Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is the spite for women who pose provactively or nude really about? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    I don't like the term conservative much for being quite loosely defined. I'd describe most of my viewpoints as liberal where such is not counter to the public good. With that in mind, the general idea is that she is imparting poor moral values to her children, to whom she is supposed to be a role model, who probably do not want to see naked pictures of their mother given the current view on the naked body by society, and who certainly do not want their mother to be sexualised by their peers.

    Of course, I'm not suggesting that Kim be outlawed from taking her clothes off. I'm simply saying that my opinion is that she is making poor choices.
    But what you're saying implies that modelling nude is immoral. Why do you think it is immoral?

    Would you also think an actor, who is a parent, doing a nude sex scene in a movie is being immoral?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    Also, KingBradly, you have argued for some moral values here almost identical to those upheld by The Satanic Church. Do you have an opinion on LaVey's work? I quote in-case you are not aware from The Book of Lucifer:
    I have read into it before and I think there is a lot of truth in it. I think a lot of it's points are actually self-evident.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Plenty of great characters are vain. Just look at Oscar Wilde or Jimi Hendrix.
    They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    But what you're saying implies that modelling nude is immoral. Why do you think it is immoral?

    Would you also think an actor, who is a parent, doing a nude sex scene in a movie is being immoral?
    That's not quite accurate. All of my morality arguments relate directly to whether the actions are harmful to a child. Therefore, in your first case, the arguments are different, and void where a child is not present:
    - The model is not necessarily in the public eye, and nude shots are the exception rather than the norm for models, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that in a Mother situation the child may suffer no ill effects as his peers will not be suddenly acquainted with what the child's Mother looks like nude.
    - The moral values imparted are different. Kim has shown again and again that she shows off her body as a laugh, and freely, whenever the opportunity arises. A model does so sparingly and for her job. Kim certainly isn't a pinnacle or morality, but modelling has become intrinsically linked with morals in recent years with many messages of self-positivity.

    The actor is a similar case to the model; the difference is that a movie is potentially more visible to the public. My opinion in how morality applies in this situation is again, that the Mother should be aware of how it might affect the child's life. If the child is a newborn and the film is a B-list, it's reasonable to suppose the child will never see it. If the child is 21 the parent may decide that the child is old enough to fend for itself. If the child is 12 and the film is a high visibility popular action move, I think that the actor should realise that the role may not be suitable with the child in mind, and how it may be treated by its peers.

    Quite interesting for your views on LaVey's work, too. I think unfortunately that the dramatic styling causes many people to overlook taking it as seriously. Just as many people are also tired of religion debates and don't see a problem with the let-and-let-live option, rather than the idea that self-delusional theism may need to be tackled.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    I don't like the term conservative much for being quite loosely defined. I'd describe most of my viewpoints as liberal where such is not counter to the public good. With that in mind, the general idea is that she is imparting poor moral values to her children, to whom she is supposed to be a role model, who probably do not want to see naked pictures of their mother given the current view on the naked body by society, and who certainly do not want their mother to be sexualised by their peers.

    Of course, I'm not suggesting that Kim be outlawed from taking her clothes off. I'm simply saying that my opinion is that she is making poor choices.
    Kim can be sexually liberated and a Mother at the same time, yes the two can go together.

    Lmao, who says that kim is supposed to be a role model? She isn't forcing anyone to look up to her. Kayne doesnt seem to be bothered by her pictures so maybe her children will adapt the same mindset?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.
    Her talent is in the marketing and sales fields. I would describe her as a businesswoman rather than an artist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Her talent is in the marketing and sales fields. I would describe her as a businesswoman rather than an artist.
    Is she doing that herself? AFAIK she is famous because of connections, and quasi-prostitution (the sex tapes, this, marrying celebrities).

    I don't think we're talking about Martha Stewart or Oprah here, who are clearly talented entrepreneurs as well as talented self-promoters.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    Kim can be sexually liberated and a Mother at the same time, yes the two can go together.

    Lmao, who says that kim is supposed to be a role model? She isn't forcing anyone to look up to her. Kayne doesnt seem to be bothered by her pictures so maybe her children will adapt the same mindset?
    I do, "lmao". Let me break your debate up into a few chunks:

    She isn't forcing anyone to look up to her.
    That's right. Therefore, I have the right to look down upon her. I'm quite disturbed, however, that you think she should not try and be something her children look up to.

    Kayne doesnt seem to be bothered by her pictures so maybe her children will adapt the same mindset?
    I'd suggest that Kayne isn't a very good example in any case, they are two of a kind. This is the destitute man who proclaimed himself the world's greatest rockstar. Kim doesn't seem to be bothered by Kayne asking around for money, but we have to assume that they both put on a public face. You wouldn't assume all he says for gospel, right? All celebrities have to separate their private and public lives, including what they say.

    I'd therefore suggest that there is no reason to believe that Kayne has the mindset you believe he does. In addition, the children should not be subject to having to change their mindsets, and there is no evidence that the mindset you suggest they take is superior. We don't even know what Kayne's mindset is, mind you, only that he hasn't publically attacked what Kim does. I therefore firmly believe the burden of proof is upon you, as you have provided me with an unevidenced claim.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.
    Everyone is vain, it's just that some aren't too vain to show it.


    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    That's not quite accurate. All of my morality arguments relate directly to whether the actions are harmful to a child. Therefore, in your first case, the arguments are different, and void where a child is not present:
    - The model is not necessarily in the public eye, and nude shots are the exception rather than the norm for models, so it's not unreasonable to suppose that in a Mother situation the child may suffer no ill effects as his peers will not be suddenly acquainted with what the child's Mother looks like nude.
    - The moral values imparted are different. Kim has shown again and again that she shows off her body as a laugh, and freely, whenever the opportunity arises. A model does so sparingly and for her job. Kim certainly isn't a pinnacle or morality, but modelling has become intrinsically linked with morals in recent years with many messages of self-positivity.

    The actor is a similar case to the model; the difference is that a movie is potentially more visible to the public. My opinion in how morality applies in this situation is again, that the Mother should be aware of how it might affect the child's life. If the child is a newborn and the film is a B-list, it's reasonable to suppose the child will never see it. If the child is 21 the parent may decide that the child is old enough to fend for itself. If the child is 12 and the film is a high visibility popular action move, I think that the actor should realise that the role may not be suitable with the child in mind, and how it may be treated by its peers.
    These are interesting and valid points. But I would argue that society would be better if mothers such as Kim weren't so heavily lambasted for posing nude or provocatively. And if there wasn't such a stigma around it, there wouldn't be a problem for the kids. So it's kind of a circular thing. If you criticise her, you feed the vicious circle that creates the problem, but with the good intention that she gets out of the circle so her kids aren't harmed. If you defend her, you're feeding the circle in the sense you're encouraging her to be a part of it, but with the equally good intention that by being positive about it the vicious circle will eventually die out for ever.

    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    Quite interesting for your views on LaVey's work, too. I think unfortunately that the dramatic styling causes many people to overlook taking it as seriously. Just as many people are also tired of religion debates and don't see a problem with the let-and-let-live option, rather than the idea that self-delusional theism may need to be tackled.
    I agree, its title and rather feeble attempt to give itself some mystique are its downfall. It basically just an ethical philosophy. A very good one though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Everyone is vain, it's just that some aren't too vain to show it.
    Well I can hardly argue with that fortune cookie logic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They also created great art. This is someone who wants that fame despite being talentless.
    I'm sure there is some kind of market justification or what they do.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Is she doing that herself? AFAIK she is famous because of connections, and quasi-prostitution (the sex tapes, this, marrying celebrities).

    I don't think we're talking about Martha Stewart or Oprah here, who are clearly talented entrepreneurs as well as talented self-promoters.
    I certainly do not think she is doing it all herself, but I do think she made some right decisions for her "brand" and knows how to market herself to remain relevant to pop culture. If she didn't, then pop culture would move on to someone else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I certainly do not think she is doing it all herself, but I do think she made some right decisions for her "brand" and knows how to market herself to remain relevant to pop culture. If she didn't, then pop culture would move on to someone else.
    This is what wiki lists under Career beginnings:

    2007–09: Career beginnings
    Kardashian attending the Tribeca Film Festival, 2009

    In February 2007, a sex tape made by Kardashian and Ray J in 2003 was leaked.[17][18] Kardashian filed a lawsuit against Vivid Entertainment, who distributed the film as Kim K Superstar. She later dropped the suit and settled for US$5 million.[19][20]
    Kardashian got her start starring in a porn film for $5m. She was able to do this because the guy was already semi-famous. Her entire career has been made by reflecting others' fame. She is now famous for being famous. She is a recurring character in a celebrity soap opera, but one of the few who is in that soap opera for no other reason than that she has appeared in previous episodes.

