NationStates Jolt Archive

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/14/time-writer-says-shes-forced-to-look-at-porn-sports-illustrate/

Time Writer Says She's Forced to Look at Porn: Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Posted Feb 14th 2008 12:33PM by Michael David Smith
Filed under: NFL Media Watch

Time, Inc. is a huge company that publishes more than 100 magazines. Of all the issues of all the Time, Inc. magazines, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is the single most profitable, especially once you add in the Swimsuit Issue video, the Swimsuit Issue calendars, the Swimsuit Issue web site and so on.

Because of that, every single Time, Inc. employee gets a copy of the Swimsuit Issue, so that they can all bask in the glow of the money-making machine. You might think being told to look at the Swimsuit Issue would be a good job assignment, but one employee, Time blogger Lisa Takeuchi Cullen, isn't happy about being forced to look at the Swimsuit Issue.

In a blog post headlined, "My Company Made Me Look at Porn," Cullen writes that she doesn't like it one bit:


Who decided I wanted to look at 100-some pages of barely dressed girls with abs made of slate and boobs that defy reason? SI boasts that women cherish the swimsuit issue because it offers us fashion ideas for the bathing season. Seriously?


Honestly, in this age of sexual harassment lawsuits, I find it kind of amazing that Time would force the swimsuit issue upon its employees. I'm betting they won't next year.

That woman is a bitch, IMHO.

Pfft. If she dosen't like her job, then she can quit. It's not like they threatned her life if she quit her job, or pinned her down and shoved it in her face. She's just spewing out the "I'm a victim" crap to get sympathy and Money from a (Soon to be enacted) sucessful lawsuit.

she has an odd definition of porn.

women in skimpy swimsuits just dont qualify.

if she has a problem with SI's swimsuit issue she shouldnt be working there.

as far as I can tell she was just given the magazine. What she did with it then was her won business. Usually I support "unusual' lawsuits because typically they're grounded in some basis of law that is more nuanced then people appreciate.

But...I just can't see this.

However, in order for a successful claim that the magazine is porn, it would have to be declared porn by the courts. I don't think that the court will declare the swimsuit edition to be porn.

She could have just... not read it. Simply getting a copy doesn't mean that you have to read it.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/14/time-writer-says-shes-forced-to-look-at-porn-sports-illustrate/



That woman is a bitch, IMHO.

What was your first hint?

Since when is being forced to watch porn any kind of harassment?? Hot women in swimsuits, please... :D

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/14/time-writer-says-shes-forced-to-look-at-porn-sports-illustrate/



That woman is a bitch, IMHO.

What the fuck. It's not porn and she's not being "forced" to look at it. If this results in another stupid lawsuit, I may go vigilante on her. And grab a swimsuit edition while I'm at it.:p

First of all, they sent her a copy, they didnt force her to look at it, she could have just thrown it away.

Second of all...porn? Really? That is porn?


This is just one of those women who wants to be a femanist so bad she looks for sexism and sexual harassment where there isnt any.

She should be made to look at real porn, then the Swimsuit Issue - just to make sure she frikkin' knows the darn difference!

This is just one of those women who wants to be a femanist so bad she looks for sexism and sexual harassment where there isnt any.
To quote the term she wants to be a closet Feminazi.

It is porn. It has no aesthetic or artistic value and exists solely for the purpose of titillation.
That said, I don't see her complaint. It's a companywide policy (so it wasn't an explicit comment to her) and no one forced her to read it. If she was really upset, she could have just burned it or something.

She should be made to look at real porn, then the Swimsuit Issue - just to make sure she frikkin' knows the darn difference!

That'll just make things worse.

To quote the term she wants to be a closet Feminazi.
Hehe, I like that term. But to be fair, at least the Nazi's didn't take power by sueing everyone who might have,or could in the future offend them. The Nazi's took their name calling like men, and then beat the crap out of everyone who said it.:p

OK, how exactly does SI:SE qualify as porn?
I would say that it satisfies all three of those meanings.

That it doesn't contain girls getting shagged or being in the nude doesn't stop it from being porn, you know.

That she was forced to look at it is a bit dubious, though.

It is porn. It has no aesthetic or artistic value and exists solely for the purpose of titillation.
That said, I don't see her complaint. It's a companywide policy (so it wasn't an explicit comment to her) and no one forced her to read it. If she was really upset, she could have just burned it or something.

pornography
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
OK, how exactly does SI:SE qualify as porn?

