Memento Mori

Lanasia IG story: lanasia_official_60466502_141454270306885_9123369531336984664_n.mp4

videos:

Markets and capitalism are not the same thing. The former is many centuries older. Corporations are younger still. The difference between a collective and a corporation like SI is that in the former hypothetical, the models and photographers would also be owners. It's a significant difference that's extremely important to the left. If nobody else cares or notices, that's fine, but no leftist on the planet will ever be convinced it's the same thing. Business is their prime purpose and they're very bad at it. But you're right that I shouldn't write off their motivations as entirely insincere just because I've identified them as corporate liberals. All media are biased, including (indeed, I'd argue, especially) the allegedly neutral "understanding stuff" sources. My point is that corporate media is biased in a specific and predictable way that has consequences for SISE's editorial decisions. Please don't erase the specific example I used, it was an airbrushed 19-year old Nina Agdal. This is not a human that actually exists. That is what I was saying was, I think correctly, criticized for going "too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty." If there's something to be said in favor of the 2019 edition, it's that the photos of Lais Ribeiro actually look like Lais Ribeiro. In any case, the "aesthetic canon" is socially determined. "Desirable" women in Renaissance paintings did not have figures like Hannah Ferguson or complexions like Lauren Mellor. __________________ That said, I don't wanna dominate this discussion. I know my views on politics aren't popular 'round here, and I'd rather not get in too deep. I have pictures to gawk at and gifs to make.

Probably. They might think that it's too late for subtlety, their brand, nay their entire concept was (and despite their efforts, still is) seriously compromised among Liberals. But honestly the simplest and, in my view, likeliest explanation is that being subtle is actually hard, and MJ et al. aren't up to that challenge. Edit: This is unavoidably true, and it's implicit in their new approach that they think it is a corrective to encourage readers to objectify a wider variety of women. If they were more honest and competent, it seems obvious to me that they should have gone another direction and started objectifying conventionally attractive men, too. Sure that would annoy some folks, but probably fewer of them, and along less contested political lines. People frustrated by hot guys in their girlie mag, and people concerned with the lingering imbalance due to patriarchy would both be mad, but those people are not the same and don't even talk to each other.

As I said in my post a few pages back, media liberals. "The left" isn't a monolith and has a great deal of different takes on whether "looking at media of conventionally attractive women" is good, bad, or neutral. What most of them agree on is that it's not great for that to be commodified and sold by capital. So even if they're in the "ogle Sarah Stephens, it's fine" camp, they're not going to go out of their way to buy SI, nor are they likely to give SISE any credit for "representation," since that's largely a liberal goal, particularly if that's all they're doing. The left cares about power structures, and nothing SI has done suggests they have even reconsidered the implications of a corporate-owned magazine dictating what beauty ought to be. Now if they want to become a swimsuit lady collective owned and operated by the models and photographers, then some on the left might give it a second look, and in fact even encourage people to pay for it. You don't see as many critiques of, say, the Suicide Girls among left wingers for largely this reason. Rank and file Liberals are as diverse as the left, but might be more inclined to accept the SISE's approach to inclusion if they haven't already decisively determined it's just a lads' mag with delusions of grandeur. If I had to venture a guess, those Liberals who paid attention to the content of the magazine at all probably condemned it during MJ's "go nuts with the airbrushing" era, which reached a peak in 2011 or so if I recall correctly. When you've broken out Photoshop to make Nina Agdal's body even more perfect then yeah, maybe you did go too far in promoting unrealistic standards of beauty; and Liberals who actually remember this (and most do, if only vaguely) will see the current edition as desperate. They might argue, with some justification, that the same editorial team who thought the 2011 photos were good is definitely ill-equipped to even do justice to their more recent approach. What makes media (read: corporate) liberals different is they're the ones whose views on what you conservative lot (this is by far the most right-wing forum I willingly read in my free time) call "PC" or social justice are actually insincere and calculated, rather than deriving from genuinely-held moral principles. Their cynicism permits them to ignore the obvious contradictions in the very concept of a woke titty mag. Their aim isn't to "shove PC down your throats," their aim is to thread the needle between Liberals and the right (Edit: they don't know what the left is, and wouldn't care about us if they did), so they can sell magazines to as many people as possible. They want to have their cake and eat it too, which infuriates Liberals, but just makes leftists tell them, "we told you so." (Which also infuriates Liberals, so they're gonna vote for Joe Biden to get back at us).

Lanasia

ig story: frankie_marin_59872785_839565396396991_6222803024875194695_n.mp4 glowrecipe_59765908_414475752682832_7803734991931767652_n.mp4 frankie_marin_60010710_2232385716837986_2659819477081662257_n.mp4

raybitancourt_59781445_671184919986425_4607901026958180352_n.mp4 raybitancourt_59745780_354386895434177_3052029268348370944_n.mp4 raybitancourt_60104838_138399230649825_7241067076216642375_n.mp4

She already has a thread here under Charlie Austin

Recent IG:

I obviously can't speak for everyone left of Joe Biden, but I can't recall reading or hearing anyone with anything close to my politics being impressed by this trend either. The leftists think it's tepid, box-checking liberalism which doesn't challenge or even seem aware of power (no matter which sort of power structure--or post-structure--a given leftist would want to see criticized, it's definitely not something SI's editors think about). The liberals generally see it as a lagging indicator, less a bold taboo breaker than a cynical adoption of messaging made acceptable by more controversial activism. In this respect they seem to half agree with conservatives, at least with regards to the former, that it's a kind of cynical pandering. But they're annoyed for a slightly different reason, because they feel patronized. Typically both, even if they were predisposed to favor such things for other reasons, see it coming from the SI Swimsuit issue as a kind of fruit of a poisonous tree. Different people go back and forth on objectification versus empowerment, but broadly speaking the SI Swimsuit issue is still widely known as something teen boys used to jack off to before free internet porn; so they're disinclined to take any attempts at activism on its cover or in its pages seriously. MJ et al seem to think they're in charge of an influential cultural icon, yet most people think they run a glorified once-yearly lads' mag. The people who seem to like this sort of stuff? Media liberals, who are their own thing, because they get to be woke in a way their corporate sponsors find acceptable while still showing tits for views. Hence why it gets so much more press than any discourse seems to justify; and also one reason why they seem keen to keep doing it.

ig story nicolaca__58977916_2320934591454350_4879871372098647307_n.mp4

Shooting for Lanasia (ig story) juliemarch__59626539_342793226421967_7996464408527345191_n.mp4 juliemarch__58691694_131273714635628_7808267312654992404_n.mp4 xanasia_59492655_133204601167052_7293721105339170763_n.mp4 nicolaca__59648858_397793661066293_5000443444001229683_n.mp4

by Jeffrey Chan for C Heads

Womens Secret

Don't sign your posts.