a perfect stranger
got a comment on flickr saturday night, on this photo:
Ok. I’m a perfect stranger over here, and I was looking at some of your great photography linked to here from your blog. I think you have a beautiful family and you are obviously really in love with your wife and a good father, but I can’t for the life of me understand why you would keep pictures like this freely available in a photoset next to pictures of your sweet little daughter. A) you’re bound to have guys who are out trolling for pics tagged with “strippers” find your photostream which would easily lead them to pictures of your daughter including the ones of her in the bathtub, and this may be a bit more subjective and judgmental, B) how can you be a husband and father to a little girl and support the objectification of women such as in the previous photos of men gathered around watching simulated sex acts? What if your little girl grows up to think that letting guys pay her to take her clothes off or eat out another chick is OK? What if in 15 years you’re surfing around online and find pictures like this of your Charlotte? Maybe its time to delete, or at least make private, some of your history…
from here.
on one hand, i’m surprised it’s taken this long to get a comment like this. 
on the other, i have a few things to say in rebuttal. it seems unlikely that someone with no pictures and no favorites and no friends on flickr is going to be returning to check for replies, so i’ll just go ahead and post it here (apparently, that’s the way this person took on the way to flickr anyway–through the blog). through the magic of the interweb i can cross link the two!
————————–
argument A: people trolling for pics of strippers on flickr will be titillated by my naked/bathing 3-year old daughter.
hmm. i’m not sure i’m following this logic. it seems to me that someone interested in pics of naked/bathing kids is going to search for that (by using keywords like kid, kids, naked, nude, bath, bathing, shower, etc), whereas someone searching for pics of strippers (using keywords like stripper, party, bachelor party, dildo, naked, tits, ass, pussy, cunt, snatch, money, whore, slut) are actually interested in pics of strippers.
i suppose that dastardly keyword “naked” could be used for both, but hey, they’re both naked, and being naked isn’t such a bad thing. besides, someone searching a portal like flickr with a ubiquitous keyword like “naked” and landing on one of my pictures has a probability of 5 in 397,895, and these are the five pics with that keyword–none of which are a picture of my daughter.
besides, the single most viewed picture on my stream is this one– a picture of my scrumptiously delectable wife in my basement. by comparison the “stripper” pics don’t have nearly as many views. so if # of views are an indication of what people are looking at in my stream, my wife is in an almost untouchable lead (she also holds spots two and three), and would certainly be a more likely conduit to draw in the horny hoardes of pedophiles. however, i still don’t see a large overlap between the kiddy porn aficionados and the milf/cougar crowd. in fact, one could argue that the two forms of eroticism are nearly diametrically opposed (though inextricably linked through birth itself).
come to think of it, i wonder why the commenter didn’t even mention my wife? god forbid my daughter grows up to be like THAT hussy.
————————–
argument B) perpetuating the objectification of women, including my daughter.
this is an interesting one, with a huge number of facets. where to begin?
something that immediately bothered me about the tone of the comment is the inherent condescension regarding strippers. “What if your little girl grows up to think that letting guys pay her to take her clothes off or eat out another chick is OK?”
hmm. i have to be honest–i didn’t know that it WASN’T ok.
we’ve all heard the countless horror stories of the women trapped and/or coerced into the profession, reduced to commodities at the detriment to their self-esteem and sense of value. i don’t disagree that there are some out there that ARE in such a position. i also know for a fact that the friends of mine that have become lawyers feel the same way–they don’t feel particularly good about themselves, or what they do for a living, but they can’t switch careers and start over at a lower pay-scale. i know a lot of roofers in that exact situation too. it looks to me a lot more like a “worker” thing and not a “sex-worker” thing.
i particularly don’t subscribe to the idea that in situations such as this, the women are the ones being “taken advantage” of. in fact in the vast majority of cases i think it’s just the opposite… i think strippers and strip clubs are one of the very best examples of MALE commodification you can find. consider it a moment: i’m going to sit at the edge of a stage, and continually fork over money, sometimes competing with other males for your attention, so you can dance and move around, partially dressed, while i can see you?
