Rolling Stone Cover: Sexist, Pornographic, or What?
September 2, 2010
by Karen
|
Rolling Stone Magazine's September "True Blood" cover is getting a lot of attention.
Welcome, readers! Do you read Rolling Stone? I want your opinion about the Rolling Stone’s September issue. What do you think of the cover that features a woman sandwiched between two men? All three are very naked and very bloody. They appear to be covered in someone else’s blood.
Some people think the picture is sexist, but other people think it is perfectly okay because of sexual tension on the characters’ TV series. Furthermore, two of the actors are married (to each other or someone else, I don’t know), so it might be okay to photograph those naked people for a public audience.
Some people debate whether the brown-haired man’s hands are actually groping the woman.
14-year-olds see the cover at newsstands and say it is inappropriate.
Some people say the cover is not sexist because the woman on the cover is a powerful woman on the TV series.
Some people say the cover is degrading to women because the image is pornographic and degrading because she is sandwiched between two men.
Some people say that even if the cover is not sexist, it is nonetheless inappropriate for a public audience because it is, after all, pornographic due to the nudity and the sex positions.
So, readers… what do you think of the cover?
It’s digusting and disturbing and highlights the need of men’s pornographic movement to turn to gore to get it’s kicks off.
That is just gross. It sexualizes violence.
Truly disgusting , at first glance … they look like survivors of some bloody disaster .. but then the sexualization is also apparent .. I hope my grandaughter never sees it , but it there for that reason is it not? So everyone does see it due the controversy it will create ..
As long as it’s equal-opportunity nudity or gore, I don’t see a problem. I don’t like it, but I don’t see a specifically woman-centered problem as long as it’s everybody, seriously.
Oddly I don’t see the red splatters as blood but as paint so the splatters have no more impact on me than if they were blue or green. But apparently I am the only one who doesn’t think blood when I see this. I agree it is not appropriate for general audience newsstands but in that it joins at least a fourth of the publications on newsstands. I agree with Janice that since it is equal opportunity nudity in fact two males to one female and all are equally attractive there is no issue regrading degradation of women, which is unusual and I hate to say it but also refreshing.
I think the cover is over the top. And totally eye-popping. Then again that’s the point of a cover.
It’s also completely in context to it’s subject matter, the Charlene Harris Sookie Stackhouse books about vampires & werewolf love triangles coverted into a Showtime (HBO?) series. So, I guess my next question would be how the cover compares to others that the magazine might’ve done in the past because I have no experience with it.
If it’s much, much worse than what they usually do, then sure. But if not, then I’ve gotta say I agree with Janis and Bes, cause I’ve seen worse in the context of what we talk about here. Much, much worse.
For those who haven’t read Charlene Harris Sookie Stackhouse books these characters are Eric Northman on the left, Sookie Stackhouse in the middle and Bill Compton on the right. Bill and Eric are vampires and Sookie is a human telepath. Sookie is a very strong heroine in the books but the HBO show is only loosely based on the books and is written by a man so I would guess her character has been diminished as a result. I haven’t seen the show because I don’t want to see one of my favorite heroines distorted through male eyes but the books are a riot for anyone who likes to read trash (like me).
I do not think it is sexist because the female does not appear to be demeaned in any way compared to the men. However, it does combine sexuality with violence so it is inappropriate for a general newstand copy. I have elementary school children – I would not want to have to explain why the photo was taken to my 9 year old.
I don’t care if the men are equally dehumanized. Just because you cover a man with blood and also portray him in a sexualized way, doesn’t make it all better. Pornography is pornography. It glorifies and sexualizes violence. It’s the sexualization and transformation of violence into erotica that is disturbing.
The objection to pornography does not go away simply because you demean and dehumanize men, too. That’s not equality. Even without the sexist element, pornography is still about dehumanizing people and glorifying violence against them.
I don’t perceive violence in this photograph. None of the people in it are in unnatural positions and none of them seem in danger. The red stuff doesn’t look like it is coming from wounds and while I think it is supposed to represent blood it doesn’t look like blood to me.
