Advanced search

Is this argument valid?

(74 Posts)
ArmyDad Wed 19-Mar-14 14:05:39

We have a teenage dd and a ds who is a couple of years younger. Ever since she has been in that adolescent phase she has had posters on her wall, all normal stuff but mainly of one of the twilight actors who in the poster is topless. So far no problems, as far as I'm concerned this is, as I said normal teenage stuff.

DS on the other hand has always had footie posters until recently when he put up a poster of a glamour model, not topless just in a bikini. DW has taken it off of his wall saying it is sexist and objectifies women. When DS pointed out that this is unfair as his sister has a couple of topless blokes on her wall DW's argument was that as he was an actor and DS likes the films it is different i.e. he is on the wall essentially advertising the film.

So is it valid or does this seem a little unfair on DS?

gordyslovesheep Wed 19-Mar-14 14:10:52

Unless the actor is pouting and wearing Speedos they aren't the same really. Male toplessness is a bit different

That said I wouldn't take his poster down its his room

Middleagedmotheroftwo Wed 19-Mar-14 14:14:03

What goes for one, goes for the other. If it's OK to have a poster of a bloke topless, then it's OK to have a poster of a girl in a bikini.
I'd draw the line at a topless girl though.

ThatBloodyWoman Wed 19-Mar-14 14:14:31

I think they are different, and I think your DW was right to remove it.

I would.

WooWooOwl Wed 19-Mar-14 14:14:34

It's completely valid, and I totally agree with your ds.

I wouldn't let my teenage sons have glamour models up on their walls, but I wouldn't do anything that sent them the message that what was ok for for their sister wasn't ok for them either. I don't think you can have it both ways if you want to promote equality.

ThatBloodyWoman Wed 19-Mar-14 14:15:40

Oh -I just realised that I have misread the op.

If she is in a bikini, not topless, I would be ok with that!

meditrina Wed 19-Mar-14 14:18:11

In terms of amount of flesh on show, no difference (both within norms of decency).

In terms of what they represent, yes there is a difference. One is a rounded character (albeit a fictional one). The other is all about appearance. Perhaps posters of sports stars, dancers, actresses would be more acceptable an something that is just body?

thecatneuterer Wed 19-Mar-14 14:19:09

I agree with your DS.

fluffyraggies Wed 19-Mar-14 14:19:36

So how old is the DS?

I dont have any sons (4DDs) and i think after 16 i'd let them have 'glamour' posters up. Although i'd be hmm about topless.

anklebitersmum Wed 19-Mar-14 14:21:12

No flaunted nipples on the walls in this house-be they male or female.

I would say that DS is being hard done to if DD is allowed to keep her topless shots unless DW would be OK with DS having Baywatch, Barbarella or similar topless?

ginmakesitallok Wed 19-Mar-14 14:21:30

Meditrina, while I understand your argument, it doesn't make much sense really. So it's OK to ogle a woman's body as long as she's a rounded character? I doubt the twilight poster is on the wall because of his rounded character!

crazy88 Wed 19-Mar-14 14:22:25

I think they are 2 different things but even so I wouldn't take his poster down.

wishingchair Wed 19-Mar-14 14:23:26

Well, they're both objectifying aren't they. Whether one is advertising a film isn't really the point, either you're ok with semi-naked posters or you're not. But if the girl goes, then the boy has to as well!

Personally, I wouldn't like the glamour model on my son's wall. Not only is it objectifying but I also don't think they project a healthy image of what a "normal" girl looks like. That's the worst bit for me ... that he may come to look at the fake boobs/nails/hair/eyelashes/tan/hollywood wax etc, as being normal. Although pretty sure the topless Twilight actors don't bear much resemblance to the boys in your DD's school either!

So - in summary - one rule for all!

crazy88 Wed 19-Mar-14 14:24:56

hmm at "rounded characters" also, that just sounds pedantic, AND pompous.

anklebitersmum Wed 19-Mar-14 14:25:59

this is a rounded fictional character but I'm guessing this isn't what's on DD's wall grin

ChunkyPickle Wed 19-Mar-14 14:27:14

I think it is different, and your wife is right.

The twilight poster, whilst clearly there to be pretty, is of a person - a character with a name, and a back story, which your daughter could tell you. He's clearly a person (albeit fictional)

The glamour model is just a woman in a bikini. Your son has no idea of her name, her likes and dislikes etc. it is absolutely objectification in the same way that a poster of a car would be (although at least he'd know the name of the car)

If he was putting up a poster of some other character (in whatever mode of dress) from a TV show/movie that he enjoyed then it would be comparable and I'd be on his side

TheListingAttic Wed 19-Mar-14 14:31:32

Hrmmm. I do think there is a difference between an actor who stars in films you like and someone nameless who's only there by virtue of being half dressed. Posters of girls in bikinis are viewed and produced for different reasons than posters of actors, even 'sexy' ones.

That said, I think your DS has a fair point. I wouldn't make him take it down, but I'd probably want to have a conversation about why you get posters of nameless women in their undies, but men in posters tend to be famous for something other than taking their clothes off.

Binkyridesagain Wed 19-Mar-14 14:31:34

Kate Winslet showing breast in Titanic might be a more suitable choice judging from some of these responses.

wishingchair Wed 19-Mar-14 14:31:54

Agree with you ChunkyPickle, to some extent. But back in the day when there were posters of Pamela Anderson in her Baywatch gear ... were the boys contemplating her back story and the complexities of her character when gazing at her on their walls? I still think you have to decide if (semi)nudity is ok or it isn't ... there are plenty of Twilight posters with the actors in clothes.

meditrina Wed 19-Mar-14 14:32:27

OK, I have an unpopular view, but any chance of not rounding on me personally?

I suppose I meant that images of people are OK, and there is to me a difference between images of people/characters and images taken solely to display the body.

wishful75 Wed 19-Mar-14 14:33:40

I agree with your dw

as chunky pickle says there is a character and backstory etc...if your ds were to choose an actress out of a film or programme he enjoys then I would see it as the same but a glamour model is purely objectification and certainly different. Not something I would allow.

wishingchair Wed 19-Mar-14 14:34:27

And remember this? Would this be comparable to DS's glamour model? If so, would this still be OK on DD's wall but glamour model still not ok?

One rule for all I say!

crazykat Wed 19-Mar-14 14:34:54

I'd say your son is right.

I wouldn't allow topless girls but a bikini while not great would be okay.

Right or not its fine for men to just wear shorts at the swimming pool / beach but not so much for women.

A poster of a topless bloke is just as objectifying as one of a woman in a bikini. Yes women have pressure to be thin/tanned/waxed etc but men have pressure to have muscles/six pack etc.

wishingchair Wed 19-Mar-14 14:37:04

And yes, have a talk about the glamour/porn industry in general. The objectification, the unhealthy images it portrays, the fact that many (not all) of the women involved would rather be doing something else. For every Katie Price, there are hundreds and hundreds of exploited and abused girls, etc etc.

anklebitersmum Wed 19-Mar-14 14:37:21

Playboy's centrefolds always used to have their likes, dislikes and stuff in the write up about them. So as long as he's read that he'd be fine to keep it? Really? confused

I had posters of my teen idols on my bedroom walls. None of them were half naked though mind you it was the 80's

It's eye candy end of. So no eye candy for DS=no eye candy for DD.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: