|
SG is a well done site, but it's there for the money.
Honestly, if it was art, if it was about body image and casting away of stereotypes, why would it be
1. a pay site (ok it's not THAT expensive but the price is evidently there for profit)
2. ALL the girls in there are doing spreads where they're eventually nude (unless I'm wrong). I mean, a few girls nude, a lot of girls nude...then all the arguments before stand. BUT. All of them are nude, nay, naked.
The problem therefore is that if this site is based on artistic merit, why are they not artistic enough to portray women with clothes on? Is there a need to display breasts like pornography sites?
The models in there may be "real" in the way that anyone is real, but therefore the site is, as other have mentioned, favouring a certain type of "real" girls. As opposed to made up plastic dolls, now the favouritism is amongst tattooed, pierced, indie/rock/urban/street kids. It's stereotyping one way or another.
To be fair, the objectification of women in this site is not as evident. As they do not fullfill the stereotypical characteristics of a subjected female, it must seem they are empowered and in control of their bodies to pose for such a site. Which isn't true. They are payed. The owners get profit, the viewers get wanking material. What more do you need to be convinced that this objectifies women?
FInally, I have to say I like SG girls jsut as I like porn. To give an insight, I have to admit whenever I see a real jem of a girl, someone who is really beautiful (like Mary of SG) I always feel bad as if they should be beyond this. Logically, it's a flawed argument, but instinctively it means I feel that pornography and SG are, in fact, degrading.
__________________
-poor is the man whose pleasure depends on the permission of another-
|