As far as pornography goes the sexist nature of it is so overwhelming to me that I never get to analyzing the other issues. So for me it is less objectionable if the males are equally attractive as the females and if they are equally exposed or vulnerable and present in equal numbers. Pornography is so prevalent in our society that I think the fact that men are immune from the degradation just makes it that much more degrading to women. Don’t forget that pornography aimed at men is in children’s faces daily. The message it gives to children is horrible but the message that girls get from it has to be much different than the message boys are taking away from it. So girls get the message “people more powerful and important than you find your sexualization and sexual degradation entertaining, no one cares what you think” when boys get the message “no one in society will tolerate you being sexualized or sexually degraded.”
Yttik I agree. She’s sandwitched(sp) between 2 men grabbing her, covered in blood, and it’s unclear where the blood is coming from but she’s scratching the other guy. It’s sensualized violence. It’s gore, and most disturbing in that it represents a growing trend of pornography and art toward gore, sexualized victimhood at the hands of violence, of chopping women up, body parts, etc. The fact that the show is called True Blood, and is about vampires, is just an excuse for this disturbing ad, imo. If i liked the show, I might be biased for the ad, but I don’t. It’s clearly blood, and with 2 men, I see nothing equal about it.
I am with yttik and kiuku.
it is disgusting and sick. it has the features of violence, even if some think it is just color, so not 100 % persuasive that blood was used. i don’t have a crucifix in my house, because it is a almost nude body with violence and the coloring is usually not more persuasive then in this.
Kiuku, the sandwiching between two men usually signals lack of freedom of movement and definitely not equality in the disgusting pose.
this society is so hyped up on sexuality, that the pictures get worse and worse to get attention.i think it has to stop way before that picture.
The cover is disgusting. The combination of the sexualized pose/stance along with what is meant to appear as blood (the person who said it could easily be paint of any color, I don’t get that you think that – it is a show about vampires and the title, which is mentioned on the cover, is True Blood – readers/people who see this are meant to see it as blood) is disturbing. That there is no ACTUAL violence depicted does not take away that a mess of blood implies some sort of violence has occurred.
That said, I recognize that while I think it is a disgusting cover, I still believe in freedom of the press.
Still it should not just be on public display like it is. When I saw it at the 7-11, it was up front, right at the front counter. You know how on the front side, on the lower half of the counter they have a few magazine slots, some candy hanging there, etc, other last minute things they want you to see and say “ooh, I wanna buy that too” when you’re checking out. Well that is where this was. Right at the eye level of a 4-6 year old kid. I was appalled.
That’s sick. Completely inappropriate for the cover of a non-porn magazine. Never heard of the show and I will make sure not to watch it now.
I saw this magazine while waiting in the office of my chiropractor. I was disgusted by it and almost said something to the my doctor, but didn’t because he is such a great healer and I didn’t want to complain to him. I did contact Amy about the cover that very evening because I thought it was important for TNA to cover this. I hate that this kind of pornography is becoming acceptable in America and that it can be seen by anybody just about any where. One man is grabing the womans breast and the other is holding up her thigh in an overtly sexual position. I doubt that there would be a cover like this on Rolling stone with two women handeling a man; not that I would approve of that either. I just hope this country will continue the apparent pull back against the lunatic liberal fringe, which unfortunately seems to be dominating popular culture. I probably should have asked my chiropractor to remove the magazine from his waiting room. At very least, children should be protected from seeing this kind of garbage and at best self respecting adults should not have to seee it while waiting in their doctors office. If I watched this TV show I would be boycotting it, but I don’t even know these actors. So that is my oppinion of the cover of the Rolling Stone- it sucks!
Don’t hold that cover against the Sookie Stackhouse books though. Those are a product of a female mind and they are fun. So far there are ten books (I’ve read them all twice) and Sookie’s adventures among the vampires, were animals, fairies and sometimes even humans are a riot. Sookie is a ordinary bar maid in a rural family oriented bar she has good values and she knows how to save the day. Vampire Bill on the right was her first love but wasn’t all that engaged when they were together, since then he has figured out what he lost and has become her biggest fan. Eric, on the left is her lover and partner in crime and the Vampire boss. The show True Blood is loosely based on the books and of course in it the material has been run through the minds of a male writer, director, camera man, editor and so on with predictable results. In real life the guy on the right and the woman on the cover were just married about a month ago.
