I’m afraid you are mistaken. For instance, if you look at the section of music videos, you’ll see that while some of it talks about what the women are doing, it makes a point of talking about revealing outfits or partial nudity without talking about what the women are doing while wearing (or not wearing) the outfits. It talks about how women are nude more often in the movies. And how about this, “Others have noted that Disney’s female characters today (e.g.,The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas) have more cleavage, fewer clothes, and are depicted as “sexier” than those of yesteryear.” Notice that there is an issue with “sexier” not “sexist.” The section on Sports Illustrated talks about how there was an emphasis in women’s sexuality, but it didn’t say that women were put in demeaning, sexist roles. Or the section on MySpace where it just says that girls pose provocatively, but doesn’t say anything about sexist content.
And look at this quote! “Pornography is readily available on the Internet (Griffiths, 2000), with one source estimating that 12% of all Web sites are pornography sites, and 25% of all search engine requests are for pornography (English, 2005). Extensive data on children’s and adolescents’ exposure to sexually objectifying material online is lacking; however, a Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) study found that 70% of teens 15–17 years of age had accidentally encountered pornography on the Internet, with 23% saying this happened somewhat or very often.” Do you see anything about sexist imagery there? Because that looks like it’s talking about porn in a very general sense as being part of that “extremely harmful” stuff … and didn’t you say that you liked porn? Surely, you must agree that the report mentioned porn as part of the sexualization you think is extremely harmful and fun, right? That is the reason they brought it up, right?
I’m not saying that the report doesn’t talk about what it calls “sexist imagery,” but you are wrong when you say that it “makes a pretty clear distinction between the two.” It frequently just refers to nudity or sexual without saying that there is anything inherently sexist in the images. Even when it says that women are portrayed as “sexual objects,” it doesn’t say what that means. I suspect that it means that the primary intention of the image was to inspire lust, but that doesn’t make the image inherently “sexist,” as someone who says she enjoys porn must agree.
As for the HFH cover not being porn, I stand by that. You’ve seen porn and you know that in porn you see sex organs. You see nipples. You see penetration or in soft core porn you see something that implies that penetration is taking place. The HFH cover only does those thing is you extrapolate and think, “I know what happens next in tentacle porn! The clothes are ripped off and then the tentacle slides in while the girl resists but then she likes it and …” While you can extrapolate the HFH cover into tentacle porn, the fact of the matter is that all that is really happening on that cover is that scantily clad women are bound and beaten and some monsters are coming toward them from below. What is actually happening is not much different than what has appeared on SF comic mags since the Golden Age.
no subject
And look at this quote! “Pornography is readily available on the Internet (Griffiths, 2000), with one source estimating that 12% of all Web sites are pornography sites, and 25% of all search engine requests are for pornography (English, 2005). Extensive data on children’s and adolescents’ exposure to sexually objectifying material online is lacking; however, a Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) study found that 70% of teens 15–17 years of age had accidentally encountered pornography on the Internet, with 23% saying this happened somewhat
or very often.” Do you see anything about sexist imagery there? Because that looks like it’s talking about porn in a very general sense as being part of that “extremely harmful” stuff … and didn’t you say that you liked porn? Surely, you must agree that the report mentioned porn as part of the sexualization you think is extremely harmful and fun, right? That is the reason they brought it up, right?
I’m not saying that the report doesn’t talk about what it calls “sexist imagery,” but you are wrong when you say that it “makes a pretty clear distinction between the two.” It frequently just refers to nudity or sexual without saying that there is anything inherently sexist in the images. Even when it says that women are portrayed as “sexual objects,” it doesn’t say what that means. I suspect that it means that the primary intention of the image was to inspire lust, but that doesn’t make the image inherently “sexist,” as someone who says she enjoys porn must agree.
As for the HFH cover not being porn, I stand by that. You’ve seen porn and you know that in porn you see sex organs. You see nipples. You see penetration or in soft core porn you see something that implies that penetration is taking place. The HFH cover only does those thing is you extrapolate and think, “I know what happens next in tentacle porn! The clothes are ripped off and then the tentacle slides in while the girl resists but then she likes it and …” While you can extrapolate the HFH cover into tentacle porn, the fact of the matter is that all that is really happening on that cover is that scantily clad women are bound and beaten and some monsters are coming toward them from below. What is actually happening is not much different than what has appeared on SF comic mags since the Golden Age.