Topic for Discussion [quinn222]

I'd like your opinions.

I'm going to post some photographs under a cut, they are NOT SAFE FOR WORK. I'm not bothering with acronyms or whatever. There's nudity and sexual content under here. These are from a photoshoot that is going to appear in Details magazine. Remember that as it has some bearing on the photos. They feature Adam Lambert and an un-named female model (the un-named part is also important.) I don't care if you are a fan or not a fan of Adam or if you don't even know who he is, I just want to know what you think about these photographs. They are causing a furor on both my flist and the internet as a whole and even on TV and in newspaper, for varying reasons.

I'll give you the reasons and my own opinion in brief under the cut. Remember, these are NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

These photographs are to accompany an article about how women fantasize about and want to have sex with Adam even though they know he is gay. Paraphrasing a quote from Adam in the article he says what difference does it make if he is gay or not in terms of another person's fantasy, it's not as though it's actually going to happen so if someone finds him sexy that's great.

Here's some of what is going on.

Some people are offended because they put him (he's gay, if you weren't aware of that) with a woman instead of a man. See point of article above. This extends to both gay and straight blogs. I even heard a reporter say to him "I'd have thought you'd have been shown with a man."

Other people are offended by what they see as the objectifying of the woman in the photographs.

Yet other people are just flat out offended period and think the photos are obscene.

I happen to think the photographs are beautiful and am not offended by them. Would I like to see him photographed with a man (or men)? Sure! I have no doubt that will happen. He's going to be on the cover of Out, so maybe sooner rather than later. Would I expect to see him photographed in Details magazine with a naked man? No. They know their audience and that's pushing them out of the closet just a tiny bit too much. Okay, a whole lot too much. Also, theme of the article is women find Adam sexy. This is actually quite important because a lot of gay entertainers have been forced into closets by being told they will lose their fanbase if they come out because women will not find them attractive any more. Absurd I know but true. To quote someone on my flist (sorry I do not recall who said it) is Adam supposed to be forced into the gay ghetto just because he is out and can't ever 'play straight'? In case you were not aware Adam is also an actor, is he supposed to confine himself to gay only roles too?

The second question is a lot tougher. I suppose if you look at it a plainly B?W way, yes, she is objectified. Adam is clothed, she is not, in some of the photos he is manhandling her. (BTW there is video of this shoot and he can be seen pretty much doing just that in the video, lifting her up so her back is arched in the reclining photos.) I don't see it that way. I do think it shows the theme of the article, especially because the shots chosen for print all show him with his eyes closed and her looking straight at the camera. It's supposed to be her fantasy we're seeing. I find them beautiful and sexy. I find this argument a bit disingenuous to tell the truth. It's sort of on a par with picking up Playboy and then complaining that the women in it are objectified. It's Details. I know the argument is that it should not matter, women should not be objectified period. Again, true to an extent. But don't we all objectify the subjects of our fantasies? It's not as though we actually know these people and love them for who they really are.

One more thing and maybe it has some bearing on my opinion. Years ago part of my job involved reviewing a catalog of porn titles for certain technical information to be sure it was correct. As I've moved up and around in my company this task has stayed with me. Mostly because I don't want to ask anyone else to do it. I don't have to see the stuff, I only see the titles. Sometimes you have to laugh but really, it's awful. The titles are so degrading as far as women are concerned that it's kind of depressing. So maybe I compare these lovely, sexy photographs with that filth and come up on the positive side.

So tell me, honestly, what do you think? I really want to know.

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3 1	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29 1	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I think it would have been much more interesting if HE had been naked and she had been clothed (a la John Lennon and Yoko). But, it is Details magazine.

OUT ought to do the same shoot with a guy.

I guess since I'm older I've seen this play out so many times (objectifying a woman). The photos are striking. It was have been interesting to see them come up with something different for a chance.

They didn't offend me. I guess other than the B&W making them striking, they were kinda boring.

