Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The Evasive Midriff

The video we have been watching in class, The Merchants of Cool, discussed how the media portrays teenage girls and how teenage girls are marketed. Teenage girls are depicted as mere sexual objects that will do just about anything to gain the acceptance of their peers or the attention of the opposite sex. Throughout history women have been viewed as weak, inferior beings who need men to save them from their own futility. Men are praised for their sexual prowess, yet women are supposed to stay chaste. We are constantly being sent the message: "Women are here only to please men. Buy them and you can get them to do whatever you want." This so-called “double standard” can be found in language as well.

We might not always think about it, but language can be truly abusive to women. About two years ago I read a book called Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum. The book was a study on why girls are subjected to sexual labels and how those words have shaped society. On the first page of the book there are four lists of words; one each for terms used negatively to express sexually active men and women, and one each for words used positively to express sexually active men and women. There are only two words to describe women positively: hot and sexy. Men, however, have a good quantity of positive terms, such as stud, player, Casanova, and ladies’ man. When it comes to negative terms, men only have womanizer, wolf, and “can’t keep it in his pants.” Women, on the other hand, have a myriad of negative terms to describe them. There are almost thirty terms on the list, including slut, whore, tramp, hooker, and floozy. Even the term “feminist” has been turned into a negative connotation, or could be seen as one of Hayakawa’s words with built-in judgments.

The saddest part of this is that men aren’t the only culprits. This is so deeply embedded deep into our culture that women identify themselves with these terms. Much of the name calling comes from other females. I’ll even admit to partaking in it. We see another girl as an outsider or as competition and she's automatically a slut. Detrimental words are used to illustrate women in all forms of the media and in our own personal conversations. In The Merchants of Cool a band called Insane Clown Posse was featured. It was stated that their lyrics were demeaning to women, but there were women there to support them at their concert. How can we mistreat ourselves this way? Our music, magazines, movies, and television programs continually degrade women. Recently, when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hoes” (among other racial remarks) there was an outcry from Americans disgusted by the verbal abuse women face from the media. The commotion to remove these words from our vocabulary was sadly short-lived. Everybody realized there was a problem, but no one wanted to own up to it.

If we ever expect to have equality between the sexes, how can we use these words? How could we ever expect to receive respect from men if we are relentlessly devaluing ourselves? There will never be an end to this unless we stop buying into these stereotypes. If we are so disgusted by the scantily clad, blonde popstar crawling around lasciviously on stage, why do we in turn idolize her?

23 comments:

Ian B said...

Deirdre, you bring up a lot of really interesting points in your post! I think that one of the saddest consequences of women and men using demeaning language towards women is the effect on the mindset of these people. Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Lindsay Lohan (to name a few) are dumbing-down young American girls by their constant use of terms like "skank" and "slut" and others which I cannot post in an academic environment. Some younger girls in America think that it is glamorous to appear stupid, and this is exemplified by many of the incoming freshmen. While most of them are intelligent and caring teenagers (as in the 100+ potential members of Interact), I have observed that a large portion of them spend more time buying clothes and text-messaging each other than studying towards a successful future.

When will it stop? No one knows, but the fact is that the trend has caught on. Younger siblings of these girls will want to be just like them, and thus the trend is perpetuated (and this time to a younger crowd). A popular talk show host and author, Laura Ingraham writes in her new book, "Power to the People," about the 'pornification' of America. More and more graphic scenes are being shown on common television channels, and many are led to believe that this is what is normal. I'm not saying that America should be more like Puritan New England in the 1600s, but it will be hard to dig out of the hole that America has sunk into as a result of these demeaning words and actions towards women.

L Lazarow said...

Hey, it's Erin. I really have to agree with Deirdre. All kinds of music, shows, movies, clothing, etc. are extremely demeaning to women. The thing to do about it is this: stop watching those shows, buying the music, etc. The reason people portray these attitudes because of marketing. On TV (etc.) they just reflect what they think that people want to see and they're doing it for money. If they weren't making money, things would change real fast. But they are. And that's the problem. If people would stand up and say, that's wrong, and I'm not buying it, things could change.

Deirdre said...

There are so many more layers to this issue, but i stopped short because I knew that no one would read all of it. Ian, you mentioned the "dumbing down" of younger girls. I have two younger cousins, aged 13 and 11, that I treat like younger sisters. I always flip through Katie's (the olde one's) iPod. I was shocked to see that she had some rap songs with sexually explicit lyrics that were definately demeaning to women. When I asked her why she listened to those songs it seemed that she didn't really understand why I thought they were wrong.

I feel that we need to educate the younger children that what they see on TV or hear on the radio is not necessarily appropriate in real life. I'm tired of seeing 8 year-old girls dancing like the girls in the rap videos on eMpTyV.

Ben Friedman said...

OKAY (I apologize in advance for my horrendous spelling)...I might sound like I'm playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devils advocate here but I'm really not!
It seems like we're all afraid to disagree with the person above us but I can tell you one thing: I'm not.
As ridiculous as this may sound, I see absolutley nothing wrong with this demon "porn." (This is where you shudder and gasp, but let me explain.) First of all, you may argue that women are being "exploited." These women CHOOSE to put their bodies on display. Uh oh, these people on these adult videos AREN'T MARRIED!?...waiting until you're married is purely a perfect example of a religious moral being unfairly pressed upon an entire population!!!
What's so bad about wearing skimpy clothing and flaunting your body? Many people EARN those bodies through excersise and a healthy diet! Let them reap the reward, however sexual they may be. There's a lot of people in my grade who I NEVER see exercising, so don't play off the suggestive people as vain fools. How about giving them the benefit of a positive connotation for once?
Just as strongly as you refuse not to be advertised to, I refuse not to be fed head hirst into your moral machine. Let us be teens! Let us flaunt our bodies! Let us experience that akward sexual tension!
Am I disagreeing with Dierdre's view that we are subliminally coerced into being more sexual via advertising? Nope. I am disagreeing with her point of view that the "midriff" is something to be avoided and looked down upon. Is she a bad person because she (in Ian's words) isn't "studying towards a successful future?" Uh oh! She's buying clothes and...text messaging!? Oh she's a real idiot, she is!? Your write, she SHOULD forget about her teenage fun and pick up a pencil and paper and start doing her taxes! Gotta plan for that future!
The media is also demeaning to MEN! How about the Simpsons? Family Guy? The dads and sons are always the stupid ones in these shows and the mothers and daughters are always supplying the morals.
Ian and Dierdre, I praise you both for your noble views on "standing up for women"...but please...just leave them be! There's nothing wrong with being a midriff. Treat them with the respect YOU would want.

Ben Friedman said...

Now that I proofread AFTER I hit post, I realized I totally butchered the spelling of "right vs. write." My bad.

Deirdre said...

My dearest Benjamin,

It seems as though you've misunderstood my viewpoint.

While I honestly do disagree with pornography for religious and moral reasons, what I am more disgusted about is that sex is constantly thrown in the face of children and teenagers. When was the last time you saw a "teen" movie without sex or sexual connontations in it?

I agree with what you say. Women should be allowed to wear mini skirts and flaunt their bodies if they so chose to. I do think, however, that too much of this is detrimental to our society. We start losing appreciation for the female body.

Why is it that to be considered "sexy" women have to wear short skirts, and skintight, low-cu shirts? Men don't have to.

I'm not saying we should all stay home on our Friday nights studying Precalc. Obviously, you need to go out and experience being a teenager because it only happens once. What I'm saying is that some of the women that are constant figureheads of the media set bad examples for younger girls. All we ever hear about on TV is how Lindsay Lohan got sent to rehab or Tara Reid got breast implants. Why don't we hear about women making a positive influence in the world?

Believe it or not, I'd like to think of myself as a "normal" teenage girl. I buy clothes. I text. I gossip. I procrastinate. Women's equality has come so far, but sometimes I feel that we are letting ourselves slip backwards.

Sincerely,
Deirdre

P.S. I agree with what you brought up at the end of class today. Men are stereotyped on TV, but have you ever noticed that those "dopey dads" can be overweight and not what society might consider attractive? There wives, of course, are always thin and gorgeous.

Ben Friedman said...

