Kevin's Watch

I grew up reading comic books such as "the Savage Sword of Conan" and had several books of artwork that contained nude imagery.
In this thread some of the imagery I have posted on my own website was questioned, which is certainly welcome and I have no problem with it.
However, I think this is a good topic for discussion as long as it does not degenerate into a flame war. I have no intention of letting this happen. I take most disagreement with good humor!
A little background on myself-- when I lived in a large city with a very liberal population I was involved in the feminist and the lesbian community quite actively and had many friends in those communities.
I base my assertion that such imagery does not necessarily treat women as sex objects or in a demeaning way on the viewpoints of such notable feminist writers as Annie Sprinkle and Camille Paglia. Both of these dissenting writers have pointed out that female sexuality, as presented in nude artwork, and even in pornography is a legitimate archetype and is actually empowering to women.
When I left Austin, feminist views on weather pornography was demeaning to women or empowering were divided along the lines of 50/50.
I certainly hope that a meaningful and mature discussion will result from this thread!
As an interesting side note, one of the images that was questioned was created by a female fantasy artist, Rowena Morrill.

well advocating that women can't create images/ideas that are degrading to their own gender is like saying minorities can't be racist.

having said that - not all images are de facto demeaning. but some can certainly cross the line.

my maginot? women in a position to submission / abuse.

pornography seems another discussion.

but is betti page type photography demeaning? i think that cheesecake does not cross the line. there was an element of humor involved.

sgt.null wrote:well advocating that women can't create images/ideas that are degrading to their own gender is like saying minorities can't be racist.

having said that - not all images are de facto demeaning. but some can certainly cross the line.

my maginot? women in a position to submission / abuse.

pornography seems another discussion.

but is betti page type photography demeaning? i think that cheesecake does not cross the line. there was an element of humor involved.

Excellent points. Your first one falls a little flat for me-- having known many female artists I can tell you many are adept at playing with sexual imagery (and indeed, pushing the envelope) and unless they are deliberately undermining themselves with self loathing, it is not terribly close a comparison to racial ideation. Think, "self hating Jew," an expression that is terribly common in the Jewish community. Even in the case of obvious introverted race bashing, the same thing applies. Scatman Crother's title song in Ralph Bakshi's "Coonskin," is a good example. Not saying I disagree, just saying it falls a little flat. Still an excellent point nonetheless-- especially in recent times when "Dr. Laura" freely used the N-bomb repeatedly because "black people use it." That itself is a racist assertion because it implies all "black people use it." One writer recently took offense at this assertion, rightly pointing out that it was just as racist as saying all black people wear baggy pants around their knees.
I agree with your categorization of "submission/abuse," and you do qualify that statement as being your own personal limit. However, many people in the BDSM community will tell you point blank that submission is empowering. Abuse, less obviously so. I would have agreed that this is true had I not worked very closely with an artist (Lisa Suckdog) who used abuse and rape as common themes for her work. Now that is more typical of your more cynical French existentialists, however, and I personally find that kind of writing to be a bit offensive myself-- with the exception of "Les Chants De Maldoror."
Yes pornography is indeed another discussion, although Annie Sprinkle in particular triumphs the use of pornographic images as female empowerment, and since I brought her up... well, lets just say one of my weaknesses is using far too much hyperbole to stretch a point.
Humor mitigates much of these factors, as you accurately point out. That's why I laughed my ass off on such an atrocious creation as the "hot cum beast," (see the post I was referring to). An extremely graphic image, taken to absurd heights, ceases to become offensive to me. Seeing the picture of an ape capturing a nude woman, with the implication that the monster was on the verge of ejaculating is wickedly funny.
Of course, none of this is "for everyone," and your points are well thought out and, for the most part, quite observant and correct.

i love rowena. her cover for michael moorcock's The Warhound and the World's Pain was simply stunning.

regarding the topic subject; i'm going to be seriously inarticulate as i try to explain my thoughts on this.

i am a woman. i am 52 and have had a pretty good amount of higher education (college) tho i have no degree. what i've learned in my long, academic career is that if one sees themselves as "other" they will, invariably, find subjegation of that particular "otherness."

the idea that you can say that all art of the nature that you're describing (cause i don't really know what to call it) is demeaning to women is patently absurd. (in my opinion)

if a woman looks at a picture and feels demeaned is it the artist's problem or the woman's?

granted women have been, throughout history, subjegated. there's no denying that. (as have other "other's") but to condemn a style of art and say it shouldn't be done (because that is the concensus among those women who see this kind of art from this demeaning perspective - that's really what they want, is for this art not to be done, much less put on public display or published) is to inhibit freedom of THOUGHT. they're saying you can't think this or paint this or draw this because it's demeaning to women. people that think this way have fallen into the trap of thinking that "other" = "wrong" and they are attempting to assuage their own feelings of "wrongness" by imposing their will on others.

