Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The new Abercrombie Quarterly is another publicity stunt
April 29, 2002 5:12 AM   Subscribe

The new Abercrombie Quarterly is another publicity stunt and boy is it working. The new one is entitled "XXX" and has less than "Playboy-core" pictures of models in various states of undress. Apparently our children are being so corrupted by a shrink wrapped magazine that you need an ID proving your adult status to purchase that Lt. Governor's are spending tax dollars building campaigns against an organization conducting legal business. What's next? More (work unsafe) publications showing naked people with items to advertise?
posted by McBain (62 comments total)

 
discussed here previously.
posted by machaus at 5:21 AM on April 29, 2002


Not the "XXX" catalog.
posted by McBain at 5:26 AM on April 29, 2002


And I did an Abercrombie search, just didn't go back that far.
posted by McBain at 5:26 AM on April 29, 2002


Click Here for more about the "XXX catalog.
posted by McBain at 5:30 AM on April 29, 2002


Why is looking at naked bodies considered corrupted? I mean, we're not talking about hard core porn here, are we?
posted by magullo at 5:42 AM on April 29, 2002


Why would anyone buy advertising?
posted by rodii at 6:07 AM on April 29, 2002


Maybe they'll have pictures of the Wong Brothers having sex.

> Why is looking at naked bodies considered corrupted?

Maybe corrupted isn't the right word for it, or maybe it is; I suppose it depends on what you say is being corrupted.

If A&F's (I hate business jargon, but) core competency is clothes, why are they selling pornography? Isn't having a 100-page sex section (sans product) at the beginning of your product catalog at least a bit desperate for a mall clothing store? Does even Victoria's Secret do that?

Think if other businesses did it. IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, McDonald's, General Motors, all with dozens of pictures of naked people in sexually provocative poses, accompanied by racy text, at the front of their catalogs or menus or whatever. Computer companies could send strip-o-fixers to service customer systems. And Metafilter could of course have a Jugs of the Day picture and a weekly facial to attract people to this site.

If they sell pornography -- if that's what they're good at and what they want to do -- why don't they just sell pornography and say so?
posted by pracowity at 6:13 AM on April 29, 2002


Wow. The ADA went through lenghts to describe the catalogue in detail. You would think they almost enjoyed having to write a review of such "filth."
posted by adampsyche at 6:14 AM on April 29, 2002


where can i pick up a copy of this? is this their standard catalog, or do you have to go out of your way to get this?
posted by rorycberger at 6:20 AM on April 29, 2002


I'm a lot more disturbed by the fashion page in yesterday's NY Times Magazine showing three six- or seven-year-olds with beehives and heavy eye makeup, which made two of them look like they'd just been punched in the face. Made the heroin porn shots of anomic 19-year-olds a couple pages earlier seem almost normal.
posted by agaffin at 6:36 AM on April 29, 2002


We as Christians have to ask ourselves, 'Do I have a distaste for evil?...'

So, nudity is evil now?
posted by goto11 at 6:41 AM on April 29, 2002


My friend is an A&F model. I wonder if he's naked. Hrrm.
posted by benbrown at 6:58 AM on April 29, 2002


"Gentlemen, to evil!"
posted by mcwetboy at 7:05 AM on April 29, 2002


Scott Kramer asked, "So, nudity is evil now?"

From a fundamental conservative's perspective, nudity has been evil since Adam & Eve dived from the Tree of Knowledge lookin' fer fig leaves.

Frank fought this mentality decades ago. In fact it's perhaps what has been at the core of the battle between independent thought and social consciousness since the dawn of intelligent thought. Go to your favorite mp3 search site and look up Frank Zappa's "Porn Wars" or any of the tracks from his Mothers Of Prevention album. It's a very unique look at "Outrageous filth."
posted by ZachsMind at 7:10 AM on April 29, 2002


"So, nudity is evil now?"

