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

PeonForHer -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 3:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper Anyway, thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading what you have to say! Thank you, Parappa - and likewise to you. :-) quote: 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! All I can say is, I recognise those feelings and the overall conclusion. It was, apparently, both Mann's and Visconti's aim to make us feel weird and disturbed in such ways. One of the themes of the film was sickness, covered up, hence people dropping like flies of cholera while it was all hushed up in order to save the tourist industry. Oh well. I guess it hit the spot, right enough.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ParappaTheDapper 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. Ok, let's take an extreme example. I want to be clear that I am in no way equating you to a paedophile - I'm just using the example to discuss a point of logic, ok? Imagine that he wasn't sixteen, he was five, and that there was explicit sexual contact in the film. The film is therefore a record of the sexual abuse of a child. If the child then grows up does that mean that it is somehow more ok for people to lust after the record of the abuse? So old child porn is better than recently produced child porn because the particular kid is older now? If Andresen felt exploited then the film is a record of his exploitation, so the two situations are functionally similar (although one is obviously an order of magnitude worse). I'm not sure lusting after a platonic form of adolescence via a record of the exploitation of an adolescent gets any better when the adolescent grows up - the record's still a record.

ParappaTheDapper -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:03:24 PM)
quote: Imagine that he wasn't sixteen, he was five, and that there was explicit sexual contact in the film. The film is therefore a record of the sexual abuse of a child. If the child then grows up does that mean that it is somehow more ok for people to lust after the record of the abuse? So old child porn is better than recently produced child porn because the particular kid is older now? If Andresen felt exploited then the film is a record of his exploitation, so the two situations are functionally similar (although one is obviously an order of magnitude worse). I'm not sure lusting after a platonic form of adolescence via a record of the exploitation of an adolescent gets any better when the adolescent grows up - the record's still a record. Yeah, precisely. This is where I get hung up too, and it was always an inchoate confusion that never congealed until I started actually thinking it through in this thread. I need to sort this out, which is why I'm inclined to reserve judgment for right now. I suspect when it's all said and done I may be changing my original position.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:05:25 PM)
You get a free pass for using the word inchoate. [8D]

PeonForHer -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:39:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious You get a free pass for using the word inchoate. [8D] Likewise from me. Nice!

DeviantlyD -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:43:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious And a kind of young one at that? No, I made no judgement about his age from that image assuming by law he'd meet the minimum age for such work. Unless it's an adult entertainment magazine, there is no "minimum age". quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Perception is reality. Not always, attribution theory is a clear example of when it isn't In the marketing world, perception is always reality. By your argument, you are placing the responsibility for perception of the image on the viewer. It's the other way around: the purveyor (magazine publisher) is the one who is responsible for what's being put out there and how it's perceived by the public at large. Edited for clarification.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle 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. Your argument has lost focus from the OP. The issue is not the young man, but how the magazine chose to portray him in their magazine cover.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 4:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle 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. My guess is that it's more of a marketing choice for himself. If he can take advantage of his androgyny to gain modeling jobs and if he can be vague about his sexuality, in order to appeal to a wider audience, then he can avail himself of more options for his modelling career.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 5:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh 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. It's doubtful you or anyone else would make such a detailed observation on first glance. It's the first glance that imparts the immediate perception and it's this perception that B&N are clearly wanting to avoid with their customers.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 5:12:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle I kind of wonder if at some point men with moobs are going to be asked to cover up. I can't remember where it was, but there was an image of a man with moobs that was censored. And no, it wasn't for humourous purposes.

aromanholiday -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 5:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker He'd be huge in Japan though. They're into that weird shit. You're right. Japan is a lot looser about certain things than most of the West is. They would adore him.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 5:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh 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. It's doubtful you or anyone else would make such a detailed observation on first glance. It's the first glance that imparts the immediate perception and it's this perception that B&N are clearly wanting to avoid with their customers. Honestly when I saw the pic in the link on the OP I immediately thought this person doesn't look like a young girl so what's the problem? Its a pic of a transvestite so maybe thats the issue. After all they are still a little taboo aren't they? Now many others on here seem to disagree over what the image seems to represent so maybe I just see this differently! quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick 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. For me its a matter of perception. You see it one way I see it another. I'm willing to accept that if the majority see it your way then maybe that was the intent of the publisher. I hope it wasn't though. It leads to another question. Women have to cover up on top. Some may think thats unfair as some traditional societies don't have that rule but regardless are we now to extend this rule to certain kinds of men who look at least youthful and relatively feminine? Personally I would hope not. Attitudes to nudity are already a bit peculiar.

CalifChick -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 6:04:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Women have to cover up on top. Some may think thats unfair as some traditional societies don't have that rule but regardless are we now to extend this rule to certain kinds of men who look at least youthful and relatively feminine? Personally I would hope not. Attitudes to nudity are already a bit peculiar. As I said, it's not about androgeny, at least not for me. It's about what the image appears to be. It does not appear to be a youthful and relatively feminine man. If he were walking down the street that way, and an officer stopped him for being topless, and he showed his identification stating that he was a man, would the officer let him go? Well, depending on the location, perhaps not, as he could be held for "public disturbance" or "disturbing the peace" or some other vague term. Cali

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 6:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Women have to cover up on top. Some may think thats unfair as some traditional societies don't have that rule but regardless are we now to extend this rule to certain kinds of men who look at least youthful and relatively feminine? Personally I would hope not. Attitudes to nudity are already a bit peculiar. As I said, it's not about androgeny, at least not for me. It's about what the image appears to be. It does not appear to be a youthful and relatively feminine man. If he were walking down the street that way, and an officer stopped him for being topless, and he showed his identification stating that he was a man, would the officer let him go? Well, depending on the location, perhaps not, as he could be held for "public disturbance" or "disturbing the peace" or some other vague term. I understand what you meant about it not being about androgeny for you but it might be for others if thats how the pic appears to them. If different people see different things then could it really be about what most see in the cover pic? There doesn't seen to be an easy answer to it and it might even have implications elsewhere. Should society have social rules based on how things look or how they are? There is porn where images are modded to make girls appear pre-pubescent which is obviously very wrong but if the publication intended the pic to be in actual fact a transvestite and it is a fairly accurate record of his body then it might seem unfair to censor as he is still male. Also if some people find young fairly feminine looking men inappropriate without tops on in a similar way to females then it changes the social rules for them. Don't know any countries where males aren't allowed without tops on but imagine if the rule about the magazine was taken to an extreme where it could affect real life. Just a hypothetical but I reckon it would be problematic.

DomImus -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 6:32:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NocturnalStalker He'd be huge in Japan though. They're into that weird shit. Shit being the operative word here. It's no wonder that hideously ugly fucker is a hit in the fashion world. If he had any more angular contours he'd be a geometry equation.

CalifChick -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 7:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Also if some people find young fairly feminine looking men inappropriate without tops on in a similar way to females then it changes the social rules for them. You keep making this about male and female, but I can't even wrap my brain around the idea that this might be about male and female (and see my post about with the absurd quote in it about fetish and taboo). I don't care what type of genitalia or chromosomes the model has. Cali

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 7:32:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh Also if some people find young fairly feminine looking men inappropriate without tops on in a similar way to females then it changes the social rules for them. You keep making this about male and female, but I can't even wrap my brain around the idea that this might be about male and female (and see my post about with the absurd quote in it about fetish and taboo). I don't care what type of genitalia or chromosomes the model has. I'm only doing that cause some people see it that way, for example one or two on here besides myself. Not saying everybody has to at all and I made a point of saying others would see it differently.

LadyPact -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 8:02:05 PM)
In doing a quick check back on this thread, there are 77 responses, but there were only eighteen individuals that posted. Of those eighteen, six posters said in one form or another that they thought the person on the cover was female. If that's a random sampling, and you were Barnes and Noble, would you really want one third of your customers thinking that they wouldn't be back in your store because they thought the magazines on display had a half naked chick on the cover?

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 8:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact In doing a quick check back on this thread, there are 77 responses, but there were only eighteen individuals that posted. Of those eighteen, six posters said in one form or another that they thought the person on the cover was female. If that's a random sampling, and you were Barnes and Noble, would you really want one third of your customers thinking that they wouldn't be back in your store because they thought the magazines on display had a half naked chick on the cover? Probably not but that's assuming all those would object so strongly that they would never return. I can't really call it either way if Barnes and N are right or wrong to be honest.

dcnovice -> RE: Barnes and Noble censors image of androgynous model. (5/22/2011 8:14:15 PM)
quote: It's no wonder that hideously ugly fucker is a hit in the fashion world. If he had any more angular contours he'd be a geometry equation. LOL! This could be a Sunny quote of the day!

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875