    I grant that doing this is a skill of sorts. But I suspect that her family connections to lots of famous people were a bigger enabler than her intrinsic talent. To answer the OP, the spite toward Kardashian is precisely this: she has absorbed a huge amount of money for nothing of any cultural worth, unlike most people even in pop culture.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Well I can hardly argue with that fortune cookie logic.
    Spare me the sass, when you actually think about it this becomes self-evident. Just look at Corbyn; his whole image is about how image isn't important. He wants everyone to see him as a humble, down-to-earth bloke. Thus he is being vain by trying to show everyone just how little vanity he harbours. Or look at Muslim women who wear veils; their dress pretty much screams out "Hey! Look how modest and humble I am!".

    Everyone sees themselves as the centre of the universe. Even people who hate themselves are obsessing over themselves and how they feel others see them.

    Everyone is vain. It is unavoidable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Spare me the sass, when you actually think about it this becomes self-evident. Just look at Corbyn; his whole image is about how image isn't important. He wants everyone to see him as a humble, down-to-earth bloke. Thus he is being vain by trying to show everyone just how little vanity he harbours. Or look at Muslim women who wear veils; their dress pretty much screams out "Hey! Look how modest and humble I am!".

    Everyone sees themselves as the centre of the universe. Even people who hate themselves are obsessing over themselves and how they feel others see them.

    Everyone is vain. It is unavoidable.
    I don't mind people who see themselves as the centre of the universe if 1. they keep it to themselves or 2. it's at least partially justified.

    Bringing up the religious is a good point. Kim Kardashian is like a Jehovah's Witness who keeps shoving leaflets in the face of a lot of people who are simply not interested.

    Some people are interested, of course, and that's great for them, but she's so lightweight it's mostly people with low intelligence, poor taste, not a lot else going on in their lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Bringing up the religious is a good point. Kim Kardashian is like a Jehovah's Witness who keeps shoving leaflets in the face of a lot of people who are simply not interested.
    She isn't really though, because stuff only appears about her on the kind of sites or TV channels that people who are interested in her visit.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Some people are interested, of course, and that's great for them, but she's so lightweight it's mostly people with low intelligence, poor taste, not a lot else going on in their lives.
    Maybe true. But I don't really understand why people hate her for that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Jealousy*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think some people can't get over Kim K's success in the holly-wood because her first power move was a porno that a lot of people said that she and her mother shopped around. I can't hate but if that is true, I can't congratulate from a moral perspective. Other than that, all Kim has done in her life is by her savvy business skills and knowing what's hot or not.

    Emily on the other hand is a bit different, I don't get why people are getting uptight about her "Arty" nudes when she has been doing it for a long time, even before appearing on blurred lines.

    Most of it is hate, people think they are better than them and feel they need to knock them down a peg. I doubt a lot of people really care about this issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's ok when Kim K does it.

    But not Lena Dunham.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think they, and this whole culture in general, perpetuate an unfortunate feature of our society whereby perhaps the most "prestigious" thing for a woman to have, the quality that the world values, admires and envies most in her, is her sexual attractiveness.

    (It's ironic that some people think this is women's liberation and feminism at its finest, when the fundamental purpose of a woman's sexual attractiveness is to please men. Essentially it becomes a case of their self worth being most majorly dependent on how much men like them).

    Girls can get a barrage of compliments, attention, fame and fortune for doing something as easy and as useless as taking their clothes. As for the last woman to win a nobel prize for a scientific discovery - most of us probably haven't even heard of her. I wonder what kind of incentives this is supposed to offer to girls who are growing up in this era.

    Not that I'm pinning the blame entirely on Kim Kardashian et al. because although they help to perpetuate this aspect of our culture, they're primarily symptoms of it. It's more deeply rooted than that.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 3, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.