I can decide if I agree or really this is a big streth to find something sexist and offensive (which I sorta am finding alot these days). On one hand, it could even be an opening into WHY these things are so glamorous to the public eye, instead of being horrified by it.

This disgusts me. I just worry/wonder about the many millions of young girls who idolize Lindsay Lohan and yet see her doing such destructive things. Granted, she has the right to make her own choices and that includes drinking, etc, but I just wish that when she made these choices for herself, they were just that - for herself. That she wasn't doing these things in the public eye.

Meh. Are there really that many young girls who idolize Lindsay Lohan? Aren't the young girls idolizing Cyrus Miley (or whatever her name is) these days?

EG, probably. But I'm not so much worried about Lohan influencing younger girls (I mean, how many of them are reading NY Mag) as I am about why anyone in the world would think this is a good idea. It seems to rely so much on ideas of women celeb's destruction...

@katie: i don't think jessica's post intends to accuse anyone or anything as sexist and offensive for the sake of it. i think it is a reaction to a sick psychological state that our culture embraces, without much thought.

the marilyn monroe fetish is a classic. she is a pinup girl who met a gruesome death. her image has been used to conflate and enlarge the ideals of sex kitten + damsel in distress + party girl + a dramatic, premature death (which prevents her from aging). the story is so salacious, so unforgettable... it's easy to imagine that young starlets struggling with their identity and hungry for success would be attracted to her legacy, however tragic.

but we always romanticize tragedy. james dean and romeo and juliet... people want to be powerful, to make others feel something and remember them. i think that's the source of our sickness.

Right on, EG, and Jessica on the readership of NY Magazine. But the Marilyn Monroe fetish by sad, usually less than talented starlets (Lohan, Carmen Electra) is disturbing. It exacerbates the issue of glamorizing and cashing in on pain. Also, why does no one have any new artistic ideas?

@lizadilly: A lot of it is about this "eternal youth" bullshit, isn't it? For whatever reason, self-destruction is really ok, as long as it's practiced with a beautiful woman who will remain immortalized through her youth and beauty. Like it's treated as if it's a mercy to let a woman die young and beautiful rather than suffer through growing (gasp!) old. It doesn't seem to be so much about death (I'm not sure many tabloid-readers fany the idea of seeing Anna Nicole Smith's body right now) as it is about preserving youth through stopping life right at that point.

I'm bothered by it for a slightly different yet possibly linked reason...

Is LL being compared to Marilyn? Visually, artistically? By recreating something else the first will almost always be considered better.

I dont know how to put to words how i dont like it other than saying the whole deal is kinda lame.

"Also, why does no one have any new artistic ideas?"

for real

One can't reference Marilyn Monroe without referencing the way the culture uses and destroys women. That said, the thing it reminds me of is the creepy feeling I get listening to AC/DC's "Ride On," which is Bonn Scott singing his own epitaph. I guess the difference is that with Scott, the process was so self-conscious. He was by turns hopeful and resigned, but fully cognizant that he was drinking himself to death.

I guess if Lohan said, "you know, I've had problems with substance abuse and celebrity and being a sex symbol, and I don't know if I'm going to make Marilyn Monroe's mistakes or learn from them but either way I feel like I should do this ..." then I'd have a lot of respect for that, even if she does end up slowly circling the drain. But doing this without thinking about what it means that she died makes me think she doesn't even see it coming and therefore has little chance to get some perspective on it.

seriously why is EVERYTHING a throwback to something else these days?

why on earth would bert stern even feel the need to recreate this iconic photoshoot in the first place? this is a tangent, but i'm sick to death of remakes and sequels in hollywood.

anyway, marilyn fetishization is old hat, as is our cultural romance with beautiful people who die young. i don't think the fascination itself is dangerous or sexist, just the extent to which it is overdone. at least marilyn is a cautionary tale--i'm much more concerned with girls who come of age wanting nothing more to be rich, famous and vacuous (i.e., lindsay and her ilk). it just bothers me when the people with the least talent get the most attention and it seems particularly prevalent these days.

I am really troubled by the fetishistic way in which young women who obviously need medical or psychoiatric help are have every detail of their life raked over by male journalists.

'Referencing' should be using an old image in a new way. She should have went for a spot of genderfuck and been James Dean.

Oh yeah, Jessica, I got that--I was just responding to the comment just above mine.

And I agree that the fetishization of poor Marilyn Monre disturbing. And I find it even more disturbing to have a current starlet recreating her photo shoots, etc. It's like the culture is re-enacting Vertigo. Of course, the difference is that the audience of Vertigo and Hitchcock knew that the protagonist's obsession with a supposedly dead woman was creepy.

But what happened to Marilyn Monroe isn't a cautionary tale--she was abused as a child, was highly intelligent, realized early on that downplaying that intelligence could get her further than highlighting it, was beaten by at least one husband, and became addicted to drugs--at least in part as a form of self-medication. What's cautionary there?

Blondie said it best about the fetish of youth/marilyn monroe fetish in our culture:

"Are you waiting for the reaper to arrive?
Or just to die by the hand of love?
Love for youth, love for youth
So, die young and stay pretty

Leave only the best behind
Slipping sensibilities
Tragedy in your own dream"

ok i know this wasn't the point of the post... but i HATE HATE HATE when people compare modern-day actresses to Marilyn. i have always had a soft spot for marilyn.. i've read her biographies, collected various memorabilia...and I've always liked the photos of her that seemed to capture a different side of her (rather than just the glamorous poses).
It is in my understanding that despite her financial resources, Marilyn didn't have all the resources that these actresses do today to get help. Today, you could check into rehab without it damaging your career...back then, not so much. Marilyn was surrounded by emotionally damaging people who didn't support her, which helped lead to her downfall. Today, you could be addicted to crack, but as long as you check into rehab and do an interview with People magazine about it, the world will love you anyway.
I don't know... maybe its hard for me to explain...but I feel that the situation these young celebrities are in today differs from Marilyn's situation... I have more sympathy for Marilyn somehow. And I think that if anything, we should've learned from her situation...instead we seek to idolize the negative parts of it. Sigh.

EG - ehh, the power of addiction? the need to get/give help when someone obviously needs it? that making it in the entertainment industry often requires a lot of fucked up sacrifices?

i think the narrative is so powerful also because we see a talented actress destroyed when there were so many people around her who failed her in some way.

I guess I just don't like it when real people's suffering and death is flattened into a morality tale, and I think that's what often happens when famous people die young--the nuance is overlooked in favor of a fatalistic narrative about how the death was inevitable. Monroe had a lousy life, and she did a phenomenal amount to improve it when you consider where she started from.

I mean, back when she was addicted--there just weren't the kind of treatments we have now. They didn't exist, and psychotherapy was still horribly mired in sexism. I just don't think the help was there for her to get.

that making it in the entertainment industry often requires a lot of fucked up sacrifices?

Word. I'm with you on that one.

Is there anything inherently gender-specific about this, though. Don't so many people tend to do the same thing with men like James Dean or River Phoenix?

Is there anything inherently gender-specific about this, though? Don't so many people tend to do the same thing with men like James Dean or River Phoenix?

Is there anything inherently gender-specific about this, though? Don't so many people tend to do the same thing with men like James Dean or River Phoenix?

Trying to look at this in a positive light: Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but it could just be a symbol of how nothing in Hollywood/celebrity culture has really changed. Just how it's the same ol' tragic story that is constantly repeating itself. Granted not every celebrity is participating in destructive behavior from what we may/may not see. But the simple idea that it hasn't really changed. I personally think they should have just gotten a stick and other things to hold up the sheets but whatever. Lindsay Lohan doesn't have curves like Marilyn Monroe did so to even do this shoot was a retarded idea in the first place.

I'm not sure why Lohan was chosen, but the last *anything* of a person as famous as Monroe is going to be more popular..

I personally think the pictures (both sets) are tasteful. I know many people will disagree.

On a much more superficial note, the photos just aren't very good. It feels like both LL and the photographer were trying too hard and it just feels forced, fake, and kinda sad. There's no energy in the 2nd photos, especially when compared to the first.

whitmanesque--certainly people fetishize James Dean, but I would argue not as great an extent. You don't see photographers, for example, dressing real life male actors up as dead actors and calling it sexy.

While Lohan's judgement may be a little shakey, I'm thankful that she has the option of making all the bad choices she wants. Too often women are viewed as victims of society, circumstances, etc. What ever happened to empowerment to lead your own life as you see fit? What we forget is that we all have choices each day which guide the paths of our lives. To think that someone does something simply because some celebrity does it is doesn't make sense, where is free will in all this? Reminds me of when I was a child and "peer pressure" was blamed for all bad behavior because no one had the guts to be accountable for their own bad behavior.

Is this any worse than dressing up like Elvis? And how many women dress up like Betty Page (who retired and went on to live a "normal" life and as far as I know never had any drug problems or felt she had to downplay her intelligence to be successful)? As long as Lindsey Lohan still has enough emotional grounding to see how Marilyn Monroe was destroyed (which she seems to in the interview) I don't think there's anything particularly problematic about the spread. Of course from an artistic point of view it might be lacking, I haven't looked at the pictures yet so can't judge.

While Lohan's judgement may be a little shakey, I'm thankful that she has the option of making all the bad choices she wants. Too often women are viewed as victims of society, circumstances, etc. What ever happened to empowerment to lead your own life as you see fit? What we forget is that we all have choices each day which guide the paths of our lives. To think that someone does something simply because some celebrity does it doesn't make sense, reminds me of when I was a child and "peer pressure" was blamed for all bad behavior because no one had the guts to be accountable for their own bad behavior.

I've seen plenty of male actors posed à la James Dean. Every time you see a man posed in a white t-shirt with cuffed blue jeans, it's a Dean reference. No one comments on it. Marilyn Monroe and James Dean are pretty much our cultural touchstones for the "live fast, die young" ideal.

What I find more disturbing is how many people seem to assume that Britney Spears will inevitably commit suicide soon. Honestly, they are betting pools on it right now. There seems to be a pretty big assumption on the part of many that she will conclude her own life drama by killing herself, and soon. What goes on in people's minds, honestly?

I am unsure how I feel about this shoot fetishizing death or MM; neither of those two fetishes need help and it's easy to see them if you look hard enough.

But why simply duplicate what has been done before? Short answer: money.

The last photo, though, the one with the red and white scarf, is visually stunning.

The first thing I thought of when I saw this photo shoot was the supposed interchangeability of different women, and how hard it is to be considered an individual human rather than a member of the monolithic group Woman.

But I'm also a little disturbed by some of the comments in this thread that seem rather sexist. Lohan has talent (or, arguably, had, before the descent into drugs). She is a good musician who can sing really well - this coming from someone who doesn't even really like her style of music - and she can act. But it seems like some people on this thread want to deny that because she also does things like pose nude. I don't think that two are mutually exclusive and I think it's imperative that feminists not refuse acknowledgment of her talent along with the rest of the world just because she also plays on her looks.

So I googled the photographer's book of photos from the original Last Sitting, and it seems he published the photos in their entirety, even those that Monroe crossed out with an "x" to indicate that she didn't like them or want them published. In fact, the cover of the book is one such photo: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/3823854836.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg.

This just seems SO exploitative to me, taking the obvious exploitation -- she was drunk and naked -- one step farther by going against her wishes after her death, with no apparent motive other than profit. For this kind of "legend" to be replicated with such breeziness seems sick to me-- and deeply misogynistic.

Every time you see a man posed in a white t-shirt with cuffed blue jeans, it's a Dean reference.

No way am I buying that. White t-shirts and blue jeans? Every time? And none of that's a reference, to, I don't know, Marlon Brando, from whom Dean swiped that shit?

Find me someone putting, oh, say, Johnny Depp in an exact replica of, say, that famous shot of Dean in Times Square, and then I'll concede it.

I really think this is a stretch. People copy Monroe all the time (how many white halter dresses and blond wigs do you see every Halloween?), just because this one shoot happened to be her last doesn't mean recreating it is fetishizing death or downfall. If we wanted to do that, couldn't we just take real life footage of Lohan going out at night? Or pose her in a bed with her eyes rolled back and drool on her chin while cigarettes burn in an ashtray on the nightstand?

Maybe they just wanted to recreate a famous shoot. Maybe someone thought it was beautiful and wanted to pay homage. Why Lohan, I couldn't tell you, but that's a whole other argument.

This stuff is sad, and not in a good way. There are beautiful people in the world who destroy themselves in terrible ways, and I don't care to watch.

It has always stuck with me: in the 90s, Playboy experienced a significant anniversary, and they did a commemorative issue featuring Marilyn. I believe it was Harlan Ellison who wrote the article in tribute, and in it he said Marilyn was fatter than what we now considered sexy, but still, she was an icon. ...something to that effect.

Now, with this photo shoot, not only are they re-enacting it, they are re-making Marilyn to be smaller, almost boyish. They are updating the fetish for the age of eating disorders. Lovely.

"Now, with this photo shoot, not only are they re-enacting it, they are re-making Marilyn to be smaller, almost boyish. They are updating the fetish for the age of eating disorders. Lovely."

Did you look at the pictures? Are you familiar with Lindsay Lohan?

There's nothing boyish about her, nor is she super-thin like some of the girls today, in fact I'd say she is just "normal", whatever that means. And no boy I know has breasts that big.

Marilyn was before my time, so I don't quite get some of what is being said here about fetishes her death. All I can comment on is the pictures themselves, which are actually quite tasteful IMO and not that racy considering how some had explained them to me.

I don't think it's alarming that a person looks up to someone who's passed. Nor do I think that it's alarming that our culture idolizes those who've died prematurely. It's not a sexist thing, we've been doing this as a human race for millennia. You can look to the story of Mark Antony, Romeo and Juliet, James Dean. Those who die in their prime carry a sense of longing for the human race.

And if Lohan want to pose for nudes, I'm fine with that too. It's her body. They're artfully done, if a bit uncreative.

There's nothing boyish about her, nor is she super-thin like some of the girls today, in fact I'd say she is just "normal", whatever that means. And no boy I know has breasts that big.

I think the OP was referring to her hips when talking about her body being boyish. I agree that in these photos her body is healthy, but when compared to Marilyn Monroe's body (as inevitably happens when you're mimicking iconic photos) she appears much more sporty or even boyish than Monroe.

Just from an aesthetic standpoint I think that's why this project fails. If she sets herself up to be compared to an icon of femininity and curves Lohan loses. If she was featured instead in a shoot that celebrated the beauty of her own body on her own terms the whole project might seem more lively and less forced.

None of which addresses Jessica's point about how scary it is to see troubled young actors rehearsing scripts of self-destruction. They might do it naturally, but do people have to develop stroke material to go along?

“I personally think they should have just gotten a stick and other things to hold up the sheets but whatever. Lindsay Lohan doesn't have curves like Marilyn Monroe did so to even do this shoot was a retarded idea in the first place.�- LP

“Now, with this photo shoot, not only are they re-enacting it, they are re-making Marilyn to be smaller, almost boyish.� – Heidi

Stick? Boyish? Are you all looking at the same photos I am? She may be a bit smaller that MM in the hips, but if her breasts are boyish then I just came out of the closet (does this mean I need to register?).

I REALLY don't think it's cool to criticize her body, she doesn't look anorexic at all. So she doesn't have big hips; we can't all be super curvy.
That aside it freaks me out how glamourized drug use and so on is in celebrity culture. It also very much scared me when she was quoted as saying 'i won't let it happen to me' or something along those lines, regarding overdose deaths and so on, as if people who have overdosed really had control over themselves when they did so.

With all due respect, Jessica (and commenters), I think you are reading a lot more into this than is actually there. It is at most yet another comment on the sorry prevalence of celebrity worship in our society. By celebrity worship, I mean the worship both of individual celebrities and of celebrity in the abstract. Sad, but may I suggest that there are more important things to command our attention?

Gordon,

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/

I REALLY don't think it's cool to criticize her body, she doesn't look anorexic at all. So she doesn't have big hips; we can't all be super curvy.

I haven't looked at the pictures, but I agree with the sentiment.

Lindsay Lohan doesn't have curves like Marilyn Monroe did so to even do this shoot was a retarded idea in the first place.

1. Can we please not use "retarded" like that? It's insulting and hurtful to those of us who know people with mental disabilities.
2. Because I'm obsessive about looking things up:
According to Snopes:

Monroe
5',5.5" 118-140 lbs.
Bust: 35-37
Waist: 22-23
Hips: 35-36

Lohan, from what I can find:
5'5" 115-130 lbs.
Bust: 36
Waist: 26
Hips: 32

Doesn't really seem that different to me.

I have to say, I think Lohan looks slightly ridiculous. Her body is fine, she doesn't look anorexic or anything, but since Marilyn was the epitome of curvy beauty, Lohan just looks... wrong to me. It's more her face than anything else actually.

I have to say I do find the whole concept disturbing given exactly how awful Marilyn's life really was. Even if you don't view it as sexist the fetishism of Marilyn's decline is just creepy. :\

Thank you, roymac.

I'm always trying to tell people who are all like "MM was so curvy like a real woman. What's happened to celebrities today?" that MM was actually /tiny/ compared to most women. I mean, she's smaller than me, and most people who see me think I'm really skinny. The fact is, that problems existed with celebrity culture even back in the "golden age" and women faced plenty of pressure to look certain ways, even if the particular characteristics that were emphasized have changed somewhat...

I applauded her effort into doing this photo shoot but the idea behind it was really wrong and she really looks haggard for someone her age. It's written all over her face that she has had it hard.
priestesssarah you really should see the photos before you commented because if you did you would know the difference is more than just the stats on her figure. Aside from her breasts which I must say are real and fabulous she doesn't have the curves of Marilyn. Lindsay's tiny with no excess ANYTHING on her while Marilyn was fuller. I agree that curves don't make a woman as many women come in different shapes and sizes but as a healthy 5'9 woman 40-33-46 measurements I'm never gonna look like that nor do I ever want to.

soleil et al.

I understand you maybe don't think of it this way, but I find all the commenting on how the lack of curves don't look good to be every bit as offensive as a bunch of men sitting around and saying that women don't look good unless they have big boobs and a tiny waste (which Marilyn had anyway). I mean, I understand we all have our preferences, and I do think that to a desgree that's natural... but do we really have to put down other women's appearances /on a feminist blog/?

soleil-

The name of the commenter is under the post. I did not post the stats, roymacIII did.

kthx

For God's sake!!! Why on earth are there people critiquing Lohan's body? Her breasts are "real and fabulous?" Seriously? What was the point of that? If they were implants would they be awful? And how about if they were really small, would that "fabulous" deflate into "boyish" like her hips?? Could we please stop equating bodies that aren't shaped like hourglasses as masculine? Not all of us can be buxom, but that doesn't diminish my womanliness. And, I'm sorry, soleil, if you don't like Lohan's body and don't want to be shaped like her, but what on God's green earth does that have to do with the original post? And calling her haggard? UGH!

We talk about how it feeds into women's insecurities to have their bodies broken down into parts like they're cuts of beef on a butcher's slab, and yet, here it happens. There are poster's here who look, I'm sure, like Lohan in shape, and probably don't appreciate having their body type ripped apart. And there are women here who would love to have breasts like Lohan's, but ended up not so curvy anyway and don't appreciate being told they have undesirable, boyish figures. And, while she is a celebrity, and it may come with the territory, there's Lohan herself. She might not read this comment section, but I doubt she'd appreciate a bunch of feminists complaining about her body either. You don't like the photos? Then critique the photos. Leave Lohan's breasts and hips out of it.

I agree with the above. If the whole point here is feminist criticism I don't get the nit-picking about Lohan's body. For one thing both Lohan and Monroe changed in weight drastically due to their own addictions so it's hard to determine how close they are in size. Which is obviously not the point, to discuss which woman is more "womanly" and therefore attractive, but how society has a obsession with celebrities who die young, especially young, blonde female ones. I do think society does also have a obsession with men who die young also, but they are not displayed as icons simple for being beautiful, but rather for their talent. The sad thing is that our society often sees the icon image and not the reality.

I think Lohan is a beautiful young woman, but the kind of beauty she has is so different from the kind of beauty that Monroe had. I would expect to see Lohan in an Abercrombie and Fitch ad, not a burlesque-ish, more sensual type of spread. I don't equate Lohan with eros type energy in the same way I equate Monroe with eros. Two completely different energies (not to get all new-agey on you folks). To say that Lohan is "haggard" is ridiculous though. She's a beautiful young woman. She just doesn't seem to be able to pull off this spread. I actually don't think there's a celebrity alive today who could completely capture Monroe's energy.

In regards to the fetishization of the tragic downfall of a beloved celebrity, I really must side with Jessica on this one. I read about this on Jezebel yesterday and I couldn't help but wonder if they specifically chose Lohan because she's battling addiction problems and appears to be on a slow downward spiral. Seems pretty sick.

I was surprised to find criticism of Lindsey's body here and I also find it unacceptable/depressing.

There's nothing boyish about her, nor is she super-thin like some of the girls today, in fact I'd say she is just "normal", whatever that means. And no boy I know has breasts that big.

You ever see the guys who go shirtless at ballgames? Man boobage is all too real.

Marilyn was before my time, so I don't quite get some of what is being said here about fetishes her death. All I can comment on is the pictures themselves, which are actually quite tasteful IMO and not that racy considering how some had explained them to me. --HoneyBee

There's an archetype that goes back to primitive times. In art, mythology, folklore, religion and now pop culture, there has always been this weird fixation on those who are struck down in the prime of life, especially if they are beautiful and/or considered important.

Traditionally, this obsession revolved around young men (or male gods). The obsession with handsome young men who die in battle or by accident or murder was often borderline homoerotic (in many cases, like Achilles and Patroclus, WAY over the borderline).

I think it's animal instinct for humans to feel a greater sense of loss for those who died before they could have offspring, and the loss of those who are "pretty" or otherwise considered important even more so.

I'm with Persephone on this one. I was troubled by the connections this shoot drew between Monroe and Lohan. I've always been a fan of Monroe and felt that she was tremendously accomplished considering the abuse and sexism she encountered throughout her life. That said, I find the similarities between Lohan and Monroe's drug addictions drawn by this photo shoot unnerving. I don't want to victimize either, but the fact remains that both were subject to a merciless celebrity culture that is both fascinated by the downfall and death of young and beautiful public figures as well as steeped in sexist ideals about how women should look, behave, etc.

I don't know as much about Lohan as I do about Monroe (did a report on Monroe when I was younger and I don't closely follow current news about celebrities) but what this photo spread says to me is that Hollywood continues to perpetuate the same ideals that are antagonistic to women. It worries me that Lohan "didn't have to put much thought into it." She may be technically free to make her own decisions, good or bad, but I sometimes wonder how true that is considering the culture she lives in. I think back to the Lindsey Lohan I knew from her remake of The Parent Trap to the one I hear about occasionally on TV now and wonder how much of her behavior and choices is free agency and how much is the negative influence of a sexist celebrity culture. Certainly Lohan could've made other choices on her own but I feel that there must be intense pressure that outstrips that of the typical middle class adolescent or twenty-something and that seems to have had a strong effect on her, in which case I am concerned that she was chosen for this project.

I'm with Persephone on this one. I was troubled by the connections this shoot drew between Monroe and Lohan. I've always been a fan of Monroe and felt that she was tremendously accomplished considering the abuse and sexism she encountered throughout her life. That said, I find the similarities between Lohan and Monroe's drug addictions drawn by this photo shoot unnerving. I don't want to victimize either, but the fact remains that both were subject to a merciless celebrity culture that is both fascinated by the downfall and death of young and beautiful public figures as well as steeped in sexist ideals about how women should look, behave, etc.

I don't know as much about Lohan as I do about Monroe (did a report on Monroe when I was younger and I don't closely follow current news about celebrities) but what this photo spread says to me is that Hollywood continues to perpetuate the same ideals that are antagonistic to women. It worries me that Lohan "didn't have to put much thought into it." She may be technically free to make her own decisions, good or bad, but I sometimes wonder how true that is considering the culture she lives in. I think back to the Lindsey Lohan I knew from her remake of The Parent Trap to the one I hear about occasionally on TV now and wonder how much of her behavior and choices is free agency and how much is the negative influence of a sexist celebrity culture. Certainly Lohan could've made other choices on her own but I feel that there must be intense pressure that outstrips that of the typical middle class adolescent or twenty-something and that seems to have had a strong effect on her, in which case I am concerned that she was chosen for this project.

Also, I apologize for the double-posting. According to my computer my comment hadn't been successfully posted so I'd tried again.

I think Lohan is a beautiful young woman, but the kind of beauty she has is so different from the kind of beauty that Monroe had.

I mean I do think Lohan is quite attractive. And she does indeed have lovely breasts - sure, that's an objectifying comment but I was surprised at how nice they are. Anyway.

But to me she just looks wrong as Marilyn. It's not a criticism of her per se (though I don't have a lot of respect for her and I rather like Marilyn), she just seems visually an unfortunate choice for such a photoshoot.

And to clarify I do not approve of this gimmick, but as others have said it makes money :\

Good news, y'all, LL appears to have some awareness of this perspective:

http://entertainment.oneindia.in/hollywood/top-stories/scoop/2008/lindsay-blames-showbiz-200208.html

And to all those calling MM curvier than LL:

Although LL has smaller hips, it appears she has substantially larger breasts:

http://www.hotels-paris-rive-gauche.com/blog/images/Janvier/mrln2.jpg

The one critique I'd agree with is that maybe MM's expressions do appear more genuine (that would make plenty of sense considering hers were the original). But really, I'm not so interested in critiquing the photos on this thread...

I think images like this not only "fetishize the death and downfall of women in the public eye," but contribute to death and downfall in and of themselves. The objectification of women is a violent act in itself. It is violent to the individual woman's view of herself. And it is violent to all women expected to live up to the expectations of beauty captured by these images, objectifying women in society further. I think that by critiquing, comparing, dissecting their bodies in the way that several people have here, we are contributing to this culture of violence. I read an argument recently that MM's death was a product of being subject to this violent public gaze. I mean I understand that being a celebrity is their own choice, and this is part of it, especially for women, but my god if I were in the position of being scrutinized so obsessively, I might turn to destructive behavior and substances as well.

Agreed, Marissa. Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I could.

I disagree, Marissa. I think it's vitally important to maintain a real distinction between genuine violence and an objectifying gaze. For one thing, I don't agree that sexual objectification is an inherently bad thing--objectification to the exclusion of subjectivity is, and that is what has historically been done to women, but I don't think objectification in and of itself is always negative. More importantly, when it is negative, I just don't agree that it's comparable to violence.

I also think that such a theory devalues the very real sexual and physical violence that Monroe suffered. Surely we should not let those perpetrators of violence off the hook. Joe Dimaggio, whom she loved and trusted, beat her up and called her a whore for filming the subway grate scene in Seven-Year Itch. Her mother was mentally ill, and as a child, Monroe witnessed her having a breakdown and being forcibly taken to a mental institution. She was abandoned by a series of guardians and shuffled from foster home to foster home until she was married at the age of 16. She deeply wanted children, but her only child was stillborn and she had two other pregnancies--one was ectopic, and the other resulted in miscarriage. I suspect that these traumas were far more significant triggers for her addictions and subsequent death than her exposure.

I agree that publicly critiquing women's bodies is nasty and does contribute to our unhappiness.

Look, I agree that the objectification female celebrities are subjected to is simply horrible. But I think it's very important to maintain a distinction between that process and actual violence.

EG, you bring up very good points. I have to argue against your distinction however. Much like the difference between physical violence and emotional/verbal/financial/spiritual violence in domestic violence relationships, these non-physical attacks are STILL VIOLENT. When we emphasize making this kind of distinction, we end up invalidating the non-physical violence that survivors of domestic violence experience. I do not think that calling emotional abuse 'violence' invalidates the experience of those suffering physical violence.

To return to the issue of images, I do think they are violent. A different type of violence perhaps.

I think images like this not only "fetishize the death and downfall of women in the public eye," but contribute to death and downfall in and of themselves. The objectification of women is a violent act in itself. It is violent to the individual woman's view of herself. And it is violent to all women expected to live up to the expectations of beauty captured by these images, objectifying women in society further. I think that by critiquing, comparing, dissecting their bodies in the way that several people have here, we are contributing to this culture of violence. I read an argument recently that MM's death was a product of being subject to this violent public gaze. I mean I understand that being a celebrity is their own choice, and this is part of it, especially for women, but my god if I were in the position of being scrutinized so obsessively, I might turn to destructive behavior and substances as well.

--Marissa

What kind of nonsense is that? Violence is an act of physical force or threat of same. "Objectification" means reducing people to their sexual attributes or appearance to the point of downplaying or denying their non-sexual attributes.

Someone who doesn't know much about this starlet or that pin-up girl other than what they look like and evaluates them based on what he or she knows is NOT committing violence against that person. They are simply making a decision based on what they know and ONLY what they know. In other words, they are thinking logically.

I know very little about Lohan, other than what I've heard from tabloid stories and gossip. So the only thing I do know about her is what I saw with my own two eyes: I think she's cute (I like the fact that she doesn't try to hide her freckles under tons of makeup) and in my opinion she has a nice rack. Since I'm not terribly interested in the personal lives of total strangers who live far away from me, I'm not about to spend any time finding out more about her.

This is true for any strangers I might come into contact with. The fact that I might notice the woman standing in front of me at the checkout in a store has nice legs and a great ass, but I don't bother to find out what her interests are or her opinion about nuclear power is not a violent act against her. Not only is it not violence, it's not even a case of objectifying her, since I can't downplay her other attributes when I don't know what they are and am not in any position to find out.

Accusing people of violence because they look at others and find them attractive is pure lunacy.

Marshall, I don't think your point is very well taken by both insulting me and also talking about Lohan's rack and another girl's ass while saying you don't care what their interests or opinions are.

Ok, that said, I am not talking about merely physical attraction, but the way we are culturally conditioned to look at women's bodies. Such as the fact that we see women's nude or partially nude bodies all the time. Where are the objectified men's bodies in my magazines, billboards, etc? Also the fact that women's worth has been built up around her physical attributes, how much fat she has on her body, how young she is, what shape her hips/breasts/whatever are.

I don't think looking at people in itself is violent, but I do think the way we are conditioned to look at and perceive women's bodies is in no way neutral. I don't know if we, as individuals can necessarily stop that process. I don't hold you, Marshall, personally responsible for committing violence by looking at another person. But I do think that images that contribute to this culture of objectifying women's bodies, leading feminists even to start dissecting the appearance of their bodies, and causing individual women compare themselves to unattainable standards for their sense of social worth, IS violent.

Marshall, I don't think your point is very well taken by both insulting me and also talking about Lohan's rack and another girl's ass while saying you don't care what their interests or opinions are.

If I was interested, how would I find out? Am I supposed to do a full interview, background check and ask for references for every person I find physically attractive? Or do I do whay any sensible person does, which is to enjoy the view, then go about my own business? The fact that I might find any number of women appealing doesn't mean I'm interested in a relationship. Even if I was, it would be physically impossible to do so.

Ok, that said, I am not talking about merely physical attraction, but the way we are culturally conditioned to look at women's bodies.

Culture is only one factor, and probably not the main one.

Such as the fact that we see women's nude or partially nude bodies all the time. Where are the objectified men's bodies in my magazines, billboards, etc?

Try the museum. There are plenty of pictures of naked men there. The male body has also been "objectified" for thousands of years. Greco-Roman art is full of naked men, as is much of the Renaissance art that copies it.

Also the fact that women's worth has been built up around her physical attributes, how much fat she has on her body, how young she is, what shape her hips/breasts/whatever are.

I don't remember Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meier being evaluated for their breasts.

I don't think looking at people in itself is violent, but I do think the way we are conditioned to look at and perceive women's bodies is in no way neutral.

How could it be neutral. The desire to find a mate is common in almost all animals, and part of evaluating prospective sex partners revolves around physical appearance. Modern society might raise new issues like mobility (getting around and meeting new people), variety (all those phots of new people) and birth control (meaning people can have sex just for fun), but that doesn't change the fact that we evaluate strangers for their appearance unless and until we get more information. I can't tell if a woman is smart, well-adjusted, kind, generous or whatever from across a room. I CAN determine if I think she's attractive under those conditions. But since I'm not trying to bone every female who tickles my fancy (to say nothing of dating, courting, marriage), I just enjoy what I see and leave it at that.

I don't know if we, as individuals can necessarily stop that process.

I doubt many millions of years of evolution can be undone. More importantly, I don't think it's a good idea to try.

I don't hold you, Marshall, personally responsible for committing violence by looking at another person.

That's a relief.

But I do think that images that contribute to this culture of objectifying women's bodies, leading feminists even to start dissecting the appearance of their bodies, and causing individual women compare themselves to unattainable standards for their sense of social worth, IS violent.

Try telling that to a woman getting her jaw wired back together in the emergency room. Or the poor teenage girl who was murdered (see the story below) by her ex-boyfriend.

I'm reminded of a quote of Caroline Knapp's in Drinking: A Love Story - something like, 'you get your breasts stared at enough times, and the world starts to feel like a pretty unsafe place.' (paraphrasing a little) In short, a man's objectifying gaze may not be *deliberately* intimidating or threatening (but plenty of times it is), but it can certainly be experienced that way by the *object*, given the likelihood that she experiences instances of that all damn day long, and it's a reminder of dehumanized status, and when you are not human but an object, then the door is pretty much open to all kinds of violent acts being taken against you, because you simply don't matter as much as *real humans*, you don't have the same worth, feelings, etc. So, I do see a connection between objectification and violence. They're on a continuum, sure, but let's not pretend that all permutations of *looking at an attractive person* are the same. Someone looking in my eyes feels a lot more comfortable than someone who can't direct their gaze off my chest.

Also, just to nitpick, Marshall, the love Achilles had for Patroklos signified the love that battle comrades have for each other, which inspires acts of murderous rage and revenge by one when the other is killed. It's characterized combat for millenia. You may be interested in Jonathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam.

Further, "nice rack"? "Great ass"? What was your interest in feminism, again? Just here to provoke, are you? Because I can't see any evidence that you aren't in need of a serious remedial course. Please - enlighten me as to your interest in this blog. I'm not too keen on seeing "nice rack" and "great ass" here, whether or not THERE WILL EVER BE ANY SEMBLANCE OF COMMENT MODERATION AGAIN.

“In short, a man's objectifying gaze may not be *deliberately* intimidating or threatening (but plenty of times it is), but it can certainly be experienced that way by the *object*, given the likelihood that she experiences instances of that all damn day long, and it's a reminder of dehumanized status, and when you are not human but an object, then the door is pretty much open to all kinds of violent acts being taken against you, because you simply don't matter as much as *real humans*, you don't have the same worth, feelings, etc. So, I do see a connection between objectification and violence.� – Charity

1. You are both human and an object. It is not a choice of one or the other.

2. What is dehumanizing about one human looking at the breasts of another? Many humans have breasts. Many humans look at those breasts. Where is this supposed break in humanity?

Charity,
thank you. Yes.

Marshal,
"Try the museum. There are plenty of pictures of naked men there. The male body has also been "objectified" for thousands of years. Greco-Roman art is full of naked men, as is much of the Renaissance art that copies it."
Have you ever heard oft he tradition of the heroic nude? Male bodies were not sculpted/painted in Ancient Greece/Rome and the Renaissance to objectify their bodies. The male body was considered the most beautiful thing in both times, but this is much different than our contemporary ideas about beauty. There was actual subjectivity involved. Not to mention in the Renaissance a man's body was considered a symbol for the body politic as well as the church and the cosmos. Your comparison holds no weight historically. Nudity itself does not just equal objectification, especially if you are trying to argue that people perceived bodies in the same types of ways then as we do now.

"The desire to find a mate is common in almost all animals, and part of evaluating prospective sex partners revolves around physical appearance. "
Are we really going to go there?

"Try telling that to a woman getting her jaw wired back together in the emergency room. Or the poor teenage girl who was murdered (see the story below) by her ex-boyfriend."
And you don't think the objectification of women, leading to a dehumanization of women on a cultural level, had ANYTHING to do with these instances?

noname:

No, the point in this context is that it *is* a choice of one or the other. Either the person interacting with the woman is taking into account how those interactions affect her (i.e. treating her like a human being), or he is not (i.e. treating her physicalities as free game). The latter is called objectification. The context for this is almost always a disparity in the capacity for violence, because this is something that would very rarely happen if the woman were considered a serious threat.

Consider, for instance, what happens when the victim of that gaze or catcalling is a *man* receiving unwanted attention -- specifically, a het man being ogled by a gay man. An immediate (and potentially even violent) reaction out of the het man is so typical (at least in most local U.S. cultures) it's *expected*, and failure to react that way may have negative social repercussions.

I saw this and instantly thought of drew barrymore: she used naked pictures to try to cross the line between "child actress" and plain old "actress." I don't remember where she posed though I do remember the fuss. She is quite successful now.

So I suspect that agreeing to this was mostly driven by a desire to just make more money. And in that vein, I don't know whether that's sexist: is the tendency to pigeonhole child actors or actresses in their youthful roles linked to the sex of the person involved? Maybe it is.

But I confess I don't really understand the whole marilyn thing. Her pictures are pretty and sexy, sure, but she's not any prettier or sexier because she's dead.

Riiiight...every random guy on the street or in my workplace who leers at my chest is looking for a potential mate, and that is evolutionarily determined. Mm, hmm. That must be why I check out the genitalia of all the men I come across on a daily basis. Oh that's right, I don't. Noname, you don't even know how to argue in good faith, do you? Yes, I am a human, but being reduced to a sum of parts that are titillating for men *is* dehumanizing. Men looking at women in those ways has to do with an underlying sense of entitlement to, and ownership of, female bodies. That's the same sense of entitlement and ownership, by the way, that underlies much physical violence towards women. I watched an interview with several individuals involved in that young woman's life (the one who was killed by her former boyfriend and was the subject of another post.) He demonstrated increasingly controlling behavior and did not want *other men* LOOKING AT HER in any kind of sexualized way. Because only *he* had the right to do that, because he owned her.