[link] [reply]

But, it is Details magazine.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think the photos are gorgeous from an art perspective. Do I find them sexy? No, not particularly, the only one I found sexy was #5, the others I related to more as art. To be honest, I found the skinnyness of the model distracting and wish that they had used either someone a size bigger or a man.

To be honest, I found the skinnyness of the model distracting

She is very thin.

(no subject) —

court1429.livejournal.com

The photos didn't offend me at all. I found them beautiful and think shooting in black & white added to their artistic AND fantastic (as in fantasy) appeal.

If it's clear this is the woman's fantasy then it works for me and doesn't objectify her. I think, in some ways having a clothed man undress a woman is very sensual -- "worshipping her body in a physical way".

I hope "Out" can find an equally beautiful theme for a layout with Adam.

I hope "Out" can find an equally beautiful theme for a layout with Adam.

I'll second that!

I have thought the photographs were beautiful since the first time I saw them. They are truly artistic, and wonderfully done. I love that she's so pale and he's completely in black. Even the contrast of his chipped black nail polish against her body is striking.

I have seen much much worse things done in print, and I don't see how people can be up in arms about Adam Lambert doing something like this. Women (and a lot of men too!) have objectified him as a very sexual creature since the first time they saw him on American Idol. He oozes sex, and there is nothing wrong with Adam posing with a woman. Gay actors have straight male roles, and straight men have gay roles. It's all part of the entertainment business. Sex sells, and these photos basically drip with sex appeal without being pornographic. I would like to eventually see Adam in photos like these with a man, but that's mostly because I know that's more who he is. Plus I'm a perv about that kind of thing. That doesn't mean I have any complaints about a themed article having suitable (fantastic!) photos.

One last thing, if these photos had been in a classier publication would people still be so against them, or would they seem them as the beautiful photos they are?

I love that she's so pale and he's completely in black.

I like that a lot too.

When I first saw them I thought they were beautifully done.

They are not in the slightest obsecene to me. It's Details magazine....for goodness sake. You know what you might be getting before you open the cover.

I agree with you. I think we will see Adam with a man (men)and again, people will be appalled and enthralled.

The bottom line for me is this - Adam Lambert has seemed to open up that closet door and shoved a door stop under it.

People are openly talking about him and the media seems to love him. So he is OUT there and in a good way. He is only helping the cause by the sheer force of his personality and personal friendliness during interviews. He's unafraid.

Go Adam....

The bottom line for me is this - Adam Lambert has seemed to open up that closet door and shoved a door stop under it.

People are openly talking about him and the media seems to love him. So he is OUT there and in a good way. He is only helping the cause by the sheer force of his personality and personal friendliness during interviews. He's unafraid.

THIS.

They look fine. She is objectified, but if I look at her as such, another prop to add to the photo, I like lines and roundness it adds. I'm guessing she's had dance training or yoga as well to keep those kinds of poses, wow.

Actually, it's the bottom picture in close-up that feels kind of boring.

And it is Details, I don't recall that they ever had photos with two men unless it was specifically an article on gay marriage or something.

Actually, it's the bottom picture in close-up that feels kind of boring.

I agree, I love the lines of their bodies in the other shots. Even the one with just Adam has a great body line.

One of the first things I noticed is that Adam doesn’t look like Adam. Women (well, me) fantasize about Adam in no small part because of the way he looks; the way he dresses with chains, the way he accessorizes, the way his eyes look when he’s lined them with black, the glitter. So, realistically, I don’t think there are huge numbers of women out there fantasizing about an Adam that looks like, well, Fonzie from Happy Days.

Hmmm, the model … objectification of women was here long before she was and will be here long after she’s gone. She chose to do the shoot. If she doesn’t feel objectified then why is everyone else worried about it. It reminds me of a great BK line, “If I’m not sucking your dick, then it’s none of your business.” (I’m paraphrasing, but you get the gist.) I loved what you said about Playboy. That’s it exactly. Let’s let people make their own choices and fight their own battles. Now, the little girls that are being sold into prostitution overseas? THEY are objectified … the feminist groups should be outraged about them, not this skinny model who’s getting paid to lie naked in the arms of Adam Lambert.

