^Actually I don't believe either one is a choice I was not explaining my thoughts very well. Even if things in your environment influence you subconsciously in one direction or another do you really have a choice? Once your personality is set its set and its hard to determine what event or events set your ideas on the subject. You can try and guide your children in one direction or another but they will develop their own self regardless. It's almost kind of frugal to even try. A preachers children can and will sometimes be wild, a hardened criminal may have kids who are as straight laced as they can be. I just don't know if its a brats doll that might shape a young girls mind or society itself. What influenced the Romans to be the way they were? I really think its a mixture of both biological and experience but how could you pinpoint one or the other that was more influential on yourself. While I agree I can't stand the way women are treated in society I can't say its television or commercialization or even mens influence to blame as much as it just could be part of the genetic code thats been passed to a majority of society, and what we see as objectification is a result of that code influencing society.

Anyway Im horrible at trying to explain my thoughts so maybe thats better unfortunately I was not born with great communication skills.

>> ^Gallowflak:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Asmo" title="member since July 17th, 2008" class="profilelink">Asmo
I do apologize. I don't think I've ever gotten under someone's skin as quickly as that with as little contribution from me. Still, this is the internet. I'm not going to comment on your criticisms of my character because it's not my place to do so, nor would it serve any real purpose, but I can at least respond to your actual argument.
On to it...
First up!
"You give the whole game away when you use the term 'prostituting'. Oh, you can respect her okay just as long as everyone knows that she's a whore... Very tolerant of you. /eyeroll"
Wikipedia : "Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. People who execute such activities are called prostitutes."
The rigid and accurate definition of a prostitute is someone who engages in sexual intercourse for money. Maybe I'll have to concede that one to you... What should I call it? Page 3 girl? Pin-up?
Second!
Any mention of "utopia" was purely rhetorical. Come on - you don't need me to elaborate on that. I do happen to have heard of the suffragettes and have been a lifelong feminist. I'm not opposing sexual expression. I'm not opposing nudity. I'm not opposing female sexual liberty. I'm certainly not opposing art depicting nudity and it's completely insane of you to even suggest any of these things. I oppose the sexual objectification, commercialization and sale of women, and I believe it is destructive and reflective of an inherent weakness of the human species.
I bear the burden of expressing myself accurately, but you seem to have taken misinterpretation to an expert level.


You'll have to give the 'fastest under the skin' award to MG, he got you retching didn't he? X D

1. You didn't actually contradict the "as long as everyone knows that she's a whore" bit... As I said in my first post, "leaving morality judgements aside". You just haven't managed to do that and continue to try and impress your version of morality on her choice of job. Side note, I bet with that video she's probably garnered more world wide attention than your compositions have. Must sting a little to see someone get so much attention for something as simple as getting their kit off and having a large rack. =)

Side note, an old dear friend of mine does pole dancing and burlesque as a hobby. Genuinely loves it, bit of an exhibitionist. I suppose she's a whore as well?

2. As a lifelong feminist, you should recognise and respect that women have the right to choose to portray themselves sexually or even sell their bodies if they so wish. While you might disagree with the decision, would not do so yourself (assuming your an actual woman rather than one of those poser male feminists), or even lament the fact that sexual appetites have created a demand for such things, who are you to cast stones at her choice? You presume that you have some sort of moral high ground to stare down your nose at her. You do not.

Did you forget or did you not know about male models?

Stop bitching about one if you're not going to bitch about the other.

EDIT: it appears that HTML is not working properly right now. Just google "male abercrombie" and search for images.

>> ^Gallowflak:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Asmo" title="member since July 17th, 2008" class="profilelink">Asmo
I oppose the sexual objectification, commercialization and sale of women, and I believe it is destructive and reflective of an inherent weakness of the human species.

@Asmo

I do apologize. I don't think I've ever gotten under someone's skin as quickly as that with as little contribution from me. Still, this is the internet. I'm not going to comment on your criticisms of my character because it's not my place to do so, nor would it serve any real purpose, but I can at least respond to your actual argument.

On to it...

First up!

"You give the whole game away when you use the term 'prostituting'. Oh, you can respect her okay just as long as everyone knows that she's a whore... Very tolerant of you. /eyeroll"

Wikipedia : "Prostitution is the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. People who execute such activities are called prostitutes."

The rigid and accurate definition of a prostitute is someone who engages in sexual intercourse for money. Maybe I'll have to concede that one to you... What should I call it? Page 3 girl? Pin-up?

Second!

