Like this photo?
Via Amber again I’m curious what you think of the photo at the top of this post by Renegade Evolution of The Fine Art of Free Speech and Dissent about objectification and stereotyping.
I’m asking because one of her commenters said, anonymously
It’s absurd that a woman with a body that looks like an advertisement for muscularity, starvation and obviously fake breasts would write about anything real or natural. You talk about “sexualized caricatures of women”? Look in the mirror! You’re a perfect example! You embody what the Patriarchy likes in its women, or more acurately, its whores. How many real women do you think look like that or further more, want to look like that? You can say you are thin naturally as much as you like, but no one gets that definition without work, and that chest of yours is so obviously unreal it is painful. Congratulations, you look like a sex toy, which I can only assume was your intent.
It’s no wonder you have to deal with people looking down on you and stereotyping you, you ARE a stereotype!
See RE’s post here. Scroll down to find the anonymous comment.
I dunno. I’m slender and muscular, and at least to some people I’m sexually appealing. And while I eat well and get some exercise (you get a lot just piggybacking children up and down stairs) nobody’s going to call me unnatural for it. And I certainly don’t think many people would say I look like a whore for it.
So what’s the double-standard here that I can look this way but Renegade Evolution can’t? Or at least can’t without being called names.
If it’s a gender thing then… well, what’s with that? Men can look buff without catching major flack but women can’t? Shouldn’t?
[Note: People say nice things about my forearms. If you missed them the first time you looked, go check out RE’s in her photo. —fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 14:14.
I understand where anonymous is coming from. If RE works in the sex industry she has to have a certain type of body. Even if everything about her is real, her body type does match the expectaion of the perfect. Obvious its the ideal, which by defintion means it has been objectified. You see it not only selling sex, but music (Janet Jackson's body), tools, cars, sports, and most stuff they expect men to purchase. Since most women are not that perfect, there is the green voice that's going to intrude. At some of the links I follow from here I immediately get blind sided by this near perfect body, before I even get a chance to read anything. I think if this blog is speaking to women why do I have to encounter a picture like that. I know how she looks is totally going to affect her experiences. It not that women should not look like that, but they should not be so naive to think it has no effect. That particular picture of RE is not natural. Even though I may be put off by her picture, my reaction has nothing to do with what she does.
Some pictures of men with a perfect or body builders body do not look natural either. I think those poses are meant to objectify. I don't think men care how other men look as much as women. Maybe they are too homophobic to even speak on it. I think self portraits of men are usually more natural. I like your photos and have said before that they are very natural. Don't take this the wrong way, but your body would not be the type of male body that would be comparable to the male version of RE.
[I think in part it depends on what we mean by natural. When I was a junior park ranger I worked with a group of women on trail crew who, while they looked a lot like RE, would have taken one's head off at any suggestion they consider stripping. Or dieting. Just because they might have been chosen to represent certain ideals doesn't mean they weren't that way naturally. I hope that makes sense. Thanks, Five. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 15:46.
I'd be careful with the generalizations there. The sex industry - being as huge as it is, and not a monolith - is more diverse than most people would imagine. Sure, a "certain type of body" may dominate the majority of the sex industry. But that doesn't mean you're automatically barred from ever working in the sex industry if you don't have that "certain type of body." Scratch the surface and you'll see that pretty much whatever you are, and whatever you like, there's a place out there in the sex industry that caters to you.
[Yup. I think the fashion industry is now far more of an obstacle than the porn industry. And I imagine if the fashion industry made more of a token effort to highlight the natural attractiveness of the other hundred or so body types even the southern California industrial pornographers (as *stunningly* conservative and unimaginative crowd as any moral majoritarian) would follow suit. Thanks, Amber. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 15:54.
I haven't read the post you mentioned yet, so to a certain extent I'm talking out of my backside.
Your body is well looked-after rather than carefully sculpted. Your look is what I think women actually like to look at, because, stereotype or not, cliche or not, the Chippendale look is what we assume would appeal more to the gay man than the straight woman. I know it doesn't appeal to me.
