Comparing them to rape victims is far more sickening than anything else that's been posted on this thread.
not really.
Perhaps not, but they don't have a right to a lucrative career in an industry that pays them to be objects, while simultaneously being protected from all that implies.
first of all, they've built their careers acting in children's movies. i hardly think they were being paid to be objects of lust. and why is it that two twin boys could build a similar career without becoming the subjects of some horrid sexual countdown? is that fair? my whole point was that young women are increasingly being viewed as purely sexual objects. over the past few years it's grown worse and worse and it's been bothering me. i can remember when that britney spears video was such a scandal because britney was wearing a catholic school girl outfit that showed her belly, and now she's practically got to go on stage NAKED and make out with another woman in order to create and publicity. everyone's getting sexier younger and it creates this whole vicious sickening competition.
As actresses isnt it their job for people to like Viewing them?
wellll,
If I recall correctly, the Olsons didn't make their money being sexual objects. They produced children strait to video movies
.w/o having read the proceeding pages, and holding a personal belief that a balance can be struck between progressive civilization and raw animal carnality (is that a word?); isn't "being objectified" what the Olson twins have built their entire lucrative careers around?
i'd say read the preceding pages maybe....seriously, my opinion is really not that radical. i'm just far less eloquent than some who have expressed similar sentiments, whose thoughts are worth a read-through imo.
happy birthday back atcha sirius.