posted February 11, 2007 09:50 AM         

If women hold the key to either stopping it, or perpetuating it, by either choosing to pose or not to pose, then men can't be held accountable.

Women who want to take their clothes off for the public are keeping the industry alive.

It can't be called sexist on the part of men if its a conscious choice women are making.

posted February 11, 2007 10:50 AM         

I just don't think that women who proudly allow naked photos of themselves to be made public therefore make men sexist.

As far as profit goes, all women know ahead of time that it is an industry, simply business, and that their naked photos will be used to make money. The profit topic is thusly null and void. No woman is exploited who doesn't want to be. These women, clearly, want to be exploited.

posted February 11, 2007 12:40 PM         

A womans' Femininity does not completely reside in the folds that she holds open for the cameraman on the set of Playboy. Any man with enough money and the sense or sensibility(but that's another issue) to pass psychiatric examinations can get it cut off and have a vagina put in, and some of them do that and still appear masculine on some very important levels.
Porn magazines are not a celebration of femininity, if I may reiterate, they are publications designed to titillate(sp?). And while I know that one could look at porn and be inspired to celebrate, by beholding the magnificance of the breasts and the vagina, most of the time guys just want to get off and they are going to the easiest things. But I'm sure that it is possible to look at these things and be inspired just as one could look at naked art and become inspired as well as titillated. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at porn if you are mature enough to handle it. But the monotonous "cataloging" (if you could even call it that, as there is not useful information being compiled) of women's parts is obsessive and after a while, in regarding these things continually, it has nothing to do with women, it has to do with tools that get the job done.
Condition someone to use a piece of fruit for their needs, after a while everytime they see a watermelon they will get aroused, it has nothing to do with nature's goodness and their appreciation for nutrients, it has to do with a very self-involved act.
I've been thinking, for years about whether pornography is truly degrading or not but I still haven't decided. I am leaning towards "perhaps not".

Even though, one could be inspired by the "proudness" of the women in these magazines because they are not ashamed of being naked and if you have certain issues, it might be a good thing to witness others who enjoy themselves. But then one would have to be careful not to let oneself be sucked in and start to think that comfort with the body and sexuality has everything to do with showing your talent to the masses and concentration on certain parts of the body. That kind of thing could lead to becoming even more lost.

posted February 11, 2007 01:14 PM         

As far as finding copies of Bust or B*tch magazines, if you live in the United States, especially on the "liberal coasts" (either the entire west coast or the east coast above the Mason-Dixon Line), I expect you could get them at any Borders or Barnes and Nobles bookshop, but I've never checked.

posted February 11, 2007 03:27 PM         

quote:

---

Yes they are degrading themselves, if they pose for tasteless-classless-pictures.

---

I think it all has to do with the purpose of the pictures. I mean there is such thing as artistic nudes and that appreciates the beauty of the female body without exploiting them sexually. I believe Playboy also sets a standard for beauty which isnt always a good thing.

I dont think Playboy is sexist but that doesnt mean its not degrading. Sexist means holding men in a higher esteem than women or propogating some stereotypes. It doesnt necessarily do either so I dont think its sexist. But these women do depreciate themselves. Lets be honest if you meet someone on the street and they claim to be a Playboy model everything else kinda doesnt matter. They could be an MIT graduate for all you care and a nobel prize winner but that will always come second.

posted February 11, 2007 07:39 PM         

quote:

---

If women hold the key to either stopping it, or perpetuating it, by either choosing to pose or not to pose, then men can't be held accountable.

Women who want to take their clothes off for the public are keeping the industry alive.

It can't be called sexist on the part of men if its a conscious choice women are making.

Lets not blame men for the choices women make.

---

Hello! Men are the ones who originally went looking for women who would be willing to pose in their nudie magazine, and they offered them plenty of money or bribed them by saying, "Have sex with me and I'll make you a star, baby". What a bunch of BS saying we can't blame men for women's choices! That's so f*****g sexist it's unbelievable!

To say that it's only because of these women who are willing to show their goods that such magazines are in high demand is absurd! Let's see a show of hands how many of you men pleasured yourselves as teenagers by staring and drooling over said magazines.

posted February 11, 2007 08:21 PM         

Yes, men went looking for women to pose, and women responded happily in droves.

And if you haven't noticed all of the porn on the internet, women are possibly responding more positively towards publicly disrobing now than ever before. And most of them aren't being paid much of anything, if paid at all. So why is it attracting so many women?

Also, you wrote-

--"To say that it's only because of these women who are willing to show their goods that such magazines are in high demand is absurd!"--

Um, wrong, it is EXACTLY because women are "willing to show their goods" that anyone bothers to buy that junk... thats the whole point of those magazines!

There is a whole bunch of self-degrading stuff that I could do for money. But I choose not to. Sorry, but it does all come down to the individual's choice.

Women in the U.S. these days have as much of an opportunity for advancement as men. Current calculations say that there are 20% more women attending college than men.

posted February 12, 2007 12:44 AM         

And now,
a few words about Porno:

If sex is natural,
pornography is natural.

If sex is not degrading,
Pictures of sex are not degrading.

No magazine,
and no sexual act,
ever degraded a woman.
A woman can only degrade herself.
It's an attitude.
If she sees it as degrading,
it will be degrading.
If she sees it as empowering,
it will be empowering.

