Shortless androgyneous male model banned

[NinaBrooke]

That`s quite an interesting way to put sexism :-). What do you guys think?
I think its pretty ridiculous.... The model is a representation of a "queer image " in the sense of queer theories varying from bi polar sexist portraits of women or men.

So now a man that looks too much like a woman and not "heteronormative" manly enough gets censored. So he needs some muscles and hair on the breast, or what? :-))) (ggggg)

Oh and its only the american copies that are censored. Come on, NYC. ... I mean really??


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N..._Model_Banned/

Shirtless, Androgynous Male Model Banned
By Advocate.com Editors


Borders is refusing to display the latest issue of fashion magazine Dossier Journal because androgynous male model Andrej Pejic appears shirtless on the cover looking "too much like a woman."

According to Elle Magazine, the bookstore chain has requested that all copies of the magazine be censored and placed in plastic bags. Elle also reported that Dossier will have to cover the cost of bagging the magazines

According to Dossier Co-Founder and Creative Director Skye Parrott, only American bookstores are complaining.

"It's a naked man on the cover of a magazine, which is done all of the time without being covered up, so I definitely don't think it merits this, but I understand what it is," Parrott told The Huffington Post. "It's not a coincidence that it's only the giant U.S. chain stores that are asking us to do this...It's only the American copies that are being censored."

Mary Ellen Keating, a spokeswoman for Barnes & Noble, said that earlier claims that her company was censoring the magazine are completely inaccurate, and that there was no contention between the bookseller and the publishers of the magazine.

"There was absolutely no conflict," she said in an email statement to The Advocate. She added that it was unclear as to how the story was first reported.

Pejic appeared on The Advocate's Forty Under 40 list in May. The 19-year-old model, who has been featured in the French, Italian, and Turkish editions of Vogue, is on the brink of supermodel status.

[NinaBrooke]

Here ist the "gender bending" male model. I think he looks stunning. wow.

http://www.newser.com/story/109365/m...ding-star.html

(NEWSER) – Andrej Pejic is a cross between Cindy Crawford and Kate Moss, with one difference: He’s a man. The 19-year-old is the new face of Marc Jacobs—and a symbol of the changing face of fashion, in which gender-bending “femiman” models are rising to prominence. Pejic, who grew up in Serbia and Australia, was discovered last year and debuted this year in Jean-Paul Gaultier’s Paris show. He’s since exploded in popularity, appearing in spreads in the French, Italian, and Turkish editions of Vogue.
Pejic says classmates were curious about him while growing up, but he was never bullied—although “a lot of macho guys did think of me as a girl,” he tells the Daily Beast, which meant “a lot of free drinks.” He models both male and female clothes, and even when dressing himself he sometimes chooses heels or makeup—but he won’t discuss his sexuality. His new-found fame is a sign that “the line between the sexes is becoming more and more blurred,” says Turkish Vogue’s editor. “Fashion is all about providing people with choices. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman.” Click for more photos of Andrej Pejic.

[Ansley]

I live in a very conservative neighborhood of Atlanta. That magazine cover would not go over well at all. Myself, I prefer men to look like men and women to look like women. Everybody has different tastes though.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Borders is refusing to display the latest issue of fashion magazine Dossier Journal because androgynous male model Andrej Pejic appears shirtless on the cover looking "too much like a woman."

Ironically, it is Borders that is in Chapter 11 and will probably disappear altogether soon. Almost every Connecticut Borders shutter by the end of last week.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Ansley

I live in a very conservative neighborhood of Atlanta. That magazine cover would not go over well at all. Myself, I prefer men to look like men and women to look like women. Everybody has different tastes though.

that is called heteronormativity :-). Who says what a "man" has to look like and what a "woman" has to look like? I remember the historical days when it was outrageous for women to wear trousers.... :-). These things vary. What a man looks today is different from what a man looks tomorrow. I mean look back at the days of Marlboro man and then look at men like Ashton Kutcher - nowadays the androgynety has taken over slightly. This photo is just a caricature or a step further to what is already present. Atlanta aside :-).
Genetical predispositions don`t determine looks and clothings.
Although i see this censorship as a marketing strategy to cater to exactly this wealthy middle class conservative people. And that is what makes it even more pitiful for me. To censor things as a marketing strategy is comprehensible but weak. To censor things to cater to a obviously financially well conservative majority is in my eyes very very very weak. Art should not cater to people who have money, art should be independent from money. And here it is not. That is what i think is outrageous. Personal tastes aside.

You might live in a conservative neighbourhood, but that still does not prevent you from working as an escort, which is something i assume , your neighbours would be also troubled with. The important question is: do we need to cater to these conervative people or do we need to focus a little more on reality?

My personal take is that people should be able to do what they want to do unless it is harming someone else.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

You might live in a conservative neighbourhood, but that still does not prevent you from working as an escort, which is something i assume , your neighbours would be also troubled with. The important question is: do we need to cater to these conervative people or do we need to focus a little more on reality?

My personal take is that people should be able to do what they want to do unless it is harming someone else.

Agreed!

Watch the movie , "The People vs Larry Flynt"

Nobody makes anyone buy something, if you do not care for something then do not buy it but having the government censor crap, is crap.

Wow, maybe the Tea Party folks will let me in on their lil party!

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

that is called heteronormativity :-). Who says what a "man" has to look like and what a "woman" has to look like? I remember the historical days when it was outrageous for women to wear trousers.... :-). These things vary. What a man looks today is different from what a man looks tomorrow. I mean look back at the days of Marlboro man and then look at men like Ashton Kutcher - nowadays the androgynety has taken over slightly. This photo is just a caricature or a step further to what is already present. Atlanta aside :-).

