Especially disturbing is the body type of the woman in the bathtub. She looks quite a bit younger than she probably is, making it look as if Pattinson is with a young teen or pre-teen in the tub. Her hands arranged make it look as if she is tied or cuffed, implying nonconsent. It's all quite icky.

"I'm allergic to vagina therefore I will not actively engage with any women in my presence because women are only their vaginas and nothing else!"

*sigh*

Way to be a douche.

They can slather as much facial hair and drape all the naked women on him they want, but that doesn't change for a second the fact that millions of American women and girls are getting off on this androgynous, pretty-boy heart throb. Trying to masculinize Robert Pattinson to make men feel better reeks of desperation, self-delusion and failure. It's hilarious that what many young women want is this threatening to masculinity! And, of course, just goes to show that hegemonic masculinity isn't about pleasing women, but subordinating them to props to assert male dominance.

Why does the suggestion of bondage imply non-consent? Lots of women and men enjoy consensual acts of submission. What if the roles were reverse and the man was in the bathtub with has hands over his head, would it seem like he was about to be violated?

Some men can't help the fact that they are masculine. They are born destined to be broad-shouldered and hairy. I don't see how a man's masculine appearance subordinates women. This is the same judging by appearance that many women complain about. The same goes for thinking that because a man appears androgynous that he would not be predatorial in the same way that you imagine and stereotype a masculine man as always being.

Looking at these photos, I too am struck by the perceived indifference on the part of the male. Doesn't this imply he might be gay - a typically emasculating trait? Or is his disinterest a cue that he's overcome his primal urges - a form of dominance over nature? Why is masculinity being associated with Italian suits and Victorian furniture? Or is this just about framing masculinity by the level of dominance over women?

Some of these answers may lie in the fact that Details *magazine* is catering to its demographic, which may be sportcoat-clad white collar-aspiring males who aren't particularly suited for manual labor (traditionally masculine) and are now seeking a new definition of masculinity that doesn't include blue-collar attributes.

That was a long sentence.

The bathtub photo is gone - apparently violates some photobucket TOS?

I am of the opinion that the whole fashion industry objectifies women, so seeing something like this in a magazine is not surprising. Women are basically living posable coat hangers, and if their figure deviates from the cookie-cutter ideal, it's a reminder that these are actually human beings and not mannequins.

I also read somewhere that being "allergic" to vagina was actually supposed to mean that he was turned on by it, because an allergic reaction involves swelling and whatnot.

I was happy to see this because when I saw the magazine at B&N I actually took a picture of it with my phone to send it in to you but kept forgetting. :)

I think it best to use the word "dehumanization" rather than "objectification." The latter simply doesn't describe what is happening: a human being is being denied her humanity. It leaves us with questions, like, "What is being turned into an object?" and "Why is being an object bad?" With "dehumanization," you simply don't have that inherent vagueness; instead, you have a potent framing that condemns the act. That's why when we denounce all other forms of bigotry we use that word. Only when it comes to denouncing misogynistic bigotry do we use "objectification."

The same is true with regards to the word "disrespect." Homophobia, racism, and antisemitism are all rightfully called out as "hate," "intolerance," and "bigotry," but with misogyny it's the one form of extremism that is never called by it's name, instead being trivialized as generic "disrespect," "vulgarity," "crassness," or "raunchiness."

is not the only way to perform masculinity;
============
I think gender performance is only a part of gender, another big part of gender is expression.

Does he mean 'disinterested' or 'uninterested'? Does he speak English?

Then again, look at the two homosexual/bisexual women in one of the pictures! And some of the photos feature threesomes! How evolved! And this is the same magazine that featured Lambert in all his bisexual idiocy not too long ago. How can it be that they are misogynist? I thought people who normalize homosexuality were more evolved than the rest of humanity, like so superior.

So if this magazine treats women like crap, but certainly normalizes homosexuality/bisexuality, and as an added bonus they normalize threesomes too, which particular dandy label do bright sociologists apply to the editors? If people who do not normalize homosexuality are the "haters," is this magazine the "loving?" The misogynist loving ones? I am confused as per what is the correct one-dimensional label term to be used here. Additionally, are people who normalize threesomes the loving or the haters?

One thing is certain, as this photo essay shows, when we observe society, we note that many people who normalize homosexuality turn out to have such crappy minds.

Um...portraying girl-on-girl action for male viewing pleasure is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Definitely part of Objectification 101.

Showing (quite possibly straight) women performing lesbianism for the male gaze isn't the same as celebrating lesbianism and bisexuality. In fact, most queer women I've talked to (myself included) find it disrespectful, because it creates an expectation that girls kiss girls to get attention from boys...not because they just want to kiss a hot girl.

