It's like Girls Gone Wild is the driving force behind our culture now. And if you watch those videos (I've watched a few), they're porn. That's all it is, and it seem like girls feel like that is what they have to be now. Porn stars. Go get a tattoo on your lower back and perform sexual acts for anyone who asks. It's depressing.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Context, please?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems hypocritical for you to decry people for producing products that you choos to consume.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Way to start this off on a civil footing, porteiro.
Sorry, ricree. You haven't heard about the scandals with Miss USA and all that?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why are the three of them so special?
This isn't new. The only thing that's new is the sudden publicity, and the fact that they got caught.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Perhaps you're confusing civil and confrontational, Resh. mph's post was plenty civil -- at least as much so as your first post.
I don't disagree with what I'd presume is the main thrust of your original post -- I don't think I do, anyway -- independent of its presentation. But aside from making sure legal SSM is prevented, do you have a solution? Or just a direction?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Way to start this off on a civil footing, porteiro.
Sorry, ricree. You haven't heard about the scandals with Miss USA and all that?
All I've heard about was some drinking and clubbing. A little wild maybe, but nothing particularly horrible. It hasn't exactly been something I've been following, though, so I don't know exactly what you're complaining about.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
But there are so many girls who are like this. Girls are so promiscuous and shameless. It was one thing when guys were like that, but now it's like girls are trying to compete with them in the raunchiness department.
And I think it's pretty new for these Miss USA types. Young girls used to have to be respectable to be respected. Now the most famous and look-up to gilrs act like they're auditioning for a Girls Gone Wild video.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Why is it worse for girls than for guys?
-pH
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
And regarding various pageants, as far as I'm concerned until and unless they remove anything resembling a swimsuit competition they're rewarding exactly what they think they are (and what you claim they are), and Lyrhawn is probably right that there's nothing new here except the publicity.
Sorry for the double-post. Too tempting with the Quick Reply box. I'm so weak.
[Edit -- wow... quick-moving thread. I thought it was going to be a double-post.]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you think it is shameless for young women to behave like that, why do you watch those videos?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, it's not, I guess. Girls just used to have had more virtue. Or they were expected to act like ladies, and to value their chastity. Guys would act like rakes, and they would get their come-uppence from some young girl's brother or father if they got out of line. I don't know. This new culture is just unsettling.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But back in "those days," if the men were running around, they had to be running around with SOMEONE. That's the part that's always confused me, the idea that it's more usual for boys to run around, but not girls. Because otherwise, who are the boys running around with (besides each other)?
-pH
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
No, girls are just allowed the same freedom guys have always gotten, now.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
It's not any worse for girls than it is for boys. It's really not bad for either one. Who gave you the responsibility to legislate behavior, and what does a lower back tattoo have to do with anything?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
R has a point, though. It used to be much more socially acceptable for men to behave in such ways then for women to do it.
Personally, I think it's a shame that, as a culture, we acheived equality by lowering the women's standard down to the men's instead of raising men's standard up to the women's.
And I'm still waiting for a response from you, Resh -- do you think it's OK for you to support the making of those videos which you are speaking out against?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But back in "those days," if the men were running around, they had to be running around with SOMEONE. That's the part that's always confused me, the idea that it's more usual for boys to run around, but not girls. Because otherwise, who are the boys running around with (besides each other)?
-pH
I think that men were probably TRYING to get laid as much then as now. It just wasn't possible to score then as it is know, where the slightest effort will get some drunk girl at a bar into your bed (or backseat.) Before the "free love" revolution in the sixties, if a girl had pre-marital sex, she had a lot to answer for. Maybe it wasn't fair. But I can't help but be depressed everytime I see some perfectly nice looking young girl with one of those tattoos on their lower back. Because it's true what Vince Vaughn said in the Wedding Crashers, that's like a stamp that say's "I'm easy!" (paraphrasing)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by pH: But back in "those days," if the men were running around, they had to be running around with SOMEONE. That's the part that's always confused me, the idea that it's more usual for boys to run around, but not girls. Because otherwise, who are the boys running around with (besides each other)?
-pH
I think that men were probably TRYING to get laid as much then as now. It just wasn't possible to score then as it is know, where the slightest effort will get some drunk girl at a bar into your bed (or backseat.) Before the "free love" revolution in the sixties, if a girl had pre-marital sex, she had a lot to answer for. Maybe it wasn't fair. But I can't help but be depressed everytime I see some perfectly nice looking young girl with one of those tattoos on their lower back. Because it's true what Vince Vaughn said in the Wedding Crashers, that's like a stamp that say's "I'm easy!" (paraphrasing)
I've come to like it when people make this easy for me to write them off.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I might add, to my original post, that you need to redirect your ire Resh.
Who are you really mad at, the girl in front of the camera, or the guy behind the camera? I submit that you really don't know what the majority of girls are like, because so long as there is a camera there to reward it, there'll always be someone, man or woman, there to take advantage of the situation.
The only thing you're mad at is a vast minority piped into your television set.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: And I'm still waiting for a response from you, Resh -- do you think it's OK for you to support the making of those videos which you are speaking out against?
Oh sorry. I was ignoring it because I thought you were trying to be a jerk. But no I don't think it's ok. I never actually bought any of them. I borrowed a few from a friend when I was in Iraq. That was a few years ago, and my disgust has only begun surfacing in the past few months. I hate those videos, and I hate the guy who's made millions off of them. He exploits these girls and their insecurities. He approaches these 18 year old girls who are sloppy drunk and get's them to perform for free. They do it because they think it's expected of them, which it is! He's a scourge on society.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
if you expect a girl to act like a lady, you should treat her as one. if you want her to be respectable, treat her with respect.
don't exploit women, don't give money or attention to people that do, if in fact that sort of behavior bothers you.
and i'm with pH on this, i hate the double standard, and i hate the compartmentalization of all those women that men are with in order to be rakes.
"remember when" also includes the more obvious opression and compartmentalization of women. i'm glad we gained sexual freedom, but that doesn't mean we have to use it all the time - publicly.
there have always been loose women, but there have also always been men encouraging a girl to undo them buttons. perhaps if people like the d-bag that produces GGW weren't making millions it wouldn't be so acceptable. and yet somehow, people keep paying, people keep watching. hmm. mystery indeed.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I might add, to my original post, that you need to redirect your ire Resh.
Who are you really mad at, the girl in front of the camera, or the guy behind the camera? I submit that you really don't know what the majority of girls are like, because so long as there is a camera there to reward it, there'll always be someone, man or woman, there to take advantage of the situation.
The only thing you're mad at is a vast minority piped into your television set.
Spot on. I'm sad about the girls. I'm angry at Joe Garcia or whatever his name is. And all those bastards in Hollywood who have their prey walking right into their offices. Actually I'm mad at our "progressive" society that has allowed this to happen. I'm as much to blame as the next guy.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i also second poteiro, on wishing the reverse expectations had been achieved, concerning the social/sexual behavior of men vs. women.
yes, women may have the freedom to do as they like now, but women are still called sluts while men are still high-fived. i realize there are exceptions, but not enough.
one of my best friends was shaking his head one day, saying it was good that a neighborhood girl had joined the military and left town cause she was "loose booty." i was pissed and demanded that he instead start calling out all the boys that helped in building that loose reputation.
i realize where most of this comes from, but it's bullocks that we haven't gotten past it. a guy wants a girl to be sexually open, so long as it's only with him. and yet he wants more than one option. lame!
okay, done.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually I'm mad at our "progressive" society that has allowed this to happen. I'm as much to blame as the next guy.
How would you have society disallow this to happen? By cracking down and outlawing anything that doesn't meet X standard of decency? That's a scary slope to mess with.
I personally blame the people who consume these things. They are the ones paying those people to make the videos.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't go to church, but maybe I need to. I think my problem began when my ex-girlfriend broke up with me. She was one of those girls who was easily exploited. I was very good to her for a year and a half, but we slept together on our first date. Since then I've been trying to meet a girl who isn't like that and I've come up short. That vast minority you speak of, Lyhawn, is a majority within the high school/college age, attractive demographic. The only girls I go to school with who aren't blatantly promiscuous are the unattractive ones. And they go for these scumbags who don't even try to hide the fact of their rakishness.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Because sexual repression just works so well...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's worked wonderfully for me.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Actually I'm mad at our "progressive" society that has allowed this to happen. I'm as much to blame as the next guy.
How would you have society disallow this to happen? By cracking down and outlawing anything that doesn't meet X standard of decency? That's a scary slope to mess with.
I personally blame the people who consume these things. They are the ones paying those people to make the videos.
That's the problem. We aren't in any position to legislate decency. It was a societal thing. We didn't need laws because we had family and community.
I blame the consumer as well. But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed. There is no constitutional right to produce that garbage. Don't say speech to me, Larry Flynt.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
There is no such thing as society, only individual agents who choose to act in whatever ever ways they wish. The outrage in this thread is misplaced. No one is being coerced, no one is being exploited.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I don't go to church, but maybe I need to. I think my problem began when my ex-girlfriend broke up with me. She was one of those girls who was easily exploited. I was very good to her for a year and a half, but we slept together on our first date. Since then I've been trying to meet a girl who isn't like that and I've come up short. That vast minority you speak of, Lyhawn, is a majority within the high school/college age, attractive demographic. The only girls I go to school with who aren't blatantly promiscuous are the unattractive ones. And they go for these scumbags who don't even try to hide the fact of their rakishness.
But not only did she sleep with you. YOU slept with HER. You are just as responsible as she is for the two of you having sex on the first night. If you thought that was wrong, then you could've said no just as well as she could.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But not only did she sleep with you. YOU slept with HER. You are just as responsible as she is for the two of you having sex on the first night. If you thought that was wrong, then you could've said no just as well as she could.
Amen.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's worked wonderfully for me.
Abstaining != repression.
-pH
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Isn't there a happy medium between being on Girls Gone Wild and sexual repression? I mean, I'm no saint when it comes to sex, but I don't think I'm a slut either.
I'm with pH and porcelain girl. Why the double standard? There's a whole culture around guys needing to 'spread their wild oats' and all that crap. If a girl sleeps with more than one guy she is called 'promiscuous' and 'slut' and other unsavory names. Some guys, on the other hand, seem to tally up their conquests like they did something important. Bah. I'd start calling guys sluts, but they'd probably take it as a compliment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've been called repressed many times, and told that what I consider correct sexual behavior is repressive.
I personally agree with you, but I've come to accept the label.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm right with porteiro and porcelain here. I wish the standard had been raised for men rather than lowered for women.
However, as long as we're going to high-five one gender, we darn well better not be putting down the other. A girl can't have many partners if no guys are willing to play. So as long as girl gets called a slut or whore, there had better be names for all the guys who were right there with her. It's just disgusting how a guy who's had the same number of partners is allowed to self-righteously demean a woman who has only done exactly what he has.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's worked wonderfully for me.
Abstaining != repression.
-pH
That equals truth.
quote:But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed.
I have to say, I find this statement more offensive than anything Miss USA ever did.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've been called repressed many times, and told that what I consider correct sexual behavior is repressive.
I personally agree with you, but I've come to accept the label.
I see that as the big, big issue in communication between those who do have premarital sex and those who don't. A lot of those who do consider a lot of those who don't to be repressed. But a lot of those who don't consider a lot of those who do to be weak, slutty, or any other number of negative things. You can abstain without being repressed, and you can have sex without being a slut, whether you'e male or female.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: But not only did she sleep with you. YOU slept with HER. You are just as responsible as she is for the two of you having sex on the first night. If you thought that was wrong, then you could've said no just as well as she could.
-pH
No argument there. I could have, and she should have. My point is that way back when, I would have been the jerk who tried to pressure a girl into having sex with me, and she would have felt more pressure to resist because she'd be afraid of what people would think of her. Sure it's a double standard, but at least the girl would have remained a virgin and I would have just been out of luck. Things have never been perfect, but on that count, things were better.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed.
I have to say, I find this statement more offensive than anything Miss USA ever did.
Why? You a big fan of exploitation?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by pH: But not only did she sleep with you. YOU slept with HER. You are just as responsible as she is for the two of you having sex on the first night. If you thought that was wrong, then you could've said no just as well as she could.
-pH
No argument there. I could have, and she should have. My point is that way back when, I would have been the jerk who tried to pressure a girl into having sex with me, and she would have felt more pressure to resist because she'd be afraid of what people would think of her. Sure it's a double standard, but at least the girl would have remained a virgin and I would have just been out of luck. I think it was just better.
What's so sacred about virginity? Were you hoping to sacrifice her in a volcano? 'Cuz I don't think God requires that anymore.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I could have, and she should have.
What an ugly double standard. If she should have then you should have too. It's not the woman's repsonsibility to keep men chaste.
quote:Things have never been perfect, but on that count, things were better.
Things would be even better we all took responsibility for our own actions.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
No, I think it's better that the onus is on YOU equally now. Don't you dare wish you could be a jerk and put all the responsibility on her.
Oh noes! Now you actually have to be responsible!
Give me a break.
Edit: This thread moves fast. Whew.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed.
I have to say, I find this statement more offensive than anything Miss USA ever did.
Why? You a big fan of exploitation?
It's not exploitation. I find it offensive that you think you know what's best for everybody, and not only do you know what's best, you want to force everyone to conform to your knowledge.
I find it offensive that you stick your nose into into business that is no concern of yours, and isn't hurting anyone, least of all you.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I could have, and she should have.
What an ugly double standard. If she should have then you should have too. It's not the woman's repsonsibility to keep men chaste.
That's true. I wasn't really thinking about it when I wrote it. I should have, and she should have.
Might not be true, anyway. Maybe there wasn't anything wrong with it. I doubt it, though.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed.
I have to say, I find this statement more offensive than anything Miss USA ever did.
Why? You a big fan of exploitation?
It's not exploitation. I find it offensive that you think you know what's best for everybody, and not only do you know what's best, you want to force everyone to conform to your knowledge.
I find it offensive that you stick your nose into into business that is no concern of yours, and isn't hurting anyone, least of all you.
