From: rene@hardy.u.washington.edu (Rene Magritte)
Subject: Re: Piccard's butt - Chain of Command II - SPOILERS
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 06:46:53 GMT

jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:

>Eric Schlene <eschlene@indiana.edu> writes
>> So what was gained by making poor ol' Pat appear in the buff? [..] 

>I find it very interesting how this shot of Patrick Stewart prompts you  
>to post here like you did, yet you neglect to mention (or refrain from  
>posting this) due to the fact that Marina Sirtis' body is constantly  
>being pressed unnaturally by that body suit normally seen on ST:TNG.  
>Your post leads me to believe that you don't feel it was proper for the  
>show to show Patrick Stewart's body as it did, and at the same time  
>your silence on Marina Sirtis' overtight suit in your post leads me to  
>believe that you feel it's okay for her to compress, display and  
>distort her body.  Put simply, episode after episode it's alright to  
>see Marina Sirtis' breasts practically pop out of the top of her shirt,  
>and for her to wear girdles which restrict her air supply just to make  
>her look more thin (as a sidenote, she has been quoted remarking how  
>she has fainted many times on the set because of her unusally  
>restrictive clothing).   But one shot of Patrick Stewart's butt and the  
>show should be re-edited.

>> And I don't want to hear "well it wouldn't have been a realistic 
>> torture [..]

>You think the torture would have been more realistic had the victim  
>been clothed?  I seriously doubt that the vast majority of torture  
>victims are clothed.

>So, where Sirtis' breasts or body figure have no role in Troi's  
>counseling, it's a good idea to show them off, yet when it's more  
>realistic for victims of torture to be naked, it's a bad idea?  I don't  
>think that argument is winnable either and I have a strong feeling that  
>if it were a woman who was caught, stripped until naked and tortured  
>you wouldn't be posting about anything regarding her being naked and/or  
>tortured.

>I don't think this post is unlike many men's posts here or unlike the  
>rules that the MPAA has decided on a long time ago for rating movies --  
>extended shots of women's genitalia is R-rated whereas a single shot of  
>a penis is beyond the most restrictive rating the MPAA gives.

>This is exactly the kind of attitude that keeps attitudes towards women  
>focused on differences between their body and some unattainable and  
>non-existent perfect body while attitudes toward men are much more  
>lenient; allowing them to be socially accepted with a wide variety of  
>body types and enjoy their life without always being reminded how  
>unattractive they are, how much weight they should lose, how they  
>should lose that weight, and so on.

>> Taste and respect for our intellegence just took back seat to
>> trashy sensationalism. 

>I agree, but I don't think it happened here.  I think it happened with  
>the exposure of Marina Sirtis' breasts for no other point than to  
>acquire ratings.
>-- 
>-- Jeff (jeffo@uiuc.edu)
>-- NeXTmail welcome

 
	Two posts in one day for me -- has to be a record.  And it's
on the same very subject, with the same very response from me, but for
different reasons.   
 
	Seems like you're just like the previous poster in that you
seem intent on bringing your moral hangups/agenda to Startrek/TV/ the
world.  You suggest that Sirtis' clothing is "unnatural", "absurd",
etc. in so many words.  Guess what -- CLOTHING ITSELF is unnatural,
absurd, etc, and both men and women's clothing will press the body
into positions it wouldn't necessarily go.  It may hide or accent
certain body parts, in ways that certain people may find interesting
or desirable, while others, with various hangups and agendas, will be
offended.   
 
	Instead of getting into a long "proof" of why this is
hypocritical, let me simply provide an example: 
 
	Does the exposition of lips offend you?   Why not?  Does it
offend you to your activist core that women would dare to put
pigmentation upon their lips?  Why not?  Do you have any idea
whatsoever what the origins of lipstick are, and what it symbolizes?
That aside, why do women persist in the rude and blatent exposition of
their fleshy lips?  
 
	You go on for some length, as you have in many recent posts,
about the perception and position of women in our society.  The ironic
thing is that I agree, support, and have worked for many women's
causes that sought to address these societal problems.  Yet I feel compelled to
question your approach.  You trivialize these problems and waste your
energies by crusading about what Marina Sirtris wears on Star Trek,
a fictional television show.  You and people like you set women's
issues back as you focus --quite publically and self-consciously -- on
minutia such as this.  Women's rights/women's issues are not going to
be forwarded by an argument that most are going to see as irrelevant
and extremist.  You may manage to convince some people that your are
Mr. Progressive and A Really Understanding And Sensitive Guy, but as
somebody involved in these matters myself, I suspect it is at the
expense of The Real Issues.   
 
   	And even if you can't see the big picture, I might suggest
that constant editorializing/crusading/whatnot, even to issues you
hold dear, is counterproductive and impolite.  
 
	 
  
	anyway, i have to go adjust my crotch -- these 501's,
obviously designed in an immoral attempt to accentuate my penis, are
pressing and distorting my body in a most overtight and unnatural way.

 
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current