Unanimous voting this week, in that there was only one vote. But it's a good one!
Yes this is sexist, and it isn't excused because it's "art" (which FYI art and the art world isn't excused from sexism either).
- Firstly, this can't qualify as trompe l'oeil body painting, which is amazing, and nudity (or some bare skin is a necessary part of the art). The nude women aren't disguised, their hair, necks, faces, and in some cases arms and lower bottoms are all unpainted.
- It's more similar to the painting/make-up of Geisha, where a strip of skin is left unpainted to hint at the nude women beneath the decorations. It's meant to titillate the male viewer, not baffle the mind and eyes of anyone who sees.
- So once again we have men using the bodies and sex of women to make money.
Please submit options for next week's Babe, is this Sexist? This upcoming installment will focus of sexist expressions and jokes. Leave your submissions in the comments and remember to vote at
F.A.R. Facebook page between Monday and Wednesday of next week.
Go to the "Babe, is this Sexist?" Masterpost
I rather like it. Would it be un-sexist if they had arranged for someone to paint album pictures on the naked backs of three men and three women? Because I think that would have looked good.
ReplyDeleteI can think of a couple ways to make this less/not sexist. The combination of men and women (in a non-sexual manner) or making the people look very androgynous (simple changes with the hair and some positioning would do that) are options. Or if they had gone full out trompe l'oeil and not left any of the skin bare it would have helped. Or they could have kept it as back art and not included the half to full painted ass, or making it a more surreal setting would help.
ReplyDeleteI love body painting, but this is too "naked women at a pool" for it to not read as sexist to me.