RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model.

RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyPact -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 10:53:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle I don't know that's true, it's certainly how it should be, however I assume everyone has their target audience; the people they are trying to get the attention of. Take for example technology or gaming publications these often contain overt sexual imagery on the cover. This imagery has nothing to do the latest HDD technology or gaming release but everything to do with the fact they are aiming it at adolescent males. Organisations have a good idea, from market research, of the demographics interested in certain things and they try to compound that rather than using a non targeted approach. I think we're missing each other here. I think you might be looking at it from the perspective of the target audience of the magazine, where the publisher has probably done a good job of hitting their demographic. I'm not so sure that's the same demographic when we're talking about the average customer of the store. I may have phrased My comment poorly on that one. quote: I've taken another look, do they look muscular? I don't know. I'll have to take another look, Myself. "Muscular" wasn't exactly the descriptive word that jumped out to Me when I looked the first time.

FullCircle -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 10:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious I've no idea of your background (or even your gender), so I don't know how much time you've spent with girls whose breasts are just starting to develop. But I went to an all girls school, and hey! I'm a girl too, so let me tell you, if you don't know: that's what developing breasts look like at the beginning. I'm well aware of how breasts develop but I was referring to the muscular nature of the torso. If your argument is restricted to the development of breasts alone and not the overall shape of the torso then every man without moobs or a hairy chest you could argue resembles an adolescent girl. edited for quote.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 11:10:38 AM)
Thin, young men with young faces, high cheekbones, smooth skin and not enough shoulder-width to be triangular in shape do look like preadolescent girls, to a varying degree. You said yourself that he looks like a girl - the question is whether or not the girl he looks like is one too young to have developed hips or breasts.

FullCircle -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 11:15:19 AM)
It's a difficult position but all you can do is judge it by who he is not what he looks like. Otherwise you set a dangerous precedent in terms of how people can express themselves. Should he avoid going to the beach with hair rollers? Where does this end?

FullCircle -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 11:38:26 AM)
I'm sure 99% that most of these kind of things are more about parents wanting to avoid awkward conversations than they are about moral standards. I kind of wonder if at some point men with moobs are going to be asked to cover up. There is the social position in terms of what society expects from you; what to wear, what to look like and there is the way you see yourself (perhaps not conforming to how society sees you). At this moment in time I feel sorry for the guy because he's probably getting this criticism locally and he'll be taking some of it to heart. This has nothing to do with him looking like an underage individual and I'm sorry it's gone down this route because it seems a distraction from the reality of what this outrage is actually about. The things we've spoken of here were not mentioned in the original article. The original article talks of him being mistaken for a female not an underage female specifically.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 11:44:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle It's a difficult position but all you can do is judge it by who he is not what he looks like. I couldn't disagree more. This is a magazine cover - the identity of the model is irrelevant, he's nothing more than a tool for composing the image. The final image is composed just as much of photoshop as of him. What it looks like is the issue here. [eta: and I honestly think that's the first time in the history of the world anyone's said that about a fashion magazine cover. Can you not hear yourself?] quote: Otherwise you set a dangerous precedent in terms of how people can express themselves. Should he avoid going to the beach with hair rollers? Where does this end? I'm willing to bet that in person he looks like a man in his early twenties. Without the makeup, the hair, the lighting, the photoshop that's removed his 5-o'clock shadow and lifted his cheekbones and evened up his wonky left eye* there's no problem. The problem is the magazine deliberately selecting to create a sexualised pubescent image. The model himself is not the image. *ok, so it might not be his left eye specifically but you get the picture; a massive amount of processing goes into these images, sometimes to the point where several times I've not recognised a friend on a magazine cover the first few times I've looked.

