Piers Morgan bashes Emily Ratajowsi "feminist" pics

[StrawberryBlond 14,776]

A while back, Piers criticised Kim Kardashian's naked selfie and now he's doing the same for Emily's photoshoot for LOVE magazine. But he also makes a great piece about how the concept of feminism has become so warped in modern society and how women are selling themselves so short by claiming they do this stuff in the name of feminism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5195013/PIERS-MORGAN-Emily-naked-spaghetti-NOT-empowering.html

I'm a feminist and I think he's spot on. If women want to put themselves out there sexually, at least have the grace to be honest about why you're doing it - for the approval of men, for other women to be envious of you and for money. But of course, those reasons don't go down well, so use the excuse of feminist expression. I implore you to watch the video of the shoot, not just the pics. Other celebrities did some too and they're so cringey, from the expressions to the background music, you'd think it was parody. They have the cheek to do this in an attempt to encourage women to be literally strong, even pulling a flexing muscles pose at the end. Because covering yourself in spaghetti is totally an example of strength. Women, show how empowered you are by displaying your intelligence, talent, kindness, strength, hard work and resilience. Not by turning yourself into a sex object. This isn't feminism, it's narcissism.

[ZiggyZiggs 30,058]

if this was a guy, he wouldn't be complaining rn. people wouldn't even care  let them do what they want y does he care  he just wants attention

edit: lmao she never even said the photoshoot was promoting 'feminism' what is he talking about take several seats  

[BLACKOUTbritney 22,352]

Why is it always fat little men criticising beautiful women who wouldn't even take a second glance at them

 

[Chromatislaps 34,838]

I'm here for JK Rowling draggin Piers to the pits again  

[Wolf Boy 3,223]

27 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

I'm a feminist and I think he's spot on. If women want to put themselves out there sexually, at least have the grace to be honest about why you're doing it - for the approval of men, for other women to be envious of you and for money. But of course, those reasons don't go down well, so use the excuse of feminist expression. I implore you to watch the video of the shoot, not just the pics. Other celebrities did some too and they're so cringey, from the expressions to the background music, you'd think it was parody. They have the cheek to do this in an attempt to encourage women to be literally strong, even pulling a flexing muscles pose at the end. Because covering yourself in spaghetti is totally an example of strength. Women, show how empowered you are by displaying your intelligence, talent, kindness, strength, hard work and resilience. Not by turning yourself into a sex object. This isn't feminism, it's narcissism.

You should probably showcase some of that kindness yourself instead of writing that awful, judgmental and misogynistic garbage you wrote there.

It may not be your idea of strength, but you really have some high horse you’re sitting on speaking on behalf of Emily and what her intentions are. Who are you to tell her how she should showcase herself? You sound just like the men who have been laying out rules and regulations on women for decades.

 Being a feminist doesn’t give you a free pass to be a jerk.

[rumours 45,521]

I would say that the idea of “feminism” is very much dependent on the individual. To say someone is being a “good” or “bad” feminist really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Bebe 17,067]

Piers Morgan seems totally unaware once again. Emily isn't trying to "justify it as empowering and liberating to women like she’s some modern day Pankhurst-style suffragette" like Piers is trying to pretend... She posted the pictures and said that she can still be a feminist while doing pictures like that because Feminism is at its core about choice, autonomy and freedom and even posted:

"‘I think there’s a valid argument behind the idea that sexiness is patriarchal and that’s problematic, It can be really limiting to young women who feel like that’s their self-expression; someone telling them that they can’t do that is suppressing. It’s not taking people seriously because of how they present themselves, which women get a lot more than men."

Which Piers dismisses as nonsense before literally using this advertisement he did:

As evidence that he thinks there is nothing wrong with either his picture or hers, although for some reason it disqualifies Emily Ratajkowski as a feminist or from being able to talk about feminism while he can still be some kind of authorial voice on the subject. No doubt kind of proving her above point that women don't get taken seriously due to how they choose to present themselves, which is something men don't have to deal with.

I think there are a lot of fair criticisms to be made about the photoshoot, about how she is objectified, about how she is portrayed as something consumable like the food - but this seems to mostly just be woman bashing. Emily can showcase her body however she feels appropriate, I think people can question the merits of the photograph, I think people can question whether or not it's a great representation of women - but bashing the model seems counterintuitive, if you think the photo is problematic why bash the objectified rather than the objectifier? Instead, why not focus on LOVE magazine for relying on boring, old sexist tropes in order to sell their magazine? It is their concept after all. Emily is an underwear model, her employment kinda relies on these kind of photoshoots.

I like Susanna Reid's response:

"a) she’s a model who earns her living by wearing underwear b) this photoshoot was in keeping with her employment c) she says men judge women by their sexual appearance - so she herself was exaggerating that image as an act of defiance."

I mean after posting that photograph of himself, Piers Morgan continues to rant about how Emily shouldn't be taken seriously with no self awareness:


"If you look up ‘feminism’ in the dictionary, it is defined: ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.’  How exactly does writhing naked in spaghetti fit in with this ideal? What does it have to do with equality? A man would be mocked for a similar stunt"

Except you clearly haven't been mocked to the same degree for your Burger King photoshoot... I don't remember Emily Ratajkowski writing up an entire piece ridiculing you.

[Zazekina 785]

Piers' job is giving negative opinions about anybody. I really don't care about women/people getting naked. If someone wants attention by taking their clothes off, they're free to do it so, besides I really believe he get's paid to talk about these celebrities, lol. Any promo is good promo.

[StrawberryBlond 14,776]

17 hours ago, ZiggyZiggs said:

if this was a guy, he wouldn't be complaining rn. people wouldn't even care  let them do what they want y does he care  he just wants attention

edit: lmao she never even said the photoshoot was promoting 'feminism' what is he talking about take several seats  

Of course he'd complain. He's made it clear that anyone doing such a shoot makes them look ridiculous. Straight men are hardly here for men objectifying themselves. In Britain, men call them "w*nkers" and look down upon them. Because it's the accepted wisdom that men should not objectify themselves, for they are strong and confident enough in themselves not to require that. But it is the accepted wisdom that a woman should get it all out. The world is made by men, for men. That's why there's such a divide on this issue between genders.

