(OMFG!1!!1111!! A scarred boobie! RED ALERT!!! TEH BOOBIES ARE LOOSE ON TEH INTERTUBES OH NOES!!!!1!!!)
I never planned to reveal this photo to any but my closest of lovers, but now I’m in a fit of pique so fuck it. It’s a nice shot, oui? It’s a boobie! Boobies are very nice. I like boobies. Mine have scars.
Most (but not all) women have breasts. Presuming women are still 52% of the world’s population and that most women have two breasts, there are presently approximately 6.5 billion titties flopping around today, some of them running amok in the public sphere, including the internet. Many breasts are even completely unowned, uncontrolled and unprofited from by men! Oh NOES!
James, what an interesting question, and how fortunate for you that I already have my answer in my pocket (digs around). Oh look! Here it is!
Since you’re a photographer you don’t need me to tell you that it’s best to analyze images in their contexts. In the context of THIS blog, an image of a woman without a head or a face does not symbolize a woman without a brain or a personality. Rather it symbolizes a woman who wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons. My brain and my personality are splattered all over my blog and throughout the blogosphere, available to anyone who wants to discover what the HPS is all about. That most men don’t, preferring to mentally wank over my headless image and ignore what I have to say, is simply not my problem. It’s theirs.
The disembodied body parts you see on my Flickr site are usually from my participation in Half Nekkid Thursdays. There is a purpose to the exercise having to do with exposure in the physical, emotional and mental senses. Check out my blogroll for the HNT site if you want more information. As a photographer you might like it! Certainly you don’t wish to imply that only men should be allowed to play this game?
I am the first to admit to being an exhibitionist who frequently enjoys playing the submissive. How typical (kinda boring, actually) that some folks presume my photographs are on the internet “for the purpose of male pleasure.” To these folks I say: You think my presence in the public sphere is all about you? (well, you and about a million other penis-bearing crazies?) Consider for a moment that I, just like any other human with a blog, may post my photographs, along with my stories, for MY OWN pleasure, or perhaps for the pleasure of other women.
I do not derive any income from maintaining this website and have no plans to. I do not use my blog as a dating site as I get enough attention at home. The only products I “sell” here are my ideas. This is a creative exercise and my gift to the Universe. I could continue with my handwritten diaries and hand-held photography collection, but I’m out of room under my bed, and frankly I don’t wish to hide my creativity and my person from the world. Performance art is meant to be seen.
I pick up two confused vibes from my detractors:
a) Allowing myself to be objectified is Not Feminist. For the record, I am not a fan of radical feminist groupthink, and have zero interest in toeing a harcore radfem party line. Besides, do folks actually think radfems who “refuse to be objectified” ever succeed? Newsflash: THEY DON’T! As are the women who wear burkhas to avoid The Gaze, radical feminists are objectified and degraded by men regardless of what they do (or don’t). Please: Spare me the bother of trying to achieve the impossible, and let me have my fun.
b) Showing pictures of your body is degrading. As if my not being properly modest (i.e., frightened or ashamed of taking up space as a woman with a woman’s body in the public sphere) is an offront to the Powers that Be? Newsflash: The Powers that Be can BITE MY CONVENTIONALLY PRETTY WHITE ASS.
There is nothing inherently degrading about the female form. Humans objectify: Objectification is a part of the nature of Seeing. Male objectification of the female body is only a problem when it’s degrading in nature. I view the male degradation of womanhood as a sickness, and in my opinion responsibility for this sickness rests wholly with men. That we women are expected to dance around male mental illness by covering ourselves up or hiding ourselves from the public sphere – except when our exposure is designed to profit these same men – infuriates me.
Women should be allowed to show their faces, and their full-frontal naked bodies (if it makes them happy), on their websites or anyplace else without suffering for it. Its just a body. It’s just flesh. Sometimes it’s conventionally pretty and sometimes it’s not. We need to get over it. I wish I could show my face, and my whole self, on my blog and still feel safe in my day-to-day comings and goings. Unfortunately I’ve learned from the bad experiences of other women that this would not be a safe thing for me to do. So, James, I answer your question with two questions: Whose fault is it that revealing my whole identity on my blog is not a safe choice for me, and, most importantly, who is doing the degrading here?
