General Discussion

Squinch

(59,584 posts)

77. That SI cover was a long time ago. Did it take you this long (and I notice you had to go global)

Tue May 20, 2014, 07:10 AM

May 2014

to come up with a cover that could be construed to be as exploitive of a man's body?

Because, that it took a long and global search to come up with this kind of proves the point of the objections to the SI cover.

There are a number of important differences, though. First, he's not offering any particular part of his body to the viewer. The cover, really, doesn't offer him up as the SI offered it's subjects asses to the reader. Also, his nudity in this photo has some context. That being said, however, I am not sure what his nudity has to do with clothing and fashion, the topic of Vogue.

And of course he is being objectified. Are you thinking about his great sports talent or any other aspect of his personality or intelligence right now?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

292 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Another nude sports figure pointlessly objectified on a magazine cover [View all] Orrex May 2014 OP

Oh, him. Since apparently only... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #1

Is that a dress or a towel? jmowreader May 2014 #30

It better be a dress or... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #36

The HOF crowd doesn't need a reason to have a fit. They just have them. jmowreader May 2014 #63

It's a fashion shoot just like the SI cover. Cleita May 2014 #2

I agree 100% Orrex May 2014 #3

Hate to tell you but it will be alerted on before next morning Cleita May 2014 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #20

Will you edit your subject line? pintobean May 2014 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #66

Thanks pintobean May 2014 #68

LMAO!! Sissyk May 2014 #147

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #148

ROFL malaise May 2014 #69

Oh, my. antiquie May 2014 #4

So you think men's nudity is exploited in the same way women's nudity is? Whisp May 2014 #6

So you think men's nudity is fair game for exploitation? Orrex May 2014 #7

apples and oranges Supersedeas May 2014 #264

I think if people of any gender want to get naked and other people want to see those people naked Warren DeMontague May 2014 #21

I totally agree. mimi85 May 2014 #28

And where will these naked people be getting access to each other? R B Garr May 2014 #31

I don't understand the question. Warren DeMontague May 2014 #38

I didn't understand either what you meant by people getting naked R B Garr May 2014 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #42

Okay. I know this OP was posted for snark, but I just wanted to see R B Garr May 2014 #47

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #49

But how could you disagree with Betty Bowers on this topic?? Violet_Crumble May 2014 #88

Okay, but that's not an objective standard. That's your subjective standard. R B Garr May 2014 #132

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #142

people don't get out of shape over BainsBane May 2014 #50

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #59

do you extend that view about BainsBane May 2014 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #65

Consenting adults kcr May 2014 #85

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #109

That is not the similarity invoked treestar May 2014 #210

Walmart workers get paid minimum wage too BainsBane May 2014 #273

You misunderstood what I wrote. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #276

The issue I have is not their wages BainsBane May 2014 #277

That's fine, and I agree. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #288

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #141

You do it all the time BainsBane May 2014 #272

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #275

In other words BainsBane May 2014 #279

It is the exact same argument BainsBane May 2014 #271

It is always the same argument. kcr May 2014 #280

They also invoke the First Amendment BainsBane May 2014 #281

Oh, but if you mention anything other than a positive light kcr May 2014 #283

"...I do not respect arguments that I strongly believe are advancing a Cleita May 2014 #106

Yes, you've repeated them over and over BainsBane May 2014 #156

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #160

To answer BainsBane May 2014 #165

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #166

You've seen no compelling evidence? BainsBane May 2014 #167

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #169

It may be the gold standard on DU BainsBane May 2014 #180

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #181

No, it doesn't mean no woman ever felt herself too fat BainsBane May 2014 #183

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #252

Gee, you're worked up BainsBane May 2014 #258

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #260

The post was prompted by our conversation BainsBane May 2014 #261

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #262

Then why do you go on about constitutional rights? BainsBane May 2014 #263

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #266

Part of not giving a shit BainsBane May 2014 #267

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #268

You said the SI images were of real women BainsBane May 2014 #269

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #274

The emaciated bodies aren't impossible either BainsBane May 2014 #278

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #285

Most porn actresses tend to be full figured compared to fashion models shaayecanaan May 2014 #284

Excellent post. Evergreen Emerald May 2014 #103

"Most people are fundamentally selfish and entirely unwilling to examine issues... antiquie May 2014 #105

