Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
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.

Oh, for fucks sake. You know perfectly well what I'm trying to say because I've said it numerous times by now. You know damn well I'm not talking about actually having sex on camera. What's up with the red herring?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Boyle wrote:
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.

Oh, for fucks sake. You know perfectly well what I'm trying to say because I've said it numerous times by now. You know damn well I'm not talking about actually having sex on camera. What's up with the red herring?

Well, yeah, I know now because you've stated what you meant by using sex to get ahead (glamour photoshoots as opposed to standard photoshoots). I still fail to see how this makes her hypocritical given the content of her essay.

The content of her essay has no relevance to being hot in public so, no, it's not hypocritical of her to criticise the treatment of women in the public eye who "fail" to uphold an unreasonable standard of beauty.

Yeah, she's reinforced an unrealistic standard of beauty for women by being extremely beautiful and having her images photoshopped. She's never contributed to the extreme hostility and criticism of women less conventionally attractive than herself though.

Pretty people are allowed to be angry about things that effect people less attractive than themselves.

And even if she was a big fat hypocrite who partook in a culture if hypercriticism of women's bodies, it wouldn't make the content of her essay any less valid. It would just make her treatment of plain and dumpy women unacceptable.

Criticising a woman for harnessing exactly what they're most valued for and using it as a means to attain success is just fucked up. If women are going to be perceived as playthings, not people, the best way for them to achieve success in life is being the best fucking plaything they can. Saying, "It's really fucked up that I have to objectify myself to this extent to be successful and that women who do so to a lesser extent are treated so poorly" isn't hypocrisy. It's insight.

Did Aniston demand that pictures of her be photoshopped?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Fallible wrote:
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.

Then your term is hyperbolic and misplaced in my view.

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.

What isn't something new? Showing your stomach and part of a tit and wearing big knickers in a way which would seem excessively tame on the beach? We still appear to be talking about different things. Marilyn Monroe was draping herself over things in bed sheets 50+ years ago. I assumed everyone would be aware of that.

Secondly, I just picked a random example.

Which was pretty tame, and therefore again seems to suggest that you are using the terms 'whoring out' and 'using sex' in a situation which doesn't seem to warrant them. Also your random example is weird. I managed to find an image of her wearing nothing but a tie just by googling her name. I guess that completely blows my point out of the water, because she once posed for a photo in nothing but a tie and this means she whores herself out by showing her body to further her career, even though the overwhelming majority of images show her fully clothed. What she actually seems to do is have her photo taken fully clothed to further her career. Doesn't really have the same impact, does it.

Fallible wrote:Showing your stomach...

Not quite so innocent...



Note how she's using a stretched pose to turn her navel into what Desmond Morris calls a "genital echo"...

Pin-up photographs recently have emphasized a new kind of "genital echo". By using certain belly stretching postures, the young women acting as models have been able to change the shape of their navels from a rounded hole into a vertical slit. In doing this they have consciously or unconsciously rendered their navels more 'genital' in terms of body mimicry.

Link

Not quite so innocent?? There was a drag king on daytime TV here yesterday with her shirt open to the navel. To the navel. Daytime TV. You'd see more than that on any beach.

Why am I bothering with this? I don't even like Jennifer Aniston.

Fallible wrote:Why am I bothering with this? I don't even like Jennifer Aniston.

I'm just here to

Mike_L wrote:

Fallible wrote:Showing your stomach...

Not quite so innocent...



Note how she's using a stretched pose to turn her navel into what Desmond Morris calls a "genital echo"...

Pin-up photographs recently have emphasized a new kind of "genital echo". By using certain belly stretching postures, the young women acting as models have been able to change the shape of their navels from a rounded hole into a vertical slit. In doing this they have consciously or unconsciously rendered their navels more 'genital' in terms of body mimicry.

Link

You must have placed the wrong image in your post.

...unless the women are different in your locality than those I'm familiar with.

Fallible wrote:Why am I bothering with this? I don't even like Jennifer Aniston.

So you prefer Lisa Kudrow? You are such a Phoebe!

proudfootz wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Fallible wrote:Showing your stomach...

Not quite so innocent...



Note how she's using a stretched pose to turn her navel into what Desmond Morris calls a "genital echo"...

Pin-up photographs recently have emphasized a new kind of "genital echo". By using certain belly stretching postures, the young women acting as models have been able to change the shape of their navels from a rounded hole into a vertical slit. In doing this they have consciously or unconsciously rendered their navels more 'genital' in terms of body mimicry.

Link

You must have placed the wrong image in your post.

...unless the women are different in your locality than those I'm familiar with.

It's the only one I could find in which Aniston is in a stretching pose.
She doesn't quite manage the "vertical slit" with her navel... which means that she's signaling anal eroticism instead.


(I'm kidding, of course).

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Fallible wrote:Why am I bothering with this? I don't even like Jennifer Aniston.

So you prefer Lisa Kudrow? You are such a Phoebe!

Smelly cat .. it's not your fault.

They never take you to the vet, you're obviously not their favourite pet.

I could be Ross, have few semesters in geology, even iirc an exam from palaeontology and would take a date to planetarium ... hard to believe? Yup, people change, or do they?

Get involved: http://womennotobjects.com/ or https://www.facebook.com/womennotobjects

----

How should I feel seeing all those happy smiling people and families in TV ads eating yogurt or getting mortgage or driving car? And who cares? Start your own movement tuco .. take responsibility for making (your!) life better? You fucking online adviser lol