34 responses so far ↓
BubbasNightmare // March 18, 2007 at 9:03 pm |
Preach, sister, preach!
You’ve been helpful to me, and if you wanna flash a boob or butt at the world, I feel privileged to be a part of that world. It’s a fucking shame that society’s jerkier members force you to hide what is doubtless a beautiful face as well.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 18, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
Thank you BubbasNightmare, but I could have the face of an anvil and in a SANE world I would still be able to post it freely, yes?
Maenad // March 18, 2007 at 9:27 pm |
Woooooo! That was explosive and right on the dot. It could not have been better said. Thank you, HPS!
James Moss // March 18, 2007 at 11:23 pm |
Hello again…… sorry I feel as though I’ve offended you which wasn’t my intention.
I came across your site whilst looking for examples of advertisements containing violence towards women and have used the Jimmy Choo and Italian vogue fashion spread as examples in my dissertation paper for my degree. One of the issues I’m trying to understand is why sexualised gendered stereotypes of women are used in fashion advertising and why women seem to accept it. (Which they must do because they buy the clothes that the ads represent) I read your views on these ads and incorpirated them in to my work, I then went on to view your images on the flicker site and couldn’t’ understand why you had published them on the web.
Don’t think I’m trying wind you up but you said this about the Italian vogues photographers work:
“Hey Steve, your “art” isn’t even original. It’s the same old, same old, and now sadists have one more internet slide show to jack off to. Fucking brilliant, asshole.”
Which I agree with, but by you putting your images on the flickr site haven’t you created another collection of sexualized dismembered imagery of the female body for the internet perverts to jack off to.
To me it seemed like a massive contradiction.
This is one of the responses to one of your images:
“you look absolutely beautiful wearing your fur coat, please have you anymore lovely photos that you could please send me of you wearing your lovely fur coat, as I have a fetish of beautiful ladies as yourself making love while wearing your fur coat, I just love the feel & smell of all that lovely beautiful soft warm fur. Also love your boots.”
After reading the rest of your site I now understand why you’ve used your images in the context of your blog but not for the purpose of the flickr site. I showed the images to my girlfriend and some of her friend and asked for their opinions; one said that they looked like the advertisement for the women in massage parlours.
Sorry if my original question pissed you off hope you can see where I was coming from.
Could you or any one else reading this posting share your views on the topic I mentioned earlier
“One of the issues I’m trying to understand is why sexualised gendered stereotypes of women are used in fashion advertising and why women seem to accept it. (Which they must do because they buy the clothes that the ads represent)”
Thanks James Moss
BubbasNightmare // March 18, 2007 at 11:52 pm |
To answer your question, yes.
The diswisdom (to borrow a word from Twisty) of posting one’s face on a public site is irrelevant to the attractiveness of said face.
It’s just so refreshing to find a site where human sensibility, a healthy sense of fun, and someone who is attractive and isn’t shy about it all appear at one time.
Besides, where else can I get a regular dose of vintage lingerie modeling and novel martini recipes?
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 19, 2007 at 12:06 am |
Hi James,
Please understand that my pique is NOT ABOUT YOU. It’s about the fact that these assumptions exist at all, especially by otherwise well-meaning people, including your female friends.
To answer your question of how my warehousing my photographs on Flickr (and/or Photobucket, where I keep most of my imagery) is any different than the sadistic Italian Vogue advertisement, all I can do is answer your question with another question:
ARE YOU HIGH??????
You are apparently in graduate school you took the GRE and are obviously intelligent enough to figure this out yourself. I don’t have the energy or even the will to spell it out for you. So ask yourself these questions:
1) Why are you treating my personal photo hosting account as equivalent to a magazine advertisement? I AM NOT SELLING ANYTHING.
2) Why are you treating my (completely benign) personal collection of photographed body parts as equivalent to a hateful, misogynistic display of stylized violence?
