Ruth Davidson and the picture of Gillian Anderson

[Nearly Sane]

Would this be acceptable if a straight male politician tweeted? How about a gay male politician tweeting a picture of David Duchovny in his CKs?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/01/ruth-davidson-mystifies-twitter-with-gillian-anderson-stocking-post

[Rhiannon]

It doesn't bother me. It's a famous person consenting to be photographed in this way as a part of enhancing their career and reputation. The comment is about the absurdity of sitting around in stockings and heels rather than an especially lewd one. I don't see why a male politician shouldn't do the same about a female or male celeb photographed in a similar fashion with a similarly tongue in cheek comment.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a sexualized picture, and I am not sure and I cannot feel that were a make politician to have done it with or without a Pwhoaarrr, that the reaction would be different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would this be acceptable if a straight male politician tweeted? How about a gay male politician tweeting a picture of David Duchovny in his CKs?

I would find it funny...

[floo]

Would this be acceptable if a straight male politician tweeted? How about a gay male politician tweeting a picture of David Duchovny in his CKs?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/01/ruth-davidson-mystifies-twitter-with-gillian-anderson-stocking-post

Weird!

[Rhiannon]

It's a sexualized picture, and I am not sure and I cannot feel that were a make politician to have done it with or without a Pwhoaarrr, that the reaction would be different.

It's a sexualised picture that the subject chose to have in the public domain and politicians are the same as the rest of us in both admiring the bodies of others and finding absurdity in how we present our bodies to the world. Maybe done would react differently if the politician were male. I wouldn't.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a sexualised picture that the subject chose to have in the public domain and politicians are the same as the rest of us in both admiring the bodies of others and finding absurdity in how we present our bodies to the world. Maybe done would react differently if the politician were male. I wouldn't.

So if it had been a picture of a porn actress masturbating which she had chosen to have in the public domain, would that have been OK?
And I am not sure that I can read into the tweet a whole comment on the adsurdity about how we present our bodies to the world. It seems to me to follow the idea that if you put 'just joking' or a  at the end of something, everything is OK.

[Rhiannon]

Oh come on. There's a difference between sexualised pictures in stockings that have been acceptable in society for decades and outright porn. If you want to argue (and to be fair you usually do) at least go for something comparable.

[Aruntraveller]

Well can I just say I would like to commend Ruth Davison on her good taste in women.

If ever I were to stray to the dark side Ms Anderson would be near the top of my list. I'm sure she is delighted to hear that!

As to the OP - I don't know whether a man would be treated differently - but I see no reason why Ms Davison shouldn't post this photo if she so wishes. It is up to her to decide whether or not it will affect her standing.

All seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me.

When compared to the behaviour of other MP's from times past (and probably currently, although we don't know about them, yet!) it is as nothing.

[Shaker]

Well can I just say I would like to commend Ruth Davison on her good taste in women.

If ever I were to stray to the dark side Ms Anderson would be near the top of my list. I'm sure she is delighted to hear that!

You'll have to climb over me first, sunshine.

[Aruntraveller]

You'll have to climb over me first, sunshine.

Now that's an intriguing scenario

[Shaker]

[Nearly Sane]

Oh come on. There's a difference between sexualised pictures in stockings that have been acceptable in society for decades and outright porn. If you want to argue (and to be fair you usually do) at least go for something comparable.

The point is that we are looking to draw a line somewhere. The reason for going for a reductio in such a way is to get agreement that we don't think anything and everything is acceptable. What has been acceptable in society isn't a guide to what should be or what individuals think should be acceptable.

As an aside, I prefer duscussions on subjects, I am not sure on and feel the subject is at least fifty shades of grey. It's not about 'arguing' but exploring and some of that needs looking at things in a way that tries to draw lines and yet understands the difficulty in doing so.

[Nearly Sane]

In reply to trentvoyager



Surely that others might have behaved worse is irrelevant to the question of what is acceptable?

My twitter account is filled with psephology so I rarely get pictures but I find on my FB page I sometimes struggle with what seems a dichotomy between what is acceptable to post based on sexu ality and ge nder. I get much more phwoarr pictures and comments from both gay me n, gay wo men, and strai ght women than I do from strai  ght male friends, and many many more of younger people in the images. Now in one sense, I accept some of that as speaking to power transgressions but on the other, it does seem to me uncomfortable having any 50 year old friend posting images of people thirty years their junior in sexua lized po ses because that cannot be speaking to power.




BTW apologies for the slightly odd inclusion of spaces but the above post was falling foul of the Forum's own strange censorship so it didn't like something in the above without the spaces.

[Aruntraveller]

In reply to trentvoyager



Surely that others might have behaved worse is irrelevant to the question of what is acceptable?

My twitter account is filled with psephology so I rarely get pictures but I find on my FB page I sometimes struggle with what seems a dichotomy between what is acceptable to post based on sexu ality and ge nder. I get much more phwoarr pictures and comments from both gay me n, gay wo men, and strai ght women than I do from strai  ght male friends, and many many more of younger people in the images. Now in one sense, I accept some of that as speaking to power transgressions but on the other, it does seem to me uncomfortable having any 50 year old friend posting images of people thirty years their junior in sexua lized po ses because that cannot be speaking to power.




BTW apologies for the slightly odd inclusion of spaces but the above post was falling foul of the Forum's own strange censorship so it didn't like something in the above without the spaces.

Well I agree somewhat - I too find it odd that people post pictures of the sort you outline above (although I think I did once post a link to pictures of young men with pussy cats - but it was a minor and inoffensive lapse)

I just can't build up much of head of steam over this issue when much worse is happening in UK politics than the slightly unusual postings of Ms Davison.

Is it acceptable?  Pretty much I think. Was it wise? Was it tasteful? Was it sensible? Maybe not. But we all have our moments, thankfully most of us aren't in the limelight, so our indiscretions (if they are considered as such) don't receive such widespread publicity.

[Rhiannon]

Well I agree somewhat - I too find it odd that people post pictures of the sort you outline above (although I think I did once post a link to pictures of young men with pussy cats - but it was a minor and inoffensive lapse)

I just can't build up much of head of steam over this issue when much worse is happening in UK politics than the slightly unusual postings of Ms Davison.

Is it acceptable?  Pretty much I think. Was it wise? Was it tasteful? Was it sensible? Maybe not. But we all have our moments, thankfully most of us aren't in the limelight, so our indiscretions (if they are considered as such) don't receive such widespread publicity.

Agree with this. Really not worth the effort.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I agree somewhat - I too find it odd that people post pictures of the sort you outline above (although I think I did once post a link to pictures of young men with pussy cats - but it was a minor and inoffensive lapse)

I just can't build up much of head of steam over this issue when much worse is happening in UK politics than the slightly unusual postings of Ms Davison.

Is it acceptable?  Pretty much I think. Was it wise? Was it tasteful? Was it sensible? Maybe not. But we all have our moments, thankfully most of us aren't in the limelight, so our indiscretions (if they are considered as such) don't receive such widespread publicity.

I, as you know, will post pictures that I think beautiful. They are of all forms of humans but most often orangutans who seem far more sensible than the humans. And I agree that at worst this is a lapse of not particularly important judgement from Ruth, but as an alternative imagine if Corbyn had done the same?

[Rhiannon]

I, as you know, will post pictures that I think beautiful. They are of all forms of humans but most often orangutans who seem far more sensible than the humans. And I agree that at worst this is a lapse of not particularly important judgement from Ruth, but as an alternative imagine if Corbyn had done the same?

All I can tell you is that I would have raised a passing eyebrow because I wouldn't think it his style, but otherwise I would be equally not offended and not really interested. I can't speak for the hypocrisies of the press or those who use social media and I'm not sure what point there is in asking 'what if?'

[Nearly Sane]

All I can tell you is that I would have raised a passing eyebrow because I wouldn't think it his style, but otherwise I would be equally not offended and not really interested. I can't speak for the hypocrisies of the press or those who use social media and I'm not sure what point there is in asking 'what if?'

Because hypotheticals are hugely useful in understanding if we are being consistent, and if society is. If we as indidividuals or as a group hold people to different standards, it would seem to me useful to know if we do and why.

[Rhiannon]

Because hypotheticals are hugely useful in understanding if we are being consistent, and if society is. If we as indidividuals or as a group hold people to different standards, it would seem to me useful to know if we do and why.

How do we answer that though? I know my boundaries but they aren't the same as others and it could be argued that I'm liberal in ways that the majority of society isn't - over swearing for example. I can tell you I'd feel the same if Corbyn posted the lovely pic of Gillie but where does that get us?

[Nearly Sane]

How do we answer that though? I know my boundaries but they aren't the same as others and it could be argued that I'm liberal in ways that the majority of society isn't - over swearing for example. I can tell you I'd feel the same if Corbyn posted the lovely pic of Gillie but where does that get us?

Well that's already useful. As it was to me because my take was that if a male straight politician posted it, my take would be what a stupid unthinking idiot at best, and so I used that for Ruth.

[Robbie]

A silly thing to do.