The Conservative War On Women

Plural? Ow.

clover wrote:

Plural? Ow.

Exactly.

momgamer wrote:
clover wrote:

Plural? Ow.

Exactly. ;)

I dunno. You could make a pair of earrings out of them that would be one hell of an ice-breaker at parties.

Sometimes you just want to be sure.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/bann...

Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic. Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible “puffy” bare skin exposure.

Creepy, inappropriate, and sexist all at the same time. Home run.

heavyfeul wrote:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/02/bann...

Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare fleshy under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack. Bare sides or under curvature of the breasts is also problematic. Please avoid sheer see-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples. Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible “puffy” bare skin exposure.

Creepy, inappropriate, and sexist all at the same time. Home run.

My favorite part is if you scroll down into the comments, Jack Thompson rears his ugly head.

Even though these requirements are taking all the fun out of watching the Grammys, I would contest that they are not sexist or inappropriate -- just very specific.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Even though these requirements are taking all the fun out of watching the Grammys, I would contest that they are not sexist or inappropriate -- just very specific.

I did not read any mention of male parts. And if "puffy" parts and "female breast nipples" do not creep you out, try them out in bed sometime and see the response.

Crash. You're up (NSFW).

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Even though these requirements are taking all the fun out of watching the Grammys, I would contest that they are not sexist or inappropriate -- just very specific.

I would agree with you, except there are no correspondingly specific descriptions of where males can go afoul of their standards. And if you think there's no way they can, google moose knuckle (but not from work).

That said, I have no problem with the show telling people they shouldn't show up dressed like a coke-addled sex worker of any gender. You can be wild without being vulgar.

Have the Grammys historically had any real problem with men dressed up showing barely covered chests or pants/shorts leaving nothing but a two inch wide vertical strip covering their Ken Doll Area? I'm sure it's happened at least once, but I'm really on the fence about this being particularly sexist. This seems, to me, just a matter of their standards and practices folks being a little too specific but addressing the problem that they've historically been faced with.

Perhaps you are right. But I think the specificity of these requirements is mostly due to the part that male participants just do not tend to dress as provocatively or risque as the female ones... Or maybe they do, and you cannot swing a dead rat at Grammys without hitting a mouse knuckle or two -- and the officials are ignoring it.. This is also possible, because frankly, I don't remember when was the last time I watched the Grammys award footage.

Borat.jpg

Since these guidelines come from CBS, I assume everything will be OK if the breasts and buttocks have been viciously murdered by, like, a serial killer who was once molested by a Grammy or something, as that will just keep things congruent with their usual programing.

With the guys, it's moose knuckle and bare chests and "treasure trails" and they're all over the place. Yes, there are very different societal expectations of that, and where the line is drawn is awkward and fuzzy. But this sends the message that the guys can wear skimpy pants so tight you can tell what religion they practice but the girls can't. That's not fair. Especially when their business is skewed so hard towards using that sort of display as coinage for both genders.

I'm not a fan of trashy dressing of anyone, so I don't have much skin in this game. As I said, I'm not particularly outraged here. It's more a sigh-yet-one-more-thing.

Yeah, this is blowing something out of proportion. No matter how it's worded, we know what it's intended to prevent, and whether it's sexist or not really depends on how one feels about the underlying issue and what motivated the statement, not the statement itself which is worded in a neutral fashion in light of the fact that we treat male and female chest areas differently.

Or maybe we shouldn't, but then that's like a second-order discussion over what the standards should be in the first place, not how to express the standards.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Perhaps you are right. But I think the specificity of these requirements is mostly due to the part that male participants just do not tend to dress as provocatively or risque as the female ones... Or maybe they do, and you cannot swing a dead rat at Grammys without hitting a mouse knuckle or two -- and the officials are ignoring it.. This is also possible, because frankly, I don't remember when was the last time I watched the Grammys award footage.

: D

I think it is emblematic of our views on female sexuality and the overt display of that sexuality. We tend to see it as inherently illicit and inappropriate in multiple contexts, including artistic performances.

Overt displays of male sexuality, even deliberately offensive ones, are largely ignored and we tend to see it as sort of goofy, whether it is Borat, Howard Stern, or any number of spandex hair bands from the 80's.

Gold-sequined unisex burqas.

Two points:

1) The Grammies are a televised event, so CBS has to worry about the FCC. Sadly, as we all know, the FCC kowtows to prudes and dumbsh*ts.