There is most certainly a difference between the pressures on men and women. Women are biologically supposed to have more body fat than men. Age and gravity get both genders, but giving pregnancy and childbirth only have an impact on a woman's body.
Honestly though, from reading your column, I have always felt that you weren't a worshipper of the idealised female form, but of women's bodies in general.
[I actually do have preferences, even strong ones, but they don't limit me to some narrow set of ideals. If that makes sense. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I seem to have a strong attraction to strong, bright, active people like farmers and gardeners, tree pruners, rangers, athletes, physical therapists and other bodyworkers, and, of course, anybody who can wrangle multiple children. But if I have mentioned that it was with the observation that those were the kinds of people I grew up around so those are the people I feel most comfortable around. Thank you, Astra. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 16:27.
fiveofnine:
First, I am not trying to be snarky or rude or anyhing, i am curious, thats all...
"I think if this blog is speaking to women why do I have to encounter a picture like that. I know how she looks is totally going to affect her experiences. It not that women should not look like that, but they should not be so naive to think it has no effect. That particular picture of RE is not natural."
My blog does not necessarily "speak to women"...it speaks to whomever reads it, regardless of gender, and while my chest is fake, that is what I look like, and a point I have been over a few times in previous posts is that all women, no matter how they look, get "picked on" for it...and that is wrong whether you are picking on large person or a thin person...neither size likes it (and you see I did in fact get picked on). i fully realize that most women are not built like me, but that makes me no less real, and aside from the chest, natural. And I am really short :).
So question is, I suppose,if the WHOLE of women, as in all shapes and sizes are to be recognized does that include me and women like me, or not? And when writing about objectification, stereotyping, and a backlash against people like me, why was it 'wrong' of me to use a photo?
[Three score years ago your body type was not at all ideal, and a few decades before that a low BMI was idealized to the point that the pressure would have been to have breast *reduction* surgery. A few decades before *that* women were having their floating ribs removed and, had it been available, they'd have felt compelled to have bust *and* buttock and thigh implants to suit the corset-and-bustle ideal. So yeah, since at any given time *every* kind of body type can fall out of favor it seems like the place to issue challenges is against arbitrary *and limited* ideals. Thanks, RE. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 16:28.
I wouldn't want to catagorize anyone. I find the human body to be a work of art. Some people work harder to perfect that art. I would have to say though that most of the population is not chiseled like the girl in that blog. I would have to agree that naturally thin or not, she works long and hard at her art and for her, it may a natural state. She is however not average. Nor is she a depiction of a cross section of women. Just like a morbidly obese woman would not be considered a true depiction of women as a whole. To try to lump herself in as just an average Jane Q Public tells me that even in her "perfect" art she is insecure. In THAT aspect she is perfectly average and natural.
You have a fine body but you do fall in closer to average than that girl. And not because you are male and I may have the green eye monster in me, but because in all your fineness you are not hard-bodied. Like Astra said, you are well looked after but not chiseled.
I do have to admit though that I have from time to time been guilty of objectitification but in my defense I also admire you for your mind. ;-)~
And the answer is????? Yes, Yes, Yes I like that pic.
[I agree that RE isn't *average* but I would take her side in saying she's still ordinary, at least in the sense that historically speaking people with extremely high-activity jobs have tended to look like she does. I had an opportunity to visit a self-sustaining and largely cloistered agrarian convent in the upper midwest 10 or 15 years ago and the sisters there were comparably lean. I am *not* drawing any other comparisons than activity level, nor am I being deliberately obtuse. Instead I'll point out that you probably had to be pretty fit in the first place to be drawn to that sort of convent, just as the men would have to be fit to consider joining the affiliated Trappistine monastary a few miles away. Oh, oh! And, coming at the issue from an entirely different direction, it's important to keep in mind that RE's body type is not at all required for strippers or other forms of sex work, Anonymous's protestations notwithstanding. Finally, does anyone else feel uncomfortable talking about a person as "a body type?" Apologies all around. Thanks, Boo. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 16:29.
figleaf;
it is a gender thing, because at the basic level, women are under more presure to look a certain way than men are (at least that's my take on it).