For a more eloquent--and funnier--explanation of this phenomenon, check out this video:

http://current.com/items/90732681_thats-gay-lady-kisses.htm

... Masculinisation of the American man? Isn't Pattinson a Brit?

The set up is designed to convey the message that women (however beautiful or obedient) are completely disposable.

I have been reading this stuff since the mid-1970s. Some things never change. Two-thirds of women under 40 have their nude pictures online today. It's voluntary. Let women be women. Move on.

Simone 6:14 pm on March 18, 2010 | #

Last time I checked, being homosexual isn’t a “mindset.” It is the state of being sexually or romantically attracted to members of the same sex.

What exactly is violent about that?

I am reasonably sure the crushes I’ve had on female friends and colleagues haven’t done anyone bodily harm.
===============
You are asking the wrong question and it implies a very ignorant, simplistic concept for human sexuality. You can ask the question above ("What exactly is violent about that?") about any type of attraction and get the same stupid (read propaganda) answer.

What is violent about feeling attraction to a horse or a child in itself?

If you define as "violent" as an action in terms of behavior towards others, simply the feeling of attraction itself is not violent. But you are clearly making a stupid construction of the problem of violence and dysfunctionality.

Secondly, since romantic or sexual attraction is a *product* shaped by every type of possible mental, psychological, social and ethical problem humans can display, it's this entire sphere of sexuality that needs to be examined, and not the myopic selection of looking only at whatever type of attraction it is. Why is there a certain type of attraction in the first place, and what does the person do with it? In case you haven't noticed, if you expand the questioning from your stupid question to include these much more complex questions, we begin to demand more answers and knowledge concerning all the problems we have in human sexuality.

Third, related to violence, thought processes themselves can be perverse and the foundation for violence, even if they are obviously not physical actions affecting someone else's body. And non-verbal behavior (which is different than a simple thought) can also be "violent" (on an emotional level) in cases, for example, where it does not include physical contact. This is just a note to complement the issue of separating the internal from external sphere above.

Fourth, unless you are positing your alleged experience as to be the only experience on earth for anyone with a homosexual mindset, you're just making a simplistic, ignorant, bigoted generalization.

All I can say is: typical.

@Simone:
Last time I checked, being homosexual isn’t a “mindset.” It is the state of being sexually or romantically attracted to members of the same sex.
=============
Last and every time I checked, the state of sexual or romantic attraction to members of the same sex is produced by a homosexual or bisexual mindset.

@ketchup:
And non-verbal behavior (which is different than a simple thought) can also be "violent" (on an emotional level) in cases, for example, where it does not include physical contact.
============
This was badly phrased. Easier to give an example: a man stare's at a women's chest in a harassing context. There's no body contact, yet it is still an act of aggression.

...a man stares at a woman’s chest...

@Simone:
If you’re firmly committed to hating queers, and to living in a fantasy world where everyone who’s ever had a same-sex crush is a rapist and a child molester, I probably can’t stop you.

It just makes me sad that there is still so much hate in the world.
============
What is really sad is that, averaging it out, one in five people have been and will continue to be subjected to some kind of sexual abuse in the world (and the perpetrators are homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual). And all you do is lie about it and smear people who are not going to go along with your completely delusional picture of reality which erases every single case where the perpetrator of anything has a homosexual mindset.

It does upset me that you have such selfish, irresponsible views, and that its these views multiplied by millions of people which creates this ugly reality.

And, after doing all of this, you call people who aren't silent on how much sexual violence there exists "haters," and put yourself on some stupid "non-hater" category.

It couldn't all be more twisted.

Simone 4:23 pm on March 20, 2010 | # | Reply

I am all for efforts to prevent sexual assault.

Sexual assault is a bad thing.

The vast, vast majority (about 90%) of sexual assault victims are women, and the vast majority of those are raped by men.

So if you really want to stop rape, homosexuals are probably the least of your worries.
=========
It would be best if you discovered some day that "sexual assault" is not the only harmful problem related to sexuality that exists in the world. I'm guessing by your ignorant comment that you equate "sexual assault" to adult rape. Harmful problems concerning sexuality go way beyond assault and include everything I have mentioned so far, plus others.

Given that I don't have this myopic, ignorant view that you have about the world, where ONLY rape exists as a problem related to sexuality, your advice is for ignorant people. I am interested in having a much more peaceful world, and that certainly includes calling on people like you for all your harmful lies and distortions about sexuality. It is unfortunate that you live in a ultra-privileged little environment that allows you to be blind and irresponsible concerning all the harmful interactions aside from "rape."

