We hear that people read it for the articles:
Jean… has a fit body and large tits, which she likes showing off in revealing clothes. When she ”gets the girls out”, she enjoys the subtle looks, even a discreet compliment about her body from the right man.
UPDATE: They’ve now silently edited out the word “tits” and replaced it with “breasts”.
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media, business, the environment and life.
Copyright © 2012 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey. All Rights Reserved.
Web development by Valegro
Editor: Jason Whittaker
Publisher: Eric Beecher
Political Correspondent: Bernard Keane
Level 6, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000
Ph: 1800 985 502
Fax: (03) 8623 9975
25 Comments
That’s hardly playboy. More “People” or “FHM”
It’s very silly, though.
Anyhow, I’m more inclined to ogle faces and bums. I don’t get the whole boob thing. Something in me is apparently wired wrong. But it’s convenient, because I kind of lock-on to eyes as a reflex, so I can honestly never be accused of staring at anyone’s chest. And the other bit is convenient placed so that girls are facing the other way if I take a peek. No harm done
I tell you what, though, it is VERY unfair when girls have things written across their chest. I see words, I read them. That’s just not fair play. I guess I could fight back by sticking pictures of very expensive shoes on the front of my pants. Just for a laugh.
I also think there should be a law that bumper stickers should be printed in a font that can be read from a safe distance by anyone with reasonable vision. I wonder how many collisions are caused by those damn things.
I never thought this would happen to me, but…
FTR — the word “tits” was still in the Kloons video.
IMO the article was a slightly better disguised version of tabloid TV doing the consumer review of “bras” or asking “how young is too young for a breast implant?”.
The character in the Kloons video had several things going for him. He could sell himself effectively as a snag — he’d been doing yoga for long enough for her to admire his technique, so her checkbox that he might be some ugly beer-swilling yob was less. He was physically appealing. His well-crafted defence of ogling, while not convincing, was probably enough for someone who wanted to be convinced. In effect, he found a way to declare the work she’d done on her body image to be a virtue unconnected with mere sex, but pleasure and comfort in an ethereal sense, even binding it to the purity of infancy. Very smooth!
And finally, his look at her cleavage was brief enough to be deniable and thus not leering, in the way that Chevy Chase leered at the underwear counter assistant in Christmas Vacation.
Mind you, the far less appealing chap she’d initially had in the “maybe” list would never have got the yoga devotee’s latitude. He lacked the standing to make the pitch.
On a more serious note, the article itself doesn’t resolve the boundary between the right of women to present as they wish without being unreasonably dealt with and the near inevitability that presenting in ways defined by male-dominated culture as “sexually available” will elicit responses that include being unreasonably dealt with.
Personally, provided men deal with women in ways that respect their personal space, I don’t believe women have any business complaining. Merely noticing what is in public view doesn’t, IMO, count as a breach of that rule. Making an issue of it would. One should steer clear of doing a version, albeit with one’s banter, of the wolf in the Red Riding Hood tale.
Smile, look at the whole person, make eye contact when in conversation, listen to the content of others’ speech and don’t gaze where there’s a chance of causing discomfort. Sexual harassment is not merely sexual banter or appeals that are unwelcome, but extended and/or repeated.
Nothing wrong, I have similar wiring.
There’s looking and there’s leering. If I find a girl attractive and she’s wearing a revealing outfit (or an outfit that appeals to me (this is all very subjective)) I’m going to have a look, if she doesn’t like it, tough shit! I’m happily married, I’m not going to ask her out let alone rape her.
How is the man to know beforehand whether he’s the ‘right man’?
This article (apart from the titillation), can be summed up as yet another article on:
So what about women who go to men’s shows like Hunkmania to ogle at the wedding vegies on display? Or titter on the beach while watching the parade of budgie smugglers?
Is this somehow OK ‘cos it’s women doing the ogling?
Strikes me that there’s a touch of gender-specific hypocrisy about this debate.
Intellectuals are only interested in the personality.
http://theconversation.edu.au/great-tits-give-insight-into-personality-4514
The main problem is that everybody likes to make assumptions about other people’s behaviour based on stereotypes about gender.
A man might assume that if a woman’s breasts are visible then she’s a “slut” who wants him to have sex with her, or she is deliberately and cruelly toying with his libido. He forgets that he can dress however he likes and it doesn’t mean that anyone who might be attracted to him has a right to have their way with him. If he exposes flesh, it doesn’t mean he’s “easy” or “available”. It doesn’t mean he’s teasing all the women and men he meets in some cruel power play.
A woman might assume that if a man looks at her breasts he’s not taking her seriously as a person, or is a risk of making an unwanted pass or worse. She forgets that if she sees someone in whom she’s attracted and observers the sexual characteristics of that person, it doesn’t mean she’s devaluing that person, or that she’s planning to force herself on him or her.
How about we look at it in terms of freedoms. People should be free to wear what they like, and it doesn’t give another person rights over them. Similarly, people are free to look at what they like, and it doesn’t give another person the right to demand that they don’t look at what’s in front of them.
Oh, and any defence of behaviour that relies on “but I’m genetically predisposed to do it!” is pretty embarrassing.
Eminently sensible, Sear.
Well, it wouldn’t cut it in a rape trial, assumedly. But for the more harmless manifestations of the male sex drive I’m inclined to disagree. How else can I explain the feeling that copping a fleeting eye-full of Annabell Crabb’s clevage in the opening sequence is the sole dividend to be had from investing 45min of my life to watching The Drum?
