Kate Upton zero-G video -- it was just too much for DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521817

[Logical]

40. Fond memory! Nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

110. Ah, right, Thong-gate. Or whatever it was called. (n/t)

[LuvLoogie]

17. Just looked at both covers.

I can see a difference.

[ismnotwasm]

21. This article might clarify a bit

Probably not, but one can always hope

In her essay she explains that although she and Caitlyn Jenner have access to the resources that allow them to embody certain cisnormative beauty standards, many trans people do not have access to these resources nor do all trans people desire to embody cisnormative beauty standards.

Now, there are many trans folks because of genetics and/or lack of material access who will never be able to embody these standards. More importantly many trans folks don’t want to embody them and we shouldn’t have to to be seen as ourselves and respected as ourselves. It is important to note that these standards are also infomed by race, class and ability among other intersections. I have always been aware that I can never represent all trans people. No one or two or three trans people can. This is why we need diverse media representstions of trans folks to multiply trans narratives in the media and depict our beautiful diversities.

She then explains #TransIsBeautiful, a hashtag she started as an inclusive way to celebrate and uplift all trans people.
I started #TransIsBeautiful as a way to celebrate all those things that make trans folks uniquely trans, those things that don’t necessarily align with cisnormative beauty standards. For me it is necessary everyday to celebrate every aspect of myself especially those things about myself that don’t align with other people’s ideas about what is beautiful. #TransIsBeautiful is about, whether you’re trans or not, celebrating all those things that make us uniquely ourselves. Most trans folks don’t have the privileges Caitlyn and I have now have. It is those trans folks we must continue to lift up, get them access to healthcare, jobs, housing, safe streets, safe schools and homes for our young people.
Read Laverne's full post here.


Read more: http://theculture.forharriet.com/2015/06/laverne-cox-reflects-on-caitlyn-jenner.html#ixzz3byhSZ0u9

[cui bono]

22. Why do you bring this up?

Why did you not ask any other day before now how any other magazine cover is not like the swimsuit edition of SI if you think they are so similar?

Btw... did you see the last SI swimsuit cover? Unfortunately, I did, while standing in line at the grocery store. That was bordered on soft porn. I mean really, she almost exposed herself.

The Jenner cover is not done the way SI does it at all. It was not shot in a way to make someone think of sex. The SI shots have models posed in sexual positions and pulling their suits off.

Also, the Jenner cover will raise awareness of transgenders and will most likely have a positive effect by doing so. The SI issues will cause men to jerk off and women to end up with eating disorders.

[Nye Bevan]

25. "The SI issues will cause men to jerk off". Nailed it, right there.

And the Vanity Fair issue will not.

[pintobean]

33. Not me

YMMV

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Apparently now masturbation is another cultural crisis.

You know, Scalia warned us in his Lawrence dissent, that due to the pesky "privacy" enumerations impied therein, state laws against -among other things- masturbation might not be enforceable.

DAMMIT!

[snooper2]

44. LOL

We have to be careful somebody doesn't put an eye out!

[LostOne4Ever]

23. Was the SI cover featuring a transwoman/transwomen?

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Do the models for SI have to face accusations of not being "real" women and have to prove themselves time and time again? Do they get stereotyped as ugly men in dresses?

Do they face the same level of hate and persecution as transwomen face? Do they have a 40+% rate of attempted suicide and could really need to see other Transsexuals finding happiness?

Did they do the cover for the same reasons as Caitlyn Jenner? Was the vanity fair magazines deviating from its normal issues of pop culture like the SI issue deviated from its normal focus on sports? Were the poses Ms. Jenner gave on the cover the same as the one the woman/women of SI?

Could it be that the purpose of one cover was a statement of idenity and empowerment, and the other was using women as sex objects to sale magazines to those attracted to the female form?

Could this whole thread be one huge case of false equivalency? One that is using a transwoman as nothing more than a tool to make a political point against feminist on this site and their allies for wanting just a bit of respect on a liberal website?

I think these are important questions that should be considered before answering your question.[/font]

[Iggo]

26. ^^^^^ This.

