Leonid Afremov is a passionate painter from Mexico who paints with palette knife with oil on canvas. He loves to express the beauty, harmony and spirit of this world in his paintings, which are rich in different moods, colors and emotions.
Why don’t they show photos of Kanye like this in the media…
The concern for overly exposed young bodies may be well-intentioned. With society fetishizing girls at younger and younger ages, girls are instructed to self-objectify and see themselves as sexual objects, something to be looked at. A laundry list of problems can come from obsessing over one’s appearance: eating disorders, depression, low self-worth. Who wouldn’t want to spare her daughter from these struggles?
But these dress codes fall short of being legitimately helpful. What we fail to consider when enforcing restrictions on skirt-length and the tightness of pants is the girls themselves—not just their clothes, but their thoughts, emotions, budding sexuality and self-image.
Instead, these restrictions are executed with distracted boys in mind, casting girls as inherent sexual threats needing to be tamed. Dress restrictions in schools contribute to the very problem they aim to solve: the objectification of young girls. When you tell a girl what to wear (or force her to cover up with an oversized T-shirt), you control her body. When you control a girl’s body—even if it is ostensibly for her “own good”—you take away her agency. You tell her that her body is not her own.
When you deem a girl’s dress “inappropriate,” you’re also telling her, “Because your body may distract boys, your body is inappropriate. Cover it up.” You recontextualize her body; she now exists through the male gaze.
Things that drive me crazy: Knowing that even though our age of consent is between 16-18 (depending on state law), girls are still considered sexually available the moment they start developing breasts, which can start as early as 8 or 9.
For years she is indoctrinated with a culture that values and objectified her only as a sexual being, so that if she starts to flirt with an older man when she is still under the age of consent, she’s called jailbait and blamed for tempting him to break the law. He’s never asked why he couldn’t control himself or say no.
This is rape culture. It starts the moment a girl gets breasts.
REMEMBER THAT EPISODE WHERE REESE THOUGHT MALCOLM WAS GAY AND MALCOLM THOUGHT REESE WAS GAY AND THEY TALKED ABOUT IT BUT LIKE THIS I’M CRYING
An illustration inspired by various Youtube videos. For me it is also an experiment with light and perspective.
Moffat also revealed that Martin changes the scripts quite regularly because he will often say ‘oh I’ll just do all that with a look’.
Judit Masco and boy for Mademoiselle, early 90’s.
I had this photo shoot on my wall in the 90s
I don’t know if this was pre-arranged, or if it caught him by complete surprise, but wow, what a double standard. If a woman had won a ‘best topless scene’ award, and a man had rushed up behind her and pulled her shirt open to the wild cheering of a bunch of men in the audience, would there have been so many approving posts about it on the internet the next day?
I really hope he arranged for her to do that, because otherwise - how horrifying. Just because he didn’t react poorly in front of everyone doesn’t mean it wasn’t a violation.
This is a shitty thing to do to anyone, I mean, it is an intrusion of privacy and humiliating and just..awful, but I wouldn’t know if I would call it a double standard.
I think it might have been staged, maybe because he doesn’t look horrified or try to move away and that’s a dead giveaway cuz jerking away, even for a split second, is an instinctive response for anyone in any environment and I don’t think anyone would blame him for reacting poorly tbh. I could be absolutely totally wrong though.
Like, I don’t know how to properly articulate this kind of thing but I strongly disagree with the use of “double standard” because if the genders were reversed people would approve of and excuse or completely ignore the assaulter’s actions, they do it all the time when the privacy of a woman is violated - its called victim blaming. Just look up any instance of a female celebrity’s private nudes are leaked, almost always by a male ex-partner.
It’s wrong to objectify and violate the privacy of any person, but there are always going to be people who approve of and excuse it, as well as people who are outraged by it.
Also, male toplessness and female toplessness have different weights, its considered more obscene by society (and the people who rate movies etc). I’ve seen women being forcibly kissed onstage and no one had a problem with that, those instances were an assault on their privacy too.
Man, I really hope I didn’t go too off topic. I agree completely that it’s a violation and anyone has good reason to be infuriated by stuff like this. I don’t know what its like to be famous but I do know there are people that are frighteningly possessive and don’t see famous people as actual people. Just..calling it a double standard is really unfair.
I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have, so I’m going to answer with my thoughts (such as they are).
First, I agree that it’s a shitty thing to do. I’ll get back to the bit about why I think it’s a double standard.