it’s an absurd situation.
the MEN in strip clubs are far more pitiful than the women. trust me on this one. or don’t, and go to one and see for yourself–you won’t burst into flames upon entrance to the building, and if you’re female you’ll probably get in for free anyway. observe the spectacle as men express themselves not through the movement of dance, nor through the beauty of their physical forms, but rather through the denominations of their bills:
at the end of the night, the men go home with unsatisfied hard-ons, and the strippers go home with buckets of money (and dildos). who pulled one over on whom?
i don’t buy into the “objectification” argument either. just what exactly does that mean? that we are enjoying some physical manifestation of another person? damn, if THAT is really the issue then all of society is in danger… there isn’t a single aspect of media that does not leverage “physicality” in that definition of objectification. why is it ok to objectify someone’s sense of humor, but not someone’s tits? are actors and models hired because of their value systems, or because of how they look on the camera? am i bad person because my wife and i decided we wanted a “small dog” rather than a large one?
i’m weary of objectification getting such a bad rap. human beings ARE objects. we can be created and destroyed, broken and repaired, photographed, carried, washed, and healed. people who rail against objectification are living a fantasy where we are nothing but ephemeral spirits. in the world i live in, my wife and daughter, sister and mother are all objects, and so am i–and so is my small dog alice.
the condescending tone reaches a crescendo with the following sentence: “What if in 15 years you’re surfing around online and find pictures like this of your Charlotte?” (as if it’s the absolute WORST thing that could ever befall me and my family.)
well, the first thing i’ll do is see how good the pictures are.
the second thing i’ll do is ask her if she’s retained publishing rights to the photos.
the third thing i’ll do is ask her what she’s learned from the process, and if she’s happy with the way it turned out.
in 15 years she’ll be an adult in the eyes of the law, and her life will be her own (even though it already is–she just doesn’t know it yet because we haven’t told her). the idea that someone would feel shame and guilt and embarrassment speaks more about the viewer of the picture than it does the subject. what does the fact that such an image exists mean TO THEM? that they’ve failed as a parent? that they’ve “lost” their child to the dark side?
i’m still wondering how taking clothes OFF for money as a stripper is any different than putting them ON for money as a model.
the only answer is that most people can’t handle sex–particularly ironic because it’s why any of us are here in the first place. no sex = no humans, right?
am i the only one who sees art and athleticism in a well-executed tupperware party?
as my best buddy bren says, “it’s only skin.” except sometimes, it’s not skin–it’s plastic:
(lest you think we’re objectifying her, i’d like to note that we gave her her first shot in her fledgling acting career.)
Interesting arguments. If you’re at all interested, I’d love to email you an article regarding sex workers/prostitution. Not that I’m trying to start a debate or anything, it’d just be an interesting supplement to all this!
Reply
p.s. i adore your photography
Reply
krystal: please do forward it along. i don’t mind a good debate! and thanks for the comment about the pics..
Reply
We’ve already discussed all this so I have nothing to say really. Nice job on the post. It was really hard to boil all that down but you did it.
I think you should write a book.
Reply
And you’re right. I am such a hussy!
Reply
Nice post man - well said. I’d have replied with many more swear words, you did a much better job than I could have.
Reply
The thing I hate most about comments like that is…
it simply isn’t any of his business. Honestly, if people just minded to their own business this world would be a better place.
Reply
You and Stooge. Peas=Pod. He said pretty much the same thing to me at one point. I’m pretty sure he’ll love this post. Or you. Or both.
Reply
Ken, your post was great. I’ll address my comments to the original commenter.
By stating that this photo “supports the objectification of women,” you are placing a layer of shame over sexuality and women’s bodies. There is nothing inherently shameful about sex. There is nothing shameful about women’s bodies. What I think you are objecting to is that these women are not adhering to antiquated notions of womanhood and purity. By projecting shame onto them and by being ashamed for them, you take the guise of being concerned about their objectification but actually you want to deny them the right to control their sexuality. There is nothing in this photo that suggests that these women are unwilling participants.
