WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

VazScep wrote:I don't think the original charge was about whoring oneself, but about hypocrisy.

That's true. My original comment here was a response to her complaining about being objectified. My comment pointed out that she had been objectifying herself. If she doesn't want to be a sexual object she should stop using her sexiness to get ahead in the world.

She's being a hypocrite. First "whoring out her body" as I worded it (did people really not get the point? Did we have to spend ages discussing word definition and stuff like that?) and then complaining of the consequences of said "whoring". It's like giving a piece of candy to a kid and then complaining that the kid ate it.

Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

She's being hypocritical for the reason I already mentioned: She used sex to further her career. She made herself an object. Objectifies herself.

You mean she's an attractive woman that appeared in photoshoots for magazine covers and interviews and in this way used sex to further her career. That's weak as fuck, man, c'mon. It's not like she did multiple porn shoots, she appeared on magazine covers and had interviews. How does that reduce her stance on how tabloid journalism is poison? How does that reduce her stance that being stalked by tabloids is indicative of a greater trend by which women are reduced to only being worth how they look? Because she's pretty?

tuco wrote:Who else would? Nobody?

Obviously the very same people who buy tabloids watch her movies. Who else would? She is saying .. stop objectifying me, stop reading tabloids but see my movies. Good luck with that. I do not objectify you, I do not read tabloids, and I do not watch your movies. btw are you pregnant? lol

I've watched some of her movies, and watched many more besides, but I don't buy tabloids.

Boyle, it is ever thus, for people such as Mr Morgan and Mr Of the DoDo. Attack the person and not the argument. This insistence on calling her a hypocrite only serves to affirm her point. Note especially the use of slut shaming in an attempt to silence and/or drown at the opinion of a woman.

I believe you Boyle and since we do not and will not have any statistics regarding the matter .. does it change anything? From all the problems of the world her problems we debate. Who else would?

Being sexual and expressing one's own sexuality within a context they're comfortable with has nothing in common with shitting all over someone else for not attaining your unattainable sexual standards.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

She's not the first actress to use sex to further her career, but she's the one complaining about objectification now, after objectifying herself for many years.

What I'm saying is that when one thinks of someone using sex to further her career, Jennifer Aniston is not the most obvious choice. As I said, I am not that knowledgeable on Jennifer Aniston, but I certainly wouldn't class her as someone using sex from what I've seen, when you have so many others who would much better fit this description. Therefore the fact that she's complaining about objectification would seem fair enough, and I'd suggest that anyone having a go at her for being a hypocrite might be going ever so slightly OTT. I mean she's hardly the first to make this complaint either.

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
That's true. My original comment here was a response to her complaining about being objectified. My comment pointed out that she had been objectifying herself. If she doesn't want to be a sexual object she should stop using her sexiness to get ahead in the world.

She's being a hypocrite. First "whoring out her body" as I worded it (did people really not get the point? Did we have to spend ages discussing word definition and stuff like that?) and then complaining of the consequences of said "whoring". It's like giving a piece of candy to a kid and then complaining that the kid ate it.

Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

She's being hypocritical for the reason I already mentioned: She used sex to further her career. She made herself an object. Objectifies herself.

You mean she's an attractive woman that appeared in photoshoots for magazine covers and interviews and in this way used sex to further her career. That's weak as fuck, man, c'mon. It's not like she did multiple porn shoots, she appeared on magazine covers and had interviews. How does that reduce her stance on how tabloid journalism is poison? How does that reduce her stance that being stalked by tabloids is indicative of a greater trend by which women are reduced to only being worth how they look? Because she's pretty?

For fucks sake. Did you even read my fucking posts?

It's not because she's pretty. She can't help being pretty. It's about creating a sexy image for herself and using her sexiness to further her career. Some examples can be found here. The first pic (labeled "Jennifer Aniston's Sexiest Fashion Editorials: GQ January 2009") is a decent example.