[Ooh, ooh! Good point, RE. I think my next question would have to be whether that pressure comes more from men than from other women? I mean, yes, theory says it's all about appealling to men but the standards always seem to be enforced more by women. I'm asking because I really don't know and because your work environment seems like one of the few places where feedback in the form of dance requests and tips comes directly from men. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 17:24.
renegadeevolution,
I was speaking of more than just your blog. I did not think that pose was natural. That is why I said "that particular picture..." I admitted to being envious of that level of perfection. Yes it will change the way I think you percieve your experiences. That does not mean that I don't think your are intelligent or not a complete person. You see, because I don't look like you; I would never be writing about myself and objectification.
Amber, if I worked in the sex industry and my body would be exposed; I would not be looking for that niche that my present body fits. I would work hard at having a great looking body. I'm really quite a vain person.
[Thanks, Five. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 18:19.
Figleaf,
I didn't mean actual body type, but how they were presented in a picture. As if the scene was out of place or your sense it was meant to objectify. Sometimes a picture may pick up a little discomfort or something is a little off. It does not have to be a sexy picture. I take lousy pictures, because I can't smile naturally or I become very selfconscious.
[Ok, good. Having had to select my own photos I recognize the process whereby we pick one over another. An obvious case is that based on totally randomly taken snapshots we all spend extraordinary amounts of time with our mouths open and our eyes shut -- which makes such photos totally natural -- yet everyone I know chucks theirs. That's not to denegrate the photos we choose, just to point out that they're artifacts rather than "natural." Thanks, Five. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 18:58.
Reading the post and comments just made me sad. It is a shame that we (women) are our worst enemies. We will never be empowered as long as we are so competitive and can't find contentment in our own skin. That is what the comment said to me, I am jealous and I am lashing out. It just doesn't seem like someone secure in their appearance would have left such an angry comment.
[Interesting point, Cat. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 19:35.
RE's picture looks unnatural to me in the sense that no one naturally comes by both that degree of skinniness and that size of breasts; you get one or the other, not both. (I got to be that degree of thin when young, and still reasonably thin in middle age, but didn't get the big breasts.) And, sure enough, my first impression turns out to be right; she says she has implants. I don't understand, though, why that fact makes anonymous so angry. Or at least, I don't understand why anonymous is mad at RE.
[Wow, Lynn, it's funny but I just totally got shy about whether it's even my place to try and answer that. I think it's too flip to claim it's about envy or anger about "pimping oneself out" for men. Instead it feels like it's related to my concern that women may be more of a source of appearance pressure than are men. Sorry if that's out of line. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 20:51.
Interesting post, interesting comments. The main thing I got from RE's post was: don't stereotype or objectify sex workers. Okay, I'm down with that.
Fig's post seemed to be more along the lines of: don't objectify us because we're beautiful. Okay, I'm down with that too.
I'd like to live in a world where everyone is treated like a human being. That would include the overweight, the old, the saggy, the wrinkly, the bald, the bucktoothed, and the just plain ugly. Speaking as someone who, in her life, has mostly fallen on the "plain" side of the "plain/pretty" divide, I've got to tell you: if you don't look good, people will treat you like crap. They'll they'll also take the opportunity to lecture you on diet, exercise, makeup tips, fashion, etc.) By "people" I mean both men and women. If you're ugly (and I speak from personal experience), it takes a long, long time to learn how to be comfortable in one's own skin, as Cat put it.
So what if Anonymous is insecure? Who isn't? Maybe she shouldn't have attacked RE on her own blog--that's bad manners--but 99.9% of us have good reasons to be insecure in this cruel world, whether it's because of our looks or something else.
[As someone who spent the first 50 years of life confidently resigned to the fact that I was somewhere between plain and ugly I'd be more comfortable with something more along the lines of "don't objectify us *if* we're beautiful," but I accept your meaning. And my experience of HNT, especially the texts of posts accompanying people's first tries which so often resemble mine, I'm just overwhelmed with the sense that far, far more people perceive themselves as plain to ugly than are so. Finally, again I'm not certain that Anonymous was motivated by insecurity as much as outrage that RE failed to conform to a different set of standards of appearance. Thanks, Mu Ling.