News flash, women’s bodies are objectified whenever their personal choices are subject to approval, disapproval, or comment whether fully clothed or showing skin. You are the one who is objectifying these women by assuming to speak for them and their choices as if they are mere sex objects and not people with the capacity to make their own decisions about their sexuality and how to display it. By projecting shame and judgment onto these women, you are saying that you know what is better for them than they do. As a side note, I noticed that you did not say anything in regard to the man in the photograph. Is that because it’s only women’s bodies you want to control?
You asked Ken to consider the possibility of his daughter growing up to think that letting guys pay her to take her clothes off is okay. Again, you need to be more specific. Are you talking stripping down for a role in a Hollywood film or a Calvin Klein or Victoria’s Secret ad? No, I think you are talking about strippers and porn stars. Believe it or not, some women enjoy taking their clothes off for money. We call them models when they sign with an agency but whores when they do it in a nightclub. And you are talking about them as if they are garbage. That, my dear, is objectification. That is what I find offensive. I’m sure we all would prefer for his daughter to find another line of work because we know how demeaning and dangerous sex work can be. You know why? Because women are treated as objects. You see how it’s a vicious cycle? The same people that judge sex workers are also the same people that object to laws and regulations that would protect them from unscrupulous bosses, dangerous work conditions, and unhealthy working situations. The same laws and regulations that protect other occupations that were once considered shameful are not applied to them. You know why? Because you are ashamed of them and ashamed for them and believe that they should be punished. Again, it’s your judgment that is objectifying these women.
Finally, your comment that Ken should be concerned lest his daughter grow up to “eat out another chick” reveals your desire to control women and your narrow-minded views on sexuality. The derisive tone and intentional choice of words for what you appear to believe is a repulsive act reveals much more about you than anything else you have said. And you know what? Because Ken and Crissy value their daughter’s autonomy and personal choices as an individual and as a woman, she will be a much healthier individual than anyone under your rigid system of propriety and objectification.
Reply
Great post, Ken. Now I will go on and on and on.
You’re right about everything. The author of the comment on Flickr obviously thinks that nudity and simulated sex and, well, sex are shameful. That’s no reflection on you or your photography.
A. I troll for pictures of strippers. I am not sexually excited by pictures of three-year-olds. That isn’t to say that pictures of three-year-olds and of strippers can’t both be art and can’t both be stimulating in exactly the same ways, but people looking for sexual arousal in one are unlikely to be sexually aroused by the other. Meanwhile, the commenter’s concern can’t merely be that someone trolling for pictures of strippers will see your daughter naked. So what? They will also see pictures of turpentine and floor stripping equipment. Those will likely interest them about as much.
You don’t say it, Ken, because you’re nice, but the belief that the same people who might be titillated by strippers might also find nude three-year-olds titillating says a lot about the commenter, too. Meanwhile, the cause for concern even if this were true escapes me. So what? Some pedophile gets his jollies. If you eliminated all the stripper pictures as the commenter suggests, only pedophiles would get their jollies. Is that what he wants? I’m sure some perv looks at pictures of Alice and gets a hard-on. Should that concern you? Why isn’t the commenter concerned that some bestiality freak will find your photos and happen upon pictures of your daughter? For that matter, why isn’t the commenter concerned that some pervert hot for children or dogs will stumble upon the poor strippers? Since it’s the thoughts and intentions of the viewer that matter to the commenter, shouldn’t he be concerned about the strippers as well?
Well, no, he doesn’t care about the strippers until he pretends to in his next argument. In the end, the commenter shares no rational basis for his concern. He isn’t concerned about your daughter. He is concerned that you posted pictures of strippers — as his follow-up comment betrays — and Girlfriend has nothing to do with it. Obviously, when he suggests that you clean up your history, he’s not suggesting that you remove Girlfriend’s pictures. Those pictures, he says, are “great photography” of your “beautiful family.” Nope. He wants the stripper pictures gone, and his feigned interest in Girlfriend’s well-being is a disguise.