Yes, apparently. That and WE as Americans have a monopoly on the will of god. No righteous nations allow nudity in advertising. I mean, really, all of Europe and Asia are going to hell for this sole transgression. Let's invade them because they might advertise here. And yes, this is sarcasm.
posted by shagoth at 7:18 AM on April 29, 2002


pracowity - A+F's core competency isn't clothing, it's marketing. I'd venture a rather safe guess that they don't produce anything but catalogs... everything else is outsourced, a la nike, tommy, and just about anyone else I can think of at the moment...
posted by Rockames at 7:22 AM on April 29, 2002


Think if other businesses did it. IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, McDonald's, General Motors, all with dozens of pictures of naked people in sexually provocative poses, accompanied by racy text, at the front of their catalogs or menus or whatever.

I think that would be GREAT. It's time we face the fact that we are inherently sexual creatures. We do our race (the human race) a disservice by trying to suppress that fact. We would be a much happier, peaceful population if more people embraced their sexuality and the sexuality of those around them. The oppression of sexuality by the many religions of the world is responsible for so much of the aggression we have in today's society.

So yes, I look forward to seeing a beautiful nude woman inviting me to taste her juicy Big Mac.
posted by eas98 at 7:23 AM on April 29, 2002


It amazes me how slowly people learn. It's not like Abercrombie invented this move, or that this is even the first time they've done it.

The Abercrombie 'magalog' is a genius fusion of marketing clothes and marketing image. Why take the risk that kids won't find a useful image for your clothes when you can put out a book showing them how to relate to your line and make them pay for it to boot. And the BEST part is it'll drive their parents NUTS! NUTS over sweaters and slacks!
They'll forbid their little darlings from the place; kids'll see that as a stupid rule with no justification and pow. Perfect teen rebellion. No one gets physically hurt in any way but somehow you're sticking it to the man.

They key is you have to get the parents upset without doing anything that kids will see as 'wrong'. Teens are very moral, dispite what people think. Teenagers believe things harder then anybody else.

Originally Abercrombie did it just by having a really overdone catalog and making you pay for it. The very idea of paying for a catalog offends old people. Once that stopped working, sexuality was the next logical thing.
posted by Leonard at 7:25 AM on April 29, 2002


If A&F's (I hate business jargon, but) core competency is clothes, why are they selling pornography?

it gives them an edgy brand and differentiates them from the [straitlaced] Gaps, JCrews and Banana Republics, despite the similarity in products.

Any company that can frame advertising as content and get people to *pay* for it deserves some credit for business acumen.
posted by lizs at 7:52 AM on April 29, 2002


"So, nudity is evil now?"

As I understand it, their main concern is with the portrayal of student-teacher sex.
posted by ODiV at 7:53 AM on April 29, 2002


Hm... I wonder if both sexes are represented in this catalogue or if it's just women.
posted by ODiV at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2002


Wow guys. It's not like A&F is somehow crusading for our rights as sexual beings or what have you. Sure, it's bad to be repressive about sexuality, but it doesn't follow that it's necessarily good for Abercrombie and Fitch to sell highly sexualized images to 15-year-olds. By that logic, 15-year-olds looking at sexual imagery is good in-and-of-itself (it obviously is not). Sex and nudity are not somehow good or bad -- they are part of life and I see no reason why it's good for a lame clothing company to hijack them.

I hate Abercrombie -- I hate how manipulative and seductive they are to kids. If you've ever read their catalogs and the bullsh*t they fill kids up with you know that A&F is the lamest. company. ever.
posted by josh at 8:04 AM on April 29, 2002


As I understand it, their main concern is with the portrayal of student-teacher sex.

Umm... no. The objections are much more holistic.

Hm... I wonder if both sexes are represented in this catalogue or if it's just women.

There are plenty of nude guys, too. Young gay men are a very large percentage of A&F's demographic, in addition to women. Though I think guys (hetero or homo) respond to this type of thing more.
posted by McBain at 8:04 AM on April 29, 2002


This sounds more than a little similar to what French Connection did to their UK brand a few years back. Change FrenCh Connection UK into FCUK and *pow* instant 30% sales rise.