It also completely ignores the roughly half the population Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #110

how then do you explain BainsBane May 2014 #143

Our perceptions of most people differ. antiquie May 2014 #159

I'll agree with that. pintobean May 2014 #162

You describe them as flamebait BainsBane May 2014 #178

Wow. antiquie May 2014 #187

And what makes them flamebait? BainsBane May 2014 #203

~ antiquie May 2014 #208

I figured as much BainsBane May 2014 #259

You should be concerned that women in porn make three times the money as men snooper2 May 2014 #115

now that you have a cause BainsBane May 2014 #144

That's actually kind of surprising treestar May 2014 #212

You're kidding, right? shaayecanaan May 2014 #286

Bookmarking this one. Gidney N Cloyd May 2014 #123

I've yet to hear a good answer on how it's even possible to exploit someone at $10,000 per day Major Nikon May 2014 #40

I could endure a lot of exploitation for $10,000 per day. Orrex May 2014 #108

then, there's the fringe benefits Supersedeas May 2014 #265

More importantly is "So what?"... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #39

This thread is obviously meant to be a snarkfest, but I don't see any way R B Garr May 2014 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #48

Well, they certainly weren't watching porn on the internet R B Garr May 2014 #51

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #58

Have you ever seen pipi_k May 2014 #114

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. R B Garr May 2014 #127

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #249

OMFG. What a pant load. This is about the 3rd WTF as to WTF you are R B Garr May 2014 #253

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #254

LOL. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are. R B Garr May 2014 #255

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #256

Have you ever seen Roman household statuary? It's almost... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #53

This for sure... pipi_k May 2014 #116

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #120

That would be pipi_k May 2014 #124

See, this how these conversations morph. Of course there is interest in women. R B Garr May 2014 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #149

Exactly. treestar May 2014 #133

How so? Orrex May 2014 #136

The man is not there to titillate women treestar May 2014 #209

How can you know this? Did you ask him? Orrex May 2014 #219

It really doesn't show much of him treestar May 2014 #244

Most of that could equally be said about the infamous SI cover Orrex May 2014 #246

I have plenty of naked pics of myself I could post here. hunter May 2014 #8

Sigh. Y'all couldn't handle mine. Warren DeMontague May 2014 #22

I will handle yours, while I am kicking your ass Skittles May 2014 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #60

I knew skittles seemed different... Agschmid May 2014 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #146

Call it a draw! opiate69 May 2014 #153

Really don't know who that is, but, thanks. txwhitedove May 2014 #9

What are these "nude sports" to which you refer? scarletwoman May 2014 #10

I'll tell you when you're old enough Orrex May 2014 #11

Don't be silly. I've played nude sports since 1965. scarletwoman May 2014 #12

I call that a missed opportunity. Orrex May 2014 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #67

Dogs and horses race mostly nude jberryhill May 2014 #13

Dammit you're right! Orrex May 2014 #15

So did the original Olympic athletes! scarletwoman May 2014 #16

Well the girls had to wear short little tunics with one Cleita May 2014 #18

That was just one time jberryhill May 2014 #34

Wasn't that the Super Bowl, not the Olympics. eom Cleita May 2014 #37

So do... pipi_k May 2014 #119

Because they are celebrated Orrex May 2014 #122

And some pipi_k May 2014 #125

I stay away from jean-modified organisms. Orrex May 2014 #126

This one has a lot of young nude photos jberryhill May 2014 #17

Unbridled objectification! Orrex May 2014 #19

Nay! jberryhill May 2014 #23

You are one of the mane instigators on this forum Fumesucker May 2014 #25

That was lame jberryhill May 2014 #29

Don't hold back, just trot it on out Fumesucker May 2014 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #46

I think it behooves us to reurn to more stable modes of discourse Orrex May 2014 #75

Although I was saddled with much cricticism at my original post time RiffRandell May 2014 #235

DUzy! opiate69 May 2014 #245

Worse! Bridled Objectification! kwassa May 2014 #24

When I was 18 to 23 years old I was built like that. Jenoch May 2014 #26

Get in line Prophet 451 May 2014 #43

Oh for heaven's sake Aerows May 2014 #27

I'll take 2, please. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #32

how sweet, going to share with Lover Boy, I take it. Generous Soul. Tuesday Afternoon May 2014 #135

What can I say? I'm a giver. Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #138

Cristiano Ronaldo is a really beautiful man taught_me_patience May 2014 #35

Yum, I'l have both please! n/t Prophet 451 May 2014 #44

Good thing you posted the objectifying photo, then. And the false equivalency. merrily May 2014 #52

You're right. It's completely different. Orrex May 2014 #70

As I just, just saying you don't get it would be so much easier. merrily May 2014 #202

Difference is....this guy IS an athlete (apparently) VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #54

