Is this sexist?

[underpants]

Poll question: Is this sexist?

These photographs were selected as they are illustrative of the entire collection available at http://news.yahoo.com/photos




Miss Venezuela Aleskha Matas performs during the 2005 Miss Playboy TV Latin America and Iberia contest in Mexico City November 3, 2005. Picture taken on November 3, 2005. REUTERS/Daniel Aguilar


Miss Paraguay Dallys Ferreyra



Miss Chile Cristina Garcia

[Fenris]

1. That picture of Miss Paraguay makes me feel funny.

[HEyHEY]

4. Like when we used to climb the ropes in gym class?

[Deep13]

2. Sexism is when one gender, usually men, treats the other as inferior.

Women are obviously not things and are not merely sex objects. Nevertheless, being whole people, sex object is naturally part of that whole. I like to think that is true of everyone. There is nothing immoral or degrading about sex or about reminding people of it.

[Dangerously Amused]

63. Another view:

<There is nothing immoral or degrading about sex or about reminding people of it.

I disagree with the broadness of your statement. Sex can be immoral or degrading when used as a physical or psychological weapon by either gender against either gender. This may be true even in arguably "consensual" encounters, depending on the circumstances. That is why sex crimes exist. And that is why in a sex crimes case, when the evidence irrefutably links the defendant to an alleged act of illegal sex with a particular victim (through DNA, for example) the defense is almost always that the sex was consensual. This defense has a chance of winning, because whether or not an act of sex was "consensual" is subject to interpretation. And, in a situation where hormones are raging and perceptions may be altered for example by alcohol, there are sometimes honest miscues between participants with honorable intentions.

I respect your position though, it suggests to me that you have a healthy attitude toward sexuality and personally have not yet encountered the use of sex as a weapon. That is hopeful, and you have been blessed. At the same time that my heart rejoices for you, and I hope you keep a healthy attitude toward sex, my heart goes out to those who have not been so fortunate. And there are many.

[Deep13]

65. Um, wow.

Sex crimes are essentially crimes of violence. I don't see how we can possibly equate parading around in ones underwear with rape. Is this kind of show superficial? You bet. Does it emphasize the physical over other personal qualities? Hard to argue otherwise. Why am I answering my own questions like Donald Rumsfeld? No idea. Is physicality qualitatively inferior to other personal consideration? No, it is not. We are physical creatures. Our consciousness is made by our brains. I know because I was knocked out once and there was no residual consciousness. The idea that the spiritual is superior to the physical was postulated by Plato and based on pretty much nothing. St. Paul and Descarte lifted the idea from Plato and ran with it. The idea assumes there is a dichotomy between spiritual and physical when in fact none exists.

In this state, the statutes do not focus on consent or lack thereof, but what the objective circumstances are: age differences if one party was a minor, if force or threats were used, the nature of the conduct, if there were judgment-inhibiting chemicals used etc. As screwed up as Ohio is, its criminal code is actually very fair. I prosecute major felonies in the Ohio court of appeals including sex offenses and sex offenses against children. Rape hurts people. All child molesters used to be victims of child molestation, so that keeps on hurting people long after the fact.

Thanks for your kind words, but in point of fact I am not blessed with ideas. I was raised to have as fucked-up a perspective about sexuality as everyone else. I simply decided that it was irrational and put it aside.

[Dangerously Amused]

70. A rape connection?

<Sex crimes are essentially crimes of violence. I don't see how we can possibly equate parading around in ones underwear with rape.

I brought in the "rape" analogy as a way to illustrate my disagreement with the other poster's assertion that "There is nothing immoral or degrading about sex or about reminding people of it.", which I think is too broad. I think it is too broad because standing alone, it would encompass non-consensual acts of sexual contact such as rape. While I think most people would agree that non-consensual sexual acts are immoral, regardless of the morality issue, the acts venture beyond the morality aspect to the point of being illegal.