FullCircle -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 11:57:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious I'm willing to bet that in person he looks like a man in his early twenties. Without the makeup, the hair, the lighting, the photoshop that's removed his 5-o'clock shadow and lifted his cheekbones and evened up his wonky left eye* there's no problem. The problem is the magazine deliberately selecting to create a sexualised pubescent image. The model himself is not the image. From what I read in the article it sounds more like a lifestyle choice for him rather than him just agreeing to this kind of image for a one off shoot. So chances are in person he may present himself very similarly to how he was presented in that image but without the photoshop as you put it. quote: *ok, so it might not be his left eye specifically but you get the picture; a massive amount of processing goes into these images, sometimes to the point where several times I've not recognised a friend on a magazine cover the first few times I've looked. True but that would be the same for both men and women. Perhaps with the aid of Photoshop they could have dealt with the shape his body if the idea was to make him look like someone he wasn't.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 12:10:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh I guess it is provocative so I can understand their concern but really I wonder if its more about him being a transvestite in a sexualised image than actually being mistaken for a topless woman? He's a transvestite? News to me.You would have to know that this was a sexualized transvestite image to be concerned on that account. I bet most customers have never heard of the model nor seen a picture of him. Most will be like me, walk past, see this pic and be affronted. Because as I said, the image I googled does not appear to be male, judging by the image only I would have been sure this was a female just on the cusp on puberty who had bumps only and wouldn't develop breasts for another year. A nude preteen. And as a mother, I would have been the first to go up to the customer service desk and raise a fuss. I would not have picked up the magazine and bothered to read the article to make sure I was wrong. To my mind he has the torso of a fairly feminine male so knowing who it was wouldn't matter. For some reason the image actually reminded me a little bit of a young David Bowie circa 1970 or so. It would be harder to tell he wasn't a girl with clothes on. The face also looks too mature to be a girl of ten to thirteen. Maybe I'm wrong. Just how I see it I guess. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious I've no idea of your background (or even your gender), so I don't know how much time you've spent with girls whose breasts are just starting to develop. But I went to an all girls school, and hey! I'm a girl too, so let me tell you, if you don't know: that's what developing breasts look like at the beginning. I'm well aware of how breasts develop but I was referring to the muscular nature of the torso. If your argument is restricted to the development of breasts alone and not the overall shape of the torso then every man without moobs or a hairy chest you could argue resembles an adolescent girl. Agreed, I don't get how he looks like an adolescent girl. He isn't what you could call muscular but looks too muscular and angular to be an adolescent girl. Muscular development is an important distinction between males and females when they mature sexually during their teens.

needlesandpins -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 12:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle It's a difficult position but all you can do is judge it by who he is not what he looks like. Otherwise you set a dangerous precedent in terms of how people can express themselves. Should he avoid going to the beach with hair rollers? Where does this end? i disagree with that statement. anyone walking into the shop and seeing that image as i did is not going think 'oooo hang on a moment, lets look up who that is forst before i really make my mind up that it looks like a young girl with her top off' people are going to see it for what it is, a young girl with her top off. there is nothing masculine about him at all. it's the image that it portrays, and to the vast amount of people it would seem that is a young girl with her top off. nothing changes that that is what the image looks like and that is illegal. so the company in question have the right to ask for it to be covered. it does not present a good image to young people. [image]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-NnTOj2kDm_M/TYCesT_xCII/AAAAAAABDlk/0zJbteOCfOI/s1600/Andrej+Pejic1.jpg[/image] i looked alot like that physically at 13ish due to having horses but being under developed in the breat region