The whole photoshoot's theme was feminism. The entire calendar is built around the concept of female strength and empowerment, hence why she does the flexing muscle pose at the end and says "stay strong." Bella Hadid did another shoot for the same calendar where she hit a tyre with a sledgehammer while dressed in lingerie while words about female strength were spoken in the background. The whole shoot is based around the concept of "hot women doing vaguely sexy things while in lingerie for the approval of men." No feminism here, just another product for men that was sold to these hapless models as empowerment.

17 hours ago, BLACKOUTbritney said:

Why is it always fat little men criticising beautiful women who wouldn't even take a second glance at them

You're missing the point. To jump to that predictable sentiment is a classic way to end an argument when you don't like the way it's going. Instead of engaging with his argument, you choose to just end it, which is very predictable. What does it matter what the guy who's criticising her looks like? This isn't to do with looks, it's about how women project themselves, how the world sees them and what this means for womenkind. And frankly, men have a better handle on that some modern feminists do. It's like the biggest misogynist sold modern feminism to women with things like objectification marketed as empowerment and is rubbing his hands in glee at how stupid women were to fall for it. I'm trying to wake women up from this illusion they've been sold.

17 hours ago, Wolf Boy said:

You should probably showcase some of that kindness yourself instead of writing that awful, judgmental and misogynistic garbage you wrote there.

It may not be your idea of strength, but you really have some high horse you’re sitting on speaking on behalf of Emily and what her intentions are. Who are you to tell her how she should showcase herself? You sound just like the men who have been laying out rules and regulations on women for decades.

 Being a feminist doesn’t give you a free pass to be a jerk.

How typical. A man telling a woman what she can and can't feel and write. Isn't that the most ironic thing during a feminist discussion? Being a feminist doesn't mean we should support all women.

What do you mean, it's not my idea of strength? No sane person thinks covering yourself in spaghetti is a display of physical strength. A man certainly wouldn't regard this as strength either. Are you serious?! It's not so much that I'm telling Emily how she should showcase herself, she has a right to do what she wants, I just want her to cut the BS and not claim it's in the name of feminism. Too many women confuse having fun and being sexy with empowerment. They're not the same thing. Empowerment comes from achievements, not from just being your natural self and all-round frivolity.

You say I'm helping perpetuate the same rules and regulations men have? Uh, no. I'm not demanding that women strip off and be sexualised at every turn, instead I'm for them indulging in their sexuality in private in non-exploitative ways and vouching for classy sexuality in public. It's once again, another typical refrain from a man, telling a woman that the way she thinks is right or wrong because you've been taught to believe that you know what's best. If you want to be a good feminist, the first step you could take is not calling them names when they disagree with you. And perhaps use a female orientated insult if needs must?

By the way, @ryanripley, I notice you liked his comment and considering you've been so against my criticism of race issues in the past because I'm white and therefore have no authority to speak on the subject according to you, why do you think a man telling me, a woman, if my views of feminism are acceptable or not is ok? Why do you applaud a man being rude to a woman if you believe in feminism so much? I just think it's odd how some oppressed groups should be immune to criticism according to you and yet you don't seem to think women should be a part of that respect (or at least, I shouldn't anyway, because you don't like me). So much for saying that when an oppressed person is speaking, you should listen to them, huh?

17 hours ago, Rumours1977 said:

I would say that the idea of “feminism” is very much dependent on the individual. To say someone is being a “good” or “bad” feminist really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

See, this is what makes feminism such a tricky terrain and why it struggles to be taken seriously in the modern age. There are all different types of feminists and we can't decide what's the best way to go about everything. But I think this idea of you can't criticise what a good or bad feminist is again comes from men - it's just a distraction and a way to encourage us to leave the movement. I don't care if we don't all think alike. But what most feminists believe is that a woman who has a career through which getting approval from men is what she does for a living, is no feminist. I live by the idea: "If a man wouldn't do it, I'm not doing it either." Men don't parade around in their underwear as a means to attaining power, believing it to be degrading. So I'm not doing it either. After all, if they can't respect men for doing that, why would they respect women for it? If getting respect from men is the ultimate goal, maybe we need to do stuff that commands respect?

17 hours ago, Bebe said:

Piers Morgan seems totally unaware once again. Emily isn't trying to "justify it as empowering and liberating to women like she’s some modern day Pankhurst-style suffragette" like Piers is trying to pretend... She posted the pictures and said that she can still be a feminist while doing pictures like that because Feminism is at its core about choice, autonomy and freedom and even posted:

"‘I think there’s a valid argument behind the idea that sexiness is patriarchal and that’s problematic, It can be really limiting to young women who feel like that’s their self-expression; someone telling them that they can’t do that is suppressing. It’s not taking people seriously because of how they present themselves, which women get a lot more than men."

Which Piers dismisses as nonsense before literally using this advertisement he did:

As evidence that he thinks there is nothing wrong with either his picture or hers, although for some reason it disqualifies Emily Ratajkowski as a feminist or from being able to talk about feminism while he can still be some kind of authorial voice on the subject. No doubt kind of proving her above point that women don't get taken seriously due to how they choose to present themselves, which is something men don't have to deal with.

I think there are a lot of fair criticisms to be made about the photoshoot, about how she is objectified, about how she is portrayed as something consumable like the food - but this seems to mostly just be woman bashing. Emily can showcase her body however she feels appropriate, I think people can question the merits of the photograph, I think people can question whether or not it's a great representation of women - but bashing the model seems counterintuitive, if you think the photo is problematic why bash the objectified rather than the objectifier? Instead, why not focus on LOVE magazine for relying on boring, old sexist tropes in order to sell their magazine? It is their concept after all. Emily is an underwear model, her employment kinda relies on these kind of photoshoots.

I like Susanna Reid's response:

"a) she’s a model who earns her living by wearing underwear b) this photoshoot was in keeping with her employment c) she says men judge women by their sexual appearance - so she herself was exaggerating that image as an act of defiance."

