Really? Who is surprised that a nude woman in an apron lures male readers? The popularity of paper media is sinking fast and nude women sell papers -- and everything else. Men are practically completely ruled by thier sex drive so it's not surprising Esquire has jumped on to the bandwagon. Too bad all of the male consumption of nudie pics doesn't actually help them get any closer to the goal or they would be flying off of the shelves even faster.

hate men much? What a puritanical backward society we are, gosh some people like to look at a nude woman...end of the world!! We are all here because of that dirty nasty act---the name of which we can't even speak politely in public, we should maybe grow up and accept the fact that sex is not bad, it is in fact essential, and liking it and the aesthetics associated with it is not a sign of dysfunction or a lack of ethics---the opposite actually is.

Noooo....brilliantmistake (was that pun intentional?), my vehement opposition of the objectification and degradation of women does not mean that I hate men and villify sex. That's the ol' bait and switch mentality -- kinda like saying that supporters of gay marriage would support marriage to animals.

Whether you know it or not, you are using an extreme extension of logic to 1) rationalize your own objectification of women (e.g. "objectifying nude women is only natural because we are nude when we have sex and sex is natural") and 2) to invalidate my claim that men are basically dogs in heat (e.g. "if you don't like it when men objectify women then you must not like sex or men").

Here's a news flash: a woman in an apron signifies a domestic position and a naked woman in an apron signifies the sexual objectification of a woman in a domestic position. I know it's hard to grasp, but that *is* the sterotype that women have been fighting to break free from for decades. Because sexism is the most insidious and pervasive oppression we face as a society, let me put it to you in other terms -- it would be like someone really getting off on pictures of sweaty black men in chains being whipped.

You advocate for a less puritanical society? Great! I am all for it. Somehow though, what comes across in your post is "let's see more boobies!!". Bite me brilliantmistake, you just proved my point.

Here are two posters saying a lot of true things. Why the fighting?

Yawn.

Bra burning anyone?

Talk about extreme extension of logic! A woman wearing an apron and baking a pie is equivalent to slavery? Do you see everything in terms of stereotypes? How many men do you think looked at that picture and said "oh yeah, i get off on women being portrayed as domestic servants, i just love having my stereotypes reinforced, baby!"

Sometimes a naked woman baking a pie is just a naked woman baking a pie.

Don't read if it bores you NickBanglo. And please, don't bother yourself to reply. Heres a site you might find more entertaining:

<link>

People who are objectified and depersonalized shouldn't stop standing up for themselves just because their fight for personal dignity inconveniences your sense of personal privilege to be entertained by their objectification.

In other news...I think the "fight", KSlim, was sparked first by the Slate article on Esquire and second by the way that brilliantmistake so blithely normalized the sexualization of a female image. That's what I find offensive and yes, it does make me want to advocate my position. I don't expect people to agree with me because the typical person has completely absorbed the concept of male privelege (exhibit A: NickBanglo) to the point that advocating against it is considered completely outside of the norm.

I think maybe, in some deep part of brilliantmistake's position, I actually agree that the puritanism in our society is out of control. But the answer to that is personalisation of female and male beauty instead of just continuing to blitz the public with what has been deemed "attractive" images of women that are explicitly intended to reassure men of their sexual power and at the same moment deny any sexuality of women other than the male construct.

rpg3456:

<snip>

How many men do you think looked at that picture and said "oh yeah, i get off on women being portrayed as domestic servants, i just love having my stereotypes reinforced, baby!"

Sometimes a naked woman baking a pie is just a naked woman baking a pie.

"Just a naked woman baking a pie" might be your nekkid grandma dotting butter on a pie crust or a middle-aged mom with mussed up hair, unshaven armpits and cellulite thighs taking a delicious steaming pie out of the oven. That's "just a naked woman baking a pie". But it's not *just* a naked woman baking a pie in Esquire, rpg3456. It's loud and clearly a sexualized image of a female baking a pie that is specifically intended to give visual pleasure to a male -- and this image conveys messages that are degrading to women for two main reasons.

First of all, the image encourages men to leer or gaze at the woman and it encourages women that they too can be the reciepient of male attention if they adopt this image. The male is the watcher and the female is being watched...I empathize with you rpg, this concept is probably pretty new to you, but that is a power differential. It is so pervasive in our media that most people hardly even notice it and come to the conclusion that it's "just a picture of a woman baking a pie". This image at once excites the heterosexual male observer and deprives the woman of her own sexuality. Evidently from the image, her pleasure is derived simply from being watched, not from any direct stimulation or really even any visual pleasure because there is nothing to indicate that there is any viusally pleasing man around at all. This implies that the woman is there to be watched, to be gazed upon and objectified for pleasure and that she's happy to do so regardless of whether it's Robert Pattinson or Homer Simpson.

