The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

In the eye of the beholder?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9807		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  RangerDave [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  In the eye of the beholder?
Photo (fully clothed and SFW, but spoilered just in case):
Spoiler:
Image

Background/explanation spoilered to avoid biasing folks' answers:
Spoiler:
For context, here's a link to the blog post, which is a discussion of cosplay and con harassment. In the post, the author notes that she "honestly can't see how [her blog profile picture] is sexually suggestive". That struck me as implausible, because the photo seemed to me to be clearly suggestive, though I suppose I would use the word alluring rather than suggestive. Either way, I don't think the photo is suggestive/alluring in an explicit or obvious "look at my boobs!" kind of way, but the pose, facial expression, framing, makeup, lighting, soft filter, etc. all seem to me to be clearly designed to create a suggestive/alluring image.

Anyway, I asked my girlfriend and a few female friends, and none of them thought it was suggestive or alluring. They saw it as just a professional shot of a woman wearing normal clothes and sitting in a casual pose. Sure, she's attractive, they said, but that's just because she's a naturally attractive woman, not because anything about the photo is designed to be alluring. I also showed it to a few male friends, and all of them agreed with me that it was obviously suggestive/alluring (again, not explicit or lewd, just clearly intended to convey a hint of sexual attractiveness and allure). So, now I'm curious to see whether there's also a difference of opinion between the men and women of the Glade.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
I'm gonna take a stab at this with out necessarily agreeing.

Why is she in the bathtub if not to be provocative/alluring?

I certainly wouldn't consider it lewd though.
Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 
The location is a hot tub, which has its own implications.
The pose/camera position emphasize length of leg, a classic association with sexuality. (elongated legs are symbols of sexual availability even among many mammals) (she's also wearing high heels but they're only partially in view) and the pants are skin-tight.

Displaying a fair amount of chest without displaying cleavage, though she's wearing a necklace long enough to draw the view down to that region.

Hair is elaborate, (though designed to look casual) As is the makeup, including eyeshadow and mascara designed to duplicate 'bedroom eyes' another biological symbol, and lip gloss to make the lips appear wet.

I have a feeling that men view the act of putting effort into appearance ("dressing up") as an attempt to attract a mate. Women view it as simply what one does.
Author:  Lenas [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Nope.
Author:  FarSky [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Nope.
Author:  Hopwin [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nope. Didn't even realize it was a bath tub til I read the comments. Looked like an ugly uncomfy couch to me.
Author:  RangerDave [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Interesting. Already clear that I must have been biasing my male friends' responses with how I presented the question in person.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
I think you're asking the wrong questions, RangerDave. Is the picture sexually suggestive? No. Does the picture rely on amplification of male expectations and pander to the Male Gaze? Absolutely.
Author:  RangerDave [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Khross wrote:
I think you're asking the wrong questions, RangerDave. Is the picture sexually suggestive? No. Does the picture rely on amplification of male expectations and pander to the Male Gaze? Absolutely.

Hm, how can it pander to the Male Gaze without being sexually suggestive? Isn't sexualization an inherent part of the Male Gaze?
Author:  shuyung [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's not intentionally sexually suggestive. But this is an attractive woman, and men like looking. Also, men have very active imaginations when it comes to attractive women, so while this particular photo is not trying to provoke a sexualized response, give a man a couple seconds to mentally remove her clothes, and his perception changes. I am sure that her thoughts when posing for this photo were along the lines of "hah, here, this will be funny, I'm in the hot tub fully clothed, take my picture". My first thoughts on viewing the picture were "I'd like to see her with suds on", which is obviously not the intent of the photo. I make no excuses for thinking that, in case anyone was wondering.
Author:  Corolinth [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
She's an attractive woman, and certainly meets criteria for "sexy". The picture itself is not sexually suggestive. Take a look at how her legs are together and crossed, and bent at the knees. There is no implied access to her primary sexual organs. I gave the picture a good, long look and didn't notice the bathtub until it was pointed out to me.

Now, did the thought, "What would it be like to have sex with that woman?" run through my mind? Of course it did! That has nothing to do with the photo. That's just one of the processes my brain executes when it detects an attractive woman through the video input feed.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
RangerDave:

Serious question here, because I can be snarky or answer you: how much Kristeva, Lacan, Genet, and Cixous do you know?
Author:  Aizle [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
RangerDave wrote:
Khross wrote:
I think you're asking the wrong questions, RangerDave. Is the picture sexually suggestive? No. Does the picture rely on amplification of male expectations and pander to the Male Gaze? Absolutely.

