re: Warning - this is disturbing

quote:

---

I was mostly talking about the theories revolving around social constructs and the fact that once you distill her densely florid prose down to something manageable, she's actually saying something lucid.

---

I really don't think so. The problem is the subject.

When a woman is objectified, they become mere objects- bait, decoration, etc. They no longer represent a real person with real accomplishments. It is therefore impossible to objectify someone like Winston, as their accomplishments will always exceed their form.

This is also common with women- when they accomplish something in "the man's world" they then no longer become an objectifiable object. Like who has a Hilary or Opera swimsuit calendar? No one.

Also I would argue that showing a sex act is not the same as objectifying women. When you objectify a women, she is not supposed to be the focus (at least not ALL of her and who she is). But by making this sex act front and center it transforms the piece almost into the opposite of what she wants- some sort of athlete worship.

Of course leave it to a feminist to not understand that receiving head is considering a "dominant" act in our society and therefore can never be used to objectify the subject.

I think the truth is she wanted shock value to hide the fact she lacks a real message. So instead of objectifying a random guy and making him penis a lamp or something in the picture she has the most popular athlete in college football getting head. He does get it in the end at the bottom of the pic, but it is from a hot girl with a Heisman dildo. Depending on your orientation that again could be athlete worship, he is clearly aroused.

I am sure it was enough for her professor to give her an A- though, with the + being lost because she picked a subject (Winston) that the professor didn't know anything about.