I dont understand what you mean when you say that "too much of this (flaunting) is detrimental to our society. We start losing appreciation for the female body."
Why is too much detrimental? And how do we start losing appreciation for the female body? Wouldn't that make us appreciate it MORE?
By letting women (and encouraging them) to flaunt their bodies, isn't that showing them respect. Think of the religions where women must be covered virtually from head to toe in cloth, with only their eyes and nose sticking out. THOSE are the same religions that give women absolutley no respect at all.
You make it sound like men can get away with looking "sexy" without going to the same extremes as women. This is somewhat true, but not totally. The women in glamorous ads are usually wearing a revealing top, whereas the men in these types of ads are usually wearing NOTHING on their chest.
You're right regarding teen movies. How often so I see one without sex or sexual innuendo in it? Almost never. But what's wrong with that? I'm pretty much the classic 17 year old boy in that the top three things I look for in a movie are: sports victories, battle scenes, and sexual material. I'm not going to lie and say I want to see morals. Since most "teen" movies don't have sports victories or big battles, the sexual material is enough to keep the 17 year old boys watching and the gossip is enough to keep the 17 year old girls watching, thus creating the largest audience possible. Isn't that the whole goal of the TV networks anyway? And isn't the blantant sex just freedom of speech, an idea which our whole country is based around?

L Lazarow said...

Hey, it's Erin. I have to agree with Deirdre again (and it's not because I am afraid not too). I think that it's wrong (and yes, maybe that's an opinion but what can I say; either way it's an opinion) to that "sex is constantly thrown in the face of children and teenagers". Children are in a very formable stage of thought and who would they look up to? - their favorite star. And they think that they are supposed to be like that, and copy them, and they might not even understand completely what's going on. All they know is that they need to be pretty, thin, wear makeup, and certain kinds of clothing. But that's only one viewpoint they get to see? In "Merchants of Cool" that one girl who was 13 and looked 17 (I think that's wrong too, making kids prematurely teen or adult - most can't handle it yet) said that she always had to look good. And that's true. I think there's that kind of an expectation thrust on girls constantly, which is probably why there are girls with bulemia (spelling?) and anorexia and have a terrible self-image and do worse things because of that. Sometimes the way children and teens are pressured can destroy them. It's the same as the kid who feels they must cheat because they HAVE to get the grades.

However, I also agree with Ben's point that guys are degraded as well. But like I said before, unhappy about it? Then DON'T give those people your time or money.

stephanie said...

First of all, I have to agree with Deirdre when she speaks of all the women celebrities that seem to think sex is a good role model. Do we want our children (when they come into existence) and their children having sex without a clue what they’re doing at the age of sixteen? Fifteen? TWELVE?!?!?! (Yes, to you skeptical people out there, it does happen.)
However, Ben, I agree with you that women should wear whatever they want.
The overall picture here is that women on TV and in certain types of music have no pride in their femininity, and will just about throw themselves at any member of the opposite sex. It doesn’t matter if a said woman wears a miniskirt or reveals her midriff (as long as she’s not in Moorestown High School); if she doesn’t sleep with every guy she walks into, then her dignity is preserved. Thus, she did not dress sexually to amuse the men, but for her own personal enjoyment.
Lastly, I would like to say that men are sexually exposed to an extent; it’s true, but not as much as women in the least. When is the last time a guy had to wear a thong to impress a girl on a reality show? Now, this may be an extreme example, but men are brought down in a different way. Most guys are portrayed as clueless animals that thrive on physical humor as well as physical confrontation. This might be true for some men, but not all, and I do think that it is unfair for those men that do have dignity and do have pride in positive influences (which I believe are most mature guys) to sit and watch what the media thinks is society (of course, nobody has to watch anything, but the media is virtually everywhere anyway).
Actually, as an afterthought, Ben, just because many teen guys AND GIRLS at 17 want to see sex in everything doesn’t mean that is what they should get. Yes, we have freedom of speech, but what do you say when every other preteen in America has an STD or AIDS? Without boundaries, our society as we know it would be more of anarchy, actually.

Deirdre said...

I recently picked up a copy of In Style magazine because my beloved Gwen Stefani was on the cover. After I read the article on Gwen I started to peruse the rest of the magazine. Towards then end of the magazine I came across an article titled "What's Sexy Now?" The article featured about ten celebrities discussing what they think is "sexy."

There were photographs of the celebrities to accompany the their stories. Rachel Bilson was in bed wearing lingerie. Fergie was brandishing her garter belt in front of a crowd of men. Isla Fisher was in a bubble bath. Rebecca Romijn was crawling around on the floor in lingerie and stiletto boots, holding a jeweled whip. Heidi Klum was only wearing socks. Sarah Michelle Gellar was sunbathing topless.

As for the men...Sure, Eric Dane was shirtless, but he got to keep his jeans on. Taylor Kitsch was wearing pajama bottoms and a t-shirt. Denis Leary was shirtless, but he had on the bottom half of a hockey uniform. Aarom Eckhart was wearing a collared shirt (fully buttoned) and boxers.

Ben Stiller posed with his wife. He was wearing a suit (with a few buttons undone). His wife was bent over a table in a short, backless, lowcut dress. I definitely think women get the fuzzy end of the lollipop in this situation.

What I meant when I said that showing too much of the female body would make us lose appreciation for it is that we would sort of become numb it to it. We would expect it too much. (I'm not saying we would all become asexual.) The human body is beautiful, and we need to learn to respect it.

Has anybody ever wondered why the ads in fashion magazines (mostly directed towards women) often show revealing pictures of women? I can't figure out why.

As for the whole "exposing children to sex too early" issue... I work in the children's section of the library. One day I was sheliving books, and I decided to read the flap of one. It was in the section designated for 6-9 graders. The book was about a girl going into eighth grade, and all of the new things she had to go through. One of her dilemmas was deciding whether or not to have sex with a boy she like. Honestly, an eighth grade girl? Children younger than that will read that book, and perhaps ponder about having sex themselves, but they are probably not emotionally ready for sex or well informed about it. What's even more horrifying is that my coworkers and I have caught young boys looking at pornography on the library's computers. You may say this is just young curiosity, and I suppose it is, but to be so desperate as to do it in a public place?

Oh, and Ben, that whole "there's a lot of people in my grade who I NEVER see exercising" deal is such a low blow. What do you expect? You don't know them. You don't live with them.

Ian B said...

Wow...this post is controversial. But I wanted to write in response to Deirdre's question of why women's magazines show women barely dressed as opposed to men. I actually wondered this myself the other day. If you go onto any clothing website (American Eagle, Abercrombie and Fitch) and click on the men's clothes you often see pictures of men wearing boxers (and the like). And I'm sure it's the same for the women's clothing...not that I'm going to check that. But why? Why would they try to appeal to potential customers using sexually-charged pictures of people of the same sex? Part of it, at least for Abercrombie, has to be for the shock content. I'm sure all of you have heard of the "Abercrombie Quarterly," a discontinued magazine sent out by Abercrombie which advertised for their clothes by showing people in the nude...which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I understand why people are offended by such marketing, but as we all know, sex sells VERY well in America. But there is a difference between raunchy and sexy. I went to Paris a couple of years ago, and nudity is not taken very seriously in Europe. Like the statue of 'David,' it's seen as art. In America, most of this advertising is the opposite- not that the body is something 'beautiful' but as something risqué.

Deirdre said...

Crack sells too, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Ben Friedman said...

O.K...first of all the whole "crack sells too" thing is totally irrelevant. When's the last time you bought some over the counter crack with your advil at CVS?...but that is beside the point. I also don't need to "live" with people and watch them constantly to know they're not exercising or at least eating right. I don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to pick up the signs of obesity. When people take up two lunch table seats...thats how I know! Dr. Watson we have a problem!
This is also beside the point...back to the important stuff.
You guys don't seem to understand what goes on in the advertisers' heads...it's not that they don't KNOW they're "corrupting" our youth with sexual ideas, it's that they don't CARE. And in all honesty, why should they? The point is to MAKE MONEY. What don't you understand about that? The point isn't that it's BAD that sex sells, the point is that sex DOES sell. Morals, if they are going to be forcefully imposed on us (which I don't think they should be), should at least be imposed by parents and teachers. It should not be the media's job to make sure you live a clean life. It's not the celebrity's job to cool off America's sexual thermometer? How do you think they got to be celebrities in the first place? By wearing turtlenecks and sporting "Save the trees" posters??
What are you suggesting celebrities do? What are you suggesting the media should do? Trade ratings for morals? Go out of business to teach a lesson? Britney will you please COVER UP?
Dierdre and Ian, I think you're underestimating the ages you're talking about. No, I don't think 8th graders should be having sex obviously...but I DO think that they are at an age where they can make that intelligent decision NOT to have sex. I think that many other things are way more important than media in influencing these teens (and even preteens) sexually. I've seen a lot of commericals with hot girls in my time. I'll admit they give me small surges of sexual desire..but these surges never last any more than ten seconds long or so. I don't get launched into the sex-crazed mindset you are describing just because of the repititivenss of these commericals. Any impulses I do feel come from the fact that my brain is functioning like a normal 17 year old boy's brain, not from the evil media.
So Ian, what IS the difference between raunchy (negative connotation) and risque? Is David not raunchy because he isn't a photograph in a teen magainze? Or is he not raunchy because a lot of art historians SAY he's not?
I'm not promoting teen sex. I'm promoting teen individuality. This isn't the 1600's anymore. It's OK to step out of your horse and buggy in a bikini now, even if you're twelve. I still don't understand how covering up the human body shows respect. No we're not going to become "numb to it" or whatever Dierdre said. What's the thought process? This body is SO sacred that it must not be seen!? This is such a good book that you really shouldn't read the whole thing, and if you read it more than once it's going to be worse and worse each time.
I'm bothered by the sterotype that men don't respect women (and how this is proven by the way women "feel" they need to dress.) Get off each other's backs about what you wear! Deirdre, you can make your own personal desicisions about how "provacatively" you choose to dress, but trying to decide what's "right for everyone else" is crossing the line. Let them choose. It's not your job to be the mother of every twelve year old kid in Moorestown. It's not their Mom's job to be their Mom. It's THEIR's, and theirs only. Let them choose their morals without force feeding them your own morals from the spoon of "right." Aren't you trying to sell these kids (and me) your own personal morals just as strongly as the marketers you loathe?
How many men do you see complaining that Brad Pitt in Troy is making our gender look bad? How many of us are bashing the makers of Family Guy for suggesting that men can't do simple math functions?
How many of us are complaining about the Pete Wentz nude phots that appeared online? This is how it should be.
In short...my view is.. Let the media advertise as much as they want to try and make money. Let the kids be influenced to a small extent sexually by the ads, but TRSUT that they make the right ultimite decisions. Let people be free and choose their own morals.
Your opinion SEEMS to be...regulate the creative media to ridiculous extents to make sure the media is eliminated as a moral competitor of yours...then shove your own puritan morals down their throats as deep as you can. When you hear the choking noise you'll know you've suceeded!

Arka M. said...

I'm sort of in the middle ground here. While I agree with Deirdre that some of the pursuits of society are morally wrong, I also agree with Ben that advertisers don't care - and that they are only doing their job to sell their product. Does that make them evil people for selling that product? Of course not. Also, while it is all nice to say that selling sex, etc. is deplorable, who's doing anything about it - I don't see very many tv channels/ other media sources proclaiming "Don't sell sex" and the like. The media sells sex because sex sells. It's capitalism. This sort of brings up something Dr. Bjornstad said in his 5/6 class the other day. He asked us why capitalism is good and then continued on to say, "Oh capitalism is so great - with porn and sex and everything else ... " or something of the like. The point is that we live in a capitalistic society that comes with the good and the bad. The system allows individuals to prosper and a more prosperous society as a whole, but it comes with sex, porn, and the rest. While government can regulate business practices, it is limited. If tommorow the gov. started outlawing sexually suggestive adds, etc. we would be labeled as an theocracy, something that we call many islamic nations as an insult.
The question that arises with the midriff is not so much "Should the midriff be sold?" because it is sold well, but rather, "Why does the midriff sell?" Personally, I feel that it is because people wish to live vicariously through others. Why do they wish to live vicariously? I'm not sure.
If someone like Deirdre has a problem with selling the midriff, by all means start an organization that works against this sale. In all probability, you would garner much support. However, when you criticize the marketer for using capitalistic techniques while at the same time enjoying a capitalistic system, that speaks of hypocrisy.
As a side note, its not that anti-midriff movements do not already exist - its called the religious right. The issue with them is that they have tried to impose social and religious views in a political and economical system, not working out so well.
In all, I agree that the sexualization (is that a word) of Western and especially modern culture to an extent is deplorable as Deirdre says - but simply criticizing the system you live in is hypocrisy. Do something about it and then it is right.

PS. The 13 comments above contain a massive amount of generalization. While there are many, one that struck me was that being an interact memebers makes you intelligent and caring. While it is very much true for most of the club (of which I am part of and have no interest in insulting), but as in any club, there are always those who simply do it to get into college, etc.

PPS. A potential solution to all these problems and more is to get mommy and daddy more involved and responsible. Its hardly a surprise that kids become midriffized and drug-ified, etc. if mommy and daddy swear and let them watch and listen to explcit lyrics and movies when their only 10 or so and continually give them guilt money (to buy clothes, etc. and sometimes used to buy drugs) for not being a part of their lives.

Arka M. said...

PPPS: The comments especially those of Ben and Deirdre are full of snarl/purr words - showing that they have formed solid judgements. While reading the back and forth battling of the comments is entertaining, no meaningful conclusion is really being extracted, so loosen up on the judgements.

Ian B said...

Arka, I agree with the points you're making. As to the reference to the Interact thing...well, I don't like to make a statement without an example, and that was the first thing that popped into my head. But I completely agree that it's up to the parents to monitor who their children are socializing with, what they're watching on TV, how they choose to dress themselves, and when they choose to dress themselves that way (for example, if a 4 year wanted to purchase Mrs. Brown-prohibited clothing).

Many of the problems in America and around the world stem from bad parenting. I'm not saying that the majority of American parents are 'bad,' but the minority that only knows how to be their child's BFF is truly making a negative impact in this country. This is another example of the feedback loop, where a child may see someone older on TV dressing in revealing clothing and want to be just like that. And some parents these days don't know how to say 'No' to them. What will these children be like in the future? Will they even want to be parents? If they are parents, how will they treat their children?

L Lazarow said...

Christine G

Ian i agree with you on your last post, that it all comes back to the feedback loop. As I was reading through the many comments, a common theme was the issue of girls wearing provocative clothing. While some think it's degrading others find it an expression of individuality. I agree that people deserve every right to wear whatever they choose to, however I also believe that girls (especially young ones) wearing provocative clothing is not something to be ignored.

It's impossible to escape the ads of women and men half naked selling clothing, perfumes, cars etc; they're ubiquitous. This type of "sex sells" advertising isn't always targeted to the opposite sex, and thats where I think part of the problem is. Companies like Abercrombie and American Eagle are no longer selling just clothing, but they're selling a lifestyle. Girls walking into an Abercrombie store will see pictures of skinny young women flaunting there "perfect" and "flawless" bodies with skimpy clothing (if any). And so these girls will then buy there clothing so that they too can look beautiful. Cool hunters than notice there style and sell it right back to them, the feedback loop in all its glory.

The problem then occurs when young women and girls wearing this revealing style successfully obtain the attemtion of the opposite sex. In turn they receive the derogatory names that Deidre listed in her initial post.

I agree with both Deidre and Ben, who say that women (and men for that matter) should respect and take care of their bodies. They should do this to feel proud of themselves, not to gain attention from the opposite sex, climb up the social ladder, or even because marketers tell them to.
(I apologize for any mispellings, as I am sure there are plenty.)

Deirdre said...

Stop referring to us as "Puritans" you don't know us and you can't even begin to learn about us from posts on a blog. You don't know my moral views.

If you want your pornography go ahead and have it in one of those shady stores off the turnpike, but don't flaunt it in front of children. That's it. I don't care what your views are on sex. It's none of my business. I didn't ask to know.

You're trying to make me sound so one-sided.

Why would I try to "regulate the media" when most of my favorite things in life are music, art, movies, and literature? That IS the media. All I said is that it can be too vulgar and demeaning to women.

How can you even begin to understand how the media makes women feel when you are not a woman? I never claimed to understand what it's like to be a man.

I'm not shoving my morals down anyone's throat. These are jsut my OPINIONS. Yes, opinions. There is no right or wrong answer to this. You're voicing your opinions and I'm voicing mine.

I'm not trying to change any one's opinion's, I'm just telling you mine. Feel free to disagree, but at least be polite about it.

Ian B said...

The point I was trying to make (a few posts ago) was there was a difference between something being artistically beautiful and risqué. They are completely different things. The statue of David is considered by many to be aesthetically pleasing because it glorifies the human body...seeing how it's almost 20 feet tall. Dr. Bjornstad was explaining to us the importance of not only this specific statue but nudity in general throughout history, especially in the Renaissance. Humanists (in the Renaissance) believed that human ingenuity was endless, and they wanted to express their values in art.

Today, not much of an effort is made to distinguish between beauty and sexiness because people don't think there is a difference. For some reason, it seems that beauty and sex-appeal are the same things nowadays. They are unique and independent ideas; if you were to walk into the Philadelphia Art Museum, you would hardly consider the people in Renoir paintings to be 'hot' but you could appreciate them for being art by themselves.

Ian B said...

By the way, I don't feel like we're making any progress on this topic anymore. With new people posting there have been important opinions shared, but with repeated posters (...like me) I feel like we're arguing for no reason. But if you guys want to continue...

Donna said...

I feel as though this topic has become EXTREMELY personal and it’s unfortunate that that occurred because I believe it is a stimulating topic. An interesting thing is that Ben passed a judgment on those who don’t work out and exercise, but who ever said they had to? Ben you passed some type of judgment on what you think is ‘right and healthy’ just as Deidre passed a judgment that the scantily clad models are ‘negatively affecting our youth’.

So what would happen if the models weren’t pretty? What if they were fat? Would it be ok for them to flaunt what they’ve got, or would it be wrong because they don’t exercise and eat healthy?

I find that I’m torn between both sides, because I really feel that you can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. But at the same time…when I think about how I react to some situations I realize that I have acted because of what our ‘culture’ defines as attractive, and sometimes girls are dead wrong. I mean, everyone knows those girls that go after a certain boy and they hike up their skirt, pull down their shirt a little more, and flip their hair whenever he’s around. What does that mean? Is that ok? What if the girl is ‘fat’ or ‘unattractive’? I guess I kind of agree that there is a double standard set on women.

I mean, if Ben wants to give everyone the freedom to show as much skin as they want, is he ok if fat people do it too?

L Lazarow said...

Hey, it's Erin again. Sorry to "beat a dead horse" but...

I agree with what Donna said, it's not just the people with those "perfect" bodies who, in some opinions, should cover up.
I agree with Ben that yes, people can and will wear what they want to. But what about first impressions? You take in someone's appearance and you make a judgment on that, favorable or unfavorable. And those girls who are "scantily clad", as Deirdre said, are sending out a certain message. I think that the whole point that Deirdre made was that women are allowing themselves to be degraded into "sexual objects". And what's an object? Not human. I think that that is the problem. Because once someone isn't quite human, what's rape and murder and abuse when it happens to them? Because they are no longer valued as a person. Now I may be going to extremes but this reminds me of Dr. Bjornstad in history, when he told us that Hitler and Stalin were just trying to create utopia. And doesn't utopia sound so good? But one extrme true-life application had horrifying results.

Ben Friedman said...

I agree with Arka's point that "simply criticizing the system you live in is hypocrisy." If the culture we promote today is so unpleasing, then why don't you do something about it? This also makes me wonder why there's not a bigger anti-provacative movement? Is there one that doesn't get a lot of press? Or do people just not CARE? Who knows...I can think up tons of anti-just-about-everything movements of the top of my head...against smoking, against drunk driving, against drugs, against violence, but no incredibly famous ones I can think of are anti-midriff.
As much as I love the thrill of personal arguments (and beleive me I do), and as much as I enjoy the controversal spotlight, I am getting bored of doing it in this clean environment. Therefore, if we want this blog to go anywhere we should think about what we were discussing this morning (defining terms). This really has become another argument over definitions. Socrates always started debates by defining all the terms to be used. I can't really remember anything else Socrates did except for the fact that he was smart as hell, so I assume he knows what he's talking about. (I genrally don't like to make assumptions...it makes an ass out of You and Mumptions.)

So.....

What is the definition of "degrading to women"?

What is risque versus raunchy?

Nudity is obviously fine if it's in art...but what is art? Does it have to be done by an artist? Does it have to be a painting or sculpture? Is it art if it's ancient? Is is art if its offensive to many people? Is it art of it's offensive to just som people? What IS art?

What is sexy? Is sexy synonomous with revealing?

Just to get us started....

And also to clear things up...Dierdre, I don't hate you, I just totally disagree with your opinions.