Furthermore, yes we share many characteristics with animals, but because we have more highly developed brains as well as the capacity for empathy, we (or, most of us anyway) do strive to act in more civilized ways that honor the dignity of other human beings, even when they go against our so-called animalistic nature. Animals and people both get aggressive at times by nature, yet *gasp! shockingly* we have laws that regulate the expression of aggression, rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying it's "in our nature." Men are fully *capable* of interacting with women without staring at their breasts or asses. Many, many men do so on a daily basis, even those who are (shockingly again!) single and potentially looking for life partners. Many *other* men simply don't feel they need to afford women the respect of not doing so, or that their desires outweigh the woman's right to be treated as a human being.

And thank you, Zed, and Marissa!

And thank you, Zed, and Marissa!

Marissa, I've been thinking over what you've said, and I appreciate your arguments. I think your points are dead on and that this kind of mass objectification does cause real suffering.

But I still find myself very uncomfortable using the word "violence" to describe what's happening to a woman when she's objectified. For myself, I think it's because I am strongly of the opinion that the borders of the body need to be inviolable, that touching someone in a hurtful way or without her permission is a transgression of a whole different category that needs to be recognized as different. Perhaps my feeling is related to a sense that historically, such physical attacks on women have been downplayed as unimportant--rape isn't that bad, or isn't really rape; he only hit you once and you made him angry; you know the kind of thing I mean, I know. So for me, that leads to a sense that we still need to underscore the, well, violence, the physical violence of violence against women. I fear that using the word "violence" in a more encompassing way might empty it of that meaning and impact.

On the other hand, though, we already do use violence in other contexts--we speak of, oh, "the violence of her emotions," say. So the use you're advocating is to a certain extent in the language. But then again, we don't talk about the ways that abusers hurt their partners emotionally and financially as violence, but rather as abuse.

So I suppose that what I'm saying is that I can see how and why you're using the term in this way, but that I'm still uncomfortable with it and, for myself, prefer not to.

Where to begin?

I'm reminded of a quote of Caroline Knapp's in Drinking: A Love Story - something like, 'you get your breasts stared at enough times, and the world starts to feel like a pretty unsafe place.' (paraphrasing a little) In short, a man's objectifying gaze may not be *deliberately* intimidating or threatening (but plenty of times it is), but it can certainly be experienced that way by the *object*, given the likelihood that she experiences instances of that all damn day long, and it's a reminder of dehumanized status, and when you are not human but an object, then the door is pretty much open to all kinds of violent acts being taken against you, because you simply don't matter as much as *real humans*, you don't have the same worth, feelings, etc. So, I do see a connection between objectification and violence.

Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy. If someone admires another person's body and finds the other person sexually appealing we get violence.

All this of course assumes Knapp can read the minds of every man who looks at her breasts.

They're on a continuum, sure, but let's not pretend that all permutations of *looking at an attractive person* are the same. Someone looking in my eyes feels a lot more comfortable than someone who can't direct their gaze off my chest.

Why should it? If "objectification" is bad, it's bad whether the person admiring body parts is focused on eyes, breasts, hips, ankles, earlobes or whatever catches their attention.

Also, just to nitpick, Marshall, the love Achilles had for Patroklos signified the love that battle comrades have for each other, which inspires acts of murderous rage and revenge by one when the other is killed. It's characterized combat for millenia. You may be interested in Jonathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam.

I know all about that. I also know that the ancient Greeks practiced a kind of "buddy system" whereby the paired fighting men were often sex partners.

Further, "nice rack"? "Great ass"? What was your interest in feminism, again? Just here to provoke, are you?

Nothing like the appeal to motive fallacy, is there? In point of fact, I found this site thanks to Avedon Carol's site and because I saw Jessica Valenti's guest blog at The Nation..

Because I can't see any evidence that you aren't in need of a serious remedial course. Please - enlighten me as to your interest in this blog.

I agree with most of what I've read on this site, but likening an admiring gaze at a person to violence is not only foolish, but obscene. It reminds me of when cities passed smoking bans in restaurants and one twit said that he knew how Jews in Nazi Germany must have felt.

I'm not too keen on seeing "nice rack" and "great ass" here,

I suppose I could have typed "physically attractive" a few more times, but why should I, when brevity is more desriptive?

whether or not THERE WILL EVER BE ANY SEMBLANCE OF COMMENT MODERATION AGAIN.
--Charity

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Okay.. I think I am just going to skip Marshall's comment and move on to my original intent of replying to EG. He's on troll territory as far as I'm concerned.

EG,
I do see where you are coming from and it sounds like we are both standing in practically the same position with just a leaning to opposite directions. I can see your point about basically deflating the effectiveness of the term violence. But at the same time, when it comes to domestic violence, it is very important not to distinguish physical from emotional as one being violent and the other not. In domestic violence, those suffering emotional violence tend to look at their experiences as "not that bad" because it isn't physical. Not to mention that abusers and bystanders might hold the same ideas and use it against the victim. I think we need to name emotional abuse violent. I think this empowers victims/survivors. Maybe this can also extend into the idea of "grey rape" vs. "real rape."

There are fields of study dedicated to theories of the gaze and how a male, objectifying gaze operates. Having studied in these areas, I am biased towards finding enormous social and political value in the power of the gaze. I also think of the films from I think the 1980s and 90s, "Killing Us Softly," that looks at how media images of sexualized, objectified, and in some cases visually violated bodies of women lead to a culture of physical violence against women.

I think that not only do these kinds of images lead to a culture of physical violence against women, they are in themselves violent. Objectifying images give women unhealthy standards to try to strive for, leading to anorexia and self-loathing for not attaining these standards. These images train society to think of women as objects, and then treat them accordingly. These images tell men and women that women are worth only as much as they are physically attractive. I mean I suppose it could be looked at as a sliding scale of different types of images leading towards/creating different types of violence. Personally I think for us to name objectifying images violent, it is taking their destructive quality more seriously and perhaps encourage more serious actions against perpetuating these ideas about women's bodies.

(Not to mention objectifying women plays into a culture of rape.)

Where to begin?

Ah, the old slippery slope fallacy. If someone admires another person's body and finds the other person sexually appealing we get violence.

Well, that's a bit reductive. It's not the finding another person attractive- it's the what you do with the feeling. It's the difference between looking and leering. Between noticing and staring.

All this of course assumes Knapp can read the minds of every man who looks at her breasts.

No, it assumes that Knapp, being a person, has feelings about the ways that people look at her. As do most of us. I've certainly felt uncomfortable about the ways that people have looked at me, before. I don't need to be able to read people's minds to notice that someone is staring at me.

Why should it? If "objectification" is bad, it's bad whether the person admiring body parts is focused on eyes, breasts, hips, ankles, earlobes or whatever catches their attention.

Because making eye-contact, at least in the United States, tends to be perceived differently than staring at a person's secondary sex organs, maybe? Because there's a difference, again, between looking at a person, and staring?

I agree with most of what I've read on this site, but likening an admiring gaze at a person to violence is not only foolish, but obscene.

It seems to me that you're really reducing the point that was being made. You'll notice that there are comments about "leers" and "stares". It's not the idea that someone might get on the bus and think "wow, she's really cute!" It's about the undressing people with your eyes- the staring at a woman's chest, the leering at a woman's body. There's a distinct difference. I don't think (and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong) anyone is suggesting that noticing someone you find attractive and thinking "wow!", and then going on with your day is violence- I think that what is being suggested is that the latter is the problem. That's the one that is being described as a form of violence that feels like a violation.

I suppose I could have typed "physically attractive" a few more times, but why should I, when brevity is more desriptive?

Maybe because you're on a feminist space that is, at least partially, designed to be a safe space for women to discuss issues surrounding sexism and feminism, and that using terms like "rack" to talk about women's bodies is disrespectful and likely to be a trigger, and because you're engaging in a conversation wherein people have already discussed how being objectified in certain ways makes them feel, and that using terms like that is a pretty significant example of objectifying women's bodies? Also, it makes you sound like less of a jerk?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Really? Because it was pretty obvious to me- I believe that she was suggesting that your comment should have been moderated away.

@jessicamm: i'm a photo editor for celeb portraits and i'm 99% certain those X's resulted from the photographer's editing process. a client would not be allowed to write directly on the contacts in that way. i have always liked them, from an aesthetic standpoint.

Have you ever heard oft he tradition of the heroic nude? Male bodies were not sculpted/painted in Ancient Greece/Rome and the Renaissance to objectify their bodies.

How do you know this? Did you interview the artists or something? Yes, I'm familiar with the idea of naked men in art depicting heroism or other ideals, but the end result (a naked body) is the same. When gay men admire the muscles on classic sculptures, it's safe bet that heroism isn't on their minds unless they're art aficionados.

Your comparison holds no weight historically. Nudity itself does not just equal objectification, especially if you are trying to argue that people perceived bodies in the same types of ways then as we do now.

I'll bet the average person back then looked at the statues pretty much as they do now. Human nature isn't much different.

"Try telling that to a woman getting her jaw wired back together in the emergency room. Or the poor teenage girl who was murdered (see the story below) by her ex-boyfriend."
And you don't think the objectification of women, leading to a dehumanization of women on a cultural level, had ANYTHING to do with these instances?
--Marissa

One, I'm unimpressed by the slippery slope fallacy: A will lead to B, then to C, D, E and F. Even assuming for the sake of argument that one stranger noticing another stranger's body and thinking "Wow! She (or he) looks hot!" counts as "objectifying" that person (which I don't buy for half a second), I doubt that thinking "What pretty eyes" or "nice butt" would count as dehumanizing a person. Even if it did, it has little if anything to do with violent attacks. People can be violent with people they genuinely love and value as human beings, and they can be equally violent towards people they don't find the least bit attractive, sexually or otherwise.