I mean after posting that photograph of himself, Piers Morgan continues to rant about how Emily shouldn't be taken seriously with no self awareness:


"If you look up ‘feminism’ in the dictionary, it is defined: ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.’  How exactly does writhing naked in spaghetti fit in with this ideal? What does it have to do with equality? A man would be mocked for a similar stunt"

Except you clearly haven't been mocked to the same degree for your Burger King photoshoot... I don't remember Emily Ratajkowski writing up an entire piece ridiculing you.

No, he's totally self-aware, which Emily is sadly lacking. You just think he's unaware because you disagree. As soon as you put the word "feminist" on something, you've politically charged whatever it is. Feminism is not a word to be thrown around, it means big things and should be used carefully and appropriately. You've missed the point as to why Piers used the image of himself - his point was that when men sexualise themselves, they're never taken seriously and for good reason. It's usually a display of comedy when they do it. But the same images are viewed very differently when women do them. It's like the old adage: "man stripping = funny, woman stripping = hot." You see women at Chippendale shows laughing their heads off and treating it as a jolly good night out, but men in strip clubs sit silently and seriously as this is a deeply erotic experience for them. That right there proves the extreme lack of communication between the sexes on this front. I really hate the double standard of how male stripping will never be in the same demand as female stripping is, that sexuality is mostly optional for men but is highly encouraged for women, how men aren't routinely objectified but it's still perfectly acceptable to make women perform sexually like animals in the zoo.

As I was saying at the very first reply, men look down on other men who choose to objectify themselves. Yet, when women do it, we're encouraged to be all: "You go girl," which is very unusual. Especially when straight women are applauding other straight women for being sexual. We are encouraged by society to sexualise ourselves, even around other women whereas men are taught not to bring that side of them out in public as it's undignified. It infuriates me how men are socialised into being dignified and being sexy while remaining clothed while a woman isn't allowed that. It's no wonder that sexiness is only perceived to be worthwhile in its most overt, explicit form when it comes to women. Yet, men can wear a snappy suit and still be considered hot as hell. Perhaps it's high time we encouraged men to have better imaginations and stopped handing it to them on a silver platter seeing as they don't pay us the same courtesy?

He's not bashing her, rather the philosophy she subscribes to. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's a man criticising a woman, you're getting up in arms. I hate to break it to you, but this is how things will operate in an equal world. Women will be held just as accountable and judged as harshly as men. Feminism doesn't mean women will be exempt from criticism. Modern feminism has unfortunately encouraged arrogance and entitlement in women and its very off-putting. A man's opinion is worth just as much as a woman's in my eyes, so Piers is fine to put forward his opinion on how a woman does feminism. A lot of people have got angry at LOVE for coming up with the idea of the shoot, if you perhaps read the comments, which got a lot of thumbs up. But going back to the "blame the root of the problem" trope isn't actually as simple or as convenient as you'd like to think. Sure, I'm annoyed that publications are putting forward these concepts to models, but there's no realistic way of stopping it, unless we're talking censorship and most of us don't want that. There will always be a demand for smut, it's a natural impulse, you can't stop a publication run by men to stop doing things like this. But have you ever thought that a way of getting rid of it is for the models to refuse these jobs and state that they think they're too degrading? Sure, they miss out on a job but if the next model refuses and the next, eventually, the shoot's going to have to be completely changed to a way that reflects the model's preferences in order for the publication to survive. Demand respect and you're much more likely to be treated with it. As long as women continue to consent to such degrading shoots, the creators of them will think female objectification is normal and acceptable. Challenge the norm by saying no and the industry will eventually have to change.

Susanna has also missed the point as she's clearly fallen right into the "as long as a woman chooses to do it, it must be empowering" trap. You can be an underwear model and do classy shoots. Check out the massive posters in clothing stores lingerie department for proof of that. I mean, just stand/lie there and be yourself. But don't suggestively spread your legs, lick your finger and spread creamy looking food over yourself. There's modelling lingerie...and then there's doing softcore p*rn. And that last bit really made me laugh - exaggerating the image of being judged sexually as an act of defiance! Well, isn't that bloody convenient! It's stuff like this that makes me understand why modern feminism is a joke to so many. Being provocatively sexual isn't an act of defiance, it's an act of submission to the accepted culture. It's doing exactly what men want you to do. It's ironic how being overtly sexual is marketed as cool and edgy when it's all been done before, we've seen it all. Want to be defiant? Do a lingerie shoot with your clothes on! Now that would be defiant!

People accept that the photo of Piers is for comedy value. As I said previously, we understand this because men rarely objectify themselves like this unless it's for comedy. Such an image isn't designed to genuinely appeal to women, it's just a laugh. Women are held to a different standard and are expected to do sexuality seriously in a way that specifically designed to turn men on, it seems impossible to do female sexuality for comedy. If you want an equal society, why can't an almost naked woman be a funny image as well?

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

By the way, @ryanripley, I notice you liked his comment and considering you've been so against my criticism of race issues in the past because I'm white and therefore have no authority to speak on the subject according to you, why do you think a man telling me, a woman, if my views of feminism are acceptable or not is ok? Why do you applaud a man being rude to a woman if you believe in feminism so much? I just think it's odd how some oppressed groups should be immune to criticism according to you and yet you don't seem to think women should be a part of that respect (or at least, I shouldn't anyway, because you don't like me). So much for saying that when an oppressed person is speaking, you should listen to them, huh?

i'm not in the mood for essays of backwards and forwards, tag another member who's been liking the comments

[Bebe 17,067]

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No, he's totally self-aware, which Emily is sadly lacking. You just think he's unaware because you disagree. As soon as you put the word "feminist" on something, you've politically charged whatever it is. Feminism is not a word to be thrown around, it means big things and should be used carefully and appropriately. You've missed the point as to why Piers used the image of himself - his point was that when men sexualise themselves, they're never taken seriously and for good reason. It's usually a display of comedy when they do it. But the same images are viewed very differently when women do them. It's like the old adage: "man stripping = funny, woman stripping = hot." You see women at Chippendale shows laughing their heads off and treating it as a jolly good night out, but men in strip clubs sit silently and seriously as this is a deeply erotic experience for them. That right there proves the extreme lack of communication between the sexes on this front. I really hate the double standard of how male stripping will never be in the same demand as female stripping is, that sexuality is mostly optional for men but is highly encouraged for women, how men aren't routinely objectified but it's still perfectly acceptable to make women perform sexually like animals in the zoo.