[geek tragedy]

38. +1000000000000000 nailed it. Thread over. nt

[City Lights]

42. Well said!

[cui bono]

74. +1,000,000

[Warpy]

77. Thank you

It's a complete false equivalency, especially since the SI "swimsuit" cover seems to be focused on taking parts of the swimsuits off in order to entice males into buying the magazine during a sports hiatus. If it were a "swimsuit" issue, they'd be wearing the damn suits. It's pure T&A and exploitation of women's bodies as sales tools.

Jenner had a story to tell and the cover, in a retro 50s one piece, related to that story. Not all VF covers are like that, but this one was.

[Kali]

78. much better questions than the OP

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Then why did the same anti-nudity, pro-censorship people bodyshame Laverne Cox?

http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-04-27/the-soapbox-on-laverne-coxs-nude-photo-spread-meghan-murphys-transphobia/

Personally, I don't think it's okay to shame ANYONE for choosing to display and be proud of their body, nude or no, if they're a consenting adult.

And I think being proud of ones' sex, sexuality, and sexiness is an unqualified good, whatever gender or orientation or physicality one has.

[prayin4rain]

105. "I think being proud of ones' sex, sexuality, and sexiness is an unqualified good ...."

I actually totally agree with you on that. I tend to get really annoyed with ubiquitous images of women presented as sex objects because I think, ugh more patriarchy shoved in my face. And with that are ideas of unequal pay and emergency room visits. But if I could see it as "there's a woman who's proud of her sexiness," then I could probably be annoyed a lot less often.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I think as far as the '14 SI issue went, the 3 women on the beach looked pretty happy to be there.

If someone is miserable, stuck in uncomfortable shoes, or otherwise looks like they're being forced into a situation they don't like, I don't like it either.

I didn't think the '14 SI cover was high art, but neither did I think it was particularly outrage-worthy. It was a sunshine-y scene on a nice beach, something we don't see enough of, here, in February.

Still, I think if your local grocery store is displaying these things where your kids can see them and you don't want them to, you certainly have the right to ask them to put a sleeve or whatever in front of the cover, the way I've noticed many stores do with Cosmo.

[prayin4rain]

109. Agreed and I have a new annoyance busting mental mantra, thanks! haha n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

111. I remember this song from the kids' CDs I used to have playing constantly

Dude has a point.

[prayin4rain]

113. Awesomeness

[LostOne4Ever]

118. Anyone who does that is wrong

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And unless I misread the OP entirely, my questions were toward the comparison the OP had on the reaction DU had directed to Ms Jenner vs those toward the SI cover. I do not see any mention of Ms. Cox in the OP at all.

I feel that the OP is trying to make a false analogy to score points against the feminists of DU at the expense of Ms. Jenner. I do not think that is right. The two shoots were done for entirely different reasons.

I agree that it is not okay to shame anyone for their body, and if you check my questions they were pointing out that there many differences between the two covers and why it is a false equivalence.

From what I can tell from your link, Ms. Cox photo-shoot is far more in line with Ms. Jenner's than the SI cover. If it was a comparison between those two I probably wouldn't have posted.[/font]

[Warren DeMontague]

119. In the Ms. Cox photoshoot, she's pretty much entirely nude.

It's certainly more "pornographic" than the SI issue.

And it's worth noting that some of Meghan Murphy's objections to laverne cox's shoot are identical to the ones levied against the SI issue.

But unfortunately there are some people who cloak their bigotry against transpeople in pseudo-"progressivism" and a lot of authoritative sounding bargle.... When in reality, they're defending bigoted policies for places like the the MWMF that are essentially no different from what Mike Huckabee says about transpeople using bathrooms and showers.

[LostOne4Ever]

133. I completely agree that there are indeed people like that

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 04:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And then there are those who fight to oppose them.

One of the better liberal feminist sites I came across has article after article rejecting those who try and cover their transphobia with pseudo-progressivism.

Here are a few of their articles:[/font]

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/trans-inclusive-feminist-movement/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/01/transmisogyny/

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/misconceptions-trans-ally-understand/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I don't agree with everything on their site, but I have found a lot of great articles on issues transgender people face, including the transphobia of MWMF.

