pough

i'm generally a stickler for accuracy as well, but i'm in the same boat as you. i think brandon bird's a genius because he actually thought that shit up.

I'll take a stab at the objectification question in your journal instead of the boards, because the boards are pissing me off again and I do not wish to look at them. So, in the event that you were hoping to spark a meaningful discussion there rather than get a straightforward answer here, uh, sorry?

The idea that objectification in porn is bad is founded on the premise that porn treats women (and men, frankly, but the debate centers more on the women's role because porn is mostly created and purchased by men, so ostensibly reflects what they want. This was more true when the idea started than it is now, but it's still true enough for present purposes) as sexual objects who are more or less collections of body parts and not real people. T&A, a bunch of holes and maybe a pretty face -- not a person or a personality. If a woman is not conventionally pretty, or if she ages or loses her looks for whatever other reason, then she loses her value in this scheme.

So that's the hugely oversimplified summary of Why Objectification Is Bad. My personal opinion is that there's a lot of truth to the idea, but the truth has less to do with porn and a lot more to do with people's stupid ideas.

You can see it on this site, too -- people make this artificial distinction between "vapid" mainstream silicone-and-bleach types and SGs, which always bugs me because it implies something about the models rather than the people who pay them to create those images. You don't know what the models are like, guys. You're projecting stereotypes. Argh, that bugs me.