Clever it 'aint.
posted by nedrichards at 8:15 AM on April 29, 2002


By that logic, 15-year-olds looking at sexual imagery is good in-and-of-itself (it obviously is not).

It obviously is not? Says who? It is quite obvious to me that sexual imagery is good for all humans who have sexual feelings. Pray tell, who ordained you to be the Minister of the Obvious?
posted by eas98 at 8:15 AM on April 29, 2002


Hey, it's working. We're talking about Abercrombie and Fitch. Yippeee!
posted by jacknose at 8:17 AM on April 29, 2002


Ok, wait a second, I saw the catalogue, and I didn't get the whole teacher student sex thing. Maybe I missed that, I saw very random pictures of naked people, men and women, and I thought it was pretty decent. I thought it was kind of hilarious actually, there were pictures of guys in clothes that Abercrombie doesn't even sell, and there were like monsters in costumes like bigfoot chasing after women. The women portrayed weren't even that pretty, and it wasn't like they had huge breasts or anything, there wasn't a penis or vagina in the whole thing, so I guess by nudity they mean the showing of breasts. Don't feminists think it's sexist for men to show their breasts in magazines and women can't? Well, let the women show their breasts too. BIG DEAL! All you conservative morons and parents just give them more press, which is exactly what they want. Controversial brand name = cool to kids. It's as ingenious as the guy that didn't want to be in Oprah's book club, I mean....how cool was that. He looks like a badass saying FU to Oprah, and he gets more press by doing so anyway. You guys all just got played by the marketing geniuses at A&F.
posted by banished at 8:18 AM on April 29, 2002


So, hmm, let's see the inventory:
Sounds not so different from your average issue of Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair, doesn't it?
posted by ook at 8:31 AM on April 29, 2002


Dear Concerned Women for America,

We understand the Taliban is out of work, perhaps you could apply over there? Hell, you even get to wear burkhas and everything!

Love,
Crazy Sex-Mad America
posted by owillis at 8:35 AM on April 29, 2002


i think the only thing that surprises me about A&F now is that there are politicians so unbelievably gullible as to raise a voice over this sort of thing. sex sells, supposedly, and i'm sure A&F is aware of that and by simply having content of this nature they are aware their readership increases. but i'm also convinced that A&F understand that the real cash cow is media such as this; politicians raising holy hell not only give A&F huge publicity, but they do it for free.
posted by moz at 8:38 AM on April 29, 2002


> suggestions on “breaking into” the porn industry;

Through the back door, no doubt.
posted by pracowity at 8:38 AM on April 29, 2002


Good heavens! A company is using sex to...make money! It's...it's...it's capitalism at work! Whatever shall we do?

*faints dramatically*

In re: the nudity/evil bit: a woman I met at a conference recently told me that she made the mistake of applying for an art history job at a Protestant college. She knew she was in trouble when she was warned not to show any slides involving nude subjects during her presentation. As she pointed out, it was rather difficult to have an intellectually honest discussion of the Italian Renaissance if nudes were considered verboten. She didn't even want to think about what constituted "art history" at that particular college.
posted by thomas j wise at 8:51 AM on April 29, 2002


We as Christians have to ask ourselves, 'Do I have a distaste for evil?...'

Why no! Evil™ tastes great. Shaken and stirred it makes for a wholesome taste treat!
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:52 AM on April 29, 2002


Don't like the way Abercrombie does their adverts? Exercise your ultimate power and right as a consumer and don't buy their products. Otherwise, what do you care if it's filled with naked people, Prudie McTitebottum? Shake your head at the rollercoaster ride to hell our culture is taking, then go on minding your own beeswax.
posted by UncleFes at 9:11 AM on April 29, 2002


Somewhat related... I was just talking to someone about pornography in print and refered to it as "dead tree porn".
posted by ODiV at 9:39 AM on April 29, 2002


