thecupcakekid
Guest
Oct 2, 2024 2:21:19 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 8:48:46 GMT -4
Post by thecupcakekid on Nov 2, 2007 8:48:46 GMT -4
I don't think what we do here is that different from Maxim. At the end of the day we are still judging someone else's looks, the only difference is the celeb probably won't see it. But just because it is smaller it isn't all that different. Just like us calling someone in the celeb threads a whore/slut/cumbucket isn't any different from some random guy or magazine doing it. Us being women doesn't make it ok.
Cumbucket.
|
|
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 9:06:36 GMT -4
Post by Sunnyhorse on Nov 2, 2007 9:06:36 GMT -4
Oh man, skip the "cumbucket" here -- that has got to be one of the most stomach-turning epithets ever coined. Bleargh. And we have made an effort to ask people not to refer to celebs -- even roundly despised ones like Jennifer Lopez -- as "whores" or "sluts." (I haven't peeked into the Paris Hilton thread lately, gah.) I don't know at what point it changed, but "slut" used to be verboten here.
|
|
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 9:22:43 GMT -4
Post by Brookie on Nov 2, 2007 9:22:43 GMT -4
That's not fun, that's mean. Yup - it's the misogyny that makes it different, IMHO. Yeah, so what's next? People Magazine's Least Sexiest Man? (May I nominate Tom Cruise please? - thanks.) I don't think so. Who does it serve to be nationally know as the least sexiest anything? Only magazine sales in a specific demographic - men. I think a lot of women can relate to what that must be like - even if you're only relating it to the time you got dumped by your boyfriend for someone you thought was your best friend and how that made you feel, and how you started to think about yourself after that. Only on a national scale. Ugh. And can we please skip stuff like "cumbucket"? That's just offensive to even look at.
|
|
viridian
Guest
Oct 2, 2024 2:21:19 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 10:24:16 GMT -4
Post by viridian on Nov 2, 2007 10:24:16 GMT -4
I'm not defending Maxim here, since I think it's a stupid, infantile magazine - but I do get the feeling that it's okay for magazines/posters here to mock the appearance and unsexiness of celebrities, unless the target is someone that a bunch of people like. Then it's considered mean & over the line.
Basically, is her cover all that different from the celebrities on Star's Best/Worst Beach Bodies? If Kirsten Dunst can be mocked here for her saggy boobs (which I don't think are all that bad, honestly), then I don't really have a problem with SJP being called unsexy.
|
|
SluttyMary
Blueblood
Posts: 1,205
Oct 20, 2005 9:16:30 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 11:30:19 GMT -4
Post by SluttyMary on Nov 2, 2007 11:30:19 GMT -4
I actually hate the "Most sexy" lists as well. It's all subjective who you find attractive and who you don't, and that's why I find it different just stating your opinion on a messageboard, than to publish it. Making a list in a magazine makes it more "official" IMO, like they can tell us who is hot and who is not.
|
|
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 11:43:46 GMT -4
Post by Brookie on Nov 2, 2007 11:43:46 GMT -4
I actually hate the "Most sexy" lists as well. It's all subjective who you find attractive and who you don't, and that's why I find it different just stating your opinion on a messageboard, than to publish it. Making a list in a magazine makes it more "official" IMO, like they can tell us who is hot and who is not. Me too. i.e. Matthew McConaghey - sexy? Not to me. Not at all. And I'm not defending SJP either, because I'm pretty neutral on her. I'm just sayin' it's gotta be heartbreaking to read that a national magazine thinks you're the unsexiest thing in America. (And no, I don't find her sexy either...)
|
|
thecupcakekid
Guest
Oct 2, 2024 2:21:19 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 15:31:26 GMT -4
Post by thecupcakekid on Nov 2, 2007 15:31:26 GMT -4
I think in the end Maxim is doing what we are doing, being funny. I don't think it is meant to hurt. And if it is SJP can just...cry into her ginormous piles of money.
Sunnyhorse I realize that steps had been taken to curb in the slut/hobag talk but I was just using it as an example.
|
|
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 15:33:32 GMT -4
Post by Sunnyhorse on Nov 2, 2007 15:33:32 GMT -4
Just don't say "cumbucket" again. *Backs toward the door and looks for her barf bag.* ;D
|
|
thecupcakekid
Guest
Oct 2, 2024 2:21:19 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 15:37:06 GMT -4
Post by thecupcakekid on Nov 2, 2007 15:37:06 GMT -4
Noted. I will substitute it with jizztin. (I keeed)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 2, 2024 2:21:19 GMT -4
|
Ugly
Nov 2, 2007 18:35:45 GMT -4
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 18:35:45 GMT -4
omg people, my delicate sensibilities can't handle this kind of slang, even though that last one made me laugh out loud. Anyway, this is an interesting conversation and it's making me consider how snarky I can be towards celebrities. But what would I do without the snark? I'd have to take up yoga or something and no good can come from that. For me the difference between Maxim and here is the difference between casual conversation (which is fluid and opposing opinions or viewpoints can be heard too), and a single-viewpoint statement designed for profit. It's just out there, as is. It also makes me uncomfortable because female actors sex appeal is already prioritized, and nitpicked, much more than male actors, so Maxim is just piling on to an existing inequality. If men were as objectified as women.. well first that would be awesome because there need to be more hot, under-dressed men out there. Just saying. But also, if objectifying was equal across the board, then it would only be a case of deciding how rude is too rude, but since that inequality exists in the media, it feels a little meaner and unfair. I don't know, just sort of thinking out loud.
|
|