Dispatches from the Creation Wars

*imagines letters to the bible editor*

"I never thought those stories were real until the other night..."

Posted by: VikingMoose | March 2, 2010 12:31 PM

Huh. It's a toss up, really. On the one hand, Playboy is more useful than the Bible. On the other hand, the Bible is more lurid than Playboy.

Decisions... decisions...

Posted by: Chris Berez | March 2, 2010 12:41 PM

@catgirl

I think you missed the point. The point is that both are smutty, that's why it's called "Smut for Smut." No one is saying that Playboy is free of misogyny.

Posted by: ChrisZ | March 2, 2010 12:43 PM

And do the hand out Playgirl for the women who trade in their Bibles?

I'd take some Playgirls, except the ones I've seen are as dull as dishwater. Just a bunch of nude men, standing around being...y'know....nude.

I demand more of my porn.

Posted by: Rick R | March 2, 2010 12:43 PM

What if you gave up porn for Lent? Bad planning here.

Posted by: kehrsam | March 2, 2010 12:45 PM

Re catgirl

Unfortunately, it is estimated that the majority of Playgirl readers are gay men.

Posted by: SLC | March 2, 2010 12:55 PM

Oh, KacyRay.

Playboy glorifies women. It puts them on a pedistal. Women dream of being in Playboy

No it doesn't, and no they don't. Maybe YOU do, but I, as an actual woman, have no interest in being on a pedestal.

To bad I have to work this afternoon, or I'd be following the flame war that is about to start with great pleasure.

Posted by: KristinMH | March 2, 2010 12:59 PM

I define porn pretty much as "scenes of naked people intended for sexual titillation," so that makes Playboy porn in my book.

Playboy may or may not be misogynistic, but it is certainly crap porn. Airbrushed, inflated, generic. Unless you've got Suicide Girls to offer, I'm keeping my bible. ;-)

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 1:07 PM

"No it doesn't, and no they don't. Maybe YOU do, but I, as an actual woman, have no interest in being on a pedestal."

Just because you fail to share that particular dream does not make what he said about Playboy wrong. In fact, it says nothing more than something about your personal beliefs, which is not to say he's right or your view is illegitmate.

Posted by: History Punk | March 2, 2010 1:10 PM

I'm so glad they are doing this still. Here is a link to an interview with Thomas Jackson of The Atheist Agenda in 2005 → http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10349028/ (click on the "Launch" button to watch) in which Thomas said:

What we were handing out, we had everything labeled from 0 to 5. Zero is like "Playboy," things that aren't really necessarily pornography. I mean, if you've ever read a "Playboy" ... you know, it's not really that hard core, so people got to decide what they wanted.

Posted by: aratina cage | March 2, 2010 1:24 PM

Abby: No, she was saying that Playboy is misogynistic.

Gretchen: Your definition of porn isn't the actual definition. Your definition is arbitrary and many classic works of art qualify as pornography under your definition.

catgirl: As an actual longtime subscriber to Playboy, I can tell you that Playboy, far from being misogynistic, is more of a *shrine* to women. If you love women, you will love Playboy. I've never heard women derided or spoken of unfavorably in Playboy (unless you count Ann Coulter, but I'm not sure they consider her a woman). Playboy consistently speaks of women in glowing terms.

The definition of misogyny is "Hatred of women" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=misogyny

I have no interest in a flame war. All I'm going to ask is that you (or someone who agrees with you) explain to us all how Playboy meets this definition. Show us all the "hatred of women" that lies in the pages of Playboy.

Posted by: KacyRay | March 2, 2010 1:29 PM

Playboy is the worlds most salient tribute to the beauty of women. If you think Playboy is misogynistic, you've either never read it, you've never paid much attention, or you don't know what misogyny is. Misogynists hold women in contempt - Playboy holds them in exhaultation.

And, well. Maybe YOUR dream was to give guys something to masturbate to, but some of us want to do something useful.

Posted by: Rutee | March 2, 2010 1:45 PM

Ha! My son's girlfriend attends UTSA, and she sent a photo to us that she took on her phone of the display.

And KacyRay;

Don't act like you're doing women a favor by sending the message that our only worth comes from our willingness to take off our clothes so you can perv us to your heart's content.

Jerk.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 2, 2010 1:48 PM

Suricou Raven,

That's why I said "pretty much." If porn is defined as anything that people get off on, then anything can be porn.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 1:56 PM

Playboy is the worlds most salient tribute to the fappability of fappable women, according to Playboy's very narrow standards of fappability. After some photographical manipulation.

There, fixed.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 2:05 PM

Abby: No, she was saying that Playboy is misogynistic.

After reviewing her original post I would have to say you are right, that was her intended meaning. I stand corrected.

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 2, 2010 2:33 PM

"Playboy's purpose is to present a character straight out of a sexual fantasy. It has nothing to do with real women."

Who knew that the women in playboy were robots?

Posted by: History Punk | March 2, 2010 3:08 PM

I agree that it's odd that they complained of the misogyny and homophobia in the Bible but didn't provide any porn suitable for straight women or gay men.

Posted by: aratina cage | March 2, 2010 3:17 PM

Okay, I think some people need to find a dictionary, and look up "misogyny." Then, go read a Playboy; actually pick up a real issue, and read through it. That magazine... in no way, shape or form... could ever be described as misogynistic.

I've never seen one pictorial, article, or comic in Playboy that's derogatory, demeaning, or hateful to women. A photo of a naked woman is not automatically derogatory; it celebrates the beauty of the female form. If you're going to try and twist things to say that Playboy hates women because all of the models are thin (not true), blonde (very much not true), with big breasts (strike three...), then it's like saying GQ magazine hates men. Seriously, people... compare ANY photo shoot out of a recent Playboy with anything else labeled porn out there. Yes, they're NUDE photos (gasp!), but by today's standards I don't even think the term "porn" can apply to it anymore.

The most misogynist thing I've read regarding Playboy are the opinions of the models stated by some of the people on this site. "Her turn-offs include waiting for her hair dye to set." The insinuation by many that all the models are dumb bimbos? THAT'S misogyny.

Posted by: David | March 2, 2010 3:23 PM

When I saw the title to this thread, I predicted two things:

(1) That the number of comments to this thread would break the 100 mark.

(2) Only a very small percentage of them would actually be about UT's Atheist Agenda or it's trade program.

Posted by: Chiroptera | March 2, 2010 3:31 PM

In my time, I’ve found one consistency about women’s opinion toward Playboy: their attitude toward Playboy is almost always directly proportional to their prospects of ever being *in it*. I have no doubt that formula holds true among this forum.

Ah, the time-honored method of getting woman to shut up about being objectified: suggest that they're not worthy of it, and they're bitter about that fact.

And yes, Playboy is absolutely about objectifying women-- all porn that depicts women is. Porn that depicts men, mostly* for straight women or gay men, objectifies men. And you know what? That's not, in itself, a bad thing. Objectifying people is just appreciating them solely for their physical appearance. A model's entire job, be it in porn, fashion, or fine art, is about being objectified. People object to porn because they think it teaches men that women are only to be objectified, which would be a bad thing. I don't, however, think it actually has that effect-- except perhaps for men who have no meaningful relationships with women in real life, and have forgotten that they're people.

I make no apologies for finding women beautiful, and I make no apologies for being grateful that Playboy brings the best of the best into my home every month.

I don't believe anybody asked you to. It would be nice, however, if you would recognize that what is "the best of the best" with regard to women is a matter of opinion, and not all of us define it according to what Playboy chooses to depict.

* I say "mostly" because I have a strong suspicion that the unusually large male genitalia often depicted in porn for straight men is there specifically for...well, straight men.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 3:45 PM

The question that really needs to be asked is: Does this picture, in the context, place this woman on a pedestal or does it dehumanize or lower her? The answer to that question will tell you whether or not what you’re looking at is misogynistic.

the olympics comparison is actually apt imo, but not in the way the poster presented it. in the olympics it is understood that the only way the atheletes managed to get to the top of their game was through very hard work and many many sacrifices, all of that paired with excellent natural ability. How often does playboy make a point of the fact that the women on their pages have to put in hours of work at the gym, more hours into an obsessive skin/hair/beauty routine, keep a careful diet and have alot of luck to end up on the pages of playboy. And even that is not enough, the models are then airbrushed to eliminate any imperfections. These women didn't just trip in off the street looking like that, and they have a very limited "shelf-life" of how long they can maintain that regime without damaging their bodies (much like high-class atheletes). They won't be 20-something forever...

tl,dr: There's a broader reach to the definition of mysogynistic than what is good for any one woman at any given time. Saying something isn't mysogynistic because it's good for one person is just like saying Rush Limbaugh isn't racist because he knows a black man.

Posted by: kodiak | March 2, 2010 3:53 PM

Very well... I will concede that in many cases - most likely yours as well - only a tiny fraction of their value comes from taking their clothes off.

Mercifuly, Hefner keeps those types out of his magazine.

KacyRay just blew his cover. The quoted statement is horribly patronizing, demeaning and misogynistic.

Posted by: xebecs | March 2, 2010 4:02 PM

Ok, I need clarification. All for profit depicitons of naked women are misogynistic (allowing for "fine art" depicitons is ok?).That means all for profit depicitons of naked men are misandry (misandrinistic?). Again we're allowing for "fine art" depictions of men to be OK. Is that how it is?

Posted by: kyuss | March 2, 2010 4:13 PM

I think KacyRay should try to actually meet some women. I've never found Playboy all that objectionable, but Kacy's conception of what the magazine intends by showing ladies with their clothes off is kinda changing my mind a bit. Are there any gentlemen in Kacy's life that Kacy admires? Is Kacy dying to seem them naked? 'Cause real girls have more going on than just boobies.

Posted by: Hope | March 2, 2010 4:21 PM

kacyray @51: Don't play stupid. The misogyny is revealed in your choice of insult.

Posted by: xebecs | March 2, 2010 4:24 PM

Just because two people are insulting each other doesn't mean that both are equally justified in insulting one another.

The reason that you are being attacked kacy is because you said something stupid.

The reason that the people insulting you are not being attacked is because most of us believe those insults were justified considering the stupid things you said.

Posted by: Coriolis | March 2, 2010 4:37 PM

My primary point is that Playboy Magazine *celebrates the beauty of women*.

I would believe that a lot more readily if it featured unretouched photos representing a variety of body types.

Posted by: DaveL | March 2, 2010 4:47 PM

What difference does it make what magazines they have? They're trying to make a point, not provide a service.

Posted by: Taz | March 2, 2010 4:51 PM

@56

Dave, I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly.

But honestly, all actors, news casters... even politicians on a televised debate wear make-up. Is that fraudulant? Is that intended to decieve? Is it designed to fool us into thinking that we should all look that way?

I see no fundamental diference between a photographer "touching up" a photograph and a woman "touching up" her face in the morning with mascara.

Posted by: kacyray | March 2, 2010 4:53 PM

Wonderful, Pierce. Thanks for that bit of levity. ;-)

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 4:56 PM

Newscasters and politicians (and actors) often wear make-up on television and on stage because of the lighting that's used. It makes a person look artificially pale and washed out. And the lights, because of the heat, can also parch the lips; so lip gloss is also used in addition to foundation. They eyes are also done so that they don't get lost in the glare of the lights.

I don't see much of a difference either between putting on makeup in the morning or re-touching a photo. I think both are unecessary and cater to false notions of beauty. Both are an attempt to acheive some sort of artificial perfection that's supposed to cause other people to admire your looks. When men start putting on mascara in the morning to look good, then I'll put it on in the morning to look good too :)

Posted by: cuvefarmed | March 2, 2010 5:00 PM

And yes, Playboy is absolutely about objectifying women-- all porn that depicts women is. Porn that depicts men, mostly* for straight women or gay men, objectifies men. And you know what? That's not, in itself, a bad thing. Objectifying people is just appreciating them solely for their physical appearance. A model's entire job, be it in porn, fashion, or fine art, is about being objectified. People object to porn because they think it teaches men that women are only to be objectified, which would be a bad thing. I don't, however, think it actually has that effect-- except perhaps for men who have no meaningful relationships with women in real life, and have forgotten that they're people.

Thank you, Gretchen, for making one of the few comments in this thread that actually reads like it was produced by a functioning human brain.

In a debate between a raging misogynist and a bunch of whiny prudes, there is no winner. This thread is a perfect example of how on many issues, the extremes are not just wrong, but ludicrously so.

Gah! Not true. And what about gay women? That's why I was putting up links to the actual people doing the Smut For Smut drive. In 2005 they had several levels of porn, not just Playboy. Their current blog says, "We also have gay porn." The least someone could do is twitter them or start a dialog about it on their blog before deciding that they only trade in issues of Playboy.

You are correct on both counts. Not checking their website first was totally my bad.

Posted by: Wes | March 2, 2010 5:03 PM

KacyRay, if Playboy is really a "shrine to women," then

A.) Why is it called Playboy? It doesn't need to be mentioned that playboys are high-powered men who, strictly on the basis of their cultural and financial capital, are able to attract (usually younger) women. Who cares about chemistry or compatibility?

B.) Why was it founded by one of the most misogynistic men to ever be unfortunately lionized by our culture? Hugh Hefner is an octagenarian who basically keeps a harem of women under thirty with bad bleach jobs. Again, do you think he actually respects any of these women for who they are?

C.) Why are so many of the pin-ups airbrushed and digitally "enhanced?" And, for that matter, why are so many of them skinny and artificially blonde? Rather than actually photographing women in their natural form, the images are made to conform to the fantasies of horny sixteen-year-old boys.

D.) Why is the publication's target demographic heterosexual men? If it's really a shrine to women, wouldn't more women read it for inspiration, if not sexual gratification?

Now, mind you, I don't necessarily believe that magazines featuring women for the purposes of male erections are inherently misogynistic (although I do view them with a general wariness). And I certainly don't think that Playboy (or any publication like it) should be censored or stopped. But given the type of woman usually objectified in Playboy, along with its damning (in my opinion) origins, I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 2, 2010 5:16 PM

Arguing whether something is porn or not should at least include a commonly agreed upon definition of what is "porn".

Posted by: MarkusR | March 2, 2010 5:37 PM

"Hugh Hefner is an octagenarian who basically keeps a harem of women under thirty with bad bleach jobs. Again, do you think he actually respects any of these women for who they are?"

I think he respect them for their minds as much as their bodies. Now, I have no evidence of that position, but your question is little than a feminist verision of the old conspiracy theory about how the Avian flu was hyped so Rummie could make money selling Tamaflu.

Posted by: History Punk | March 2, 2010 5:43 PM

Whew, glad this is only about Playboy, can you imagine the flaming if this were actually some REAL porn? Okay, let me take a shot at where the line is drawn here between kacyray and, well, most everyone else. So if Playboy is misogynistic, is everyone who reads it also a misogynist? Or is only that little corner of their life misogynistic? That's why I'd consider porn, etc., to be objectifying and nothing more. If I watch objectifying material and yet don't treat women as objects, then I'm probably not a misogynist. Hell, I can treat my girlfriend like an object (and vice versa) occasionally and we both find it good fun, but that's cause I don't treat her like an object in the grocery store. I can see how some people might blame Playboy for misogyny, but that seems a bit off-target to me. Shorter version: objectification > misogyny.

OTOH, kacyray, Playboy does not fucking glorify women. You could make a fair argument that Cosmo is a lot more objectifying than Playboy, but they're both objectifying, which doesn't exactly glorify anything.

Oh, and it's spelled "pedestal" for those who want to use it forward ;)

Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 2, 2010 5:45 PM

As for Playboy itself, Playboy is a product that sells specific instances of a specific style of female appearance to a specific audience. They merely reflect what the target segement of the American public already wants. After all, all women are beautiful to someone, no woman is beautiful to everybody. Other pornography magazines target different demographics and their particular preference of female attractivenss.

Now, some will argue that male interest in Playboy models is largely indoctrinated by the media. This is largely self-promoting nonsense. The media is but one source of information that shapes opinions. But by blaming the media for shaping attitudes toward female beauty and then publicly rejecting them, a person is signaling how smart they are.

They are declaring "look at me. I figured out what the media is doing and I rejected it. I am unique, smart, and not fooled like you sheep."

Posted by: History Punk | March 2, 2010 5:55 PM

@70 - "Arguing whether something is porn or not should at least include a commonly agreed upon definition of what is "porn"."

I agree, and I'd go a step further and point out that there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what constitutes objectification, nor one on whether objectification constitutes misogyny.

I think those may be the fundamental points of disagreement. My position is that depicting a beautiful woman, in all of her glory, even with a bit of touch-up here and there, does not constitute objectification. I realize that many here disagree. I don't believe that makes me a misogynist.

I'd also argue that many here are playing fast and loose with the definitions of misogyny and pornography. I vote that the dictionary should be the final arbiter, but when I tried that, I was told that I had a "superficial understanding" of it, which means that even when I go straight from the dictionary I merit no concession.

The definition was "Hatred of Women"... but yet I am told that I'm incapable of understanding that on more than a superficial level. I've been asked if I'm an idiot, I've been told things I've said are stupid, I've been called a jerk. All by women. Then I've been called a misogynist.

Which leads me to the question - at what point am I able to present a case without the insults, flames, and hostility?

Posted by: KacyRay | March 2, 2010 6:36 PM

I'd tell kacy to look up male privilege on teh google, but I suspect it wouldn't do much good. Coming to terms with one's privilege is hard because it requires that we take an honest look at the grimy undercarriage of our psyches and admit to the racist/sexist/ablist/etc. baggage that we all carry around with us courtesy of our cultures.

That being said, I always enjoyed Playboy when my husband had a subscription (the magazines were first things to go when our household budget got tight.) Their sex advice always boils down to 'if everyone involved isn't having a good time, yer not doin' it rite!' which I can't disagree with!

If there were an exchange near me and I could locate one of my old bibles, I'd probably trot right down there and make the swap, myself.

Posted by: twincats | March 2, 2010 6:51 PM

"Regarding your supposition that Hugh Hefner actually respects these women's minds: AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

That is a well-reasoned argument based on actuall evidence. Here I thought you just made shit up on the basis of poorly digested polemics expressed as zingers.

Posted by: History Punk | March 2, 2010 6:54 PM

That is a well-reasoned argument based on actuall evidence. Here I thought you just made shit up on the basis of poorly digested polemics expressed as zingers.

But you know, maybe it happened. Do you have a reason for me to think so, such as his stressing the brains of his brainier playmates?

Oh right, you're just a troll, so no, you don't!

I would go on to address any further point you made, but since you started off by putting words in my mouth and disrespecting my lady, I'll just say "Fuck You" and move on to someone who is trying to trade actual ideas.

Again, let me be clear; The only reason Playboy is misogynist is because our society sucks. Speaking about a hypothetical society that had achieved true equality of the genders, Playboy, exactly as it's printed right now, would just objectify women, not be misogynist in the process. Why? Because the default assumption would never approach "Women are there for men", so the porn doesn't reinforce a near non-existent attitude.

Posted by: Rutee | March 2, 2010 7:04 PM

"It's so awesome that you dismiss equality of income, equality of opportunity, the freedom to not be a representative of your gender, and every great thing men get, just because bars have too many men and not enough women.
You're a fucking idiot of the highest order."

Heh... what a sweetheart.

Posted by: KacyRay | March 2, 2010 7:12 PM

Heh... what a sweetheart.

(Spoiler Alert: Rather then address anything I said, you chose to concentrate on the fact that I'm not kind.)

Posted by: Rutee | March 2, 2010 7:18 PM

Hmmmph. Male privilege doesn't exist because it's easier for women* to get laid. That's a new one, but only if you have the memory of a goldfish.

* Fat women, ugly women, trans women and old women need not apply. Offer only valid for penile penetration and does not imply any acknowledgment that the recipient is anything but a warm hole. Offer not valid in all regions.

Posted by: Nepenthe | March 2, 2010 7:22 PM

If keeping yourself surrounded by beautiful young women makes you a hater of women, then a shepherd must be a hater of sheep.

Well, he doesn't love them. He's out to fleece them and eat their young. He keeps the ones that are useful to him as long as they're useful to him and it's off to slaughter with the rest.

Truly, truly horrendous analogy.

Posted by: DaveL | March 2, 2010 7:32 PM

Truly, truly horrendous analogy.

One of the poorest analogies I can think of ever hearing. It completely destroyed his entire argument. Amazing.

Posted by: Owen | March 2, 2010 8:05 PM

Owen, seriously - if you think my entire argument hinged on that analogy, you haven't been paying attention.

Anyway, I already conceded that it was horrible. In retrospect I could think of many better ones, but what's the point? The bottom line is that surrounding yourself with beautiful women doesn't mean you hate women.

I'm fascinated that no one will concur with that point, yet will quickly get all wrapped around the axle on a poorly chosen analogy.

It just tells me that there's no real exchange of ideas going on here.

Posted by: kacyray | March 2, 2010 8:25 PM

Playboy oppresses women, huh? Where's your empirical evidence for that? Here, let me give you some examples. Let's compare cultures:

Posted by: Rutee | March 2, 2010 10:10 PM

If keeping yourself surrounded by beautiful young women makes you a hater of women, then a shepherd must be a hater of sheep.

Well, he doesn't love them. He's out to fleece them and eat their young. He keeps the ones that are useful to him as long as they're useful to him and it's off to slaughter with the rest. -DaveL

Posted by: aratina cage | March 2, 2010 10:27 PM

Palyboy is what it is. Its for men, by men, with pictures of women in it to add the old spank tank. Who cares. The point in this bit of art, is comparison made between Playboy and the Bible. That point being, that, At least Playboy is a bit more honest about it.

I have read some ignorant tripe propagated by men in Playboy about Women and Sexual Harassment. But it was the usual ignorance of someone who is not a woman and will never understand that the world is different for a lot of women in that respect. It was harmful because it was perpetuating bullshit. But not nearly as harmful as the Bible and it's alienation myth, or the subsequent material that was inspired by it that depict women as an imperfect copy of man--making women by this paradigm, morally weaker than men, intellectually less than men, in dire need of control by men in every aspect of their lives whether it is to marry us off to our rapists, or stone us in the square for being sluts [real or imagined] or whether or not we should be enslaved upon capture during times of war, etc., and so on.

To my knowledge there is no cult following of Playboy who needs to absolutely control every aspects of a woman's life including her reproductive cycles, or kill people who offer reproductive freedoms to women. So by far, with these items in the Bible with all the sexual symbolism, the rape, murders, incest, enslavement, shaming, threats, and hostage taking--I would say that the Bible is by far smuttier.

And I wish, that Christians would at least take a moment to consider what could piss other people off so bad, to cause them to make this comparison so publicly--and then perhaps reflect on how as Christians they could make amends to the people wronged either outright or by silent compliance with extremists who thump the Bible so constantly that it sounds more like tribal war drums than it does like religious speech.

But I know that will probably never happen. Certainly not on a large of scale to matter.

Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | March 2, 2010 10:43 PM

Wes,

"What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you really not see how telling women who don't like Playboy that they must be too ugly to appear in it is hateful towards women?"

Didn't say that, dipshit.

"Are you not capable of grasping the fact that comparing women to sheep is fucking mind-blowingly sexist?"

Wasn't comparing women to sheep, dipshit. I was making the point that surrounding yourself with [whatever] doesn't mean you hold [whatever] in contempt. I've clarified that point several times since then (#93, #96) and I've even conceded that the analogy was horrible, but you just couldn't miss your chance to kick the dead horse, could you?

Feel free to go off all you want. All I'm going to do is continue to point out that you are a self-righteous shit-for-brains who is ignoring points that have already been made and contributing nothing original to the discourse.

Is it normal for you people to continually ride an issue that has already been conceded? Is this how you operate? Can one admittedly bad analogy serious derail your train of thought? Why is it that I can concede that the analogy was bad, yet no one can concede that the point was legitimate?

Very disappointing, but I suppose it was to be expected. No one seems to have anything useful to contribute.

Posted by: kacyray | March 2, 2010 10:50 PM

The devil will find work for idle hands to do.

Posted by: Praying Hands | March 2, 2010 10:54 PM

Who, in this entire thread, has said that Playboy oppresses women? Quote them for me, with a post citation.

Posted by: Rutee | March 2, 2010 10:10 PM

You did, at #67.

A depiction of women that leaves them only as sexual objects for men is misogynistic, because it perpetuates a very real, very common attitude that women exist for the sexual gratification of men, and that our worth is as a sexual plaything.

Your above claim is silly. As Gretchen pointed out, objectification is part of any form of modeling. It is not, in and of itself, evil.

The people who treat women as nothing but sex objects are predominantly conservative males. And they're all about prudish bans on nudity. In fact, I don't see how "Depicting female nudity = evil pornography" is any different, conceptually, from "female = sex object."

Erotic material never harms women? You can't possibly make that argument and be arguing in good faith.

You're right. Of course, I never made that argument.

What I said is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that women, as a group, are harmed by things like Playboy.

I totally agree that SOME erotic material is misogynistic. However, I see no reason to think that most is. I do not see how erotic material aimed at a particular class (heterosexual males) harms another class (women).

If you want me to believe otherwise, I'll need to see some very solid empirical evidence. From what I can tell, the cultures which are 1) Most fixated on the male body, and/or 2) Most prudish towards erotic material, are the ones which are most sexist and oppressive towards women.

Give me evidence to the contrary.

I'll take back calling you a prude when you give me a reason to think that your complaints have any basis in material, physical reality.

Both right wing prudes and left wing prudes decry the damage pornography does to society. That's an empirical claim. So where's your evidence?

Posted by: Wes | March 2, 2010 10:56 PM

kacyray@104,

"What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you really not see how telling women who don't like Playboy that they must be too ugly to appear in it is hateful towards women?"

Didn't say that, dipshit.

Well....

women’s opinion toward Playboy: their attitude toward Playboy is almost always directly proportional to their prospects of ever being *in it*.

If you can't see how that sure sounds an awful like like "the women who don't like are the ones too ugly to appear in it," then we have to wonder about your perceptiveness.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 2, 2010 11:12 PM

Feel free to go off all you want. All I'm going to do is continue to point out that you are a self-righteous shit-for-brains who is ignoring points that have already been made and contributing nothing original to the discourse.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to anything you say, because I'm thoroughly disgusted with you and find you very frustrating.

Everyone in this thread, no matter what their views on the morality of pornography, can easily recognize that you are a sexist idiot. I am not easily offended at all, and even I find your comments to be offensive. The fact that you act so flabbergasted that anyone would think you're a misogynistic prick indicates that you're either too stupid or too dishonest to engage in discussion.

"Self-righteous shit-for-brains who is ignoring points that have already been made and contributing nothing original to the discourse." Jesus fucking Christ. This is coming from the guy who claims that his whacking off to Playboy constitutes a shrine for women.

Posted by: Wes | March 2, 2010 11:21 PM

Wes said:

The people who treat women as nothing but sex objects are predominantly conservative males. And they're all about prudish bans on nudity.

That's the funny thing about American sexuality, I think-- by making nudity such a big thing to be protected, we have also succeeded in fetishizing it to an incredible extent. The biggest perverts in the country are, most likely, the same people working the hardest to outlaw perversion.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 11:29 PM

I do not see how erotic material aimed at a particular class (heterosexual males) harms another class (women).

You're free to think and not think whatever you choose. But consider this: who are the women that are usually presented in most mainstream publications of erotic material? How many of them are non-white? How many of them are not underweight? How many of them aren't blonde? How many of them are over thirty? How many of them aren't busty? One of the major reasons that eating disorders, the pressure to dye hair blonde, boob jobs, etc. exist on such a large scale is the pressure of the male gaze. Playboy is one of the largest purveyors of a particular image of women that leads many women in our actual society to feel inadequate because they don't measure up. Playboy's not the primary culprit, mind you. Hollywood, Madison Avenue, network television, etc. are all also very much to blame.

The sexual objectification of women would doubtless occur without the publication of Playboy and similar media, but these magazines sure as hell don't do anything to stop it; quite the contrary, they exist strictly for the purpose of continuing it.

By the way, prudery (even loosely defined) is a sense of shame regarding the human body. I have no shame whatsoever with regards to the nude human body. Naked male and female bodies, in all their natural nuances and varieties, are beautiful and worthy of celebration, not disgust. What I have a problem with is a very particular type of female body being held up as the ultimate female ideal; I also have a problem with the fact that most erotic material is targeted toward heterosexual males, and not more spread out among target demographics of heterosexual women, gay men, bisexuals of both genders, transsexuals, people who are attracted to older individuals, etc. The latter fact strongly suggests that young, nubile women who fit a standard, idealized Western mold are the pinnacle of female beauty, and that heterosexual men are the ones who are supposed to do the "looking" (the subjects) and young women are the ones who are "looked at" (the objects). And, yes, that's a problem.

If it's sources you want, feast your eyes: here is the abstract of a study which finds that a whopping 72% of Playboy "playmates" are undernourished, and what effect this has on the broader society, and here is the testimony of a former "playmate" on the effect that living with Hefner had on her self-esteem (the language of the piece is fairly offensive, though, as the woman is dismissively referred to as a "hottie").

Feel free to dismiss these studies as you see fit.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 2, 2010 11:40 PM

That's the funny thing about American sexuality, I think-- by making nudity such a big thing to be protected, we have also succeeded in fetishizing it to an incredible extent. The biggest perverts in the country are, most likely, the same people working the hardest to outlaw perversion.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 11:29 PM

It's also a prominent feature of Taliban sexuality. The burkha just reinforces the idea that women's bodies are sex objects, and it's the woman's fault if the man looks at her with lust.

This whole mindset pisses me off. The more you repress heterosexual male sexuality, the more you can expect male sexuality to express itself in undesirable ways. And the more prudish you become towards the female body, the more you treat it as purely a sex object. I fear for women living in places where they have to wear burkhas much more than I do for women living in Sweden where depictions of nudity are commonplace. It's pretty goddamn obvious that women are much better off in cultures which embraces sexual openness than they are in countries where nudity is considered immoral.

And there are people on the left who not only go along with this perverted prudish mindset, but encourage it and treat it as if it's a form of feminism. It fucking drives me nuts.

Posted by: Wes | March 2, 2010 11:49 PM

Strange bedfellows, Wes. That's all I can say, because I think you've put it perfectly.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 2, 2010 11:59 PM

If it's sources you want, feast your eyes: here is the abstract of a study which finds that a whopping 72% of Playboy "playmates" are undernourished, and what effect this has on the broader society, and here is the testimony of a former "playmate" on the effect that living with Hefner had on her self-esteem (the language of the piece is fairly offensive, though, as the woman is dismissively referred to as a "hottie").

The "study" you site calls people "undernourished" if their BMI is under 18.

My BMI is 17.7. I eat quite well every day. I'm drinking a non-light beer right now, after having a dinner of fried catfish earlier. I plan to grill some steaks tomorrow. I am not, in any way, shape or form, undernourished, despite the fact that I have a BMI under 18. I'm skinny as hell (6'2" and 140 lbs.) but not undernourished. I just have a very powerful metabolism.

Simply put, the study uses a highly dubious number (I trust BMI as an indicator of nourishment about as much as I trust IQ as an indicator of intelligence) and draws completely unwarranted conclusions from it.

Posted by: Wes | March 2, 2010 11:59 PM

Correction to the typo above. That should say "6'2" and under 140 lbs."

The most I have ever weighed is 148, and I've dropped as low as 120 during my adult life. This despite the fact that I eat whatever I want. It has nothing to do with undernourishment. All the men in my family are tall and skinny. My dad became afraid of gaining weight when, at 6' tall, he went up to 160 lbs.

BMI says nothing about nourishment. Period.

Posted by: Wes | March 3, 2010 12:35 AM

'Uncapitalized usernames have become as common, and as loathsome, as the lower-back "tramp stamp" tattoos that blight the flesh-scape of modern America's female youth."

By chance, do you believe that shift in the common meaning of the word disinterested from "unbiased" to "uninterested" is a tragedy?

Posted by: History Punk | March 3, 2010 1:28 AM

"No, but it does strongly suggest that the person doesn't respect women as individuals, but only likes them to the extent they exhibit sexual availability"

This thinking is a product of a hetero-normative thinking and the monogamous norm forced upon America by the domanint Christian discourse.

When it comes to women, Hugh Hefner is like a Nobel Prize winning PI in his lab which means he's going to be surrounded by the most talent graduate students in the field and those less qualified will be relegated to second tier PIs.

Posted by: History Punk | March 3, 2010 1:33 AM

History Punk,

"By chance, do you believe that shift in the common meaning of the word disinterested from "unbiased" to "uninterested" is a tragedy?"

I hadn't noticed the transition. I always preferred the word "dispassionate" but that has come to mean without passion instead of unbiased.

I am annoyed by the popular change in the meaning of the word "momentarily". I recently heard a stewardess, sorry flight attendant, say "The plane will be airborne momentarily". This would mean that the plane was going to crash after being airborne for just a moment.

No one panicked so I assume they all thought she meant "The plane will be airborne in a moment."

Language evolves but sadly it seems to be "devolving" lately.

Posted by: Lance | March 3, 2010 2:02 AM

Just an FYI for the commenters implying that Hugh Hefner is a misogynist: Hefner spent huge amounts of his own money in the 50's and 60's to fight court cases in many states to legalize birth control. Not only that, he was also the amicus curiae in Roe v. Wade.

In his own words: "I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism. That's a part of history very few people know."

Just sayin'.

Posted by: boygenius | March 3, 2010 3:52 AM

I also have a problem with the fact that most erotic material is targeted toward heterosexual males, and not more spread out among target demographics of ... transsexuals...

Uhh?? Are you saying that there is no porn with transsexuals in it, or are you saying that transsexuals don't/can't look at "regular" porn?

Posted by: Makyui | March 3, 2010 5:53 AM

Are you really trying to imply that not having access to porn will turn men into monsters who prey on women? You guys really have that little self control, that little humanity? You really need to look at nekkid women that damn much?

Gosh, I'm a shrill and uppity feminist, and I don't hold men in that much contempt.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 3, 2010 1:47 AM

I was merely making an assertion based on precisely the same amount of empirical evidence that you prudes are relying on--which is to say, none at all.

It should also be noted that "nakedness" is a cultural construction. Humans did not evolve as necessarily clothed beings, and the need to hide the body is something that gets grilled into people, not something they're born with. A "nekkid" person is merely a person who displays his or her body in a way that diverges from local norms.

But sex drive is not a cultural construction. It's a biological urge, and as icky as it is to you, it ain't going away.

I'm still waiting for empirical evidence to show that body shame and prudishness benefit women.

Posted by: Wes | March 3, 2010 7:50 AM

Language evolves but sadly it seems to be "devolving" lately.

Explain to me how surrounding yourself with beautiful women strongly suggests that the person doing so doesn't respect women as individuals. (I notice everyone else accepts this formulation uncritically.)

But for the record:

As even you have suggested, this particular attribute--this one that you call out for such high acclaim--isn't even one that relates in any way to the person's real value as an individual. Sense of humor, intelligence, creativity, generosity...there are quite a number of other attributes that are much more reflective of individuality and a person's real quality.

As a college prof, I see attractive young girls every day. While that's the first and easiest thing to notice because it's more visible than these other qualities, it's not remotely enough, by itself, to make me enjoy their company. There are attractive students whom I hate seeing at the door of my office, and there are unattractive students whose faces I delight in seeing. That's not to say I think unattractive people are all smarter than the attractive ones. I don't think there's any correlation. And obviously I notice--I don't pretend to some kind of superiority where I don't notice such mundane things. But in terms of whom I want to surround myself with, it doesn't matter because it doesn't say anything about a person's character. You can't focus on the exterior and say you're treating people as individuals.

And I've noticed among my male students that while everyone wants to date a pretty girl (human nature being what it is), only the more callow, dull, or immature ones avoid hanging out with the smart, funny, homely girl.

Please note specifically what I'm arguing. I'm not defending the "Playboy is misogyny" argument. I'm uncertain on that one. And I'm not saying "pornography is evil." I think it has its place, and I don't interfere in the choices of consenting adults. I'm only arguing that focusing solely on beauty--whatever its utility in sexual fantasizing--is objectifying and denying of individuality.

And, bottom line, isn't it a bit beside the point to argue that pornography does recognize a woman's (or man's, for that matter) individuality? Porn has a purpose, but that's not it.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 8:08 AM

After having read this thread I can only conclude that kacyray is hung like a stallion.

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2010 8:39 AM

My primary point is that Playboy Magazine *celebrates the beauty of women*. That doesn't mean that women have *no value outside of their beauty*.

Kacyray,

The problem with this argument is that, as a male, do we really get to say what qualifies as objectification versus celebration? This is really quite similar to the arguments I get regarding Native American mascots. I've been informed that "Redskins" is an honor for my ancestry. That depicting hundreds of cultures, men, women, children, etc., as tomahawk wielding savages, as "warriors" and "braves" is honoring our heritage. At the same time I've had people claim that it wasn't any different than the animal teams that "honor" the animals, or the team names that honor a group's own background. The problem with both of those arguments and all of the arguments in general are similar to your argument regarding the role of magazines like Playboy, the subject of that "celebration" doesn't usually get a say in the matter. Sure, the individual women who are depicted have a say in their role, but women as a group are rarely asked, etc. The same can be said for Native Americans and team mascots. We were rarely asked when it came to those choices, and when we pointed out that we didn't find it very "honorific" we were told basically that we didn't know what we were talking about. I've literally had people tell me that "Redskin" is an honorific and that "I don't understand."

Much like Playboy, the team mascot issue is a rather small one that pales in comparison to other issues for both populations, but it is indicative of other more significant impacts.

----------

Query:

Has anyone shown that they only have Playboy and don't have other magazines of choice for those who wish to turn in their Bible? As was mentioned earlier in the thread, when they've done these events previously they tended to have a range of porn suited to the tastes of the individual making the exchange.

Also, is it really relevant what the porn is in light of the exchange? They're not promoting porn, they're simply saying that if your choice is between the Bible and porn, you're probably better off with the porn.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 3, 2010 9:01 AM

Fair enough, Dingo! There are things I think we all probably think in black&white terms about, though I certainly do my best to be open minded (especially about the motives of others, even if I think their opinion is blatantly wrong).

Posted by: cubefarmed | March 3, 2010 9:51 AM

Yes, James, it is horribly misogynistic to focus on one aspect of womankind. Likewise, I refuse to read Sports Illustrated, because it reduces those beautiful and complex snowflakes into mere ATHLETES. And Rolling Stone, why, you'd think the people they write about are nothing but musicians! For shame!

Posted by: Rorschach | March 3, 2010 10:07 AM

Rorschach, you should consider the long history misogyny and then reconsider your statement.

Posted by: Owen | March 3, 2010 10:19 AM

They seem to thrive on deciding that a person is an evil, bad and depraved person

There's the problem. The same sort of unproductive, acrimonious arguments come up whenever people talk about whether a person is racist, rather than whether this attitude, action, or comment is racist.

Posted by: DaveL | March 3, 2010 10:32 AM

I suppose you think that hugging and kissing is the only thing I'm good for, huh Mr. Hanley? Misogynist!

Posted by: Gretchen | March 3, 2010 11:13 AM

Well. I keep my Playboy subscription for the cartoons, jokes, and articles, the nudes are only a pleasant distraction.

Posted by: Yeti | March 3, 2010 11:37 AM

@ James Hanley (#138): excellent, excellent commentary. I would say that you've won the thread, but the Kacy Ray meltdown was pretty damn entertaining in and of itself.

I'm with you on the devolution of the world "devolve;" unfortunately, I've been on the guilty end of using it for self-serving purposes. "Devolve," along with "misogyny" (courtesy of our friend K.R.) and "prudes" have all taken a semantic hit in this thread. ;)

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 3, 2010 12:28 PM

Gretchen,

Wow. At the beginning of your post I was going to object that there are many varieties of porn, tailored to different tastes. But you're right--each of those is a breed-standard. If I'm the dog show devotee, my favorite breed may be collies, but I'm still judging them by the standard of the Platonic collie, rather than judging each one by its distinct personality. Likewise, if someone's groove is stumpy-porn (if you don't know, don't ask), or suicide girls, or whatever, he/she is still not engaging with them as individuals, but as variants on that particular ideal type.

Which, again, is not to say I think porn is all bad, just that it's purpose is directed toward and serves that ideal-type approach. It's neither designed nor intended for the celebration of individuality, but neither are standardized tests, electrical codes or Catholic masses, and they all have their place as well.

(Sadie: You are much, much, too kind.)

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 1:21 PM

Playboy is also where you can read about racist peckers. ;-)

Also you can browse the "work-safe" sections of the magazine on Google's Fast Flip.

Posted by: MarkusR | March 3, 2010 1:46 PM

OK, so I owe Lance an apology. Mea culpa. (And, man, I hate missing the joke.)

Worrying about words changing meaning, however, seems like an unproductive use of one's time. The meanings we defend today often aren't the original meanings anyway, and whatever meaning is predominant at any given time is a mere social convention. It's much like the conservative who stands athwart history yelling stop. OK, we didn't, then...right now! Hmm, still going? OK, how about...now! It's defense of the status quo, not of anything objectively valuable in and of itself.

Now, defending pi against (mythical?) legislators who want to "change" it's value--that's worth working up a sweat about.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 2:12 PM

James Hanley,

Apology accepted. You are one of my favorite posters so I wasn't too worked up anyway.

I know that railing against "misuses" of words is about as effective as standing in the harbor and shouting at the tide. Still when I here people pronounce height as "hith" it makes me cringe.

Merriam Webster's has even given up and listed "hith" as a second pronunciation.

Still the evolution of language isn't a completely autonomous process. There are such things as dictionaries and English teachers and perhaps I could be forgiven for wanting to have people only pronounce the "th" sound when there is actually, you know, the sequence t-h in the freaking word!

OK, I'll stop yelling at the tide now.

Posted by: Lance | March 3, 2010 3:14 PM

So where is the indignation over Grtchen using Dog Shows as an analogy? wes was pretty adamanat that I should be able to grasp how sexist it is to compare women to sheep.

I'm not denegrating or repudiating her analogy, I'm just wondering why the double standard?

(Of course, I already know the answer. This is a very tribal environment and the regulars can do no wrong. I'm just waiting to see an attempt at a rationale.)

Even after I retracted my analogy, I was hit with no fewer than 5 posts either ridiculing it or expressing outrage at it. However Grtchen's analogy compares women to Dogs at a dog show... and silence. Hmmm...

I see how it is.

Posted by: kacyray | March 3, 2010 3:24 PM

Kacyray,

As I saw it, people weren't upset that you were comparing Playboy models to sheep. They just thought the analogy was badly drawn because it didn't work. (And you have to admit, the fleecing reply was pretty funny.)

Everyone knows Gretchen, and so we know by her analogy she's not saying women are equivalent to dogs. And she had the good grace to express her own trepidation about the analogy.

You're grasping at straws now, and making a non-sequiter argument as well. Even if her analogy is abominable, and even if we're just defending our own against an outsider, even so that would not provide any logical support for your own argument.