B. Oh, the objectification of women. Here we go.
Objectification of women and men is not only common, but necessary. And not objectifying women and men, even sexually, would have consequences that I don’t think those who drop the feminist line about “objectifying women” without ever giving it even a moment’s thought consider. I won’t bother to say those people are, by and large, thoughtless and use this tired, illogical argument to further their unsupported biases.
To clarify your definition, yes, objectification is seeing a physical manifestation of a person, but it’s more. It’s failing to see the entire human being as a thinking, important, autonomous entity with feelings and a past and troubles and desires and dreams.
Um, like we all do with 95% of the people we come into contact everyday, of necessity.
You know that cop who pulls you over? You objectify her or him. That person is “the law.” That person has no feelings, only authority. Cops rely on exactly that objectification to give them authority. Without objectification, cops become people, not “the law.”
How about judges? When you stand before a judge, do you ask about her feelings, her history, her troubles? Nope. That would ruin the whole show. You see the judge as the decision-maker. If you subjectified the judge, she would be stripped of all authority. We need objectification.
Now, some will argue that physical objectification is different. Well, physical objectification can be good and bad. When you’re riding on the bus and a pregnant woman enters, you may give her your seat. Before you do that, do you ask about her circumstances, her feelings? Nah. She’s the pregnant lady. Based upon her sex and her physical condition, you act. That’s called objectification. Why isn’t anyone complaining?
Someone will tell you that purely sexual objectification is different. Why? When two people see one another across a crowded room, they are sexual objects. What draws them together is pure sexual objectification and interest. It’s entirely physical. That’s not the only way that people meet and get to know one another, but people who go on about objectification make believe that, for some unknown reason, it should never be that way. Why not, exactly?
Hey, Mr. Commenter, have you ever seen a cologne ad or a perfume ad? Has it interested you in the fragrance? If so, you sexually objectified the people in the ad. You see, you can’t smell the fragrance. You just look at the picture and you want what you see. That’s sexual objectification, the same thing we all do when we walk down the street, see a fine piece of ass, and want what we see. What is so wrong with that?
And, of course, it goes without saying that those opposed to sexualized entertainment objectify performers like strippers and prostitutes far more than those who support those art forms. I say, these women are adults who are capable of making up their own minds about how they earn money. Your commenter says, no, they are like children! They have no choices like the rest of us! They do what they must and hate every minute of it. Like Ken, I say that some of them probably don’t like what they do, as is true of many professions. But the commenter says that none can enjoy being objectified.
Hey, Ken, you recently went to see the Rockettes. Did you get all of their personal histories and explore their feelings when they were doing their high kicks? I didn’t think so. But because they never took their clothes entirely off, that’s wholesome entertainment and your objectification of all those women was permissible. It doesn’t matter that they were half naked. They weren’t performing simulated sex acts (whether or not they enjoyed the acting or the acts or any part of their jobs). That’s all that matters to those who argue that objectification destroys women. And were you titillated at all? Because, if you were, the Rockettes should be ashamed. How humiliating for them! But, if you were merely entertained, that’s fine. Somehow, what you, the viewer, bring to the show matters. And that’s the problem underlying the whole objectification argument. It’s the viewer who is in control, and somehow that affects the actors (and all women) negatively. Of course, you objectified them just the same, whether you were titillated or not, but let’s overlook that little problem for the sake of making objectification seem hurtful and inappropriate.
The whole objectification argument makes no sense, but it sounds intellectual and fancy so the leaps of illogic and the numerous holes in the argument are no deterrent to those with an agenda who probably haven’t give their agenda all that much thought either.
There’s plenty more here to comment on. In general, studies of prostitutes look almost exclusively at streetwalkers, who are much more likely to be turning tricks to support a drug habit, a pimp, or both. Yeah, those women are not always the happiest bunch. But studies of the legal prostitutes in Nevada as well as of in-call and out-call prostitutes demonstrate that they are, believe it or not, a diverse group of thinking, important, autonomous people, with feelings and a past and troubles and desires and dreams. Why can’t the anti-objectification people stop objectifying long enough to get that?