Hm, how can it pander to the Male Gaze without being sexually suggestive? Isn't sexualization an inherent part of the Male Gaze?


I'm not convinced that appreciation of the female form is by definition sexual in nature.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Aizle:

That's because you have a penis. <-- Legitimate academic argument, please read Faludi, Dworkin, and Freidan.
Author:  Aizle [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Meh, if Faludi and Freidan are anything like Dworkin I really have no interest. They are obviously entitled to their opinion, just as I'm entitled to think they are full of ****.
Author:  Talya [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Aizle wrote:
Meh, if Faludi and Freidan are anything like Dworkin I really have no interest. They are obviously entitled to their opinion, just as I'm entitled to think they are full of ****.


Indeed.

On the original picture:

Is it sexy? Yes. That's more a factor of it being a good picture of an attractive person.
Is it "suggestive?" As in, somehow hints at something more than being a picture of an attractive person? Not at all.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Aizle:

Amusingly, "Because you have a penis," is also the short version of the response to RangerDave's question. I'm not a big fan of Faludi, Dworkin, Freidan, et al.; the militant first-wave feminists were militant to their own detriment and that of society in general. They've caused at least as much harm for women worldwide as Taly will claim for Mother Theresa. Their arguments, theories, and statements hurt communication and prohibit conversation. And, too a large degree, that's my problem with American Liberalism in general: it originates with that closed academic mindset that dominates American post-secondary education.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
It doesn't scream "hey I'm in a hot tub". I only noticed it because I went looking for "fault" with the argument that the subject didn't mean it to be provocative.
Author:  RangerDave [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Khross wrote:
Serious question here, because I can be snarky or answer you: how much Kristeva, Lacan, Genet, and Cixous do you know?

By name - nothing; though it's possible I've stumbled across aspects of their work embedded in general discussions of feminism and sexuality. Pretty much the same can be said with respect to Faludi, Dworkin, Freidan, et. al. My knowledge of these issues is purely that of a layman with a casual interest in the concepts but little to no familiarity with the theorists who developed them.
Author:  Talya [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Khross wrote:
They've caused at least as much harm for women worldwide as Taly will claim for Mother Theresa.

I'd say significantly more.

I don't condemn Mother Teresa beyond what Penn & Teller do...
Author:  Stathol [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
I'm going to go with no.

It's really not obvious that she's sitting in some kind of hot tub/bath tub without looking carefully for it.

TheRiov wrote:
The pose/camera position emphasize length of leg, a classic association with sexuality. (elongated legs are symbols of sexual availability even among many mammals) (she's also wearing high heels but they're only partially in view) and the pants are skin-tight.

Most of her legs are in a foreshortened view, which if anything de-emphasizes leg length. The tightness of her pants is also mostly irrelevant because of the toning of the image. The shadows (dark tones) are very flat. Further, they've broken up the external contours of her leg (especially her thigh) using her arm and the hem of her skirt. We can still recognize that there are legs, but we aren't given much information about their shape. They more or less blur together into one black negative space. If you want to emphasize the shape and curve of her legs, this isn't the way to go about it.

If anything, I'd say the composition of the photo is arranged to make us focus on the upper right corner, near her face. Everything sort of points in that direction, especially her gaze. We want to look where other people are looking.
Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
A valid point, but her leg is the fully 2/3rds the height of the frame, blurry or not its still the immediate foreground of the image and takes up >1/4 of the whole image.
Author:  Aizle [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Khross wrote:
Aizle:

Amusingly, "Because you have a penis," is also the short version of the response to RangerDave's question. I'm not a big fan of Faludi, Dworkin, Freidan, et al.; the militant first-wave feminists were militant to their own detriment and that of society in general. They've caused at least as much harm for women worldwide as Taly will claim for Mother Theresa. Their arguments, theories, and statements hurt communication and prohibit conversation. And, too a large degree, that's my problem with American Liberalism in general: it originates with that closed academic mindset that dominates American post-secondary education.


