Letters to the Editor
-
PS
After seeing the photos, I agree that the model is way, way too thin - but that's a different debate.
-
P.S. - About that "emaciated" comment
At 17, I had many male and female friends - kids who ran cross country, etc. - who were about as thin as the girl in the photo. They were skinny, of course - but not anorexic or unhealthy.
So do you believe that there should be a minimum BMI for models? And what should that index value be?
Should the only people allowed to model have love handles and double chins so as to not alarm the rest of us...or make us feel oh so bad about ourselves?
-
When I heard the model was 17 felt better about it!
Because she is such a tiny little, sharp, bit of a thing if something would have had to be wrong with her that she’s so thin if she was much older. Only a very young girl, and maybe Kate Moss, can pull that look off with any sort of success.
So it’s a graceful photo of an attractive young girl. But edgy? It’s the same lame trash the fashion industy keeps throwing at us – a pretty girl in swirl of fabric (is it a coat? A skirt?) who represents no one I know and nothing I’d ever wear or buy.
If this industry is serious about selling clothing to women (something they haven’t been having the best of luck with this year) they’re going to have to do better then a 17-year old boob and something that is ‘maybe’ a skirt.
-
what's the fuss?
I looked at the pictures. After having them described here, I was expecting something salacious or tawdry. After seeing the pictures for myself and not just listening to Broadsheet's virulently anti-sex ramblings (yet again) all I can say is, is that all there is? Do you prudish members of society really get all bent out of shape over ~that?!~
And this isn't about feminism. This is about Puritanism posing as feminism. You people need to start looking at human sexuality as adults.
Once again, I cry out to Salon to publish a pro-sex, feminist blog for it's ~thinking~ readers.
-
Infantilized v. sexualized
When I saw that particular photo spread, what struck me most was that the Times had let the blurry image of the breast go through - that's one line the Times almost never crosses, even if it sometimes goes right to the edge. It never occurred to me that the model was under 18, probably because I assumed the Times wouldn't consider crossing that line at all.
That said, the images also did not strike me as particularly sexualized, at least compared to other images in fashion magazines and advertising. (Say, any American Apparel ad.) One reason I thought that is that it's clear that the fashion editors were playing with notions about the model as a ballerina, with some of the usual references to Degas. Of course, ballerinas are somewhat infantilized and idealized, and they often are very young or made to look younger than they are.
In that context, it's easy to understand why the editors of T - rightly or wrongly - didn't pay that much attention to the model's age. They probably just weren't thinking of it that way, and to be blunt they likely don't give much thought to a model's age under any circumstances.
And I wonder if people perceive the images as more sexualized when they know the model is under 18 than they do when they don't. It may be a protective instinct of sorts that makes us think the line between sexual and non-sexual should be drawn differently for minors than adults. I'm not sure what that says about our perceptions of images, other than that it's always amazing how context can change what you think about something.
-
Hypocrisy
This from a paper that ran an article greenlighting female pedophiles who have sex with boys.
"The Siren Song of Sex With Boys"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/weekinreview/11zern.html
"..."We need to untangle the moral issues from the psychological issues from the legal issues," said Carol Tavris, the author of "The Mismeasure of Women" and a social psychologist. "That's the knot." She added: "You may not like something, but does that mean it should be illegal? If we have laws that are based on moral notions and developmental notions that are outdated, do we need to change the laws?"
Though it might seem that way from the headlines, women having sex with teenage boys is not new. A federal Department of Education study called "Educator Sexual Misconduct," released last year, found that 40 percent of the educators who had been reported for sexual misconduct with students were women..."
-
@ Lonewolfey
What bothers me is that the girl was obviously picked for the childlike look that she posesses and then put into various poses of undress in what I personally would classify as sezxual or seductive poses. That was the effect they were definetly going for. BMI, yeah they should have BMI calculators I thought that was what they were trying to pass in Spain. I think it was 18.5 or so. I think that would be a responsible thing to do for the health of the models, so that the designers or agents couldn't pressure them into risking their life for a look, and the general public trying to emulate them.
But that is just my oppinion and I am the mother of a daughter, so I could be overly protective.
-
Sexy = porn?
This is the whole problem with trying to define "pornography." One open-minded person's arty, sexy image is a more conservative person's "porn." Neither view is "correct." There's a continuum of sexual depiction and innuendo, and there will always be images that fall in the gray middle somewhere and cause disagreement.
-
Falling for Marketing Hype
the NYT is thrilled if a faux controversy over their fashion mag drummed up interest in their mag.
Picture same girl on any beach in a string bikini. You would see more skin, save for the out of focus breast.
-
the problem...
is simple.
Many letter writers in here say that it's no big deal. 17 is far old enough to get naked in front of a camera.
I'll sign off on that, as long as you quit complaining that society doesn't find you attractive after 30. You can't have it both ways.