*sigh*

Before labeling Ms. Cullen a bitch or a Feminazi, it might be worth looking at what she actually wrote (http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/02/my_company_made_me_look_at_por.html).

Her title is over-the-top and stupid, but her blog isn't that unreasonable:


One of the perks, if you can call it that, of working at the world's largest media company is that we get copies of our magazines for free. I began to see this as more of a curse when I realized I was drowning in my weekly accumulation of Fortune Small Business, Coastal Living, Time for Kids and People en Espanol. And I don't speak Spanish. I had become a free-magazine whore.

So I didn't really mind when the company decided to crack down on these distributions, citing the staggering costs of offering their loyal and hard-working minions a couple hundred issues of their titles without charge. The only major annoyance is getting a hold of my own magazine. I'm not kidding. It's a real challenge to score more than our allowance of one copy, which makes it tough to send comp issues to sources who'd given us hours of their time for the honor of one quote in one article. I usually have to go steal them from the lobby bins, which are zealously guarded by specially trained, free-magazine-whore fighters.

And then there's the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

*picture snipped*


SISI belongs to a category unto itself. According to our corporate web site,

The Sports Illustrated annual Swimsuit Edition franchise, which includes the magazine, video, calendars and website, is the most profitable of any single magazine-branded franchise.
The issues are considered so valuable that they're not even distributed in the bins downstairs; they're doled out, copy by copy, to each employee, like glossy, perfect-bound bonuses.

So when I came in this morning, what do I find under my door but a beautifully laid out publication of porn.

Who decided I wanted to look at 100-some pages of barely dressed girls with abs made of slate and boobs that defy reason? SI boasts that women cherish the swimsuit issue because it offers us fashion ideas for the bathing season. Seriously? I'm going to don this bikini made of dental floss this summer after I've just popped out Baby #2?

Look. I'm no prude. And it's not the same thing as working in an office whose walls are plastered with pin-ups, like the women workers at Halliburton/KBR had to endure. Still, I'd rather be offered the option of picking up a copy, rather than have it stuffed under my door like some urgent memo. What I want when I step into my office is a cup of tea. Not NFL cheerleaders in thongs.

So, she wasn't "forced" to look at anything -- nor is she really complaining that she was.

She is NOT filing some frivilous lawsuit as some have claimed, she is mreely expressing an objection.

And, although it may be extremely mild porn, can you really claim the Swimsuit Issue is a fashion layout rather than softcore porn? I'm sure you read it for the swimsuit tips. :p

EDIT: I also think it is worth noting that this isn't some special screed of outrage. Ms. Cullen writes a daily blog that is a look into her life working at TIME. On the day in question, her topic appears to be her annoyance at being hand-delivered the Swimsuit Issue.

I'm a bit confused. The article does not mention a lawsuit, so why are many of you discussing one? Is there more information here that wasn't in the OP?

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;13459163Second of all...porn? Really? That is porn?
[/QUOTE]

Maybe she is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. :D

hmm, maybe she is right. then I should get my own copy of this particular Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. :p

There is no spoon.


... I mean, lawsuit.

And, although it may be extremely mild porn, can you really claim the Swimsuit Issue is a fashion layout rather than softcore porn? I'm sure you read it for the swimsuit tips. :p
I know I certainly am. That criss-cross number the model on the far-left is wearing looks simply DE-LIGHTFUL, and just in time for the late-February swimsuit weather that New York is so famous for.

'forced'?

Are they going to test her on it later?

Can you imagine some of the test questions? :D

I usually chastise people for not reading closely enough, but this time I was otherwise occupied and only glanced at it. Misread the facts and missed the point. Thanks TCT and Poli

*feels ashamed*

It is porn. It has no aesthetic or artistic value and exists solely for the purpose of titillation.

I think most heterosexual males would disagree with your statement that it lacks aesthetic value. It is quite pleasing to look at.

There's an easy way to solve this. Include just as many male models as female models.

I agree that her post title is over the top, but ridiculing her as a bitch and a feminazi isn't exactly adding to the debate. I also agree that any woman who looks to the Swimsuit Issue for fashion advice is nuts; many of the suits this year were painted on (literally, some of them are body paint).