The pictures themselves are a beautiful depiction of erotic fantasy. Black and white are always a sexy backdrop for erotic pictures, I think. His nail polish on her white skin and her nail polish on his black jeans offers a nice contrast also. I like that he’s dressed and she’s not; it doesn’t look blatant to me; he only has on a t-shirt and jeans except in the one on the cover. He does look a lot more like Adam on the cover, but still … that suit jacket with the buttons on the sleeve? Either Fonzie’s coming home from a day at the office or Darren Stephen has a long of explaining to do! 

Cindy

Now, the little girls that are being sold into prostitution overseas? THEY are objectified … the feminist groups should be outraged about them, not this skinny model who’s getting paid to lie naked in the arms of Adam Lambert.

Excellent point.

susanderavish.livejournal.com

Magazines like Details always objectify women. Other magazines objectify men. I'm sure there are gay mags out there that objectify twinky young boys. That's kind of what they do--what we buy them for.

I don't see what this has to do with Adam. He is not an activist or anything. I sincerely doubt he cares.

I think the pictures are very pretty. And they are surprisingly sexy. I would LOVE to see him with a guy, because that's what *I* personally find sexy, but that has nothing to do with the interview and the photoshoot in question.

Though I have to say, I know nothing at all about any of this stuff. I've never been any good at spotting the hidden meanings and/or implications in shit like this. I just mostly don't care.

Though I have to say, I know nothing at all about any of this stuff. I've never been any good at spotting the hidden meanings and/or implications in shit like this. I just mostly don't care.

As a photographer I have to say I love you for saying this. It's so refreshing.

They look like art photos. Despite the positioning they don't strike me as particularly sexual. Is the woman a prop? Yeah, pretty much. But then so is he. There's nothing spontaneous about any of these pictures that make one person less objectified than the other.

Despite the positioning they don't strike me as particularly sexual. Is the woman a prop? Yeah, pretty much. But then so is he.

Yup.

I too find the photographs beautiful, the black and white adds to the dynamic. I'm not sure they would have the same impact if they were in colour.

I don't have a problem with them at all, like you pointed out, Adam is playing a part, it's an artistic set of shots, there's a clear theme, I see nothing wrong.

I don't have a problem with them at all, like you pointed out, Adam is playing a part, it's an artistic set of shots, there's a clear theme, I see nothing wrong.

Me too. I'm stunned at the amount of vitriolic rage that's being spewed about this.

I completely agree with everything you said. I looked at the photos and thought, "Wow, hot." Read the premise of the article and thought, "Good message. Celebs need to know women think they're hot, gay or not." I agree with you about the "gay ghetto" comment, and how it is uncool to relegate him to only being photographed with men because he's out. He's out. He can be photographed with whoever he wants!!!

As for objectification of the woman, I agree with you, too, in that she is in one way an object, yes, but a) she is in control (eyes open vs his eyes closed), and b) women are programmed from infancy to want to be the object, to find being touched in these ways sexy, and to fantasize about having a man do these things to her. Though, frankly, I don't see much manhandling in the pics, even when she's on her back, and he's touching her. It still seems very much like a consensual thing, not a power thing at all. I really see almost no powerplay in those particular shots, and in the others, the woman seems in the power position -- though actually somehow more objectified, which is kind of my point. I was talking the other day with someone about the near impossibility of removing objectification from the sexual equation when you have men and women involved -- even if the woman is shown as in control and holding the power reins in the sexual situation, she is still shown as the object of lust, the one the viewer's eyes are drawn to. Our culture of objectifying women is so deeply ingrained that we make women objects in our minds, even if the actual situation pictured doesn't have to be about that. I think this is a case in point.

I think that the message of these photos is a strong woman fulfilling herself sexually with this sexy man. I think they are hot.