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-09-28 20:57.
Argh. Can't stop commenting! I'll briefly add that I DO realize that both Fig and RE's post had WAY more substance than I seem to give them credit for. I was trying to indicate that I didn't disagree with anything they were saying, but that I could perhaps understand a little of where Anon was coming from, if in fact she was angry, jealous and insecure. It's late and when I'm tired I get flippant. I'm sorry; I should have been more careful.
[Maybe it's because it was late when I read your earlier comment, Mu Ling, but I found it neither flippant nor insubstantial. What I really appreciate, though, is that you came back to make sure. That was pretty cool. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 00:14.
"Ooh, ooh! Good point, RE. I think my next question would have to be whether that pressure comes more from men than from other women? I mean, yes, theory says it's all about appealling to men but the standards always seem to be enforced more by women. I'm asking because I really don't know and because your work environment seems like one of the few places where feedback in the form of dance requests and tips comes directly from men. Thanks. --fl"
I think it is dictated by men and enforced by both. I mean, men do control the media and the sex industry, so they "set the standards", and both men & women buy into that, and propogate it. Men (often) see that is what is desireable, so they openly notice it, and women notice them noticing, hence the presure from both sides. And both sides can be cruel about it, but I do, as a general rule (probably due to my own experiences) think women can be more vicious...I mean, how many teenage boys encourage other teenage boys to be anorexic? With girls, it happens.
As for strippers, our bodies is what pays the bills, and we do devote time to them (though not as much as one might think). As for what men like to see...it depends on the man. Some like blondes, some like brunettes, some like thin, some like curves, some like real breasts of any size, some like fake...I have had nights where due to the fact that I am athletic and have implants I make very little because the men prefer natural, softer women...other nights (esp with guys over, say 25 who are atheletic themselves) I do very well. As for the dancers themsevles, well... it seems that if they are young, and I mean young, as in 18-23 age range, and new to the job, they can be very vicious to other girls and think they are "all that". If they last long enough in the job or get past oh, 25, the catty behavior often ceases and they become much more accepting of all body types.
["though not as much [time] as one might think..." Thanks first for your thoughtful answer, RE. Your point is well taken that, once you start dancing anyway, it takes less time to stay in shape than most people think, since stripping is evidently aerobic enough that classes are offered in suburban fitness clubs. As for teens and anorexia, I think there are narrow subsets where boys influence other boys though wrestling -- with it's attendant near bulemia -- comes to mind, and football, of course where adding mass can be a group thing. Otherwise I agree that while boys do tend to pressure each other to commit reckless acts (see Johnny Knoxville's popularity) they don't much pressure each other about weight or fitness. Nor do they seem at all as interested in girls with anorexia as the anorexics and their enablers imagine. Thanks again, RE. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 00:18.
What's really interesting is that even those women who are considered the current ideal STILL have things done. Case in point--Carmella DeCesare, who was the 2004 Playboy Playmate of the Year. Really fantastic looking girl, gorgeous natural body and real breasts. So Hef hoists her as the Perfect Woman. What does she do after her reign is over? She gets implants. Considering that she was the first Playmate of the Year in ages that wasn't pumped and siliconed to death, what prompted her to do it? Someone telling her or insinuating that she wasn't perfect enough? It boggles the mind.
[Hi Mandalay. I get so torn over breast implants. I don't mind them on the principle that as adults we have the right to do as we choose. And, of the many surgical and semi-surgical ways people alter their bodies (at least in my coastal-Pacific-Northwest piercing/branding/tattooing context) implants are a fairly moderate modification. But the vast, vast majority of implants neither look right, move right, or (by all accounts) feel right. Unless you're fully dressed which, from my male-centric perspective, is completely immaterial. As for people like professional models and others who undress for a living, I *think* the main benefit beyond whatever bust-line expansion they provide is to minimize changes in firmness over the course of hormone cycles and even minor weight fluctuations. Anyway, whatever. It's a compromise most recipients see willing to make, and I guess if it's worth it to the recipient then it's not my place to say she shouldn't. I don't think I've ever, ever met anyone *with* implants who wouldn't have looked at least as sexy without them. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 00:22.