Hehe, I like that term. But to be fair, at least the Nazi's didn't take power by sueing everyone who might have,or could in the future offend them. The Nazi's took their name calling like men, and then beat the crap out of everyone who said it.:p

It's an el rushba exlusive term. ;)

That'll just make things worse.
Looking at porn has never made things worse here. ;)
'forced'?

Are they going to test her on it later?

Can you imagine some of the test questions? :D
How many sets of titties have we managed to squeeze into this year's issue?


But honestly, you get free magazines and complain about it? I still don't get the point. Receiving a free Spanish magazine might even give me incentive to polish up my language skill so I can say more than just "Good morning, good night, order beers and say that I don't speak much Spanish".

Der Führer frowns upon your use of apostrophes where they clearly don't belong.

don't you know that proper grammar dictates that whenever you put an "s" at the end of something, you shove an apostrophe in before it?

Hehe, I like that term. But to be fair, at least the Nazi's didn't take power by sueing everyone who might have,or could in the future offend them. The Nazi's took their name calling like men, and then beat the crap out of everyone who said it.:p
Der Führer frowns upon your use of apostrophes where they clearly don't belong.

And, although it may be extremely mild porn, can you really claim the Swimsuit Issue is a fashion layout rather than softcore porn? I'm sure you read it for the swimsuit tips. :p



no its not.

its cheesecake.

There's an easy way to solve this. Include just as many male models as female models.

BRILLIANT!

Also, what's wrong with her just throwing it in the trash? If I get something I don't want, I just throw it in the trash, problem solved.

Looking at porn has never made things worse here. ;)

How many sets of titties have we managed to squeeze into this year's issue?


But honestly, you get free magazines and complain about it? I still don't get the point. Receiving a free Spanish magazine might even give me incentive to polish up my language skill so I can say more than just "Good morning, good night, order beers and say that I don't speak much Spanish".
Teehee. :D

Der Führer frowns upon your use of apostrophes where they clearly don't belong.
Proof that Hitler was an idiot!:D

I think most heterosexual males would disagree with your statement that it lacks aesthetic value. It is quite pleasing to look at.

There is only one thing more aesthetically pleasing to a heterosexual male than a beautiful female, another beautiful female. :D

I agree that her post title is over the top, but ridiculing her as a bitch and a feminazi isn't exactly adding to the debate.

I know why she is upset over the swimsuit issue. She didn't make the cut. :D

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PHE1912.jpg

no its not.

its cheesecake.

Even at almost 65 I still love cheescake especially with blue berries on it. :D Oh yes. ****you dirty old man.go stand in the corner. :p

I honestly don't understand how anyone can object to her basic point (though her title is over the top): it is difficult for her to get copies of the magazine she actually works for, but her company goes out of its way to give its employees copies of a magazine she doesn't want, which she thinks is rather stupid on their part. It seems pretty stupid to me, too. The fact that people have somehow perverted this point into "ZOMG, teh feminazi bitch wants to sue her company for giving her Sports Illustrated!" is honestly kinda pathetic, guys.

Sports Illustrated!" is honestly kinda pathetic, guys.

Calling Sports Illustrated porn is pathetic, folks. :rolleyes:

Even at almost 65 I still love cheescake especially with blue berries on it. :D Oh yes. ****you dirty old man.go stand in the corner. :p


you might be old but youre not dead!

I honestly don't understand how anyone can object to her basic point (though her title is over the top): it is difficult for her to get copies of the magazine she actually works for, but her company goes out of its way to give its employees copies of a magazine she doesn't want, which she thinks is rather stupid on their part. It seems pretty stupid to me, too. The fact that people have somehow perverted this point into "ZOMG, teh feminazi bitch wants to sue her company for giving her Sports Illustrated!" is honestly kinda pathetic, guys.

No she says it is difficult to get an extra copy of the mag. she works for to give to her interviewees. She also says that extra copies of sports illustrated swimsuit are even harder to get. She is just angery that people are giving her mags she doesn't want. She doesnt like being bombarded with pictures of women in bikinis, in my opinion this is because she either finds them threatening, is jealous, or is insecure and compares her self to the models.
Honestly, I think its stupid to compare your self to a model. Sure they look good but thats their job, no one looks at a journalist and feels threatened by their writing skills and says it creates an impossible standard of intellegence.