Why are you attacking those doing porn shoots? At least they are being honest about using sex as a career path and rarely complain about being objectified. They aren't being hypocritical about it unlike Aniston.

And I didn't comment about tabloid journalism in general. My comment was aimed at the double standard she displayed when she complained about being objectified after actively objectifying herself for many years by "whoring out her body".

Fallible wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

She's not the first actress to use sex to further her career, but she's the one complaining about objectification now, after objectifying herself for many years.

What I'm saying is that when one thinks of someone using sex to further her career, Jennifer Aniston is not the most obvious choice. As I said, I am not that knowledgeable on Jennifer Aniston, but I certainly wouldn't class her as someone using sex from what I've seen, when you have so many others who would much better fit this description. Therefore the fact that she's complaining about objectification would seem fair enough, and I'd suggest that anyone having a go at her for being a hypocrite might be going ever so slightly OTT. I mean she's hardly the first to make this complaint either.

We're talking about Aniston because this thread is about her clash with Morgan. She may or may not be the worst at using sex to get ahead in this world, but that isn't relevant because the discussion is specifically about the situation in the first post.

scott1328 wrote:Boyle, it is ever thus, for people such as Mr Morgan and Mr Of the DoDo. Attack the person and not the argument. This insistence on calling her a hypocrite only serves to affirm her point. Note especially the use of slut shaming in an attempt to silence and/or drown at the opinion of a woman.

Pointing out double standards and hypocrisy seems to be fine in other cases, such as when Donald Trump or some other insane Repugnican spews BS and it turns out they're hypocrites to the core. Why is it suddenly not OK to point out someone's hypocrisy when she's a woman who as actively used her body and sex as a career move?

And how is your claim that my arguments are slut shaming not an attack on my person rather than my arguments? How is what you are doing anything but an attempt to silence me by throwing accusations at me? Good job. Good fucking job indeed.

You are quite an expert at tu quoque arguments aren't you?

My criticism f your argument is that they are ad hominem tu quoque arguments. You respond with a tu quoque defense. Well done, you

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

She's not the first actress to use sex to further her career, but she's the one complaining about objectification now, after objectifying herself for many years.

What I'm saying is that when one thinks of someone using sex to further her career, Jennifer Aniston is not the most obvious choice. As I said, I am not that knowledgeable on Jennifer Aniston, but I certainly wouldn't class her as someone using sex from what I've seen, when you have so many others who would much better fit this description. Therefore the fact that she's complaining about objectification would seem fair enough, and I'd suggest that anyone having a go at her for being a hypocrite might be going ever so slightly OTT. I mean she's hardly the first to make this complaint either.

We're talking about Aniston because this thread is about her clash with Morgan. She may or may not be the worst at using sex to get ahead in this world, but that isn't relevant because the discussion is specifically about the situation in the first post.

You're employing a term you haven't defined - 'using sex' - and then have gone on to claim she's a hypocrite because she's doing so and complaining about being objectified. I'm pointing out that that's not really what I see her doing at all; she seems to want to sell herself as a sort of clean-living, virtuous type who takes care of herself and her appearance. If you disagree with that, perhaps you'd like to clearly define how you're using the term 'using sex', because it doesn't seem to mean the same to you as it does to me. To me, it means things like using the casting couch to obtain roles and putting out at the least highly suggestive photos or films. I don't see her doing much if any of that; there are other actresses who have complained about objectification after being far more sexual. It's weird that you would comment in this quite extreme way on her, and then just try to remove any context for your remarks by saying other examples which might better fit your description instead don't count.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:
Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

She's being hypocritical for the reason I already mentioned: She used sex to further her career. She made herself an object. Objectifies herself.