Celebs need to know women think they're hot, gay or not." I agree with you about the "gay ghetto" comment, and how it is uncool to relegate him to only being photographed with men because he's out. He's out. He can be photographed with whoever he wants!!!

I was thinking about this some more today. We all have a fantasy life but young tweens and teens as they become sexually aware always have that fantasy thing going on with whatever celeb of the day is in vogue at the time. Are the ten percent of those kids who are gay or queer supposed to confine themselves to only out gay fantasy figures? The straight kids can only fantasize about out straight people? Seriously. Adam once spoke in an interview about how when he was in high school he (and he expanded his comment to include 'most gay kids') didn't get to experience all those things that all the other kids do. First date, first kiss, first romance, holding hands at school etc. Was he also supposed to censor his fantasy life? Are we supposed to censor ours?

On objectifying women, yes, it's rampant. But then again, it's always been rampant and we also objectify men. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's very healthy to have a fantasy life and that's pretty much what these photos are all about.

I think we pretty much agree on this.

As far as the photos go, I think they're hot, and done pretty tastefully. Sure, they might be pushing the envelope for what is currently featured in magazine shoots for musicians (although to be honest, I don't read a lot of magazines so maybe things are changing), but they're not that much racier than what I've seen in many provocative perfume or fashion ads. Taking risks is what Adam is all about.

The intent of the shoot itself is another matter, and I agree with what Adam said on Access Hollywood, that these photos are ART, and they're not necessarily depicting his personal tastes or his sexuality (hence him not being photographed with a man). I don't think the photographer's intent was to show us who Adam is as a person (other than the fact that he can bring sensuality to the table) but rather to just give us some sexy eye candy. The people who arranged for the shoot may have had other ideas in mind, like marketing Adam to a large female fanbase who they feel would rather seem him being sexy with a woman than a man (although if fandom is any indication, putting him with a man could get a lot of people pretty hot and bothered, LOL).

The fact that she is more of a prop in the shoot and that Adam kept his clothes on doesn't mean she is being objectified. It tells me that the focus of the article/shoot was on HIM and that this was meant to be sensual and provocative -- not pornographic. I don't think it crosses any lines, but obviously that is very subjective.

That's my .02.

That's my .02.

And thank you for it!

I get where people are pissed about them because he's gay. But seeing as how he says it's a fantasy that would never happen, yet exists, makes it easier for me to be objective. I do find the pics beautiful artistically. B/W has that way of stripping away the unnecessary and draw you to what's going on.

For me, an even better treat would be to see him do this exact same shoot with a man in those poses. I have no doubt that they would be amazing.

Interesting aside: Adam is totally invested in this shoot. His expressions are very real to me. That's what makes it work.

Oh, your story about the porn? ITA. I think that's why I pretty much hate het porn now. That's not to say that the gay porn doesn't have effed up titles, too. *g*

Oh, your story about the porn? ITA. I think that's why I pretty much hate het porn now. That's not to say that the gay porn doesn't have effed up titles, too.

I never did like het porn and this experience has done nothing to make me change my mind.

I think there are two reasons why Adam chose to do the shoot. One is that, like he said in the Dish of Salt (dash of salt?) interview, it's art and it's beautiful and that's enough.

The other is that it does push people's buttons. It does get him on ET and AH and sites Perez and a million other blogs and 'news shows', and he has a single coming out. While it's great that his fans made his so popular with just pre-orders, he (and RCA/19) want even bigger sales.

That being said, It does sort of annoy me that nobody's mentioned the naked girl's name, not even Adam. I understand that she's a prop in this photo shoot, like a motorcycle or a little dog would be but still. She is a real human being. :/

That being said, It does sort of annoy me that nobody's mentioned the naked girl's name, not even Adam.

I actually saw her name in an article today but I've already forgotten it. Apparently she is a lingerie model.