2) At high-profile award shows, the men almost universally wear bland, boring tuxedos. Long standing tradition among celebrities is for the women to push the fashion envelope, which for some means daring and risque outfits. So it's no surprise to me that it mentions female parts so conspicuously. But note that the "puffy bare skin" part does not single out women, and specifically mentions bare skin, not camel toes or moose knuckles. I can't say I know what they mean by puffy skin, especially since it's in quotes.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Two points:

1) The Grammies are a televised event, so CBS has to worry about the FCC. Sadly, as we all know, the FCC kowtows to prudes and dumbsh*ts.

2) At high-profile award shows, the men almost universally wear bland, boring tuxedos. Long standing tradition among celebrities is for the women to push the fashion envelope, which for some means daring and risque outfits. So it's no surprise to me that it mentions female parts so conspicuously. But note that the "puffy bare skin" part does not single out women, and specifically mentions bare skin, not camel toes or moose knuckles. I can't say I know what they mean by puffy skin, especially since it's in quotes.

Angelina Jolie's lips will have to be censored out.

That's okay, those things scare me.

Michael Jackson grabbed his dick at the Grammys right?

The wording is tame. But Lil Kim went basically topless once.

But I can see no clearer disconnect between culture and television than here. Pop music has been burlesque, essentially for 30+ years. Cher, Madonna, Queen, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Brittney, etc. Bare chests, corsettes, fish nets, men in drag is pop music. Tv S&P is 40 years behind the times.

momgamer wrote:

so I don't have much skin in this game.

I see what you did there.

Robear wrote:
momgamer wrote:

so I don't have much skin in this game.

I see what you did there. :-)

Are you going to fine her for it?

I was thinking of applauding, myself...

heavyfeul wrote:

I think it is emblematic of our views on female sexuality and the overt display of that sexuality. We tend to see it as inherently illicit and inappropriate in multiple contexts, including artistic performances.

Overt displays of male sexuality, even deliberately offensive ones, are largely ignored and we tend to see it as sort of goofy, whether it is Borat, Howard Stern, or any number of spandex hair bands from the 80's.

I actually find the Western stance on appropriate clothing to be weirdly inconsistent, especially as it is ported and understood by the more pretentious locals in my vicinity. It's not altogether true that expressions of male sexuality are acceptable or ignored, even unintentional ones.

For instance, dress code often dictates that I wear uncomfortable clothes that cover up most of my body, often to exacting specifications. "Sleeveless" shirts are infrequently banned at the classier restaurants, but only for men. Women can go in practically naked and barefoot and no one would bat an eyelash. On the other hand, I can go topless and it would matter less than if a woman goes topless. Supposedly.

I'm not altogether clear on what kind of psychoactive drug was used to make these rules up.

Don't forget about how we have made normal physiology taboo, Larry.

My thing is. Why not just make it black tie? The problem with the Grammy's is not about shirtless men, and women in thongs. It is that there is no class. People show up in torn jeans, trucker caps, and bathing suit tops.

KingGorilla wrote:

Don't forget about how we have made normal physiology taboo, Larry.

My thing is. Why not just make it black tie? The problem with the Grammy's is not about shirtless men, and women in thongs. It is that there is no class. People show up in torn jeans, trucker caps, and bathing suit tops.

Seriously, just create a uniform for everyone, men and women.

The more things change...

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/change_zps1902fa89.jpg)

...the more they stay the same.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/same_zpse29b303a.jpg)

LarryC wrote:

For instance, dress code often dictates that I wear uncomfortable clothes that cover up most of my body, often to exacting specifications. "Sleeveless" shirts are infrequently banned at the classier restaurants, but only for men. Women can go in practically naked and barefoot and no one would bat an eyelash. On the other hand, I can go topless and it would matter less than if a woman goes topless. Supposedly.

I'm not altogether clear on what kind of psychoactive drug was used to make these rules up.

Heh, not drugs, just patriarchy. The 'classier' restaurants are status symbols. Sure the food is good, but what you're really paying for is the ability to signal to other people that you're 'classy'. Women become like that expensive dish you're eating or that expensive car you pulled up in: conspicuous consumption, like your watch and her jewelry. So the rules of obscenity change because you're in a situation where you're supposed to show her off, and one way to do that is to expose her skin.

Now, whether that's still what's operating or if these rules are just a vestigial leftover of a more patriarchal time, that's a good question. But you're right to identify that paradox of formal wear, and I'd say that's probably where it comes from.

KingGorilla wrote:

My thing is. Why not just make it black tie?

I've noticed very few women wear ties!

Quintin_Stone wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

My thing is. Why not just make it black tie?

I've noticed very few women wear ties!

Fewer still wear only ties. No class, I tell ya. KingGorilla's right! Awards shows should be black ties only, with dongs and oogaba flopping about.