Sorry your feelings are hurt. My unsolicited advice is to grow up.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 3:52 PM

Gretchen, yeah I know why people get tricked into saying "hith". I a math teacher so I obviously noticed that the other two dimensions end in "th".

That doesn't change the fact that height does not end in "th".

When was the last time you heard some one pronounce weight "wath" or sleight "slith"?

I did notice you smiley, so I know you're just joshing.

Still I can't help get annoyed by these things.

Maybe it's a form intellectual A.D.D.?

Posted by: Lance | March 3, 2010 3:56 PM

RacyKacy:

See if you can follow this.

Yes, the "Sheep and shepherds" analogy was inapt. The "Dog Show" analogy is not. There's a good reason. Nobody makes jokes, in polite company, about having sex with dogs. See, that was easy.

Playboy is teh SUCK. I quit reading it when I was in my late teens (and I quit looking at the pictures sometime after that). Once Jean Shepherd's stories stopped appearing with regularity I turned to the classics--besides internet porn is WAY BETTER.

Posted by: democommie | March 3, 2010 3:59 PM

I'm just waiting to see an attempt at a rationale.

Nice preemptive strike. Anyone who points out why you're mistaken must automatically be rationalizing. It's just folks being tribal. You're not making bad arguments or supporting a losing position. And you couldn’t possibly be drawing a false equivalence.

Yet I’m afraid you are. You used an analogy you admit was bad to justify objectifying women. Gretchen used an analogy you admit was good to demonstrate how objectification occurs. See how these are not same? Add to that she acknowledged up front that her analogy was unflattering. The only way one could think these are the same is by looking at the most superficial characteristics and ignoring any real substance. But of course that’s what’s caused this debate in the first place.

it's been more like trying to explain science to a sunday school class.

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2010 4:13 PM

"You used an analogy you admit was bad to justify objectifying women. Gretchen used an analogy you admit was good to demonstrate how objectification occurs."

First off, I never offered an evaluation on her anaogly, but feel free to continue the general pattern of making shit up as you go along. (Oh, and here's where you accuse me of being too literal. Don't disappoint me!)

Secondly, the original criticism was NOT about a metaphor/actual failure but of which metaphor I chose. Reference the fleecing comment, as well as wes's rant.

My point was that surrounding yourself with [whatever] isn't an indication that you hold [whatever] in contempt. I could've used a million different analogies to demonstrate that, but it's clear to me that it wouldn't have mattered. This crowd had no interest in seeing the point I was trying to make.

The only thing I admit to was using an analogy that, unfortunatly, allowed people to focus more on what metaphor I used, rather than the actual relevant comparison. But again, I'm not sure it would've mattered with you.

Posted by: kacyray | March 3, 2010 4:32 PM

Okay, I propose that Kacy Ray is yanking our chains. He (she? That spelling seems more common among women) has simply said too many mind-numbingly stupid things for one thread. Calling Playboy a shrine to women? Likening women to sheep who need the guidance and protection of a shepherd? Pulling the "you don't get it because you're ugly and jealous" card in lieu of a rational response (seen in other contexts as the "Ur so gay!" manoever)? He/she can't be entirely genuine--right?

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 3, 2010 4:38 PM

First off, I never offered an evaluation on her anaogly, but feel free to continue the general pattern of making shit up as you go along.

Really?

So where is the indignation over Gretchen using Dog Shows as an analogy?

You don't see that as an evaluation of her analogy? You really don't see that suggesting that it's worthy of indignation is itself an evaluation?

Or is it just easier to accuse someone of "making shit up," than it is to either keep track or, or understand the import of, what you're saying? Really, I don't mind debating with you, and I don't really mind being called a cow (silly, but more amusing than offensive). But I do mind someone telling me I'm lying when they actually did what I said they did.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 4:54 PM

First off, I never offered an evaluation on her anaogly[sic]

I felt my representation was reasonably implied by this:

I'm not denigrating[sic] or repudiating her analogy,

But if it makes you feel better I'll rewrite it, as it makes no difference to the point you are trying to deflect.

You used a bad analogy to justify objectifying women. Gretchen used an apt analogy demonstrate how objectification occurs. See how these are not same? Add to that she acknowledged up front that her analogy was unflattering.

My point was that surrounding yourself with [whatever] isn't an indication that you hold [whatever] in contempt.

It’s also not an indication that you regard it as an equal either. People also surround themselves with objects of fine art. Treating women the same way one might treat objects is not a good argument that you’re not objectafying them.

Your logic seems to be along the lines of, "I don’t hate women. Therefore I’m not misogynistic. I enjoy Playboy. Therefore Playboy is not misogynistic." Is that a fair representation?

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2010 5:01 PM

Abby:
"It’s also not an indication that you regard it as an equal either. People also surround themselves with objects of fine art. Treating women the same way one might treat objects is not a good argument that you’re not objectafying them."

True, but that wasn't my argument. This entire point stemmed from someone asserting that Hef is misogynistic, and then using the fact that he has a "harem" of beautiful women around him to illustrate that fact. My point was that surrounding himself with beautiful women doesn't translate to him objectifying them, holding them in contempt, disregarding their individuality, or ignoring whatever other qualities and value they may have.

Here I would like to point out how the point I was making got entirely lost in the cacaphonous outcry over my ill-chosen analogy.

"You used a bad analogy to justify objectifying women."

I did no such thing. On the contrary, my point - which I've explicitly stated over and over - is that I do not believe Playboy objectifies women at all. I would not attempt to justify the objectification of women, as I do not find it justifyable. (Surprise!)

"Your logic seems to be along the lines of, "I don’t hate women. Therefore I’m not misogynistic. I enjoy Playboy. Therefore Playboy is not misogynistic." Is that a fair representation?"

Finally, a fairly posed question that seems to come from an honest desire to exchange ideas. Here's your answer, cut-and-pasted from an earlier comment in which I explicitly stated my argument:

