Ender100@aol.com
Date: 12/24/02-09:37:11 PM Z
Hi Judy,
a couple of questions. First, can you describe some work of men or women
that does NOT objectify them? I know what the term means, I'm just not sure
how different people apply it. I'm not trying to start a fight over it, just
wanting to hear your view.
Second, if the photograph of Ms Gowan had been taken by another woman, would
it be any different?
Oh, my favorite Barby Doll was done by some guy who would buy Barbies, dress
them differently and sell them... I imagine the Barby Doll company (I forget
who sells it) probably tried to sue his pants off (so to speak). They were
called S&M Barbie.
By the way, Annie Sprinkle probably still has a website somewhere out there.
I think she went into the Tantric way or something like that. It was
somewhat interesting. I believe her claim to fame, however, was not
urination, but female ejaculation. Perhaps she was the first Giclee artist.
There, I got Alt-Photo into the paragraph so I won't get yelled at hehehehe
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 12/24/02 3:50:04 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
<< Which is to say, this "conversation" has gotten ridiculous, but there's a
real point -- although Ms Gowin has a more amusing, and so-to-speak,
active role than W. Weston's model in the sand with (also!) her legs
spread, the fact is that both are presented as objects. This one's the
Betsy Wetsy*, the other the tele-sandy, but they are both low, so to
speak, on evolutionary scale. An earlier picture of Ms Gowen shows her
topless with a garland of flowers around her neck, another intimate body
display. >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST