~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
UnlikelyToBeEaten
[–]RobDog101 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Woof! I want that calendar.
And yes, the hypocrisy is amazing isn't it?
[–]Archibald_Andino 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Young feminists are in a bit of a quandary here. If they were honest, they would admit they really don't care about "objectification" the way the older feminist aristocracy have ordered them to. "You must be offended that women are shown sometimes in sexy clothing". Meanwhile these girls happily dress themselves in revealing clothing, happily objectify themselves endless selfies in revealing clothing, Instagram and so on. Not to mention, they hate getting called out on their hypocrisy when they do this same thing towards men.
The only thing they can respond with is, "yeah, but it's different when we do it because of.... reasons... you know, history, historical history... you see, in the past... women couldn't do something... so when we do it, it's different".
[–]RobDog101 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"His story! RrrreeeeeEEEEEE."
[–]UnlikelyToBeEaten[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
X-posted from here.
[+]sunfirepassionapple -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Ditch the dog and stethoscope and then you'll have something equivalent. From both pictures I can clearly see the profession of the males but not the female.
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
Who cares whether you can see the profession?
Clearly the calendar being referred to is a beefcake calendar intended to titillate. Even if it's raising money for some charity, they are clearly leveraging the vet student's appearance above all else. You could replace those vets with [insert random profession] and the calendar really wouldn't change.
[+]sunfirepassionapple -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link
That's part of bringing character depth to the males, they are not just to look at, they have more to them. The female? She's nothing.
Also the vets both of them are nude, they are equal. In the other image the male is clothed and the female is naked.
These are subtle differences are nuances, but still important. Here's an example of a man being objectified and the woman is not: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/11/30/objectifying-men/.
In these images we can see the woman is clothed and the man is naked.
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I think you're well into hair splitting territory.
If the intent is for you to view them as a sexual object first and foremost, they are being objectified. You can quibble about degree, but it's like arguing that 100-0 is worse than 95-5 when our gold standard is 0-100 the other way. You think that tiny five point swing really matters when there's still 195 points yet to go?
[–]sunfirepassionapple -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
So you're OK with this? https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/11/30/objectifying-men/
In most of the images, the female model is in the foreground and he is in the background. In the only image where they are side by side, she has her arm bent to suggest she's holding him like a bag, kind of like the bag he is holding over his junk.
He is a prop and his only purpose is to be used.
Here's another one; http://www.advertisingforadults.com/print/2007/6/reversa-side-effects-print-ad.jpg
He's naked. She's fully clothed. She's sitting, has her hand on his leg, as if he's her property.
Another male model being used as a prop: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3S78SBhP-wQ/UtUia2pqQzI/AAAAAAAAEWE/E47j_itq6Ro/s640/Pictures8.jpg and http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xho7Vncv5e0/UtUhrlG2hsI/AAAAAAAAEWA/au1Ag1PzEe0/s640/Pictures7.jpg.
Oh and this one, men being used as props, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xho7Vncv5e0/UtUhrlG2hsI/AAAAAAAAEWA/au1Ag1PzEe0/s640/Pictures7.jpg.
Female professional dressed and man as prop: http://testdb.msmagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Man-as-Object-Della-Calfee.jpg
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
How did you make the leap from my contention that both original photographs showed objectification, and differences between the two were minor and quibbling, straight out of the stratosphere into "objectification doesn't matter"?
[–]Elvick 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
"Objectification" doesn't matter though.
Boo hoo, models being paid for jobs they agreed to take. Big woop. Moving on.
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
My take on objectification is that it's one of the natural results of human category based thinking. Category thinking has so many positives, but it carries with it some potential negatives in all those "isms", in that we sometimes slot someone into a category, in this case "sexy", and never go past that to them as individuals.
Whether that's a negative in even most contexts is arguable. There are so many contexts where there's literally no reason to know them as an individual because there's no functional benefit to us. Passing on the bus? What's going on in your life is irrelevant. On a billboard somewhere? What's going on in your life is irrelevant. We're looking to jerk off and need some visual stimuli to achieve our goal? What's going on in your life is irrelevant.