1. Playboy magazine depicts beautiful women in a sensual, non-degrading way. They are nude, sure.
2. The fact that the models are nude, in and of itself, does not amount to the objectification of women. (Note: No one explained why appreciating a woman's beauty amounts to objectification)
3. Acknowledging that a woman's beauty is extremely valuable does not occur at the expense of identifying other values she may possess. In other words, saying a woman is beautiful does not mean that there's nothing more to her than beauty. To appreciate a womans beauty is not to denigrate all the other value they possess.
4. Misogyny is hatred or contempt of women. Early on in the thread, I challenged *anyone* to demonstrate how Playboy magazine amounts to hatred of women. 100 comments later, and still no reply.

~~~~~~~~~ which begs the question - How can it be that my explicit assertions (listed above) translated into your mind as "I don’t hate women. Therefore I’m not misogynistic. I enjoy Playboy. Therefore Playboy is not misogynistic."? Is it that you aren't reading what I'm saying, that you aren't really understanding it, or that it's just more fun to jump on the noob-ganking bandwagon?

I *explicitly spelled these things out*, more than once, yet you still think I'm trying to justify the objectification of women. I'm astounded.

Finally, I'll tell you up front that spelling is neither a stregnth nor a priority of mine. I'm an educated guy, but we all have our stregnths and weaknesses. When I was younger I used to routinely correct people on grammatical issues (most notably when people would use "good" as an adverb), but as I grew up I realized that in doing so I made myself sound petty and trite, condescending and elitist. You can continue throwing in your [sic]s, but don't think I don't see it for what it is. And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: kacyray | March 3, 2010 5:50 PM

Julia,

I hope you've revised your premise. :)

I find most women attractive. I absolutely love women, and to be honest I get more amped up talking to a pretty girl behind a deli counter than by looking at women in magazines. It has to do with congruance of sexual/social market value, but it is what it is.

Whatever people in the far distant past thought, Playboy's job is to present an *ideal*, not necessarily a reality. The "ideal" is their product. I suspect that's why women love to be in the magazine... it presents them to the world as they would ideally like to look, rather than the way they really look (which is usually quite nice as well).

Thanks for contributing a different point of view.

Posted by: kacyray | March 3, 2010 6:37 PM

Can someone tell me how it is that you respond to a comment such that the comment you're responding to is indented with the vertical line? Is it an HTML code or is there a button I dont see?

Posted by: kacyray | March 3, 2010 6:43 PM

And here on scienceblogs, skip a line after the /blockquote> or it will mess up the formatting on subsequent paragraphs. Not a problem on all blogs' platforms, but is here for some reason.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 3, 2010 7:49 PM

Sadie Morrison:

If it's sources you want, feast your eyes: here is the abstract of a study which finds that a whopping 72% of Playboy "playmates" are undernourished...

I was fully prepared to be shocked by the results of this study. After all, Playboy models certainly don't look undernourished. Playboy tends to go for curvy figures, not the anorexic body type all-too-common among clothing models that you might see at a fashion show.

Then I read the link's first paragraph. It included....

Of surveyed centrefolds, 72% achieved a body mass index under 18, implying undernourishment. CONCLUSIONS: Body mass indices calculated on the basis of stated weights and heights of Playboy centrefolds reveal the majority to be technically undernourished, which is clearly not so on inspection of the centrefolds [emphasis added]. The body dimension data in such magazines should be treated with circumspection.

In other words, they're fudging on their measurements. This, in itself, is still a bad thing, but not to the extent of Sadie's interpretation of the study's conclusion. Impressionable young women are likely to see actual Playboy models from time to time, but a lot less likely to pick up the magazine to check that month's exaggerated height and weight measurement.

(Boy, was I tempted to spell that "heighth.")

Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | March 3, 2010 8:49 PM

Boy, was I tempted to spell that "heighth".

OK smart ass.;)

Posted by: Lance | March 3, 2010 10:08 PM

Take a look at all of Hef's girlfriends, past and present. Note the similarity in appearance. This is a fairly good indicator that they have been selected primarily for their appearance. Otherwise one would expect to see more variation.

Primarily – okay, I’ll agree. But would it be any different if they were primarily selected for some other attribute? Is it misogynistic to select a woman based primarily on any attribute? Would doing so reduce her to nothing more than a useful acquisition of that attribute? I don’t think it would.

So their value as a companion is based first and foremost on their aesthetic value. I don't think it's a stretch to call that objectification or misogynistic.

To value a woman primarily for how well she pleases your senses is to harbor hatred or contempt for her and for women in general? I’m sorry, but that’s a tough sell. Even if I grant your premise, I see nothing leading it to that conclusion.

Objectification, particularly of women, is certainly a problem. It’s a exceptionally pernicious problem because people are objects (just like everything else with mass in the universe).

You are asserting that Playboy objectifies women, then you cite your own words claiming that women are already objects. I’ll agree that we are all objects in a metaphysical sense – but that’s not the context in which we are using it here. In this context, “objectifying” means “to reduce to an object limited in value to a very specific function”. And we all perform various functions at various times. You could just as easily argue that every time I make love to my lady I’m reducing her to a sexual object. Well… she’s IS a sexual object! But she’s also many other things. She’s also a funny object, a kind and loving object, a nurturing object, an intelligent object, a silly object, a soccer-playing object…

Since all existing things are “objects”… why do we even use that term? A term which describes everything, describes nothing in particular. Again, I assert that Playboy does *nothing* to turn women into mere sexual objects. It showcases their beauty, and does *nothing* to minimize any other value they might have.

…while appreciating a woman's beauty alone does not belittle her, if it's the only value your appreciating it often does.

Would listening to a tape of an Ayn Rand lecture reduce her to a “Philosophical Object”? Would watching an Olympian gymnast reduce her to a “gym object”? Does watching Stephen Colbert reduce him to a “Comedy Object”? I love watching Maria Sharpova play tennis. Have I reduced her to a tennis object?

Again, limiting your appreciation of a specific attribute a person holds does not reduce their value to that attribute and that attribute only. It just means you appreciate that specific attribute (or ability, or achievement, or whatever). I’m sure many Playboy models are wonderful women. Others may not be. But they are pretty much all beautiful. In the context of photography – that’s all that matters!

That's what I was trying to get across with my comment about how well hung you must be. To sum you up by that one quality objectified and belittled you.

Heh… you mean you meant that as an *insult*? I thought I had won an ally.

Acknowledging a man's large penis is extremely valuable and does not occur at the expense of identifying other values he may possess. In other words, saying a man is well hung does not mean that there's nothing more to him than big cock. To appreciate the size of men's penises is not to denigrate all the other values they possess. While that's all technically accurate, there's an undercurrent of "yea, but it's the most important thing," that results from it being the only attribute highlighted. Do you see how a statement like that can go either way?

Let’s try this “Acknowledging a woman’s sewing skills is extremely valuable and does not occur at the expense of identifying other values she may possess. In other words, saying a woman is sews well does not mean that there's nothing more to her than her ability to sew. To appreciate her sewing ability is not to denigrate all the other values she possess. While that's all technically accurate, there's an undercurrent of "yea, but it's the most important thing,"

Does that make sense to you? All I’ve done is change the detail from one with a sexual connotation to one without. But the substance is the same. This should make it clear that this “undercurrent” you have described is a mere projection.

I say it fuels both misogyny and feminism simultaneously

You are claiming it fuels hatred of women and advances their cause simultaneously.

The reason I chose to with you is because I felt you were digging in to being right and closing yourself off from new information.

Then it appears I fit right in here!

Posted by: KacyRay | March 3, 2010 11:03 PM

And if someone habitually focuses exclusively on all women's appearances at the exclusion of their many, many other qualities, then I don't think it's out of line to call that person a misogynist (even if no conscious hatred of women is present in that person's heart and mind).

But I've been saying, over and over, until I'm blue in the face....

"Acknowledging that a woman's beauty is extremely valuable does not occur at the expense of identifying other values she may possess. In other words, saying a woman is beautiful does not mean that there's nothing more to her than beauty. To appreciate a womans beauty is not to denigrate all the other value they possess."

I've said "Again, limiting your appreciation of a specific attribute a person holds does not reduce their value to that attribute and that attribute only."

I've said this over and over. I'm an articulate guy, but I honestly can't think of more ways to say it. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Looking at a woman in a magazine because she is beautiful does NOT amount to the repudiation of her other positive qualities, the ignoring of her other values, or the denial of her humanity. It just doesn't!

Ergo, no misogyny.

Posted by: KacyRay | March 4, 2010 12:39 AM

Looking at a woman in a magazine because she is beautiful does NOT amount to the repudiation of her other positive qualities, the ignoring of her other values, or the denial of her humanity.

You're missing my point. Do you wank to thoughts of her positive character traits? Do they honestly even enter your mind when you view the magazine? Maybe they do; maybe I'm misjudging you, and you're one of the two men in the world who actually read Playboy for insight into the naked models' character. Look, I'm a very staunch feminist, but even I have since revised some of my earlier stances in this thread (I still don't care for Playboy, though, and that does not make me a prude); sometimes objectification is okay if it's done in the appropriate context. We all objectify others from time to time--hell, I objectify cute strangers all the time! When you view Playboy, you are objectifying those women. And, in that context, it's not misogynistic. As far as I'm concerned, that is really all there is to it.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 1:06 AM

Hey, I just realized--my comment (#200) was the one that doubled Chiroptera's original prediction (#40). :)

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 1:32 AM

That's a lot of questions. I'll take them one at a time.

But would it be any different if they were primarily selected for some other attribute?

Probably yes, depending on the attribute. Appearance is one of the most transient and superficial characteristics of a person. It's not a strong basis for a deep, loving and committed relationship.

Is it misogynistic to select a woman based primarily on any attribute?

There will often be something you love most about a person. If that thing is something as superficial as looks and that's just how you like it, then I'd have to say that's misogynistic. Other more substantial attributes, probably not so much.

Would doing so reduce her to nothing more than a useful acquisition of that attribute?

It's an interesting question, an "all relationships are really just self-serving personal gratification," sort of perspective heading toward "does unconditional love really exist?" I'm going to have to give this on an, I don't know. But hopefully my last two answers rendered this question moot.

To value a woman primarily for how well she pleases your senses is to harbor hatred or contempt for her and for women in general?

There are certainly women (and men) whose greatest value to me is their appearance. Sometimes it's because I don't know anything else about them, like someone I pass on the street. Sometimes it's because their other qualities are so lacking, like say Paris Hilton. The former group I'd want to get to know before choosing whether or not to be with them. The latter I certainly do hold in contempt. Choosing them anyway just because they're attractive would be a pretty good indicator that I hold everyone else in equal contempt. Otherwise I would have chosen one of them instead.

If I might ask you a question. You said before you wished we could talk with you girlfriend. From this I gather you have a good relationship. If you said to her, "Honey, of all the things I love about you, I love your looks the most," how do you think she'd take that? Would you be willing to earnestly try to convince her of that, without mentioning this thread or why, and report back the results? (After which you'd of course free to let her in on the experiment and try to patch things up if necessary.)

You could just as easily argue that every time I make love to my lady I’m reducing her to a sexual object. Well… she’s IS a sexual object! But she’s also many other things. She’s also a funny object, a kind and loving object, a nurturing object, an intelligent object, a silly object, a soccer-playing object

When you're looking at the women in Playboy, are you thinking about what funny, kind, loving, nurturing, intelligent, silly, soccer players they are or are you just evaluating their appearance? Even if you are thinking those things, most men are reducing them "to an object limited in value to a very specific function." Hence, while looking at Playboy those men are objectifying those women. This feels like a good time to reiterate that there's nothing inherently wrong with that unless it gets carried over into the real world.

I know I said I'd take the questions one at a time. But it's getting late, so I'm going to pick up the pace. Hopefully I can make myself clear anyway.

Would listening to a tape of an Ayn Rand lecture reduce her to a “Philosophical Object”? Would watching an Olympian gymnast reduce her to a “gym object”? Does watching Stephen Colbert reduce him to a “Comedy Object”? I love watching Maria Sharpova play tennis. Have I reduced her to a tennis object?

Perhaps, but like the objectification in Playboy, it's not a problem. Doubly so because there's no history of those things leading to long-term and wide-spread devaluing of people or systemic oppression of a class.

Sex is a primal drive and a sex object has a unique impact on our psychology. For those reasons, along with my answers to you first two questions, sexual objectification is in a class by itself. Those other reductions can and do occur, celebrity stalkers, groupies, some sports fanatics. But it's rarely the problem that sexual objectification of women is.

I’m sure many Playboy models are wonderful women. Others may not be. But they are pretty much all beautiful. In the context of photography – that’s all that matters!

