From: Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Full headers:
From: "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:32:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <p6en5i$s7j$>
References: <> <> <> <>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:32:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="f472861bfdf980ec2968df06e2a3292d";
logging-data="28915"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NCFVNF14pDs7uHbP4EM0hn7zLIThtEOU="
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DYygMBwCOV0MNqHkVRjkEpirrm8=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Print Article
Forward Article
"android"<here@there.was> wrote

| Well, if you define porn as an aid to get into a state of sexual
| excitement then it, Playboy is for many folks stateside. Be sure of
| that. And exploitive it is.

   Exploitive? What's porn? I think of it as a
laziness tool. The NYT is porn for me. It gives
me a cheap, low-cal intellectual thrill in the
morning when my mind is not really awake yet.
But it's a lazy thrill. By the same token, TV in
general is porn. Dessert can be porn. And
Playboy can be porn. Shopping is often porn.
Music, in almost all cases, is porn, because
people use it to dally in emotional states they
find titillating, rather than actually be where
they are.

  They're all porn because they're used for
a cheap thrill. A low-cost boredom fix that's not
actually relating to anything. On the
other hand, what's exploitive about enjoying
looking at things that give you pleasure? The
women are paid. And in case you never noticed,
women, by nature, get most of their kicks from
being desired. It's the man's job to have that
desire. You can call that sexist, but you'd have
a hard time finding a woman who'd stick around
for long if she can't evoke lust in you.

  Is it porn for Savageduck to shoot pictures
of cars and then enjoy the photos? (And he
doesn't even pay the poor things!)

   To my mind it's less healthy to take such a
backhanded approach, as the Pirelli calendar is doing
with their PC calendar. It's convoluted hypocrisy.
They want their calendars to be pleasureable, no?
But they don't want to get in trouble.
We're supposed to "respect" a woman in mechanic's
overalls, or wearing a power suit. We should respect
Amy Schumer for specifically not being attractive.
(No offense to Amy Schumer, but she wouldn't have
posed like that if she didn't know it was incongruous.)

  Yet we're not really being offered Amy Schumer's
humor, Serena Williams's athletic prowess, or a
museum director's interesting face. We're being offered
images of fame, power and celebrity, masquerading
as art. That's Leibovitz's specialty. She shoots celebrity.
Is that not porn, or even obscenity?

  Why is it disrespect to portray a woman as sexual,
but any other portrayal is not?
  Why is it fine to fantasize or celebrate over fame
and celebrity, but not sensual pleasures?

  Maybe Leibovitz, next year, should do a PC expos