When a cover photograph has to be explained, via a background story, then it has failed. Apparently, Sookie Stackhouse is a strong character. Can you tell that from this photo? No. The image fails on all but one level: Sensationalizing sex and violence. Once upon a time, Rolling Stone could put out a cover that was provocative and still a portrait that illuminated its subject. This is just people as meat without any social commentary or intent to make the visual meaningful. What a waste of good ink!
I don’t think this cover is sexist. I think it is violent and sexual not appropriate for the news stand but the woman in the photo does not strike me as less equal than the men.
So perhaps some people here do not like the violence (honestly, I don’t) but is it really sexist?
If the image were reverse in regard to gender, a man in the middle being sandwiched by two women I would find that the more typical male fantasy and that would perhaps border on sexism. But the woman in the photo has a strong gaze toward the viewer and is embraced by two hot guys who are equally naked and equally covered in blood.
In the context of the show I think it’s a cool photo but without context (as gxm17 states) it may very well glorify violence which is not cool for everyday consumption. But not necessarily sexist….
It may be images like this that give us a bad name and get innocent Americans like Amanda Knox long prison sentences. Are people becoming desensitized to gore that they can nonchalantly pick up a magazine with a chopped up woman? Recently I saw an article making fun of ads from the past and it highlighted as -disturbing- a chopped up pig singing; it was chopped up in exactly the same manner as the model in the ad. This sickness of violent porn, though growing, needs to stay in the recesses of the mind. The pic is at best tasteless and not at all interesting. If they wanted to glamourize the undead, they could be dressed. There is just enough blood to wonder if it’s coming from the sex, but not enough blood to be glamourous. They got the quantity just right for revolting. Definitely no where near “cool”. It’s just disgusting; i just can’t see it any other way; revolting really; nothing sexy about it. It takes more than being naked to be sexy.
Ok with blood for fashion, art, or whatever it’s gotta be either a very little with an obvious wound, or bucketloads to be “cool.” or sensual. This is just sick. This is about as hawt as “Typical Macintosh User”
I think I can sort of see what they might have been aiming for, with the description of the show and the characters, and it could have been accomplished, albeit a different way. What I would have done is I would have had the woman, Sookie, crouched in a cat pose covered in blood, enough blood that would hide hte private parts, and the two guys in just pants, which would sort of bring out her vulnerability wihtout her sandwiched between 2 guys. I mean look at the expression on the guy to the left and how he’s leanin into it. So gross. there must ha ve been several shots to choose from andd someone chose this lol.. who chose this pic?
Note to moderator: This is not a spam link. It’s a link to a web cartoon that I think, in a humorous way, explains EXACTLY what this Rolling Stone cover is really about. And why your readers should not be pleased with Rolling Stone.
http://abstrusegoose.com/297
Well Kiuku I guess that might have worked however I find nude women with dressed men offensive as do most women and these people who made this cover have a need to be edgy which nude women aren’t. Also Sookie is not a vulnerable person she is a kick ass resourceful heroine who saves herself and many others.
gxm17: I agree that if you have to explain a cover the cover has failed. But the people who did this probably feel if you can make people talk about your cover then your cover is successful.
@Henrietta: I think you’re spot on.
Is the cover violent? Personally, I’m totally against violence of any kind. However, I don’t find the cover particularly violent, despite the blood.
Sexist? Not to me. I agree with the comments suggesting the woman looks as powerful as the men.
Appealing? Not to my taste, but maybe to others.
Offensive? Not to me.
On a tangential note: what is it with this vampire craze thing…?
I have noticed that women who are strong and empowered in their own story can be nonetheless be objectified. Lara Croft, for example, became very much a sex object in gaming magazines.
“I have noticed that women who are strong and empowered in their own story can be nonetheless be objectified”
Very true, that is what happens when you run a female character through a bunch of testosterone ravaged minds. Any female character that makes it to a Hollywood movie or TV show has been run through the diminishing and objectifying minds of a male writer, casting agent, director, producer, film editor, and costume designer, the results are predictable and seem to be universal. Women simply do not want to see a mans eye view of a woman character. I haven’t watched the True Blood series because of that. I read the books which are the unadulterated product of a female mind.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...