needlesandpins -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 12:42:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh I guess it is provocative so I can understand their concern but really I wonder if its more about him being a transvestite in a sexualised image than actually being mistaken for a topless woman? He's a transvestite? News to me.You would have to know that this was a sexualized transvestite image to be concerned on that account. I bet most customers have never heard of the model nor seen a picture of him. Most will be like me, walk past, see this pic and be affronted. Because as I said, the image I googled does not appear to be male, judging by the image only I would have been sure this was a female just on the cusp on puberty who had bumps only and wouldn't develop breasts for another year. A nude preteen. And as a mother, I would have been the first to go up to the customer service desk and raise a fuss. I would not have picked up the magazine and bothered to read the article to make sure I was wrong. To my mind he has the torso of a fairly feminine male so knowing who it was wouldn't matter. For some reason the image actually reminded me a little bit of a young David Bowie circa 1970 or so. It would be harder to tell he wasn't a girl with clothes on. The face also looks too mature to be a girl of ten to thirteen. Maybe I'm wrong. Just how I see it I guess. quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious I've no idea of your background (or even your gender), so I don't know how much time you've spent with girls whose breasts are just starting to develop. But I went to an all girls school, and hey! I'm a girl too, so let me tell you, if you don't know: that's what developing breasts look like at the beginning. I'm well aware of how breasts develop but I was referring to the muscular nature of the torso. If your argument is restricted to the development of breasts alone and not the overall shape of the torso then every man without moobs or a hairy chest you could argue resembles an adolescent girl. Agreed, I don't get how he looks like an adolescent girl. He isn't what you could call muscular but looks too muscular and angular to be an adolescent girl. Muscular development is an important distinction between males and females when they mature sexually during their teens. you'd be very surprised at how different a skinny girl can look. my ex was a bus driver for 13 years. he used to take girls to school and then see them out round town at the weekend. it was only because he knew them from the bus trips that he could warn others away from them as jail bait. it's a horrid thing but these girls are way too old fer their age. some of those girls were very well developed, but some arn't but can still look older. it's only like a woman who can look very young due to being straight up and down. young girls who do alot of exercise can be very muscular and angular. i certainly was due to horses, running, and cycling. i had a six pack well into my twenties to out do any guy. two of my neices are just the same. needles

LadyPact -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 12:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins i disagree with that statement. anyone walking into the shop and seeing that image as i did is not going think 'oooo hang on a moment, lets look up who that is forst before i really make my mind up that it looks like a young girl with her top off' I think you got to My point better than I did. [:)] I have to admit that I'm not much one for recognizing most of the "in" popular actress/models/etc. I wouldn't have known on sight that the guy was male because I had no clue of who he is or which name around the border of the pic was his. Very often, the cover of a magazine is of a model that isn't even one of the eye catcher names that is sported on the cover. I wouldn't have bought the thing to find out the gender of the person on the cover. I suppose that I'm thinking I can't possibly be the other person who may have mistaken him for female. If I thought so, others who didn't recognize him may have as well. Also, I'm still not seeing this muscular bit. I've looked at the picture several times and even staring at it, the only definition of muscle tone is just above the waist. The rest is ribcage.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 1:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins you'd be very surprised at how different a skinny girl can look. my ex was a bus driver for 13 years. he used to take girls to school and then see them out round town at the weekend. it was only because he knew them from the bus trips that he could warn others away from them as jail bait. it's a horrid thing but these girls are way too old fer their age. some of those girls were very well developed, but some arn't but can still look older. it's only like a woman who can look very young due to being straight up and down. young girls who do alot of exercise can be very muscular and angular. i certainly was due to horses, running, and cycling. i had a six pack well into my twenties to out do any guy. two of my neices are just the same. Its true that girls can look older than they are due to make up. I remember a lot doing that to get into pubs. I take your point about some girls being quite muscular if they do a lot of activity. As far as I know generally girls at least facially have a softer appearance. People don't fit into tidy categories there can be some definite crossover as you say. Perhaps so it depends on how people generally see that image? Do people judge gender on averages? Just from my viewpoint only the face in the mag cover looks quite convincing except maybe for a wide chin but looks too hard to come across as a young girl. The pic you posted looks like a feminine male or maybe an emaciated female and the face seems vaguely masculine.

CalifChick -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 1:55:47 PM)
From one of the linked opinion pieces: quote: Considering the abundance of shirtless men on body building and health magazine covers (which is coincidentally leading to a worldwide baby oil shortage), it can be assumed that if Pejic’s appearance fell into this category of overt masculinity the Dossier cover would not be controversial. If Pejic was female, this image would be beautiful or sexy. Because he is androgynous, this image has been framed by Borders and Barnes & Noble as taboo, an object of fetish. Absurd. This sort of attitude is what I find most absurd. The issue is not about the model's gender, about androgeny, about taboos, or about fetishes. I would laugh out loud at anyone who said, to my face, that this issue is about fetishes and androgeny. As a parent (because I'm a parent and that's my viewpoint), the issue to me is what some others here have said: It looks like a "pretty baby" picture... a young girl made up to look older. Cali

