Suicide Girls
Thursday, August 20, 2009 by srow
I would have to agree with Magnet's conclusion that Suicide Girls is limited as a feminist website. Although it doesn't explicitly claim to be feminist it is clearly inferred.
Contrary to the cybertopian reading that is possible with this site, the way it portrays its treatment of women as empowering, the commodification of women becomes more acceptable, more legitimised and therefore is a product that is more easily consumed. Not only is it a more guilt-free indulgence (like low-fat ice-cream), it is reinforcing objectification of women.
In reference to the argument that the politics change with the method of production (women taking control of their own shoots) I fail to see how this changes the method of consumption. In fact, the site encourages self-objectification, giving the models a false-sense of empowerment when it is more likely that the source of their gratification comes from other people finding them desirable. These women are still performers looking to gain a bigger audience share than other models. Whether they do it for the money or the status they get from being models, they are selling themselves.
This leads me to my next point. The women on this site are compared to mainstream images of women in pornography. The differences are generally viewed as "refreshing" and supportive of diversity where in other media forms they may have been neglected. Magnet's argument rebuffs this idea in terms of the lack of racial difference within the site and the treatment of "coloured" models. She fails to note that, although these women are fashioning themselves differently from the mainstream images of women in pornography (namely women with breast augmentations and highlighted hair) that the Suicide Girls models are also, and even more extremely, fashioning themselves for a market. They become technobodies and or/cyborgs, inseparable from the technology of their tattoo artist or their plastic surgeon as well as the images of themselves that are placed of them on the Internet. The question arises whether a site that was exactly the same but with mainstream pictures would be considered in the same way that the "different" models are. I highly doubt this. It is also important to note that not only is the majority of models white women but they are not as separate from mainstream ideals- there is a group which is dedicated to people who "...just love big boobs."
When viewing the site's homepage I noticed that it seemed to be of a kind of hybrid nature between the soft-porn site and a non-pornographic blog. This returns me to my first point as this can be viewed as an attempt at repackaging the pornography product to make it more sanitary for users who are quite possibly uneasy about viewing traditional, less subtle porn sites. On the other hand, this may be an attempt to attract female members to the site. I am, however, reminded of the many times that the phrase "He doesn't buy playboy for the articles," has been used in sitcoms. And this attempt seems to be thinly veiled as it is a contradiction to the real product that is being offered: not the ordinary. It's a bizarre kind of mix.
Contrary to the cybertopian reading that is possible with this site, the way it portrays its treatment of women as empowering, the commodification of women becomes more acceptable, more legitimised and therefore is a product that is more easily consumed. Not only is it a more guilt-free indulgence (like low-fat ice-cream), it is reinforcing objectification of women.
In reference to the argument that the politics change with the method of production (women taking control of their own shoots) I fail to see how this changes the method of consumption. In fact, the site encourages self-objectification, giving the models a false-sense of empowerment when it is more likely that the source of their gratification comes from other people finding them desirable. These women are still performers looking to gain a bigger audience share than other models. Whether they do it for the money or the status they get from being models, they are selling themselves.
This leads me to my next point. The women on this site are compared to mainstream images of women in pornography. The differences are generally viewed as "refreshing" and supportive of diversity where in other media forms they may have been neglected. Magnet's argument rebuffs this idea in terms of the lack of racial difference within the site and the treatment of "coloured" models. She fails to note that, although these women are fashioning themselves differently from the mainstream images of women in pornography (namely women with breast augmentations and highlighted hair) that the Suicide Girls models are also, and even more extremely, fashioning themselves for a market. They become technobodies and or/cyborgs, inseparable from the technology of their tattoo artist or their plastic surgeon as well as the images of themselves that are placed of them on the Internet. The question arises whether a site that was exactly the same but with mainstream pictures would be considered in the same way that the "different" models are. I highly doubt this. It is also important to note that not only is the majority of models white women but they are not as separate from mainstream ideals- there is a group which is dedicated to people who "...just love big boobs."
When viewing the site's homepage I noticed that it seemed to be of a kind of hybrid nature between the soft-porn site and a non-pornographic blog. This returns me to my first point as this can be viewed as an attempt at repackaging the pornography product to make it more sanitary for users who are quite possibly uneasy about viewing traditional, less subtle porn sites. On the other hand, this may be an attempt to attract female members to the site. I am, however, reminded of the many times that the phrase "He doesn't buy playboy for the articles," has been used in sitcoms. And this attempt seems to be thinly veiled as it is a contradiction to the real product that is being offered: not the ordinary. It's a bizarre kind of mix.