Not hurting anyone, huh? You wanna think about that? The argument can be made that it's hurting plenty of people. First, the girls, many of whom are underage, who ARE being exploited, regardless of your denial. Second, the people whose souls are numbed by this garbage, some of whom become addicted to it like a drug. Then there are all the women who are looked at like objects by more and more men (and women) because of this pornography-obsessed society. And these women go on to act like tramps because that's what is expected of them. And finally, the poor father who pays his beautiful young daughter's college bills, up late one night, who switches the channel to Comedy Central and sees his daughter with the GIRLS GONE WILD logo covering up her nakedness, sucking on her finger while looking directly at the camera. Knowing that everyone knows what his little girl has done. God that breaks my heart.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:But I don't know why pornography is legal. It should be outlawed.
I have to say, I find this statement more offensive than anything Miss USA ever did.
Why? You a big fan of exploitation?
It's not exploitation. I find it offensive that you think you know what's best for everybody, and not only do you know what's best, you want to force everyone to conform to your knowledge.
I find it offensive that you stick your nose into into business that is no concern of yours, and isn't hurting anyone, least of all you.
I'm going to have to agree with this.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
So where does that leave porn where men are the objects?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You agree huh? Hope you never see your daughter one day masturbating on camera on an infomercial. Hell, at the way things are progressing, it will be hardcore sex right there on boradcast TV. But I'm the bad guy for despising it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
This is quite the slippery slope you're setting us all up to slide down.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Personally, I think that pornograpy is a scourge on our society, and is causing immense harm. I wish I could snap my fingers and make it all dissapear.
Even so, I think it's a bad idea to make it illegal.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: So where does that leave porn where men are the objects?
You know what, men and women ARE different. There are different standards for each, and there should be. If your a guy who wants to go and do gay porn, well, that's on you. But if you're some teenage girl who gets convinced to do one of these videos, well, you're being exploited. Double standard, sure. But that's no reason to defend pornography.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've got to disagree with you there. Just because men and women are different (and I do think that the differences are much more important than is currently popular to believe) doesn't mean that we should have different standards.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You agree huh? Hope you never see your daughter one day masturbating on camera on an infomercial. Hell, at the way things are progressing, it will be hardcore sex right there on boradcast TV. But I'm the bad guy for despising it.
That's rather presumptuous to say my exact wants are a wife and a child, isn't it? You just assumed an entire chapter of my life I've yet to want or live through.
Would I mind? Um, unless she was tricked into it or they used her image without her consent, then no. I'm not her, and even though she'd be my daughter, it's her body to do whatever she wants with. Unlike many parents, I see no reason to force my beliefs, morals, or limits on my daughter. That tends to do harm, you know.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not hurting anyone, huh? You wanna think about that? The argument can be made that it's hurting plenty of people. First, the girls, many of whom are underage, who ARE being exploited, regardless of your denial. Second, the people whose souls are numbed by this garbage, some of whom become addicted to it like a drug. Then there are all the women who are looked at like objects by more and more men (and women) because of this pornography-obsessed society. And these women go on to act like tramps because that's what is expected of them.
Can you provide evidence for any of these statements? Especially the "many of whom are underage part" As far as I know of, underage pornography is already quite illegal. Therefore, this doesn't fall under the "don't legislate it because it is not hurting anyone" argument. We agree that underage pornography is bad, but that is already illegal so it is not even a part of this issue.
As far as the "and these women go on to act like tramps because that's what is expected of them." I have a hard time seeing where you get this. At the most, they are getting the message that it is not the end of the world if people are promiscuous. Nevertheless, the idea that women should be more chaste than men is still huge in our society, despite your arguments to the contrary.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How is it a slippery slope? Let's slope it the other way. It starts out that pornography is this underground thing that becomes legally recognized in spite of the public's disgust at it. 40 years later, nsomething just barely short of hardcore explicit pornography is being advertised all night on basic cable, 2 minute spots on broadcast TV, and a mere slap on the wrist for the producer convicted of filming a minor for one of the videos. Meanwhile, hardcore porn, beastiality, piss and sh** and simulated rape and computer generated images of children is being sold for billions of dollars each year in this country. "BUT WE GOTTA KEEP IT LEGAL!! IT'S A RIGHT!!!"
Sickening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So a 21 year old guy who does porn and a 21 year old girl who does porn aren't equal? The girl is automatically naive and being exploited and the guy is making a fair choice?
I don't buy that.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Exactly, porter.
Resh, I'm not defending porn. I'm saying you are arguing poorly and rashly. You're setting up double standards that are just as harmful to "society" as the porn you decry.
If a girl is exploited when she chooses to make porn, so is a guy. As I understand it, the vast majority of porn is made my consenting adults. I wish it didn't exist, but they have the right to make it. It's not underage or teen girls, by and large, because that's already illegal.
The exploitation occurs when a woman is made an object of lust. And so it is for a man. There's no "that's different" about it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: Would I mind? Um, unless she was tricked into it or they used her image without her consent, then no. I'm not her, and even though she'd be my daughter, it's her body to do whatever she wants with. Unlike many parents, I see no reason to force my beliefs, morals, or limits on my daughter. That tends to do harm, you know.
Limits, morals, and beliefs tend to do harm? If you think about that for more than a nanosecond, you will see how ridiculous that is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you read his post closely, you'll see that he's saying that forcing those things on your daughter tends to do harm.
Which, in many ways is true, although I suspect that I would disagree with him for much of what he considers "forcing" it on children.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: How is it a slippery slope? Let's slope it the other way. It starts out that pornography is this underground thing that becomes legally recognized in spite of the public's disgust at it. 40 years later, nsomething just barely short of hardcore explicit pornography is being advertised all night on basic cable, 2 minute spots on broadcast TV,
Whoa. What tv are you watching? I'm up late all the time, have a tv with a decent number of cable channels, and I've never seen this. I gotta wonder if you're looking for it, because it's not as hard to avoid as you present.
quote:Meanwhile, hardcore porn, beastiality, piss and sh** and simulated rape and computer generated images of children is being sold for billions of dollars each year in this country. "BUT WE GOTTA KEEP IT LEGAL!! IT'S A RIGHT!!!"
*shrug* It is. I don't like it, but it is. And I'd rather people be allowed to make stuff like that than civil rights be restricted so much. If you can convince people to give it up, power to you.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
How is this double standard as harmful as the pornographic and promiscuous culture we now experience that the double standard initially prevented from developing? I can't comprehend how you guys want to defend pornography. It's not a right! How is it a right? You guys have been seduced by this filth, or brainwashed by its promoters, or I don't know what. How can you consider yourself a good person when you support or defend this garbage? I'm not saying you're not good people, I just don't understand it.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: Would I mind? Um, unless she was tricked into it or they used her image without her consent, then no. I'm not her, and even though she'd be my daughter, it's her body to do whatever she wants with. Unlike many parents, I see no reason to force my beliefs, morals, or limits on my daughter. That tends to do harm, you know.
Limits, morals, and beliefs tend to do harm? If you think about that for more than a nanosecond, you will see how ridiculous that is.
Of course limits, morals, and beliefs don't do harm. You conveniently left off the qualifier that forcing my limits, morals, and beliefs causes harm.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, how does a son or daughter experience limits and morals without them being forced upon him or her? Do you just provide an array of index cards with all these tips for living life, and then leave him to pick which ones he likes?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Whoa. What tv are you watching? I'm up late all the time, have a tv with a decent number of cable channels, and I've never seen this. I gotta wonder if you're looking for it, because it's not as hard to avoid as you present.