I understand that over time different looks for men and women become more mainstream. Even in Atlanta. I don't know if anybody has a say in what men and women have to look like. For myself I prefer masculine looking men and feminine looking women.

Originally Posted by ninasastri

The important question is: do we need to cater to these conervative people or do we need to focus a little more on reality?

The very small area of Atlanta that I live in doesn't have a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. We do have an independently owned drug store and book store that both sell magazines. Why would it be wrong if these shop owners decided they didn't want to sell that magazine in their stores? For them their reality is their customer base.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Agreed!

Watch the movie , "The People vs Larry Flynt"

Nobody makes anyone buy something, if you do not care for something then do not buy it but having the government censor crap, is crap.

Wow, maybe the Tea Party folks will let me in on their lil party!

You are so tunnel-visioned in your desire to bash the Tea Party you lose sight of what's going on....

Originally Posted by Ansley

The very small area of Atlanta that I live in doesn't have a Borders or a Barnes and Noble. We do have an independently owned drug store and book store that both sell magazines. Why would it be wrong if these shop owners decided they didn't want to sell that magazine in their stores? For them their reality is their customer base.

WTF, what about the rights of the Borders & the small shops near Ansley? Don't they have the right to make a business decision to not sell it?

Same when WalMart decides not to carry a magazine with a provocative cover, isn't that their right?

It isn't the government getting in your business or censorship when retailers decide not to carry something or advertisers decide not to sponsor certain shows.

I support your right to spew crap or try to sell crap but that doesn't mean I need to buy it or faciliate its sale....

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's almost as bad as tax dollars funding modern art in Philly.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You are so tunnel-visioned in your desire to bash the Tea Party you lose sight of what's going on....


....

You might need to read WTF I said before you respond defending those political wannabe's.

See I actually think the Tea Party folks are not for censorship. Not that this is censorship. I do still think they (Tea Party) are fuc'd in the head when they call for smaller government but do not want cuts to military and SS and Medicade. So atl, to recap, I do not hate them, I make fun of their convoluted positions. It's my job.

So while I totally agree with the part I quoted from nina, I agree with you too. You need to start reading things a little closer. You are like an emotional lil girl when I talk about the Tea Folks, even when I back-handily praise them you whine!

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

WTF, what about the rights of the Borders & the small shops near Ansley? Don't they have the right to make a business decision to not sell it?

Same when WalMart decides not to carry a magazine with a provocative cover, isn't that their right?

It isn't the government getting in your business or censorship when retailers decide not to carry something or advertisers decide not to sponsor certain shows.

I support your right to spew crap or try to sell crap but that doesn't mean I need to buy it or faciliate its sale....

Exactly....they can make a business decision not to sell to ignorant white people. I would support that. I would not agree with it but I would support it. I am not a big fan of government intervention. That is where me and the Tea Folks agree. The Tea Folks are a strange lot....they do not want government intervention unless say you built a strip club next to their church. Then they would want the government to shut it down.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by WTF

The Tea Folks are a strange lot....they do not want government intervention unless say you built a strip club next to their church. Then they would want the government to shut it down.

I've thought the same thing.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Why would it be wrong if these shop owners decided they didn't want to sell that magazine in their stores? For them their reality is their customer base.

You are right with that statement. But to have an artist make a work and then censor it because of customers is a little "strange". The they should have said right away: Look our customers are conservative, make sure such and such things are not portrayed. But a call back of a published work (who let it publish at first) with some stupid statements disguising facts, is an attack against the minority of these androgyneous people.

I agree with you completely that market gets shaped to customers needs and these are things that should have been thought of before instead of attacking a male model for "looking too female". This is a derogatory statement. If they said the customer base is out of the reach for this marketing strategy and the majority of customers does not attract to that kind of advertisement it would have been batter than to bash a minority.

They had to go to the process of hiring that model, someone might have condoned it (this model is KNOWN for this look that is what makes him rich). So someone must have gotten wet pants afterwards and made a stupid decision. I mean if you do something i tend to think you have to follow thru OR admit YOU made a mistake (in this case the marketing strategist)
and put the blame on HIM and not on the model .

But its easier to bash artists and minorities to admit a marketing strategist made a lousy and not well thought of decision.

[Marcus Aurelius]

[NinaBrooke]

(lololololololol)

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

You are right with that statement. But to have an artist make a work and then censor it because of customers is a little "strange". The they should have said right away: Look our customers are conservative, make sure such and such things are not portrayed. But a call back of a published work (who let it publish at first) with some stupid statements disguising facts, is an attack against the minority of these androgyneous people.

I agree with you completely that market gets shaped to customers needs and these are things that should have been thought of before instead of attacking a male model for "looking too female". This is a derogatory statement. If they said the customer base is out of the reach for this marketing strategy and the majority of customers does not attract to that kind of advertisement it would have been batter than to bash a minority.

They had to go to the process of hiring that model, someone might have condoned it (this model is KNOWN for this look that is what makes him rich). So someone must have gotten wet pants afterwards and made a stupid decision. I mean if you do something i tend to think you have to follow thru OR admit YOU made a mistake (in this case the marketing strategist)
and put the blame on HIM and not on the model .

But its easier to bash artists and minorities to admit a marketing strategist made a lousy and not well thought of decision.

So in your little world here, who is at fault? Everybody has "marketing strategists." Whose marketing strategist?

As you mention, this model does well for him(her?)self. He got paid. He's laughing all the way to the bank....