So not only is it NOT a case of cause and effect, there's no correlation whatsoever between ogling and violence. If anything the correlation is between repressed sexuality and abuse, as we've seen with the pedophile priests.

Okay, I said I'd ignore him but sometimes I just can't.

"How do you know this? Did you interview the artists or something?"
Believe it or not, there are actually historical records of why art works were commissioned and how viewers perceived them. And, get this, ways of viewing and understanding bodies has, in fact, changed over time. And you wouldn't believe this either, but our contemporary ways of looking at and understanding women's bodies are culturally constructed and have been shaped by a number of different factors throughout history.

I am not talking about basic physical attraction...

Marissa, I applaud you for trying! And woot, Roymac, for chiming in so eloquently, as usual.

It seems that Marshall wants / needs to believe the women whose "rack" and "ass" he ogles aren't creeped out...hey, whatever gets you through the day. But I still think this is the wrong blog for you...

No, the point in this context is that it *is* a choice of one or the other. Either the person interacting with the woman is taking into account how those interactions affect her (i.e. treating her like a human being), or he is not (i.e. treating her physicalities as free game). The latter is called objectification. The context for this is almost always a disparity in the capacity for violence, because this is something that would very rarely happen if the woman were considered a serious threat.

There's no fooling you, is there? Why just earlier today I picked up a copy of Vanity Fair with a picture of the beautiful actress Emily Blunt (plus several others) on the cover. The first thing that popped into my mind was NOT "Is she hot or what?", but rather "I have a greater capacity for physical violence than she does".

Consider, for instance, what happens when the victim of that gaze or catcalling

Watch those goalposts fly!

is a *man* receiving unwanted attention -- specifically, a het man being ogled by a gay man. An immediate (and potentially even violent) reaction out of the het man is so typical (at least in most local U.S. cultures) it's *expected*, and failure to react that way may have negative social repercussions.

--Zed

Men (including gay men) face rejection -some of it hostile? Do tell. By the way, if admiring someone's body is "violence" and straight men rejecting gay advances is also to be lumped in with violent attacks, then logically a straight man who ogles a woman or makes a pass and is rebuffed is also the victim of violence -right? Of course the latter is ridiculous and so are the former.

Well, that's a bit reductive. It's not the finding another person attractive- it's the what you do with the feeling. It's the difference between looking and leering. Between noticing and staring.

Maybe you'd like to explain the difference. How long can a man admire a woman's body before it becomes "leering"? With your help, maybe straight men can set their watches to make sure they don't look too long.

No, it assumes that Knapp, being a person, has feelings about the ways that people look at her. As do most of us.

I'm sure there are plenty of horndogs who stare and smack their lips and otherwise make fools of themselves, but just because someone looks at a woman's chest doesn't necessarily mean he's undressing her with his eyes. She might have spilled something, for example. It is possible to miscontrue intent, now isn't it?

I've certainly felt uncomfortable about the ways that people have looked at me, before. I don't need to be able to read people's minds to notice that someone is staring at me.

Maybe your fly was open. It happens. I must be atypical, but when I get the feeling that another person is ogling me, I take it as a compliment.

Because making eye-contact, at least in the United States, tends to be perceived differently than staring at a person's secondary sex organs, maybe?

You're ducking the question, but OK I'll play along. Let's assume that sex organs (including breasts, by your standard) are off-limits. That still leaves most of the female body to be looked at: legs, hips, buttocks, neck, hair, face, shoulder et al. So what's the difference between looking a woman in the eye with lust, and looking at her legs with lust?

Because there's a difference, again, between looking at a person, and staring?

A distinction without a difference. Say one person sees a stranger in a store and looks at that person's legs for a good 30 seconds. No whistling, no catcalls, no heavy breathing or salivating -they just look. Let's call that "undressing with the eyes". Does that mean a person who only sneaks a peek is "objectifying" the other person any less?

It seems to me that you're really reducing the point that was being made. You'll notice that there are comments about "leers" and "stares". It's not the idea that someone might get on the bus and think "wow, she's really cute!" It's about the undressing people with your eyes- the staring at a woman's chest, the leering at a woman's body. There's a distinct difference. I don't think (and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong) anyone is suggesting that noticing someone you find attractive and thinking "wow!", and then going on with your day is violence- I think that what is being suggested is that the latter is the problem. That's the one that is being described as a form of violence that feels like a violation.

Did you even read the other posts? That was exactly the point the other poster made: Ogling = violence. So if you looked at the pictures of Lindsay Lohan and evaluated her body (good, bad, indifferent), you committed a violent act. That's absurd.

Maybe because you're on a feminist space that is, at least partially, designed to be a safe space for women to discuss issues surrounding sexism and feminism,

Safe space? So pointing that it's absurd to consider looking at another person's body as a violent act is a danger to women? Please.

and that using terms like "rack" to talk about women's bodies is disrespectful and likely to be a trigger,

A new fallacy of logic: Style over Substance. Are you even capable of arguing a point honestly? Whether a pair of breasts are referred to a "rack", a "pair" or hell, even a "brace" is immaterial. But I kind of understand where you're coming from. If were such an ineffective debater and had such a poor grasp on logic, I might be tempted to whine about another person's choice of words.

and because you're engaging in a conversation wherein people have already discussed how being objectified in certain ways makes them feel, and that using terms like that is a pretty significant example of objectifying women's bodies? Also, it makes you sound like less of a jerk?

Such special pleading for Miss Manners-style decorum on a blog where blunt language is encouraged, not discouraged. More style over substance BS on your part.

Really? Because it was pretty obvious to me- I believe that she was suggesting that your comment should have been moderated away. --roymacIII

In other words, you're such a poor debater that your only chance of seeing an argument through is to delete the other person's replies. That's pathetic.

Okay.. I think I am just going to skip Marshall's comment and move on to my original intent of replying to EG. He's on troll territory as far as I'm concerned.
--Marissa

Translation: "I have no argument. Watch as I put my fingers in my ears. La-la-la I can't hear you!"

Concession accepted.

Marissa, I applaud you for trying! And woot, Roymac, for chiming in so eloquently, as usual.
It seems that Marshall wants / needs to believe the women whose "rack" and "ass" he ogles aren't creeped out...hey, whatever gets you through the day. But I still think this is the wrong blog for you...--Charity

If you're suggesting that logic and feminism are mutually exclusive, then a feminist blog is the last place you should be posting.

"I've certainly felt uncomfortable about the ways that people have looked at me, before. I don't need to be able to read people's minds to notice that someone is staring at me.

Maybe your fly was open. It happens. I must be atypical, but when I get the feeling that another person is ogling me, I take it as a compliment. "

Well, Marshall, have you ever been groped on public transportation? Have you ever had people argue with you when you try to reject their advances? Have you ever had people call you "bitch" and "slut" when you didn't return their gaze or acknowledge their whistle? My guess is no... Yet, these are things women deal with on a daily basis. This is how we know that many men who are learing do not respect us as human beings...

Here are some Feminism 101 links for you ML, which I expect you to read since you're accusing other posters of not reading every comment.

On the male gaze:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%e2%80%9cmale-gaze%e2%80%9d/

On sexual objectification:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/

Oh also, if you continue with your obnoxious tone that displays a clear lack of desire in mutually beneficial conversation, I WILL report you to Jessica.

Thank you Ninap... I really enjoyed the discussion with other very thoughtful commenters without his interruptions and degradation.

Apologies for the slow moderation, folks. Troll-be-gone is here.

And thanks to all the ever patient commenters for their amazing insights, even in the face of assholedom.

I seriously need a few cans of Troll-be-gone around for my everyday life...

Those are great comments, Nina. Not to mention that I personally remember getting ogled and even approachd by adult men as early as 13 / 14. That doesn't exactly make sense "evolutionarily," nor does it inspire a sense of safety in the world or a sense of being respectfully "appreciated" by the opposite sex. It feels creepy and wrong. Because it is.

And thank you Jessica, and sorry for my all-caps comment moderation plea...I just get frustrated, but you do an awesome job.

I love it when someone complains about other people having "no argument" but then engages in name-calling. Even better is when that person complains about other people engaging in the logical fallacy of the slippery slope, but then engages in it himself.

Here's a clue, Marshall Lucky (if you're even able to see this): Looking and leering exist on a continuum. Arguing that the lack of a non-arbitrary point of difference between the two somehow means that there isn't a difference (which is what you've argued)? That's also a slippery slope fallacy- like suggesting that, because there's no non-arbitrary point at which "few" becomes "many", there's no such thing as "many".

If he's still reading this, deciding a person is an asshole who just isn't ever going to understand that his experiences of how misogyny works are different than many women's experiences of misogyny, and choosing not to engage in useless debate with that name-calling closed-minded..person.., does not mean I don't have a counter argument.

“No, the point in this context is that it *is* a choice of one or the other.� - Zed

Here is the definition I found for object at answers.com: "Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing." Do you really want to try to deny that people are objects?

“Noname, you don't even know how to argue in good faith, do you? Yes, I am a human, but being reduced to a sum of parts that are titillating for men *is* dehumanizing. Men looking at women in those ways has to do with an underlying sense of entitlement to, and ownership of, female bodies. That's the same sense of entitlement and ownership, by the way, that underlies much physical violence towards women.� – Charity

I am arguing in good faith, I just happen to not agree with you. These are not mutually exclusive concepts (no matter how many stars you use around “*is*�). If you are not the sum of your parts, then what do you think you are? What does any of this have to do with ownership or entitlement? I just saw a nice car outside. Do you think that I feel entitled to ownership of that car due to my appreciation of it?

perhaps you don't feel entitled to own the car, noname, but you sure would like to own it, wouldn't you?

well, what if i saw you, saw your prospects in the field of manual labor, and wanted to own you?

i'm just appreciating you, after all, no harm done. i can't wait to get to the auction block.

on another note, when's ny mag going to run a cindy sherman series featuring some pop icon? think about it - paris hilton surrounded by half-digested pizzas and used tampons. that would be awesome.