However, I will say that I do believe there is an indirect connection between "parading around in one's underwear" (such as this beauty pageant) with rape. I say that because I think anything that tends to objectify women - in a public venue - adds to the perception that the objectification of women in general, by the public at large, is acceptable. And once we start seeing women as merely sexual objects, it is easier for a criminal to justify raping them. As you stated, and I agree, rape is not a crime of passion, but a crime of violent dominance. The rapist does not view his victim as a human being, but rather as representational of that which he despises. Likewise, a beauty pageant - and its contestants - give us "permission" to view women not as human beings, but as individual servings of tits, abs, ass and legs. ...And if that wasn't acceptable, then the women on stage wouldn't be doing it, right? So if women themselves give us permission to view them as sex objects, why shouldn't we? And since they want us to see them as sex objects, then they certainly can't complain when we treat them as sex objects, right?

Okay, I know and I appreciate that you and most of the guys here would not agree with that line of logic. BUT, sadly, in my experience you are not representational of most of the men in this country, just as the beauty contestants are not representational of - and do not speak for - most of the women in this country. I'm not saying that most of the men in this country consciously attempt to treat women as sex objects, but it is clearly a subconscious theme playing throughout their lives, courtesy of the entertainment and media industries.

You may notice that in another post, I said I do not object to porn. And no, I don't think that is being hypocritical. The distinction in my mind is that we as humans are different beings in the bedroom as compared to the boardroom. I think we should all be free to indulge our sexual fantasies in the bedroom (alone or with willing partner(s), of course), and I think that whatever we wish to use in the fulfillment of those fantasies is no one's business but our own (except to the extent that it may be illegal). But of course we understand that our sexual fantasies are not necessarily everyone else's sexual fantasies. In the same respect, I think we should not accept that there is "standard" definition of beauty.


<Thanks for your kind words, but in point of fact I am not blessed with ideas. I was raised to have as fucked-up a perspective about sexuality as everyone else. I simply decided that it was irrational and put it aside.

I respect that you are able to objectively view the evidence and form your own conclusion. However, if you are a lawyer prosecuting major felonies in the Court of Appeals, then you are probably brighter than most. Not everyone has that intellect and consequently the interest and the insight to look deeper into issues, beyond what is served up to them by the corporate media/entertainment industries. And that, I think, is where the problem begins.

[MrScorpio]

3. Not at all

Very classy and SEXY, not sexist

[edbermac]

5. Gawd, that just woke me up!

Schwing!

[tigereye]

6. you mean the strippers?

sorry. ;) I don't like when women are just judged by how nearly naked they are.

at least Miss Chile actually looks like she has some muscles....

[underpants]

13. Miss Chile looks like she could snap you in half

I'll bet she works out.

[XemaSab]

16. Totally

She's buff....

[Deep13]

23. Hmmm, only one way to find out for sure.

:7

[Susang]

22. LOL

If they have to ask, I'm guessing they probably already know the answer. ;-)

[tigereye]

38. uh huh

:hi:

[JVS]

7. Please post more of these pictures to help me decide.

[Mizmoon]

8. Would the "GayBoy" competition get as much press?

Where are the images of men in "fuck me" poses, showing off their "do-ability"?

[Deep13]

24. No. No market for it.

It's not that women are less sexual than men, it just seems they are less willing to fork over cash to see it. Also, men are more visual than women when it comes to sexuality. That does not make posing nude or near-nude sexist.

[NMMNG]

56. It's happening on November 15th in Bangkok

Asian Gay Superstar Contest. At the site there's a link to some photos with guys in various states of undress (though the most nudity I saw was a naked butt). Don't say I didn't warn you though.

[junkiebrewster]

9. What's wrong with being sexy?

Ohhh, SEXIST.

[Deep13]

25. Right, it's different.

We used to call it chauvanism. It's when men treat women as social and intellectual inferiors. Insisting that women not express sexuality or else be "sluts" is part of that. It is a way for men to stay in control.

[GOPisEvil]

10. Miss Chile has nice...

...abs.

:)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. Call it what you will...

but it makes the world go 'round!

[DS1]

12. Miss Venezuala wants me to poke her bum

I'd comply

[Chan790]

14. Yes

I find this sort of display of people as sex objects as opposed to people to be sexist.