Granted, I don't know much about pornography standards, but for me, those Girls Gone Wild commercials shown on Comedy Central are more pornographic than I ever want to see.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Maybe they don't show them up here. I've never seen anything like a Girls Gone Wild ad.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, how does a son or daughter experience limits and morals without them being forced upon him or her? Do you just provide an array of index cards with all these tips for living life, and then leave him to pick which ones he likes?
You bring them up to believe in basic moral guidelines: killing is wrong, being generous is right, etc. However, you let them decide what religion is best for them. You give them an option to believe in something else. How can you not give your children a choice? You're raising people, not clones.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Whoa. What tv are you watching? I'm up late all the time, have a tv with a decent number of cable channels, and I've never seen this. I gotta wonder if you're looking for it, because it's not as hard to avoid as you present.
Granted, I don't know much about pornography standards, but for me, those Girls Gone Wild commercials shown on Comedy Central are more pornographic than I ever want to see.
Yeah. Every night at 2 a.m. (mountain time) on Comedy Central. It's porno time. Completely naked girls, masterbating, going down on each other, all that stuff. There are strategically placed logos, but barely anything is left to the imagination. Nothing like it on TV ten years ago. And what was on ten years ago was nothing like what was on twenty years ago. Hitoshi and the rest, you can make your theoretical slippery slpoe argument, that if we outlaw pornography, ten years from now we will not have any right to expression at all anymore, but look at the real one that HAS happened. And it's easy to imagine where it will go.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: Would I mind? Um, unless she was tricked into it or they used her image without her consent, then no. I'm not her, and even though she'd be my daughter, it's her body to do whatever she wants with. Unlike many parents, I see no reason to force my beliefs, morals, or limits on my daughter. That tends to do harm, you know.
Limits, morals, and beliefs tend to do harm? If you think about that for more than a nanosecond, you will see how ridiculous that is.
Of course limits, morals, and beliefs don't do harm. You conveniently left off the qualifier that forcing my limits, morals, and beliefs causes harm.
What exactly do you mean by forcing here? I agree with mph on this. The general idea of what you said is something I agree with, but I suspect that our ideas of what constitutes forcing our morals on someone differs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course limits, morals, and beliefs don't do harm. You conveniently left off the qualifier that forcing my limits, morals, and beliefs causes harm.
Hitoshi, I have little respect for much of biggle's position and none for his manner of presenting it in this thread, but your equating "minding" whether parents see their child in such a video with "forcing" limits and morals on the child is quite insulting.
biggle is simply fulfilling all of our expectations for him by acting the ass. I'd appreciate it if the responses to him could refrain from catching other people in the crossfire.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: You bring them up to believe in basic moral guidelines: killing is wrong, being generous is right, etc. However, you let them decide what religion is best for them. You give them an option to believe in something else. How can you not give your children a choice? You're raising people, not clones.
You want clones, let the culture raise your children. Because that's what happens if you don't do it. Let them figure it out for themselves? Not gonna happen. Someones gonna do it, and it's probably going to be MTV. Look at society. We have a whole genration of teenagers who were raised by permissive parents. You think everything is turning out swell, I guess.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: [qb] Would I mind? Um, unless she was tricked into it or they used her image without her consent, then no. I'm not her, and even though she'd be my daughter, it's her body to do whatever she wants with. Unlike many parents, I see no reason to force my beliefs, morals, or limits on my daughter. That tends to do harm, you know.
Limits, morals, and beliefs tend to do harm? If you think about that for more than a nanosecond, you will see how ridiculous that is.
Of course limits, morals, and beliefs don't do harm. You conveniently left off the qualifier that forcing my limits, morals, and beliefs causes harm.
What exactly do you mean by forcing here? I agree with mph on this. The general idea of what you said is something I agree with, but I suspect that our ideas of what constitutes forcing our morals on someone differs.
By forcing, I mean, not allowing them to believe anything different than what you do. You can bring your children up to believe as you do; that's not what I'm against. What I am against, however, is when parents do not allow their children to act in any way they see as differing from their own moral compass when they're adults, or allow them to believe differently than they do.
Dag: I did not mean to imply that minding seeing your daughter doing that meant you were forcing your beliefs on her; that statement was independent and targeted towards biggle, not people who mind. I can see how people would mind. What bothers me is when they decide they know what's best for their grown, adult child and trying to force their beliefs on them still.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm always hearing about how I present myself. I always come across as an ass, as the morally righteous one, holier-than-thou. But I swear, I am always the one on the defensive. Always, in every thread, it's me against everyone else. Even when I have a like minded person, like mph in this one, I'm still without allies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm always hearing about how I present myself.
You should listen.
quote:I am always the one on the defensive.
You were not on the defensive when you started this thread. That post was markedly offensive (in both meanings of the word).
Also, you and I are not like minded, despite the fact that I don't disagree with everything you've said.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote: by me: Not hurting anyone, huh? You wanna think about that? The argument can be made that it's hurting plenty of people. First, the girls, many of whom are underage, who ARE being exploited, regardless of your denial. Second, the people whose souls are numbed by this garbage, some of whom become addicted to it like a drug. Then there are all the women who are looked at like objects by more and more men (and women) because of this pornography-obsessed society. And these women go on to act like tramps because that's what is expected of them.
Is this me acting like an ass? How about
quote: I can't comprehend how you guys want to defend pornography. It's not a right! How is it a right? You guys have been seduced by this filth, or brainwashed by its promoters, or I don't know what. How can you consider yourself a good person when you support or defend this garbage? I'm not saying you're not good people, I just don't understand it...
If that's what you're talking about, then you've got a point. But what about MY points? How is it a right? How are they not exploited? How about almost any issue I try to address on these boards, and the overwhelming response to my arguments are :"You're a jerk!" How about you think not about how I'm saying it, and instead think about WHAT I'm saying.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How about you think not about how I'm saying it, and instead think about WHAT I'm saying.
It's hard to hear what you're saying when my ears are ringing from how you said it.
The truth of the matter is that until you learn how to discuss things in a civil manner, people will not take you (or your points) seriously.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm always hearing about how I present myself.
You should listen.
I do listen.
quote:
quote:I am always the one on the defensive.
You were not on the defensive when you started this thread. That post was markedly offensive (in both meanings of the word).
Also, you and I are not like minded, despite the fact that I don't disagree with everything you've said.
Here's my first post:
quote:It's like Girls Gone Wild is the driving force behind our culture now. And if you watch those videos (I've watched a few), they're porn. That's all it is, and it seem like girls feel like that is what they have to be now. Porn stars. Go get a tattoo on your lower back and perform sexual acts for anyone who asks. It's depressing.
Who was that offensive to? Pornographers? The GGW guy? However, the very first response from you was "Aren't you a hypocrite?"
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I think your problem might be that you're not actually reading other peoples responses to you. Or maybe you do read them, but you have a convenient little "edit" button somewhere in your head that doesnt allow you to see the reasoned, intelligent reponses to your questions.
It's a convienant button to have when you arent actually looking to get into a discussion, but rather are looking to reread your own posts over and over again to remind yourself of how smart and witty you are and how much of a martyr you are in the cause of spreading enlightenment to the ignorant masses.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let's talk about the use of the word offensive as opposed to defensive, as that is what brought the word up.