And again, my comment was to the false equivalency between the SI cover and the VF cover. This feels like we are getting offtopic. I made no comment about Ms Cox. She is a transwoman, the woman/women from the SI cover have not disclosed themselves as being trans to my knowledge, so again I don't feel that is in anyway a fair comparison.[/font]

[prayin4rain]

24. This was already discussed in that thread.

Obviously, there are artful pictures of women in the nude and there are pictures of women in the nude that present women solely as a commodity or object for the entertainment of men. Studies have shown that violence against women is more likely when women are viewed as commodities or objects instead of as people.

[Orrex]

27. Every magazine portrays the cover model as a commodity.

There is, understandably, some dispute as the relative good and bad of commoditization, but it is frankly undeniable that a magazine cover model is a commodity, even Ms. Jenner.

[prayin4rain]

41. Most fashion magazine covers try to commodify the idea that

"you're not __________ enough, my product can help."
The SI cover tries to commodify the idea that women are for sex and the entertainment of men, objects. Both ideas are somewhat harmful, but one directly leads to an increase in violence against women. Jenner's cover is commodifying the idea that you can be yourself, courage is good, etc....

[Orrex]

51. I'm reluctant to re-hash the various SI threads, but a different interpretation is possible.

As has been ably pointed out in this thread, the SI cover is following a tradition that has lasted for many centuries at least. Artists have always portrayed their subjects in stylized or idealized ways, and the "just for sex" interpretation is one of many possibilities. And even if that's the primary interpretation, it's not clear that this is necessarily or fundamentally bad.

Both ideas are somewhat harmful, but one directly leads to an increase in violence against women.

That's actually a matter of some dispute. Video game violence, violent tv and violent music have been studied for decades, but there's still no clearly demonstrable link between those fictional portrayals of violence and acts of real-world violence by the players/viewers/listeners. At best, it can be shown that people with a predisposition to violence are no less predisposed after playing/viewing/listening to those media, but otherwise healthy people aren't inspired to violence because of a game they played.

The same is true of portayals of models on magazine covers. It has not been shown that a healthy male will inflict violence upon a woman simply because scantily clad women appear on the newstand. It's a huge leap from ogling a magazine to physically harming a woman, and the brute who's likely to commit such violence would most likely have done so even in the absence of the magazine. And even if that asshole was inclined to commit violence after seeing a magazine cover, that doesn't mean that the magazine is at fault or that others shouldn't be able to see it if they want to.

I should clarify that I'm using "the magazine cover" as shorthand to refer to media portrayals in general. Also, we're presupposing voluntary participation, which specifically excludes non-consensual media such as child porn, revenge porn, phone-hack porn, and the like.

Further, I am distinguishing "real-world violence" from "online violence" because the depersonalization inherent in online interaction creates a charged environment that can't readily be differentiated from what we'd call real-world objectifcation, so we can't draw firm conclusions about one or the other.

And frankly, a body is an object. Yours, mine, Ms. Jenners and everybody else's, and for that matter we all objectify people every day in ways that are useful or harmful to varying degrees.

[prayin4rain]

57. The promotion of the idea that women are for sex and/or male entertainment

has negative consequences for women. Few mainstream, grocery store magazines blatantly exist to promote that idea alone. Those that do, will not be viewed favorably by men and women who do not believe that the idea that women are for sex/male entertainment should be promoted. As you pointed out, it's a matter of degree. I recognize that certain women and men will continue to try to uphold the tradition of women being viewed primarily as sex/entertainment for men.

[Orrex]

71. Lots to unpack there.

Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 01:44 PM - Edit history (2)

The promotion of the idea that women are for sex and/or male entertainment has negative consequences for women.

If the claim were that women are only for sex and/or male entertainment, then I would agree. However, I have literally never met a man who expressed that view. Even the men who were famously caught cat-calling Shoshana Roberts 108 times almost certainly don't think of women only for sex and/or for male entertainment. Rather, they likely think that it's acceptable to treat some women that way at some times in some contexts.

