Leave it to the French! ;)

[markpkessinger]

[okaawhatever]

1. Don't worry folks, not x-rated, just funny. nt

[Cleita]

2. Topless, showing bare behinds and touching each other.

Men? are you feeling objectified yet.

[markpkessinger]

4. LOL! Funny you should mention that . . .

. . . This is a comment I posted yesterday to an article on Rawstory, about Duke University's determination that the young woman who made some porn films to pay her way through college hadn't broken any university rules. One commenter said he had no problem with her making porn, as long as she didn't later complain that porn objectifies women. Here was my response:

markpkessinger -> Jeff Hanson • [link:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/07/duke-university-rules-porn-star-student-has-not-broken-any-rules/#comment-1277125263|18 hours ago
]
Actually, I would say that it does objectify at least the participants in a porn film, male or female, but would disagree that it necessarily objectifies either on a society-wide group. But that is an objectification that porn actors choose to participate in of their own accord. And besides, as a society, we are dishonest with ourselves about this whole business of "objectification" in the first place. The fact is, we ALL are objectified, and we ALL objectify others, in many ways; but we are hypocritical as a society in remaining willfully blind to the many other types of "objectification" we all engage in and experience, and in focusing special opprobrium for objectification based upon sex. Certainly, whenever, say, Brad Pitt appears shirtless on the cover of Cosmopolitan, both Pitt personally, and the male form more generally, are being objectified. Any performer, be he or she a musician, actor or whatever, is objectified both by his or her audience and by any producer/sponsor of those performances. Hell, even a factory worker is objectified based upon his or her contribution to the enterprise.

Some people harbor this notion that marriage automatically confers some elevated mystical purpose for sex between married spouses, and that such sex is thus always an expression of deep intimacy and profound love. Certainly it can be that (and hopefully IS that at least some of the time for married folks). But sometimes, if we are to be honest with ourselves, even sex with a spouse is, at least on some occasions, more a matter of getting one's rocks off than of any profound, mystical expression of marital love. Spouses, too, objectify one another around sex at least on some occasions.

[adirondacker]

7. +1000. Excellent point of view! nt

[pnwmom]

8. The point many of us were making is that there is a time and a place for objectifying

and it is not on a progressive web site that is supposed to welcome political opinions of both women and men.

[markpkessinger]

10. My comment was not directed at the other recent threads on DU on this subject . .

. . . nor was it about any real or alleged objectifying that may have taken place on this board. It was instead directed to the broader argument that porn objectifies women (or men) as a class. If discussions here have taken place here that have left some women of DU feeling objectified, then it seems to me they were likely inappropriate as a matter of community standards, and should have been dealt with as such. To the extent they were not so dealt with, that perhaps points to a flaw in the jury system.

But even in the broader context to which my comment was addressed, I don't disagree with your claim that there is a time and a place for objectifying -- indeed, I doubt many people would disagree with that statement, so far as it goes at least. The problem is that such lines will be drawn differently by different people. In the case of the student at Duke, she was a legal adult (even if a young one) who chose willingly to participate in a legal activity. It therefore should be up to her as to where to draw her own lines as to where, when and under what circumstances she places herself in a situation that may result in others objectifying her, or even determining whether she regards such objectification to be an inherently bad thing. (If you think she was too young to be able to make such a decision, then maybe we should be having a discussion about the age of legal majority; and indeed, there might be a good case to be made for raising it.)

[polly7]

3. Cute :) nt.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Wishing for a costume snafu but enjoyed. You could tell the ladies was avoiding blinking,

Enjoyed, thanks for sharing.

[markpkessinger]

11. Can you imagine if this were permitted to be aired . . .

. . . on, say, "America's Got Talent?" Can't you just hear the uproar that would come from America's puritanical scolds?

[Thinkingabout]

17. Yep but the prudes would probably watch and wish. it would be funny to watch them.

[markpkessinger]

18. Their level of outrage would be in direct proportion . . .

. . . to the stirring in their loins resulting from their . . . anticipation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. We must never speak of that

[markpkessinger]

12. LOL! n/t

[Aerows]

9. Hilarious!

Thanks for sharing that, Mark.

[markpkessinger]

13. Happy to oblige!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Hilarious

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. So cute! nt

[Catherina]

16. What Sarah said! n/t

[CTyankee]

19. I love this. These are men, parodying prudish stuff, and it is comedy...

it is cute and I am assuming very French in its appeal, but also in its appeal to human faults and failings...it is sweet and not insulting to either sex at all...

[malaise]

20. Hilarious

Loved it.