i'm with those who find this sort of artwork empowering to women. those who find it demeaning are saying depicting sexuality is wrong. are women not sexual beings? pah! are women's bodies not beautiful? are they not to be celebrated? pah and hooey, i say!

i remember finding, when i was a little girl probably 8 or 9 years old, my dad's paperback collection of Conan books and his Edgar Rice Burroughs books (both tarzan and the fighting man of mars books) and seeing those book covers for the first time. i was excited and intrigued. i thought those women on those covers were beautiful. i wanted to BE one of those women. and more importantly, i wanted to read the books! those covers got me inside those stories. and for those stories those covers were entirely appropriate.

yes, sometimes in those stories, women are subjegated. but frequently they are also powerful queens and sorceress' and warriors. if i remember correctly, jane (tarzan's jane) was pretty intelligent and helped ol' tarzan quite a bit!

so i guess this whole argument about women being demeaned by this kind of artwork is sort of stupid to me. it's narrowminded and selfish and controlling.

i hope i don't sound like an utter fool but i warned you i would struggle a bit to explain myself.

caamora has a long history of avatars of beautiful women, in various degrees of nudidity. I don't think she feels demeaned. heh

Kinda to extend part of Lucimay's point, I think that the "art" in question actually says more about the viewer then it does the artist. Based on one's reaction to the art, you can see a person's view of sexuality and what it means to be "empowered." Sometimes, too, you can tell someones a scumbag if they act in a degrading manner when reacting to this "art".

Pornography, as has been mentioned, is a different matter. However, I do not view the "art" as pornography.

I agree with Lucimay on this and I'll elucidate further. All art is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Most often when someone takes offense at something like that it is because they feel threatened and are insecure in their own self image. The same can be said for men. Do men feel threatened by a portrayal of Conan, all muscles and loincloth? Probably some do. Men and women are different by hormones and nature, different, NOT UNEQUAL, but different. If I were male, should I be offended by the nudity of the sculpture of David that is depicted in every art text book ever published? Should I be offended by the immense exaggerated muscles of the Tic? How many men do you know that look like even Superman with the chiseled jaw and pumped body? If I am offended I can choose not to look or buy the book. People tend to most lash out against what they are in denial of, can't be or feel threatened by.

Hmm... let's consider the context a bit more.

Fantasy artwork boasting naked, helpless women and muscular men with big ... swords ... was ordered to be that way by some pointy-haired publishing executive who was considering only what would entice teenage boys - his perceived target audience - in the most direct and effective way possible.

If there's a comment here, it is on how publishers market books, if anything. (Or at least how they used to back in the day.) Sex sells, as it were.

Of secondary importance, maybe, is the comment on who is the perceived consumer of fantasy.

What no one may notice, but which I find to be the most "offensive" aspect of the whole situation, is the predominence of available, impossibly desirable but essentially helpless or at least highly dependent females who predominate a certain class of fantasy literature, at least at one time. Who lend themselves to those sorts of cover art. (Not that the cover artist is compelled to depict what actually is in the story.) Dejah Thoris and all her ilk.

All of these things, I would say, have corrected themselves over time. You don't see a lot of this kind of thing anymore on the fantasy shelves. I think publishers have widened who they perceive the audience to be. And I think it has in fact widened. And I think fantasy authors write about strong and varied women a lot more than they used to.

But sex still sells.

wayfriend wrote:But sex still sells.

She needs a bit more meat down there, and in the chest area. *flips sexist mode off* But yeah. More meat and-- Damn. Wait... Crap. I taped the switch to on permanently.

It's interesting to note that Robert E. Howard, who pioneered the sexual stereotypes typical of the fantasy art Wayfriend wrote about, actually was responsible for many strong female characters such as Valeria and the Red Sonja.

Sure. But then again, impossibly-desirable bikini-armored slings-swords-with-the-boys women could be argued as being another stereotype designed to lure boys into books. (Boys who are naughty, and deserve to be spanked.)

I believe the issue of bikini-armor has been brought up in another thread.

Fair representation of women in fantasy literature is achieved, I feel, when women aren't defined by male desires, one way or the other.

Lord Zombiac wrote:It's interesting to note that Robert E. Howard, who pioneered the sexual stereotypes typical of the fantasy art Wayfriend wrote about, actually was responsible for many strong female characters such as Valeria and the Red Sonja.

but then again REH was a complicated history with women. never marrying Miss Price and the issues with his mother. just trying to muddy up the waters.

and thank you for your analysis of my points.

wayfriend wrote: Fair representation of women in fantasy literature is achieved, I feel, when women aren't defined by male desires, one way or the other.

Wouldn't that completely repudiate the mechanism of Darwinian evolution? What are we to each other--physically, in terms of our apperance--except what our genes have made us? And how is it possible that our genes get passed on except in as much as we find each other desirable? We *are* defined by our desirablility to the opposite sex, in the most literal way possible. Each of us selecting sexual partners is what moves evolution in any particular direction. And there's noting wrong with that. In fact, to pretend otherwise is inauthentic and denial of our being in this world.