About it maybe being staged: Yes, it’s possible that it was staged. I really don’t know. However, staging it in this way is still problematic, in my opinion. If he wanted his shirt stripped off, he should have stripped it off himself or invited someone to do it for him. By not saying anything, they led the audience to believe that it was a surprise to him, and therefore, I still feel like it’s a violation to the audience. If someone wants to strip, sure, let them strip. If they choose to strip I’d have no trouble cheering for them. But if you’re going to make it look like someone was stripped by surprise (and possibly against their will) then I don’t see why that would be anything to cheer about. If this was staged, it was in very poor taste.
About his reaction: I don’t think I agree that the lack of flinch, his choice of shirt, and his general seeming acceptance of the whole thing are necessarily good indicators that he planned this. First, he would have heard her coming across that stage (and/or seen her out of the corner of his eye), and chances are he would have realized her intentions before she ever got to him. He probably doesn’t seem surprised by her actions because by that point, he wasn’t. That doesn’t mean he consented. And I think if anyone believes that wearing snaps (or were those small buttons?) is an invitation to rip someone’s shirt off, that’s one of the shittiest things I’ve ever heard, and tantamount to claiming that a woman wearing a low-cut dress is eager to have her nipples displayed. (Because she’s making it easy to just pull the dress down, right?) Or someone wearing something that zips up is just begging to be unzipped in front of the world. I mean what the hell, right?
And the fact that he took it like a professional and chose to not make a big deal about it does not indicate consent either. The reality is that celebrities very often have to deal with having their privacy violated, and when we let someone see that it bothers us, we are the ones who look like assholes. We very often have to “grin and bear it” for the sake of our image. The fact that he went ahead, dropped his shirt, and saluted only means that he decided that he didn’t want to make a big deal about it in front of the whole world. It does not necessarily mean that he would have chosen to have his shirt removed. And yeah, you can see him laughing about it in the first gif. To be honest, what else was he supposed to do? He was at an awards show. He had the choice of either playing along and laughing it up, or acting like - what I’m sure people would later say - a jackass.
So basically I feel like he probably had the choice of either laughing it off or being criticized for assholery later. Not really much of a choice for someone who would like to keep a career going.
About male and female toplessness having different weights: I would assume that if a woman had been up there and someone had torn off her shirt, she would’ve had a bra on. While TV broadcast standards might differentiate between a woman in a bra and a man without a shirt, I don’t feel like a guy being stripped without his consent is any more correct than a female being stripped. Even if the woman had a bikini underneath or hell, even another shirt on, I wouldn’t think it would ever be okay to strip anyone without their consent - male or female.
And I certainly don’t want to give the impression by all this that I wish this had happened to a woman, or that it’s okay to objectify women rather than men. My point is that I don’t think it’s right to do either.
But going back to what I see as a double standard: Double standards are kind of a subjective thing. I don’t have your viewpoint, and won’t see everything you see. I do agree that women are often wrongly blamed when they are objectified or violated. I agree that it’s wrong. I also happen to know that the same thing happens to men. (Well maybe he shouldn’t have been wearing that shirt if he didn’t want to strip, etc)
It’s just that in my particular experience, it seems to be much more socially acceptable to objectify men than women. This could be because I grew up in a house full of very strong women, and I learned early on that objectifying women was not okay. But I see it over and over in my life - male celebrities are often ogled, judged, stripped, and violated, while women cheer in support. It feels like a double standard to me.
Of course, this is a very personal thing for me, so that might be why it’s such a sensitive topic on my end. I can tell you that I have been violated in public and have had to swallow my natural reaction. I have been… I can’t even say what it was, but it happened to me at an award show and everyone thought it was wonderful. I was horrified. But what did I do? What could I do? I had to laugh it off. I have had people grab me, I’ve had people proposition me, and I have even become aware of people writing porn about me - not one of my characters, but me. And for some reason I am expected to laugh it all off like it’s okay. Like Zac did.
I know that women are often violated in the same ways, I’m not saying they aren’t. I’m just saying that from where I’m standing, it seems like when men get violated, a whole lot of women are cheering along. It isn’t right for anyone to be violated in this way, or in any other. It just seems like there aren’t very many people who advocate for the men. And yeah, from my point-of-view it seems like a double standard.
Maybe we can agree to disagree on that part.
Thanks for the discussion, though! If you’ve read this far, I want to assure you that while I’m upset by what happened, I’m not at all upset by this discussion. I’m a thinker - these things are rolling around in my head anyway, and it’s nice to get them out.
A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, “Who governs? Who really rules?” in this country, is:
“Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, …” and then they go on to say, it’s not true, and that, “America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened” by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead “the nearly total failure of ‘median voter’ and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy.
If we had a truly independent and adversarial press in my country, this would be a big news story, but they still haven’t found that plane, so … whaddayagonnado right?