Jeremy – you are right of course. The problem is with stereotypes from either male or female or cross-cultural. And there are many cultures where the display of female breasts is regarded as natural and traditional and the local men don’t seem to have a problem.
Westerners seem uniquely obsessed with breasts as objects of sexual desire. Different ages and fashions have at times concentrated on other parts of the human anatomy – like the Edwardian fashion for bustles, or kotekas in PNG, lip plates in the Congo or (dare I mention it) labia stretching in Rwanda.
“A man might assume that if a woman’s breasts are visible then she’s a “slut” who wants him to have sex with her, or she is deliberately and cruelly toying with his libido.”
See … maybe I’m a bit more down on myself than some lads, but I have never made an automatic connection between “is a slut” and “wants to have sex with me”. I mean … if these “sluts” were as common as we’re led to believe, all our dance cards would be full (so to speak). Just to consider the case on its statistical merits.
And I’ve only ever personally met one lady whom I would describe as a “slut”. I was legally underage and she was all but propositioning me … in return for money (not to mention describing telling me about her previous engagement). I was mostly baffled/worried (and amply protected by gauzy romantic thoughts about one or more more appropriately-aged schoolmates … not to mention that I didn’t have any money anyway)
And I figure that if a girl wanted to toy with my libido – i.e. me specifically – she’d be a bit more direct (and focused) than merely baring more skin to the world. My own (however inexpert) experience is that when a lass really wants your attention, she’ll set out to achieve it with more direct forms of communication, and there usually won’t be much ambiguity about who it’s directed at.
“Oh, and any defence of behaviour that relies on “but I’m genetically predisposed to do it!” is pretty embarrassing.”
Oh, yeah.
I once attempted to explain “slutwalk” to the PJM crowd by demonstrating what happens if we reverse the roles. I believe that post never passed moderation. Apparently, talking in realistic terms about what the walks were about was too much for those delicate wingnut eyes to see.
Just so Jeremy.
One useful rule of thumb might be trying to imagine your own sentiment towards someone dealing with your mother or partner or 16+ sister or niece in the way you deal with women. If you wouldn’t be perfectly at ease with it then perhaps you have an answer.
If you’re unsure about how you feel, then the precautionary principle comes into play. And of course, whatver you feel, you should keep your ears open to how others (not merely the women) are responding to you or interpreting your conduct. That’s often a good guide.
Sigh. So over this kind of pointless crap coming from Fairfax.
Speaking of The Age, we did try and purchase a copy today because we were interested in reading further about the coverup of the defence force murders.
Went to one of the only newsagents on the Gold Coast that sell Fairfax publications and they wanted to charge $4.20!!!! The extra $2 was for “freight”.
It’s almost as if there’s some kind of agreement between News Ltd. and Fairfax across the border?
Bleurghh…….we’ll there goes breakfast.
Yes yes, Mr Virile Right Wing, we get it, SUCH a man! (waves pinky)
The only thing The Age pulled back from on the reporting of the suspension of Majak Daw for unrelated behaviour was the photoshopping of two semi-naked pictures of Majak and the ‘ex-girlfriend’ of a team mate the Herald Sun put on its front page.
Surly a shop keeper displays his wares in the shop window, so the passing world can admire them? That shop keeper however is not inviting a “Smash and Grab”. Conversely if the shop keeper does not wish the general public to see what is on sale he will put a curtain in the window.
It’s a two way street that requires some common sense on behalf of all involved. Even if the shop’s wares are prominently on display you still need to negotiate terms with the shopkeeper, if you wish to do more than admire the goods on display.
The classy shops aren’t usually the ones with the most ostentatious window display.
Similarly, people are free to look at what they like, and it doesn’t give another person the right to demand that they don’t look at what’s in front of them
I like that point in particular. How many times has a female friend or colleague got in first with a comment about someone else’s “boobs”, particularly if the “boobs’” owner has gone out of her way to make them prominent? It’s not just men looking in those instances, it’s EVERYONE looking! And in most of these cases they’re not looking for any reason apart from curiosity, fascination or in some cases outright horror.
A shame that the article is as skanky as some of the subject matter it is covering. But then, it IS the SUNDAY Age.
I thought that too, Holden. What a dreadful juxtaposition. And no mention at all of the comparatively trivial reason as to why he in fact was let go.
One last question I have – why DO women so often dress like that, anyway?
If you choose to read the line in context, Jonesy, you might realize it to be more a comment on The Drum than my virility.
Although in saying this, I note other posters have expressed outright what gets their motor running, yet, as in just about every other thread, you only seem to have eyes for me, Jonsey.
A man-crush if there ever was one.
I by “man-crush” you mean ‘favorite kicking blockhead’
then yeh
Forget to mention…they’re not GROSS trolls like you Howie…see the difference?
This is quite a chuckle, from Catherine Deveny:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3827136.html
I’m generally not much of a fan of Deveney but this was a good effort.
To refine that sentiment a bit further;
Should, through wardrobe malfunction or other such means, a woman’s modestly be accidentally compromised, then a gentleman is honour bound to avert his eyes and never speak of the incident again.
On the other hand, it’s the height of rudeness to take a table at Le Moulin Rouge and ignore the stage in favour of the latest edition of Paris Match.
Betwixt those two situations lay a plethora of judgememnt calls.
It can be generally assumed that the younger a fellow is, the more likely it is that he will miss all genuine invitations whilst simultaneously assuming a free pass where none was offered.
I sometimes wish I were born Gay. My sex life would have been so much simpler!!
BTW. Annabel Crabb? Yeah cute and all but not a patch on Misha Schubert.
Cheers