As I was saying at the very first reply, men look down on other men who choose to objectify themselves. Yet, when women do it, we're encouraged to be all: "You go girl," which is very unusual. Especially when straight women are applauding other straight women for being sexual. We are encouraged by society to sexualise ourselves, even around other women whereas men are taught not to bring that side of them out in public as it's undignified. It infuriates me how men are socialised into being dignified and being sexy while remaining clothed while a woman isn't allowed that. It's no wonder that sexiness is only perceived to be worthwhile in its most overt, explicit form when it comes to women. Yet, men can wear a snappy suit and still be considered hot as hell. Perhaps it's high time we encouraged men to have better imaginations and stopped handing it to them on a silver platter seeing as they don't pay us the same courtesy?

He's not bashing her, rather the philosophy she subscribes to. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's a man criticising a woman, you're getting up in arms. I hate to break it to you, but this is how things will operate in an equal world. Women will be held just as accountable and judged as harshly as men. Feminism doesn't mean women will be exempt from criticism. Modern feminism has unfortunately encouraged arrogance and entitlement in women and its very off-putting. A man's opinion is worth just as much as a woman's in my eyes, so Piers is fine to put forward his opinion on how a woman does feminism. A lot of people have got angry at LOVE for coming up with the idea of the shoot, if you perhaps read the comments, which got a lot of thumbs up. But going back to the "blame the root of the problem" trope isn't actually as simple or as convenient as you'd like to think. Sure, I'm annoyed that publications are putting forward these concepts to models, but there's no realistic way of stopping it, unless we're talking censorship and most of us don't want that. There will always be a demand for smut, it's a natural impulse, you can't stop a publication run by men to stop doing things like this. But have you ever thought that a way of getting rid of it is for the models to refuse these jobs and state that they think they're too degrading? Sure, they miss out on a job but if the next model refuses and the next, eventually, the shoot's going to have to be completely changed to a way that reflects the model's preferences in order for the publication to survive. Demand respect and you're much more likely to be treated with it. As long as women continue to consent to such degrading shoots, the creators of them will think female objectification is normal and acceptable. Challenge the norm by saying no and the industry will eventually have to change.

Susanna has also missed the point as she's clearly fallen right into the "as long as a woman chooses to do it, it must be empowering" trap. You can be an underwear model and do classy shoots. Check out the massive posters in clothing stores lingerie department for proof of that. I mean, just stand/lie there and be yourself. But don't suggestively spread your legs, lick your finger and spread creamy looking food over yourself. There's modelling lingerie...and then there's doing softcore p*rn. And that last bit really made me laugh - exaggerating the image of being judged sexually as an act of defiance! Well, isn't that bloody convenient! It's stuff like this that makes me understand why modern feminism is a joke to so many. Being provocatively sexual isn't an act of defiance, it's an act of submission to the accepted culture. It's doing exactly what men want you to do. It's ironic how being overtly sexual is marketed as cool and edgy when it's all been done before, we've seen it all. Want to be defiant? Do a lingerie shoot with your clothes on! Now that would be defiant!

People accept that the photo of Piers is for comedy value. As I said previously, we understand this because men rarely objectify themselves like this unless it's for comedy. Such an image isn't designed to genuinely appeal to women, it's just a laugh. Women are held to a different standard and are expected to do sexuality seriously in a way that specifically designed to turn men on, it seems impossible to do female sexuality for comedy. If you want an equal society, why can't an almost naked woman be a funny image as well?

No, she's totally self-aware, which Piers is sadly lacking. You just think she's unaware because you disagree. To be very clear - Emily didn't call the photographs feminist... At all... She identified herself as a feminist and said those pictures don't negate that. 

He literally said he used the image because:

"Emily Ratajkowski made the video because she's attention-seeking and marketing her naked beauty, not feminist empowerment. I have no problem with that and have done the same, seen here"

The idea that Piers Morgan isn't taken seriously after stripping down is laughable. He is still a respected writer (on the right anyway) and I haven't seen anyone treat him differently because he stripped down.

I also don't know why you are blaming Emily for the fact that these images of men and women are viewed differently. You basically said it yourself in different words, society says when men do it then it's okay - when women do it it's not. Well cool, **** society then right?

"He's not bashing her, rather the philosophy she subscribes to. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's a man criticising a woman, you're getting up in arms. I hate to break it to you, but this is how things will operate in an equal world."

 I'm a man criticising your philosophy, you're a woman. Obviously, I don't have a problem with that.

Her philosophy, is simply "I can portray myself as sexy and still be a feminist". Piers has attacked this very notion by pretending she wrote "This particular photoshoot is feminist!!" and then essentially argued that everyone should ridicule her - despite doing the exact same thing himself.

If you have a problem with the photographs, I still don't understand why you're putting more weight on shaming the woman - when she is just doing her job and expressing herself freely without limitations and despite what a patriarchal society might judge her as for doing so. Why not criticise LOVE magazine who actually came up with the concept? Who are the ones in charge?

"You can't stop a publication run by men to stop doing things like this. But have you ever thought that a way of getting rid of it is for the models to refuse these jobs and state that they think they're too degrading? Sure, they miss out on a job but if the next model refuses and the next, eventually, the shoot's going to have to be completely changed "

I like how you basically say "Well there is always going to be demand for it, and you can't change the men in top because they are always going to demand that - but what if we attack those at the bottom? The models who are just looking for work? Sure they lose out on money and might not have the luxury of just being able to choose any photoshoot they want... but still!"