When people do it to themselves it's worse IMO; rather than fighting for realistic depictions of women as women, they're exploiting and acquiesing to the objectification.

Why fight to be equal and free from exploitation when you can exploit yourself too...<giggle>:sarcasm:

What do the pictures above say:

They say that Aleskha Matas and Dallys Ferreyra are their asses. the sum total of their worth to humanity is determined by their posteriors. Cristina Garcia is clearly, from the message intoned in the picture, a vacuous object attached to a pair of legs and great abs. Not the fact that she may be brilliant or humanitarian or talented or even just a very nice person. :puke:

Sorry, it takes more than a rear-end and a FM pose to get my attention.

[uppityperson]

15. Agreed. F*-me-pictures don't do it for me.

Am I a nice ass or just a regular one? What makes me special?

[Deep13]

27. You are reading into it what isn't there.

Being sexy and provocative has no bearing on what other qualities a person might have. Frankly, I work and live with women all the time. It is part of being civilized. Hopefully, I am not judging them solely by worth as office-worker-objects. Displays like this are important to satisfy our animal nature. Humans are basically apes that drive cars and wear clothes. We are far more ape than civilized and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect people to disregard 7 million years of evolution just to appease some people's ideological ideas and the demands of corporate America.

[mongo]

33. sexuality is a big part of our existance

why do we have to deny that we are sexual beings in order to acheive equality?

How can being a model - when that is what you want to do with your life, possibly be exploiting?

[Chan790]

35. Modeling is self-exploitation

and exploiting yourself is still exploitation.

[GirlinContempt]

36. So is working in a factory

or being a Doctor
Or, well, using your skills or talents at all, especially for gain.

[Chan790]

39. No

because modeling demeans every woman who has ever fought to be treated as an equal and not an object.

Modeling is, willy-nilly and inescapably, objectification for gain. We don't live in a vacuum of subjectivism, choices have repercussions socially that make them more or less valid. Because modelling is not just self-exploitation but exploitation on the macro-scale of all women, it's simply a less-valid choice.

Being a doctor or a lawyer or a factory worker or even a mechanic is not objectifying, nor in the broader sense is it exploitative as it demeans nobody.

[GirlinContempt]

41. Look up exploitation.

It's all exploitation. Exploitation and objectification don't interact in that way, demeaning has nothing to do with it. Using illegal or dishonest methods in exploitation, THAT is its negative side.

Because modelling is not just self-exploitation but exploitation on the macro-scale of all women, it's simply a less-valid choice. I don't think I'm exploited by women who go out and model. And I find it pretty insulting to be told that I objectify women by enjoying pictures of pretty ones.
If modeling does that much damage to the female cause, we're all standing on some pretty shaky ground and maybe should rebuild our foundations.

[WCGreen]

61. Why should a woman be scorned for using her body

as a means of expression while we glorify Football players for doing the same....

[Dangerously Amused]

64. Because...

Because women still make seventy cents on the dollar to men, for doing the same job equally well.

Because men are still in charge of the corporate economy, and "pretty women" still have more opportunities in life (overall) than plain women, due to their attractiveness, as determined by the men who give or withhold the opportunities.

Because we teach women that it is okay to buy into the system and use her body/beauty as a means to manipulate and get those opportunities, at the expense of those who aren't "pretty enough." Or "white enough." Or "young enough."

"Why should a woman be scorned for using her body"?

It is not the individual woman who should be scorned (or judged), we don't know her circumstances. It is the individuals and the culture leading her to believe that her "beauty" is her most important asset, and should be manipulated, that I scorn.

[GirlinContempt]

66. As for the only possibly provable thing you said:

http://www.womendontask.com/questions.html
http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=402&article_id=7286802&cat_id=1102
There is also no proof that all the women who make less are doing a job equally well.
There are also studies that show that men are discriminated against in the workplace based on physical appearance.
Is it right, or good? No. But is it the fault of models? No. Maybe we need to address how we raise our daughters and start looking INSIDE for things as well as out.

You don't know that these women believe that beauty is their most important asset. And you seem to be doing a whole lot of judging of the 'individual women'.

Some things are biology. They're hard wired. They aren't going to change. And the things that aren't, for the most part, take as much effort on the female side as the male to change.

[Dangerously Amused]

68. ...

<There is also no proof that all the women who make less are doing a job equally well.

Not in the articles you referenced, but in articles I have read. I didn't post a cite to mine. I'll find it if you ask me to, because I take my credibility seriously. I usually cite to asserted facts if I think they might be contested. And I don't think I said that all women who make less than a male counterpart are doing the job equally well.


<There are also studies that show that men are discriminated against in the workplace based on physical appearance.

I'm sure that's true, I know I've read reports stating as much. However, do the reports to which you refer assert that men are discriminated against in that manner (appearance) to the same degree and extent that women are? Because every report I've ever read on that subject demonstrates that the rate of that discrimination is far greater for women than men.


<Is it right, or good? No. But is it the fault of models? No.

Well, there we might disagree. First let me clarify something: I don't have a problem with "models," meaning those who are showing a designer's clothing collection or whatever. Where I take issue is with beauty pagents, where scantily clad women prance around on a stage so that others can "rate" their "beauty," and reward those who have the "best" tits, ass, legs, etc. Then give her a crown and parade her all over the country as "Ms. Whatever," the epitome of true beauty. To which all other women should aspire because, after all, don't they want to be beautiful too?.

So, having cleared up the issue of semantics. Yes, I do think it is, at least in part and indirectly, the fault of beauty pagent contestants that the everyday women of the world find society evaluating them for their physical attractiveness over their accomplishments or potential. I take that position because the message beauty pagent contestants send is that it is acceptable and "normal" for society to judge women based solely upon their sex appeal, and by comparing her to an impossible standard of "beauty."


<Maybe we need to address how we raise our daughters and start looking INSIDE for things as well as out.

That is the point I have been making all along, except I would add "and sons" to the equation.


<You don't know that these women believe that beauty is their most important asset.

You're right, I don't know that about each individual woman. But I do know they have all gone to considerable time and expense to enter a beauty pagent, and I know they all want to win.

<And you seem to be doing a whole lot of judging of the 'individual women'.

I am? Well, thank you for pointing that out, and please show me specifically where I've done this, because I didn't mean to and I will be more careful with my word choice next time.

<Some things are biology. They're hard wired. They aren't going to change.

No argument here.


<And the things that aren't, for the most part, take as much effort on the female side as the male to change.

I agree with you yet again! If women refuse to allow others to judge them based solely on their physical appearance, what choice will society have but to view women as complete human beings?

[mongo]

40. self-exploitation is an oxymoron

ex·ploi·ta·tion n.

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.
3. An advertising or a publicity program.

But I'm sure that being a model is way more exploiting than being a cashier at Walmart.

[Shell Beau]

17. I don't find it to be sexist.

There is nothing wrong with loving your body, showing it off, and having the confidence to do so. We are sexual beings and this certainly plays on that, but I don't see it as sexist. :shrug:

[Dangerously Amused]

18. Well...

Shows and images such as these clearly encourage the prizing of a woman's physical attributes over what are arguably more important considerations such as her intellect and her accomplishments; here the women are considered as sexual objects only, and in that respect yes, these shows and images are sexist.

I also understand and agree with the counter argument, that (many) women support the "supermodel worship culture" by adhering to it themselves, and those who do will sometimes use their physical attributes to manipulate men (or other women, whatever) for material gain, so women are somewhat complicit in the matter.

Final answer? Shallow men and shallow women are a match made in heaven. Their value systems will first attract and reward, then eventually punish each other. Unfortunate, but very entertaining!

[Deep13]

29. "encourage the prizing of a woman's physical attributes"

That happens anyway. It's biology. Suggestive photos encourage nothing. Rather they are encourged by our animal nature which is a fact of life and not evil.

[Dangerously Amused]

44. How do you determine the "value" of a woman?

<That happens anyway. It's biology.>

I agree with you there.