ParappaTheDapper -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 2:00:51 PM)
Oh, just for the record, I actually very much agree with VC and others--Barnes and Noble absolutely should insist the image be kept under wraps. I think deciding to carry the magazine but not display the cover in question is the only move that makes sense! I'm far from old fashioned! And personally I think Pejic is the shit! But the image, even though it is not of an adolescent (singular) does eroticize Adolescence (as a concept, as does so much of our culture) and as such displaying it in a public place where parents bring their kids and where high schoolers (really dorky ones! like me back in the day) wander on their own strikes me as beyond the pale.

NocturnalStalker -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 2:15:39 PM)
He'd be huge in Japan though. They're into that weird shit.

PeonForHer -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 2:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious Several people looked at the image and saw a young girl at first glance. You don't think the magazine was aware of that before they put it on the cover? Do you not realise how carefully they choose a cover image? The cover image of a magazine seriously affects its sales - they consider every possible angle of it, and every aspect of it that makes it to the final version is deliberate. If you see someone waiflike to the point of apparent pubescence, that's what they meant to be there. They do make mistakes . . . but it's rare. They also know that their ad may generate outraged calls for the banning of it - but they're perfectly happy about this, too. Pfft. I always think: what a pisspoor thing to do with your art degree.

PeonForHer -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 2:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper Oh, just for the record, I actually very much agree with VC and others--Barnes and Noble absolutely should insist the image be kept under wraps. I think deciding to carry the magazine but not display the cover in question is the only move that makes sense! I'm far from old fashioned! And personally I think Pejic is the shit! But the image, even though it is not of an adolescent (singular) does eroticize Adolescence (as a concept, as does so much of our culture) and as such displaying it in a public place where parents bring their kids and where high schoolers (really dorky ones! like me back in the day) wander on their own strikes me as beyond the pale. Heh. The blond laddie in the film Death in Venice, Björn Andrésen, was a wow, apparently, with two groups; first, gay men; followed by, second, Japanese women. I remember a book by Germaine Greer a more recently extolling the beauty of the adolescent male body and arguing for 'more of it'. Called The Beautiful Boy , it had a photo of Andresen on the cover. The latter was furious: he'd complained repeatedly since 1971 and the making of Death in Venice about the exploitation of his image. Greer felt that this new appreciation was to be applauded. Maybe all that's kicked off a bit and this really is about adolescent boys and not underage girls. But if that last's true, then the question is still moot as to whether it's a 'good thing'.

needlesandpins -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 3:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper Oh, just for the record, I actually very much agree with VC and others--Barnes and Noble absolutely should insist the image be kept under wraps. I think deciding to carry the magazine but not display the cover in question is the only move that makes sense! I'm far from old fashioned! And personally I think Pejic is the shit! But the image, even though it is not of an adolescent (singular) does eroticize Adolescence (as a concept, as does so much of our culture) and as such displaying it in a public place where parents bring their kids and where high schoolers (really dorky ones! like me back in the day) wander on their own strikes me as beyond the pale. Heh. The blond laddie in the film Death in Venice, Björn Andrésen, was a wow, apparently, with two groups; first, gay men; followed by, second, Japanese women. I remember a book by Germaine Greer a more recently extolling the beauty of the adolescent male body and arguing for 'more of it'. Called The Beautiful Boy , it had a photo of Andresen on the cover. The latter was furious: he'd complained repeatedly since 1971 and the making of Death in Venice about the exploitation of his image. Greer felt that this new appreciation was to be applauded. Maybe all that's kicked off a bit and this really is about adolescent boys and not underage girls. But if that last's true, then the question is still moot as to whether it's a 'good thing'. if he was made to look like an adolescent boy, but posed provocatively then i'd still have a problem about that sexualisation of minors. however, he's not being posed like a male, he's fully made up to look like a female, as he actually is in an awful lots of his shots. even where he does model male clothes he still looks like an awkward girl in boys clothes. mostly i have no probs with him looking like a girl, he pulls it off very well, but i have a problem with him looking like a sexualised adolescent girl. i haven't read the book you are talking about so can't comment on that itself. however i'm not sure what is meant by appreciation of the adolescent body is actually supposed to mean. maybe it's a lack of context that i'm not getting, but something about that doesn't sit right with me. needles

ParappaTheDapper -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 3:31:27 PM)
I thought of Andresen, actually. I saw that film when I was 16 or 17 myself....which is really too young to watch that film but everybody's parents traveled and someone's older brother had a copy so whatever. Andresen could have competed with a young Beatty or a young Mia Farrow for most beautiful person of the 20th century. He felt gross about it later, apparently, and Jesus I don't blame him. Here is how confusing and conflicting the whole thing is for me: 1) I do not feel gross about thinking he was hot at 16 when I watched the film for the first time and was also 16. 2) I do feel gross about thinking he was hot knowing now that he felt like he'd been exploited. 3) I do think it's gross when old people watch the film and lust after someone they know to be 16. 4) At the same time, even though the person captured by the camera is 16, Andresen is no longer 16. So an argument could be made that people who lust after his 16 year old image are lusting after a sort of Platonic form of Adolescence, and not an adolescent in particular. 5) My head rather hurts. Maybe I should watch some television, or have some tea? 6) I'm kind of glad I am fond of neither Visconti nor Mann so that I don't have to think too much about this most of the time! I bring nothing but my own confusion, garnished with nostalgia and questionable punctuation (I feel like Andresen would be very cross with me for not making that funny little squiggle over his name!) to the table. You're welcome! Anyway, thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading what you have to say! quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper Oh, just for the record, I actually very much agree with VC and others--Barnes and Noble absolutely should insist the image be kept under wraps. I think deciding to carry the magazine but not display the cover in question is the only move that makes sense! I'm far from old fashioned! And personally I think Pejic is the shit! But the image, even though it is not of an adolescent (singular) does eroticize Adolescence (as a concept, as does so much of our culture) and as such displaying it in a public place where parents bring their kids and where high schoolers (really dorky ones! like me back in the day) wander on their own strikes me as beyond the pale. Heh. The blond laddie in the film Death in Venice, Björn Andrésen, was a wow, apparently, with two groups; first, gay men; followed by, second, Japanese women. I remember a book by Germaine Greer a more recently extolling the beauty of the adolescent male body and arguing for 'more of it'. Called The Beautiful Boy , it had a photo of Andresen on the cover. The latter was furious: he'd complained repeatedly since 1971 and the making of Death in Venice about the exploitation of his image. Greer felt that this new appreciation was to be applauded. Maybe all that's kicked off a bit and this really is about adolescent boys and not underage girls. But if that last's true, then the question is still moot as to whether it's a 'good thing'.

PeonForHer -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 3:43:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: needlesandpins if he was made to look like an adolescent boy, but posed provocatively then i'd still have a problem about that sexualisation of minors. however, he's not being posed like a male, he's fully made up to look like a female, as he actually is in an awful lots of his shots. even where he does model male clothes he still looks like an awkward girl in boys clothes. mostly i have no probs with him looking like a girl, he pulls it off very well, but i have a problem with him looking like a sexualised adolescent girl. i haven't read the book you are talking about so can't comment on that itself. however i'm not sure what is meant by appreciation of the adolescent body is actually supposed to mean. maybe it's a lack of context that i'm not getting, but something about that doesn't sit right with me. needles I'm with you on the phrase "appreciation of the adolescent body" - it's, ah, questionable, very. I didn't know that Pejic had, in other pictures, been made up to look like a woman and that the net result is that he looks like an 'awkward girl'. Sigh. Frigging advertisers. A while ago it was 'Heroin chic' and deadly-thin, pale, sickly-looking models. They got their furore out of that, but now it's all a bore. So, they go for something unpleasant in a whole new and exciting way. It's all just comprehensively tacky and tawdry, to me.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875