There is only one thing more aesthetically pleasing to a heterosexual male than a beautiful female, another beautiful female. :D

I know why she is upset over the swimsuit issue. She didn't make the cut. :D

*snip image*

Look, kids, if you put a smilie on the end of your statements, they aren't sexist. :D

no one looks at a journalist and feels threatened by their writing skills

Am I the only one that feels threatened by the liberal left journalists?

Look, kids, if you put a smilie on the end of your statements, they aren't sexist. :D

Can it be any smiley, or does it have to be this one? --> :D

no one looks at a journalist and feels threatened by their writing skills and says it creates an impossible standard of intellegence.

Thankfully journalists aren't to intelligence what models are to looks.

No she says it is difficult to get an extra copy of the mag. she works for to give to her interviewees. She also says that extra copies of sports illustrated swimsuit are even harder to get. She is just angery that people are giving her mags she doesn't want. She doesnt like being bombarded with pictures of women in bikinis, in my opinion this is because she either finds them threatening, is jealous, or is insecure and compares her self to the models.
Honestly, I think its stupid to compare your self to a model. Sure they look good but thats their job, no one looks at a journalist and feels threatened by their writing skills and says it creates an impossible standard of intellegence.

Interesting. As a straight female, I don't particularly want a copy of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition shoved under my door. I had no idea this meant I was fundamentally jealous and insecure.

I'm so glad I have straight guys on the internet around to let me know that everyone either wants to look at photoshopped boobies or has something wrong with them. :rolleyes:

Interesting. As a straight female, I don't particularly want a copy of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition shoved under my door. I had no idea this meant I was fundamentally jealous and insecure.

I'm so glad I have straight guys on the internet around to let me know that everyone either wants to look at photoshopped boobies or has something wrong with them. :rolleyes:

There is a difference between not particularily wanting something and being upset and complaining about getting it.

And I am not a straight guy, I'm a woman. (Sparkelle sounds like a real masculine name I know)

Interesting. As a straight female, I don't particularly want a copy of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition shoved under my door. I had no idea this meant I was fundamentally jealous and insecure.

I'm so glad I have straight guys on the internet around to let me know that everyone either wants to look at photoshopped boobies or has something wrong with them. :rolleyes:

yeah.

she doesnt have to be a failed model in order to be annoyed at the reverence that the swimsuit issue gets at the magazine. and having (finally) read her blog entry that is all she is--annoyed.

so she whined a bit. that doesnt make her a bitch.

yeah.

she doesnt have to be a failed model in order to be annoyed at the reverence that the swimsuit issue gets at the magazine. and having (finally) read her blog entry that is all she is--annoyed.

so she whined a bit. that doesnt make her a bitch.
But why is she annoyed? Why did this magazine inspire her to blog about her annoyance more than any of the other un-read mags she gets?

But why is she annoyed? Why did this magazine inspire her to blog about her annoyance more than any of the other un-read mags she gets?

she doesnt get them any more. she has to go down to the lobby to pick them up out of the bins. all except the swimsuit issue that is brought to her as if it is a brand new testament of jesus christ.

and since she seems to consider it a form of porn--it is at least a bit of exploitation--its annoying.

There is a difference between not particularily wanting something and being upset and complaining about getting it.

And I am not a straight guy, I'm a woman. (Sparkelle sounds like a real masculine name I know)

lies. there are no girls on the internet.

as a woman I have found if I don't want to flip through a magazine I have the self control not to do so.......I also bitch about random things that are inconsequential on my blog though, so I kinda don't see what the big deal is, don't like to hear her whining? don't read her blog, seem so.....simple.

Am I the only one that feels threatened by the liberal left journalists?



No, but you might be the only person who does who isnt batshit crazy (or maybe you are, Im not sure)

Stupid non-issue.

It's not porn.

yeah.

she doesnt have to be a failed model in order to be annoyed at the reverence that the swimsuit issue gets at the magazine. and having (finally) read her blog entry that is all she is--annoyed.

so she whined a bit. that doesnt make her a bitch.

She is employed by Time. They gave her one of their products. Instead of throwing it in the trash because she doesn't like it she whines to the public? She is a lot more than annoyed to call it porn. Perhaps she should look for another job that is more in line with her morals. :rolleyes:

lies. there are no girls on the internet.

as a woman I have found if I don't want to flip through a magazine I have the self control not to do so.......I also bitch about random things that are inconsequential on my blog though, so I kinda don't see what the big deal is, don't like to hear her whining? don't read her blog, seem so.....simple.