<Suggestive photos encourage nothing.>

If they encourage "nothing," then why do people look at them? I think they generally achieve their intended purpose.


<Rather they are encourged by our animal nature which is a fact of life and not evil.>

I agree that sexual attraction ("our animal nature") is a fact of life and far from evil.


Not sure if we are on the same page, but I do value your input. To clarify, I certainly don't object to the expression of one's own sexuality or the appreciation of another's sexuality. Nor do I object to porn. What I'm not thrilled with is the premise of a "beauty pagent," which is basically a national, prime-time validation of judging a woman by her ass, her tits, her legs, whatever... and then rewarding the woman who has the "best" ones, and sending the others away with a consolation prize:

"Sorry princess, you were pretty, but just not pretty enough."

I don't think spending big bucks in lavish productions to promote that kind of attitude is helpful to women. However, as I stated earlier, I acknowledge that (some) women perpetuate this system by participating in it. It is not my place to tell them they are wrong for doing so, but if they learn to evaluate themselves based primarily upon their own and other's perception of their level of "beauty," I think that approach to life will not serve them (or others) well in the long run. That is to say, if we as a society encourage women to spend all their time and resources "being pretty," and reward them for doing so, if we exhault a woman's beauty over her brain, then we are not developing the whole person. This will become a problem as woman's "beauty" fades over time (as society dictates), and the woman will have few if any other resources from which to draw self-esteem and purpose in life. I realize this is not true for every woman, but that is the risk we take. (I also realize that I am preaching to the choir here, as most DU people are intelligent, insightful and empathetic.)

So, to parse the issue: A woman's sexuality is a sacred and wonderful thing, best appreciated, admired and expressed when placed in the proper perspective of being one of many equally important and wonderful components of her being. But I don't think beauty pagents endeavor to take that approach. I think beauty pagents promote the idea that a woman's beauty/sexuality is the most important aspect of her being, and that, I think, is selfish, shallow and hurtful. In a word, "sexist."

Sure you can argue that women in beauty pagents are there voluntarily and therefore are not victims of "sexism," but I think that argument misses the point that the women there are being evaluated primarily for their T&A, which in a national, prime-time format, subtly (or not so subtly) validates the idea that evaluating women based primarily on their T&A is "good" and "normal." And that is sexism, particularily so when it spills over into other areas of life, such as the workplace.

[Deep13]

45. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of pageants.

Seems like a masochistic hobby. On the other hand, is it any different than preparing a resume or going to a job interview? A pageant is more honest! They're probably doing it for similar reasons, hoping that fame and notoriety will provide other opportunities. Besides, if this is what they want to do and to have a moment of fame, who am I to say it is wrong?

I don't think being judged on physical attributes is any worse than the judgments we all make about others all the time. At least physical atributes are really theirs (enhancements notwithstanding). A resume usually says more about other people than the interviewee: background, schooling and other experiences are largely made possible by social status. What's more is that this is Latin America which can have pretty grim realities at time. Why is this escapism any worse than others?

Our animal nature is more than just sexual attraction. We are creatures of passion living under the vernier of civility. That includes compassion, love, loyalty, curiosity but also lust, greed, fear and aggression. Pretending that we all ought to live in some kind of gender-nuetral parody of society is pretty unrealistic. Since society does impose that view, it is important that people have an outlet and not have to repress their feelings with self-guilt.

Oh yeah, I don't determine anyones value beyond its effect on matters relevant to me, my friends and family, my job or the larger world. Except for that, it is not my job to judge. The dry cleaner may be a wonderful person, but if he ruins my coat, he is worthless to me. I wouldn't care what kind of character Geo. Bush was, for example, except hat it effects the way he mismanages the country. I'm not religious so I do not have to pretend that everyone is valuable or that everyone has equal value.

[redqueen]

51. Just wanted to say I really enjoyed your posts in this thread.

:hi:

[Dangerously Amused]

53. Why, thank you!

I have enjoyed yours here as well, and in other threads. :hi:

[alarcojon]

43. Well put

I don't know the exact criteria for winning this contest - there is probably some sort of talent component, for example - but I'm pretty sure the women who do well in these have attractive physiques. And these contests overvalue that physique. Of course we find these women attractive, and there is no point in denying that, but we should be striving as a species to value individuals in their entirety.

Also, I agree with an earlier poster that these women set a standard which many, many men will then expect of potential partners - even men who are not themselves in any kind of shape. Further, many men who view lots of attractive, semi-clothed women will tend to sexualize women in inappropriate situations. In these ways and others, these contests contribute to the oppression of women by promoting a widely held attitude that women are to be valued first and foremost for their looks and sexuality.

I will say that at least Miss Chile looks healthy, not like some Kate Moss clone. This whole prevalence of stick-thin models who are held up as standards of feminine beauty bothers me.

[RedCloud]

19. No. They just forgot some articles of clothing...

Happens to us all at times.

[Lochloosa]

20. Dizzy....feeling dizzy...must have blood...back to my head...

[Meatwad]

21. Ooooh...Miss Venezuela...

Me likey.

:)

[Fox Mulder]

26. Damn.

:wow:

[GirlinContempt]

28. I find the idea that this is sexist

as silly as the idea that being a homemaker is oppressive.

Part of fighting for equal rights and freedoms or whatever is supporting the rights and freedoms of women who do things you don't like. Suck it up.

[Taverner]

30. Sexist no

Racy yes

People have to get around the fact that it's OK to treat each other like (labor) objects in the workplace and marketplace, but if we add sex to the mix it suddenly becomes wrong.

[Hosnon]

31. What definition of 'sexist' are you using?

Dictionary.com says:

sexist:

adj : discriminatory on the basis of sex

discriminatory:

adj : marked by or showing prejudice; biased.

prejudice:

n : a preconceived preference or idea.

So: Marked by a preconceived preference or idea on the basis of sex.

Yeah I would say it is sexist. However, this 'strict' definition doesn't have the negative connotations that many people place on the word, so it seems to me.

Is it sexist in a more derogatory sense of the word? I don't think so. Those in charge of the production probably do not think less of these women for what they are doing. In fact, most women involved probably want to have their bodies and most men probably want to 'have their bodies.'

[Dangerously Amused]

62. You make some good points:

<Those in charge of the production probably do not think less of these women for what they are doing.>

But do you think they will still employ these women twenty years down the road? No, of course not. Why? Because the women will have "lost" their beauty. So those in charge of the production value the women for their physical beauty alone, and they will manipulate the woman's beauty to make money for themselves. Then when the beauty is gone... the woman is gone; she is useless to them. Do those in charge of the production think less of the women they hire? It's hard to say, they probably didn't think much of her to begin with.


<In fact, most women involved probably want to have their bodies... >

YES! PRECISELY!! And why do they want the other women's bodies? Because they think god did not make them "pretty enough" just the way they are. And why do they think they are not "pretty enough"? Because society tells them so; society reinforces that inferiority mindset via "beauty" pagents such as these.

We would certainly be upset if our child's kindergarten teacher lined up all the five-year-old little girls in class, evaluatd them based upon their looks, and then announced where each ranks in the group in terms of being pretty:

"You, little girl! You're the prettiest of all the little girls! Come over here and I'll give you this sparkly crown. Now you, you are the third prettiest. Those two girls over there are both prettier than you. But you, you are the least pretty little girl in this whole class. Too bad for you. But don't ever give up trying to be pretty."

The very idea is repugnant; we wouldn't do this to little girls because we know how negatively it might affect their sense of identity and self respect, and we know how deeply those things affect a one's development in all other facets of life. We don't want to place those limitations on a girl, we want her to grow up secure in the knowledge that we love and value her for who she is, and not what she looks like. Yet somewhere along the line the little girl grows into a woman, and society reverses direction; suddenly it is acceptable to tell that woman just how pretty she is... or isn't.

None of this is to say that one shouldn't sincerely compliment an attractice woman. It is to say, however, that there isn't a woman in this country who thinks she is "pretty enough" due to unrealistic societal standards, and that is an unfair and unhealthy burden to foist upon the majority of the population.

[Hosnon]

67. Yeah but...

I agree that they wouldn't employ these women in 20 years...for the same reason that Michael Vick won't be playing football in 40 years. An individual's specific usefulness changes over time. That said, these women have something that is desired by us on an extremely deep biological level. And it is marketable. I view the producers of this show more as capitalists than as sexist individuals.

I don't subscribe to the coddling notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are general guidelines for what makes a human being attractive. It has to do most with proportion. I see evolution as the cause of the standard rather than society.

And yeah I'd be upset if a teacher lined up young girls. But mainly because that is not her job - she is there to evaluate education. Sign your daughters up for a beauty pangeant if you want to find out if they are attractive.

I just don't think it's unfair to determine who is attractive and who is not. Just as it is not unfair to detemine, through testing, who is smart and who is not. Human beings have certain qualities and some excel where others don't. It doesn't seem too constructive to teach women and men at an early age that looks don't matter. That denies a very basic part of what we are as a species.

Beauty is simply another characteristic such as singing ability, athletic talent, intelligence, etc. that is best acknowledged.

[Dangerously Amused]

69. What makes a human being attractive?

<I don't subscribe to the coddling notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Why is it "coddling" to accept that another's opinion is valid for them??

Does that mean that when other men find a woman attractive but you find her not so, that they are all "wrong"? What makes them wrong? Why are their opinions of what is "beautiful"" not as valid for them as yours are for you? I don't understand.



<There are general guidelines for what makes a human being attractive. It has to do most with proportion.

How would the "general guidelines" apply to the following?:

< REUTERS > (copyright 2005)

Beaten if she refused to swallow the rich diet of sweetened milk and millet porridge, Zeinabou was one of many Mauritanian girls fattened up because of an ancient belief that corpulent women make more desirable wives.

More than one in five women in Mauritania, which straddles black and Arab Africa, were force-fed as young girls, according to a government survey from 2001, the latest available.

"Our society has this vision that a woman has to be fat to be beautiful. It is a canon of beauty," said Marienne Baba Sy, head of a government commission that deals with women's issues.

“…the pressure to conform to traditional notions of beauty has given rise to a new phenomenon in which girls take pills to stimulate their appetite or animal steroids to boost their girth.

http://people.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1243717,prtpage-1.cms



< I see evolution as the cause of the standard rather than society.

But what "standard"? Different societies have different standards:

During the Victorian era, the ideal body type for women was plump, fleshy, and full-figured. They wore restrictive corsets, which made waists artificially tiny while accentuating the hips and buttocks.

At the start of the 1900s, slenderness became more fashionable. There was an increasing interest of women in athletics...

By the 1920s, the Victorian hourglass gave way to the thin flapper who bound her breasts to achieve a washboard profile.

By the 1950s, a thin woman with a large bust line was considered most attractive. The voluptuous (size 16) Marilyn Monroe set a new standard for women who now needed to rebuild the curves they had previously tried to bind and restrain.

By the 1960s, slenderness became the most important indicator of physical attractiveness following the arrival of model Twiggy. She weighed in at a shapeless six and a half stones, and had the figure of a prepubescent boy.

Despite an American public with increasing body weights, Playboy magazine increased the promotion of slimness between 1959 and 1978. 'Miss America' contestants were also found to be thinner over time, and winners of the pageant after 1970 consistently weighed less than the other contestants. ...

The 1980s beauty ideal remained slim but required a more toned and fit look. Women could no longer just 'diet' into the correct size; there was a new pressure to add exercise to achieve the toned look. The 1990s body ideal was very slim and large breasted, think Pamela 'Baywatch' Anderson, an almost impossible combination for most western women.

http://www.thesite.org/healthandwellbeing/mentalhealth/bodyimageandselfesteem/bodyimagetimeline

So if evolution was driving the standard, wouldn't "the standard" remain constant, and wouldn't everyone in the world have the same standard?