Ye Olde InterNette Pr0n is murdering the competition, such as it is. When any 13-year-old woodmeister can log onto vast quantities of flat-out not-for-the-squeamish naughtiness sans mediation any time he feels the (ahem) urge, it makes Penthouse Letters look about as attractive as your grammie's cookbook.
posted by UncleFes at 9:51 AM on April 29, 2002


the reason why this campaign is so distasteful is not because they are showing pictures of naked people, it is that they are commodifing sex in order to sell clothes.

our culture is totally disfunctional when it comes to sex and this sort of thing is exactly why. these sorts of advertising campaigns are basically selling sex in the form of clothing. They're not even selling a loving relationship that may include sex as an expression of love, just sex--a completely self-absorbed act where the other person is just an object to be possessed, like a sports car or a faux-ratty shirt.

all this confuses the hell out of kids. on the one hand you have conservatives telling them that sex is bad, dirty, morally wrong, taboo; and then on the other hand you have the media definitely NOT telling kids that sex is healthy wholesome normal part of life, but rather simply eroticizing the fact that it considered so taboo and dirty by conservatives. no wonder America is so dysfunctional when it comes to sex.
posted by boltman at 10:32 AM on April 29, 2002


boltman:

They're not even selling a loving relationship that may include sex as an expression of love, just sex--a completely self-absorbed act where the other person is just an object to be possessed, like a sports car or a faux-ratty shirt.

sex is not necessarily a self-absorbed activity; it seems to me that it's quite focused on the other person, and more in some cases than in others. (is performing oral sex self-absorbed? that's about as giving as you can be.) certainly sex need not be an expression of love to avoid being self-absorbed. had A&F been selling masturbation, i'd agree with you. seeing as how i disagree over whether sex is self-absorbed or not, of course i don't buy the notion that this is an example of materialism in sexuality.
posted by moz at 10:40 AM on April 29, 2002


Let's all willingly assist A&F in their contra-promotion campaign and post as many links as we can!
posted by HTuttle at 10:47 AM on April 29, 2002


had A&F been selling masturbation, i'd agree with you

sex without love is masturbation.
posted by boltman at 11:19 AM on April 29, 2002


sex without love is masturbation.

so i guess we're done discussing the issue.
posted by moz at 11:46 AM on April 29, 2002


No, sex without love is sex. Masturbation is a completely different thing. One way you can tell is that it only involves one person, although there is mutual masturbation, which can involve other people and love.

There is a major difference between sex and love, and you can have one without the other or both.
posted by stoneegg21 at 11:48 AM on April 29, 2002


So what if you love yourself and you're "tending the flock"? I'm confused.
posted by ODiV at 11:49 AM on April 29, 2002


Masturbation being perfectly swell, of course.

"Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." -from Woody Allen's Annie Hall
posted by disso at 11:50 AM on April 29, 2002


"Gentlemen, to evil!"


tagline!
posted by jcterminal at 11:55 AM on April 29, 2002


our culture is totally disfunctional when it comes to sex and this sort of thing is exactly why.

Actually, I think it's more along the lines of "our culture is totally dysfunctional when it comes to sex, and this sort of thing is the result."

In other words, A&F's advertising isn't the cause of the dysfunctionality: the dysfunctionality is the cause of A&F's advertising.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:13 PM on April 29, 2002


my point is that advertisers that sell things using sex treat people as objects. They encourage us to see people (particularly women) as objects. these attitudes get ingrained in our culture and the result is that people (particularly men) learn that they don't have to treat the opposite sex with respect because they are just objects to be used and/or possessed.

to me its all very dehumanizing and sad. it makes me not want to have kids.

fff: i would say that it's symbiotic--both cause and effect.
posted by boltman at 12:18 PM on April 29, 2002