I think you've defeated this entire thread. Oh, and congrats on reaching 20,000!

There is a difference between not particularily wanting something and being upset and complaining about getting it.

And I am not a straight guy, I'm a woman. (Sparkelle sounds like a real masculine name I know)

My apologies for thinking you were male - I thought I remembered you being one of the guys in the "sexiest NSer" thread, but I must be confusing you with someone else.

Either way, you weren't the only one suggesting that the only reason not to like looking at girls in bikinis was insecurity on her part, which, to me, is a silly and highly chauvinistic attitude. If a straight guy doesn't particularly want a bunch of pictures of greased, nearly-naked male models, do you really think that necessarily means he's insecure, or just that he's not that into dudes?

I also don't know where anyone got the idea that she was "upset" or "angry." The strongest emotion I got from her blog was "vaguely annoyed." And, as I said, "vaguely annoyed" seems like a fairly reasonable response to having to jump through hoops to get a magazine you actually want while your office takes pains to personally deliver a magazine that you don't want.

Somebody needs to post pictures from the magazine so we can assess the woman's claims.

But why is she annoyed? Why did this magazine inspire her to blog about her annoyance more than any of the other un-read mags she gets?

I whine on my blog all the time about unimportant shit. Whatever is most annoying/recent when I blog is what I write about, none of it is more annoying on the whole than anything else, it's just more annoying right that minute. (because usually all the other crap isn't happening right then and I lack perspective)

besides, blogs are for whining about shit nobody wants to hear about, that's why you have a blog, so you don't end up ranting at people around you about unimportant shit. :p

I think you've defeated this entire thread. Oh, and congrats on reaching 20,000!

shit. now I have to leave.

Thanks for the info! :p

She gets one for free? Shit, I have to pay for mine, and I work in a plant that prints and binds the damn things. You would be surprised at the security policies that go into insuring that NONE of the content gets out before the official release date.

I kinda don't see what the big deal is, don't like to hear her whining? don't read her blog, seem so.....simple.

Well, by now I'm sure her employer has read her inconsequential rant on her blog. I doubt Playboy will offer her a job.

My apologies for thinking you were male - I thought I remembered you being one of the guys in the "sexiest NSer" thread, but I must be confusing you with someone else.

Either way, you weren't the only one suggesting that the only reason not to like looking at girls in bikinis was insecurity on her part, which, to me, is a silly and highly chauvinistic attitude. If a straight guy doesn't particularly want a bunch of pictures of greased, nearly-naked male models, do you really think that necessarily means he's insecure, or just that he's not that into dudes?
no nono, thats not the only reason not to want to look at the pictures, but in my opinion thats the only reason to complain. or maybe as Smunkeeville said she was just frustrated with her junk mail and needed an outlet. That is a possibility but I don't believe it to be the case, and even if it were the case there are other women out there who would complain about getting a magazine with half naked women in it, because they are insecure.

I also don't know where anyone got the idea that she was "upset" or "angry." The strongest emotion I got from her blog was "vaguely annoyed." And, as I said, "vaguely annoyed" seems like a fairly reasonable response to having to jump through hoops to get a magazine you actually want while your office takes pains to personally deliver a magazine that you don't want.

OK, angery vaguely then. And I don't see what is wrong with the one magazine of each issue rule.

Hehe, I like that term. But to be fair, at least the Nazi's didn't take power by sueing everyone who might have,or could in the future offend them. The Nazi's took their name calling like men, and then beat the crap out of everyone who said it.:p

Femi-scientologist?

She gets one for free? Shit, I have to pay for mine, and I work in a plant that prints and binds the damn things. You would be surprised at the security policies that go into insuring that NONE of the content gets out before the official release date.

Mua-Ha-ha Now I can start stalking you, I know where you work...
QG

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/02/14/time-writer-says-shes-forced-to-look-at-porn-sports-illustrate/



That woman is a bitch, IMHO.

I believe a better term is "publicity whore".

Publicity whore? Haven't we already established that she wrote this in her blog?

Maybe her problem isn't with this particular magazine, but what it says about society. Women in the media are portrayed as submissive sex objects, and men are dominant authority figures with clothes on. Like I said before this problem can be solved by including more naked men.

Publicity whore? Haven't we already established that she wrote this in her blog?