"There is nothing bad in nature,
but, if a person thinks something is bad,
it becomes bad for that person."
- Romans 14:14

posted February 12, 2007 12:48 AM         

Taste is in the eye of the beholder.

posted February 12, 2007 01:06 AM         

I think the gender issue is a very intricate matter. I'm with Mirandee, feminists often go too far. Also, in many cases it's women who call other women b!tches instead of men calling women that. That's quite ironic and just makes me wonder why. I found this article refreshingly rebellious, even though I didn't agree on everthing it said. I don't understand why some women present themselves in aggressive ways. Maybe part of the style stems from societal repression and that causes much anger? I tend to think strong, competitive women are even more so than their male counterparts because they have to fight all the gender biases to reach their goals.

Mmm, but I like cooking, baking and am not repelled with sewing or "taking another woman's man" if need be, or playing the mother part or a virtuous wife part. Refusing doing all those seems a little over-the-top to me. It's tantalizing how many different ways we can choose to express our femininity. Femininity is so multi-faceted.

As for sex magazines like Playboy and Penthouse- wow, that discussion could become an extensive one!

posted February 12, 2007 09:16 AM         

quote:

---

As for these magazines being tasteless...
Taste is in the eye of the beholder.

---

Actually, due to the nature of the pictures inside of PlayBoy and the purpose of magazines such as Playboy...yes, it is tasteless and degrading to women. I don't why you try to sugar coat such things with all the holistic talk.*shrugs*

And I really don't know why certain people in here (*cough* ScorpionicWeb) are trying to take all the blame off the men in these situations and put it all on the women(especially when both the playboy models and the men exploiting them are equally to blame) and then say that they have issues with sexist femminists and how they serve to segregate men and women. Attitudes like yours are the reason these militant femminists exist in the first place. As wrong as they may be, they like me are probably sick and tired of the 'women cause the men to sin' crap. Atleast that's what it sounds like to me when reading half the sh%t that you posted on this particular thread). So If you want to blame anyone for why males and females are drifting apart look to yourself and all the other chauvinistic fools on this planet. Lets not throw stones from glass houses now.

posted February 12, 2007 12:17 PM         

Second, no I am not denying the fact that these women can make their own decisions and I'm not making them into innocent victims. (Did you miss where I said the men and women are equally to blame?) I am just sick of SW implying that its all the woman's fault when the man is equally to blame for the exploitation factor in these magazines (the men in this industry of business that is).

And Btw, what does "being Aquarian enough to know that the world doesn't revolve around me" mean? Are you implying that I'm not as "enlightened" as you are? You want Aquarian, you got it buddy: Uranus conjuncts my chart ruler and square my mars so booyah!! (Meu Deus! )

posted February 12, 2007 02:00 PM         

quote:

---

...let me just say that the last paragraph was directed at Scorpionic Web, not you HSC.

---

Try to be aware of that. You quoted me, and then proceeded to direct your thoughts at an unnamed "you". Naturally, everyone who reads your post is going to think you are talking to me.

I did not miss where you said "equally to blame", but I also heard you refer to the women as exploited. This implies an inequality (honestly, I dont know how you can imagine that they are "equally exploiting" - as if it were possible for someone to exploit themselves). I did suggest that you seem to be waffling on whether to see the women as exploited victims, or conspirators (i.e. "equally to blame"). Really, I just want to know why you think it is wrong in the first place. Who is it hurting? And, now, how many people does it employ and give pleasure to?

People in tune with the outer planets are more evolved. I doubt that squares from the outer planets to Mars, of all things, indicate anything other than serious karmic debts, especially when the chart-ruler is implicated in the square (um, "boo-ya!", lol).

People in tune with the outer planets are more evolved. This is a fact. My belief as to whether I myself am more or less evolved than someone else, and my attitude in relation to this belief (whether I am humbled or made arrogant by it) are separate matters entirely. People who understand that all things are relative to a given perspective are more evolved. This is just a fact, however threatening some people may find it to their personal egos (mars?). So, which of us is exhibiting evidence of such a perspective? You are free to judge that for yourself, as is the reader of these posts, but I know what I think, and I'm not afraid to say what I think, even if it means being labelled arrogant. I know that humilty and arrogance are attitudes, and are not dependent on whether or not a person recognizes and admits to the truth and relevance of spiritual laws, - nor is it dependent on where they see themselves in relation to those laws (we are all more advanced than some, and less than others). I may be humble, or I may be arrogant, but that doesn't make me wrong about the outer planets.

I do find it revealing, though, that when I speak a truth which a person may be humbled by, the majority of people assume that I am speaking from a place of arrogance. Perhaps it would come from such a place if they said it; so they are incapable of imagining a less polluted motive in me? In any case, I would appreciate it if you could respond to the facts I am laying down, and not try to distract from them by speculating on my personal attitudes. Or, if you must speculate, please do so only after adressing the facts. Thank you, and good luck.

HSC
Sun/Venus/MC/Uranus (all within 3 degrees)
Sextile Saturn (chart-ruler),
and only loosely squaring Jupiter;
Moon in Aquarius sextile Mars/Mercury
and only loosely opposing Jupiter
(which trines mars/merc);
Aquarius intercepted in the 1st house;
Sun and Moon parallel Uranus

posted February 12, 2007 02:14 PM         

And let me break it down for you a bit: Basically I think that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are degrading to women and therefore sexist.(This is what this is all about) They display women's bodies for men's gratification and money(Are you gonna tell me that's not tasteless). Again, I'm not declaring war on Playboy or Hustler or whatever. In fact I could less if these magazines are still in circulation (each to their own). I am just stating my opinion on those magazines...and that is that they are just as sexist as those Butch,B#tch,Bust or whatever the name of those Feminist magazines that Scorpionic had named earlier.