This campaign wouldn't work if work-permit laws were enforced and parents weren't giving their teenagers credit cards and large allowances. Ads are targeted to the consumer demographic spending the money. Teenagers always have been, and always will be, suckers for sexual messages. This marketing campaign only underlines the relatively recent (last 20yrs or so) shift of consumer decision making from parents to children. That is the underlying problem of which gratuitously sexual advertising is but a symptom.
posted by plaino at 12:48 PM on April 29, 2002


yikes! i wrote a lot.

boltman:

my point is that advertisers that sell things using sex treat people as objects. They encourage us to see people (particularly women) as objects.

i admit to being a little confused when i hear of others who speak of the objectification of people. of course people are objects, and while i think "objectification" is a very poor term, i do understand most people intend the term to represent the reduction of people to objects only.

my confusion, i suppose, is this: what constitutes objectification? for example, let us suppose i see a woman walk by and i notice she is wearing khaki pants. rather impressed by the flexibility and utility of the mighty khaki, i think to myself "now there is a woman wearing khaki pants." have i objectified her? i could just as well have said, "wow: nice boobs", but it does not make a difference for (it seems) sexuality cannot not constitute an a priori establishment of an objectified characteristic. (that is to say sexuality cannot be an example of objectification versus khaki pants, you know, just because.)

one might argue that because breasts or behinds are a part of the body, and because of the focus upon the breasts or the ass one has ignored the rest of the person. in a sense, that is true. context, however, must play a role. to what extent could the notice of parts of a woman or man be acceptably non-objectivistic? is it alright to consider the beauty of the body as a whole? must i also consider her political affiliation, her feelings on the poetry of keats, her preference: camus or sartre?

if so, advertisements would seem to facilitate a form of objectification. i'll only see the models; i can't possibly know them, unless parts of their being beyond their looks are revealed to me. (heidi klum remarks: "oh, camus--definitely! Dr. Rieux is my favoritest person ever.") what if i see a girl on the way to work and i notice her smashingly nice glasses? have i objectified her? for i don't know anything about her other than the fact that she wears nice glasses.

it's at that point that i feel the spectre of objectification becomes too draconian. in my aversion of objectification, i seem reduced to factual notes: "she wears glasses; is about my height." "there is a girl beside me and she has long hair." as i understand it, the aversion of objectification is little different from the denial of sexuality and, in the broadest sense, the denial of judgement. but perhaps someone can help me out with a different perspecive.
posted by moz at 1:05 PM on April 29, 2002


moz: I suppose it comes down to the old Kantian idea of treating people as ends in themselves rather than means. If you are admiring someone's pants or even their physical beauty, I suppose you are objectifying them in some sense, but you are not treating them as a means to some selfish end. However, if you are lusting after someone that you don't even know ("boy would I like to *@#$ her!"), let alone love, than you are viewing that person as a means to your own sexual gratification.

I happen to think that treating people as ends is generally a good moral precept to live by for its own sake. but even if you don't buy that, the negative social consequences of viewing people as sex objects suggests that the practice is not as harmless as many seem to think.

One small example: here in New York, many men seem to feel that it is appropriate look at women walking down the street like they are pieces of meat. I suppose a few women might enjoy this, but in my experience it makes most women angry and deeply uncomfortable. They feel dehumanized and objectified not to mention unsafe. I would venture to guess that this sort of practice would not have been socially acceptable prior to the advent of our sex-drenched consumerist culture. Men learn this kind of behavior because it is modeled and encouraged by our culture.

In other words, it's hard to expect men that are socialized to view woman in magazines or porn movies as nothing but sex objects that exist for their own selfish gratification to be able to treat women that they encounter in their personal lives as human beings entitled to respect and dignity. I believe it's called cognative dissonance.
posted by boltman at 1:52 PM on April 29, 2002


Am I the only one who wants to see this catalog? Anyone know if it may be in newsgroups or scanned somewhere?
posted by geoff. at 1:56 PM on April 29, 2002


