[General Battuta]

Well, uh:

I think there's a bit of a disconnect here but I have to weigh in with iamzack's right to be offended and not to feel like a joykill for doing it. Her interpretation of the remark is a valid one, not one based on oversensitivity or 'full-on screaming mode', and in fact I'm glad she stood up for her opinion.

That said, the fact that Blue Lion made a remark that could be taken as offensive does not mean Blue Lion is a bad person; the social context is hard to read, and, for better or worse, we all say offensive things. I'm sure that just about any vaguely controversial remark I've ever made could be taken as offensive by someone.

I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.

[iamzack]

Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.

By the way..... why?

Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.

[Blue Lion]

Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.

By the way..... why?

Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.

That's my point. Why is it important?

I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.

I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.

[iamzack]

Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.

By the way..... why?

Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.

That's my point. Why is it important?

Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)

Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.

I don't really know how to explain beyond that.

I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.

I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.

Thank for your defense(/support?), Battuta, but I kinda agree. I don't take back anything I said or how I said it, but it was definitely an overreaction.

[Blue Lion]

Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)

Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.

Lemme see if I get this straight. It's ok to be sexist in regards to models and actresses?

We have two models, equal talent. It's ok to pick the hot one. Replace "model" with "politician" and we've gone too far?

The outfit the model is wearing doesn't change if she has a horseface or not.

I guess what I'm asking for is when can I be a complete and utter horndog in regards to a woman's job?

[Flipside]

@Battuta

I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.

So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.

I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.

[iamzack]

Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)

Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.

Lemme see if I get this straight. It's ok to be sexist in regards to models and actresses?

We have two models, equal talent. It's ok to pick the hot one. Replace "model" with "politician" and we've gone too far?

The outfit the model is wearing doesn't change if she has a horseface or not.

I guess what I'm asking for is when can I be a complete and utter horndog in regards to a woman's job?

A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."

A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.

That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.

(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)

You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.

@Battuta

I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.

So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.

I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.

To be perfectly honest, a lot of assumptions get made about me if I say anything feminist-y. Example: Even as a feminist, I don't think porn should be banned (...but I do think there needs to be some sort of disclaimer sticker on it ala "these are actors... blah blah...").

And I'd certainly not look down on Playboy girls as sad little nonfeminists, as long as they actually are doing what they want to do. It's not something I'd do personally, but who am I to judge their decisions?

And if there were more hardcore feminists than myself around, they're destroy me for saying this, but I really wish there was a word for feminism with fewer straight, white, cisfemale-specific connotations. Men are harmed by patriarchy too (though not even close to the degree of women), and social issues with gays and transsexuals are actually rooted in patriarchy as well.

[Blue Lion]

A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."

A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.

That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.

(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)

You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.

Ok let's try this one more time.

The model isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell clothing.

A politician isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell a platform.

A shirt is exactly the same on an ugly girl and a cute girl. The fact that you're ok with using women as basically objects in clothing, TV and movies is kinda weird.

You're telling me it's ok to see a movie because a woman is hot, but not ok to vote for or support a politician? Why? They're both using their physical attractiveness to get my support.

It's just very weird you're saying:

Women aren't objects to be gawked at*!

*Unless you're selling cars, TV shows, movies, beer, video games, clothing or any other marketable product. Then it's all tits and ass.

[iamzack]

A model's job is to make people want to buy the clothes she is wearing. "Look how hot these clothes will make you look."

A politician's job is to serve the public. The politician could wear a goddamn sheet over their head and still do the same job.

That's not being sexist. Sexist is that a discussion about any female politician will inevitably go to her appearance, her childrearing, and other irrelevancies. A one-eyed model is going to have a hard time selling fashionable glasses. A one-eyed politician will not be affected in the least.

(Side note: on the other hand, the one-eyed model could make an excellent foot model... whatever.)

You can be a horndog if she is selling you sex. If she's not selling you sex, feel free to be a horndog anyway... just not as part of a discussion about her capabilities in doing her job.

Ok let's try this one more time.

The model isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell clothing.

A politician isn't selling me sex. They are using sex appeal to sell a platform.

A shirt is exactly the same on an ugly girl and a cute girl. The fact that you're ok with using women as basically objects in clothing, TV and movies is kinda weird.