I might as well just say "You can't stop female models from wanting a job, there are always going to be models willing, and even wanting, to be able to do photoshoots like this"

And the thing is I value and respect a woman's right to self autonomy and her ability to portray herself, and her body, however she feels fit. I don't think she should be forced to cover up and refuse such work due to the judgment of society, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with what she is doing  

"You can be an underwear model and do classy shoots."

Classy in terms of what society deems as acceptable vs unacceptable for women? Maybe she doesn't want to be a classy, proper, decent, 'good' girl...

"Being provocatively sexual isn't an act of defiance"

Maybe you don't feel that way, but many women do, they feel their body has been shamed, they feel like their sexuality is often degraded as unacceptable, they feel like they lose respect for being sexual beings, they feel like they lose respect for being sexual.I mean... Here you are damning her as unclassy and judging her expression of sexuality.

"It's doing exactly what men want you to do"

Except men like Piers Morgan of course, pious defender of morality. Emily said it pretty well herself:

"‘I think there’s a valid argument behind the idea that sexiness is patriarchal and that’s problematic, It can be really limiting to young women who feel like that’s their self-expression; someone telling them that they can’t do that is suppressing. It’s not taking people seriously because of how they present themselves, which women get a lot more than men."

Telling a young woman that she can't do whatever she wants to do with her body, because of societies perception of it, is suppressing her. It's removing her own autonomy. 
 
"Want to be defiant? Do a lingerie shoot with your clothes on! Now that would be defiant!"

I don't think a "lingerie shoot" with clothes on is actually a lingerie shoot. Good luck to any lingerie models who want to find work keeping their clothes on though!

If we also want to talk about the double standard in terms of how women are depicted and treated when they strip off - look no further than Piers' take down of Emily's topless photo with Kim Kardashian while he stays absolutely silent about Justin Bieber's instagram photos featuring him buck naked with his ass in full view or the flood of men taking topless photos in the bathroom showing off their body and six pack.





Gets far less heat than:





Let's not pretend that isn't true. That's exactly why many women find it "defiant" to pose for sexy shots, to be in control of their body, to represent it how they want despite the judgment they will face and the double standard in how their body will be policed.

[Whispering 18,865]

I'm a feminist and I think he is full of ****! 

[StrawberryBlond 14,776]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:10 PM, ryanripley said:

i'm not in the mood for essays of backwards and forwards, tag another member who's been liking the comments

Well, that was a predictable response. You don't even attempt to engage with me because you know you're wrong and I've called you out. You do realise that every time I see an "I can't deal with this" response, I immediately think the person knows that they're in the wrong and are stepping out because they're too embarrassed to push their point any further as they know they don't have a leg to stand on? I really wish you'd stop calling my well-thought out opinions "essays" to discredit them, it's tired and insulting. It says a lot about a person when they think a detailed explanation is so blase, it reminds me of the underachievers in school. Your gif really sums up this "I'm better than you" attitude you show to not just me but many others and it's very infuriating. It's not cool or edgy, it's just childish and rude. And why on earth would I tag a member who liked what I said? What is there to discuss about opinions that agree with mine?

On 12/21/2017 at 1:17 AM, Bebe said:

No, she's totally self-aware, which Piers is sadly lacking. You just think she's unaware because you disagree. To be very clear - Emily didn't call the photographs feminist... At all... She identified herself as a feminist and said those pictures don't negate that. 

He literally said he used the image because:

"Emily Ratajkowski made the video because she's attention-seeking and marketing her naked beauty, not feminist empowerment. I have no problem with that and have done the same, seen here"

The idea that Piers Morgan isn't taken seriously after stripping down is laughable. He is still a respected writer (on the right anyway) and I haven't seen anyone treat him differently because he stripped down.

I also don't know why you are blaming Emily for the fact that these images of men and women are viewed differently. You basically said it yourself in different words, society says when men do it then it's okay - when women do it it's not. Well cool, **** society then right?

"He's not bashing her, rather the philosophy she subscribes to. There's nothing wrong with that. Just because it's a man criticising a woman, you're getting up in arms. I hate to break it to you, but this is how things will operate in an equal world."

 I'm a man criticising your philosophy, you're a woman. Obviously, I don't have a problem with that.

Her philosophy, is simply "I can portray myself as sexy and still be a feminist". Piers has attacked this very notion by pretending she wrote "This particular photoshoot is feminist!!" and then essentially argued that everyone should ridicule her - despite doing the exact same thing himself.

If you have a problem with the photographs, I still don't understand why you're putting more weight on shaming the woman - when she is just doing her job and expressing herself freely without limitations and despite what a patriarchal society might judge her as for doing so. Why not criticise LOVE magazine who actually came up with the concept? Who are the ones in charge?

"You can't stop a publication run by men to stop doing things like this. But have you ever thought that a way of getting rid of it is for the models to refuse these jobs and state that they think they're too degrading? Sure, they miss out on a job but if the next model refuses and the next, eventually, the shoot's going to have to be completely changed "

I like how you basically say "Well there is always going to be demand for it, and you can't change the men in top because they are always going to demand that - but what if we attack those at the bottom? The models who are just looking for work? Sure they lose out on money and might not have the luxury of just being able to choose any photoshoot they want... but still!"

I might as well just say "You can't stop female models from wanting a job, there are always going to be models willing, and even wanting, to be able to do photoshoots like this"

And the thing is I value and respect a woman's right to self autonomy and her ability to portray herself, and her body, however she feels fit. I don't think she should be forced to cover up and refuse such work due to the judgment of society, I don't think there is anything morally wrong with what she is doing  

"You can be an underwear model and do classy shoots."

Classy in terms of what society deems as acceptable vs unacceptable for women? Maybe she doesn't want to be a classy, proper, decent, 'good' girl...

"Being provocatively sexual isn't an act of defiance"

Maybe you don't feel that way, but many women do, they feel their body has been shamed, they feel like their sexuality is often degraded as unacceptable, they feel like they lose respect for being sexual beings, they feel like they lose respect for being sexual.I mean... Here you are damning her as unclassy and judging her expression of sexuality.