Now, we aren't strictly limited by our genes. We can transcend them, or try to. But the female form has been "molded" by male desire, just as much as the male form has been "molded" by female desire.

In as much as feminism takes femininity out of culture, it has collapsed into absurdity and contradiction. Females should be celebrated, and this includes their desirability to men. In fact, their desirability to men is the meaning of their femininity, the reason why "femininity" has a meaning distinct from "masculinity." Those two terms can't be separated from the biological, Darwinian sense which produced them in the first place. Otherwise, we're just talking about generic humans. (That's not to say there aren't masculine girls, or that they are less than human, but they are naturally undesirable to men, as opposed to some cultural distillation which artificially ignores a fundamental part of who they are.)

I don't think Wayfriend is suggesting women should be portrayed entirely non-sexually; more a rejection of women being entirely defined by men in the sense of, for example, the Bechdel test.

The key issue for me isn't in the demeaning part, it is in the objectifying part.
Nothing, in isolation, is inherently demeaning to anyone, it's all in the viewpoint and ground of the person judging, and there is a huge array of influences involved.
Objectifying is the problem, and IS demeaning by definition: it relegates, without consent, choice, will, a person/people into a prop.
Fantasy/titillation/wish fulfillment/marketing...not really demeaning [though if you buy a car or deodorant or perfume cuz of the sexual attractiveness/reputation/fame of the actor/spokesperson/brand name, you are just too stupid to live].
Being a prostitute isn't demeaning...unless the prostitute him or herself feels it is...but that's just for them, personally [so they should have chosen another profession]. It might be demeaning to the spouse/partner of the buyer, not because of the transaction itself, but because he/she promised not to do such things.
Enslaving someone into prostitution is another matter.
Tying your partner to the bed for a little role-play isn't demeaning.
Watching a flick about it isn't either.
Forcing someone to it against their will is.
Heh...truthfully, much "art" of whatever kind that people call demeaning I agree is: but not to women or whatever the subject matter is, it's demeaning to art and/or the particular creator of it...cuz it's crappy art.

Murrin wrote:I don't think Wayfriend is suggesting women should be portrayed entirely non-sexually; more a rejection of women being entirely defined by men in the sense of, for example, the Bechdel test.

You think correct. I said I don't think women should be defined by (as in, created top to bottom for) male desires. I didn't say women should not be desireable. (And I like both their tops and their bottoms.)

Also, I like and appreciate that Bechdel test. And I have seen movies that suggest a similar test for males would be useful.

lucimay wrote:...if a woman looks at a picture and feels demeaned is it the artist's problem or the woman's?

I stopped reading there for now. Everything is in our heads. Well said LuciMay.

--A

Avatar wrote:

lucimay wrote:...if a woman looks at a picture and feels demeaned is it the artist's problem or the woman's?

I stopped reading there for now. Everything is in our heads. Well said LuciMay.

--A

I agree. I thought Luci's post was quite insightful.

WF, sorry if I mischaracterized your position. But I still disagree with the idea that there is something wrong with a woman being defined in terms of desirability to men. State that in biological, evolutionary terms, and you have an incoherent dead end species. Females being desirable to men is one of the most basic, foundational facts of our existence. Portraying them as such is merely truthful. They *are* created (or evolved), top and bottom, to attract males so that their genes can get passed on to the next generation. In as much as feminism downplays this fact, it cuts women off from the deepest fact of their being, the reason why they are *women,* instead of asexual single celled organisms.

The Bechdel test is ridiculous. Batshit crazy. Women who don't talk about men? Why would that ever occur to anyone who isn't a lesbian? It makes as much sense as blacks who don't talk about whites, or children who don't talk about adults. I have nothing against lesbians for liking women (who could blame them! ). But this aversion to anything male really ticks me off. What a fucking stupid way to decide whether or not to watch a movie. Only a bitter, male-hating feminist could ever think that is important.

Based on this criteria, the Chronicles would be unreadable, because Linden talks about Covenant. Indeed, her entire focus in FR is (... spoiler!).

Zarathustra wrote:WF, sorry if I mischaracterized your position. But I still disagree with the idea that there is something wrong with a woman being defined in terms of desirability to men.

When I say "defined by men's desires", I mean that they are created by the author to be an object of desire and nothing else. Hence, it is not the desirability that is an issue; it is the 'nothing else'. Such literary figures don't satisfy any claim that women are adequately represented in fantasy fiction, to my mind. If, in spite of two direct statements by me to the contrary, you want to still fault me for thinking that desirability is in and of itself somehow wrong, have at it. I do agree that what men desire is what makes women desirable, I just don't agree that that is all there is worth portraying in a woman (or a man for that matter).

I believe you misread the Bechdel Test, Z. All it takes to pass is for the female characters to have one conversation or even small exchange about a topic other than men. You'd be surprised how often it is failed.