Figleaf;
As an aside, this has been the week of "head-desk" for me as far as body image and career choices go. Really, I have sort of had it. You just cannot win, ever, no matter what you look like. Do you have days like that?
[Oh yeah, I have days like that. You actually *can* win, but no matter how you look someone's not going to like it. And if it's not how you look it'll be how you dress, the way you talk (the first few years I was out here all I got was "wow, you sound just like Gomer Pyle, 'Howdy, howdy, howdy'") or some other petty consideration that keeps them from paying attention. I sincerely apologize for anything I've done to make your week worse. Thanks, RE. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 00:29.
Hello Fig, I've been avidly reading your blog since someone linked to it over at Bitch Ph.D's site some time ago. This is my first comment.
Just the other day I was thinking about this same issue of women negatively objectifying other women. I am naturally extremely thin and sometimes downplay my appearance out of some paranoid, insecure fear that someone will think I'm rubbing my demographically non-representational body type in their face if I dare to act like I like my body.
A part of me knows I'm being waaaay too hard on myself, but that line of thought does bring up the question of how appearances function on the individual level verses the larger society. It's silly to demand complete homogeny of appearance in either idealized direction, and impossible to demand it from a single person.
Rather than criticize individual women for not being 'real' enough, the more positive thing to do would be to promote a wider chunk of reality for people to be exposed to.
[I think you nailed it when you said you're too hard on yourself. The *real* problem isn't how hard others are on us but how hard we are on ourselves. We're all that way too. I mean, if anyone else said what we say about ourselves we'd never speak to them again and even our adversaries would be shocked. And I guess the thing is that *if* we feel that way (we do) then we're easily pursuaded by even the subtlest influences to attempt extraordinarily painful alterations. To the extent we fail to recognize that about ourselves (or to imagine we're *the only ones* who are like that) it's almost impossible to interact without inadvertently "enforcing" each other. Thanks, Albinosquid. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 07:01.
On women as "appearance police":
Sometimes mothers are the women who enforce the harshest standards of appearance. I know mothers who monitor every bite of food their daughter takes and constantly criticize her hair, skin, and size. I don't know whether it's because they see their daughters as reflections of themselves, or whether they're worried that people will treat their kid badly if they don't find her pretty.
I do think that this pattern is changing, however, and that gives me hope.
(Thanks for being so nice about the earlier comments, Fig.)
[You're welcome, Mu Ling. When you said that about mothers it reminded me of someone who, upon visiting her son's prospective liberal-arts college in the upper midwest fretting that the women on campus wore baggy sweatshirts instead of high heels. She was sure he couldn't possibly be happy with women who "didn't know how to take care of their looks." I think you're right that patterns are changing since her son told her she was totally out of line. One swallow does not a summer make, but he's not the only one. Nor, unfortunately, is she. Thanks, Mu Ling. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 07:49.
I am naturally extremely thin and sometimes downplay my appearance out of some paranoid
I've sometimes felt I needed to ward off the evil eye, so to speak, about being thin. Generally by picking something else about my appearance to criticize, so I can look normally insecure.
[Oh wow, Lynn! Something about that reminded me that back when I was very young thin women tended to be seen as spinster/librarian/church-lady/school-marm material and thus more pittied or ignored than scorned. Weird huh? Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 09:28.
It's apparent you've never had to deal with sexism and misogyny in the ways a woman does. It's apparent you've never known how the words and thoughts many men have about women like Renegade reflect upon the rest of us and color male thinking towards us. Face it, Mr. Kennerson, you are a man, so you have no idea what it is like to be a woman. From comment by Anonymous in response to post by Regenade Evolution
RE, I will comment at your site, but since Figleaf hosted this very valuable discussion, I wanted to record my response here, as well.
Anonymous, you may think that Mr. Kennerson has no idea what it means to be a woman. But Kochanie, an old feminist, wonders if Anonymous knows what it means to be human.