Your theory is nice, Marshall, but it is just that - a theory.
I am a woman. I LIVE it on the other side.

You simply CAN'T know what it's like to be viewed as walking public property.

That you would tell a group of women what objectification is really all about is preposterous.

You don't think I should feel skeezed out, defeated and small after over a decade of cat-calls, street harassment, unsolicited comments about my body from strangers, demands to "smile" from men I don't know, leering and groping? Fuck you.

That other commenter was right - when MEN are so much as winked at by other men, THEY fly into rages and often get off on the bogus "gay panic" defense. Maybe next time some asshole grabs my ass in a bar I'll smash a bottle over his head and claim "straight panic."

Oh wait, that won't work. I'm a woman, so this is just my lot in life.

GOD. Such privilege oozing from your posts. Oh, you'd just take it all as a compliment, would you? Yeah, sort of like how rape threats are flattering. You haven't even tried to put yourself in women's shoes or tried to imagine what the world looks like from our perspective.

Maybe you need to be reminded that we have a perspective at all.

I fucking love you, SarahMC.

noname:

Your last response to me is the reason you are being accused of not arguing in good faith. You took an explanation of how the phrase "treated as an object" is used in the context of how women are treated, and have completely ignored it in favor of a different definition that is completely irrelevant to the discussion but allows you to feel good about objectification.

Let me try one more time to rephase: "to treat someone as an object" is a slightly shortened version of "to treat someone as little more than an object". Nobody is disputing that female bodies, like male ones, consist of physical matter. The point that people are trying to get across to you is that the physical form is not all there is to a human being. If you do not treat someone as more than an object (i.e. like a human being with real feelings), in this context you are treating someone "like an object". You can't get out of this by noting that one definition of "object" is "physical matter".

In this context, yes, damn straight, I am disputing that people are merely objects -- and the very fact that we can have this argument is about as compelling a case as one can make for the need for feminism, which has been defined by some as the movement to get the world to treat women like human beings.

okay, while noname has demonstrated, again and again, his reticence to give up the smallest iota of male privilege... in this case, i'll give him the benefit of the doubt...

and just assume that he's about 150 years behind on modern philosophy... so here's a wikipedia link to catch you up on the meanings of subject and object as they relate to this conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem

Because men don't look at cars and assume they own them means they therefor couldn't possibly look at women with a sense of entitlement to their bodies? Huh? Not every parallel argument someone makes is going to work. The subject/object problem is NOT the same as random person/random material object in the world.

I love it when men talk about ogling women as if only the men's intent matters. The women's response is pushed aside as being irrelevent, illogical, overly emotional, defensive, childish. It's one of the more blatant "Only men's feelings and thoughts matter" statements that you're likely to see outside of those who will flatly admit their misogyny.

“the physical form is not all there is to a human being� – Zed

What more is there, then?

Puckalish – I opine that a subject is a type of object, not something completely different. I suppose if one believes in souls and believes that souls do not qualify as objects, then one could believe in a subject which is not a type of object, but that is a leap of faith I am not capable of taking at this time. Where it gets interesting is in deciding what qualifies an object to be a subject, but that is a whole other conversation, I think.

As for the car question: I may or may not want to own the car, depending on my situation. It does not follow from my appreciation of it, however, that I will want to own it. It also does not follow that I will feel entitled to own it. I was responding to this statement:

�Men looking at women in those ways has to do with an underlying sense of entitlement to, and ownership of, female bodies. That's the same sense of entitlement and ownership, by the way, that underlies much physical violence towards women.�

Charity seems to think this sense of entitlement is a necessary part of this sort of gaze. I think that while this sense could exist simultaneously, it could also be absent or even exist independent of this gaze.

***

�Because men don't look at cars and assume they own them means they therefor couldn't possibly look at women with a sense of entitlement to their bodies? Huh?� - Marissa

No. And that is not what I said, either.

noname:

Feelings, aspirations, dreams, opinions, fears, loves, and choices, for a start.

When we fail to consider these things, we disregard not only someone else's humanity, but our own.

The moment you unconsciously -- or worse, make a conscious decision to -- make someone feel afraid, violated, or in the words of SarahMC, "skeezed out, defeated, and small" for your own personal pleasure, you have, for lack of a less dramatic phrase, done something evil. A minor evil, perhaps, when done unconscously, or out of ignorance -- but we get along as a society because we can make the choice not to hurt each other casually.

This is not to say that one can never take some time to admire a set of breasts -- but the right way to do it is to work out a relationship with the person who happens to be attached to them such that you can first be confident that the person will feel flattered and happy (or at the very least amused and tolerant) at the attention, not distressed.

What does any of this have to do with ownership or entitlement? I just saw a nice car outside. Do you think that I feel entitled to ownership of that car due to my appreciation of it?

Actually, I think this is the most revealing comment that noname could possibly have made. He is comparing leering at a woman's body with looking at a car, completely eliding any distinction between a woman and an inanimate object, ownership of which is often considered an indicator of status and masculinity.

And that is exactly what is wrong with leering at women. We are not cars. We are not inanimate objects. We are thinking, feeling human beings, and being reduced to the level of a thing to bolster a man's ego is profoundly insulting and dehumanizing.

Further, human beings do have the right to own cars, if they can afford to. When you are looking at a car, you are indeed looking at something that is subject to ownership. Transferring that same look to a woman is deeply problematic; it indicates that women are similarly subject to such ownership by the man gazing at them. Again, we are reduced things.

Noname's analogy is far more revealing than he knew.

Noname,
I imagine it must be nice to be in such a privileged position that you are uneffected by objectification. It must be nice to walk through public places not worrying that you are seen as an object, as the rightful possession to anyone of the opposite sex who decides to act on their misogyny, and not to live with the sense of fear and self-consciousness that comes with all of this.

Just because you are privileged as a man who never experiences this and has never felt threatened in this way, it does not mean your experience holds true for everyone.

Recognize how you are perceived and how that shapes your understanding of the world. Recognize your "blind spots." You are privileged as a man, just as I am for being white and not being subject to the same discrimination and racism as are people of color. The difference is that I KNOW that my experience is not universal.

Not to mention the delicious irony of a man claiming to *know* when a sense of entitlement is, or isn't present in a situation, as he simultaneously demonstates a blinding sense of entitlement in attempting to discredit women's lived experience in favor of his more *enlightened* take on the male gaze.

“the physical form is not all there is to a human being� – Zed

What more is there, then? noname

Hmmm...in your case? I'm stumped. Whoops, an ad feminem attack!

“Feelings, aspirations, dreams, opinions, fears, loves, and choices, for a start.� – Zed

You don’t think that these things are a part of you? I think they are, even if they are only patterns of firing neurons.

“The moment you unconsciously -- or worse, make a conscious decision to -- make someone feel afraid, violated, or in the words of SarahMC, "skeezed out, defeated, and small" for your own personal pleasure, you have, for lack of a less dramatic phrase, done something evil. A minor evil, perhaps, when done unconscously, or out of ignorance -- but we get along as a society because we can make the choice not to hurt each other casually.� – Zed

By your definition of evil, anything action could be evil as long as someone else thinks so. I think that there has to be some thought put into whether another person’s feelings are reasonable before you allow them the absolute right to morally define your actions.

“He is comparing leering at a woman's body with looking at a car, completely eliding any distinction between a woman and an inanimate object, ownership of which is often considered an indicator of status and masculinity.� – EG

Of course there is a distinction between a car and a woman’s body. One is a car and one is a woman’s body. Both, however, are things which might be appreciated by someone, and in neither case does a perceived entitlement of ownership necessarily follow that appreciation.

“We are thinking, feeling human beings, and being reduced to the level of a thing to bolster a man's ego is profoundly insulting and dehumanizing.� – EG

Human beings are things. They are, of course, also humans. Being looked at does not strip away either designation. What, by the way, does any of this have to do with bolstering someone’s ego?

“Further, human beings do have the right to own cars, if they can afford to. When you are looking at a car, you are indeed looking at something that is subject to ownership.� – EG

One can only own a car if the owner of that car consents to sell it to them. In the case of people, we are our own owners. One can argue whether one has the right to sell himself, but that is another debate entirely. As far as I know, looking or being looked at has nothing to do with ownership.

�Recognize how you are perceived and how that shapes your understanding of the world. Recognize your "blind spots." You are privileged as a man, just as I am for being white and not being subject to the same discrimination and racism as are people of color. The difference is that I KNOW that my experience is not universal.� – Marissa

I am privileged. Did I deny that? And I do believe that my experience is not universal (how you KNOW it is a mystery to me, however).

“Not to mention the delicious irony of a man claiming to *know* when a sense of entitlement is, or isn't present in a situation, as he simultaneously demonstates a blinding sense of entitlement in attempting to discredit women's lived experience in favor of his more *enlightened* take on the male gaze.� – Charity

I don’t know when someone else feels a sense of entitlement. I do know that it is not a necessary component of one person looking at another and that other person feeling worse for it.

I think that you all think I am saying it is perfectly fine to ogle anyone you choose without considering their feelings. I’m not sure why. I merely argued that being looked at does not dehumanize you and that looking at someone does not necessarily mean you feel entitled to own them. Maybe you think I said something that I did not?

Oh, jaysus, if you haven't heard / read / gotten that we ALL acknowledge there is a continuum from being looked at to being leered at, I don't know how to make you hear and understand that, at this point. That is simply not the argument anyone is making, that looking at someone in some benign fashion, happening to make eye contact or happening to have someone move into your line of vision and *seeing them with your eyes*, ALWAYS reflects a sense of entitlement and ownership. I mean, come ON....are you not reading? Are you reading only every fifth letter and every fourth punctuation mark, then rearranging the letters in a mirror or some other nonsense?

But yes, we may have to agree to disagree that the cavalier freeness with which many men ogle women, in a way that women do not ogle men (I'm talking about leering at body parts, not making eye contact and smiling, here), reflects a broad, culturally indoctrinated sense of entitlement that men AS A GROUP are conditioned to believe they have when it comes to women and girls and their appearance, their bodies, their personal space. I'm not sure if it's your inability to take a woman's perspective, or what, but I think it's pretty obtuse of you to still be arguing what you are arguing, at this point, when it comes to that notion. There is plenty of evidence of this entitlement / ownership phenomenon that goes above and beyond leering...many examples posted about here, on this site, everyday.

And more generally, for your personal betterment (I'm feeling generous today) I think that this apparent obtuseness, whether deliberate or not, is what underlies the REACTION you, noname, reliably elicit here, from many of us, to which you consistently respond with incredulity, confusion, bewilderment, "but I was only...", defensiveness, etc, which at this point either reflects either a pathological level of denial, or is--plain and simple--an act. Not to mention the almost-compuslive "last word" phenomenon you've got going on. What is it all about?

If you want to be understood better, as you claim, rather than so chronically misunderstood, which is the conclusion you so often draw, and seem put off by, why do you not listen? Why does nothing change? What is the impasse? Does it stem from 450 women on the threads, or from you? Multiple commenters have been very articulate in explaining things and refuting things in your comments, in this thread and so, so, SO many others. Is it really any wonder we conclude that you DON'T really want to be understood or to understand us, that you are not arguing in good faith, when you so consistently perseverate on points and so frequently return to the *maybe you think I said something that I did not* argument? I mean, REALLY, if it could have even passed for convincing the first time, how could it possibly do so at this point? It borders on pitiable ...If you are not doing it to antagonize, to be argumentative, to prolong disagreement, to amuse yourself, to get your rocks off, to have the last word and feel you've won, then REALLY - what are you doing? Please - a personal answer, not an intellectualized one about how I'm still not getting it or I've somehow misread you. I want to know.

Charity, you have put perfectly into words what my issue with noname's posts in general are. I could never quite put my finger on what it was, but you've done so very well.

“Oh, jaysus, if you haven't heard / read / gotten that we ALL acknowledge there is a continuum from being looked at to being leered at, I don't know how to make you hear and understand that, at this point. That is simply not the argument anyone is making, that looking at someone in some benign fashion, happening to make eye contact or happening to have someone move into your line of vision and *seeing them with your eyes*, ALWAYS reflects a sense of entitlement and ownership. I mean, come ON....are you not reading? Are you reading only every fifth letter and every fourth punctuation mark, then rearranging the letters in a mirror or some other nonsense?“ – Charity

If that is not the argument you are making, great. Why, however, has there been such a negative reaction to me saying that an appreciative look does not necessarily mean there is also a sense of entitlement to ownership?

“But yes, we may have to agree to disagree that the cavalier freeness with which many men ogle women, in a way that women do not ogle men (I'm talking about leering at body parts, not making eye contact and smiling, here), reflects a broad, culturally indoctrinated sense of entitlement that men AS A GROUP are conditioned to believe they have when it comes to women and girls and their appearance, their bodies, their personal space. I'm not sure if it's your inability to take a woman's perspective, or what, but I think it's pretty obtuse of you to still be arguing what you are arguing, at this point, when it comes to that notion. There is plenty of evidence of this entitlement / ownership phenomenon that goes above and beyond leering...many examples posted about here, on this site, everyday.“ – Charity

Of course we can disagree. If the question is whether there is a sense of entitlement to ownership men, then it seems to me that it is your inability to take a man’s perspective that is proving to be the real stumbling block, here.

“And more generally, for your personal betterment (I'm feeling generous today) I think that this apparent obtuseness, whether deliberate or not, is what underlies the REACTION you, noname, reliably elicit here, from many of us, to which you consistently respond with incredulity, confusion, bewilderment, "but I was only...", defensiveness, etc, which at this point either reflects either a pathological level of denial, or is--plain and simple--an act. Not to mention the almost-compuslive "last word" phenomenon you've got going on. What is it all about?� – Charity

Surprise? I wouldn’t call it surprise anymore. Are you asking this because I said, “I’m not sure why�, in my last post? Well, I am not. I am not sure if you all are deliberately distorting my arguments into something the BIG BAD OPRESSIVE MAN would say in order to avoid addressing the arguments I actually made, or if you are simply unintentionally mixing in arguments others have made in the past with my fairly moderate views. As for the last word: if someone directs a post at me or one of my arguments, I will always try to answer as long as I feel I have something worthwhile to say.

“If you want to be understood better, as you claim, rather than so chronically misunderstood, which is the conclusion you so often draw, and seem put off by, why do you not listen? Why does nothing change? What is the impasse? Does it stem from 450 women on the threads, or from you? Multiple commenters have been very articulate in explaining things and refuting things in your comments, in this thread and so, so, SO many others. Is it really any wonder we conclude that you DON'T really want to be understood or to understand us, that you are not arguing in good faith, when you so consistently perseverate on points and so frequently return to the *maybe you think I said something that I did not* argument? I mean, REALLY, if it could have even passed for convincing the first time, how could it possibly do so at this point? It borders on pitiable ...If you are not doing it to antagonize, to be argumentative, to prolong disagreement, to amuse yourself, to get your rocks off, to have the last word and feel you've won, then REALLY - what are you doing? Please - a personal answer, not an intellectualized one about how I'm still not getting it or I've somehow misread you. I want to know.� - Charity

While some posters have written articulately trying to refute my argument in this thread, I do not believe that those arguments have been convincing, much less conclusive.

You ask why nothing has changed. I say it has. I most definitely have picked up some valuable perspective from this site and notice daily sexist actions and attitudes I never would have noticed two years ago. Perhaps you haven’t noticed: I tend to jump into a thread when I think someone has taken things too far (and I am interested in the topic). Could it be that I post so much less than I used to because in fact I agree with you all more often than I used to? That’s how I see it.

You ask why I frequently say something like, “maybe you think I said something that I did not�. It is because other posters here frequently attack me for arguments and attitudes I never asserted. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt that this is a mistake than to assume and accuse others of doing this intentionally.

I do this because I find it interesting to discuss ideas with others, especially when we don’t agree. I think one learns much more in life amongst alternate ideas than shut in with only likeminded friends. So don’t pity me. I do this because I find value in it for me, and because I hope others reading will as well.

My reaction was that Lohan doesn't really capture the amazing presence that Monroe had, and she looked more like a drunk floozy than a "poetically beautiful" starlet.

I wasn't impressed by the photos, but I am always interested when someone tries to recreate an icon. In this case, the images fall far short, Lohan will get a shot in the arm for her career. From what I know, I think she'll survive far longer than Monroe did--and I think this because she can see the damage she has done to her career played out in the tabloids in a way that Monroe never could.

Wow, what a predictable response, noname. I think you've parroted that one before. I could have written it myself and called it a day. Newsflash. You've gotten plenty of feedback that your perspective isn't really all that enlightening to anyone here, so fine if you want to say YOU'RE getting valuable exposure to other, *alternate* "ideas," but don't claim to speak for us in regards to the valule of *your* ideas. Again, please see the feedback you've received, oh, on every thread, just about. And further, these "ideas" of ours that we speak about here are not just *ideas,* not just hypotheses we are trying on for size and bandying about looking for some legitimization from you, they are our *reality,* which is a distinction I see many men struggle with. You think we are all *likeminded* in our ideas; I will correct you here and say we are alike in our *experience*. By consistently intruding with your *alternate* reality, which is in fact, not a function of having different *ideas* or a more expansive perspective on the world, but rather a function of living an existence characterized by male privilege, you are not enlightening anyone or providing a needed service, and to believe so is quite astoundingly arrogant. You are merely reasserting the androcentric status quo, of which all of us are quite aware, given our immersion in it every day of our lives. Guess what? We (women, feminists) *are* the alternate viewpoint, the perspective that has been missing. Women. Women's stories. Women's reality. Women's understanding of, and narratives about, our lives, our issues, our bodies. You don't need to remind us of what we are the *alternative* to. It's been rammed down our throats for centuries. So, yeah, I will continue to pity you, for thinking you have something to teach us when in fact we have something to teach you, but you are too intent on *winning* every thread as if every single thing is up for debate, everything needs *the other side* before it can truly be accepted or allowed to be taken as true. WE are the other side that has been missing.

Charity – Why do you persist in attributing things to me that I never said? Why are you more interested in attacking me personally than in having a civil debate? Are you really so threatened by my presence that you have to resort to these tactics? A community only interested in unexplored, unexamined, and unchallenged ideas is doomed to produce only dogma.

Let's try an experiment, doofus. Can you let a woman have the last word? Last word.

she looked more like a drunk floozy than a "poetically beautiful" starlet.

Hey, don't knock drunken floozies. I've been one in my time, and I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Charity - I'll try. ;)

WOW... nice baby :)
I've found Lindsay Lohan Sex Tape '09 for FREE
.
> > > www.LindsayLohan-SexTape.com.
.
good quality...