Maybe her problem isn't with this particular magazine, but what it says about society. Women in the media are portrayed as submissive sex objects, and men are dominant authority figures with clothes on. Like I said before this problem can be solved by including more naked men.

Either way, she sucks.

Women in the media are portrayed as submissive sex objects...

As well they should be ;)

As well they should be ;)

:cool:

Either way, she sucks.

Yeah, that bitch! How dare she express her opinion in her personal blog? :rolleyes:

Either way, she sucks.

Yes, yes she does.

Now, where's the SI Trunks and Speedos Issue?

Mua-Ha-ha Now I can start stalking you, I know where you work...
QG

Feel free.

Well, if you invite me to do it, it takes away all the fun :(

So thats how you get rid of stalkers, huh? I'll have to remember that.:p

Publicity whore? Haven't we already established that she wrote this in her blog?

Maybe her problem isn't with this particular magazine, but what it says about society. Women in the media are portrayed as submissive sex objects, and men are dominant authority figures with clothes on. Like I said before this problem can be solved by including more naked men.

Heaven forbid that the media portray men and women in their historical (and biologically correct) roles.

Feel free.

Well, if you invite me to do it, it takes away all the fun :(

Looking at porn has never made things worse here. ;)

But honestly, you get free magazines and complain about it? I still don't get the point. Receiving a free Spanish magazine might even give me incentive to polish up my language skill so I can say more than just "Good morning, good night, order beers and say that I don't speak much Spanish".

It will for her. Then she'll really have something to beef about. ANd I guess she doesn't want to have an incentive to like women, ifyaknowhatimean...No offense to anyone here, honest!

That's a job? I'll happily have it if she doesn't want it...

Yeah, that bitch! How dare she express her opinion in her personal blog? :rolleyes:

Its my opinion that she sucks.

Heaven forbid that the media portray men and women in their historical (and biologically correct) roles.

Historical is true but irrelevant.
Biologically correct is total crap. Females are not biologically "submissive sex objects", men are not "dominant authority figures with cloths on". I have no idea how you get biology about a phrase that includes "with cloths on", but you're wrong nonetheless.
And of course, this whole tangent is irrelevant because I don't think that the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is sexist in any way more meaningful then accidental implications.

Heaven forbid that the media portray men and women in their historical (and biologically correct) roles.

Why do you say that those are their biologically correct roles?

Its my opinion that she sucks.

That's nice. It's my opinion that you're going to have a hard time ever getting a girlfriend if you believe that all women who dare to admit that they aren't terribly into looking at airbrushed models in bikinis "suck."

all the hot australopithecus babes wore string bikinis in the snow. its a biological imperative.

*snerk*

I am so glad I had just put down my drink before reading this. :p

Why do you say that those are their biologically correct roles?

all the hot australopithecus babes wore string bikinis in the snow. its a biological imperative.

That's nice. It's my opinion that you're going to have a hard time ever getting a girlfriend if you believe that all women who dare to admit that they aren't terribly into looking at airbrushed models in bikinis "suck."

I think that my lack of girlfriend is caused more by the fact that I look like a bag of dog shit and rabbit guts dropped from a height of 10,000 feet.

The reason she "sucks" is because she is acting like Time was saying "look at this or we'll make your life hell." Not because she didn't like looking at it. If they WERE doing that to her, I would support her.

Heaven forbid that the media portray men and women in their historical (and biologically correct) roles.There isn't any way I can respond to something this blatantly sexist.
And of course, this whole tangent is irrelevant because I don't think that the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is sexist in any way more meaningful then accidental implications.That's exactly what I said. That magazine represents society as a whole, so maybe the person who wrote the blog post was angry about that rather than that particular issue of sports illustrated.

That's a job? I'll happily have it if she doesn't want it...

Yes, being a journalist is a job. And I wouldn't worry about it because there's nothing to suggest that she doesn't want it.

Its your job. Jeex your that offended, go read some other TIme published magazine. MAybe NAtional Geographic or something.

I think that my lack of girlfriend is caused more by the fact that I look like a bag of dog shit and rabbit guts dropped from a height of 10,000 feet.

The reason she "sucks" is because she is acting like Time was saying "look at this or we'll make your life hell." Not because she didn't like looking at it. If they WERE doing that to her, I would support her.

