quote: Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
How do you buy the swimsuits featured in that issue of SE? <scratches head> Purchase the correct paint tones and hire the painter to apply them to you? Do it yourself?
I can see a difference between VS and SE in this regard. VS would not sell as much lingerie if they simply displayed the lingerie. You need to see how it looks on a body. If VS used ugly or even pretty girls it would not have the same effect as a model posing in the lingerie.
SI is not selling anything (except its own magazine) when it does the swimsuit edition. Clearly using attractive sensual girls is purely an appeal to men's sexuality rather then a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product.
Though perhaps you could argue that SE wants to rewards its subscribers by providing them with a well prepared model catwalk, complete with unique swimsuits and articles that make the models seem more accessible to common men.
Either way I would not spend my time navigating its pages.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, the swimsuit issue does loosely fit in with SI's theme of celebrating the human body, both in its physical abilities and its aesthetic appeal. It seems that sports is almost inextricably linked to beauty. Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Tiger Woods, Maria Sharapova, in addition to being amazing atheletes, they are also attractive people, and thus are very popular and very marketable. Appreciating physical abilities and admiring physical beauty are just two facets of the same thing, admiration of the human body. I think many times they even reinforce each other. That and the fact that the models are not generally in sexually suggestive poses makes me less inclined to classify this as softcore porn.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno about you guys. The SportsIllustrated swimsuit model does nothing for me.
"...a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product."
Associating sex with non-human objects is fetishism. While such advertising may be legal, that attempt to pervert normal human sexuality is hardly legitimate.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying that fetishism is not a part of normal human sexuality? I would be curious as to what constitutes "normal" in this case, as associating sex with non-human objects has been common practice for more generations than I have fingers to count.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre: I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product. I do not think that attractive female models enhance men's interest in sports. I do think that most sports readers are men, and they are interested in women, thus its ILLEGITIMATE.
If Wired magazine had a "Titillating Techettes" edition even if it was ONE edition in its history it would be guilty of doing the same thing IMO.
Though I confess I think girls featured in such a hypothetical edition of Wired would be more legitimately attractive, at least to me. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Is your sarcasm meant to argue that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for the "good"people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
posted
"I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Are you suggesting that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
Could you quote the post to which you're responding in this, please?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
Yes people are complaining because its WOMEN who are predominating the issue, it has nothing to do with the manner in which they are presented. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just added the triggering quote to that post. However, the totality of my response is more generally directed at everyone who insists that the Swimsuit Issue is soft porn.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
What sport, exactly, are these women playing?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I said SE is NOT legitimately using eroticism to sell a product."
I disagree. Sports is just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique, of human physicality. Excluding advertising, SportsIllustrated's product is to sell bodies as bodies. People are just going nutso whacko shouting "porn" at the fact that in 1 out of the 52 issues per year, women's bodies predominate instead of men's.
What sport, exactly, are these women playing?
Whatever it is, the results are impressive.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I think we should require women to expose their breasts constantly in an attempt to roll back a perversion of "normal" human sexuality.
Is your sarcasm meant to argue that a woman's failure to wear a burkha makes it acceptable for the "good"people to engage in sexual harrassment and rape?
Women shouldn't have to do anything. On the other hand, they should have at least the same degree of personal choice in covering or uncovering themselves as men.
It is a SICK society which finds the way a woman is dressed or is undressed to be an acceptable excuse for jerks to be jerks.
No, my comment was in response to your crap-filled assertion that fetishism (as you define it) is a perversion of normal human sexuality.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's soft porn. Back when I received SI, a third of those "swimsuits" would have been illegal on most US beaches.
And sports is not just a way to display the magnificence of the human physique. I could give a crap about the magnificence of the human physique. I can think of a dozen better reasons why sports are compelling to me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't we talking about a magazine that features well established models? They've spent their whole careers posing in magazines and advertisements and walking down runways; essentially doing the same thing they are in this issue of SI: wearing outlandish, exotic 'outifts' that no one would really wear. Sure, some of it is meant to be bought by consumers, but most of the things I've seen models wear on runways would never been seen on the street or in a club, much less be affordable to most incomes. I'm sure you can buy the bikinis that they wear in the SE, but it would cost an arm and a leg and be uncomfortable as all get out.
So I don't think it's intended to be pornographic by the models, or the photographers for that matter. Just because someone's going to be getting off on it later can't change what the creaters are trying to make. If the users intent defines the object, almost everything would be porn.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Eros: Oh! You're right. Guys are buying it to check out the hot new swimsuit fashions next year! That's why it's their hottest selling issue! Guys LOVE buying women's bathing suits.
