Dude, I deleted and reposted that comment to fix typoes. Why'd you have to respond to the deleted comment? Now my comment thread looks all messed up, and it's your fault. :)~ Anyway:
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.
Graaaaaaaaaa no that's not what that means! A picture of a woman looking sexy at the exclusion of any other characteristics is sexist. For example, Power Girl. A picture of Power Girl looking sexy while showing a cocky expression on her face, or pulling back a fist, or posing with her hands triumphantly on her waist - that would be fine. Because that's Power Girl, and that's what her personality looks like. But a picture of Power Girl posing like a limp blow-up doll with no expression on her face - that's sexist, because it robs her of her personality and displays her as a passive fuckdoll. Or, for other explanatory examples: See here (http://vejiita4eva.livejournal.com/158773.html), or here (http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/05/04/just-past-the-horizon-obligatory-power-girl-boob-post/).
BTW, this is the exact same song and dance that you and I had in the comments on the previous post. Frankly, I'm boggled that you still don't get it. I've tried. I've explained it in tiny words. I've given you lots of links to read. I don't know what else I can do. If you don't want to see or understand the difference, then what else can I do?
# 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.
No. Are we reading the same language? Just no. That sentence, no matter how much you parse and diagram it, means that holding a narrow standard of physical attractiveness as the only way to be sexy is what's sexist. There's nothing wrong with equating physical attractiveness and sexiness. What's wrong is when a narrow standard of physical attractiveness is the ONLY standard for "sexiness," as opposed to body types which do not fit the standard, character traits like personality and intelligence, athletic performance, etc.
At this point we're so far removed from anything having to do with the HfH cover that I don't even know why I'm bothering. But like I said, your stupid, it burns.
no subject
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.
Graaaaaaaaaa no that's not what that means! A picture of a woman looking sexy at the exclusion of any other characteristics is sexist. For example, Power Girl. A picture of Power Girl looking sexy while showing a cocky expression on her face, or pulling back a fist, or posing with her hands triumphantly on her waist - that would be fine. Because that's Power Girl, and that's what her personality looks like. But a picture of Power Girl posing like a limp blow-up doll with no expression on her face - that's sexist, because it robs her of her personality and displays her as a passive fuckdoll. Or, for other explanatory examples: See here (http://vejiita4eva.livejournal.com/158773.html), or here (http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/05/04/just-past-the-horizon-obligatory-power-girl-boob-post/).
BTW, this is the exact same song and dance that you and I had in the comments on the previous post. Frankly, I'm boggled that you still don't get it. I've tried. I've explained it in tiny words. I've given you lots of links to read. I don't know what else I can do. If you don't want to see or understand the difference, then what else can I do?
# 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.
No. Are we reading the same language? Just no. That sentence, no matter how much you parse and diagram it, means that holding a narrow standard of physical attractiveness as the only way to be sexy is what's sexist. There's nothing wrong with equating physical attractiveness and sexiness. What's wrong is when a narrow standard of physical attractiveness is the ONLY standard for "sexiness," as opposed to body types which do not fit the standard, character traits like personality and intelligence, athletic performance, etc.
At this point we're so far removed from anything having to do with the HfH cover that I don't even know why I'm bothering. But like I said, your stupid, it burns.