That would be Ed Zotti.
As I said above in the 2nd post, we will be trying to treat all genders the same. The SDMB has no problem with non-prurient imagery.
I find this thread very interesting because I believe this difference in attitude vis-a-vis men and women is reflected in society in general, not just here. It even extends to sex with minors. Many people don’t view a woman having sex with a teenage boy the same way they view a man having sex with a teenage girl. The girl is a victim, and the boy got lucky as opposed to both minors being victims.
The objectification of celebrities who are in the business of being objectified for profit is a very different thing from the objectification of one’s neighbors, co-workers, or folks one passes walking down the street.
To be sure, the widespread existence of either of those two classes of objectification lowers the “barrier to entry” for the other class. Which isn’t exactly good news.
But getting the vapors over ordinary people observing that professional pretty-people acting & dressing prettily for sale are in fact pretty is IMO counterproductive.
The question seems to me to be at least in part, is “the best body in film” prurient in itself?
Are people looking at that question and seeing ‘most physically fit’ or ‘best conforming to some abstract idea of beauty’? Or are they looking at it and seeing ‘most sexually attractive’?
And if the latter: in the context of actors, is that more acceptable for males than for females?
No, it is about the same. Actors/Actresses and Models are in a different business than most people. I reacted as it was a new area and wanted to clear up what to do with it. Any slippage into penthouse forum style stuff would be shutdown immediately. Male or Female.
The answer to the second part is already stated: We will be trying to treat all genders the same. And as clarified, though the answer was obvious, We should consider society’s double standard when it comes to toplessness.
I think that’s the only fair way to handle this.
Men can be harassed or raped or otherwise victimized.
But there’s a big difference between an individual who is harassed or victimized and the broader cultural issue where women are constantly sexually objectified and as a result feel unwelcome in male-dominated spaces. The former, when it happens, should be dealt with. The latter is so pervasive that it is reasonable to come up with broad prescriptive rules to tone it down.
Note that so far I don’t see anyone saying “the thread about Harrison Ford made me feel uncomfortable and objectified”. I see a sort of general argument that “Hey, if people can ogle Harrison Ford in that thread, how come we can’t ogle women, constantly, in hundreds of times as many threads”.
Come on now.
I, and others, have expressed concern about such a thing happening to this board.
And the other posts have just been trying to clarify the rules. It’s quite the stretch to claim that the “general argument” has been for more ogle women threads.
Sorry, that was a somewhat bad-spirited interpretation that was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I can see I didn’t hit the mark, and certainly not every attempt to clarify is really an argument for female-objectification. Withdrawn.
Thank you
Rather the opposite. My point, and that of several other men was that preventing objectification of random women is a worthy goal to be continued in every venue; even or especially the SDMB.
Whereas trying to stop the trivial amount of objectification of men around here, especially show biz types, may have the appearance of even-handedness, but actually works against the interest of our small society to stop female objectification. The male centric ruling, since rescinded is at best a distraction, and at worst a feel-good equivalence where no such equivalence exists outside the black letter of the rules.
Spend effort solving real problems, not invented largely imaginary problems.
I could be wrong but I thought that at least at one point there was a board rule that actors and actresses were not subject to this “no commenting on their appearance” rule. IOW, Harrison Ford, or anyone else when they hold themselves out and do things like have their picture taken in a way that suggests that they want you to comment on their appearance—then that is fair game.
This is in contrast to, say, a female congressperson speaking on the House floor and a poster says, “Wow, what a hottie!”
Am I mistaken?
That is generally the rule of thumb.
Yea or Nay - - Hot or Not
I’m all for free expression, but posting that photo should be prohibited.
My discomfort with this situation is the statement that men and women will be treated the same, but the content of the thread indicates otherwise. On the one hand, the sentiment is that women should not be subject to sexual objectification on this board, on the other hand it seems to be acceptable treatment for men, and then we have the statement the policy will be applied equally.
So what is it? Objectify no one, objectify everyone, objectify men only? I know we don’t do bright lines, but this one seems very unclear to me.
If someone is an actor, fashion model, etc., basically something where their appearance is part of their job description and how they sell themselves, then it’s ok to comment on their appearance.
Otherwise, it is not acceptable to comment on someone’s appearance or to sexualize them.
We are trying to apply this equally to all genders. However, it should be noted that our societal norm is that a man wearing shorts and nothing else is not considered equivalent to a woman wearing shorts and nothing else (no top). So obviously some things cannot be completely equal. But there is a basic man’s swimsuit that is acceptable in a PG-type setting and a woman’s swimsuit that is acceptable in a PG-type setting, and while those two swimsuits are not identical, we can treat a picture of a man in a skimpy but general-public-acceptable swimsuit the same way that we treat a woman in a skimpy but general-public-acceptable swimsuit.
And, as always, this is the SDMB, not Penthouse Forums. Post accordingly.
I think it’s safe to say that all the men in the Harrison Ford thread worked very hard to create the types of bodies shown, for the specific purpose of showing them publicly. They’re not just random photos of random men with great bods. But what if they were actresses who also worked very hard to deliberately obtain the types of bodies they need professionally?
If they were actresses who put great effort into getting bodies to show off, then the thread would also be allowed. The number of such threads has decreased significantly of late, but not because we moderators have prohibited them.
These two statements are in direct opposition.
I wish the mods would get out of the business of being the morality and tone police since they can’t seem to make any sense of it when they try.