In that post you are not defending yourself against anything. Instead, you are attacking A) GGW videos B) girls who are in those videos and C) girls with tattoos on their lower backs.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Not hurting anyone, huh? You wanna think about that? The argument can be made that it's hurting plenty of people. First, the girls, many of whom are underage, who ARE being exploited, regardless of your denial.
Underage girls aren't exploited in legal porn, because it's illegal.
quote:And these women go on to act like tramps because that's what is expected of them.
Calling women tramps gets you on my immediate bad side. It's an insult, not a discriptor. You might not like what they do, but you have no right to pass judgement on them like that.
quote: I can't comprehend how you guys want to defend pornography. It's not a right! How is it a right?
People are allowed to do what they wish with their bodies. That includes making money.
quote:You guys have been seduced by this filth, or brainwashed by its promoters, or I don't know what.
I hate porn.
quote:How can you consider yourself a good person when you support or defend this garbage?
You don't get to pass judgement on me, either.
quote:But what about MY points? How is it a right? How are they not exploited?
They chose to make it.
quote:How about almost any issue I try to address on these boards, and the overwhelming response to my arguments are: "You're a jerk!" How about you think not about how I'm saying it, and instead think about WHAT I'm saying.
The mode of delivery forms the message just as much as the content.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How about you think not about how I'm saying it, and instead think about WHAT I'm saying.
It's hard to hear what you're saying when my ears are ringing from how you said it.
The truth of the matter is that until you learn how to discuss things in a civil manner, people will not take you (or your points) seriously.
People who can't look any deeper into a persons argument than the bare surface will not take me or my points seriously.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only people who engage me online are people who 1) disagree with me, and 2) are at varying degrees of ineptness in debate and critical thinking. Because those who do have some thinking skills either already agree with me recognize my arguments for what they are and begin to agree with me.
Alright, now that is me being an ass. For fun, I would like to see if you can argue the points I made regardless of how they were presented. Keep in mind I don't believe what I said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:But what about MY points? How is it a right? How are they not exploited?
They chose to make it.
Just because somebody did something willingly doesn't mean that they weren't exploited.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I don't understand that bit, either, porter. Why does getting a tattoo on *gasp!* the lower back automatically mean a girl will sleep with a lot of people? I'm missing the causal link here.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
By my last post, you may have recognized that I have gotten extremely bored with this. As always, I really hope that most of you don't actually think I take much of this very seriously. The issues, sure. But the little verbal sparring that occurs, all in good fun. See you guys later.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:People who can't look any deeper into a persons argument than the bare surface will not take me or my points seriously.
I think the way you choose to present your arguments says an awful lot about you. And yes, it makes us all less likely to tak you seriously.
quote:I don't think it's a coincidence that the only people who engage me online are people who 1) disagree with me, and 2) are at varying degrees of ineptness in debate and critical thinking. Because those who do have some thinking skills either already agree with me recognize my arguments for what they are and begin to agree with me.
Absolutely untrue.
quote: For fun, I would like to see if you can argue the points I made regardless of how they were presented.
While it might be fun for you, letting you be rude without any consequences, it wouldn't be fun for anybody else. No thank you.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
quote:But what about MY points? How is it a right? How are they not exploited?
They chose to make it.
Just because somebody did something willingly doesn't mean that they weren't exploited.
True. But I understood Resh's question to mean that any and all women who make porn are being exploited. Some are, I'm sure, even the ones who do it willingly. But I doubt all of them are. Sorry for not clarifying.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I don't understand that bit, either, porter. Why does getting a tattoo on *gasp!* the lower back automatically mean a girl will sleep with a lot of people? I'm missing the causal link here.
I don't know. I could only guess, but those guesses would be far too offensive for me to feel comfortable making here.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Regarding your points, it all boils down to: their body, their rights. They can do whatever they want with their body, and you have no right to stop them, just as no one has a right to force you to not do something with yours.
While you can argue until you're blue in the face that society's on the fast track to destruction, it doesn't change the fact that people have a right to use their body for purposes that you may or may not agree with.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While you can argue until you're blue in the face that society's on the fast track to destruction, it doesn't change the fact that people have a right to use their body for purposes that you may or may not agree with.
As is apparent from his posts, he does not recognize that as a right. Because of this, you yourself could talk about rights until you're blue in the face and it won't persuade him.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because of this, you yourself could talk about rights until you're blue in the face and it won't persuade him.
Good point. I'm going to save my breath, then. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
One of the beautiful things about forums is never having to encounter the people on them in real life.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's true, erosomniac. For instance, if you encountered me in real life, it wouldn't be the guy you meet here. I don't think this is so much my true self as it is an alter ego. I would be horrified to find I came across this way in real life. Also, I find that the only time I come around here is when I'm drinking. And I seem to get more and more obnoxious the drunker I get.
Still can spell, though.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Keep making backpedaling excuses for yourself, Resh; you're not fooling anyone.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I would be horrified to find I came across this way in real life.
Why should we be expected to put up with your behaviour, then?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think this is so much my true self as it is an alter ego. I would be horrified to find I came across this way in real life.
So you're saying your this obnoxious on purpose?!?!
Then knock it off. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: One of the beautiful things about forums is never having to encounter the people on them in real life.
Well, fine. We don't want to meet YOU, either.
*cries herself to sleep*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: One of the beautiful things about forums is never having to encounter the people on them in real life.
Well, fine. We don't want to meet YOU, either.
*cries herself to sleep*
*hands rivka virtual kleenex*
There, there. This, too, shall pass.
ANYONE ELSE WANT THEIR DREAMS CRUSHED?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sniffle*
*BLOW*
*hands tissues back*
Thanks.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I would be horrified to find I came across this way in real life.
Why should we be expected to put up with your behaviour, then?
You don't have to. You can ignore me.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't think this is so much my true self as it is an alter ego. I would be horrified to find I came across this way in real life.
So you're saying your this obnoxious on purpose?!?!
Then knock it off.
I'm not doing it on purpose. I honestly don't know why I come across as obnoxious, but I know that I find many of the things you guys say really obnoxious too and I don't think you mean it either. You all seem as oblivious as I do.
Like when erosmo said "keep making backpedaling excuses for yourself, Resh; you're not fooling anyone." I found that annoying and obnoxious. I don't know if that was meant to annoy me or not. If it was, great, good job, but if it wasn't, then I was the one who took it wrong and that's my problem, not erosmos.
(Of course, not everyone seems that way. Some people seem really nice always.)
So I think it's more the medium than anything else. Well, the message too. You (or I) read something you disagree with and think is stupid, and so you form a negative opinion of that person. I mean, what else is there to go on? Just written words.
And I think our tendency is to take things that people say more negatively than we should when we are in disagreent. Seriously, tell me you don't do that with your girlfriend or boyfriend or spouse when you're arguing.
And before you know it, you really are trying to egg someone on and annoy him, or at least dismantle his arguments. And then it's just a big hatefest.
Well, I recognize that, and so I generally avoid actually feeling a negative way about any of you. Sometimes if someone is obviously not a very clear thinker and I don't feel like wasting my time, I just go for the easy put-downs, and I'm not proud of that. I know there are actual people on the other ends of your words, but no one can really humanize the letters in the little boxes. If you get mad or annoyed, you're kinda only doing it to yourself.