3) How is the existence of slip, fur and foot fetishists (who do send me emails and leave messages on my Flickr site on a routine basis) my responsibility?
4) Why do you call people who are aroused by feet, fur or slips “perverts” in the same class as sadists? Have they hurt anyone?
5) For what it’s worth, no matter what personal imagery I post, some guy is probably out there wanking to it. My feet. My red hair. My white skin. My blue eyes. If I took off my wig and showed the world my bald head I’d have a blizzard of emails from the Bald Chick Fetishist Society. How, exactly, is this my problem? Why should I have to dance around these people?
Is Existing While Female (the deadly EWF violation) a crime?
NOW. On to your (very good) question: “One of the issues I’m trying to understand is why sexualised gendered stereotypes of women are used in fashion advertising and why women seem to accept it. (Which they must do because they buy the clothes that the ads represent)”
You may have noted above that I differentiate between “sexualized” and “violently sexualized.” Frankly it’s not the sex in the advertisements that bothers me so much as the violence. I personally have no problem with sexualization per se.
The most violent imagery is used to sell those things that 99% of the women of the world CAN’T AFFORD TO BUY ANYWAY. We’re really NOT buying it, you see. Notice how the more affordable the clothes, the less misogynistic the imagery?
These are (obviously) artistic indulgences granted to misogynist photographers who think violent imagery is “sexy” or “transgressive.” To which I snort: NOTHING is more banal than violence toward women.
Why do so many women put up with it? We soak in it. It’s “normalized.” We’re numb and we’re tired. We’ve been trained to behave as members of the Sex Class since our parents taped pink bows on our bald baby heads. We don’t question gender.
Who IS buying this shit? Anxious “new” money, that’s who. Women taking great care to package themselves as expensive consumable items. This ALONE deserves its own dissertation, because REAL upperclass rich women don’t buy this shit at all. Privileged women can afford to say “FUCK Y’ALL I’m not doin yer crazy dance assholes, I’m not going to be your paintyfaced minstrel, so bite me.”
That’s why, while I understand (really do) the radfem exhortation to dispose of feminine trappings (and the establishment horse they rode in on!), the sad truth is most women still have to play the minstrel to make it through the day.
James Moss // March 19, 2007 at 1:25 am |
Cheers for your response….. do you mind if I make reference to your views and this discussion within my work?
James
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 19, 2007 at 1:46 am |
Sure go ahead!!!!!
datesbubbas // March 19, 2007 at 3:44 am |
There is still the question of why so many women still buy the magazines when they’re full of sexual violence. Perhaps they’re trying to desensitize us to that now, too.
VJ // March 19, 2007 at 4:54 am |
Ah, Me, I’ve got a problem with the question. And the fact that seemingly Mr. ‘James Moss’ is too stupid for words to express adequately. It’s also painfully obvious that HP is too clever for the room, but this is almost always the case. So let me say it plainly: I don’t believe that ‘Mr. Moss’ is doing a ‘dissertation’ on your question. You’ve got so little theory to base your ‘observations’ on, and your keening level of naiveté would not be long tolerated in most grad schools worthy of note. Neither would they accept mere random blog conversations between rank strangers as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ of much. Where’s Foucault’s The History of Sexuality?
The use of the nude or partially undressed human form in art transcends millennia. In both men & women they are frequently represented by mere body parts or portions of the anatomy. Nudes pranced across the scene in Roman graffiti on the walls of baths & shops, and as lifelike (and sometime lifesized) nude figures on the finely decorated friezes & murals & statues of the villas of Pompeii. Ditto for the Classical Greeks. Why? They ALL liked it. Men& women. It gave them pleasure, in both their minds& bodies and fed their souls. It titillated them too. See :
‘The Secret Museum: Pornography in Modern Culture’ by Walter Kendrick and Steve Renick.
So dear hearts, this is thus one of the stupidest questions asked by someone with presumably a HS diploma: ‘“One of the issues I’m trying to understand is why sexualised gendered stereotypes of women are used in fashion advertising and why women seem to accept it. (Which they must do because they buy the clothes that the ads represent)”’
Why indeed? It’s worked very well to sell goods, concepts & ideas for now thousands of years. It’s worked well, and is working still.