I look at the girl not as a person per se, which might sound horrible, but as a representative of all the women who would have liked to be in that position. She's pretty, sure, but it's mass media - of course she'll be pretty. But to me, she's more a symbol than a real individual. And I think that was intended.

Good shots. I like them. :D

I think they're sexy and well done.

These sort of uproars always reminds me of a song by The Ark - Tired of being an object. The lyrics goes something like...

"Don't project you spleen on the girl in the magazine. You never know maybe she's feeling quite comfortable. The only human right for which I'm gonna fight, is everybody's right to sometimes feel irresistible"

It's not Adam's or the female co-star's problem how we as viewers choose to see these pictures. But that's just the way I think the world should work...
On that note, what I think of the photos... OMG so beautiful!!!- the pictures of the two of them, I mean. I don't care at all for the ones featuring just Adam. They just don't look like him. Who is THAT bland guy?

It's not Adam's or the female co-star's problem how we as viewers choose to see these pictures. But that's just the way I think the world should work...

I just don't get the rage. Especially given it's Details! If you don't want to see women objectified or shown in a sexy way then for God's sake don't read Details.

To me they're not sexy, but that may just be me. I don't know Adam Lambert--I had to scroll up to check that I had his name correct, because I really don't know him from Adam--so the pictures became standard porn fare to me: black-clothed man as surrogate for the male viewer, naked woman as object of desire. Not offensive, just boring. He could, quite frankly, be anyone; to me he looks like the prop while she looks like the object of fantasy.

Again, I'm not offended by the pictures, I'm certainly not up in arms about them, but I find them boring and trite. Maybe if I had any connection to the purported subject of the photoes I'd have a different opinion.

That's totally valid. It's not for everyone.

I'm not familiar with Details, but these photos came up for discussion on Shakesville, and I understood from there that it's a magazine mostly aimed at straight men.

I'm not hugely bothered by these photos, but I do think the photos objectify women. The model in these images is shown as a nameless accessory, an object, and nothing more. I can't see why she couldn't have been photographed in clothes (attractive ones if desired) and in positions that don't require him to touch her in inappropriate places. But I'm aware that that makes me the minority, and that this is an unrealistic expectation. I get your point about porn being worse and this being better, but that doesn't make this good.

I understand the gist of the article and don't have any problem with Lambert appearing in a sexual-themed position with a woman. It's his decision and given that I understand his fanbase is indeed largely female, the photos illustrate the reporter's point (albeit in a sexist way.) I do wonder if he should be allowing himself to be photographed with a woman this way, that is, a sexist photograph, since his fanbase is largely female.

You make some very valid points here.

verasteine.livejournal.com

What do I think?

1.) That first picture of Adam by himself is one of the most intensely gorgeous pictures of anyone I have ever seen.

2.) I really really don't like Adam's nail polish. Perhaps if the spread had been in color...?

3.) Other than that, I think it's a beautiful, imaginative spread. Not one I'm going to download to my hard drive so I can drool over it, but certainly not offensive. FanSee

I love that first shot too.

I really like the photos although it did amuse me that they put him with a woman. At first I thought that they were trying to remove him from his 'gayness' but I decided that this was not the issue. I feel that the photos are about shape. The curves that their bodies make are very sensual and I really like that they are black and white. I don't think that her nakedness is an issue.

I love the lines of their bodies too. Sure I'd love to see him with a man but that would not have fit the theme of the article.

Adam didn't know going in what was planned for the shoot. The photgrapher said he told him, "Today you are going to confront the vagina" and Adam basically replied, "OK".

I think the photographs are art; stunning, sensual and erotic. That being said, I don't care for the tongue photo. Tongues are not very sexy.
Everyone has their own tastes. Some women will understand the fantasy aspect and will enjoy the photos while other women will be angry and very turned off. As others have mentioned, it's Details Magazine. If someone is offended with the" woman as an object", they should avoid the publication. Women have been the object of male attention and art since cavemen grew bored with painting elk.