But even that's not the pure evil that we might suppose it to be. Every time you interact with someone without regarding that person as a distinct individual with unique thoughts and feelings, you are objectifying that person to some degree or another. Did you cut someone off in traffic? You objectified them. Were you rude to a customer service representative? You objectified them. Did you allow your gaze to linger admiringly upon some anonymous person in a crowd? You objectified them.

Let her or him who has truly never objectified anyone cast the first aspersion.

Further, the idea that woman can also be for sex and/or for male entertainment if the women choose to be seems both entirely reasonable and entirely consistent with my experience.

Few mainstream, grocery store magazines blatantly exist to promote that idea alone.

I would submit that no grocery store magazines promote that idea alone, especially not Maxim or Sports Illustrated. On the other hand, Cosmopolitian has worked that angle for decades, with its super-sexy models and several articles about "how to drive him wild in bed" featured on every month's cover right there in the checkout line. It was a great day when I was grocery shopping with my six-year-old and I suddenly found myself having to explain what "how to give him amazing orgasms" means.

Those that do, will not be viewed favorably by men and women who do not believe that the idea that women are for sex/male entertainment should be promoted.

Maybe, but such people are probably fewer in number than you think. Pornography rakes in over $55 billion annually, more than 2X the box office totals of the top ten mainstream films of all time, even adjusting for inflation. And that's every year! What are we to make of this?

I recognize that certain women and men will continue to try to uphold the tradition of women being viewed primarily as sex/entertainment for men.

Well, you recognize it, but what then? What do you suppose can be done to rein in that $55 billion industry? Either a tiny handful of people will each continue to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of porn annually, or else a very large number of people will continue to uphold the tradition that sexuality can be expressed and enjoyed in many different ways, even if other people find those ways objectionable.

[prayin4rain]

73. So full of off topic strawmen, I can't see any point in responding. n/t

[Orrex]

75. It's clear that it's easier for you to see it that way.

And it's also clear that you don't know what a straw man is.

Please cite the text in which I mischaracterized your argument in order to make it easier to refute.

In fact, I quoted you directly and addressed your points directly and provided examples. You may not like my refutations, and you may disagree with my examples, but that doesn't make them straw men.

[prayin4rain]

76. A good majority of your post is about the male and female

video pornography business. SI swimsuit magazines are not a 55 billion a year industry. NOBODY except you has talked about regular pornography or the expression of divergent sexual interests, neither of which have ANYTHING to do with the SI swimsuit edition or other magazines that portray women as one dimensional sex objects.

[Orrex]

79. Then you need to define "pornorgraphy"

In this very thread, the SISI has been faulted for "titilating men," for portraying women as sex objects, for showing the cover model on the verge of groping herself, and for being solely for men "to jerk off to." If you want to declare that it's not porn, that's lovely, but others here and previously have certainly called it that.

Further, you've opened the door much wider. Porn is a $55B/year industry, but we expand that to industries that objectify its models, then you've broadend the discussion to nearly every part of the economy that's driven by marketing, and that proves my point all the more definitively.

NOBODY except you has talked about regular pornography or the expression of divergent sexual interests, neither of which have ANYTHING to do with the SI swimsuit edition or other magazines that portray women as one dimensional sex objects.

Please provide the specific definition of porn that you are using. As a bonus, please explain why others are wrong to call the SI swimsuit porn.


Moreover, you haven't actually addressed the larger point, focusing instead on one element that you think is non-relevant and pretending that the rest simply goes away. You're free to do that, but don't pretend that those points are invalid simply because you've ignored them.

[prayin4rain]

80. Whether it is a tiny sliver of the regular pornography

industry, or not, is not the point. The point is that YOU grouped all porn together when porn, in general, is not the issue. The message of the SI swimsuit edition -that women are primarily for sex and male entertainment- being displayed in such a mainstream ubiquitous manner is the issue. Porn, sex, etc., is not the topic, they are strawmen. Almost everyone on this board agrees that people should engage in, or watch others engage in, whatever consenting adult sexual behaviors that they wish to engage in. So what? It has nothing to do with women being regarded like hot rods.

