Women choosing to be sexually submissive is a totally valid choice deserving of respect. It’s a choice that frequently has an appeal for me personally. But, I’m fully aware that I live in a culture where there are extraordinarily common and dominant messages about women NEEDING to be submissive, objectified, and made child-like (and I’m sorry, they were portrayed like children. Not infants, but certainly not high school seniors, either) to be sexy. There are extraordinarily common and dominant messages about a woman’s control over her own sexuality, whatever shape that sexuality takes, being either unnecessary or even unwanted, unappealing, and unsexy.

This shoot takes place in that context, and in the context where it’s been made clear by one of the female participants that they did not actively choose to be portrayed this way but went with it because it was expected of them as young women being portrayed in the mainstream media. I think that’s a problem and problem worth discussing and examining, not just for feminists but for sex-positive people and thinking people interested in challenging media tropes that don’t serve our culture well.

To make a really imperfect analogy, there have historically been a lot of cultural messages, many of which persist even to present day, stating that women should all want to get married and have children, and subvert their careers to parenthood. I think those messages are bullshit and need to be challenged. That doesn’t mean I’m criticizing a woman’s choice to get married, have children, or prioritize family over career. It means that I’m aware that those prevalent messages make it more likely that women will do those things NOT because they want to but because they’re told they should, and THAT, not the choices of marriage and stay-at-home motherhood, is what’s not okay.

I’m a little disappointed in the writer of the article, as she seems to have made a poor, if internally valid, conclusion about the nature of women being portrayed, which can only really stand up on its own with some sort of proof of coercion against the women in question.

As an example, another, equally valid, conclusion is simply that they want the man to paw at them. And given that the shoot is, as Violet points out, a fantasy scenario, this seems to be closer to a true, valid conclusion. Just because you might find it repugnant personally, doesn’t make it less true.

Next, I appreciate everyone’s feedback. I’m not optimistic, and I know Richardson’s reputation, and I’m not defending it in any way. What I’m doing is challenging some ideas about female desire and sexual fantasy.

In this fantasy, the women are in role-reversal.

Also, yes, we should see the guy subjected to the same standards of sexualization. But this is GQ and we are not ignorant of their editorial stance on gender binary, gender portrayal, and the audience they (think they) market to. Think a women’s magazine will do the same in reverse? No, and that’s the real crime.

The shoot isn’t that hot for me either, but I know visual slash (fiction) when I see it. That’s all this is: one angle on a projected fantasy about the show’s characters.

I also have to say, I know a significant number of articulate female submissives to whom this fantasy (submissive vapid fucktoy role-play) is not only appealing and arousing, but they also find it very empowering. By saying it’s wrong or bad takes away the sexual agency and removes permission for enjoyment for women who find power and pleasure when they take on these roles. So for that reason, I can’t be judgmental about this fantasy. It’s a fairly boring shoot with garden-variety sexual stereotypes. But a few of you still see sexual submission (or receptivity) as a bad thing, something that reduces the value of the receptive partner. And I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

I also don’t personally know what happened with calling the shots on this shoot: we can’t say GQ or Richardson “made” the women do anything they didn’t want to do, unless we know this is a fact. The actors are grownups. They’re just as culpable for their work with Richardson as he is with them.

I think “infantilized” is taking it too far, unless they are in diapers, have a bib, a binky, high chair, etc. They were playing “naughty schoolgirl” just like 500,000 adult women are about to do for Halloween.

All I’m saying is, why is anyone surprised? We know GQ/TR’s issues. I just think we need to remember it’s a fantasy, and while it reinforces sexual stereotypes on the surface, that doesn’t make it a negative fantasy for people — especially women that might choose this fantasy — who know the difference between fantasy and reality.

And since her choice is the subject of this discussion, this line is particularly relevant.

“If you asked me for my dream photo shoot, I’d be in a treehouse, in a wild costume, war-paint and I’d be playing with my pet dragon. Until then…..”

Oh, so she doesn’t want to be portrayed as a vapid underage fucktoy? Who knew?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xF5TeHf5QQ

This seems optimistic, especially in light of what we know about Richardson’s MO.

http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-richardson-the-worlds-most-fked-up-fashion-photographer

This is yet another case where I see “pro-sex” feminism being used as a cover to explain away some very pre-feminist attitudes and practices.

I don’t know, nothing about this shoot is sexy to me. Largely, I think, because nothing about these pictures said to me that these women FELT sexy or WERE choosing this (and one of them has made a blog post somewhat to that effect). One looks uncomfortable and the other looks like she’s trying way too hard. I’ve seen shoots far more risqué that I’ve loved. This one just feels, I don’t know…gross. And sad.

How well said (about both sexes) and so succintly too I might add.

It is in fact the exact opposite of being disempowering. You only have to recall acquaintances who can readily join in laughing at themselves to know who you respect the most for their inner strength and beauty.

Regards,
etc.