Exactly why I say the objectification isn't in and of itself a problem. I'm don't understand how you so readily agree that they're being reduced to just beautiful images. But don't want to accept that is objectification. Does that word perhaps have some baggage for you above and beyond the definition you provided? Perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain why you say objectification is never justified.

To appreciate her sewing ability is not to denigrate all the other values she possess. While that's all technically accurate, there's an undercurrent of "yea, but it's the most important thing,"

Does that make sense to you? All I’ve done is change the detail from one with a sexual connotation to one without. But the substance is the same. This should make it clear that this “undercurrent” you have described is a mere projection.

Actually you left off then end, where I explain why such a statement could be a problem. The first quoted paragraph should end with, "that results from it being the only attribute highlighted." I'm curious why you left it off.

You really don't see how that sewing example could also be a problem? I thought you made my point brilliantly. I'm aware that the undercurrent is projection. That's why I said it could be viewed either way. But it's a projection that's begged by the description, for the reason I already gave. If your boss was giving you a performance review and ignored all your hard work and accomplishments and instead went on about your wardrobe, wouldn't you feel slighted, perhaps under valued?

You are claiming it fuels hatred of women and advances their cause simultaneously.

Yes, much the way nuclear weapons keep us safe and endanger our existence or antibacterial soaps can keep us healthy while weakening our immune system. Such contradictions are all over the place and in no place more than human interactions.

Then it appears I fit right in here!

I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2010 2:28 AM

I admire your patience and clarity, Abby Normal. If that doesn't get through, we might as well call the thread closed and be done with it.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 4, 2010 7:46 AM

Are you suggest we we have no say? That "women as a group" get to have the final say? And which "women as a group"? You mean the group of women here, the group of women at church, or the group of women who are waiting in line to have their pictures in Playboy?

I am suggesting that if a significant number of women share the opinion that a magazine of this sort is offensive/misogynistic, etc. then their opinion, as representatives of the group portrayed in the venue, is greater than that of those of us who are not participants. Think your argument through logically, a half dozen women a month, say perhaps 60 women a year, overrule potentially tens of thousands of women? At the same time the minority group is being paid a significant amount to participate which, obviously, taints their objectivity. That is a rather silly argument.

In regards to the "Redskin" issue - I feel you on that one. But I'd say a crucial detail you're failing to consider is that there are precious few Native Americans *lining up in droves* to be depicted as tomahawk-welding warriors or *bragging* about how they were depicted that way - maybe even putting it on a job resume. Such a depiction is not one that they generally find flattering. Contrast that with women (not all, but many) who *desire* to be placed on the pedistal which is the Playboy pictorial.

I guarantee you that, were there six figure incomes to be obtained by being portrayed in a similar manner, you'd have Native Americans "lining up in droves" to do it. You seem to want to ignore the fact that the women who participate in these venues tend to make a great deal of money doing so. That's an incredible incentive for women to "line up in droves."

Don't you see the difference? Playboy only exists and is what it is because women *want* to be in it. I've never heard of a woman being proud of her Hustler pictoral, or her appearance in the latest episode of "Girls who Blow Goats Volume VII". Playboy paints a flattering picture of femininity - one that is embraced by many women.

Again, this argument is similar to the old early 19th century argument claiming that African Americans liked being slaves because most of them were "good slaves." Or that good, if you'll pardon the phrase, "niggers" weren't upset by the word, it was only the "uppity niggers" who were, so really, who wants to listen to them?

The difference is that women are in control of whether or not they appear in Playboy, however Native Americans are NOT in control of who uses their likeness or heritage as a tag line, mascot, or otherwise unflattering portrayal.

As an individual, certainly, women control their appearances, as individuals women also have a right to be offended by such publications. As someone who is not involved in the decision process either way, our arguments do have significantly less weight. Again, a similar example is the abortion debate. As males, our voice should be significantly less weighty in the debate. We aren't the ones going through the pregnancy, we aren't the ones who would have to give birth to the child, we aren't the ones facing serious health issues throughout the process. Our voice should be less in this debate as well as debates over what does and doesn't objectify or debase women. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an opinion, but something as asinine as telling a woman that she doesn't like Playboy because she likely doesn't make the cut to get into playboy? That has no place in such a discussion if said by a woman who does appear in the magazine and supports doing so, it has absolutely no place in the conversation when said by a man who truly has a far lower level of "authority" in this debate.

I don't expect you to acknowledge my point. No one has so far.

The folks here aren't "acknowledging your point" because it is a poorly argued one with little support for it. I get what you're trying to say, assuming you aren't playing a game which is suggested by some of your stereotypical comments and has been pointed out already, but again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, your point is falsified by the fact that reducing a human being to the attributes that least represent their value as an individual and then promoting those attributes as if they are the most important, even if they voluntarily participate in the process, really isn't something to be admired. Feel free to enjoy it, I enjoy the female form, etc., but don't try to promote it as some sort of art. Sure, it's classier than Hustler, but it's still just a magazine.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 4, 2010 8:55 AM

I hereby award dogmeatIB three internets for greatest html fail ever. Or greatest intentional parody of html fail, whichever is appropriate.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2010 10:11 AM

My dearest Mr. Hanley:

"0
I hereby award dogmeatIB three internets for greatest html fail ever"

Is that as good thing and is it more than I get?

Playboy is actually quite a bit like alcohol, other drugs, sweets & greasy foods, other forms of porn and that sort of "animal husbandry" that requires slow, dull witted, ovine sexual partners. A little bit is okay, I guess, but too much leads to decreased attention to the truly important things in life, such as watching, "24", O'Reilimhannicoulter, and "Dancing With The Stars". Well maybe a little bit of that last one IS too much--I'll know when I reach that point.

Posted by: democommie | March 4, 2010 10:21 AM

How come I don't hear Abby, Gretchen JuliaL and the other usual suspects complaining about the objectification of sheep, answer me that! ;) - Dingo

But I do complain of the objectification of sheep. Sheep, like all sentient beings, deserve some treatment based on their own feelings, needs, and comfort level. Their point of view in the world deserves some degree of respect.

You see, dear Dingo, I do not objectify you because, even though you are in my universe only a series of typed words appearing in my very own home on my very own, private computer, I remind myself that those letters are typed by an actual human being, with feelings and thoughts and a personal point of view.

KacyRay (such a cute name - very Southern feminine)

You could just as easily argue that every time I make love to my lady I’m reducing her to a sexual object. Well… she’s IS a sexual object! But she’s also many other things. She’s also a funny object, a kind and loving object, a nurturing object, an intelligent object, a silly object, a soccer-playing object…

Your lady, your bed, your pleasure, your amusement, your enjoyment of being nurtured, your interests in intelligent advice, your exercise in a good soccer game - all these present a point of view in which you are a feeling, sentient being who has to be allowed space for your own ideas and the world your create with your own point of view. And that woman, is, indeed, by your own description here, very much a mere object in your own private world.

Any time we treat a sentient being as an object, there is a risk of violating the rights of the other to operate as the center of its/his/her point of view able to make some decisions on its/his/her own and able to have some meaningful control over its/his/her own world.

Presumably the women who pose for the Playboy photographers do so to serve their own purposes, purposes which you do not interfere with by exciting yourself with a copy of the photographs. But the magazine itself has absolutely nothing to do with "glorifying" women. It has only to do with making a profit by supplying readers with useable and enjoyable objects.

You are so closed into your own point of view that you don't even recognize that various cultures of the present and past, and various individuals, have other standards of beauty entirely. The women portrayed in the magazine are no more beautiful than any other women. They are merely chosen to meet the personal standards and needs of a specific sub-group of potential readers, a group that includes you.

This continued expression of a closed-minded "the view from my eyes IS the world" attiude has stoked in me a feeling of anger I very, very rarely experience in online conversation. I'll tell you plainly what objectification can mean to a woman: it can mean that, depriving her of confirmation that she herself is an independent subject, she may have difficulty seeing herself as anything other than an object in other people's worlds.

I clearly remember the day when, at the age of twenty, I first realized that I am a person, not a thing existing in a male world. As I struggled with the openly dismissive attitudes of the male professors and fellow students at my graduate school, I was one day asking myself whether it can really be true that only males fully deserve the label of "people," with women as adjuncts to support their personhood. Then an entirely new thought entered my head: humans are not primarily male/female with a question as to who is a fully developed person. Human beings are persons, who happen to be some male and some female. I actually leaped out of my chair, and said aloud, "I am a person! I just happen to be a female person."

It changed my life. After that, I met the derogatory comments of my fellow students who happened to be males (like "wouldn't you be happier just finding a husband instead of getting a doctorate?") with the firm convinction that I, too, am a person, not a mere object in a world defined by men.

An objectification of half the human race, half the persons in the world, is contemptible. It hurts people. You are certainly free to use the photographs any way you wish. The women being photographed got paid for them. But your provincial assumption that the body types you are most excited by represent "beautiful women" while other types are less so, and your provincial assumption that photographs designed to titillate those of your own, apparently narrow, tastes, represents anything at all real about women is ugly objectification.

Posted by: JuliaL | March 4, 2010 11:44 AM

Excellent comment, JuliaL (@214).

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 12:22 PM

Rob Monkey,

Abby is male. Curiosity question: does that change anything for you?

Posted by: JuliaL | March 4, 2010 12:58 PM

It's my understanding that our beloved Abby Normal withholds information about his/her gender, and often takes on the point of view of both men and women when commenting. I could be crazy, though.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 1:36 PM

Did something I say indicate I would have changed my opinion?

No, I was just curious.

This wouldn't be acceptable at a normal job, but I don't really see a problem with a porn mag catering to its fans.

I don't see a problem with magazines in general catering to their fans, and I think it is not only acceptable, but the usual thing, at a normal job for a business to cater to its chosen market. The problem I saw was in a member of that chosen market, in an age of wide education and communication, actually still believing that the business/magazine chooses and presents its products because those products are just really, really, really the most beautiful ones in some absolute sense.

Surely we're at a point where we can expect most adults to realize that their own personal preferences and standards are a reflection of themselves and not some objective truth about the world. My problem is with someone apparently trying to claim that there is no difference between subjective and objective. I have a problem with anyone's attempting to create an environment where his/her own evaluation of another person's usefulness and/or attractiveness purports to equal what that other person actually is.

Posted by: JuliaL | March 4, 2010 1:48 PM

Abby,

If I might ask you a question. You said before you wished we could talk with you girlfriend. From this I gather you have a good relationship. If you said to her, "Honey, of all the things I love about you, I love your looks the most," how do you think she'd take that? Would you be willing to earnestly try to convince her of that, without mentioning this thread or why, and report back the results? (After which you'd of course free to let her in on the experiment and try to patch things up if necessary.)

Okay, I will. She hasn't seen this thread. I'll give you an honest report. I'll have to wait until I get off work today. I live in Hawaii, so it'll probably be late tonight before I can let you know how it played out. Check back on this thread to find out the answer.

Julia,

I want to point out that my formulation that my g/f is an "object" of various sorts was spoken to Abby in the context of her (his?) identification that everything physical is an object. You're equivocating by claiming that I view my g/f as nothing more than an object. This is classic context-dropping. (Look it up.)

KacyRay (such a cute name - very Southern feminine)

For the record, I am a US Marine Warrant Officer. I don't much care for my first name, and I particularly dislike the way my mother chose to spell it. But that's for me to think about, not for you to point out. So fuck you very much, and in the future I hope you'll limit your comments to those relevant to the topic. If not, at least try to say something that makes the world a happier place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As much as I hate to leave issues unresolved, I've concluded that there are disagreements among us that are far more fundamental than Playboy, porn, misogyny, and objectification. They are far too trenchant to be hashed out here completely. Not to mention, I've found that most of my arguments have gotten lost in the background noise that always seems to occur when animals of a pack begin howling in unison. Having to put up with underhanded comments (like the one I just dealt with from Julia) make an issue that's already difficult to sort out impossible to discuss with any civility. Not to mention, it just puts me off to hear that sort of crap when I'm trying to hold a conversation with grown-ups.

But to the few of you who took the time to address what I was *actually* saying - thanks. Let's agree to disagree. You can come away from this thinking I'm a misogynist, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Abby... I'll let you know how that little experiment went. I think she'll be a bit confused at first, but then she'll be quite amused, once I explain it all to her after the fact.