I agree that men at strip clubs are objectified at least as much as the women. Men are dicks with cash, plain and simple. The women want the cash but not the dick. They get what they want much more than men get what they want.
And, OMG, what if Girlfriend grows up to be a stripper?!? Well, what if she does? If she enjoys her job and loves her life, she’ll be a few steps ahead of most people. I sincerely hope that you’ll teach her that getting paid to take your clothes off and to eat out other women is just fine if that’s what you like to do.
I’ve known quite a few prostitutes, quite a few strippers, a couple of porn stars, two Playboy Playmates, a lot of actresses and models, and a lot of plain ol’ sluts. And you know what? They are all entertainers in one way or another. If your commenter thinks that the women who are getting naked or having sex for free are somehow enjoying it more or that your average nun or secretary or receptionist is somehow happier and feels more free to change professions, he is living in a fantasy world, and a sexual one at that. If only we all could.
And you’re right. Some people find shame and humiliation and guilt connected with all sex. Those attitudes are destructive to women and men alike. Meanwhile, for instance, we have this idea that it will harm children if they witness nudity or sexual situations before they reach adulthood, but it’s fine that they see a few murders everyday on television. As long as the people dying are caricatures — as long as we objectify them — murder is fine entertainment. But sex! Oh no! Sex is evil unless it’s between yada yada yada.
Well, I’ve rambled long enough. Now I’m off to Flickr to search for more strippers. I do love all the pictures in this post and your written response was great. Which is my way of saying I could have kept my mouth shut. But I can’t help myself.
Reply
puritans… heheheh
Reply
BTW… awesome photos!!!
I wish my wife would still let me take photos like that of her…
3 years ago was the last one.
Reply
hey sorry didn’t check back here until now! i will still send you the article…what is your email? you can email it to me or write it here..
Reply
Your words is smart.
Reply
Can we please get rid of the sluts and post pictures of our daughter on Christmas now? People are asking.
Reply
Ken - I am thinking about getting a new camera and wanted to ask you some questions if you don’t mind, but I can’t find your e-mail. If you’re willing, will you send your e-mail address to me? I’m k8zimm at aol.
Reply
Was gonna comment with “great post”, but it seems that’s already been said - at great length, no less.
So instead, I’m just gonna let everyone know that I love strippers!
And I busted out laughing when I read “god forbid she turns out like that hussy” and saw the pic again!
Reply
Wow, so many words on this. I did notice two things:
1. Crissy had not much to say. Not really knowing her, that still seems unusual.
2. That picture of Alice in only a top? Pretty daring of you.
Reply
I like this post. It’s very true. Strippers scare me, to be honest. I feel a little like I’m not in complete control of my body and sexuality quite the way they are. I still go to strip clubs. I love it. And it scares me. Like a roller coaster.
Reply
urban: don’t give up!
krystal: i’m still waiting…
kiala: i is smart
crissy: hold your horses
k8: i haven’t forgotten about you
alex: you can laugh at that picture of my wife as long as you have a hard on while you do so
joe: crissy can’t talk with a banana in her mouth, now, can she? alice is quite a whore, with eight tits too!
melissa: scary + enticing = thrilling. that reminds me of a picture i took of my daughter right after she got the shit scared out of her on her first roller coaster ride alone in the seat:
Reply
Ken….I LOVE your photography!! You and Crissy are doing a great job raising a strong and confident woman. It’s sad really that if someone disagrees with what you are posting they they would feel the need to comment on your parenting. It’s none of his damn business and he should have clicked off (or sucked of) and gone about his way. There are lots of out here that love your photos and appreciate them for the artistic value that they have. OK…I’ll step down off my soap box and go about my way…..JUST LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE!!!
Reply
P.S. I’m also jealous that I wasn’t there!!!
Reply
thanks for stopping by and leaving some kind words, lisa!
-ken
Reply
thanks for this mate!!! =)
Reply
I usually don
Reply