Disembodied women for your listening pleasure


No comment.
Via svgreen on the Community blog.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

76 Comments

  1. nightingale
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    Not all sexists are violent, and not all discomfort stems from a fear of violence. If I found out a man I knew owned this, I wouldn’t fear for my safety, but I’d definitely start to wonder about how much he really respects women. Shag carpeting is tacky, a disembodied women speaker is quite far beyond that.
    And considering that 1 in 4 women will be raped, and most of them by men they know, is it such a wonder that seeing something so creepy could worry a person?

  2. Nepenthe
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    Indeed. At least that disembodied furniture guy with the boob drawers and the vagina bottle holder has some sense of color and proportion. This is offensive on so many levels. My first reaction was “Dear god that’s ugly” before “Dear god where is here head take it away please”.

  3. Nepenthe
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 2:15 am | Permalink

    You win the thread. It’s official.

  4. bettybrown
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    i. am. just. so. fecking. depressed. right. now. i hope for the best for my nieces, as they enter the adult world. but, how can i truly feel things are better for them as people, when a product such as this exists. urgh.

  5. elbu
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    It gets more disturbing the more I think about it. See the location of the “power/volume knob”?

  6. MiddleageLiberal
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Now that’s funny.
    Like Louise said higher in the string, it’s high tacky art, or can be. One would have to look around the person’s apartment or house for other clues to see if tacky irony was what was intended. Scattered beer cans and empty pizza boxes would tell you something.
    A hallmark of tacky art is its ability to shock and offend and clearly that worked with the bulk of commenters here. If this were displayed in Susan Sontag’s or Gloria Steinem’s place, it would be hailed as a powerful statement about American society.

  7. Chickensh*tEagle
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    I can’t see him either succeeding with relationships or developing any appreciation of good sound.

  8. uberhausfrau
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    wow. we can get a NSFW tag or something? i used to read this at work (now ive usually got little people hovering when checking the interwebs).
    and yep. excredibly disgusting.

  9. rhowan
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    I don’t find either of those products to be analagous to what we see here. In the case of truck balls and dildos the anatomical resemblances are integral to the design and purpose of the product, whether to make your sexual experience more “realistic” or to make your truck more “macho”. Additionally the truck balls are more of an additive product – you’re not cutting testicles off something else, and the balls aren’t disembodied, they’re meant to appear as part of the body of your truck.

  10. Robert Johnston
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    It’s not intended to arouse. It’s intended to shock. It’s intended to make people who are easily cowed by accusations of political correctness uncomfortable, and to give a thrill to owners who enjoy throwing around such accusations. It’s intended to remind its owner of a woman’s “proper” place so that he might never slip and start considering women equal persons.

  11. Cicada Nymph
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    As a female I actually don’t hate this. My take on this is that the “object” is the mannequin, not women. I wouldn’t want to date or hang out with any guy who had one unless I was very sure that he was viewing it in the same way I am (unlikely) and not the sexist “cool naked female body objectified for my viewing pleasure” way that most men who would buy or want one of these would. However, to me (a music lover) there is something powerful about the image of music emanating from the female form. That is really the only reason I can find for why this one doesn’t give me the same creeps that shower boob soap dispensers, crotch pencil sharpeners and naked women chairs and urinals do. Of course, I have no idea what the artist intended, maybe just to get attention.

  12. Gnoumenon
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Now, I know I’m just a fledgling feminist and all, but the more I think about this, the less it bothers me. It’s not my taste, certainly, but.. well, as an art student, in my mind there is a difference between THE female form and A woman’s body. The female form is an absolutely beautiful thing, it’s something I use in my art all the time- sometimes to indicate or say something about women, but also sometimes just because it’s the most beautiful thing I know.
    Anyway, I digress. My cursory look at that artist’s portfolio and statement about that piece tells me that it isn’t the tacky “novelty” crap it’s being assumed to be (ie those awful crotch pencil sharpeneres). I think he’s actually commenting on how in a society that’s very much based on the male sexuality, female anatomy (especially breasts) is the way to get “attention.” Hence, the speakers being “the center of attention.” I may be giving him too much credit, though.

  13. Bekka
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t this object defeat the purpose of “Women should be seen, not heard?”

  14. leah
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Is anyone else as disturbed by the Barbie-esque appearance of the genitals as I am? No hair, no labia, no detail whatsoever, just like a Barbie doll. In this grotesque thing (what do we even call it? Speakers? Statue? iPod plugin? Musicsexbot?) women’s genitalia are just a void nothing, that you can stick something into for your pleasure, be it listening or sexual. Disgusting.

  15. MiddleageLiberal
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    If you have kids are they only allowed to have dolls which are anatomically correct? Would this object be less offensive to you if it were anatomically correct? Perhaps the artist or designer intentionally made it idealized as part of the symbolic artistic creation.
    The object itself can say very different things depending on the context of its display, as I tried to suggest in my earlier post by theoretically placing in the spaces of prominent feminist thinkers. You and others imagine it in your vision of an archetypal frat house. Does your perception of it change if it were displayed in the waiting room of an ob/gyn office, a plastic surgeon’s office or an artist’s studio or gallery?
    The posted reactions here reveal a lot more about the fixed perceptions of the posters than the object does about its creator. I’m beginning to have more admiration for him, similar to the admiration I had for the Yale art student last year who (intentionally or not) created quite a performance art piece with her collection of menses or miscarriage senior project.

  16. Anonymous
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    This is … really bad. I really don’t want to see the male version of this.
    BTW: trolls should be deleted, not fed.

  17. ScienceAndTheCity
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    I agree that in the abstract it’s objectifying and mutilating, etc., but I am most stuck by how viscerally disturbing it is. For some reason I find it really disgusting, more so than some other examples of disembodied body parts I’ve seen on this site. Maybe because it’s not even half joking? It seems so… clinical.

  18. leah
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    A) Oh noes! What about teh childrenz! This is a red herring argument. This object was not created for children, it is not a doll. It has nothing to do with children. That is so illogical and left field it really doesn’t deserve argument.
    B) Idealized. Idealized? Really? Females having no genitals and no pubic hair (i.e. prepubescent in appearance) is an ideal to you, eh? Talk about fixed perceptions.
    C) If it were in a doctors office I would cease going to that office. My perception would not change. Art display? Who knows. This object was created FOR CONSUMPTION, not for display at a museum, and the artist/designer knew that, and you know that. I spot a strawfeminist.

  19. leah
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Er, sorry about the post misplacement.

  20. Ashtree
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Oops, I meant concave. Either way, you get my point… :\

  21. MiddleageLiberal
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    A) You’re the one who brought Barbie doll into the discussion, not me. I thought your analogy odd.
    B)The model is not by any stretch of the imagination prepubescent. You’re really reaching to call me a scumbag with that one. It’s not my ideal but it’s not a new idea that objectified female depictions lack anatomic reality such as pubic hair and labia. Playboy magazine of the 50′s and 60′s come to mind.
    C) How do you know what the designer intended? A poster above apparently found some comment he made about the piece which seems to belie your interpretation of his intent. I certainly don’t know what his intent was and I seriously doubt you do. But of course you seem to think you know what his intent and my intent is. I think you’re clueless and inflexibly minded.
    I’ve been accused of being insufficiently pure on my feminist thoughts, so your calling me so doesn’t really bother me. Once you’re elected queen of the feminists, it might.

  22. GoldStarGirl
    Posted January 27, 2009 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    ….i actually like it. i would probably have it in my den or something. very funky. the cord coming out of the vagina is kind of weird but the speaker boobs made me laugh. i’d probably put a necklace on it.

  23. km stitchery
    Posted January 28, 2009 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    In case anyone out there wasn’t sure if women were seen as objects….
    now you should be.

  24. GoldStarGirl
    Posted January 28, 2009 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    oh, i don’t know. it kind of has a venus de milo feel to it.

  25. Lisa
    Posted January 29, 2009 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    I must have lost my feminist card too. I laughed a little to myself, but when you work in retail you change enough mannequins that they don’t remind you of real people. Well maybe victoria’s secret is different because their mannequins look real, but where I work they are headless. Some are legless, too. I’m also an art student and I think it is fun to do humorous art. He juxtaposed two things you normally wouldn’t see together in a way that makes people uncomfortable. Artists love to make people uncomfortable. The jack is just punny to me since they call the receiving end the female .
    So it does what good art does, it makes the viewer feel something, it makes them react.

  26. Napalm Nacey
    Posted February 1, 2009 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Well, as an art piece it kinda fails. I can’t get angry at something that looks like a bizarre long-faced alien with black eyes sucking on a juice box.
    Plus, I’d feel really creepy playing with that knob.

211 queries. 0.985 seconds