Post Race!

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Shaggy Hiker]

"In Slavic folklore, Baba Yaga is a supernatural being (or one of a trio of sisters of the same name) who appears as a deformed and/or ferocious-looking woman."

"In some tales a trio of Baba Yagas appear as sisters, all sharing the same name. For example, in a version of "The Maiden Tsar" collected in the 19th century by Alexander Afanasyev [a Russian Slavist writing approximately 600 Russian folktales and fairytales], Ivan, a handsome merchant’s son, makes his way to the home of one of three Baba Yagas:

He [Ivan] journeyed onwards, straight ahead [...] and finally came to a little hut; it stood in the open field, turning on chicken legs. He entered and found Baba Yaga the Bony-legged. "Fie, fie," she said, "the Russian smell was never heard of nor caught sight of here, but it has come by itself. Are you here of your own free will or by compulsion, my good youth?" "Largely of my own free will, and twice as much by compulsion! Do you know, Baba Yaga, where lies the thrice tenth kingdom?" "No, I do not," she said, and told him to go to her second sister; she might know.[7]
Ivan walks for some time before encountering a small hut identical to the first. This Baba Yaga makes the same comments and asks the same question as the first, and Ivan asks the same question. This second Baba Yaga does not know either and directs him to the third, but says that if she gets angry with him "and wants to devour you, take three horns from her and ask her permission to blow them; blow the first one softly, the second one louder, and third still louder." Ivan thanks her and continues on his journey.[8]

After walking for some time, Ivan eventually finds the chicken-legged hut of the youngest of the three sisters turning in an open field. This third and youngest of the Baba Yagas makes the same comment about "the Russian smell" before running to whet her teeth and consume Ivan. Ivan begs her to give him three horns and she does so. The first he blows softly, the second louder, and the third louder yet. This causes birds of all sorts to arrive and swarm the hut. One of the birds is the firebird, which tells him to hop on its back or Baba Yaga will eat him. He does so and the Baba Yaga rushes him and grabs the firebird by its tail. The firebird leaves with Ivan, leaving Baba Yaga behind with a fist full of firebird feathers."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Yaga

I knew you'd come through with that, but I had already seen it.

I actually remember some of the stories of Baba Yaga from my childhood.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Is that the source? http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=2612

No, Brad Jones is the source.

[Niya]

No, Brad Jones is the source.

Apparently the depiction of attractive women in art is somehow offensive. Not his fault as he has to enforce the rules according to public taste as dictated by the culture of America. Maybe they won't find the depiction of strapping men in tight outfits so offensive which is perplexing to me but it is what it is. America is the weirdest place on Earth.

[dclamp]

Looks like its time for me to unsubscribe.

dday9: POST RACE

[dday9]

Somebody said something about the art you were posting?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Maybe they won't find the depiction of strapping men in tight outfits

By that, do you mean strapping along the lines of "strapping it down"? Those guys are just as improbable as the women, though in the opposite direction. It's all kind of weird.

[Niya]

Somebody said something about the art you were posting?

Brad and Steve. Something about the "objectification of women" whatever that means. I got the sense that women or any depiction of women in art makes people uncomfortable. I don't really get it but I do know that America's culture has puritan roots which views sex and anything that has the potential to arouse sexual desire as inherently evil. Its no surprise that some of that thinking has survived to this day. That's my thinking anyway. Outside of that context of puritan thinking, I cannot see anything wrong with the depiction of a scantily clad woman holding a spear but Brad decided it was unacceptable. So that's that I guess.

[Niya]

By that, do you mean strapping along the lines of "strapping it down"? Those guys are just as improbable as the women, though in the opposite direction. It's all kind of weird.

Well.....its art....of course it gonna be weird

[Niya]

SESSHOMARU!!!

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Niya]

[Shaggy Hiker]

but I do know that America's culture has puritan roots which views sex and anything that has the potential to arouse sexual desire as inherently evil.

The US has an interesting variation on this theme, but it's universal to one extent or another. So many cultures have the repression of either women or sexualtiy, or both, as a core part of their values. What's really interesting about the US is both the fact that we are highly sexualized while being highly nutty about sexuality, and at the same time we are so utterly permissive about violence.

[FunkyDexter]

Something about the "objectification of women" whatever that means.

Oh come on, you know what it means.

Now don't get me wrong, I like a pair bouncing boobies as much as the next man but comic book and fantasy art has always had a tendency to, shall we say, exaggerate somewhat. To be fair, it exaggerates it's male form as much as it's female form but the bits of the male form it tends to exaggerate aren't as explicitly sexual as the bits of the female form it chooses to. I'm sure you'll be able to find exceptions in both directions but, lets be honest, they will be exceptions.

Of course, it all speaks to a wider debate about whether sexuality is something we should celebrate or feel uncomfortable about but until I see someone release a comic book where all the female protagonists are fully clad and have average, if athletic, physiques while all the male protagonists wear nothing but tight leather shorts and sport massive man-packets and have that comic sell in large numbers I'll struggle to accept that there isn't a certain amount of hypocrisy in your argument.


I'll avoid making any puns because that would be udderly inappropriate... Damnit!