I didn't realize that pintobean May 2014 #72

OH! That changes Everything....this is a FASHION magazine... VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #112

So if three topless Olympic athletes danced topless on the beach, Cleita May 2014 #107

At least he has his head. Why Syzygy May 2014 #56

It's kind of refreshing to see him nekkid Warpy May 2014 #57

I agree except for one thing Orrex May 2014 #73

What's the standard for the ass extended outward pose? n/t kcr May 2014 #86

I believe that's the Jim Lee standard Orrex May 2014 #89

I see kcr May 2014 #90

The condescending tone is helpful, too. Orrex May 2014 #92

Hey, you posted the OP kcr May 2014 #93

"There's only one path to understanding." Got it. Orrex May 2014 #102

I completely agree Why Syzygy May 2014 #139

He looks like a southern road crew foreman Warpy May 2014 #96

LOL Orrex May 2014 #98

In other words, it isn't YOUR ox being gored this time, so meh.... nt Romulox May 2014 #101

They asked me first but I turned them down pinboy3niner May 2014 #61

Sad..now we have to settle for this guy. misterhighwasted May 2014 #99

How did you even type the first few words with a straight face??? nt msanthrope May 2014 #129

You must have seen photos of me pinboy3niner May 2014 #131

You too? Rex May 2014 #199

very provocative. wyldwolf May 2014 #71

Sure, he's being objectified. Just like the women on the SI cover. dawg May 2014 #74

Sad that he goes for the pre-pubescent look. (P.S. Look closely--it's a Spanish mag, so there's no WinkyDink May 2014 #76

That SI cover was a long time ago. Did it take you this long (and I notice you had to go global) Squinch May 2014 #77

Yeah, he definitely needed to be posed in a man thong with his ass to the camera. I wonder seaglass May 2014 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #177

I don't know who all the people are who are against it but there is some reason why seaglass May 2014 #206

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #250

Haven't thought about the SI cover-thread for weeks, in fact Orrex May 2014 #83

Not sure how you found snark in my post, because there was none. But let me repeat my points: Squinch May 2014 #173

I was referring to the snark in my OP Orrex May 2014 #176

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #179

Really? Do you even know what sexual objectification IS? alp227 May 2014 #239

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #240

I read your post. Essentially you'd rather the discussion be about empathy instead. alp227 May 2014 #242

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #243

When someone mocks a Walmart customer or dismisses a cop as a pig, Squinch May 2014 #186

I don't accept that it necessarily proceeeds that way. Orrex May 2014 #190

When sexualized imagery is as constant as it is, and when it portrays only one Squinch May 2014 #195

Fiction =/= reality Orrex May 2014 #196

You say, "what about women who don't feel that way." Squinch May 2014 #200

Here's what it is. Here's what it always is: Orrex May 2014 #204

Where and what contexts have you experienced that in? Violet_Crumble May 2014 #205

Violet, your post is very welcomed. Your question, "So whose experience Squinch May 2014 #232

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #175

Yup he is - so is she intaglio May 2014 #78

Ah yes. The old "shut up" refutation. Classy! Orrex May 2014 #97

Yup and she is an exception - but you would be blissfully unaware of that intaglio May 2014 #113

I'd love to be able to pick people's arguments for them, as you do. Orrex May 2014 #117

So why post this ridiculous OP intaglio May 2014 #118

Why do you presume to tell people what they think? Orrex May 2014 #121

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #145

Ah, the MRAs who insist that men are objectified and oppressed intaglio May 2014 #152

I have made no claims about MRAs Orrex May 2014 #154

MRA is the claim when they've got nothing. pintobean May 2014 #157

Oh, not to worry. 99% of us will never be asked to pose naked on the cover of Cleita May 2014 #150

Men objectify Why Syzygy May 2014 #80

Not Sure That's True ProfessorGAC May 2014 #94

I can buy that Why Syzygy May 2014 #140

You guys aren't getting enough bites over at Discussionist? sufrommich May 2014 #82

Who are you talking to? Orrex May 2014 #84

My wife's not so secret crush underpants May 2014 #87

Racists, creationists, teabaggers and MRA's... Ohio Joe May 2014 #91

Which do you think Orrex is? A racist, creationist, teabagger, or MRA? nt msanthrope May 2014 #137

which do you think? Ohio Joe May 2014 #151

I'm asking you, since you brought it up. I'll be happy to share my opinion of Orrex after you tell msanthrope May 2014 #155

ahhh .. you are looking for alert fodder Ohio Joe May 2014 #158

No--I'm looking for you to define what your post meant. nt msanthrope May 2014 #161