[Orrex]

89. Well, then it's simple

Did the women on the SI swimsuit issue consent to be there?

They did?

Then case closed, by your own assertion. Well done!

[prayin4rain]

91. Yep, and I don't consent to look, so get it off the grocery store

stand and everyone is all set.

[Orrex]

93. You're kidding, right?

If you don't want to look, don't look. You're a grown-up, after all.

[prayin4rain]

94. I can't know that is there without looking. Also, my child isn't a grown up. n/t

[Orrex]

125. When I made that same point upthread, you called it a straw man and ignored it

Your objection is hollow.



Sorry, but the world is full of stuff that you "can't know is there without looking." You have to take some responsibility for your interaction with the world, or else put your blindfold on and complain when you bump into things.

[prayin4rain]

129. Context is not your strong suit. n/t

[Orrex]

131. Nor is logic yours.

[prayin4rain]

132. Haha, ok. n/t

[CTyankee]

28. You have nailed it, prayin! But I have done further thinking on this...

I do a lot of research into art and the question that has arisen with the SI cover is why isn't it considered art when the pose is the famous ones of the three graces

Botticelli


Rubens did one also


So that is the question and it comes to the philosophical question "what is art?" This is no minor issue ever since it was posed (and answered) by a philosophy professor at Columbia University a few years back who wondered why Warhol's Brillo box was considered art but not the Brillo box you see in the supermarket? If you google the two you'll see what I mean...

[KitSileya]

46. One major difference between these two trios and the one on the SI issue in 2014

Is very, very obvious. I wonder if any of these 'gotcha he he he' children will spot it.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. I remember the 2014 cover.

It was more like this art:



In fact, the poses were uncannily similar to the statue on the right.

Of course, "art" is just a label. Perhaps some of the people so profoundly bent out of shape about a magazine cover featuring 3 happy-looking women on a sunny beach, should ask themselves why it's so important that it NOT BE ART DAMMIT!

[CTyankee]

62. I know little about ancient Indian art, but is this the sacred art of the temple?

The reason I ask is the question of functionality and the ideas behind the works you have displayed.

[KitSileya]

64. Ah, I see you missed it.

The major difference is that in CTYankee's pictures, the trios are looking at each other, and are not engaging with the viewer. They are talking to each other, being whole persons in that act. In the SI cover, the three models are turning to look directly at the viewer with come-hither looks, leaving no doubt that their nudity is for the titillation of the viewer and that they themselves are just objects for the viewer to use as he sees fit.

But I am not surprised you couldn't see the difference. It's the difference between woman as person and woman as thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. sure.

if you say so.

[CTyankee]

86. What Bernini did in sculpture with the "Rape of Persephone" is another example of what art

can say about violence against women and rooted in mythology...modern feminist poets such as Rita Dove have pondered that myth as well. Seeing the face of Persephone up close, you find the artist has sculpted tears on her face. The horror of this Greek myth is presented in the cruelty of Hades and the terror of the young girl. Her mother, Demeter, fights to get her back for at least 9 months of the year. I put an essay about this sculpture (now in the Borghese Gallery in Rome) up in GD a couple of months ago...

[prayin4rain]

49. It is so interesting....the role of context, perspective and experience

when expressing or communicating ideas or feelings and when those expressions or communications are considered art and when they're simply exploitive. Certainly, the SI cover could be the next Duchamp's Fountain in the right setting. Haha

[CTyankee]

61. Duchamp's Fountain differed from Warhol's Brillo boxes and soup cans in one important way.

Duchamp went to a plumbing supply store and bought the urinal, then signed it and voila. Warhol and other pop artists made theirs. Which is why Warhol got into silk screening. He wanted his works to look like advertising.