Any mention of "utopia" was purely rhetorical. Come on - you don't need me to elaborate on that. I do happen to have heard of the suffragettes and have been a lifelong feminist. I'm not opposing sexual expression. I'm not opposing nudity. I'm not opposing female sexual liberty. I'm certainly not opposing art depicting nudity and it's completely insane of you to even suggest any of these things. I oppose the sexual objectification, commercialization and sale of women, and I believe it is destructive and reflective of an inherent weakness of the human species.

I bear the burden of expressing myself accurately, but you seem to have taken misinterpretation to an expert level.

Gunrock, what you still fail to understand or acknowledge is..

HER JOB is to be EXCLUSIVE WANK MATERIAL in order TO ATTRACT MORE EYES to the gossip in the SUN tabloid.

She's not offering her general knowledge of a particular subject.
She's not offering technical skills in a particular discipline.
She's offering her tits and hips for display in exchange for money.

She's paid to objectify herself. Meanwhile, most of us are taught that objectifying other humans is immoral.

So it doesn't matter if she's a rocket scientist that dicovered a cure for cancer, aids, alcohol & nicotine addiction, world hungry, global warming AND the lost city of Atlantis..

..if her job & what everyone knows her for.. is givin' handies behind the local bowling alley.


[Edit: I'm not equating prostitution with modeling. But it's objectification all the same.]


>> ^MarineGunrock:

"... just recently finished college where she achieved four A levels and an AS in psychology, theater studies, media studies, critical thinking, and general studies. "
Obviously she's not stupid and has more to offer than just her goodies. Maybe she actually enjoys what she does?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^shuac:
Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Ugh, do you really need this explained?
What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?
The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.
I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.
Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.
All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.
The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.
Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.
Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.


Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)

>> ^shuac:

Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.


Ugh, do you really need this explained?

What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?

The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.

I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.

Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.

All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.

The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.

Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.

Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.

Why not get angry about the comments about Tamara Beraia's performance?
http://videosift.com/video/Stacatto-Interpretation-Prokofiev-s-Tocatta-very-hard

I prefer her performance to Huangci's, but I knew it would be hard for people to see past her goofy body language. Somebody there has already made fun of her appearance -- with a little poking, I'm sure you could start a real argument.

If you're searching for things to get righteously feminist about, I think you'll find classical music to be a treasure trove of chauvinism.

There's the embarassing objectification of all female instrumentalists on their album covers: http://sdf.org/l/5ee

There's the fact that until the innovation of blind auditions, women had a hard time getting positions in orchestras: http://sdf.org/l/5ef
(I apologize for Prof. Rouse's being a woman. I don't have time to find an equivalent article by a male to satisfy your demand that women's work not be showcased.)

I apologize for being a pre-70s feminist. I naïvely believe a good way to advance the cause of women is to show them as the equals and superiors of men in as many traditionally masculine fields as possible. I'm sure your method of whining about vocabulary and jumping at opportunities to distort the intentions of others will advance the rights of woman much further.

Please do start a "mascule" channel so that you can mock men by posting videos of them playing piano.

That'll show us.


>> ^fjules:

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
quality the hell out of this video.
This should definitely be put in the femme channel BECAUSE the pianist is a woman. That is quite an accomplishment and that's exactly what that channel is there for.

LOL! So explain to me why isn't there a "male" channel so we can put every video that has males in it in that category? Nice double standards.

A little note to women who don't want to be objectified: Don't put your boobs on display.

Fortunately for this young woman, a little objectification can help a music career.

Unfortunately, we are not going to resolve the "what is porn?" issue. This article at findlaw ought to be enough to convince even the most perseverant among us that to come to a conclusion about what is or isn't porn is an exercise in extreme futility. While it might be wonderful to think that everyone in the world ought to adopt a laissez les bon temps rouler attitude, that is simply not going to happen.

The argument of advertisers aside, there are other governing factors in this discussion. First, as Dag mentioned, exploitation. It doesn't take very much googling to find out that the drug abuse and suicide rates among porn workers are staggering. There are people literally selling their souls to be involved in this industry. By buying the product and/or propagating it through our various media, we turn a blind eye to the destruction of real people. If the objectification of women in our society is a problem (and many here on the Sift appear to think it is), then porn amplifies that problem to manifold degrees. And Dag has it right, we don't know who is being exploited and who isn't. Why even give the illusion that we support that kind of degradation?

Second,is the impact of porn upon some of the members of this site. Statistically speaking the probability is certain that there are some of our members who struggle with addiction to pornography to one degree or another. Like alcoholism, there are certain people who cannot have just one. It ought to be patently obvious that this is an area in which we have an opportunity to take care of one another rather than to invite each other into further ruin. You don't have to go much farther than the end of your block to find a family that has been negatively impacted or even torn apart by porn.

Allow me to put it this way: If a friend comes to my house and I know he's an alcoholic, I don't serve him booze and I don't break it out in front of him. Why would I hurt someone like that? While I realize that it is ultimately his responsibility whether he drinks or not, I also realize that there are those who have lost the choice to drink and to set a drink in front of them might very well be their demise. So, I give up my rights to alcohol to help the person who needs it. Same with porn. While I might have a right to post it, I also have a right to not post it. What helps more people out?

For those two reasons, among others, I have enjoyed being a part of Videosift and, with a clear conscious, recommending this site to others.

With that mindset masturbation is objectification, which it is not. The biological component to any human is undeniable, and more succinctly, unrelenting. A day dream about a purely sexual encounter is not objectification, this is just an interactive version of that notion. You are confusing the temporary indulging of a fantasy with a portrayal of actual views. A man having or indulging in a sexual fantasy about a purely carnal satisfaction with a simulated women is harmless...truly.

She doesn't represent any real women...just look at her and look at the ridicules situation she is placed in. She is the embodiment of casual sexual nature of lust. You are also mistaking interacting with something as glorifying it. The issue of lust and fantasy is a mental state, not a rational outcome of choice. The dude who goes out for a night on the town just to get laid not caring about the women is participating in objectifying a women, because she is real. A person wanking it to girlfriend simulator 4000 is only indulging his male lust, he hurts no one. The former event requires you to not care about a flesh and blood women at all, the later only requires you to be aroused by an simulation of woman...its actually BETTER than real porn in the moralist sense (no REAL people were exposed to any degradation).

You have to separate fantasy from reality and also not make the mistake of over reaching with the implications of someone wanting to see a girl naked, that is just biology, not a rational choice of objectification. There has to be a victim of objectification, where is the victim? Unless your saying male lust IS objectification of ALL women ALWAYS, I can't see where you are going with this.

The argument isn't that "Little Miss Pixels" here is being objectified, but rather that it's an example of the broader objectification of women.

The demo itself suggests an attitude that women are little more than playthings to be ogled and fondled, which is objectification.

The rest of your argument is a straw man based on your own suggestion that we must accept Jigglyjugs here as "real" because we must have a specific individual in mind to objectify, which is not the case. She plainly represents the image of a woman as a plaything.

GTA4 does glorify violence (and is a delightful escapist romp for it), and this demo does embody the objectification of women. Neither need be perceived as "real" for that to be true.

To put it another way - your own argument states that this simulation is "an object".
It is an object...in the form of a woman. That's the ultimate form of objectification - they've created a "woman" who is an object.

If this is objectification, then I don't even what to know what other games like GTA4 are in your mind. It isn't real, they are pixels. There are no real people like this simulated thing, just as Vice city isn't a real place and you didn't really kill those school children. Game over man, game over.

Simulations can not, by their very nature, be objectified because they are themselves actual objects, not complex figures of which we are denying their autonomy (because they don't have any!), or denying their subjectivity (as they don't have a subjective mind!). While we may comment on the type of person that plays this game, the game itself is not objectification, there are simply no real figures to objectify.

In short Fantasizing != Objectifying. If so, then people who play GTA4 are fucking murdering lunatics and people who play Black and White are blasphemous. You tread a slippy slope because you find the content objectionable to your tastes, but your inability to separate out fantastic from reality smacks of Jack Thompson.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^longde:
That is objectification of women, whether or not you agree with it.
There are no superhero plumbers in the real world, unlike women.

This isn't a real woman, nor is she in a real world. It's a fantasy land of make believe...doesn't objectification have to be of a real object?


No "to present as an object, esp. of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.".

It doesn't matter if it's a real woman or not, this is a representation of a woman being presented as nothing but a plaything, and object to be looked at and prodded. This IS objectifying women. It's showing a woman not as a person but as an object... don't try and pretend that it's all fun and games, because really, it's kinda sick.

I personally have no issue with 'sex games' as long as the game doesn't make sex at all costs with no concern for the female character the aim. If it is presented as consensual and the woman is enjoying things too, then that's ok. It's these objectifying and rape type games that freak me out and scare me.

Really, how downtrodden, emasculated and powerless do Japanese men feel such that they need these outlets?

Japanese culture is often heralded as some shining beacon of perfectness, but underneath the sheen of 'respect' and order there seems to be an awfully sick and prevalent underbelly of a real need for power over women.

>> ^longde:
That is objectification of women, whether or not you agree with it.
There are no superhero plumbers in the real world, unlike women.


This isn't a real woman, nor is she in a real world. It's a fantasy land of make believe...doesn't objectification have to be of a real object?