So much acrimony . . . hardly warranted by this topic.
I was raised by my grandparents. My grandfather was born in 1897 and my grandmother in 1899. One could hardly expect a modern, straight-foward candor from them. So a couple of books were "left laying around." One was a novel, and the central character was an adolescent boy. He goes to Tijuana with some friends, but can't perform because the whores frighten and disgust him. Later on, he goes strolling in the woods with a girl to whom he is attracted, they begin heavy "petting," and he ends up raping her. I don't know if he got his comeuppance, or if there were any moral lesson in it, because i was sufficently disgusted myself that i read no further. I can't imagine what they were thinking with that one.
The other was a slim volume which described the reproductive organs and process in simple terms without being condescending. There were diagrams of the male and female reproductive organs, and for the rest of it, there were discrete pictures of Greco-Roman sculture, nudes. It stressed the value of loving relationships between the parents and for their children. It was a very good book of its type.
Everything else i learned by groping around in the back seats of cars. They were mutual educational experiences.
What bothers me - (but doesn't shock me) - about Playboy and other magazines like it is that it offers women and their bodies as a commodity- something to be bought and sold and traded upon.
They don't, though. They offer images of women and their bodies as a commodity. Other magazines --- parenting magazines for example --- offer images of cute babies as a commodity. It's not the same as offering the babies. To suggest that offering the image of something for sale is morally equivalent to offering the thing itself for sale is nonsense. Worse yet, it's slanderous nonsense in this case.
What bothers me - (but doesn't shock me) - about Playboy and other magazines like it is that it offers women and their bodies as a commodity- something to be bought and sold and traded upon.
Thomas wrote:
They don't, though. They offer images of women and their bodies as a commodity. Other magazines --- parenting magazines for example --- offer images of cute babies as a commodity. It's not the same as offering the babies. To suggest that offering the image of something for sale is morally equivalent to offering the thing itself for sale is nonsense. Worse yet, it's slanderous nonsense in this case.
Very well said, Tom!
I join in your observations.
Your mind is admirable.
I might add that the ladies THEMSELVES
offered their pictures for sale to Playboy.
Playboy did not rip them off against their will,
like savage paparazzi.
Some of the ladies ( arguably ALL of them?? ) are exhibitionists,
i.e.: thay actively desire exposure & fame.
David
0 Replies
boomerang
1
Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:56 am
@Setanta,
Even though my parents never really discussed sex with us they never censored our reading material. Fortunately I chose "An American Tragedy" wherein reckless sex leads to pregnancy, being smashed in the head with a camera and left to drown.
Planned Parenthood to the rescue!
0 Replies
boomerang
1
Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:01 am
@sozobe,
I think you've touched on something very important -- kids generally react very differently to these types of things. Without any experience to overlay on the images I think they do see these things as neutral. Context makes a huge difference.
0 Replies
boomerang
2
Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:13 am
@Thomas,
I worked with a girl who had a photo in Playboy -- it was one photo in one of those Girls of the Suchandsuch Campus things.
She had good things to say about her experience. It was a beautiful photo and barely provocative (an unbuttoned blouse, a knowing smile). She was a (small c) conservative girl but was not at all ashamed of what she had done.
She would have been abashed to think anyone thought she was offering herself for sale.
Oh, come on...I'm not saying they're prostituting themselves- so don't put that on me.
I'm just saying that what they have found of themselves to sell - an image- okay- is NOT what I want my son to look at and think that that might be all there is to value about that person.
But because that's what is presented as valuable about that person in magazines like Playboy, he might think that IS what is most valuable and/or interesting about her.
Alot of guys do have those thoughts when looking at pictures of naked women in magazines.
Or maybe they don't....maybe they think ' hmmm, I'd love to have a discussion about politics or religion or race relations or particle physics with her....'
Come on!
It makes her two dimensional to men. Yes, exactly - she becomes an image instead of a person who also might sing or think or write or be a mother or take care of her aged parents.
You can like it all you want - I don't care. I'm not judging these girls. They can do whatever they want. All I'm saying is I am not going to be a mother who attaches thoughts of womanhood and sexuality with images in Playboy with my particular son.
So much acrimony . . . hardly warranted by this topic.
I apologize.
I will say though, that the subject matter is not particularly upsetting to me.
For me, it was being told I had no right to be on this thread, that I couldn't have anything constructive to say as I have no kids. Especially from someone who says in his signature line that adults are just kids with a lot of experience.
is it weird that my assumption has always been that all of these girls are (small c) conservative? not sure why, but that's always been my take on it
I bet it has to do with sexual oppression. Many conservatives are religious or have stronger religious convictions which pour onto their families even if other family members don't quite see eye to eye. They generally shun and belittle sexuality so much that when a young person expresses it openly it is a release for them. Like being let out of a cage after being imprisoned by it for a long time. That or they just couldn't turn down the money being offered. A lot of people will set aside their moral compass for enough cash.
0 Replies
Krumple
1
Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:36 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Oh, come on...I'm not saying they're prostituting themselves- so don't put that on me.
I'm just saying that what they have found of themselves to sell - an image- okay- is NOT what I want my son to look at and think that that might be all there is to value about that person.
But because that's what is presented as valuable about that person in magazines like Playboy, he might think that IS what is most valuable and/or interesting about her.
Alot of guys do have those thoughts when looking at pictures of naked women in magazines.
Or maybe they don't....maybe they think ' hmmm, I'd love to have a discussion about politics or religion or race relations or particle physics with her....'
Come on!
It makes her two dimensional to men. Yes, exactly - she becomes an image instead of a person who also might sing or think or write or be a mother or take care of her aged parents.
You can like it all you want - I don't care. I'm not judging these girls. They can do whatever they want. All I'm saying is I am not going to be a mother who attaches thoughts of womanhood and sexuality with images in Playboy with my particular son.
And that is my right.
Jesus!
The funny thing is, it really isn't up to you to decide. Sure you are not going to offer it up but eventually he is going to be faced with it one way or another. You might have impacted his thoughts on the issue but if you just wait until he is exposed to it on his own, you won't be able to control how he feels about seeing a nude woman in a two dimensional image.
The thing is. Men are not all directly attracted to the qualities of a woman's mind from the very start. Typically which both sexes do exhibit is the tendency to first be physically attracted to the person and then learn who they are. Not all cases are like this, but it typically is this way. That is why porn is so popular or more popular with men, because the physical attraction is what is sought first.
At that moment they don't care if she can write a novel or do complex calculations or save lives. They just want to get off. Learning about a person takes up too much time and what happens when you figure out that the person wasn't as impressive? You have start all over again and for a person who just wants to get laid, that is too much work.
I haven't met enough Playboy models to come to any conclusion. I do know that my "boudoir" clients ran the gamut of types. Of course, the portraits they were having made were for personal use, not publication so they may not represent the type of person who would appear in Playboy.
0 Replies
chai2
1
Fri 17 Aug, 2012 08:51 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
I totally get the "ick" factor from the way the book is described.
BUT it also sounds like a pretty good way to have your kid explore the topic. At least it isn't photos of naked adults.
But there WERE pictures of naked adults!
In the video I posted below, a woman says she's looking at pictures of "2 people having intercourse" second 43.
At 1:13 and 1:14, if you freeze frame, there are naked adults.
I'm not sure if I remember seeing this particular picture, but from reading those amazon reviews, there was apparantly a picture of a woman kissing, or going to kiss, a penis.
Look here...I got curious again last night, and tried to see if I could find more info on this old book. I found this youtube video. If you stop frame at the right moment at some point, when someone was flipping a page, you very clearly see a picture of a naked adult.
If I hadn't seen this book, I could have interpreted some of the peoples expressions as "mere" prudishness. However, from what was (and I'm not being dramatic here) burned on my memory, I could very well see that their discomfort was coming from pictures of little kids touching each other, touching a little boys erect penis, etc.
The man at 1:30 is clearly distressed, and stays to the camera "I really want to stop doing this"
If you stop at 1:55 the text reads "kissing his penis"
If you take the text that was read of the book, I could see where it could be educational "I have a penis, you don't" "yeah, but I have a vagina" Well, that's fine. Even the part where a man reads the little boy saying something like "when my penis is stiff (hard, erect, whatever word was used) it feels great!" is a way for a child to understand that this is normal, nothing to be embarrassed about.
But, it goes overboard.
On amazon, several people note that this book would be something a pedophile would want.
The funny thing is, it really isn't up to you to decide. Sure you are not going to offer it up but eventually he is going to be faced with it one way or another. You might have impacted his thoughts on the issue but if you just wait until he is exposed to it on his own, you won't be able to control how he feels about seeing a nude woman in a two dimensional image.
That's exactly what I've already said. In fact, as I said, my son, as a teenager did look at pornography - I know because it was in his room.
Whatever - he was a teenaged boy who liked to look at naked women.
My thoughts - 'he's typical and normal'.
That's it.
I was just trying to answer the question asked - and no I wouldn't buy my son a Playboy.
It's not because I want to control how he sees women beyond encouraging him to treat them with respect, as human beings with feelings who are equal in every way to himself.
As I said before, I can't direct his sexuality and I wouldn't try to - one way or another- with Playboy or without.
That's his providence- not mine.
Quote:
At that moment they don't care if she can write a novel or do complex calculations or save lives. They just want to get off. Learning about a person takes up too much time and what happens when you figure out that the person wasn't as impressive? You have start all over again and for a person who just wants to get laid, that is too much work.
There you go - you pretty much just made my point. So the girl in that picture - the image- can be used as a 'tool' to get someone 'off'.
I don't want to be a mother who provides my son with material or encourages him in any way to think of anyone as a 'tool' or as a 'means to an end'.
Is that not okay?
There you go - you pretty much just made my point. So the girl in that picture - the image- can be used as a 'tool' to get someone 'off'.
I don't want to be a mother who provides my son with material or encourages him in any way to think of anyone as a 'tool' or as a 'means to an end'.
Is that not okay?
Well you could call it a tool if you want but it is ingrained in our biology. You might not have it personally but not everyone has the same level of sexuality. I don't think our ancestors cared if she could run a hundred yard dash faster than all the other women or could do some creative cave art. I think it pretty much came down to what was visually appealing to the male. Then other males probably didn't care all that much about physical appearances they just wanted to get their business done.
We don't really have that system any more but the biology to act that way remains. Males can't just grab any female wandering by and copulate with her without her permission or say so. This is a natural biological tendency regardless if you think it is right or wrong. Today we frown upon it but it wasn't always that way. This is why porn has such a high appeal to most men because it allows that primitive biology to find an outlet. In fact despite my opinions it is probably healthy for our society to have such a source available regardless if you like it or not. To ban it or not allow it might cause more harm.
I don't interpret the request to know what's in a Playboy to automatically be a desire to "get off."
There are lots of other directions such a conversation could go, and freaking out over the assumption "ZOMG! my child wants porn!" can cut off a parent from a goldmine of information.
Can kids navigate puberty and nascent sexuality on their own? Sure. Happens all the time.
But negative stuff happens all the time, too. Personally, I want my kid to know they can come to me with any problem, and I'll do my best to help them cope with it.
Well you could call it a tool if you want but it is ingrained in our biology. You might not have it personally but not everyone has the same level of sexuality. I don't think our ancestors cared if she could run a hundred yard dash faster than all the other women or could do some creative cave art. I think it pretty much came down to what was visually appealing to the male. Then other males probably didn't care all that much about physical appearances they just wanted to get their business done.
Well, no- I don't have the sort of sexuality that enables or draws me to look at a picture of a man and want to have sex with him. I mean, I need to hear the voice and know the personality and yeah...be attached emotionally. And actually, I think that as the female- that need is probably more inherent and innate in my DNA and biology - for obvious reasons.
I never said a word about banning pornography. I only said it's not something I would give my son or daughter, as a mother/woman/teacher...whatever.