You will not have to go far to learn whether I earned my stripes in the battles of misogyny and sexism. If you read through the comments of Figleaf's posts you will find sufficient evidence of my experience with illegal abortion, sexual harassment and discrimination. Over 30 years ago, I became a feminist because I wanted to improve the lives of women, men and children. Our lives are not improved by the denial of our sexuality, in all its varied manifestations.
You will not rid the world of sexism by demonizing sex workers. The members of the oldest profession provide a very valuable service, for which they should receive the protection under the law, not prosecution.
I care far more about delivering healthcare to the millions who currently do not have access to it because it is a benefit tied to employment rather than citizenship, than I care about preventing RE and her sisters from practicing their trade. I care far more about educating children to respect the human body rather than denigrating RE's body.
Demonize RE and you will end up demonizing sex. And demonizing sex will only serve to limit the choices of the women you want to help: the choice of a lover, be it man or woman; the choice to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy; the choice for reliable healthcare regardless of employment status.
Unlike you, Anonymous, I think that Alfred Kinsey understood what it means to be a human being and a sexual being when he studied the lowly gall wasps, and concluded: All are alike, and each is different. Consider the implications of that.
Please consider the implications, Anonymous. Consider them carefully.
[Thanks, Kochanie. I belive understanding that line by Kinsey, which echos a deep principle in many philosophical traditions, is one of the keys to adulthood, in bed or out. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 09:31.
Figleaf, in answer to your first question: your photo is lovely, as is yours, RE.
[Thank you, Kochanie. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 13:09.
thanks Kochanie.
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 19:01.
it looks like you're getting into trouble - i like it!
[Thank you, Single Gal! I really appreciate it. --fl]
Submitted by 950 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-09-29 20:01.
You may recognize me as the "Mr. Kennerson" that our anonymous drive-by artist was attacking as not being a woman and thusly not understanding how women supposedly suffer from the likes of RenegadeEvolution....but that's another story..lol
I happened to post a much longer response to the debate between Witchy-Woo and RE that turned into a post at my SmackDog Chronicles blog; you can refer to that for my own position on the debate over objectication:
The SmackDog Chronicles: The Debate Continues: A Response to Witchy-Woo
My own personal view is that objectification can be demeaning and degrading on some occasions....but only when the part of the person "objectified" is put entirely above the merits and demerits of the entire person. For most people, however, sexual attraction and desire is hardly objectifying at all, as long as basic values of mutual respect and mutual consent are established. This is why I am less than whelmed at the arguments of some of the more radical feminists that the "male gaze" automatically injures and devalues all women, or that women like RenEv do damage to all women or feminism in choosing her preferred sexual persona/image/body type for her own pleasure.
I just don't see the fact that RE has the combination of a muscular body and bigger breasts (whether enhanced artificially or real) to be such a huge issue, since she still remains a full flesh, blood, and soul human being. Indeed, even if you took away the implants, she's still be just as human....and still a target for loathing and ridicule for her stated beliefs and desires by the same crowd of puritan feminists who simply can't stand women who actually attempt to follow their own destiny beyond the narrow confines of the "womyn's nation".
Also (and this pertains to the comment about the Playboy Playmate who decided to get the implants later): Must we always assume that women like her can't decide on her own merits and her own feelings, and always reduce her decisions to "perfection pressure"?? There are many Playboy Playmates, Penthouse Pets, and other adult models who decide for whatever reason to get their breasts enhanced....and most of them aren't pressured by anything other than either personal pleasure or professional advancement. We can debate the merits of her decision always...but in the end, my view always falls on the ever-present motto: Her body, her choice. If we cannot respect the notion that individual women must be allowed to determine their own sexual and personal destinies; then we do a lot more dehumanizing and objectifying than any naked photo, sex scene, or photo spread could ever do.
Just placing my two cents into the debate...
Anthony
[Hi Anthony. First of all I think Lynn made the distinction between "objectification" between equals, which is fine and actually kind of cool, and dehumanizing objectification which is scary whether it's sexual or merely deprecating. As for decisions to get implants, eh, I pointed out that other forms of body modification get a pass so why not implants? That said, without examining the motivations for the merits and feelings behind one's choice to seek modification I'm not comfortable saying we should just say "whatever" since that answer might be circular. Thanks. --fl]