While I certainly agree that there are liberals who are just as radically off their rocker as the writers you list, I don't think it's fair to paint all of "American Liberalism" with that brush. Just as it's not fair to paint all of Feminism with the brush of Dworkin, et al.
Author:  Khross [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Aizle:

I'm not really painting anyone with broad brushes; we're just getting into levels of stochastic patterns that no one really wants to talk about ... ever. Message control and thought shaping are an issue within our society; Orwellian comparisons are surprisingly accurate -- especially in their local environments (countries in southern Asia). Inside the United States, the mechanisms are the same; the messages are different; the goal ... arguable on occasion. People possess far less free will than we like to admit. And that's the simple stuff.

RangerDave:

The Gaze, sans qualifier, is a fundamentally Lacanian thought-object. It's the notion that 'looking' at something intently; studying that something, observing it, reducing it to the language construct of thought; etc., is objectifying at some core level. The Gaze focuses on the object; the Gaze always has an object; consequently, the Gaze is objectifying. That, however, requires a Lacanian notion of 'object'. We're talking psychoanalytic theory, not psychoanalysis or psychotherapy. This stuff is widely discredited in terms of neuroscience; far more applicable at the level of meta-theory and social constructivism. That list of French names is dense. So, maybe read Judith Butler and Camille Paglia. They're more approachable.

That said, she is the subject of the picture; the image forces the gaze to make her an object within the limited spacial frame of the image. Her femininity is not obscured or obfuscated, nor is it particularly central to the composition. Paglia would suggest that's primarily gender neutral and focused on aesthetics -- a la Stathol's interpretation. Less forgiving feminists, but still publishing today, would suggest that her being the subject of the image itself is still objectifying, particularly given certain presentation elements. The line between empowering and enchaining often hinges on the value femininity relative male perceptions or social perceptions at large (historical or otherwise) affects deterministic and quantitative aspects of a woman's life.

The Male Gaze results from certain presumptions of gender identity and arguments about language and social structure that pre-date most of us. It's a reactionary term; it is employed as freely by some as would startle you -- any act of looking by a male invokes the Male Gaze. But that term reduces whole set of consumerist expectations into ledger predictions for the entertainment industry. And before you say, "Wait, what?" The economic parallel is more apt than you think; the Gaze (particularly the male Gaze) is transactional. Because the Gaze reduces its subject into an object; makes it a commodity; a think; an abstraction; a simulacrum (the synonyms are representative of the evolution of this thought through literature and some 40-60 years of post-structural morass); the Gaze is bad; harmful; not good; it disrupts the natural state of being by forcing awareness on the subject.

Quite simply, it invokes the Male Gaze because the subject is female and thus aware of her status as a visible object to men. That the image is fixed simply reinforces the expectation that she should record herself only in her most attractive state; a notion likely enforced by subliminal pressures in the larger social scheme of heteronormativity.

(As a note, I don't necessarily agree with any of that, but that's pretty much the truth of the official academic position on the subject).
Author:  Aizle [ Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: In the eye of the beholder?
Khross wrote:
Aizle:

I'm not really painting anyone with broad brushes; we're just getting into levels of stochastic patterns that no one really wants to talk about ... ever. Message control and thought shaping are an issue within our society; Orwellian comparisons are surprisingly accurate -- especially in their local environments (countries in southern Asia). Inside the United States, the mechanisms are the same; the messages are different; the goal ... arguable on occasion. People possess far less free will than we like to admit. And that's the simple stuff.


Don't disagree with really anything here, except that I'm not certain what stochastic patterns you are referring to, much less a disinterest in talking about them. Especially here, where we'll charge after any topic often half-cocked.

The issues you bring up are precisely why I started to control my TV watching and where I got my news from (which is only one facet). Interestingly enough, there seems to be what I hope is the start of the return pendulum swing when it comes to reporting. I've started to see criticism arising around how the major news media outlets have basically sold their soul to maintain the tight connection to the White House and access to breaking information. We'll see if it amounts to anything, but I have my hopes. On another avenue we are starting to see twitter and Facebook posts becoming more and more relevant as "news" sources which largely removes some of the editing and message control. It has it's only foibles but at some level we're able to get more "raw" data on a situation.

I think I know what you're saying on the free will comment, but could you clarify that?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/