And so I wasn't really backtracking there, erosmo. I really do only come here when I'm bored and drinking alone, which is not too often, and since I've been buried under about three feet of snow for the last two days (Fort Collins, Colorado), I been running out of ways to amuse myself. I mean, I literally have not walked outside my house since Tuesday evening. So I appreciate the engaging convos. My advice to some of you: lighten up.
[ December 22, 2006, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My advice to you: Lay off the insults.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Perfect example, right there. Very obnoxious to me but maybe not meant that way. For instance, I don't recall actually insulting anyone.
Oh, wait, that's right. You were on the other thread. Yeah I was insulting you a bit. Yeah, pH is one of the guys I didn't feel like engaging because his posts were kinda silly and didn't make much sense. But yeah, that's good advice. I will try to do that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pH is also a woman, if that helps at all.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As far as YOU know, Lyr. *shifty eyes*
-pH
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It's like Girls Gone Wild is the driving force behind our culture now. And if you watch those videos (I've watched a few), they're porn.
If the first one you watched was porn, why'd you watch more of them? Not that you don't have a right to watch porn, but like mph said, it does make your post seem a little hypocritical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I found that annoying and obnoxious.
It was rather annoying and obnoxious. The difference is that people do it in response to your annoying and obnoxious posts. You start out that way.
That doesn't necessarily make responding to you in that manner right, but it does make it qualitatively different, at least to the observers. You seem to be looking for this kind if caustic interaction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So I think it's more the medium than anything else. Well, the message too. You (or I) read something you disagree with and think is stupid, and so you form a negative opinion of that person.
Wrong. I haven't formed a negative opinion of you because I disagree with you. I've formed a negative opinion of you because of the way your present your statments.
You say that you wouldn't come across this way in person, and that you just consider this an alter ego.
My recommendation is to stop playing around with an alter ego and to start treating people with the same respect you would in person.
If you wouldn't say those things in person in a crowd of people you don't know that well, don't say them here.
But I fear that this is all a game for you, being a troll and watching the monkeys dance. As such, I doubt I'll interact with you much in the future unless you prove me wrong.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
To clarify: I am purposely being obnoxious towards you, Reck. I don't like you. I think you've been deliberately insulting and inflammatory, and I think you know it. I don't believe your excuses for your behavior, and find your lack of sincerity disturbing. Your 'I'm cognisant of how obnoxious my behavior is and how deliberately insulting I'm being, I just can't help it' argument reeks of BS, and you've given me no reason to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Your attempts at rationalizing our hostility by blaming it on us vilifying you based on your opinion are also a crock, as you claim to frequent this board with something resembling regularity and have been a registered member for a year, and should therefore know that people with dissenting opinions tend, more often than not, to be very forgiving of people. Even when a viewpoint is as close to our heart and soul as possible, as with Lisa's views on the Middle Eastern conflicts, detractors manage to be not only civil, but friendly and empathetic on other subjects with the same person, and unlike your posts, theirs don't reek of insincerity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Porter, I've been quite impressed with how you have handled yourself in all of this thread.
Reshpeckobiggle: Might I suggest you calm down, and believe that people who post in this forums would rather help improve your style and etiquette then debase and insult you.
I notice that you have recently decided to go from lurker to poster in the forums and you were certainly deserving of the welcome you received.
You are quickly establishing the character that you are on the forums and I would say the first impression has been established. Obviously the reception to that impression has not been overwhelmingly positive. Would you agree?
You might benefit from the experiences of another user named Pelegius. His problem was his posts were condescending, filled with pedantry, and on occasion insulting.
I honestly tried my best to help him not take himself so seriously as he felt he was some sort of martyr on these forums. He wanted to lead us all to the enlightenment and even went to far as to debase himself when we failed to agree with him. "I'm sorry that I have failed YOU."
It could be maddening, but at least in my opinion he started getting better and then one day he made the thread that broke the forums so to speak and he left.
Your opinions are as valuable as any other persons to me, and you are certainly intelligent. When people call you an "ass" or refer to your statements as, "obnoxious and annoying," realize that we only know you from your words and those are the adjectives your words are invoking from people. We do not know you personally and so we cannot judge your words based on your motives.
You have defended your statements by claiming that you were just projecting an opinion and that it does not really represent your feelings on the matter. Please don't do that ever again. Believe me we have hatrackers that represent just about ANY view ANYBODY could have on ANY matter. We don't need you to bolster the ranks of any one view point.
Please just post as if you were among friends because that is what we can be to you. Don't get bent out of shape if somebody takes apart your entire post and concludes its all wrong. Just leave emotion at the door and rationally explain why you object while simultaneously attempting to see if there might be truth to their points. I promise you nobody is going to say, "oh hoo! You admit to being mistaken! Now we know any other opinion you have is weak and unfounded!"
I promise you that if you declare a truce and ask to start over, I will honor that. I am quite confident others will do the same but cannot speak for them. If you change nothing in your approach to these forums expect more of the same sorts of responses as you have heretofore been experiencing.
Only you can decide which direction you wish to take. May you make the one that is in everybody's favor.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Beat me to it Blackblade.
Rack, you are given a lot of tough love on the past few pages. Before you write it off as personal attacks, be warned--some of the good people here wouldn't waste their time with advice if they didn't think you had potential. You bring a unique voice to this forum. If it wasn't shouting it would be listened to.
Your main comment seems to be that in "The Good Old Days" women held the line on mankinds wanton nature.
Now, nobody does.
What would you have us do?
You would have us crimminalize pornography, but who gets to decide what is and is not pornography? Where do you draw the line?
You want a return to the days when Women were "virtuous", by your standards of virtue. That meant they were able to overcome their hormones to say no. You were no longer responsible for your own virtue. The girl held that job too.
It was also easier then to classify women. There were only three women then--the Virgin, the Whore, and the Mother. Now it seems that the women can be all three, and that's confusing.
What many people here are trying to say is that the wonder years that you wish to return to were not as perfect as you believe.
I also have issues with a couple of other things you said. 1) That men who get into gay porn are just doing what they want, but women who get into porn are being exploited. While the main argument that has been given against this is that most women in the Porn industry do not feel exploited, I disagree. However, I also think that many men who get into porn are also exploited. Just as many male prostitutes are not out their having fun, they are doing what ever they can to make enough cash for their next crack fix or something similar.
2) You said that the only non-slutty girls were the unattractive ones. Maybe that is because the only thing you find attractive is slutty girls. Your big complaint is that society only looks at the surface, the momentary thrill. Well change begins with you. Stop looking at the girls and weighing them by there attactiveness in a physical way. Get to know some and weigh their attractiveness in a personal way.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think we need to get back to the central point. When you take on the role of someone who is repected then you have an obligation to act repectably while you fulfill that role.
Actors who are under contract with a studios usually have morals clauses in their contracts. They must conduct themselves in a way that does not disgrace or discredit the studio.
Professional athletes who have endorsement contracts also have morals clauses, they must maintain their respectability while the represent the product in question so as to not discredit or disgrace the product or company.
When you become Miss America, Miss USA, etc... you are taking on the role as a representative of an aspect of our culture that is considered respectable. Therefore, you are contractually obligated to not disgrace or discredit or bring disrespect to the role you play and the title you hold. In entering the competition, in winning the competition, you accept these legal responsibilities to hold the office or title with honor.
If you can't live within those limits, then you should not hold the title. I'm sure this is all explain VERY CLEARLY to them when they take on the role, and their is no excuse for not following the rules of the pagent and the title.
Once they have left the role and reliquished the title, they are free to be as slutty as they want. Though that will probably screw up any endorsement or other contracts they may have gained.
We are all free to ruin our lives with sex, drugs, and Rock'n'Roll, but in the end we have to accept that only we are to blame for the ruin that is our life. And the world in general is under NO Obligation to cut us any slack along the way.
If these 'Miss etc...'s can not live by the rules, then I have no problem with them being strip of their titles, and the title given to someone who CAN live by the rules.
Simply put, if you choose to be Miss USA, then you choose to live within the rules of that role. If you choose not to live with in the rules, then you have chosen to not hold the title.
Just a thought.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Simply put, if you choose to be Miss USA, then you choose to live within the rules of that role. If you choose not to live with in the rules, then you have chosen to not hold the title.
While I agree with this and the rest of your post, I'm not sure I see what the big deal is. Miss Americas, etc., are routinely dismissed, disqualified or discredited for acting slutty.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think porn itself is bad, but it can be put to bad uses. (As an aside, though, my definition of porn is much broader than most.)
I often wonder how those who are anti-porn (in all uses) would judge the Japanese "pillow books" that were [for example] given to newlyweds for use on the honeymoon. These are intensely explicit, with excruciatingly detailed and graphic pictures. I will look for a link to a description, in case any are interested but not familiar with that set of porn.
Part of the problem is flat, unqualified statements like "all porn is exploitive," "women are sluttier now," etc. If you had said that most porn seems to be exploitive, or that everywhere you look it appears that many women no longer value the morals they once did, you'd have a stronger argument.
Not all porn is exploitive. Saying that does not mean I wholeheartedly support all porn ever created; I recognize the unethical behavior that often occurs in the industry. But not all of it is.
Women finally being able to display the same sexual freedom as men have traditionally enjoyed is, I think, a good thing. Sadly, many men and women use that freedom to make some irresponsible choices -- promiscuity not automatically being one of them. But please, stop with the "women didn't use to be like that" arguments. Sure they were, at different times. Go read up on the flappers of the 1920's, for example.
As for the various Misses... yup, fire 'em. They knew the standards they had to uphold beforehand, so I don't see this as a failing of their morals as much as breaking their contract. If they knew there were "scandalous" photos in their background or they didn't think they could remain sober and publicly asexual for a year then they shouldn't compete. Whether that standard is a realistic one is besides the point entirely; it is what it is, and they knew it going in.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hi, Chris. Fancy meeting you here. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Good Morning!! (I know it's afternoon, but whatever)
Everything you say is correct, BlueWizard. I brought up the point because it seems like things have been getting progressively worse in the culture, where girls, especially young girls --teens, and younger-- are expected to be "sexual creatures" and are not to repress their sexuality. This is obviously a matter of judgement, but I don't think that the current state of affairs is better in that regard. And I believe pornography is one of the major roots of the problem.
I have been attacked because of this view. The attackers say it's because of the way I present myself, and looking at my posts, they have a point. I just think that the way I present myself is more likely to be misinterpreted or magnified because someones sensibilities are being offended.
I can't know what others are actually thinking, so I can only use my own expereience as a gauge. Dan Raven's post was nice and he made some good observations that made me think. But I found myself immediatly latching on to what he said about how I "want to return to the old days..." That irritated me and made me not want to take what he had to say next seriously. However, as I said before, I recognize when that happens and I try to stifle that impulse. Now it mat be that no one else feels that way. They just breeze past all the possibly insulting things I say without even registering, and they get to the meat of the matter and find that my actual message is patently offensive and obnoxious. If so, then they're all lying to me when they say they are annoyed by my presentation and not my opinion. They also say my message AND my presentation is all wrong. So I don't know. I guess I'm just wrong all around.
I honestly don't know what I'm doing that is so different from so many others. Read my first post here and the MPH's first post. I just put something out there, and BOOM! I'm called a hypocrite. His tone never changed. But I'm the ass.
Read Erosomniac's post up above. I don't know what I ever did to her. He (or she; sorry pH) just has nothing but mean things to say to me. E's first post here, if I remember correctly, actually, I'm gonna read this whole thread again and see if I can see where it went all wrong.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ah never mind. I'll just try and be nice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have been attacked because of this view.
I expressed largely the same view, and yet I wasn't attacked. Why do you think that might be? I promise it's not because I was given a free pass.
quote:Read my first post here and the MPH's first post. I just put something out there, and BOOM! I'm called a hypocrite. His tone never changed.
I called you hypocritical not because you think that porn is evil, but because you appeared to think it's vile to produce it but fine to watch it. That is a blatantly hypocritical stance, which it appeared you had, which is why I said that it seemed hypocritical. It really did.
And if you'll notice, my tone did change several times.
[ December 22, 2006, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:girls, especially young girls --teens, and younger-- are expected to be "sexual creatures" and are not to repress their sexuality
Maybe young girls (as well as boys) actually are sexual creatures. That's the only explanation that I can think of for why there are over six billion people on the earth. Sex is actually a pretty natural thing.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I just put something out there, and BOOM! I'm called a hypocrite.
This is what I imagine a debate with John Madden would be like.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I just put something out there, and BOOM! I'm called a hypocrite.
This is what I imagine a debate with John Madden would be like.
(*laughing aloud )
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Read Erosomniac's post up above. I don't know what I ever did to her. He (or she; sorry pH) just has nothing but mean things to say to me. E's first post here, if I remember correctly, actually, I'm gonna read this whole thread again and see if I can see where it went all wrong.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be willing to bet money that I'm not the only one who feels that way. I just lack the patience for tact with people I don't care about.
...
In other news, a more appropriate (well, sort of) topic for discussion might be the recent trend pornography has taken. For anyone who doesn't get bombarded by spam, pop ups and college-age friends, the reality TV trend seems to have hit porn, and it's pretty disturbing.
The premise of modern porn seems to be, almost universally, some variation of "several dudes trick a girl into thinking they will pay her to do sex acts in front of the camera, then laugh and leave instead when they've finished." It's pretty horrifying, and it makes me really sad/angry that people find it erotic.
*** POTENTIAL TMI, read on at your own risk. ***
One of the sites that I continuously receive advertising for revolves around two guys, one having the sex and one with the camera, tricking women into having sex with them for money. After the guy finishes, the finale is him putting his butt in her face and farting, then laughing at the 'stupid bitch' and leaving with his buds.
*** END OF TMI PART ***
Now, these are apparently major websites, with links to all the proper forms, model identification, consent information, etc., so the videos are definitely fiction. But seriously, how is this erotic? How is this okay with people?
I'm not against erotica, and I'm not even against porn, but this trend really bothers me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sounds terrifically repellant to me, erosomniac.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
eros, I put movies and television shows like Borat in the same light. They're not pornographic, but they're about humilitation.