Posted by: kacyray | March 4, 2010 2:53 PM

JuliaL wasn’t revealing anything I haven’t before. I do, as doctorgoo puts it, I have a wee willy winky and I was born with it. It’s not something I’m hiding but it’s also not something I usually advertise either. I’m reaffirming it now because the fact that I haven’t had to grow up with the same struggles as the hoo-haa endowed people commenting may be influencing my point of view and therefore relevant to the discussion. I think I’m being fair and neutral. But of course, how would I know if I wasn’t?

No need to apologize Rob. It’s a perfectly natural assumption and I’m happy to respond to either pronoun. I chose a feminine blog name for a number of reasons. JuliaL hit on a major one with this statement:

any perception that some of those comments are a woman's point of view and some are a male's point of view just helps us see how artificial that distinction is.

My other reasons I won’t go into now for fear of further derailing discussion. Besides, a girl needs to have a little mystery about her... or something like that.

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 4, 2010 3:13 PM

You know, I have sympathy for a person who gets ganged up on a debate-- whether he/she is wrong or right, whether the majority is making good points or not, it downright sucks to be in the minority, especially if you're a minority of one. But that sympathy quickly disappears when the minority party starts to dismiss all points against him/her as simply the establishment protecting their own. Kacyray has, for the most part, ignored my posts in this thread-- I assume because it's easier to react against the people who are calling him a misogynist. And I don't support that conclusion. But it becomes a little bit ridiculous when he claims for the third or fourth time that Playboy doesn't involve objectification when it was first explained on Tuesday (and several times afterward) that yes, it does.

So while I understand how you might feel a bit persecuted in this thread, Kacyray, I will point out that you've brought a lot of it on yourself. You didn't just say that you like Playboy and that there's nothing wrong with that, but that any person who loves women will like it and women who don't like it are just bitter about not being suitable for it. You didn't just say that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be around beautiful women, but justified Hugh Hefner's choice of girlfriends by comparing it to a shepherd with sheep. You didn't just disagree with the majority opinion, but have resorted to labeling us a howling pack of animals. You may or may not be a misogynist-- I honestly don't know-- but I can't escape the conclusion that you're a dick.

If you can't manage to lie to your girlfriend for the purposes of an experiment (and who could blame you for that), then just let her read this thread. See what she thinks. In the interests of full disclosure, it seems like the decent thing to do.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 4, 2010 3:27 PM

kacyray,

You're equivocating by claiming that I view my g/f as nothing more than an object.

I said no such thing. I made no comments about how you and your girlfriend relate in real, daily life. I said "by your own description here," and was referring to your own words on this website, not to her life. I don't know her and make no claim about her relationship with you.

For the record, I am a US Marine Warrant Officer.

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that to me your name is cute and Southern feminine. I'm not making the mistake of assuming that my own preferences and taste for what is attactive and appealing in your name have anything to do with the real you. I don't claim that your name has anything to do with your own personal qualities at all. I'm glad that you too can see the difference. Now I hope you will see the difference between noting that Playboy pictures appeal to your own tastes and preferences and your suggesting that all this means the pictures glorify women or actually (in some place other than inside certain minds) is an objective evaluation of who is beautiful and who is not so much so.

So fuck you very much, and in the future I hope you'll limit your comments to those relevant to the topic.

You can't say, "I'm angry?" You must use a sexual reference to male penetration to express anger with a woman? As for being relevant to the topic, my bringing in my complimentary judgment of your name is exactly as relevant as your complimentary personal judgments of the women in Playboy: same topic. I really do think the name is cute, in a Southern feminine way, and I may be giving it to a character in a little children's book I'm working on, spelled "KC-Ray" though.

You can come away from this thinking I'm a misogynist, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

I'm afraid that your response to me of angrily and immediately attempting to dissassociate yourself from anything that could possibly be seen as "feminine" and your use of degrading sexual terms to express that anger, argues otherwise. There were many other possible responses: nothing at all, "Yes, it does sort of express my feminine side," or maybe "Personally I don't like my name, as it's a bit too feminine for my tastes, but I'm glad you like it."

Posted by: JuliaL | March 4, 2010 3:37 PM

when animals of a pack begin howling in unison.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2010 4:01 PM

Abby,

I was sincere about agreeing to disagree, but that doesn't mean I'll neglect to answer any honest question you might have. I'll get to 204 in a couple hours, once I'm back in my office.

Posted by: kacyray | March 4, 2010 4:13 PM

JuliaL (#230)
maybe the anger is due to objecting to being objectified?

grin!

you know, how some men like playboy, some women like posing in it. some men don't like being lumped in with those who like playboy, and how some women don't like being looked at in the way the men who like playboy look at some women.

or something like that :)

Posted by: VikingMoose | March 4, 2010 4:29 PM

Christ is this thread still bubbling along?

kacyray,

Aren't you neglecting a lot of jack-off time? Isn't the new issue of Playboy out about now?

Perhaps you are an S&M multi-tasker and are getting off on the sweet verbal abuse being lavishly doled out upon you while simultaneously "worshipping" Heff's ladies.

Hey, whatever works I guess. I've probably done weirder things although I found the women of Playboy a bit too sanitized for my teenage tastes.

The people doling out the verbal abuse seem to be getting some sort of thrill by tongue-lashing you over and over.

Personally I got your point three days ago. It seemed relatively benign, if a bit awkwardly presented, but maybe that was by design to get the abuse rolling in.

I would have thought that the knees of your attackers would have stopped jerking some time ago but again whatever stimulates their endorphins is their business I guess.

I'll close the door on my way out.

Posted by: Lance | March 5, 2010 3:02 AM

In light of the treatment I have received since coming in here and expressing a divergant point of view, ....

Posted by: James Hanley | March 5, 2010 7:27 AM

DingoJack,

Of course I appreciate the fact that your comment about objectifying sheep was light-hearted; I enjoy your humor and readily admit that I lack your delightful special talent for producing amusing comments.

Posted by: JuliaL | March 5, 2010 10:19 AM

A. My cooking is way too good for him to only care about my looks..

Oh, good grief...

Posted by: DaveL | March 5, 2010 12:24 PM

Lily@239 and Kacysgirl@243 is the same person - my girlfriend Lily, who lives with me and knows me pretty well.

I knew the "experiment" wouldn't have worked with you, babe. :)

Lance@238: Yer mama is a ho.

Abby, I haven't forgotten about you at 204. Unfortunately, I have a Regiment and three Battalions who count on me to get work done during the day, and a lady who counts on me to pay attention to her during my off hours. Give me a bit - no way I can pop off a thorough answer in 10 minutes.

Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 1:47 PM

Abby @204

“Appearance is one of the most transient and superficial characteristics of a person. It's not a strong basis for a deep, loving and committed relationship.’

No, but it is normally a prerequisite. To deny this is to slam your eyes shut to the reality of our inherited animal psychology in the name of some egalitarian ideal.

“There will often be something you love most about a person. If that thing is something as superficial as looks and that's just how you like it, then I'd have to say that's misogynistic. Other more substantial attributes, probably not so much.

Allow me to present this analogy: You may not select a vehicle to purchase *primarily* on how it looks. Obviously, the best looking car in the world is of no value if it does not run or if it cannot be operated safely. You will look for factors such as comfort, dependability, mileage, warranty, features, and safety. Obviously, those are all very important.

But I guarantee that no masculine guy is going to buy a car that has the best of all the above-listed features if the car is shaped like a banana and painted pink with purpole polka dots. Most guys want a car that will mirror the image they have of themselves – whether classy, sporty, or rugged. And since they’re the ones paying, they are (normally) going to find the best looking car for their dollar, so long as it meets all of the other important criteria.

And when they’re looking at cars in a car magazine, do you seriously think that by salivating over the gorgeous new look of the latest model of the car they happen to love, that in doing so they are “objectifying” the car or somehow devaluing all of the other great features the car might possess?

It’s no different when looking at women. You can appreciate their beauty without in any way denigrating or denying whatever other positive qualities they may have. It *is* possible to appreciate beauty for beauty’s sake.

“It's an interesting question, an "all relationships are really just self-serving personal gratification," sort of perspective heading toward "does unconditional love really exist?" I'm going to have to give this on an, I don't know.”

I think unconditional love does exist, and I believe that it is worse than useless. Love is an emotional value, and it is worthless unless exchanged for another value. “Unconditional love” is just as irrational as “unconditional trust”, “unconditional admiration”, or “unconditional respect”. These are all emotional values that must be earned in order for them to mean anything at all.

(Disclaimer: In the above paragraph, I’m referring strictly to romantic love – family relationships and paternal/maternal love follow a different set of rules. Unconditional love in the context of family is a whole different story, and I believe it is appropriate in that context.)

“When you're looking at the women in Playboy, are you thinking about what funny, kind, loving, nurturing, intelligent, silly, soccer players they are or are you just evaluating their appearance? Even if you are thinking those things, most men are reducing them "to an object limited in value to a very specific function."

No, I’m not thinking of them that way *at that time and in that context*. Referring to my car analogy – when you’re looking at them in a magazine, the only functin they serve *at that time* is the function of providing beauty. That is all they’re doing *at that moment*, but it doesn’t mean that is all they’re capable of, and I think the guy looking at the Playboy, or the guy looking at the car magazine, understands that perfectly well.

“Perhaps, but like the objectification in Playboy, it's not a problem. Doubly so because there's no history of those things leading to long-term and wide-spread devaluing of people or systemic oppression of a class.”

And that devaluation and systematic oppression started with Playboy??? I have news for you, Playboy gives us all a reason to regard women the precious beings they are. It reminds us that without them, the world is a much bleaker place.

“I'm don't understand how you so readily agree that they're being reduced to just beautiful images.”

Ref my car analogy. Showing us a picture of them doesn’t reduce them. It just doesn’t.

In fact, if there was a way to visually depict their wonderful personalities, I’m sure Hefner would’ve figured it out and marketed it by this point. (In fact, that’s exactly what he DID do, with the wildly successful “Girls Next Door” series).

“If your boss was giving you a performance review and ignored all your hard work and accomplishments and instead went on about your wardrobe, wouldn't you feel slighted, perhaps under valued?”

Do you know that everyone in the Marine Corps above the rank of Sgt must submit a photo of themselves, wearing their Service “C” uniform, to the selection board in order to have any chance of getting promoted? And they must submit one every 12 months, to ensure it is current. Hard to imagine that the USMC is so shallow that they reduce us all to a mere image on a screen just to get promoted isn’t it? Someone should speak to the Commandant about the way we are routinely objectified.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions. But at this point, I feel my point is made. I realize is hasn’t been *accepted*, but I’m pretty confident it has been made.

Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 2:51 PM

Lance: Heh... point taken. I didn't realize you were agreeing with me and joking around, but hey... after the last three days, who can blame me?

My comment was less of a true insult than a mere "This is all the response you merit". You'll notice me doing that from time to time.

Your parents were probably too mortified to bring it up. It happens.

I've known since I was a young kid that there's an unspoken rule - you NEVER dispose of porn. Your only options are to hang onto it or pass it along. Of course now in this day and age, that rule is less imperative since porn is accessible to just about anyone, in abundance.

I love porn, but as I said before... when I want porn, the last place I'd look for it is in the pages of Playboy magazine.

Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 4:15 PM

Gretchen, I'm sure you can find plenty of creative ways to translate your feelings of condecention into text.

If not, there are plenty here who can help you.

Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 4:55 PM

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Lets stick with agreeing to disagree, because if you still think I'm arguing that someone can't appreciate beauty without being misogynistic then I don't think I'm capable to expressing myself successfully to you on this topic. I do hope to see you around the interwebs though. Take care.

Fair enough. I won't stop reading the blog - I really enjoys Ed's commentary and perspective (although I have to admit I don't know why he even bothers with WND anymore - I think he affords it unjustified legitimacy by attacking it so often). But I'm not too sure I'll be involving myself in the commentary. I can count the number of reasonable, respectful folks in here on one hand. The fluff-to-substance ratio is just too high.

For the record, I know you weren't arguing that someone can't appreciate beauty without being misogynistic. But it sounded like you were arguing that to isolate beauty for appreciation does amount to reducing someone's value to beauty alone, at the expense of their other potential qualities. If I misunderstood, then perhaps we don't disagree as much as it seems.

Posted by: kacyray | March 5, 2010 6:07 PM

Visit the Culture Crusader for interesting commentary on this topic.

http://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Elbert | March 6, 2010 1:45 AM

Finally located the cartoon that this conversation made me think of, when Kacyray talked about Playboy placing women on pedestals. It's by Shel Silverstein, from his book Different Dances. Though the conversation is over, I thought some still might appreciate seeing it.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 19, 2010 2:59 PM