Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
We'd like to think that we had some small part in Stephanie McColl's selection as North America's hottest vegetarian but seeing how 250,000 votes were cast for all the contestants we're not so sure.
Nonetheless Torontoist would like to send our congratulations to young Ms. McColl for winning the competition and giving us the chance to run her lovely photo on this blog again. We're just bracing for the angry accusations of objectification.
Also, there must be something in the water in this town because we seem to be winning a lot of beauty contests.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Objectification is fine, but we should run a few more contests alongside this one, for the sake of equal representation.
I, for one, want to campaign for Torontoist's Geekiest Vegetarian.
Where's my tiara?
lori's roommate wins again
i think the hotness must be through osmosis ;-)
ok. fine. but with bacon hanging out of that bra...
Objectification ? Did someone turn the calendar back thirty years ? Beauty is beauty(hotness is hotness); visually, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, sexually and even
vegetarianally (veganally, no wait, that's starting to sound...).
Congrats Stephanie !
It's very insightful of Dave to point out that the mere passage of time makes opinions false. The notion of ethically problematic sexual objectification is old-fashioned, thus mistaken. Q.E.D. Good work, Dave!
oh come on, nonny - that's totally not what he said. good work being holier than thou! very helpful for all of us.
Opinions cannot be false nor true, they are merely opinions, not facts. Opinions, along with trends change with the passage of time and in fact, it is merely an opinion that sexual objectification is (or is not)ethically problematic. Let me make my point clearer in any case; what is sexually "objectifying" in any of this? And isn't it kind of hard for sexual objectification to even exist in our society today? Or is equality a trend of the past ?
In my humble opinion, we're sexual beings, wait, isn't that actually a fact ?
Now onto the photo critique....
;)
I didn't accuse this particular photo of objectification, I only suggested that the concept of ethically problematic objectification is a meaningful one, and that whether or not it is meaningful has nothing to do with the passage of time. D's post very clearly suggested the contrary on both points.
D, if I hold the opinion that this blog's background is pink, that's a false opinion. If I hold the opinion it's blue, that's a true opinion--i.e., one that fits the facts.
"it is merely an opinion that sexual objectification is (or is not)ethically problematic."
Yes, and it's an opinion that is either true or false. If it's true, it's true even if no one believes it today and everyone believed it 30 years ago. If it's false, it's false regardless of who believed it when.
In answer to your questions (which are actually unargued implied opinions that have been disguised as questions):
1. Didn't say I agreed that it's objectifying.
2. A. No. In my opinion, when your 10-year-old sister wears hot pants that say "Juicy" on the backside and a mini-T that says "slut" in glitter paint, that's self-objectification. You enlightened types probably say, "you go girl," but since opinions aren't true or false, I guess both responses are just super.
2. B. Even if it were hard, that wouldn't mean it's impossible.
3. Equals can objectify each other, but this is a moot point, since the sexes are not yet fully equal.
4. Yes, it's a fact that humans are sexual beings. So, since your opinion corresponds with the facts, you hold a true opinion. See how that works?
Anyway, the concept of sexual objectification does not in any way depend on the belief that humans are asexual beings, nor does it require believing that sex is bad or dirty or that human beings should not be sexual beings. You might know this, were you incline to learn about ideas that are 30 years old. It's rather common knowledge, really.
Chris, yes, I am holier than thou, but twas not mine point. It's as helpful as you make it. The point is that sexual objectification can be ethically problematic and the charge can, in some cases, be accurately made. There are innocuous cases (like I think this one is), but Dave's readiness to dismiss the concept in its entirety is not the best way of defending the innocous cases.
So...Can I still say she`s hot?
Incline to learn about ideas that are thirty years old ? I was coming up with ideas thirty years ago ! Certainly not dismissive of any concept. But I may have an opinion on it.
Having an opinion that is based on fact does not make it a true opinion, just more believeable(both "true opinion" and "false opinion" would be considered oxymorons). Try dictionary.com
In my opinion, the background of this blog is cyan ! :) and if I were to wear rose coloured glasses whilst viewing it...
You'll get the point eventually Nonny, it's quite simple actually, and you missed the joke(s) to begin with, but then again, you'd have to have some experience with humour thirty years ago.
Just for the record Nonny, I have an 11 year old son, not a 10 year old sister. Although, good old dad is in pretty good shape !