I'm pretty sure it was meant as a hit and run Major Nikon May 2014 #163

A hit and run... Where I respond... Several times... Over a few hours... Ohio Joe May 2014 #171

All the name calling with none of the risk, eh? Major Nikon May 2014 #197

Brave... You mean like when an MRA tries to troll people into getting angry? Ohio Joe May 2014 #207

I would never call you a troll or a MRA Major Nikon May 2014 #227

heh... where is this being brave you spoke of? Ohio Joe May 2014 #229

You were brave? Major Nikon May 2014 #233

Whoa--the pressure's on! Orrex May 2014 #164

pfffftt.... Bwahahahahahahaha... Ohio Joe May 2014 #174

well I say..mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm & I wish that irrelevant person in the sheet misterhighwasted May 2014 #95

Apparently, we're going with "but that's DIFFERENT!!!1!!!!!" with no followup or explanation. nt Romulox May 2014 #100

I think you might have missed all the posts that said, "Yes, it's exactly the same kind Squinch May 2014 #191

I don't see ANY of the "social justice" brigade throwing a fit, so I'm calling hypocrisy. nt Romulox May 2014 #213

That's nice, dear. Squinch May 2014 #221

Credit where due Orrex May 2014 #222

That poster honestly isn't who I had in mind. I doubt the sincerity of others on this issue. nt Romulox May 2014 #223

Fair enough (eom) Orrex May 2014 #224

Ditto with your 'Granted' sentence. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2014 #104

Futbol (soccer) I believe. eom Cleita May 2014 #111

Correct. Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #168

Oh, very easy on the eyes. Cleita May 2014 #170

He's European, this is in Spain and she's had an "objectifying" boob job. libdem4life May 2014 #130

I wonder if the bank felt objectified, when those two took their big fat checks there for Cleita May 2014 #172

They don't look at the pictures...they buy it for the articles. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2014 #134

Thought you meant this one....... whistler162 May 2014 #182

If this post is meant to somehow imply that concern over the objectification of women Maedhros May 2014 #184

Nope. Orrex May 2014 #185

I would have a hard time believing that men are as objectified as women, Maedhros May 2014 #189

Objectification takes many forms Orrex May 2014 #192

What's he got that I ain't got? Eleanors38 May 2014 #188

Well, if both genders are being equally objectified now, Lunacee_2013 May 2014 #193

I don't get to see them very often! Rosa Luxemburg May 2014 #194

I see what you did there! Rex May 2014 #198

There are half naked young, handsome men in women's fashion Cleita May 2014 #201

Different. Different. DIFFERENT!!!1!1!!!. (You are also "anti-intellectual" for noticing.) nt Romulox May 2014 #217

It IS different, now for my amazing reason as to why... Rex May 2014 #238

It is different. Those magazines are trying to sell fashion treestar May 2014 #287

What fashion is the nude man pintobean May 2014 #289

Heck, I don't know treestar May 2014 #290

Four red crayon check marks is very impressive for a DUer. Rex May 2014 #237

Funny that a certain group didn't post this op.... NCTraveler May 2014 #211

They've DOMINATED this board with whining about THIS VERY issue. Now radio silence? nt Romulox May 2014 #214

This anti-intellectual shit stirring op is proof that they alone do not..... NCTraveler May 2014 #215

"Anti-intellectual"? Um, no. Just a functional memory of last week. nt Romulox May 2014 #216

Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious to the deliberately obtuse. Tuesday Afternoon May 2014 #218

+1. And as usual, they are in a race to the bottom. n/t R B Garr May 2014 #225

what makes it even more ironically hilarious is the post below this one. Tuesday Afternoon May 2014 #228

I noticed that, too. R B Garr May 2014 #236

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #248

Seems they have been replaced by dumb and dumber. n/t Cleita May 2014 #220

No, no pintobean May 2014 #231

That woman needs to move out of the way mwrguy May 2014 #226

I'd like to have her move 6 inches to her left LaurenG May 2014 #230

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2014 #241

Nice one LaurenG May 2014 #247

Only five? Orrex May 2014 #251

Just trying to be realistic. LaurenG May 2014 #257

I just noticed this thread today after returning home RiffRandell May 2014 #234

... with a sexy woman draped over him like a scarf wickerwoman May 2014 #270

I just think it is a stunning photo of two gorgeous people. alphafemale May 2014 #282

Diego Simeone and Athletico are about to undress and expose C.Ronaldo completely later today Blue_Tires May 2014 #291

Oh my In_The_Wind May 2014 #292