All this has very little to do with this site, HP’s personal pics, or her general view of what she wants done with, to or for them. It will not help you out on your ‘project’, which I assume is to garner more business for your own business. But no, I’d not even hire a photographer as stupid and as pig ignorant of the subject matter as you seem to be. People need a passion for their work, and to understand it deeply. You seem to be missing perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of all photographs ever taken, which were & are shots & compositions meant to convey beauty, poise, action, sport, desire, affection & yes, love over the centuries, using the nude or partially nude form or suggestions of same. Eadweard Muybridge knew better. Hell even O. Winston Link knew better!
The human body is not degrading. It never has been. It is the viewer who imparts the final meaning, which the maker has only limited control over, as HP alluded to above. Really, really, very basic stuff ‘Mr Moss’. Pity that you’re obviously too dim to comprehend all this. Read some more books. Less blogs. And don’t even dare peek at My Space, they’ve got plenty of nekkid kids over there too, just ’showing off’ You know, for ‘fun’ & stuff. Cheers, ‘VJ’
Jennifer Cascadia // March 19, 2007 at 8:03 am |
I’m glad you referred to the conventional attitude that women are to blame for men’s behaviour (any man’s behaviour) as “mentally ill” — for that, indeed, is at the core of such ideas.
Jennifer Cascadia // March 19, 2007 at 8:05 am |
Also interesting that “strong views” are dichotomised away from “strong self-determination”. In other words, “I’ll enjoy my body when and how I choose.”
James Moss // March 19, 2007 at 10:31 am |
Sorry about the wording of my questions, I have dyslexia. Thanks all your views.
James moss.
VJ // March 19, 2007 at 11:07 am |
That’s OK Mossy. As a grad student you can’t spell either, and your syntax sucks too. But I’m sure Oral Roberts U. might take you under their wing. Cheers, ‘VJ’
shannon // March 19, 2007 at 1:42 pm |
I learned today that HP has the uber rare pink nipples. I’d allow it on etsy!
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 19, 2007 at 9:07 pm |
Shannon: NO BENETINT!!! LOL
TommyT // March 20, 2007 at 1:30 am |
Interesting.
First may I say that, “OMFG!1!!1111!! A scarred boobie! RED ALERT!!! TEH BOOBIES ARE LOOSE ON TEH INTERTUBES OH NOES!!!!1!!!” was absolutely brilliant. Well done.
Moving on.
The way I look at it is that you’re a grown woman, fully capable of thinking for yourself and have earned the right to live your life anyway you see fit. If someone doesn’t like you or your blog, they simply don’t have to read it. Anything beyond that is a direct reflection of their own insecurities, fears and moral deficiencies.
Yes, I am partial to the way you look and enjoy the photos you post of yourself. I don’t see anything wrong with admitting that I think you are physically attractive. However, I am perfectly aware that what makes you truly attractive is who you are and not some collection of body parts.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 20, 2007 at 1:38 am |
To all, thank you for weighing in. I would not attack a Dyslexic for mispellings, but when it comes to moral reasoning the gloves are OFF.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 20, 2007 at 1:40 am |
Oh and Dates Bubbas! I let my Elle and Vogue subscriptions lapse after the violent imagery sent me completely over the edge. It’s obvious that the powers-that-be in the (high-end) fashion industry absolutely loathe women as a class.
Dates Bubbas // March 20, 2007 at 1:50 am |
Understand… but you’re just ONE woman, sad to say.
VJ // March 20, 2007 at 6:09 am |
I for one liked the nip better than the present signage HP. Objectified is one thing, & perhaps unavoidable– degraded is quite another. The image was not degrading, neither was the conversation per se. Silly, incomprehensible & nonsensical certainly. Degrading? Not here! And me, I’m always noticing strange things in photos. I noticed the hair here. Thanks for the conversation. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
virglekent // March 21, 2007 at 12:05 am |
I love you…….