People don’t like her because it’s the making of her, right now. When she, sometime soon in the future, becomes this person that she’s been kind of building up to, for the past three seasons, now four, then people will really begin to root for her. I think even the audience doesn’t realize she’s such a dark horse. If she acted badass and tried to kill everyone there, she would be dead by now! She’s so intelligent, and I can’t stress that enough. Courtesy is a lady’s armor. She’s using her courtesy to deceive people, and she’s using her former self as a facade, and it works so much to her advantage, because people still think she’s this naive, vulnerable, little girl, and she’s really not. She knows exactly what she’s doing. She knows what game she’s playing! And no one else does. And she’s learned from the best — Cersei, Margaery, Tyrion, Littlefinger, even Joffrey. She’s learned so much from these people, and they don’t even realize it. They’re unwittingly feeding her to become this great kind of manipulator. King’s Landing can either make or break a person, and in Sansa’s case, it’s making her.
- Sophie Turner, in response to Sansa hate (x)
Saying things like “we’ve gone from white hoods to business suits” is one way to seem to speak to contemporary racism’s less vocal, yet still insidious nature. But it does a disservice to the public understanding of racism, and in the process undercuts the mission of drawing attention to contemporary racism’s severity.
It wasn’t the KKK that wrote the slave codes. It wasn’t the armed vigilantes who conceived of convict leasing, postemancipation. It wasn’t hooded men who purposefully left black people out of New Deal legislation. Redlining wasn’t conceived at a Klan meeting in rural Georgia. It wasn’t “the real racists” who bulldozed black communities in order to build America’s highway system. The Grand Wizard didn’t run COINTELPRO in order to dismantle the Black Panthers. The men who raped black women hired to clean their homes and care for their children didn’t hide their faces.
The ones in the hoods did commit violent acts of racist terrorism that shouldn’t be overlooked, but they weren’t alone. Everyday citizens participated in and attended lynchings as if they were state fairs, bringing their children and leaving with souvenirs. These spectacles, if not outright endorsed, were silently sanctioned by elected officials and respected members of the community.
It’s easy to focus on the most vicious and dramatic forms of racist violence faced by past generations as the site of “real” racism. If we do, we can also point out the perpetrators of that violence and rightly condemn them for their actions. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that those individuals alone didn’t write America’s racial codes. It’s much harder to talk about how that violence was only reinforcing the system of political, economic and cultural racism that made America possible. That history indicts far more people, both past and present.
“There was a place near an airport, Kowloon, when Hong Kong wasn’t China, but there had been a mistake, a long time ago, and that place, very small, many people, it still belonged to China. So there was no law there. An outlaw place. And more and more people crowded in; they built it up, higher. No rules, just building, just people living. Police wouldn’t go there. Drugs and whores and gambling. But people living, too. Factories, restaurants. A city. No laws.”
—William Gibson, Idoru
It was the most densely populated place on Earth for most of the 20th century, where a room cost the equivalent of US$6 per month in high rise buildings that belonged to no country. In this urban enclave, “a historical accident”, law had no place. Drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes lived and worked alongside kindergartens, and residents walked the narrow alleys with umbrellas to shield themselves from the endless, constant dripping of makeshift water pipes above….
Kowloon ‘Walled’ City lost its wall during the Second World War when Japan invaded and razed the walls for materials to expand the nearby airport. When Japan surrendered, claims of sovereignty over Kowloon finally came to a head between the Chinese and the British. Perhaps to avoid triggering yet another conflict in the wake of a world war, both countries wiped their hands of the burgeoning territory.
And then came the refugees, the squatters, the outlaws. The uncontrolled building of 300 interconnected towers crammed into a seven-acre plot of land had begun and by 1990, Kowloon was home to more than 50,000 inhabitants….
Despite earning its Cantonese nickname, “City of Darkness”, amazingly, many of Kowloon’s residents liked living there. And even with its lack of basic amenities such as sanitation, safety and even sunlight, it’s reported that many have fond memories of the friendly tight-knit community that was “poor but happy”.
“People who lived there were always loyal to each other. In the Walled City, the sunshine always followed the rain,” a former resident told the South China Morning Post….
Today all that remains of Kowloon is a bronze small-scale model of the labyrinth in the middle a public park where it once stood.
This isn’t to say places like Kowloon Walled City no longer exist in Hong Kong….
Why did mens fashion have to become less homoerotic
Men showing skin isn’t necessarily homoerotic though? It’s weird that the assumption is that a man dressing sexily is attracted to and trying to attract other men. The problem is that it’s come to be seen as homoerotic or effeminate and that’s why it’s done less. We need to stop using clothing choices as a key way to identify sexuality.