Androgny Censorship

[Robinski]

I'll just preface this with a disclaimer: There might not be too great of a topic for debate, but I know if I posted it in GenChat I'd just get a load of "Hurr that what a fa**ot".

 

Anyway, as can be read in this article (apologies for Daily Mail, only source I have at the moment), certain retailers have opted to use some opaque plastic wrap to hide the naked chest of the cover model for Dossier magazine. This is the model:

 

Now, this happens all the time when you have topless female models on the front cover right? But that's the problem, Andrej Pejic isn't a woman but merely a very androgynous male. It begs the question, should the magazine be censored because some people will glance at it and see a flat chested woman (and be wrong) or should it be left bare because of what it actually is?

 

 

Personally, I cannot possibly see this photo as anything other than a guy, mainly because of how his torso looks, and I don't think it needs to be censored. I can understand where the confusion can stem from, as seen in the first picture Pejic can basically flip the switch and be a convincing woman, but should he be subjected to a censorship standard which doesn't apply to him just because of how he looks? It's much like censoring the word "niggardly" because, through their own confusion, some would be offended by it's use even though there is no offence or breach of a normal society standard in its use.

 

 

As an aside, I generally avoid the DM but looking at the highest and lowest rated comments on the article actually gives me hope for their readership.

 

Double aside: If yuo aren't convinced by Pejic's femininity, there's some properly striking shots of him out there.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Robinski

[Rhoda]

I think the confusion is stemming from initial reaction. Obviously at first glance he looks female, but I believe that magazines and such aren't censoring the gender - they're in fact censoring breasts or anything else considered inappropriate. With that said, this should in fact be left as it is, but I get the feeling that people just aren't ready to see androgynous models without that black bar we're all too familiar with. It'd certainly turn heads, but I think it's just down to fear of what reaction they'll get. Companies have a reputation, and it doesn't matter what they say, they care about it. If it's tarnished in any way shape or form, sales of their product dip and that's what they don't want. Here, they're keeping the public happy but at the cost of expression. It's a shame, but we're not quite there yet unfortunately. I can see why it's being covered to some extent, but I don't necessarily think it's what's best, considering what some magazines have on their covers. What makes this any different from this?

 

 

 

Lack of nipples? Because they're actually women? I see this magazine on lower shelves all the time. I've even bought it before, along with FHM, Loaded, Zoo, Maxim and even Bizarre. They've all got what we'd brand as "questionable content" on, even if most of it is considered mild or tame. I don't think there's much difference here.

[Robinski]

I understand the whole business side of it, but yeah that doesn't make it right. It's a business move on both sides too, the retailers are covering their arses for when some conservative parents see it and immediately think their children are being indoctrinated by evil breasts, and the magazine have used Pejic in such a shot specifically because of his ability to confuse and engage. Dossier are laughing all the way to the bank with this one. I know I'd never heard of the magazine before, that said I'm not into the whole high fashion, modelling scene (surprising, I know).

 

But business aside, we're definitely working on multiple-layer standards here. If we accept the already weird standard that flat, ripped chests can appear naked on magazines but not those that are more endowed cannot be shown in full, the guy should still be allowed there. To me, there's nothing overtly feminine (or masculine) about the guy from the neck down. This makes it more of a gender issue than simply censoring the breasts: because the Pejic's is often initially identified as female, it's decided that he can't be topless on the cover because he's a woman (in the viewer's mind) and not because there are breasts there, which there clearly aren't. So you're definitely right, there isn't much different, the people on the cover are identified as females and as such aren't allowed to appear uncensored.

[Robinski]

I know there wasn't exactly much interest in this, but after the topic of "lad's mags" came up I thought this'd be interesting. I was flicking through FHMs list of the Top 100 Hottest Women of 2011 (I know, I'm a terrible chauvinist) and noticed something interesting towards the beginning:

(That's the guy from the cover)

 

I think he was backed by some internet campaign or something, seeing as it was publicly voted for, but it's still pretty cool that they actually went through with printing it.

[Rhoda]

Note he beat Lady Gaga, who was famously hounded by press and people against her for having a penis. All complete crap of course. I just found it interesting how close the two were.

[Otter]

OMG I think it's kinda silly - but he's definitely very feminine, not androgynous. So they've got some grounds to cover their asses there. I dunno. I think he's kinda hot