[Niya]

The US has an interesting variation on this theme, but it's universal to one extent or another. So many cultures have the repression of either women or sexualtiy, or both, as a core part of their values. What's really interesting about the US is both the fact that we are highly sexualized while being highly nutty about sexuality, and at the same time we are so utterly permissive about violence.

Well its like I said, America is one of the weirdest places on Earth. So many contradicting cultural norms.

[Niya]

Oh come on, you know what it means.

Yes I know how its defined but what does it really mean. I know the meanings of the words but all together what does it mean to "objectify a woman". This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Understand that where I'm from you will never hear people talk about this. While people may have heard the term, they wouldn't understand it any more than I do. This is some strange nuance of American culture. What is it and why is it so offensive ?

[szlamany]

Objectify means to see as an object - that could not be any more clear. The SUBJECT - the person that is real - is lost to an OBJECTIVE view.

[Niya]

Objectify means to see as an object - that could not be any more clear. The SUBJECT - the person that is real - is lost to an OBJECTIVE view.

But a person is an object. Like a ball or a glass of water, a person has a mass, a height, a weight, texture, a colour etc. Is there some deeper meaning I'm failing to grasp here ?

[Niya]

You guys may think I'm joking or trolling here but I honestly do not comprehend this concept. I can understand if we were talking about slavery in which a person is considered a commodity without any rights attributed to a sentient being but how this applies to provocative imagery is beyond my me.

[Niya]

If women were being forced into providing such visual stimulation, it would certainly make more sense but the feminine form has been a subject of fine art since forever. I can imagine some women even being honored to be featured in someone's art piece. Even today, a lot of magazines feature such displays of feminine beauty on their covers. Is there something sinister about this that I'm failing to see ?

[szlamany]

There is a depersonalization occurring - the OBJECT gets big better "woman" "facets" then the original SUBJECT ever had. The SUBJECT is lost - the artist has OBJECTIFIED the SUBJECT.

If you can take a photograph and portray something about the subject then you have a real work of art.

[Niya]

...but until I see someone release a comic book where all the female protagonists are fully clad and have average, if athletic, physiques while all the male protagonists wear nothing but tight leather shorts and sport massive man-packets and have that comic sell in large numbers

This is another nuance of American culture that I don't get. How can most the population of the most advanced nation on Earth misunderstand so completely the basic nature of human sexuality.

Men above all are attracted to female looks. A woman with nice perky breasts, a small waist and wider hips is generally attractive to a man. This is what drives the lust of men. A fine looking female body and face. Nothing more. It is not the same with a woman. While a woman can appreciate a finely sculpted male, it is confidence and a winning attitude that is attractive to women, far more so than a man's looks.

An extremely good looking man will attract female attention no doubt but if she discovers that he is meek, lacks self-confidence and is socially inept, he will not be able to inspire even the tiniest bit of attraction or lust. An ugly guy with a larger than life attitude and bold disposition would win out every time. In contrast, an extremely attractive women could have a laundry list of personality problems but there will be no shortage of men trying to bed her. Obviously, if the men in question were considering long term companionship, they would take more into account than just her looks but looks is primary for men. Personality is primary for women.

Now apply this to what you said and it should be obvious the why the female protagonists of the comics are scantily clad. This is what men respond to. Now take a character that's popular with women like Wolverine, in particular, his portrayal by Hugh Jackman in the movies. It doesn't matter what he has on. He could be fully clothed from head to toe or fully naked, women would still love him. Why ? The attitude. Women respond more to attitude than to looks. A bold, no-nonsense, take the bull by the horns attitude is what attracts women. Good looks is only a small bonus.

[Niya]

There is a depersonalization occurring - the OBJECT gets big better "woman" "facets" then the original SUBJECT ever had. The SUBJECT is lost - the artist has OBJECTIFIED the SUBJECT.

If you can take a photograph and portray something about the subject then you have a real work of art.

Then by that definition the entire movie industry is based on objectification. They change things about real people all the time. Ever seen a picture of Megan Fox without all the Hollywood wizardry of the make-up departments ? She's not that good looking. They took the real thing and made it better. The subject in this case is lost too. If you really want to get ridiculous, we can say that Hugh Jackman doesn't have metal claws embedded in his arms. Billy Boyd(Lord of the Rings) is not really a midget. Hollywood has been objectifying real people for years so my question is, if objectification is as you've just defined it, why hasn't the movie industry been banned yet ?

[szlamany]

Well - they are actors. These people create a "personality" from nothing - at least the good ones do. They are not trying to be real.

That is the purpose of a movie - to suspend reality. If that is a goal then enhancing objects to make an actor be more of that "perfect" fit of the role is acceptable - encouraged to a point (otherwise you become too "camp").

[Niya]

These people create a "personality" from nothing

And here we arrive at the point. Why is this good for movies but bad for my images ? A lot of the images I posted were created by artists from nothing but their imaginations, hence it doesn't objectify anyone because it was created essentially from nothing. There's no one to objectify.

They are not trying to be real.

Neither are the artists behind my images hence just as a movie maker can enhance a man by giving him metal claws or make an actress appear more attractive than she really is, so can the artist enhance certain qualities of the women they create in their art. Its the same thing. It speaks to creativity more so than anything else.

Do you see why I'm having trouble understanding this ? I'm seeing contradictions here.