You're telling me it's ok to see a movie because a woman is hot, but not ok to vote for or support a politician? Why? They're both using their physical attractiveness to get my support.

It's just very weird you're saying:

Women aren't objects to be gawked at*!

*Unless you're selling cars, TV shows, movies, beer, video games, clothing or any other marketable product. Then it's all tits and ass.

I meant selling sex, like as a prostitute or as a pornstar.

The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.

The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."

The fact of it is... there are male and female politicians and models. The standards should be the same in both careers. Ugly men won't be successful models either.

The problem comes up when a man can run for office without mindless criticism on his appearance, clothes, childrearing abilitiy, etc, etc, whereas a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of discussion on her will be about those things. The effect is that people know the platform of the male politician, and they know the weight of the female politician. Male politician seems very together and responsible, doesn't he? Especially compared to the woman, who seems to be all glitter and nail polish.

[Flipside]

To be honest, I would have thought that Sarah Palin would be the last woman in the world to appeal to Feminists anyway. No offence, but no matter what she may look like, she's essentially a suit, her policies were simply extensions of male-generated party platforms.

[iamzack]

To be honest, I would have thought that Sarah Palin would be the last woman in the world to appeal to Feminists anyway. No offence, but no matter what she may look like, she's essentially a suit, her policies were simply extensions of male-generated party platforms.

Even better, she made women who WERE Hillary supporters angry. Big ole slap in the face, courtesy of the GOP: well, she has a vagine, and you have a vagina, so obviously, you will vote for her! ...right?

[General Battuta]

@Battuta

I agree that society can change, and that there are places where it is appropriate and inappropriate to make a comment about a woman's physical appearance, but the fact is that the thought of attraction will still be there, it kicks in before the male has a chance to deal with it.

So yes, a lot of etiquette could be learned, men could certainly do more in that department, and a lot of assumptions need to be un-assumed, but the whole concept of feminism is causing a lot of confusion in men, because feminism itself seems to span a whole range of opinions, there's everything from the raging 'We can breed through artificial insemination, we don't need men at all!' school of thought to those who consider the Playboy girls to be feminists, because they are doing what they want and not caring what other people think.

I think, at the very least, until that confusion is cleared up, very little headway is going to be made.

I hate to say it but women feel the exact same thing in terms of the 'thought of attraction'. They've just been trained to hide it better...and the criteria that trigger it are generally a bit different.

Hey, if she was a model, or an actress, or trying to become Miss USA, sure "she's hot" is relevant.

By the way..... why?

Because physical appearance is important when you are a model, actress, or running for Miss USA? I don't understand the question.

That's my point. Why is it important?

Models make a living based on being a vehicle for selling things. Actresses make a living based on people wanting to see them act, and people are drawn to people who are attractive. (Who the hell would disagree that it is nicer to watch a pretty person act than an ugly person, given the same level of acting ability?)

Of course there's no one standard for beauty, and appearance isn't everything, even in these professions, but appearance does play a huge part because the industry is based on making people want to buy or see whatever is being sold.

I don't really know how to explain beyond that.

I'm saying you're both right here, since you've both got valid stuff going on from your own cognitive viewpoints.

I'm basically saying it was oversensitive.

Thank for your defense(/support?), Battuta, but I kinda agree. I don't take back anything I said or how I said it, but it was definitely an overreaction.

I don't think it was an overreaction. I think the kind of thing you said needs to be said more often.

And I totally agree about the white straight cis-female bias of feminism. There's a really interesting phenomenon we study called 'minority overlap' or something like that where individuals who are members of two minority groups tend to be ignored as members of either...for example, you can cite the minority 'black' and the minority 'women', but people have a hard time dealing with 'black women' on the cognitive level.

[Blue Lion]

The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.

The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."

That IS sex appeal. What do you think sex appeal is if not "look how hot I am"? It's using a person's physical attractiveness to move a product. I'm not sure how you could get a better definition of sex appeal.

The fact of it is... there are male and female politicians and models. The standards should be the same in both careers. Ugly men won't be successful models either.

