Stop it, stop it, stop it!

[beandelphiki]

This pisses me off.

I'm so tired of hearing anti-porn people complain about "the famous lesbian kiss" poster being marketed to males.

Every place I've seen that poster on sale, it's been thrown in with a whole mix of other posters. It's not like it gets put under the category of "for straight men to perv on."

I seriously doubt that photo was taken with the sole intent of arousing straight men. For one thing, it's quite a romantic kiss, despite what little the women are wearing. All the "lesbian" material I've seen that is marketed to straight men (um...porn, for example) is much more blatantly sexual and un-emotional.

I mean, if you're going to be anti-porn, fine. But stop appropriating other material to rail against!

It strikes me as heterosexist to insist that just because that photograph is of two WOMEN, it must be marketed exclusively to men, and therefore has no value.

Comments

first comment in a while, but...

[oncebluemoon.livejournal.com]

well, if you're talking about the picture I think you are *the one with the two chicks? both 'beautiful'? in skimpy panties?*

I kind of think it was taken from a perspective of appeasing the heterosexual male audience and providing an artistic image to all other parties.

I think it does cater to heterosexual men whether or not that was it's original intent. It also reflects what's accepted by middle america of gay culture. I can sum it up in a simple equation

two girls kissing = hott, bought privately and hidden under the mattress, but openly condemned mostly since it threatens the "sanctity" of marriage and an imbalance of male/female roles in children (which we already know is hogwash)

two boys kissing = the entire world will just collapse in a riot of hellfire should such an image surface on the global stage. It is my firm personal belief lesbians are more "accepted" solely because *despite best efforts to the contrary* it is still a "man's world"

Re: first comment in a while, but...

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the one.

And I agree that it appeals to straight men, but that's really not the same thing. And I'm not sure why it would be considered artistic because it wasn't shot solely for straight men. Women have sex drives...

I definitely agree with your equation, which is why this poster is sold along with all sorts of other posters without comment. A poster of two guys kissing would never be sold alongside the "Fast and the Furious" movie poster, or the poster for "Moulin Rouge."

[aerindipity.livejournal.com]

Meh, I just don't like it because I'm sick and tired of the emaciated standard of beauty.

I just wish there were some models out there that looked like real people. No matter which gender they're making out with.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Um...

With all due respect, THOSE ARE REAL PEOPLE. Those women are real, they exist out there somewhere.

I fit the "emaciated standard of beauty" you're referring to, as far as body type goes (not sayin' anything about my face, though), and I'm real and my body's real, too.

I mean, I think I see what you're getting at, and I agree that there should be a MUCH wider range of body types shown in advertising and so on. But it boggles my mind when people who hate our current standards of beauty will throw out something like, "they don't have real bodies, they don't look like real people" when referring to models. (From now on, I DEMAND that people only choose their language carefully when they're referring to ME, dammit!) It strikes me as a bizarre contradiction to be against beauty standards, and then complain that women who come closer to fitting them aren't "real."

And actually, as far as our standards of beauty go...there really isn't one. There's so many different variations on "beautiful" out there that are all hammered into us, that it's actually impossible to win, if you ask me. Curvy women aren't skinny enough. (Supermodel standard.) Skinny women aren't curvy enough. (Playboy standard.) You ain't rockin' if you ain't got buns. (Rap video standard.) Your ass need to be tiny and tight. (Media in general.) And on and on... Women in our society are expected to be unhappy with themselves and their bodies, all the time, no matter what they look like.

[aerindipity.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying thin people are bad. I'm saying the culture that glorifies unrealistic standards of beauty (not many people are naturally that thin - which is what I mean by not "real". If you have to vomit after every meal to achieve your figure, your figure is not natural), then dehumanizes and ignores those of us that don't fit it, is bad.

Tell me serously. Do you think that picture would be as wildly popular if the models were fifty pounds heavier or had some physical defect?

And if you honestly don't think there's a thin bias in our culture, you're not paying attention. At all.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

*sighs* I know this is a volatile subject, but that's not what I was saying at all.

Of course I know there's a bias. That doesn't make those women less real, or their bodies less real.

You can't make "real" mean, "only what I look like" or "only more than 140 lbs" or even "only people without eating disorders." Real is what EXISTS. And there's no way of proving that any particular model in a magazine actually has an eating disorder.

Saying women who are slim aren't "real" is using pretty damn dehumanizing language, too. This is incredibly hypocritical if you want women to think they're beautiful, regardless of what they look like. The words simply don't reflect the ideals. And it's thoughtless - I can't believe it when I'm in a feminist comm where women jump all over anyone who says "bitch," because someone is "not considering the profound effect language has on us" and then turn around and say the bodies of supermodels aren't "real."

I really don't want to get into a pissing match, though, over who has it "worse" (generally speaking, larger women, assuming that the thin women we're talking about don't have eating disorders). I don't really want that to be the point here, because I don't want to make this a complaint about "being mean to thin people."

I just don't see the point of women turning on each other like this. It does no good! This bullshit about "real people, real bodies" is largely just another beauty standard, beneath the surface.

[aerindipity.livejournal.com]

I see your point. Nobody has a body that isn't real, but there are unrealistic standards of beauty.

If I saw the two models in the poster kissing on the street, I wouldn't think of them as being "unreal women" contributing to the oprression of others. But the widely publicized picture promotes an unrealistic standard. Most people cannot fit that standard while retaining their health and well-being. And when every portrayal of happy, successful, worthy women that the public churns out shows them women with very similar (but very rare in the real world) body types, that is what is unreal. If you just looked at the media, you'd believe 95% of women look like that. That is unreal. The bodies themselves aren't (although, with all the unhealthy beauty-related behaviors and artificial modifications that some people have, they may be unnatural).

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Cool, I totally agree with all of that.

And I'd have no issue if people would say "unrealistic standards" instead of "unreal bodies," y'know?

Sorry, I guess this is just a big pet peeve of mine.

[aerindipity.livejournal.com]

I understand, and ditto. Sorry to push your buttons. ;)

Oh, and while we're on the subject...thoughts on this?

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

The Campaign for Real Beauty.

I'm thinking that it's an interesting effort, but I'm also a bit cynical about the fact that all of these women would otherwise be considered "conventionally" beautiful (by some standard or other) if they didn't have their "flaws." I don't know if it's too much of a departure.

Or is that being too cynical?