Unfortuantely this set is making purge my friends list from some of the comments made on here. It makes me scared to be friends with some of those who say they were wanking off to it.
Supernaut2112 said:
Okay I get that she is trying to make a statement... I get that. I get that it's supposed to be art. I am all for art pushing boundries... believe me. And the photography and lighting and composition is very very good... and Nana is very pretty...
But this is not right.
Everybody's got their fantiasies I know. I get that. And I've made plenty of "so a pedophile and a little girl are walking through the woods" jokes... But this is just not the statement you want to make. Too many women I know, and too many women on here have been harmed by sexual assault and spend a life time trying to recover. And by looking at the board I can see that this set only perpetuates the fantasy in sexual preditors and sickens victims and their loved ones.
SG for me was about reinventing beauty, in your own image. SGs create these beautiful works of art in form in the way that they see fit. Beauty for them is not what they see in the traditions we grew up with. It's what they choose for it to be. It may be just a pose or a wink maybe, a setting and a wee bit of hair dye, it may be full on crazy hair and over the top modifications. Either way it's about creating. That is my aesthetic standard. And in that sense SG contains some of the best art on the internet. Lets face it, playboy playmates are pretty but they are always pretty in THE MOST CONVENTIONAL way almost every time. And over the years it has portrayed an almost conformist sense of beauty. The classic look that says you must be born beautiful... And I've had a subscription for many years... it's a great magazine. But SG for me was a breath of fresh air, and for many women including the two I live with it's helped them see that they can be as pretty as any playmate by realizing that the standard is in THEIR HANDS.
But what aesthetic standard does this set? What is the image of beauty being created here?
Force = pleasure? might makes right? Indeed the SS Broach is an important and fitting symbol here, but in putting it on the victim is the symbolism lost?
In creating these Images the artists tell us: Pleasure can be derived by imposing our will on another, just as the Nazi's taught of happiness only in a world where the German/Superman's will is imposed on all people. It's a disgusting standard that enslaves each man to the will of every other and leaves nobody free or happy.
And here we throw sexual gratification into the mix... no positive value can come from this.
It is not beautiful when a woman's will is enslaved to a man's sexual whim. That is the essence of perversion. It is that standard, that message of beauty which I oppose here.
BEAUTIFULLY stated.
Your recognized the point I was making while bringing to light the argument other's were attempting to make in a very eloquent way.
You also poked holes into what I thought was a perfectly formed opinion. Bravo!
I must admit that as a straight female, I do not view these images immediately with sexual gratification in mind... I see them as art first, and the offensive statements being made were such an amazing contrast, I just jumped on my Art Horse and began defending away. It is easy for me to be awed by the beauty of the female body and forget that these are indeed images that are being masturbated to.
Whoops.
To compare, I thought of some of my personal favorite pieces of beautiful, horribly disturbing art and then imagined someone masturbating to it. It made me uncomfortable for obvious reasons. But then I realized that that would be a case of personal taste, which cannot be logically argued.
And, I should also admit that I have never been sexually abused, molested, or raped. That doesn't mean I am not sensitive to the issue, but I cannot claim to have a full comprehension of it, as I have never experienced it.
However, to counter some things:
1. The SS broach on the victim adds to the symbolism. It is ironic.
2. "In creating these Images the artists tell us: Pleasure can be derived by imposing our will on another": it can. And it commonly does. With many people. It's called "Sadism," after the great Marquis de Sade. And many people find happiness, love, sexual gratification, and satisfaction in lives of this sort. Robert Flannigan was an extreme masochist and a very beautiful person - he also signed away his life to his wife.
3. "It is not beautiful when a woman's will is enslaved to a man's sexual whim. That is the essence of perversion." Some people do find it beautiful. And in this case it certainly appears beautiful. Isn't that a case of personal taste of well? There are many things on this site that I find disgusting, but I am aware that what disgusts me is personal taste.
4. The image of beauty that is being created here, in my opinion, is the overwhelming contrast. I love it. I love when the ugly is portrayed in a beautiful way, and I suppose I love the dissonance that occurs within when I see negative things sexualized. I find it appealing because it is so discouraged in society... because it's wrong in society. That's what makes it beautiful to me. But that is MY personal taste.
LaceyK said:
Unfortuantely this set is making purge my friends list from some of the comments made on here. It makes me scared to be friends with some of those who say they were wanking off to it.
Fucking hell, I thought I was the only one.
Block / block / block ....
I am amazed by how sick some people really are.
IPOD
RADIO
loading your activity feed...
kingoftown
Cleveland, OH
October 2005
OCT 15, 2007 04:22 PM