You mean she's an attractive woman that appeared in photoshoots for magazine covers and interviews and in this way used sex to further her career. That's weak as fuck, man, c'mon. It's not like she did multiple porn shoots, she appeared on magazine covers and had interviews. How does that reduce her stance on how tabloid journalism is poison? How does that reduce her stance that being stalked by tabloids is indicative of a greater trend by which women are reduced to only being worth how they look? Because she's pretty?

For fucks sake. Did you even read my fucking posts?

It's not because she's pretty. She can't help being pretty. It's about creating a sexy image for herself and using her sexiness to further her career. Some examples can be found here. The first pic (labeled "Jennifer Aniston's Sexiest Fashion Editorials: GQ January 2009") is a decent example.

Why are you attacking those doing porn shoots? At least they are being honest about using sex as a career path and rarely complain about being objectified. They aren't being hypocritical about it unlike Aniston.

And I didn't comment about tabloid journalism in general. My comment was aimed at the double standard she displayed when she complained about being objectified after actively objectifying herself for many years by "whoring out her body".

That er...that's using sex to further your career, is it? Not even managing to get a whole single tit out, 7 years ago? OK.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:
Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

She's being hypocritical for the reason I already mentioned: She used sex to further her career. She made herself an object. Objectifies herself.

You mean she's an attractive woman that appeared in photoshoots for magazine covers and interviews and in this way used sex to further her career. That's weak as fuck, man, c'mon. It's not like she did multiple porn shoots, she appeared on magazine covers and had interviews. How does that reduce her stance on how tabloid journalism is poison? How does that reduce her stance that being stalked by tabloids is indicative of a greater trend by which women are reduced to only being worth how they look? Because she's pretty?

For fucks sake. Did you even read my fucking posts?

It's not because she's pretty. She can't help being pretty. It's about creating a sexy image for herself and using her sexiness to further her career. Some examples can be found here. The first pic (labeled "Jennifer Aniston's Sexiest Fashion Editorials: GQ January 2009") is a decent example.

Why are you attacking those doing porn shoots? At least they are being honest about using sex as a career path and rarely complain about being objectified. They aren't being hypocritical about it unlike Aniston.

And I didn't comment about tabloid journalism in general. My comment was aimed at the double standard she displayed when she complained about being objectified after actively objectifying herself for many years by "whoring out her body".

Yeah, I did read your post, and you said "using sex", which in this context of the OP was appearing on magazine covers. I'm glad you're now putting out exactly what you mean by "using sex" which is "appearing sexy". So only photo shoots like that qualify, because Morgan was referring to magazine covers in general. Like, non-glamour ones.

I'm not attacking people doing porn shoots. They are quite literally using sex to further a career because sex is their career. So when you say "using sex" I think of "people having sex". Now that I know "using sex" just means "appearing sexy", it makes it a lot clearer. In that case, yeah, she has appeared in glamour photo shoots, but I'm still missing how that makes her a hypocrite given her essay's content. I get the sense you didn't read it, which you should, I think, before you call her a hypocrite for it.

In any case, I think Morgan is closer to the truth (by accident, I'm sure) with his calling her a hypocrite because air-brushed magazine covers, sexy or not, do feed into people's insecurities about things like eye shape, eye brows, clarity of skin, hair color, etc, and Aniston has appeared on a lot of magazine covers. For her to continue to do photo shoots of any kind that involve air brushing is what appears to be hypocritical, but it does not lessen her position that tabloid journalism is fucked up and maybe a reflection of wider trends given that tabloids are popular enough to stay around.

She's on at least one tabloid cover every week, usually because she's "finally pregnant!" or "taking Brad back from anorexic Angie!" or some other totally made up bullshit. The really sad bit is people lap it up like a dog eating vomit. What sort of miserable, meaningless, futile existence do you have to lead to find this garbage interesting?