"It's doing exactly what men want you to do"

Except men like Piers Morgan of course, pious defender of morality. Emily said it pretty well herself:

"‘I think there’s a valid argument behind the idea that sexiness is patriarchal and that’s problematic, It can be really limiting to young women who feel like that’s their self-expression; someone telling them that they can’t do that is suppressing. It’s not taking people seriously because of how they present themselves, which women get a lot more than men."

Telling a young woman that she can't do whatever she wants to do with her body, because of societies perception of it, is suppressing her. It's removing her own autonomy. 
 
"Want to be defiant? Do a lingerie shoot with your clothes on! Now that would be defiant!"

I don't think a "lingerie shoot" with clothes on is actually a lingerie shoot. Good luck to any lingerie models who want to find work keeping their clothes on though!

If we also want to talk about the double standard in terms of how women are depicted and treated when they strip off - look no further than Piers' take down of Emily's topless photo with Kim Kardashian while he stays absolutely silent about Justin Bieber's instagram photos featuring him buck naked with his ass in full view or the flood of men taking topless photos in the bathroom showing off their body and six pack.





Gets far less heat than:





Let's not pretend that isn't true. That's exactly why many women find it "defiant" to pose for sexy shots, to be in control of their body, to represent it how they want despite the judgment they will face and the double standard in how their body will be policed.

No, she's unaware in that she can't see that covering herself in spaghetti makes her look like a f***ing idiot and the exact opposite of sexy. Piers is calling out the BS that she's putting forward of how women doing stupid stuff like covering themselves in food is in any way hardcore, sexy or a perfectly reasonable way to behave. I mean, I can't even believe that I'm having a straight-faced discussion about why this entire concept is ridiculous and not empowering to women at all. Infantalisation is a big thing that has kept women back. The idea of women being so empty headed that they could only do cute poses that were reminiscent of children is something that goes years back. There was actually a male response to that 50's pin up imagery by copying the exact same poses but with men and how silly they looked. The point was that if it was a man doing the same thing, it would be funny but when it's a woman, we have to take it seriously and think she's attractive. It shows that men are always expected to portray themselves in a dignified manner but it's perfectly acceptable for women to pose with no dignity yet it's apparently empowering when they do it. If it's ridiculous when men do it, it should be equally as ridiculous when women do it, it shouldn't be something we defend as empowering. And she did say it was feminist, she said alongside her LOVE promo: "Personal choice is the core ideal in my concept of feminism. I’m tired of having to consider how I might be perceived by men if I post a sexy Instagram. I want to do what I want to do. Feminism isn’t about adjusting, it’s about freedom and choice." When Piers said what he did, she tweeted: "Lol, never said my love video was a feminist statement.’ Even though that was just the very thing she did. But then added that she did it prove that you can be sexy and a feminist. I don't know if she's that dim or just completely brainwashed.

I've already said that because Piers did it in a comedic way, he could still be respected afterwards. Piers - comedic, Emily - serious. That's why there's a difference in the treatment. But women aren't encouraged to strip off in a comedic way, which is partly why such shoots are widely scoffed at because they take themselves too seriously. It ties in to how it's considered weird for a man to be an underwear model but normal for a woman. Like it's normal for men to be dignified but it's normal for a woman to want to strip off in public and sexualise themselves. See the problem here?

I didn't say "when men do it, it's ok," I said that when men do it, they're put down by other men (if they're being serious with it) or laughed at as a bit of lighthearted fun (if they're being comedic about it). Plus, male shoots are never as explicit as female shoots, they keep much more dignified. Even when a man's in his underwear, he's still shot to look powerful. When a woman does it, she always looks vulnerable and passive. But that's not necessarily a problem of society that we can change. It's because we know what men have in their pants literally makes them powerful whereas a woman's anatomy cannot do the same damage. Men are capable of doing serious damage when they're naked, women are not. Therefore, it's extremely difficult to make almost naked women look powerful.

I'm pointing out that you don't have any problem with a man criticising a woman when it's something that you agree with. But suddenly, when it isn't, he's just another sexist talking down to women.

There are ways you can be sexy without removing your clothes and being provocative. I think it's very sad how lots of young women today are completely brainwashed into thinking that sexiness equals near nakedness, gyrating and licking phallic objects and that anything that doesn't subscribe to this bracket isn't sexuality. In their minds, sexuality only exists and is only worthwhile in its most explicit form. In fact, they think the most explicit form is the only expression of sexuality there is. Being sexy and a feminist involves indulging in the classier ways in public and keeping the raunchier side for private. Men sure do. Why shouldn't we? It's almost like women are raised to think it's their duty to be publicly sexual or something.

I've already criticised LOVE, as have many others (the shoot is nearing 1,000 dislikes on YouTube and some of the other ones have been even more disliked). But I've also added that we need to stop just calling out the root of the problem, we need to partially put the blame on those who agree to it and those who consume it. I don't think women should be blameless. Equal treatment, not special treatment.

These models are hardly at the bottom. They're some of the best paid, most famous ones in the industry. The magazine only asks the most famous ones to take part, so stop with this false image of a penniless model trying to make it in the world. They've already made it but still feel the need to degrade themselves. Do you seriously think that such sexualised shoots will continue if no women sign up for them? Society evolves to suit demand. They'll bend if they have to. I've encountered companies who have changed back to the old ways when customers stopped buying their products. I'm sure they'd do the same if employees decided to leave their jobs or never sign up in the first place. You keep a company going by keeping people happy, after all. Yeah, you could just say the rebuttal, you just said...that's precisely the problem I pointed out and refuted.

Thing is, whenever the idea of women's right to choose comes up among these women, it's always about their bodies and their sexuality. It's like they think the only choices that exist are sexual ones, which is very unfeminist in itself, thinking that women are solely defined by this stuff. If Emily believed she was just as much a feminist as she is sexy, why isn't she doing more feminist work alongside underwear modelling? Why does she never promote feminist initiatives to help battered women or girls to get an education? Why does she only ever talk about feminism when it involves sex? This is why what she's doing is morally wrong - she's using sexuality to make money and then calling it feminism to draw in feminists and thus, make more. She's monotenising feminism which is so crass as it's never about the money, it's about making change. Plus, she is, subconsciously or not, sending the message to the many young women and girls who follow her online and consume her material that this is the way to go to empower yourself and get ahead in life. Which is undeniably harmful to women.