How do you buy the swimsuits featured in that issue of SE? <scratches head> Purchase the correct paint tones and hire the painter to apply them to you? Do it yourself?
I can see a difference between VS and SE in this regard. VS would not sell as much lingerie if they simply displayed the lingerie. You need to see how it looks on a body. If VS used ugly or even pretty girls it would not have the same effect as a model posing in the lingerie.
SI is not selling anything (except its own magazine) when it does the swimsuit edition. Clearly using attractive sensual girls is purely an appeal to men's sexuality rather then a legitimate use of eroticism to sell a product.
Though perhaps you could argue that SE wants to rewards its subscribers by providing them with a well prepared model catwalk, complete with unique swimsuits and articles that make the models seem more accessible to common men.
Either way I would not spend my time navigating its pages.
Just out of curiosity, is it o.k., or bad, to feel desire for someone with their clothes on, as long as you do not act on it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if you do, is what they are wearing (or doing, i guess) then considered pornographic?
Conversely, if what they are wearing or doing does nothing for you, can what they are doing considered to be not pornographic.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk, fashion shows are usually put on for an audience of people who may be making purchases based on the show: buyers for department stores and such. They may not purchase the exact one-of-a-kind outfits that may be shown, but it's kind of like concept cars at an auto show. Nothing like that is going on with the SI swimsuit issue. So you can't say that the intent on the part of the creators is the same. The intent on the part of the people who put out the SI swimsuit edition is to sell a bunch of men pictures of scantily clad pretty women. It's not the user's intent, it's the publisher's intent.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when does one work of art/commerce/whatever have to be one or the other?
Undeniably, some people use VS catalogues to browse for new lingerie and purchase it. Equally undeniably, some people use VS for non-commercial recreation *ahem*.
One reason I have a problem with most laws regarding almost all forms of pornography, with the exception of child pornography, is that it's such a very tricky thing to define when applied to the general public.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which means that the Victoria's Secret website/catalogue aren't softcore porn, since I use them to decide if I want to buy underwear or swimsuits.
Did you know that the Victoria Secret website was down for two days after its initial site launch because the designes failed to estimate how many MEN were visiting the site, and hadn't scaled their web server farm in order to handle it? The more you know...
As for those that commented on the body paint... Have you seen the pictures in the magazine? You can't tell it's paint; there are no, how should we put it, "highlights" to speak of.
quote:Of course it's soft porn. Back when I received SI, a third of those "swimsuits" would have been illegal on most US beaches.
Then you're obviously going to the wrong beaches. Come back to South Florida beaches and let me know. Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: They may not purchase the exact one-of-a-kind outfits that may be shown, but it's kind of like concept cars at an auto show.
And it is also like the bikinis in the magazine. These aren't meant to be worn't by your average woman, but they're a concept, to be built on by the department store suppliers, and sold at a lower quality to the general public.
I don't see how the SE is different. The suppliers can guage, based on the response from the magazine, which styles are most popular. Then they can sell the most of those styles.
The models almost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic (if you need me to email each individual model to ask, I will), the photographers almpost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic, and I, as reader, don't think of them as pornographic. Are you forcing pornography on me?
I admit, that was fecitious. Yet I can still insist on the intent of the creators being the same as for any fashion magazine. To take excellent pictures.
ETA: The clothese optional beatches in South Florida that I have visited would attract people that want to get naked, but almost certainly not people that want to look at naked people.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just out of curiosity, is it o.k., or bad, to feel desire for someone with their clothes on, as long as you do not act on it?
Here's an answer, from Mathew 5:28:
quote:But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
/smartass
So, men are o.k., then!
/endsmartass
I think there are going to be a lot of dudes going to special hell, if that's a sin. I think very few men don't lust after a pretty woman on *some* level, and don't give me any backsass about no 'twitterpation' business, either.
On the other hand, I think if you're in a marriage, it's a great ideal to work for.
quote:The models almost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic (if you need me to email each individual model to ask, I will), the photographers almpost certainly don't think of the pictures as pornographic, and I, as reader, don't think of them as pornographic. Are you forcing pornography on me?
I realize you weren't entirely serious here, but this is the kind of point I was addressing. Does the line between pornography and everything else lie solely in the intent of the people involved in its production? Doesn't it necessarily, at least a little, involve the perception from the public for the society's definition?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is exactly the destinction I was thinking about. I was thinking that it robs the creator of the work if their work is defined by the reciever. But then, I can also see how that work is defined to the public by each individual ricipient. I'm not sure, but I can't help but lean towards the side that lets the creator choose what they create.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is exactly the destinction I was thinking about. I was thinking that it robs the creator of the work if their work is defined by the reciever. But then, I can also see how that work is defined to the public by each individual ricipient. I'm not sure, but I can't help but lean towards the side that lets the creator choose what they create.
What exactly is the creator robbed of, though? The right to insist to the people viewing the creator's work, "This is what it is, and simply this!"? When I think about art (of all kinds), if I'm interested enough in it, I'll learn about the artist and the artist's intent...but I'll still make up my own mind, in the end, what it is for me. And that will be my own working definition for that artwork from then on, until I change my mind, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Doesn't it necessarily, at least a little, involve the perception from the public for the society's definition?
Maybe a little, but hopefully not very much at all. Depending on the society, say a fundamentalist Muslim society, they'd probably find almost every picture of a woman, even on CNN/Fox News pornographic.
On the flip-side, if we saw fundamentalist Muslim porn (if it exists) we'd probably think it tame enough to be in National Geographic or something.
Intent seems more important than perception.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Ahh yes, DUAL sinning...once in thought, once in action, double dipping at it's finest.
I haven't had so much fun since my last visit to the dentist.
Women can look all they want, I guess.
See, that's the kind of thing that, honestly, I have an issue with. Because honestly, I think that the ability to be tempted and to avoid temptation is an important one to have.
And because I check out men left and right. But that's okay, since it only applies to men lusting after women.
No, really. I think the idea of taking no notice of anyone other than your partner is both stifling and frightening. And unreasonable, besides. It's like one of my therapists once said: What happens if you tell a person, "Sit in a corner. You can leave the corner as long as soon as you can stop thinking of a white elephant."
I disagree that intent is necessarily more important than perception--I could just as easily quote you some rather extreme social examples from the other end of the spectrum--but it seems you agree with the core point I was making, that perception is a part of the equation.
----------
Vonk,
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific, please?
----------
pH,
quote:No, really. I think the idea of taking no notice of anyone other than your partner is both stifling and frightening. And unreasonable, besides. It's like one of my therapists once said: What happens if you tell a person, "Sit in a corner. You can leave the corner as long as soon as you can stop thinking of a white elephant."
I'm not sure I agree. I suppose it depends on how strictly you define "...take notice of anyone other than your partner..." I have known people who, so far as I can tell (and they say this themselves) don't take notice of others in a sexual way, and I would hesitate a long time before calling them stifled.
As for what happens with that person, well, if I were sat in the corner and told that, it'd be a helluva long time before I got out of that corner. But I could learn to do it, and there are people who know how to do it already. It simply takes a high degree of mental self-discipline.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I *am* talking about the creator's intent. Not the photographer, not the model: the publisher's.
Car shows are generally aimed at buyers of cars. The SE is not aimed at buyers of women's swimsuits.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I know what you mean by this, but at first I thought you meant a magazine good only for rolling up and whacking bugs with!
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. Could you be more specific, please?
If a person looks at a shoe in a display window and gets aroused and goes home and does something about it, they feel that the shoe is erotic. Does that make the shoe erotic across the board, just because there is a good sized population of shoe fetishists?
If a person looks at the SE of SI and gets aroused and does something about it, the art is erotic to them. That, to me, doesn't make it erotic art across the board. There are a lot of people out there that don't think of it as porn, and I don't believe the creators think of it as porn, so I was asking, if you have a personal feeling about a piece of art, or media, will you then define that art, or media, based on that personal feeling?
quote:Car shows are generally aimed at buyers of cars. The SE is not aimed at buyers of women's swimsuits.
I do not know anyone that goes to car shows to buy cars, or gun shows to buy guns. Most people go to these shows to look at cool cars and guns. I'm sure there are a small number of people that do buy cars at the car show, and I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of people that buy the bikinis featured in the SE is about the same. If there is any way to check that, I would love to know.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you buy the cars at the car show. When I've gone to car shows it has been to look at models from multiple companies to compare their features and prices across the board, and then based on that decide what dealer to go to for a test drive. I have bought two cars using this process.
You keep ignoring the intent of the producer. I suppose you believe that Sports Illustrated wants to drum up swimsuit business.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