Trying to MAKE it relevant in all contexts, as the feminists typically try to do, is a losing game. Most of us naturally try to bust past the category once we're in a context where knowing someone becomes salient, so they are preaching to the choir, for the most part.
[–]sunfirepassionapple -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I was showing you true male objectification in advertisement.
Where they are used as props by clothed women.
Naked.
No character depth.
Just props.
And it's your opinion those differences I pointed out are 'minor.' And I think you point them out as 'minor' because you don't want it to change. You equate naked = objectification. But that is very simplistic thinking.
And that simplistic thinking is what'll give rise to true objectification ads using men as props. And nothing more.
[–]marauderp 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is such a weak and subjective distinction.
Splitting hairs is an understatement.
[–]sunfirepassionapple -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
So why not clothe the woman? Why have her naked and him wearing a business suit? Why clothe him and not her?
If this is such a 'weak' argument, surely you can come up with an answer as to why she's naked and he's clothed. Oh and in the calendar, both models are a naked.
Is the male vet using the other male vet as a prop?
You know the objectification can also be on how the two models are interacting with one another, right?
[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm perfectly okay with those things. They were paid to take those photos, they agreed to do them. Why should I act like the models are not individual human beings capable of deciding what they do with their lives and career?
Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do?
[–]Booty_Canoe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So you're OK with this?
Well hello there, I am absolutely okay with this. In fact, it's pretty hot. Can you link the actual blog?
[–]Elvick 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Character depth? The fuck are you talking about? This isn't a novel.
I wouldn't expect either of these guys to be real veterinarians, just models posing for a picture just as the bottom one is two models taking a picture for something. Since that's usually how this stuff works.
The title gave me more information than the picture did. If not for that, I'd still think they were models not students. Maybe the bottom title should've told us what this poor woman does for a living [or is studying in school] instead of crying about sexism. Be the change you want to see~
Calling her an object is objectifying her. Finding her sexy is not. "Objectification" is fundamentally impossible by the way. Unless you have severe brain damage, you're always going to register that another person is a human. You're not going to think they're a toaster. Not caring about someone's life story doesn't mean you think they're an object.
[–]Greg_W_Allan 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Males and females are objectified, in part, for different reasons. Occupation/income are points of objectification for men. Why do you think so many women get turned on by men in uniforms?
[–]sunfirepassionapple -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
The uniform tells more about the person. It's not just his body being used as a prop.
Here is an example of objectification of a man without objectifying the woman: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/11/30/objectifying-men/
In these images she is fully clothed, and while we do not know a profession, we know much more about her than her naked male prop.
Also, she is mostly in the foreground and he's in the background. The only image where they are side by side, she has her arm hooked, as if she is carrying HIM as the bag (i.e. a prop), like the one he is holding.
[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If you need to analyse the point to that level of fine detail you don't have a point.
It's not just his body being used as a prop.
Exactly what I was saying. His body AND occupation are objectifying elements. Without the prop you and all the other "ladies" wouldn't be able to see him at all. Did it ever occur to you that being judged on the basis of the type of work you do isn't always a bed of roses either?
Just because your laundry list of requirements is longer than that of the average bloke doesn't mean it's any less objectifying.
[–]Lonelythrowawaysnug 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What is this thread
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]RobDog101 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Archibald_Andino 8 points9 points10 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RobDog101 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]UnlikelyToBeEaten[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]sunfirepassionapple -19 points-18 points-17 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 12 points13 points14 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+]sunfirepassionapple -13 points-12 points-11 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 7 points8 points9 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]sunfirepassionapple -3 points-2 points-1 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Elvick 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]itty_bitty_beaver 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sunfirepassionapple -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]marauderp 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sunfirepassionapple -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Booty_Canoe 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Elvick 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Greg_W_Allan 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]sunfirepassionapple -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Greg_W_Allan 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lonelythrowawaysnug 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link