But back to the specific messages...Not only does the actual image reinforce sexual objectification, but it encourages women to actually adopt the stereotype that "women belong in the kitchen", or "cooking and cleaning are womens' work". The corollory to this, unfortunately, is that women should be encouraged to obey their "natural biological function" in society and restricted from public life. So there you go, rpg. Those are the reasons that this particular image pisses me the F@*# off, it's not tht I see everything in stereotypes.

It's amusing that your prejudices tell you so much about me just from one remark.

Don't think you'll find me arguing in favor of male privilege. And my guess is that the actress who put her rear in the photo did so quite consensually. I don't buy or read Esquire, but if people want to - good luck to them. More work for writers and for people who want to expose their ass.

Why do you think I go to the gym three or fours times a week? Is it because I otherwise would feel inadequate alongside all the pictures in magazines that I don't buy? Or might it be because I like to be so much fitter than the slobs I see on planes struggling to get their obese edges into the seat?

Oh, and last time I recall, it was my wife draggin' my ass into Victoria's Secret, not the other way around.

...ah remember, though: you have clearly not been adequately indoctrinated schooled in the right way to look at such images. Remember, if you don't see them as awful symbols of female degradation, you're just a bastion of male prejudice.

I think that's the correct line isn't it, Ms gabidaz?

People who are objectified and depersonalized shouldn't stop standing up for themselves just because their fight for personal dignity inconveniences your sense of personal privilege to be entertained by their objectification

You are not being objectified, Mary Louise Parker's ass is. A picture of a woman does not represent all women in the world, it represents that woman. Are you that sensitive that you are personally offended by a picture of a woman's ass? Does Betty Crocker piss you off? Should I be offended by harlequin romance books that have shirtless men on them? Should I be offended when I see some guys wearing hardhats and working on a construction site because they perpetuate the male construction worker construct?

Next time you want to shriek about depersonalization and objectification maybe you should refrain from proclaiming that all men are dogs ruled by their sex drive. You should also try lightening up. I know you're constantly being oppressed and all, but c'mon.

I do not see how the photo shoot of MLP objectifies her. She is a successful, attractive and likeable actress. She looks great at 45! She chose to do these photos on her own accord.

As a 26 year old woman, I enjoyed looking at these photos as well. Does that mean i'm objectified her and i'm a sex-crazed horn dog? I think she looks beautiful and her beauty is personefied and not objectified (to use your own terminology). Furthermore, she gives hope to many women that yes, we can look great in our 40s and beyond if we take care of ourselves! What is more empowering than that? That women do have control over their own health and physical appearance?

I go to the gym and tone my butt because a) its healthy b) i want to be attractive - and if that means some guy may have a dirty thought if he looks at my butt on the beach, so be it. Its better then being a fat slob and being ashamed to put on a bikini.

Nasochkas:

As a 26 year old woman, I enjoyed looking at these photos as well. Does that mean i'm objectified her and i'm a sex-crazed horn dog?

Yes, yes it does. Either that, or you're so deluded by the male-dominated society you live in, that you don't know any better any more. Just like Ms. Parker didn't know any better to strip down and show off her awesome ass that she obviously works off to get. Poor thing.

The post you responded to makes me hope that one day, people will realize they shouldn't listen to anyone who advocates for an "ism" of any kind. The line between sensibility and absurdity is very thin, and male bashers are no different than misogynists.

Well, it's pretty obvious to me that this discussion hit a nerve here with you two Nick and rpg, and that the only way you can reply to me is by insinuating that I am hysterical and wrong, wrong, wongitty wrong. Your previous posts simply bully without actually adressing anything. And if anyone is shrieking, rpg, it's you.

rpg3456:

<snip>

Are you that sensitive that you are personally offended by a picture of a woman's ass? Does Betty Crocker piss you off? Should I be offended by harlequin romance books that have shirtless men on them? Should I be offended when I see some guys wearing hardhats and working on a construction site because they perpetuate the male construction worker construct?

.

I think I explained in pretty clear detail what offended me about this particular pictorial in Esquire, and it wasn't "just that it was some woman's ass".

And you are right, rpg, all men aren't ruled by their sex drives. AND there are some guys who actually understand how this particular pictorial could be offensive to women...but so far neither of you have given me any indicaiton that you are in that group.

"Men are practically completely ruled by their sex drive so it's not surprising Esquire has jumped on to the bandwagon."

Backtracking a bit from that position now Gab?