ObTrivia: Ernest Hemingway shot himself with a shotgun he bought from Abercrombie and Fitch. I don't think they sell shotguns anymore, but if they did, I can only imagine what the naked ads would look like.
posted by leapfrog at 2:16 PM on April 29, 2002


boltman:

I suppose it comes down to the old Kantian idea of treating people as ends in themselves rather than means. If you are admiring someone's pants or even their physical beauty, I suppose you are objectifying them in some sense, but you are not treating them as a means to some selfish end.

but i am treating them as a means to some selfish end. certainly they gain nothing from only my admiration of their pants or their beauty; the only one to gain is myself, and what i gain is a sense of gratification albeit not (necessarily) sexual gratification. ("i saw a very beautiful woman today! that just made my day.")

However, if you are lusting after someone that you don't even know ("boy would I like to *@#$ her!"), let alone love, than you are viewing that person as a means to your own sexual gratification.

if what you say above holds -- that it is ok to admire someone's beauty despite some objectification -- and if what i say also holds (that gratification is selfish) then what you say here is false. there is nothing in sexual gratification that intrinsically distinguishes it from non-sexual gratification, for both aim to please the receiver of the gratification which is the self.

what a conundrum. can i not admire one's beauty? is it possible that the whooping construction workers are a-ok? my opinion, to this point, is that if you're yelling to random women that they've got great tits then you're rude, which is nothing to be lauded. the fact that the stereotypical construction worker conceives of women as a sexual creature, however selfish his goal, is fine. (that is to say, if you'd like to check out someone's butt, yet once you gawk, leer or roll out your tongue, you're probably in the wrong.) and, of course, i suppose it's up to you and the other person to decide at what point you're being a rude jerk.
posted by moz at 2:52 PM on April 29, 2002


objectification = dehumanisation?
posted by boneybaloney at 3:22 PM on April 29, 2002


so it's fine to look at a person and see nothing but a dehumanized piece of meat as long as you aren't rude about it. come on.

let me put it this way:
men who are conditioned to think of women as nothing but means to satify their sexual desires are likely to treat women like crap.

men who are capable of admiring a women's beauty in a non-lustful way are much more likely not to treat women like crap because they have no desire to possess the woman.

by commodifying sex, our culture takes men (and women too) out of the latter camp and puts them in the former.

this is bad.
posted by boltman at 3:34 PM on April 29, 2002


Am I the only one who wants to see this catalog? Anyone know if it may be in newsgroups or scanned somewhere?

I don't think it's the same Abercrombie catalog (from Google Catalog search) being discussed here, but it's a pretty good representation. It looks like they've tone it down...what a shame because it certainly needs more nudity.
posted by doan at 3:59 PM on April 29, 2002


so it's fine to look at a person and see nothing but a dehumanized piece of meat as long as you aren't rude about it. come on.

so... did you read all of my comment? about the part where gratification and sexual gratification are not distinguishable? i'm not finding "come on" to be very persuasive, if so.

let me put it this way:
men who are conditioned to think of women as nothing but means to satify their sexual desires are likely to treat women like crap.


i agree with you here, boltman. except now you'll have to prove that men who consider the sexuality of the women for their own ends also treat them as "nothing but means to satisfy their sexual desires." you paint a scene of extreme morality: either you (horribly!) consider the sexuality of women, in which case you must be a terrible human being, or you do not at all.

men who are capable of admiring a women's beauty in a non-lustful way are much more likely not to treat women like crap because they have no desire to possess the woman.

you must also demonstrate that lusty thoughts imply a desire to posess or own another. could i not imagine myself in a mutually consentual albeit sexual fantasy where both receive pleasure and neither are "owned"?

by commodifying sex, our culture takes men (and women too) out of the latter camp and puts them in the former.

it is a fallacy to assume that because one can purchase sex or sexual material that one necessarily seeks to "own" a man or woman. unless, of course, you can somehow prove this statement holds according to your general stance.

this is bad.