Second, assault and harassment do not happen in a vacuum. They are behavioral products profoundly shaped by culture. And it's this current culture that normalizes pornography, S&M, homosexuality, sexual objectification and the denial and negligence of sexual violence that profoundly contributes to the mass violence results.

"The vast, vast majority (about 90%) of sexual assault victims are women, and the vast majority of those are raped by men."

Wrong. The vast majority of sexual assault victims are minors (about 60%), not adults. About 20% of victims are in their 20s, and less than 20% are older. Some figures indicate 30% of child sexual abuse perpetrators are juveniles (not men). Direct assault is not the only criminal action that exists concerning assault of minors. Women are often enablers of male assault of children, by siding with the abuser while knowing full well the abuse is going on or has happened.

This little stereotype that, concerning child abuse, men are bad and women are good is a bunch of BS.

Information collected from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System reveals that the 1999 sexual abuse rate was 1.6 for every 1,000 female children and 0.4 for every 1000 male children.

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Child Maltreatment,” 1999)

The estimated annual cost resulting from child abuse and neglect in the United States for 2007 is $104 billion.

==========
Domestic violence

Myth: Domestic violence doesn’t exist among same-sex couples. Fact: At least one in four gay and lesbian partners will experience domestic violence in his or her lifetime, according to the 1998 domestic violence report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects (NCAVP).

If you compare how much violence homosexuals inflict on homosexuals to so-called hate crimes based on sexual orientation, homosexuals are much more violent and vicious by a colossal majority of cases and percentages.

So before you go using your ignorant, stupid "hater" labels, read up on some information about violence in the world.

Um...straw man arguments much?

I never said domestic violence isn't a problem in the queer community. In fact, if you actually *read* what I post, you will notice lines like "some homosexual people are abusers..."

I'm sure there are homosexual people who commit a variety of sex crimes, and I believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe in creating a culture where all sex acts are accompanied by enthusiastic consent.

I'm sorry that I didn't address every possible type of sexual violence in my rape comment, but that doesn't make my point invalid. The most commonly accepted statistic says that about 10% of rape victims are male, and that most rape of women is perpetrated by men. I've seen these claims many, many times, but here's the first search I pulled up after 2 seconds of googling.

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0445.html

So yes, most rapes are committed by straight men. Does that mean that straight folks are all scary, scary sex criminals, and the "normalizing heterosexuality" is a crime against humanity?

No, it clearly does not.

Similarly, the fact that some individuals sexually abuse members of their own sex mean that all homosexuals are satanic, child-molesting perverts.

If you're so worried about same-sex abuse, then go volunteer for a gay domestic violence network. But don't pretend that the actions of some truly disturbed or truly evil people mean that homosexuality is inherently destructive.

As I've said before, I have many homosexual friends and colleagues. All of them, to the best of my knowledge, are upstanding, decent people. Several are in stable, loving relationships with members of their own sex. I myself am queer, and have had feelings for several female friends and classmates. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made anyone uncomfortable with unwanted sexual or romantic attentions; I certainly make every effort not to do so.

So if you're seriously interested in addressing issues of gay sexual abuse, then more power to you. But can you please, please, PLEASE make your arguments in a way that doesn't imply that *all* homosexuals are reprehensible, or that homosexuals are inherently violent and destructive? That's really all I ask.

Simone 4:30 pm on March 20, 2010 | # | Reply

Who cares about the source of homosexuality?
============
Anyone who is not content with just having a stupid, ignorant model for human sexuality. People who care about understanding human psychology are interested in understand the sources for homosexuality, pedophilia, S&M, etc. and anything else as a matter of fact.

Moreover, understanding the source of any expression of sexuality, plus all the problematic behaviors that humans exhibit related to sexuality is crucial to solving all the problems we currently have in society in this area. These problems are nothing but colossal.

Simone 4:27 pm on March 20, 2010 | # | Reply

If you were to post a reasoned, evidence-based discussion of same-sex sexual harrasment/violence, on a thread where is was *in any way* relevant, I doubt you would be censored.

The problem is that you instead post frothing, semi-coherent rants about a mythical “homosexual mindset”, which apparently turns all homosexuals into child-molesting perverts.

Can you see the different there?
================
Can you see the difference between having a stupid, ignorant model of human sexuality that excludes varied psychological structures of the mind and one which doesn't? I guess not.

The only person who is ranting here is you. Not being able to argue about anything that deals with the psychology of sexuality, the only thing you have resorted to doing is repeating smears in your rants about my viewpoints. I guess you don't get tired of the smear that I think all homosexuals are child-molesting perverts, do you? Frothing a lot, are you?

And on your next little rant, please explain how is it that saying that homosexuals have both a conscious part and an unconscious part of their minds entails they are all child-molesting perverts? I don't follow the logic of your smear. Can you please clarify?

@Simone
If you’re so worried about same-sex abuse, then go volunteer for a gay domestic violence network.
===========
I'm worried about all kinds of abuse, including certain types you constantly sweep under the rug, like from homosexuals or bisexuals to heterosexuals. I'm also worried about your stupid, ignorant smears any time someone talks about problematic sexual behaviors if the perpetrators are homosexual or bisexual. I'm worried about how you divide the world into two simplistic, ignorant categories of "haters" and "the loving" according to an exclusive and equally ignorant criterion of normalizing or not homosexuality.

Lying about and denying how much violence there is in the world ("most sexual interaction is between consenting adults, therefore what's the problem?") is a major part of every kind of violence related to sexuality. I don't need to go volunteer in a same-sex shelter, because there is plenty to be done right here. Your discourse and views are very harmful in themselves.

@Simone:
But don’t pretend that the actions of some truly disturbed or truly evil people mean that homosexuality is inherently destructive.
==========
Don't pretend that the world is divided into two neat categories of good and bad people, because it isn't. And your comments here certainly contribute to a lot of destruction in the world, because you have such self-serving, selfish views. Don't pretend that it's only some tiny minority of "truly evil" persons that causes problems in the world regarding sexuality (or anything else), because that's not reality either. Don't pretend that your personal experience can be cloned to the entire rest of humanity because it can't.

And most importantly, don't pretend that your smears about what I think makes any of your deluded views on sexuality even minimally realistic or responsible, because they don't.

Simone: You're clearly not stupid.

But damn, you gotta stop letting yourself get sucked into this kind of pointless discourse. You'll never get a handle on her (Ktchp's) arguments because they operate like a shell game on the street. You know the ball is under THAT shell so you point it out, then when it's turned over you see that it wasn't really there after all; "No, that's not what I was saying." It's a sleight-of-hand rhetorical trick lacking any substance beyond the underlying motivation for expending all this energy in the first place, whatever that might be. More can be learned by analyzing her desire to post her views in such a contentious context and your desire to address them than by parsing the actual arguments, at least in my experience. One very important part of finding your own happiness or living a productive life is to not dissipate your energy on fruitless pursuits.

Whenever you spot someone coming at you with a black-and-white view of culture and morality and all the rest, you can be sure you're not going to convince that person of anything at all. They aren't coming around to listen or learn, after all, so don't waste your time. Poking someone like that with a little stick now and then might be amusing, but if it isn't then don't even do that. If it dissipates you, don't do it. You will always lose a shell game.

Now where did I put my little stick? Oh, here it is! Ketchup: So you really are Ann Coulter! I knew it! Or at least you went to the Coulter School of Yadda Yadda Yadda; Sticking to your talking points no matter what and ignoring any well-reasoned evisceration of your position in a Fox News-style jackhammer assault of repetition. How... transparent.

I hope you write about me in your crappy little blog. Maybe that's where you've been addressing the arguments and points I've brought up in replies to your posts since you sure ain't addressed any of them here. I just assumed it was because you were full of hot air, ego, and self-doubt and so had no replies of any substance but it just occurred to me that you might be addressing them elsewhere. If so, you really should be careful for that way lies madness (if you haven't found it already).

@Simone:
I don't think there is a Manichean duality between "lovers" and "haters." But you don't have to see the world in black and white to recognize that extremes do exist. And you, dear Sir or Madam, are a Hater.
==========
That's one way we could qualify you. You don't call a homosexual who sexually assaults a teenager a "hater," but you call a person who does not normalize homosexuality and who never assaults anyone a "hater." You don't call a homosexual who batters their partner to death a "hater," but you call people who never batter anyone and who do not normalize homosexuality "haters." You don't call a homosexual who sexually harasses a heterosexual a hater, but you call people who never sexually harass anyone and who do not normalize homosexuality "haters." Your attitudes are completely self-serving and extremist.

@Simone:
I’d be tempted to apologize, but since you’ve called me “stupid” in your past 2,376 comments, I don’t think I’ll bother.
==========
As far as I've checked here, my objection concerns the stupidity of your *views* and all the harmful consequences that they have, especially when they are views held by millions of people, who are right now doing a lot of harm in the world.