iPhone sexiness
Posted on February 23, 2010
Filed Under Coverage, May I Interject?, Thought |
Most people know my general take on the topic of pornography…
But let me say, I have faced the fact that I have an average lifespan of 80 years–I know I am not capable of changing anything substantial, nor capable of living a life with the need to be consistently militant about anything because then I’d never be happy.
I’ve been trained as a journalist, and because the discourse about pornography is wide-ranging in sentiment, I understand that my opinion is probably not “right.” I can look at this issue objectively.
Having said that, what has bothered me are the articles that have come out of the tech blogs about Apple removing the “boobie” iPhone apps. To recap, Apple has removed certain “sexy” apps because women and mothers complained they were either objectifying to women or easily at risk to be seen by children.
As predicted, there has been lots of criticism of Apple’s action. That is to be expected, and that’s fine. That’s not what bothers me; the argument is healthy.
What bothers me (and what makes me miss the objectivity/seeing-both-sides aspect of true journalism) is the inability of blogs like Gizmodo and TechCrunch to even acknowledge that preventing objectification might rank higher on the priority list than the availability of porn iPhone apps. It seems like one side has been taken. The only article I have seen that might consider some material might potentially offend someone is this article from Gizmodo, but even then it seems like the author is stepping on her tiptoes so that she doesn’t get too much attention from her male coworkers.
When it comes down to it, what are you arguing for? Don’t you realize that 10 years ago you would have been confused if someone told you that “porn apps on mobile phones would be banned?” Big f’ing deal. Porn is the most prominent thing on the Internet. It’s everywhere.
Wah, I can’t get porn applications on my iPhone. Wah wah wah. No more porn on the bus. Wah. No more porn during lunch break. Wah. These are first-first-first world problems. You are complaining about porn, women are complaining about feeling like objects and a little uncomfortable… What is the bigger underlying social issue here, first-worlders?
Articles about the issue:
Why Apple Banned Sex Apps
Apple, There’s Pornography On My iPhone
Apple Bans Sexy Apps, Developers Upset
Comments
3 Responses to “iPhone sexiness”
Leave a Reply
I’m sympathetic to any argument against objectification, but it’s easy enough to rule out the possibility that Apple can be a reliable enough judge of the objectifying qualities of a piece of software to be entrusted with banning it. That isn’t something we would accept in any other medium, certainly not without due process and with the ultimate power vested in an unaccountable corporation. Yes, this genre of software is juvenile and mostly *bad for society*, but we can only continue to fight that from the trenches; we certainly can not put our faith in the enlightened dictatorship of an old boy like Phil Schiller. His indulgence of the S.I. app reveals the depth of his ‘objectification’ concerns very plainly.
And no I don’t think entertaining this angle is necessary to round out the story, but mindfully rejecting it is a useful exercise.
I understand where you are coming from, but look at this this way. You are talking about this as if it’s a violation of freedom of information–like Apple is “censoring” these things.
In reality this is just a BUSINESS DECISION. Barnes & Noble does not carry pornography because it is a BUSINESS DECISION. Blockbuster does not rent pornography because it is a BUSINESS DECISION. It’s not censorship, it’s merely a choice made that will reflect on the company.
You point out the argument about the Swimsuit Illustrated app. This is a mainstream publication. It’s not just an app someone created. Removing the S.I. app would be like removing S.I. from Barnes & Noble or any number of films from Blockbuster that show women in bikinis. Apple is simply making an age-old business decision, and because they are just ONE company, they are NOT the government, they have every right to do that.
As for entertaining this angle– How do you think the New York Times would cover this? You think they would only show the side of the whiny-I-miss-my-boobs-app iPhone owners? There is a place and time for everything. Your employer probably does not let you surf Internet porn at work. Why not get mad at him? The point is that porn never made a point for mobility–It’s best kept in one’s own privacy.
If the issue was objectification, then Apple would have removed the apps from Playboy and Sports Illustrated, or does having a corporate relationship to pornography over the long haul negate objectification. Also, there are plenty of apps in the app store that have images of beefy, half-naked men. Is objectification of the male form allowed, while objectification of the female form is banned?
This is censorship, pure and simple. Censorship is a very slippery slope. Perhaps, for example, I am offended by Christianity. There are many like me. Can we have all apps related to Christianity removed from the App store? Perhaps violence offends me (and many others). Should we remove all violence, including games, from the App store?