I just realized how my post read. As a woman, I don't like being treated as an object. However, as an adult, if my job was to model and I agreed to pose in these pictures, then no one should give me any grief about how I make my living. I feel very differently about half naked adolescent girls used in photo shoots. Miley Cyrus' controversial photo was beautiful and artistic, but she was too young for such a sensual pose. It bothered me.... a lot. But I have an adolescent daughter and it hit too close to home.

I had a visceral response to these photos - I felt sick at how the woman is depicted. In the photos you have here, her eyes are only open in one. In another her head is cut off and in another her hair obscures her eyes. I'm not getting the "this is her fantasy" thing. At all.

I find this argument a bit disingenuous to tell the truth. It's sort of on a par with picking up Playboy and then complaining that the women in it are objectified. It's Details

I didn't pick up Details. I opened a post on your livejournal asking for my opinion on these photos. I'd have the same reaction no matter where they were published.

Perhaps the worst thing about these photos is how utterly boring and unimaginative they are. I've seen these photos a million times. Nothing new here.

Incidentally, I have no opinion of Adam Lambert. I've only ever watched one season of AI and it wasn't his. My opinion here comes only from my experience as a person and a photographer.

A lot of people feel the way you do, that's why I asked about it.

Oddly the photo where her eyes are cut off is not cropped that way in the magazine, you see all of her face.
Editing to add: In the actual magazine her eyes are open and looking right at the camera in all of the shots, his eyes are closed in all of them.

On the one hand I see where the objection is, but on the other I don't. To me it does illustrate the idea of Adam as a sexual fantasy because she is the one on the receiving end of the kisses and caresses. She's doing nothing to stimulate him or give him pleasure (and the fact that he is fully dressed reinforces that).

But again, she is nameless, nude and being caressed and clearly there is a big serving of voyeurism for the viewer going on here.

Interestingly from what the photographer and Adam both said in different interviews neither Adam nor the model knew what was going to be expected with the shots going in. Adam said the model just said 'OK' when she asked if she would pose nude and Adam said to her, "Aren't you glad you're doing this with a gay guy?"

Edited Date: 2009-10-22 02:09 am (UTC)

When I first saw these over the weekend, I didn't think they were sexy or erotic and I still don't. I think they're nice art photos, but not great ones. They are better in B&W than they would ever be in color; then I might think about them differently. I really like the one of him alone the best: the shadows, his posture, very nostalgic/evocative of other classic "bad boys" even though I have no particular affinity for 50s biker chic! lol

I wouldn't buy a print of any of them to display. I don't think they're that fab. I am sorta transfixed, in a not-positive way, by her extreme skinniness, which I don't find at all attractive.

As far as objectification goes? I dunno, maybe I'm just oblivious, but I never think of things like that and don't care too much about it, either. Even extreme photos, e.g., certain Mapplethorpe ones don't make me think that. In other words, I'm probably the wrong one to ask about that part! ;)

I can't even begin to see why anyone would find these offensive. They're so obviously studied/posed art photos; there's no chemistry lighting up the pages, IMO. She's nude, not naked, to me. Art = nudes = beautiful but not hot (if that makes sense).

I think Adam probably finds all of the furor over these photos hilarious. If anyone wonders what he thinks of how the photos look, they should go to the accesshollywood.com site and find the recent "Dish of Salt" interview Adam did when seeing the pictures for the first time. The video is pretty funny, and Laura Saltman continues to act like a total Adam fangirl.

That said, I think that the Details photos are beautiful from an artistic standpoint and some of them are pretty hot, as well (just because I love to see Adam in any context, I'm sure). I don't have any issues with these photos and think that Adam is savvy and smart enough to know what he's doing and what effect it might have on others. Sexy IS sexy, right? I also don't mind the naked woman because it does relate to *her* fantasy--as do the open eyes (which are haunting and sexy).

I like the vibe of the photos and really look forward to what Adam will do next. I keep thinking of Lady Gaga's photo shoot in Out recently...imagine the possibilities with Adam!