How is modeling and showing off body parts not slutty?

Certainly those types of photos have a lot of people saying those ads only helps to objectify women. I’m not going to say the women are slutty, but we can’t ignore that the target audience is men who will think those girls are arousing. I think as women, let me say girls, we can have no intention of intending to arouse men and we don’t realize they are thinking of what we look like naked and having sex. I say girls, because it starts when we are teenagers. We want to dress like a pop star and we don’t realize who that is attracting and what they are thinking. We are virgins, we aren’t intending to have sex with anyone. We don’t know as 14 year old girls that wearing a heel, short skirt, and long thick hair down our back is possibly causing attention we don’t want. We just want to look good, what we think looks good.

It isn’t that difficult while we are still young to be willing to do photos like that. All sorts of reasons besides wanting to be famous, being flattered they chose you, not worrying what men do with the magazines. If you are comfortable with being half naked on a beach, what’s the real difference in being photographed that way?

When it pays more it becomes less slutty. Ridiculous I know, but the media decides lots of things for us.

“slutty”? “sleazy”?

What does that mean?

“The main point is to excite viewers by eroticism, how do you separate this from art ”

A few questions for you:

1. Are you actually under the impression that art cannot be erotic?

2. Why are you expecting to find art in Sports Illustrated?

3. Why do you put down the women who are posing as “slutty” but refrain from any name-calling on the people who enjoy the photos or arrange the segment for the magazine?

I hate the terms “slut/slutty”. Someone having (what many consider to be) a beautiful body and choosing to make a living using that body to model garments is not a slut, a whore or any other derogatory term that people throw at them. Personally, I find the human body (especially the female body) to be beautiful and/or interesting and enjoy art that involves it (whether or not it is erotic) Does that make me sleazy?

The fine art world is full of slut and sleaze. It even embraces the vulgarity of Thomas Kinkade.

Man I tell you that shit makes me puke.

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition has little to do with art, whether or not they pretend it does. The airbrush work and makeup and photography all involve artisitc skills but the product is clearly intended to titillate. Most art aficionados will agree there is an evocative point to art… besides “titties!”(etc).
Also, good observation @RealEyesRealizeRealLies, there is plenty of sleaze in fine art. When the artistic expression is good that aspect is minor.

The nude or scantily clad female body can be a thing of beauty.sex is not dirty .sex is a perfectly natural act and there is nothing dirty or sleazy about it.. sex sells magazines. art is purely subjective one mans art is another mans trash.

The OP is just a description question. I’m not calling anyone a slut. I was quite literally asking, “How do you separate this from art and just being sleazy.”

@1TubeGuru That’s a way better answer than @glacial I have no idea why Glacial got so many GAs. Glacial didn’t even answer the OP. I guess people are just assuming I’m anti eroticism because I used the word “Slutty” as a descriptive word. Where I’m from we actually use the word slutty. There actually is such a thing called slutty, it has to do with an attitude, a fierceness, a certain kind of confidence. If a person likes to pursue sexual arousement with multiple partners, I call it slutty. This doesn’t close the possibility of it being beautiful. Maybe I should’ve used the term lustful. I hang out in gay town all the time and we use the word slutty like it’s no body’s business. I’ll try and be more sensitive/proper here on Fluther.

@pleiades good clarification, and I suppose I did not really answer your question above.

I separate art from mere burlesque by looking for the intention in the work. Arguably that’s what art is about anyway, the artist’s intention to communicate, to evoke a response in the audience.
Burlesque has pretty much no other intention than titillation and entertainment. Celebration of the beauty of the nude form is not that hard to distinguish from celebration of T&A.

If photos in Sports Illustrated, a Victoria’s Secret catalog, or an Abercrombie and Fitch bus ad is sleazy or slutty comes down to the mind of the person viewing it.

@Hypocrisy_Central I agree the mind of the viewer has something to do with it. But the intention of the presentation definitely has something to do with it also. The Victoria’s Secret catalog and the steamy A&F ads and the SI Swimsuit edition are all good examples of presentation that is intended to be arousing. (Nobody is going to convince me that swimsuits, presented the way they are in the swimsuit edition, really have something to do with sports.)

@dabbler The Victoria’s Secret catalog and the steamy A&F ads and the SI Swimsuit edition are all good examples of presentation that is intended to be arousing.
I can agree with that, however, I still believe no matter what the purpose or intent, it still comes down to if the viewer is going to allow them to prosper in that. I can post something with skulls and bones with blood all abound with the intent that it will gory but the viewer is the judge of that.

Yep. But back to the OP, separating art from sleaze is intention, not the audience.

@dabbler Yep. But back to the OP, separating art from sleaze is intention, not the audience.
You really can’t separate art from sleaze, where sleaze starts with one, it maybe miles away with another. Who determines sleaze and art is an audience that has authority to dictate that to the masses. A lot of what Western society sees as art or at least not sleaze would in the Middle East; so who is right and who is really wrong?