Nope, because everyone knows it came from Playboy.
Uh, I didn't. Not until this thread, though I've seen that image before.
No, it's not in the least like blood diamonds or poaching endangered species. No one was enslaved, no creature was killed to produce that image. No population was oppressed, no species went extinct to produce that image.
Depictions of naked people, in whatever medium, do not automatically objectify all members of the person's sex. Nor does it automatically objectify the person depicted. In fact, depictions of naked people that were created specifically to elicit a sexual response still don't automatically objectify the person depicted or members of the person's sex. Whether or not a painting or photograph or sculpture or video objectifies the subject is entirely orthogonal to whether or not the subject is clothed. This is proven by the fact it is possible to objectify clothed people.
The entire American movie genre called 'horror' objectifies people, nearly all of whom are clothed. That is, in fact, a large part of what makes such movies horrifying. Photos of Nazi concentration camps objectify people. That is, in fact, a large part of what makes Nazi concentration camps horrifying.
Conversely, Playboy does not ever objectify women. The women in Playboy photos nearly always have visible faces, and are frequently looking directly at the camera. They are always in fine health, uninjured, unrestrained, and are exemplars of female human beauty. The poses (and photo retouching) used display their bodies to the best possible advantage. The poses are frequently dominant in nature, such as on top of the backs of furniture like sofas and chairs, on top of tables, on top of vehicles, and especially at the top of staircases. You will notice the preponderance of the phrase "on top"—the dominant position among all mammals, including all primates.
The uncropped photograph of Lena fits the mould precisely. There's a link to it a few posts down. I just looked at it for the first time, and it fits every single point above: she is standing (dominant), resting one knee on top of an old piece of luggage (dominant), obviously in fine health, and beautiful. Her face is visible, obviously, and she's looking directly at the camera. I am reminded of another aspect of typical Playboy photography. Articles of clothing, while not concealing her sexual attributes, are often chosen for dominance. She's wearing black leather boots with heavy heels.
In short, Playboy photos are the polar opposite of objectifying: Playboy models are depicted in positions of power, with many of the trappings thereof. Baring their sexual characteristics for a camera is an expression of their power—Playboy models are comfortable in their own skin. Comfortable and more than comfortable. Judging by the expressions on their faces, they know they are beautiful, they know they are sexually attractive, and they like being both.
Just because some lunatic social engineers say naked people are automatically objectified doesn't make it so. When you get right down to it, most objections to depictions of naked people are thinly disguised Puritanism, nothing more.
Is it possible for a depiction of a naked person to objectify the person or people of their sex? Certainly. Modern sexually explicit depictions objectify the men far more often than the women, when both are together. The pictures and videos have her name on them. They seldom have his. She makes most of the money. He doesn't. She often speaks. He doesn't. Her face is always visible. His isn't. The camera frames her, not him. He rarely looks at the camera. She often does. The poses he is required to assume are often awkward and physically painful to hold for any length of time. Hers can be as well, but not as often. He is there to showcase her. He is an accessory, a piece of furniture with a penis. Even the much-maligned cumshot is evidence of her sexual prowess, not his. She made him orgasm under stressful conditions, and give up his genetic material. This is no mean feat, as sales of Viagra indicate. Inability to achieve or maintain an erection is most often evidence of emotional distress on his part, not a physical dysfunction, or Viagra wouldn't work. Viagra forces performance, despite his distress.
If you insist on shedding a tear over objectification of humans in porn, shed it for the male of the species, not the female.