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 21, 2007 at 1:57 am |
Aw VK I wuv you tooooooooos . . .
alphabitch // March 21, 2007 at 11:59 pm |
You totally rock, girl. But I repeat myself.
Half Nekkid Thursday: In Which the Hedonistic Pleasureseeker Ponders Strong Opinions, Strong Bodies and Strong Women « Hedonistic Pleasureseeker // March 22, 2007 at 2:52 pm |
[...] The Carnival of the Feminists is at Capacious Handbag! And I’m in it for the first time for telling the patriarchy to kiss my arse! Woot! Yay! Here’s my arse [...]
Empowerment4Women - Delicious Linkage at The Greatest Blog You’ll (Probably) Never Read // March 23, 2007 at 2:34 am |
[...] a great collection – but if you’re not up for the full she-bang, read a few of my faves here, here, and [...]
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 29, 2007 at 10:22 pm |
Oh wow! I missed you Alphabitch! It took my crazy troll to bring me to this thread again. (Maybe she’s off her meds again, or, perish the thought, has worse PMDD than I do?) At any rate I’ll accept it as a blessing in disuise. Thank you!
ravenous // March 31, 2007 at 12:15 am |
This was amazing! I think I now have a crush on you!!
hedonisticpleasureseeker // March 31, 2007 at 11:26 am |
Thank you ravenous, and welcome to my site!
VJ // April 1, 2007 at 12:11 am |
Yeah, This is some of what I was talking about, for those who still care for the argument I was trying to make: Cheers, ‘VJ’ [http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/03/sex-reality-and-state.html]
hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 1, 2007 at 12:35 am |
Awesome, VJ, and thank you. Some of us especially need to acknowledge and understand our Puritan roots. Both sides of my family are Calvinist.
I believe my hedonism is the way I rebelled against familial attitudes about sex and pleasure that my instincts told me were wrong.
CharmingDriver // April 1, 2007 at 5:13 am |
I think the question better asked is why SHOULDN’T a woman with strong views show a collection of photographs of herself on the internet in (subjectively judged as) degrading way?
Because women are such delicate flowers that being naked or even purposefully portrayed as sexual beings cancels the right to hold strong opinions? The question, as asked, doesn’t merit an answer from anyone except the person with such a narrow interpretation women.
VJ // April 1, 2007 at 10:54 pm |
One of my points too. But I’m glad you liked my addition HP. It took awhile to re-find the original post too! Cheers & Happy April Fools Day! ‘VJ’
todoso // August 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm |
Sorry to lurk, and then jump into conversation without much warning, but I have a response to James.
“Which they must do because they buy the clothes that the ads represent”
Well, I hope that somewhere, someone helping you with your dissertation pointed out that women are not a homogeneous group.
As well, you seem to be blissfully unaware of who exactly can afford to buy those clothes (quick hint, it is a class based phenomenon).
In addition, have you done any research as to how many consumers buy because of the print adds? It is not exactly a hidden fact that advertisements are selling far more than clothes, and are targeting audiences beyond those who can afford their clothing. [b] The fashion industry is a highly complex industry, with very little of its revenue actually coming from these homogeneous cookie cutter women you imagine buying clothes [/b]because they’ve seen a degrading print ad.
Additionally, where do these ads appear? Yes, many will appear in fashion mags, but do they necessarily appear where the clothing is bought?
Another major factor that you are also missing (causing me to seriously question the validity of your claim to writing a dissertation) is that women don’t just buy clothes because they want to wear them. There are many dress codes for women, written and unwritten, which have major impact on what is considered appropriate in a number of given contexts.
Failure to wear the appropriate garb can lead to something seemingly small, such as social discomfort and exclusion (seemingly small, but not to someone whose career perhaps depends on networking?) to disciplinary action by an employer (ex, how many women are expected to wear a skirt, and pantyhose, which run, which means they are obligated to buy repeatedly?).
That said, I also want to thank Hedonistic Pleasureseeker for the line “There is nothing inherently degrading about the female form”. Sure, it seems obvious, but maybe it needs to be seen in print more often!