The obvious answer of course IS context and functionality. And I would add meaning. Warhol's works are about something...namely, consumer culture. In addition, the artworld makes up its mind about what is art and it requires a background in the history and theory of art. And here comes the context: SI as opposed to Vanity Fair. The Vanity Fair magazine cover has an accompanying 22 page article. See this piece from cnn http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/01/media/caitlyn-jenner-vanity-fair/

[prayin4rain]

66. Interesting read, thanks! n/t

[NCTraveler]

48. Thank you. +1 nt.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. Jon Stewart addressed this a bit last night.

Pointing out that as soon as Jenner came out as a woman...she got treated as a woman, instantly being judged on her mode of dress, her appearance, whether or not she was sexier than some other women, whether she was good enough to 'get busy with'. It put the gender discrimination up in sharp highlight.

[CTyankee]

31. When considering the SI cover art, please read my post #28.

This is an important question and taken very seriously in the art world. It is also a question in the art of portraiture. The Jenner photo is representation and I believe it has some artistic merit. The intent of it is deeper, IMO, than just the representation of women who are not being represented as themselves as individuals. It is an interesting and vexing question...

[treestar]

34. It was done to show Jenner

after a transition, not to titillate men.

[CTyankee]

39. It is quite an interesting photo. I think Liebovitz did a fine job of displaying

her sitter's frame of mind, the choice of the body shaping undergarment she is wearing and the light reflected off her left shoulder (I'm not sure if all swimmers have that developed a shoulder or just ones born male). The question arises as to why Jenner's hands are behind her back. The background is an interesting study of light and dark and color all by itself.

[KittyWampus]

43. I was also put in mind of old swimsuit pinup graphics. The sort that would be called "erotic"

rather than overt porn. The pose and lighting called classic and vintage beauty to mind.

[treestar]

45. Liebovitz has a cred/reputation too

She would never be caught dead photographing the swimsuit edition of SI. There is the thought she would put into it regarding the light and colors. And the choice of pose, etc.

[CTyankee]

83. Do you remember the photo she did of a naked John Lennon curling up with Yoko,

a photo she took just hours before his assassination? Or the very pregnant Demi Moore in profile? They were magnificent. Annie has vision...

[geek tragedy]

35. "just want to throw some hypocrisy in a few faces"

no, you're just throwing your own ignorance in people's faces, in that you don't the difference between Caitlyn Jenner's challenging of cis-normativity on one hand vs cis-normative soft porn on the other.

That you see nothing but women in swimsuits is indeed at the heart of the critiques which you dismiss due to your failure to perceive the issues.

[Democat]

36. Photoshop is evil

Except in cases where it's great.

Thank you for starting this thread.

[NCTraveler]

47. People can't be this stupid.

They just can't.

[seaglass]

50. It's just bait. If the OP actually wants to LEARN there are certainly enough non-dense people in

this thread who have articulated the differences.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. people can get all deeply wrought out about a magazine cover showing 3 women smiling on a beach

to the extent that, IIRC, someone claimed "it ruined my whole month".

The magazine cover, that is.

So no, very little surprises me anymore, about "people".

[NCTraveler]

55. Unfortunately, the op really doesn't surprise me much either. nt.

[CTyankee]

65. My comments have been limited to the question of whether the SI cover was just as much

art as the Jenner cover. I had hoped to cast some light in that direction...how people felt about the SI cover is a different subject.

[LanternWaste]

72. People also seem to milk that scenario for all it's worth in order to continue validating their bias

People also seem to milk that scenario for all it's worth in order to continue validating their biases. No surprise about "people" there, either...

[Warren DeMontague]

87. what do you have against dairy farmers?

what do you have against dairy farmers?

[NuclearDem]

81. Socks can.

[Warren DeMontague]

102. THAT CAT IS STILL ALIVE?

Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Good god, he must be, like, 25!!!

That does it, I'm voting for Hillary. If she can extend the life of a common housecat by over a decade, there's no telling what she can do for this Nation.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. When Sports Illustrated does a cover of a 65 year old actual athlete in a one piece, call me.

That's as deep as I'm going with this bullshit.

[olddots]

56. not for me I don't read or look at either magazine

shitty answer but its all I got .

[YOHABLO]

126. If you want to sell magazines ... this is how you do it.

[applegrove]

130. Larry Wilmore pointed out that Caitlin Jenner was the oldest woman to ever appear on the cover of VF

not in a group. That says something too.