Could you possibly point to the place in that blog post where she said anything remotely resembling "Time threatened to make my life hell"? I think I missed that bit...

It's a Blog.

A Blog.

BLOG.

Again note I said she's acting like it. They weren't forcing her to look at porn. SI Swimsuit isn't porn.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, it fits the definition. Just because there were no genitalia showing doesn't make it not porn.

*stops doing something suspicious under the desk*

Wait.. is it porn or not?

Again note I said she's acting like it. They weren't forcing her to look at porn. SI Swimsuit isn't porn.

Again note that I simply asked for some evidence that she was "acting like" anything of the sort. Given that all we have to go on are her words, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask for some textual support of your assertions here.

(And, honestly, it's pictures designed for guys to wank off to. Declaring technically-decent wanking material "porn" is mild hyperbole at worst.)

Like I said before this problem can be solved by including more naked men.

Hmm. That's an interesting idea.

Would Time, Inc. give the result to straight male employees?

Again note I said she's acting like it. They weren't forcing her to look at porn. SI Swimsuit isn't porn.As was pointed out earlier in the thread, it fits the definition. Just because there were no genitalia showing doesn't make it not porn.

The sexism, misunderstanding and misreading is strong in this thread.

(And, honestly, it's pictures designed for guys to wank off to. Declaring technically-decent wanking material "porn" is mild hyperbole at worst.)
:confused:
5.0.5

4m 1 w4nk1n6 70 p0rn 0r n07!!?!

P|3453 r3p|y!
:confused:

:confused:
5.0.5

4m 1 w4nk1n6 70 p0rn 0r n07!!?!

P|3453 r3p|y!
:confused:

M4n, 7h47 15 h4rd 70 r34d...

It's a freaking blog entry. Who cares? She was obviously using hyperbole when she called it porn. Those who have never exaggerated to make a point please cast the first stone - all others can shut the hell up.

Hmm. That's an interesting idea.

Would Time, Inc. give the result to straight male employees?If they did, I'm sure some men would complain about it. And no one would call those men nazis, because it's ok if men whine.

(And, honestly, it's pictures designed for guys to wank off to. Declaring technically-decent wanking material "porn" is mild hyperbole at worst.)

There is a point here, and it's the question of what makes porn..porn.

I despise anti-sex feminists with burning hatred.

The sexual liberationists have done more for women's rights than these ugly prudes ever have. Emma Goldman would be disappointed in this bitch.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, it fits the definition. Just because there were no genitalia showing doesn't make it not porn.

its not porn.

a quick test:

if you can show it to your grandmother its not porn.

the test is NOT "do men jerk off to it?"

that would make just about anything porn.

I despise anti-sex feminists with burning hatred.

The sexual liberationists have done more for women's rights than these ugly prudes ever have. Emma Goldman would be disappointed in this bitch.

this post says SOOOO much more about you than it does about her.

its not porn.

a quick test:

if you can show it to your grandmother its not porn.

So the determination of pornography depends on the liberalness of the viewer's grandmother?

the test is NOT "do men jerk off to it?"

that would make just about anything porn.

LOL, QFT

as far as I can tell she was just given the magazine. What she did with it then was her won business. Usually I support "unusual' lawsuits because typically they're grounded in some basis of law that is more nuanced then people appreciate.

But...I just can't see this.
It's probably all about the settlement. It's probably worth a couple hundred K to keep this from becoming a hot topic when it goes to trial.

I don't know how Time deals with this sort of thing.

Then maybe you shouldn't be talking?

I'm going to side with Time based on the large number of frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits and such.

What lawsuit has been filed here, exactly? And while we're on the subject, if there have been such large numbers of frivolous sexual harassment suits, I'm sure you can find 5 for me.

So the determination of pornography depends on the liberalness of the viewer's grandmother?

no

She said she was "forced to look at porn". I don't know how Time deals with this sort of thing. If she COULD have said, "I don't like looking at this." without repercussions, then, yes, I still think she is an idiot. If they did force her to look at it, if she couldn't have said she's uncomfortable with it, then I'm siding with her. However, I don't know the full story. I'm going to side with Time based on the large number of frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits and such.

Actually, she didn't say she was "forced to look at porn." She never used the word "forced" at all. She also didn't file a lawsuit, or even discuss filing a lawsuit. She made a blog post - which has, in fact, been quoted in its entirety in this thread. Why people are still debating how terrible she would be if she did things which she did not, in fact, do is really rather baffling to me.