<And yeah I'd be upset if a teacher lined up young girls. But mainly because that is not her job - she is there to evaluate education.

But why is at anybody's "job" to evaluate women and declare which are beautiful and which are not?



<Sign your daughters up for a beauty pangeant if you want to find out if they are attractive.

But what gives anyone the right to decide for me whether or not my child is attractive?



<I just don't think it's unfair to determine who is attractive and who is not. Just as it is not unfair to detemine, through testing, who is smart and who is not.

Except that "beauty" is a matter of individual perception, whereas intelligence is (on certain levels) quantifiable. There is no litmus test for "beauty."

I agree that it is not unfair for each individual to determine for themselves who is attractive and who is not. I agree that finding some persons more attractive than others is hard-wired into a person's human nature. But I think it is unfair to try to impose a particular standard of beauty on others, which is the effect that beauty pagents have. Just as it would be unfair (and arrogant and unkind) for a guy to tell a woman she is unattractive simply because he thinks she is unattractive.



<It doesn't seem too constructive to teach women and men at an early age that looks don't matter.

Agreed, however, neither is it constructive to teach them that looks matter above all. Of course that is not what most parents intentionally teach their children, but it is certainly the message we get through the media and entertainment industries, and we see the effects of that message (most of which, in my opinion, are negative) played out in everyday life. This article makes the point better than I ever could:

Crafting the Perfect Body; How the Media Encourages Idealistic Female Forms. by Courtney Littler

http://angelingo.usc.edu/issue01/culture/littler.html



"There are three billion women in the world who don't look like supermodels and only eight who do." From 'Full Voice', issue one, 1998, published by the Body Shop.

I bet you've seen all eight. :)


(By the way, I hope that none of my arguments came off as rude or condescending, I know that can happen sometimes in writing without the benefit of expression and inflection. And if it did here, be assured it was unintended. Thank you for sharing your opinions. I sincerely appreciate polite and principled discussion with others on a topic where we disagree. How else will I ever find out when I'm wrong? :) )

Here is one of my favorite quotes, maybe you will like it too:

The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.
Joubert, Joseph; 1754-1824, French Moralist

[Greyhound]

32. Sexy yes, sexist, not necessarily. n/t

[Kire]

34. asking "is this sexist?" is the only way to get the mods to keep these up

exhibitionism in cognito

good job

[mongo]

42. Techincally wouldn't it be voyerism?

when posting pics of someone else?

[Kire]

48. that's a gray area

nt

[MnFats]

37. Sexy? What's wrong with being sexy? Oh. Apologies, Spinal Tap.

[underpants]

46. Almost forgot-THE WINNER

Miss Playboy TV Latin America and Iberia 2005 beauty contest winners from left, Viviane Bordin of Brazil, third place, Liliana Queiros of Portugal, first place, and Blanca Llorca of Spain second place, pose for the crowd on Thursday Nov. 3, 2005, in Mexico City.(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

[anarch]

47. no way...I've seen much sexier pictures than that

I don't know what is the sexiest, but it is not one of these.

[WCGreen]

49. Miss Chile has a fuckin' Mullet....

[LSK]

50. how many Brazillians in this contest?

Must be lots of them! }(

[In_The_Wind]

52. Not at all.

[PowerToThePeople]

54. Hot !!!

n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

55. At least 'Miss Chile' looks healthy

Well, except for the plastiboobs.

The rest of 'em weigh about 22 pounds, and it bugs me to no end that that's what's held up as "ideal" in our society. :puke:

[JJackFlash]

57. What was the question?

I can't think straight after feasting my eyes on Miss Paraguay.

[donheld]

58. Absolutely not

:puke:

[tuvor]

59. "Sexist"? As in "women are inferior to men"? LOL Hardly. In fact...

Viva la difference!

[UncleSepp]

60. Not sure, it will take um.. hours of study to come to a conclusion

At first blush, no. They look like they really want to be there strutting their stuff.

[Blue_Tires]

71. no Miss Brazil (aka my future wifey??)

[obxhead]

72. Is that the best Chile had to offer?

[Debi]

73. Only if this is...