well, yes.
posted by moz at 4:00 PM on April 29, 2002


I've often been accused of being gay for refusing to go 'fwoooar, look at the tits on that' and instead saying 'she's quite pretty'. Close friends seriously questioned my sexuality because I'm not a leering laddy lady ogler. I just have this thing about treating people I don't know like they're ...human. I don't like to see people who are made to feel like they're objects. That is, unless they choose to exploit it.. Then they just lose respect. Namely their own.
posted by boneybaloney at 4:01 PM on April 29, 2002


about the part where gratification and sexual gratification are not distinguishable?
there is a difference between aesthetic gratification and coveting. sexual "gratification" in the context of oogling girls is not gratification at all but coveting. i.e. desiring something that is not yours. totally different. if you are truly talking about aesthetic appreciation and not sexual desire or lust when you say "sexual gratification" then I'd probably agree with you that there is nothing wrong with it. But i don't think you mean that, do you?

except now you'll have to prove that men who consider the sexuality of the women for their own ends also treat them as "nothing but means to satisfy their sexual desires."
i don't have the energy to try and convince you of this from a deontolgoical point of view. but, just in practical terms, think of lust as more as a conflict of interest with treating people with respect. its not good for the same reason its not good for Arthur Anderson to be doing consulting work and auditing for the same company.

also, i like "considering the sexuality of women." it sounds like something a sociologist would do. why don't we just say "lusting after"? that's what we're talking about, isn't it?

you must also demonstrate that lusty thoughts imply a desire to posess or own another.
lust = desire for the sexual favors of another. if you are fantasizing about a real person, you are, in your mind, treating them as your possession. for most people, thoughts or attitudes tend to manifest themselves in actions.

it is a fallacy to assume that because one can purchase sex or sexual material that one necessarily seeks to "own" a man or woman.
once people feel free to see other people as objects or commodities, the results are always bad for the group that has been objectified.
posted by boltman at 5:29 PM on April 29, 2002


People are objects whether or not one objectifies them.
posted by NortonDC at 5:49 PM on April 29, 2002


boltman:

there is a difference between aesthetic gratification and coveting. sexual "gratification" in the context of oogling girls is not gratification at all but coveting.

you have not demonstrated that sexual gratification is equivalent with "coveting." according to dictionary.com, one definition of coveting is to feel blameworthy desire. that it is "blameworthy" presupposes a judgement not implied by "sexual gratification".

but, just in practical terms, think of lust as more as a conflict of interest with treating people with respect.

well, yes. just about every definition of lust seen listed defines it as sinful or concerning posession, which is what you argue against. however, you have somehow elevated "consider[ing] the sexuality of others" to lust, which is a leap of logic that i do not accept.

also, i like "considering the sexuality of women." it sounds like something a sociologist would do. why don't we just say "lusting after"? that's what we're talking about, isn't it?

i won't say "lusting after" because that's not what i mean. you seem incapable of the concept that thoughts pertaining to sex are not necessarily awful, and this is mostly where our conflict lies.

lust = desire for the sexual favors of another.

you are correct. my mistake for not researching the definition of the word (i'd had a fairly mellow concept of what the word means; i suppose you could condemn society for that).

if you are fantasizing about a real person, you are, in your mind, treating them as your possession. for most people, thoughts or attitudes tend to manifest themselves in actions.

you do have a sense of control over the scenario, since it is your mind. the generalization is simply that.

it's getting very tiresome discussing this; i feel like i'm not getting anywhere with you. i suppose that the most productive thing would be to agree that we disagree.
posted by moz at 6:25 PM on April 29, 2002


you seem incapable of the concept that thoughts pertaining to sex are not necessarily awful, and this is mostly where our conflict lies.

moz: to the contrary, i think sex is one of the greatest things in the world. i just think it's very sad how our culture has twisted and perverted it into a commodity. but you're right, this discussion is getting tiresome since we're clearly not starting from the same set of premises.
posted by boltman at 9:10 PM on April 29, 2002


« Older What does MX stand for?...  |  Barbie creator, Mattel founder... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments