# a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
What this means is the picture is only trying to look sexy. Like cheesecake does. This means that any picture that is just trying to look sexy is sexist.
# a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
Physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) can be equated with sexy. That’s what physical attractiveness is. Is it possible for someone to be both physically attractive and not visually sexy? If you said, “I’m physically attracted to him” or “I’m attracted to his physicality” wouldn’t that mean that he is sexy? Using this quality, any picture where the person is physically attractive is going to count as sexist. Which means that any attractive image of a woman is going to count as sexist. The article brings up the Sports Illustrated photos, for instance. If you look at a beautiful woman in a bikini, you are sexist.
# a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
First of all, let’s note that comic characters are “things” not people. They do not have the capacity for independent action or decision making. They are objects for our fantasies, sexual or otherwise. That’s why they were created. Face it, Tiger, she was created to be an object of sexual fantasy. Second, this again means that any picture where the intent is only to create lust is objectifying because the intent was to create something for the viewer, not for the viewed who are fictional. Mysteriously, this means that the fictional creations should be viewed as people with their own rights and decision making ability, and the desires of the viewer who paid to read the book are moot or the comic is sexist.
# sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
Again, let’s note, no one on the cover of HFH is a person. They are all blobs of ink that look like people. You can not impose anything upon a person who does not exist. “To impose” implies that one is forcing something upon another against the other’s will, but the fictional creations do not have a will. Further, let’s note that they are the products of pulp fantasy, so one has to wonder what is “inappropriate.” The whole point of fantasy is that you do things in it that would be inappropriate in real life. While virtually all romance readers would tell you that rape is inappropriate, many romance readers engage in rape fantasies.
I think if you look at the report again, you’ll see that virtually all sexual imagery would count as sexualization under their definition. For instance, the report mentions promiscuous photos on MySpace. It doesn’t say anything about what other elements are on the pages. It just says there are sexy photos that the posters put up of themselves on the pages. How is that sexist? If I put a sexy photo of me (if there were one) on my blog, would that be sexist? And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?
no subject
What this means is the picture is only trying to look sexy. Like cheesecake does. This means that any picture that is just trying to look sexy is sexist.
# a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
Physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) can be equated with sexy. That’s what physical attractiveness is. Is it possible for someone to be both physically attractive and not visually sexy? If you said, “I’m physically attracted to him” or “I’m attracted to his physicality” wouldn’t that mean that he is sexy? Using this quality, any picture where the person is physically attractive is going to count as sexist. Which means that any attractive image of a woman is going to count as sexist. The article brings up the Sports Illustrated photos, for instance. If you look at a beautiful woman in a bikini, you are sexist.
# a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
First of all, let’s note that comic characters are “things” not people. They do not have the capacity for independent action or decision making. They are objects for our fantasies, sexual or otherwise. That’s why they were created. Face it, Tiger, she was created to be an object of sexual fantasy. Second, this again means that any picture where the intent is only to create lust is objectifying because the intent was to create something for the viewer, not for the viewed who are fictional. Mysteriously, this means that the fictional creations should be viewed as people with their own rights and decision making ability, and the desires of the viewer who paid to read the book are moot or the comic is sexist.
# sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.
Again, let’s note, no one on the cover of HFH is a person. They are all blobs of ink that look like people. You can not impose anything upon a person who does not exist. “To impose” implies that one is forcing something upon another against the other’s will, but the fictional creations do not have a will. Further, let’s note that they are the products of pulp fantasy, so one has to wonder what is “inappropriate.” The whole point of fantasy is that you do things in it that would be inappropriate in real life. While virtually all romance readers would tell you that rape is inappropriate, many romance readers engage in rape fantasies.
I think if you look at the report again, you’ll see that virtually all sexual imagery would count as sexualization under their definition. For instance, the report mentions promiscuous photos on MySpace. It doesn’t say anything about what other elements are on the pages. It just says there are sexy photos that the posters put up of themselves on the pages. How is that sexist? If I put a sexy photo of me (if there were one) on my blog, would that be sexist? And as noted before, the report refers to porn generally as being what it is talking about. It doesn’t differentiate between types of porn. But you said that not all porn was sexist. So if the report suggests that porn generally is sexualized imagery and that sexualized imagery is sexist, isn’t the report saying the opposite of what you say?