The Writing of the Riner's Bio (lipglosskid) wrote,
The Writing of the Riner's Bio
lipglosskid

Porn/Exploitation Poll Part 2

Finally getting around to it:

Thanks to the people who responded to my last poll question. I was kinda hoping for more responses, especially from you girls, because this is really intriguing to me... You may be interested to read some of the responses.

Here is part two though- and a good point of why I'm confused. As represented by feminist zines, and some people I know- Playboy (which contains pictures of naked women generally on their own) is a bad magazine, objectifying and demeaning to women. However, many of them sing the praises or simply support Sucide Girls (a website of "alternative" women/girls posing nude many times with other women and occasionally sex toys).

Why do you think women support to Suicide Girls while having a disdain for Playboy? What makes a something obscene, objectified, or demeaning?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 12 comments
Well, a lot of it for me is pure aesthetics. The women in Payboy are so fake and unattractive, but I find the women on SG much more naturally attractive without looking like cookie cutter Barbies. They have more attitude and personality, which is nice too.
PLAYBOY: do you think they look fake, or you just know it's airbrushed and a "rare/idealized" look and that affects you?

SUICIDEGIRLS: Do you think the girls are attractive, or is it the attitude/"realness" that makes you appreciate it.

What about magazines like Jane?
I think the airbrushing is pretty lame, but so many of the women look completely fake themselves. Fake lips, fake tits, the whole plastic surgery look grosses me out.

Most of the SG girls are very attractive, their down-to-earthness and attitude adds to the appeal, but I would find them attractive regardless.

Of course, there are attractive and unattractive women in both publications, but for the most part this is how I view them.

I haven't read very much Jane, but the same people did Sassy, which I thought was the only halfway respectable magazine for teen girls and a lot of my girlfriends like Jane, so I guess I don't have any problem with it.
It also has nothing to do with thinking one is "wrong" and the other is "right" for me. I don't have any problem with porn or people involved in it as long as everyone has chosen to participate of their own freewill.
i think suicidegirls is just the same though, and basically the same thing--it's just a different shade of objectification.
See, thats the view i would expect to be more common- either be ok with sexualized women or don't.

For me I'm ok with both of them, though Ployboy isn't very sexualized for me.. just pretty. I'm not one for pornography, but both of those are ok and I think that (like you) i see them along the same lines.
Well I won't get into my total fascination with Suicide Girls. I don't have that much space! Heehee.

However, and it's news to me that Playboy is looked down upon, I think the Suicide Girls are beautiful beyond words due to their origionality and uniqueness. I think that your body can be a beautiful canvas and the girls on that site not only take advantage of that, but are unashamed of it. I also think that the girls of Playboy are very, like Vanessa said, cookie cutter. While the girls of Suicide Girls aren't always slim, dolled up, well dressed or even well groomed. It's the uniqueness that makes them attractive and I would imagine it's that achievable beauty that makes women appreciate them more. Maybe, but what do I know.
Haha... so you're a sucide girls fan... hehe. Do you have a favorite?

Playboy is generally used as a representative of objectification and idealization of women by feminist types (generally in magazines)... meanwhile somehow Suicide Girls represents women having the power (over how their objectified?)... To me they are just two opposite extremes of what a male would like.
I don't have a favorite one. Heehee. Theres too many to choose from now! That site, since I heard about it a couple years ago on the Banner Day tour, has become so huge it's rediculous. And that site also is much more that tattoos and boobs. Theres some great columnists and a lot of music support on that site, too!

I guess the thing that makes me not anti-porn is that I think 99.9999999% of the girls that do said sites or magazines or movies and what not are aware of the fact that they're doing pornography and that theres a certain mentality and lifestyle that goes along with that. Just like any other job out there that bleeds into your everyday life. I think its not about being demeaning or objectifying if its voluntary, I guess. I know the people buying these publications may very well be looking at these women as objects, but those are the type of people who look at women like that anyway! I own pornography and I look at women as people. I guess I don't see porn as objectification as much as I look at it as simply two (or sometimes more! Heehee.) people goin at it!

i think its a classic double standard..

its not ok if playboy (ie, men) objectify and demean women, but if WOMEN are responsible for it then its ok.. because supposedly it will be "artistic" or "empowering", but really its just more of the same, delivered in a "new" skin of alternative appeal.

when playboy first started, it was a "gentlemen's magazine", full of camera ads, photography tips, interesting interviews (still well known for them) and supposedly came with a culture, the cool classy, liberated life to be enjoyed by 'swinging' men and women, thus why Hef started wearing the famous smoking jackets.

Originally, playboy was more "artistic" in caliber, and the others were for more overt appeal. But I've heard that the lines have since been a bit skewed, but that playboy is still the among the tamest mags. I dont know, its been a long time..

Seems suicide girls is the same thing only with a modern and opposite flair of representing the natural women's "strike back" against the glossiness of modern playboy.

its not different, its just packaged that way...
Your first point is right on, and something i don't understand. It seems that if taking naked pictures to whet the desires of men is wrong, then its wrong.

This continues to mainstream women's magazines too. Over the past month I've been looking through JANE because the apartment i was sitting in has a subscription. And while it declares itself a feminist mag, all the models are gorgeous and they do lots of talk of makeup and clothes (though, admitedly its not as extreme in these respects as ones like COSMO)
Objectification is objectification.

More than any sort of problem I would have with the objectification itself, is the problem I have when it is badly disguised as "art" or "independent free spirited artsy girls with bad tattoos of faeries and dyed red hair."

In reality, it's a bunch of girls trying to fit into a scene. They pretend that they aren't being objectified because the site supposedly allows the girls "originality" and "true beauty" to shine through. But they all look the same. They are no more original than playboy bunnies, in fact, the main difference is color palate. Playboy women are more warm, fake tannner bronzed and blond, and Suicide Girls are pasty and dye their hair bright colors because that's more "rebellious."

The bottom line is that it is sad when girls really think that sites like Suicide Girls are empowering to them. It lowers the bar when all you have to do to be original is alter your physical appearance with piercings and tattoos and pose naked THAT way. Go you, you've said screw you to the "unreal standards of beauty."

But how about devoting less time to posing naked and more time to doing something genuinely interesting with your life? Because, for women, it is okay to be mediocre, as long as you are cute.

And I love naked women, I really genuinely do. I just despise the dishonesty with which sites like this operate. I have more respect for women who go out and do hardcore porn, because the purpose of that is not muddled with bullshit trying to disguise the bottom line, which is to create splooge. Splooge!

Okay, I'm done.