No, I mean classy as in doing the underwear shoots the same way as men do. Just selling the product, pure and simple. No suggestive imagery or infantalisation. Maybe she doesn't want to be classy girl, but well...I have the right to judge her for that, right? I think everyone should aim to be classy, male or female.

Most women do not live in a society where their body is shamed. I'm sick of this convenient lie sold to women (usually by men). Most of the women who indulge in this "defiant" behaviour are Western women who have grown up in a free society where they have been encouraged their entire life to strip off and be sexual. So, we really need to stop with the BS. Quite frankly, I wish women would be far more vocal about about how they're encouraged to be quiet, not be assertive, never make a fuss, that arguing is unladylike, etc. Now, that is something that I've been fighting against my whole life and make a point of being defiant about. But sexuality? Nah, men have been wanting that from me for years, which is why I don't give them it. You want to see my body? You have to work for it, but not through money, through respect and love. Those who are truly proud of their bodies don't feel the need to show them off as they have nothing to prove and as they're so proud of it, they want to keep it reserved for only a select few to see. Besides, there's nothing hotter than being the girl who everyone wants but can't get and the girl who keeps mystery around her sexuality. I mean, we've been seeing it all for decades. Nakedness is nothing new. Covering up is the true defiance. I know it is because any woman who does is called a prude and told to flash some flesh. Ironically, it's sometimes women telling them this.

Piers already said he has no problem with Emily stripping off. He just says that she shouldn't do it under the guise of feminism. Just be upfront about what you do. He said on a live date on Good Morning Britain that these women have every right to do what they do, but why can't they simply post their pictures saying "look how hot I am" and just leave people to make up their own minds about them, but they shouldn't be forcing feminism into their message when it's clearly not present. It's like I said before, women are confusing fun and being sexy with empowerment. They're not the same thing.

Emily's statement is all over the place, she isn't making sense, there should perhaps be a "but" after "problematic." It isn't clear what she's actually defending here and what expression of sexuality she's defending. Added in to that earlier moment where she claimed she said nothing about feminism when she did, I'm questioning her intelligence here. And in what world are men accepted for doing the same thing she is? They're held to the societal perceptions as well, just different ones. And one of those is that covering yourself in spaghetti in your underwear is not an acceptable thing for a man to do. But if you're a woman, go ahead, it's your duty to be sexual!

I'm making the point that there's nothing defiant about doing exactly what's expected of you in a lingerie shoot. This is another example of the brainwashed element of "owning your body" when you're a woman. That doesn't transpire as "must expose yourself at all times."

Now you're really losing me. You seriously think male and female sexuality is the same? I've been over this many times, it blows my mind how I have to explain this in modern society. Male chests are not sexualised or censored in the way that women's are, so it's no big deal for them to get their chests out. And as I said previously, men can look powerful in their underwear because of their anatomy, whereas women, with their smaller frames and submissive anatomy, simply cannot look powerful stripped down. There's also a much bigger market and demand for scantily clad women than men, hence the huge amounts of female strip clubs around but men are reserved to a touring Chippendale show. When men do a topless selfie, they're showing off the result of their fitness regime, displaying how strong they are. When women do a topless selfie, it is nothing to do with that, it's about showing how sexual they are. It's about reducing themselves to a sex object, no matter what they claim. I don't even get why they cover their breasts with their hands or censor themselves. I know Twitter doesn't allow nudity but in that case, don't do it on Twitter, do it in a magazine or something, where you have free reign. What's the point in trying to provocative if you don't even show it all? I once considered doing such a selfie several years ago...but immediately feared someone could hack into my phone and my relations might accidentally see it (and no one was going to see it anyway, so it was pointless self-congratulation). So, I never did. I wish more women would have the same thought process. Half naked selfies are utterly pointless, narcissistic, self-objectification. No one should be encouraged to do this, I'm equally as harsh on men and women who do it.

[ryanripley 86,575]

2 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, that was a predictable response. You don't even attempt to engage with me because you know you're wrong and I've called you out. You do realise that every time I see an "I can't deal with this" response, I immediately think the person knows that they're in the wrong and are stepping out because they're too embarrassed to push their point any further as they know they don't have a leg to stand on? I really wish you'd stop calling my well-thought out opinions "essays" to discredit them, it's tired and insulting. It says a lot about a person when they think a detailed explanation is so blase, it reminds me of the underachievers in school. Your gif really sums up this "I'm better than you" attitude you show to not just me but many others and it's very infuriating. It's not cool or edgy, it's just childish and rude. And why on earth would I tag a member who liked what I said? What is there to discuss about opinions that agree with mine?

no, strawberryblond, i'm just not in the mood to debate with you

you can think i'm wrong, i really don't care. it's 2 am here, good luck in your debate with other users

[Bebe 17,067]

8 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

Just a couple of points because I can't be dragged into another one of our extended debates:

"No, she's unaware in that she can't see that covering herself in spaghetti makes her look like a f***ing idiot and the exact opposite of sexy. Piers is calling out the BS that she's putting forward of how women doing stupid stuff like covering themselves in food is in any way hardcore, sexy or a perfectly reasonable way to behave. I mean, I can't even believe that I'm having a straight-faced discussion about why this entire concept is ridiculous and not empowering to women at all."

Not arguing that this photoshoot empowers all women. Neither is Emily. I've actually already laid out a few of the reasons why I find the shoot stale and what I find problematic. The argument I'm having is that this can be empowering for her, it doesn't negate her being a feminist and she shouldn't be shamed for expressing herself in that way - it's her body, her choice, she can represent herself how she feels fit.