Because you accept their physical attractiveness as linked to the product. If models weren't all hot and were just normal people (some hot, some not), you would decry a person's preference for a product based on their sexual feelings towards the face or body going with it instead of the quality of the product itself. The fact that it is so ingrained, so prevalent in consumer marketing you accept it as natural fact.

The problem comes up when a man can run for office without mindless criticism on his appearance, clothes, childrearing abilitiy, etc, etc, whereas a woman is guaranteed a certain amount of discussion on her will be about those things. The effect is that people know the platform of the male politician, and they know the weight of the female politician. Male politician seems very together and responsible, doesn't he? Especially compared to the woman, who seems to be all glitter and nail polish.

You should be able to look at a shirt or a beer or car without mindless criticism of the hottie they put there.

You're saying people shouldn't look at a politicians looks, only their abilities and platform should matter. And I agree with that. What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.

[General Battuta]

The politician might be using sex appeal to sell a platform, but then their platform is obviously very ****ty. That means you should not vote for them.

The model isn't really using sex appeal to sell something. It's more like "look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."

That IS sex appeal. What do you think sex appeal is if not "look how hot I am"? It's using a person's physical attractiveness to move a product. I'm not sure how you could get a better definition of sex appeal.

You probably could if, y'know, you used her complete definition, which is 'this is how hot you will be if you use this product.' Which is her point.

As for the rest, I'm no longer clear on what your points are or what you're arguing, could you restate?

[iamzack]

What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.

You absolutely should look at the clothing's quality. It's called advertising. It can be "this product will make you attractive" or "this product will make you smart" or "this product will make you look patriotic" or whatever else. In this specific instance, where they want you to buy this particular shirt, they think that the best way to sell it is to make you believe it will make you look better. If it was a less crappy shirt, they might market it as "this shirt will last FOR ****ING EVAR."

[Rian]

You should be able to look at a shirt or a beer or car without mindless criticism of the hottie they put there.

You're saying people shouldn't look at a politicians looks, only their abilities and platform should matter. And I agree with that. What I find odd I say we should look at a piece of clothing's quality not the face of the person wearing it.... and you disagree.

I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.

Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.

[Blue Lion]

You probably could if, y'know, you used her complete definition, which is 'this is how hot you will be if you use this product.' Which is her point.

If the product made the person hot, they wouldn't need to use hot models now would they?

As for the rest, I'm no longer clear on what your points are or what you're arguing, could you restate?

Many products are marketed using a very simple idea:

Sex sells.

Take a product, slap a hot chick with big titties near and it sells like wildfire. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. We're not breaking new ground here.

If you take out the product... let's say Axe spray where women get drawn to men wearing it like magnets and replace it with a political platform and suddenly it's "You can't do that! Only the platform should matter!"

Are guys supposed to go "Wow, that politician had an excellent platform and I am in no way swayed by her looks.... oh look, that beer has titties. I shall now buy some"?

What I'm saying are the people who are bothered someone is looking at a politicians looks should also be bothered if someone is looking at a model's looks, or an actress, or an ad girls.

You absolutely should look at the clothing's quality. It's called advertising. It can be "this product will make you attractive" or "this product will make you smart" or "this product will make you look patriotic" or whatever else. In this specific instance, where they want you to buy this particular shirt, they think that the best way to sell it is to make you believe it will make you look better. If it was a less crappy shirt, they might market it as "this shirt will last FOR ****ING EVAR."

But you didn't say that. You said a model's attractiveness was a deciding factor. That's why there are no ugly male models, right?

"look how hot I am. This is how hot you will be if you use this product."

That makes no mention of quality or anything like it.

The hot chick in the beer ad has nothing to do with the quality of the beer.

If clothes made people hot, you wouldn't need hot models, would you? You could use anyone.

[General Battuta]

Please use the edit button to merge your posts - just a friendly mod notification.

[High Max]

;-)

[Blue Lion]

I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.

Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.

That's my point. It doesn't have to be that way. If models looked like all of us (mostly me) we'd have to base our opinions on the product. Something we demand from our officials. And for some reason we just accept that everyone else will sway us with boobs.... well maybe not you but you get my point.

Please use the edit button to merge your posts - just a friendly mod notification.

They respond to me in their own post, I'm going to do them the courtesy of the same. I'm not upping my post count here.