So the determination of pornography depends on the liberalness of the viewer's grandmother?

What if one's grandmothers have different ideas of what constitutes porn? It could be like Schrodinger's Porn depending on which grandmother sees it first! ;)

Again note that I simply asked for some evidence that she was "acting like" anything of the sort. Given that all we have to go on are her words, it hardly seems unreasonable to ask for some textual support of your assertions here.

(And, honestly, it's pictures designed for guys to wank off to. Declaring technically-decent wanking material "porn" is mild hyperbole at worst.)

She said she was "forced to look at porn". I don't know how Time deals with this sort of thing. If she COULD have said, "I don't like looking at this." without repercussions, then, yes, I still think she is an idiot. If they did force her to look at it, if she couldn't have said she's uncomfortable with it, then I'm siding with her. However, I don't know the full story. I'm going to side with Time based on the large number of frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits and such.

So, attractive women are "porn"?

Silly person. I can tell you that much of the Renaissance art is closer to porn. Particularly Leda and "the Swan" (Zeus). There are quite a few sculptures and paintings depicting animal-human coupling under that subject.

What if one's grandmothers have different ideas of what constitutes porn? It could be like Schrodinger's Porn depending on which grandmother sees it first! ;)

I'm in your box, reading your porn!

....maybe.

She said she was "forced to look at porn".

Actually, she never said those words. It's a fair characterization of her hyperbolic title only. It isn't a quote.

I don't know how Time deals with this sort of thing. If she COULD have said, "I don't like looking at this." without repercussions, then, yes, I still think she is an idiot. If they did force her to look at it, if she couldn't have said she's uncomfortable with it, then I'm siding with her.

You clearly have not read what she actually wrote (http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/02/my_company_made_me_look_at_por.html) nor paid attention to the many posts explaining her blog about being mildly annoyed at having the SISE stuck under her door.

However, I don't know the full story. I'm going to side with Time based on the large number of frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits and such.

First, this is not a sexual harassment lawsuit. In fact, she specifically notes that her complaint is a far cry from what has happened in sexual harassment cases.

Second, on what basis do you allege there are a "large number of friviolous sexual harassment lawsuits and such"? That is simply bullshit.

It's probably all about the settlement. It's probably worth a couple hundred K to keep this from becoming a hot topic when it goes to trial.

how can I make this more clear?

THERE IS NO LAWSUIT! It is merely a blog about her being annoyed.

I despise anti-sex feminists with burning hatred.

The sexual liberationists have done more for women's rights than these ugly prudes ever have. Emma Goldman would be disappointed in this bitch.What from the blog leads you to believe this woman is anti-sex?
(Not to mention that just because a woman has sex doesn't mean she's liberated.)

its not porn.

a quick test:

if you can show it to your grandmother its not porn.

the test is NOT "do men jerk off to it?"

that would make just about anything porn.So if something's primary purpose is for men to jerk off to, it wouldn't be porn if you can show it to your grandmother?

Why people are still debating how terrible she would be if she did things which she did not, in fact, do is really rather baffling to me.
Slow news day, it would appear.

However, part of the discussion now seems to morphed into a debate on what constitutes pornography, so it's not all time wasted :)

It's a freaking blog entry. Who cares? She was obviously using hyperbole when she called it porn. Those who have never exaggerated to make a point please cast the first stone - all others can shut the hell up.

Exactly. Well said.

I despise anti-sex feminists with burning hatred.

There are (virtually) no anti-sex feminists.

There are, of course, plenty of feminists who criticize the way sex functions in our society... but considering, among other things, the rape rates we have, that seems perfectly justified to me.

The sexual liberationists have done more for women's rights than these ugly prudes ever have.

The delusion that we can have meaningful "sexual liberation" without having real empowerment of women was, to the contrary, extremely damaging to women's rights.

The sort of distortion that turns feminists who point this out into "anti-sex feminists" and "ugly prudes" is, incidentally, itself a perfect illustration of that tendency.

Emma Goldman would be disappointed in this bitch.

Don't speak for Emma Goldman when you want to attack someone for complaining (on her blog) about something she had every reason to be annoyed by.

Distributing what is essentially pornography for straight guys to all employees is something that is perfectly justifiable merit for complaint.