"and she did say it was feminist, she said alongside her LOVE promo: "Personal choice is the core ideal in my concept of feminism. I’m tired of having to consider how I might be perceived by men if I post a sexy Instagram. I want to do what I want to do. Feminism isn’t about adjusting, it’s about freedom and choice." When Piers said what he did, she tweeted: "Lol, never said my love video was a feminist statement.’ Even though that was just the very thing she did"

She still doesn't say that the picture itself is feminist! She doesn't say it once! That's not what her original statement implies! She is basically saying that there is no contradiction in being a feminist and also participating in a photoshoot. There is a difference between saying "I have bodily autonomy, I'm free to do with I want with my body, and I want to express myself like this! And guess what! My feminism say's that's okay!" and saying "What I'm doing is explicitly feminist". It's this distinction that neither you or Piers seems to be grasping.

"Thing is, whenever the idea of women's right to choose comes up among these women, it's always about their bodies and their sexuality. It's like they think the only choices that exist are sexual ones"

No it's not, it also comes up in discussions of reproductive rights, consent and a range of issues. Emily is a model, who happens to be provocative and sexual - that's the criticisms she mostly receives so of course that's what she addresses the most.

"Most women do not live in a society where their body is shamed."

I know you like to basically claim that in the U.K there is no structural racism and that kind of stuff - but you can't seriously also pretend like the U.K there aren't particular ideals about what a woman should look like or how they should dress.

"Nah, men have been wanting that from me for years, which is why I don't give them it. You want to see my body? You have to work for it, but not through money, through respect and love. Those who are truly proud of their bodies don't feel the need to show them off as they have nothing to prove and as they're so proud of it, they want to keep it reserved for only a select few to see."

But see that's the kind of judgment I feel is in pretty poor taste. You have every right to make the choice to stay covered up - that choice is perfectly valid and great - but there are plenty of women who are proud and comfortable in their body and don't mind showing off skin. How unfair would it be if I said something like "Well, those who are truly comfortable with their body have no hang ups with their body and have no problem with stripping down!"? I don't believe that to be true, but I also don't believe what you have written is true  People are diverse and people have different levels of comfort when it comes to how they express themselves - either way is valid. You feel empowered and defiant when you cover up! Brilliant! I won't judge that, I won't argue against that. I'm also not going to judge or argue against women who feel empowered and defiant when they express their sexuality in a different way to you.

"Covering up is the true defiance. I know it is because any woman who does is called a prude and told to flash some flesh. "

Again, glad you feel defiant when you cover up, but don't act like women aren't told to cover up when they show a little flesh. Don't start acting as if your choice should be every woman's choice or start policing other women on how they should feel. One of my closest friends is a feminist, she recently did a TED talk about image-based abuse, something she is unfortunately very familiar with. Stalkers found innocuous images of her online from facebook -not only from her page but from her friends profiles, her university, the bars she frequented all posted pictures - they even found images on her linkedin, from her media appearances (she also happens to be a chess champion) and anywhere you could imagine and edited them into ****ographic images. Her face would be taken from those images and photoshopped into images of women naked or having sex, she would wear a jumper and they would edit the picture to make it seem like it was see through - whatever they could do.

When she first went public with her story, she was immediately slut shamed and judged because she has large, natural breasts that happen to be, unavoidably, rather obvious. She was judged for wearing dresses that showed some cleavage and would cut off just above her knee. That apparently made her a 'dumb slut' who should cover up. Because she has large breasts and has skin showing - she apparently brought everything upon herself. I'll tell you right now, she occasionally feels like she wants to show off a little bit - Her body has been shamed since she started growing breasts at 13, she has constantly been told that she needs to hide her body because she happens to be naturally voluptuous. For her it is defiant when she decides "Actually, I'm not ashamed of having breasts, I'm going to show them off a little bit. Actually what happened to me wasn't in my control - I am going to wear a dress that's a little shorter". When she, like so many other women, have been told they need to cover up and look 

That's one of my largest problems with you in these discussions - just because you feel more comfortable, confident, empowered, defiant when you show less skin does not mean that every woman should behave that way. It doesn't give you the right to judge the expression of other women and decide what is personally empowering and defiant for them.

"Piers already said he has no problem with Emily stripping off. He just says that she shouldn't do it under the guise of feminism. Just be upfront about what you do."

And that's him missing the point, which I think I already covered a few paragraphs ago. She isn't doing this under 'the guise of feminism' she is an feminist, she found that shoot personally empowering and freeing and stated that it was not in contradiction with the feminism she ascribes to.

"Now you're really losing me. You seriously think male and female sexuality is the same? I've been over this many times, it blows my mind how I have to explain this in modern society. Male chests are not sexualised or censored in the way that women's are, so it's no big deal for them to get their chests out"

I never claimed that - what I said is that there is a difference in how men and women's bodies are policed - everybody is aware that male chests are not sexualised or censored in the same way that women's are. I agree that it's no big deal for them to get their chests out, but that's kinda the point... There was a time when a man's ankles where not as sexualised or censored as a woman's ankles. When Bieber was stripped down, in his undies, grabbing his crotch and biting his lip for a instagram selfie, I think that was more sexual than Emily and Kim standing proudly and flipping off the camera. It's not Bieber who gets policed for showing off his body and being sexy though  women get judged more harshly for being sexy or being sexual... We see that not only in this instance but in countless instances (Men who are players vs women who are sluts, the unfaithful husband/father who made a mistake vs the vile homewrecker who destroyed a marriage, the idiot who took **** pics vs the dumb slut who took nudes).

Women can be sexual beings, women are also diverse in the way they want to express their sexuality. I think certain magazines, like LOVE, often choose to depict only a very narrow expression of female sexuality that can be very problematic - but I wouldn't put the blame on Emily as an individual who feels comfortable expressing herself that way - I would put the blame on these magazines who only want to represent that.

The beauty industry consistently represents a very narrow and often unattainable standard of beauty. I don't blame Gigi Hadid for deciding to model on the cover of magazines with her blonde hair, blue eyes, long legs and thin frame - I blame the editors of these fashion magazines for their own poor representations. In the same way, I don't blame Emily Ratajkowski for posing in photo shoots like this that she feels empowered by, I blame the magazines that only depict women and in a very narrow and often sexualised way.