In UK majority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... irculation

and over here its similar. When I was working in hospital, where social groups are well defined at least over here, I was observing what doctors, nurses, ward assistants and cleaners read. Even doctors read mostly tabloids. I dunno what's up with that, really dunno. Well, I have some idea .. entertainment requiring little brain power.

laklak wrote:She's on at least one tabloid cover every week, usually because she's "finally pregnant!" or "taking Brad back from anorexic Angie!" or some other totally made up bullshit. The really sad bit is people lap it up like a dog eating vomit. What sort of miserable, meaningless, futile existence do you have to lead to find this garbage interesting?

This is a fair summary of her essay.

laklak wrote:She's on at least one tabloid cover every week, usually because she's "finally pregnant!" or "taking Brad back from anorexic Angie!" or some other totally made up bullshit. The really sad bit is people lap it up like a dog eating vomit. What sort of miserable, meaningless, futile existence do you have to lead to find this garbage interesting?

I really don't know. I mean I watched Friends, yeah, but I was a twenty-something idiot and I went through a pretty bad depressive episode during its run, although I don't really blame Jennifer Aniston for that. She can relax. But I don't remember a lot from that time, there was some kind of thing about her hairstyle. When I finally came out of the depression, I'd sort of lost the last vestiges of any ditsiness or triviality when it comes to entertainment (possibly partly due to Seroxat which they eventually found had some nasty side-effects including suicidal and homicidal ideation (I'm kidding, it only made me want to watch endless re-runs of the BBC Drama The Hanging Gale, which is basically the same thing)) and I'm proud to say I don't think I've seen a single romcom, although I do now want to kill Adam Sandler with a melon spoon (I'm kidding). I've definitely never bought one of those magazines...no wait, I once bought an issue of Marie Claire for the free gift stuck to the front.

I once bought Us Weekly or whatever it was because I thought it was US Weekly. As in, United States Weekly. I was tricked.

laklak wrote:She's on at least one tabloid cover every week, usually because she's "finally pregnant!" or "taking Brad back from anorexic Angie!" or some other totally made up bullshit. The really sad bit is people lap it up like a dog eating vomit. What sort of miserable, meaningless, futile existence do you have to lead to find this garbage interesting?

The same sort of existence that causes people to vote Leave, probably.

*double*

Fallible wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
She's not the first actress to use sex to further her career, but she's the one complaining about objectification now, after objectifying herself for many years.

What I'm saying is that when one thinks of someone using sex to further her career, Jennifer Aniston is not the most obvious choice. As I said, I am not that knowledgeable on Jennifer Aniston, but I certainly wouldn't class her as someone using sex from what I've seen, when you have so many others who would much better fit this description. Therefore the fact that she's complaining about objectification would seem fair enough, and I'd suggest that anyone having a go at her for being a hypocrite might be going ever so slightly OTT. I mean she's hardly the first to make this complaint either.

We're talking about Aniston because this thread is about her clash with Morgan. She may or may not be the worst at using sex to get ahead in this world, but that isn't relevant because the discussion is specifically about the situation in the first post.

You're employing a term you haven't defined - 'using sex' - and then have gone on to claim she's a hypocrite because she's doing so and complaining about being objectified. I'm pointing out that that's not really what I see her doing at all; she seems to want to sell herself as a sort of clean-living, virtuous type who takes care of herself and her appearance. If you disagree with that, perhaps you'd like to clearly define how you're using the term 'using sex', because it doesn't seem to mean the same to you as it does to me. To me, it means things like using the casting couch to obtain roles and putting out at the least highly suggestive photos or films. I don't see her doing much if any of that; there are other actresses who have complained about objectification after being far more sexual. It's weird that you would comment in this quite extreme way on her, and then just try to remove any context for your remarks by saying other examples which might better fit your description instead don't count.

I believe I've explained my point in several different ways, from the informal "whoring" to stuff like this.

That er...that's using sex to further your career, is it? Not even managing to get a whole single tit out, 7 years ago? OK.

First of all, how long it was ago is irrelevant to my point. But thanks for pointing out that it isn't something new.

Secondly, I just picked a random example.