"A recent NYU alum, Gary He, has decided to create a MISS NYU calendar. The calendar will feature topless girls, recruited from NYU, with textbooks covering their nipples, and other variations in that style possibly. He currently has a facebook group (under MISS NYU '05-'06 CALENDAR) dedicated to the production, there is a sample photo of from a MISS COLUMBIA calendar that gives a clear impression of his "vision" for this calendar. All proceeds from this calendar are going to the American Cancer Society, isn't that nice of him? The target sales group are the freshmen males of 05-06.

If you are interested in helping out with fighting/exchanging thoughts on Mr. He's project, please contact me as soon as possible. While I fully recognize his right to free speech/expression/etc., I don't want to stand by and let this cute little chauvinist parade go by unopposed. MISS YALE and MISS COLUMBIA publications have already been done and sold well. I want NYU to be different. If you have just advice, or opposing thoughts too, please contact me also, I am still thinking all this through, and digesting information in this realm. Thanks everyone!"

-----

First of all it's not even naked. And even if was, you have no grounds to protest it if those girls are over 18 and willing to pose. If you're for women's rights, then respect another woman's right to do with her body as she pleases, especially if its for a good cause.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3573744)

i wouldn't do it but who cares if some other random girls choose to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3573795)

Especially at NYU where they protest Coke because a handful of people died in 1986 for some factory accident, protest the College Republicans AA bake sale, boycotting the red cross blood drive entirely because they won't accept homosexuals to donate, and protest a SCOTUS justice because his personal views on homos. Seriously, I'm a staunch liberal and this stuff embarrasses even me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3573841)

Did they ever hear of the little words: "My Body, My Choice"? It's for more than just abortion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3573838)

You are ungrateful bitches. We males would be delighted to be trophy husbands. We wish you wanted us only for sex. We wish we weren't the smart and strong sex compelled to provide sustenance while you take the kids to the zoo. Stop trying to be male, you will never succeed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3574884)

On the other hand, I wouldn't just dismiss her as some dumb bitch; she doesn't really seem militant about it at all. She just wants to exchange ideas on this. I don't think that's so horrible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3574937)

Psssssht. I'm not on a pro-choice mailing list to receive crap like this. If a chick wants to show her tits to the world, far be it from me to stop her.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3575244)

"If you are interested in helping out with fighting/exchanging thoughts on Mr. He's project, please contact me as soon as possible."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3582644)

I am sorry you are ugly. Banning this calander, however, will not make you more attractive.

HTH,

Mr. Fish, almost Esq.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#3576366)

no point in yelling at them or whatever, but encouraging women to kind of act a little more traditionally isn't a bad idea. odd that it's coming from feminists though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714080)

notice that men cheer these women on, cuz it is a turn-on, but would be pissed if their own daughter did this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714122)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714131)

Girls of this type are all over the place, in different concentrations, you just have to screen for them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714404)

They tend towards the conservative, but many liberal girls deep down have a desire to take that path, and are just looking for the freedom to do so without being insulted by friends.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714490)

Edit:

BTW, I agree with what you said above. Feminism now adays is basically back-tracking from the stuff they did earlier, with re: sexual liberation, etc. Now they are trying to get back some of the dignity and respect that they once had.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714162)

For instance, assume that black slavery persists in 49 states. Blacks in the 50th state would be indirectly affected by this, regardless of whether they themselves were slaves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714226)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714340)

Obviously the situations are different from the get-go, but it does effectively respond to the argument, made by GTO, that "She who doesn't pose isn't affected."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714386)

That's what she's doing.

"and if that doesn't work, perhaps she should reexamine her own views and try to determine why she's in such a small minority that she can't function without associating with such horrible people.

"If even most other women don't think they're being objectified, perhaps she's the one whose views are wrong."

Can you come up with something better than the bandwagon argument?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714293)

I think that the view that women are nothing more than stupid sluts is that which is warped.

"Then perhaps they should mind their own business and only associate with those who do not objectify women."

Unfortunately this is becoming nearly impossible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714218)

And this view was expressed where? Are you unable to comprehend that it's possible to derive enjoyment from viewing some women as sexual objects without viewing all women that way?

"Unfortunately this is becoming nearly impossible."

Yup, sucks to be a stupid hippie feminist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714314)

The view is implicitly and explicitly promoted throughout society in a multitude of ways.

"Are you unable to comprehend that it's possible to derive enjoyment from viewing some women as sexual objects without viewing all women that way? "

I'm able to comprehend that, but I know better, especially in a case like this. The calendar helps lend to an association that looks like NYU Girls = Sluts = Sexual Playthings = Not Worthy of Respect.

Which is offensive if you are an NYU Girl, for pretty obvious reasons. Obviously, it is only an association - perhaps enough to create a rebuttable presumption for some - but still it's easy to see how girls might feel better without it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714332)

Yes, particularly young men. They make some differentiation but it retains effect. See, e.g., Bobo doll experiments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714396)

Does that help?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714518)

"Exposure to nudity alone (9 studies) was found to reduce aggression, whereas exposure to either nonviolent (24 studies) or violent depictions (7 studies) of sexual activity increased aggression."

It would seem that a non-pornographic calendar such as the one in question here would actually have a positive impact. The self pwnage is just too delicious! You made a logical leap when you tried to apply arguments about pornography to arguments about the NON-pornographic calendar in question here.

Even then, their conclusions are inconclusive as it relates to proving your point. It seems that pornography mainly affects a small percentage of men who were already fucked up to begin with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714779)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714444)

Obviously there is a non-trivial number of women who not only not have a problem with being viewed as objects, but *gasp* may actually like it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714183)

That's basically what they are trying to do, and what is being criticized.

"Obviously there is a non-trivial number of women who not only not have a problem with being viewed as objects, but *gasp* may actually like it."

did I suggest otherwise? I just suggested that non-skanks might take offense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714205)

http://vadim.sadmensclub.com/archives/albums/spr20051/sexy_gary_he.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=238857&forum_id=2#4714430)