Edit: It also occurs to me that it might be another manifestation of the double standard. Girl has sex on camera, she's a stupid slut. Guy has sex on camera, SO COOL.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth noting that to consider 14-year-olds children is historically a new development. At 14 a Roman boy was old enough to join the legions, legally marry, and vote; presumably, nobody would have dreamt of objecting if he considered himself and his wife 'sexual creatures'. At 14 an African tribesman is (or was, in the old days) circumcised, moves into the bachelors' lodge, and is considered an adult. (Not to mention what they do to the girls.) 14-year-olds were apprenticed to trades; 14-year-old boys were midshipmen in the Royal Navy - one died at Jutland. 14-year-olds were drafted into the Volkssturm, and have fought in plenty of African conflicts, not that I would exactly consider these examples to be followed. The point is, there's no magic age at which children become adults, or able to handle their sexuality in a useful way. At whatever age you slip the leash, they're going to experiment a bit. I don't see where 16 is inherently a better age for experimenting than 14, except that the social consequences of a pregnancy are likely to be a bit messier, which is why oral sex is such a useful trend.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I would just like to add to the Porter-love. Platonic, of course
And Porter and I probably couldn't agree on the time of day (4:54PM), but he gets my respect. You, Resh? the jury is out, but no rush. I'm an easy-going guy, so I merely hope someday you change your tone here at Hatrack.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would just like to add to the Porter-love. Platonic, of course [Smile]
*high-five*
quote:And Porter and I probably couldn't agree on the time of day (4:54PM)
How dare you! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I, too am appalled by the vulgarity of what passes for entertainment today. The sex - not because of the sexual aspect of it, but because it tends to be crude and unloving. I am just as appalled by the casual violence and by the crass cruelty and sheer stupidity. I try to register my opinion about this by refusing to participate in it as a consumer.
I do not think that a return to "a more moral" time will fix this. In fact, I blame the repressed attitudes of the past for what we are facing now. We are like children who have been half-starved being let loose in a candy store. We have never been taught how to nourish ourselves intelligently and responsibly, so now we have no idea how to demand healthier fare.
I also blame the arrogance of our increasingly imperial culture. We have too much so we are wasteful and careless - with our time as well as our treasure. Look at Rome if you want to see the future.
We allow what is happening to us. Rather than trying to control this with laws and restrictions, our only hope is to develop - as individuals - the self-discipline to stop rewarding those who provide this kind of entertainment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
'Now, these are apparently major websites, with links to all the proper forms, model identification, consent information, etc., so the videos are definitely fiction. But seriously, how is this erotic? How is this okay with people?"
I don't know about all of them, but I saw a news report about one of the worst -- a series of videos where a girl was picked up in a van and offered cash for sex which would result in the guys driving off without paying, laughing -- and it was revealed that the videos were staged, with the women knowing in advance how to act.
That said, I most definitely agree that the direction of far too much porn is to go darker, more exploitive, less personal, less loving, more abusive, and it saddens me that there seems to be a growing market for that. kmbboots' post nailed my feelings on that perfectly. There is still quality porn out there (under my definitions, of course ) but it doesn't tend to be made by the kind of people who spam inboxes.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hi, CT! We really need to compare libraries some day...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I so want to be there when you do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm sorry.. I just don't *get* porn...
Where's the thrill in looking at people you don't know have sex? Sure, they might be pretty people but can it really be stimulating with no emotion involved?
That being said, of course we shouldn't make it illegal. But if someone is tricking young women (or men) into taking their clothes off for the camera, that's fraud.
I've been calling guys who sleep around "sluts" for years. They just take it as a compliment. ><
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...there's porn and there's what I would call erotica.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: 'Now, these are apparently major websites, with links to all the proper forms, model identification, consent information, etc., so the videos are definitely fiction. But seriously, how is this erotic? How is this okay with people?"
I don't know about all of them, but I saw a news report about one of the worst -- a series of videos where a girl was picked up in a van and offered cash for sex which would result in the guys driving off without paying, laughing -- and it was revealed that the videos were staged, with the women knowing in advance how to act.
That said, I most definitely agree that the direction of far too much porn is to go darker, more exploitive, less personal, less loving, more abusive, and it saddens me that there seems to be a growing market for that. kmbboots' post nailed my feelings on that perfectly. There is still quality porn out there (under my definitions, of course ) but it doesn't tend to be made by the kind of people who spam inboxes.
Basically, it exemplifies what I don't like about porn: it further blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, and encourages unacceptable fantasy*. Regardless of whether it's staged/scripted or not, the idea of these videos is an unhealthy one, and the fact that it's portrayed as reality is terrifying. People are generally able to differentiate between reality and active fantasy--like the difference between pulling the trigger in Halo to blast an alien and pulling the trigger on an assault rifle to kill your classmates--I fear that the presentation of these websites as something that really can happen is a bad, bad thing.
I would not attempt to legislate that these videos cannot be produced; insofar as the women involved are actresses, I believe any exploitation occurs partly of their own volition. But it seems to me that these websites ought to be required to notate somewhere prominent that the videos are fiction, and real life duplication of their antics should not be attempted, much the same way Jackass videos are now prefaced with a similar disclaimer.
*While I am aware that some--perhaps many--people find slight violence erotic, e.g. spanking, hair pulling, limited asphyxiation all the way to hard S&M, I think even they can agree that it is more destructive for those behaviors to appear as the norm than vice versa.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: the direction of far too much porn is to go darker, more exploitive, less personal, less loving, more abusive...
What about similar trends in actual sexual relationships? Then again, I don't know if Hatrack is (or ever should be) the place to have an in depth discussion of deep Masochism...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: the direction of far too much porn is to go darker, more exploitive, less personal, less loving, more abusive...
What about similar trends in actual sexual relationships? Then again, I don't know if Hatrack is (or ever should be) the place to have an in depth discussion of deep Masochism...
I don't think it matters: even experienced, hardcore practicing sadists and masochists put heavy emphasis on separating fantasy from reality and putting each person at ease. The S&M community, from what I've seen, distances itself as much as possible from truly abusive relationships, and strives to communicate this to others.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But I can't help but be depressed everytime I see some perfectly nice looking young girl with one of those tattoos on their lower back. Because it's true what Vince Vaughn said in the Wedding Crashers, that's like a stamp that say's "I'm easy!" (paraphrasing)
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Let's see. I got my first tattoo on my lower back when I was 18, I believe, and I didn't have sex for the first time until I was 22, and it was with the man I married.
I AM SUCH A DEGENERATE HARLOT! IT IS OBVIOUS FROM MY BODY ART!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Reshpecobiggle is dismayed with young women acting with greater harlotry and lower back tattoos (a causative factor in sluttiness) in a manner he finds inconsistent with an anecdotal or historically inferred mean of appropriate lady behavior on a 'comely continuum.' By gum, we should eradicate pornography, just to be sure!
In other news, society turns out not to exist. Sadly misinformed dictionaries and sociology departments everywhere refuse to acknowledge bitter truth!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I don't think it matters: even experienced, hardcore practicing sadists and masochists put heavy emphasis on separating fantasy from reality and putting each person at ease. The S&M community, from what I've seen, distances itself as much as possible from truly abusive relationships, and strives to communicate this to others.
Right, in fact the more hardcore, generally the more serious about separating it out. It just occurred to me that the desire to humiliate and be humiliated for sexual gratification are real, and that these videos might be targeting that type of person.
Porn is often about fantasy as well. There's a common thread here-- to experience something without doing it. There are people who want to experience abuse and humiliation (or experience delivering it to another) in order to receive gratification from it... but to do it for real is beyond the bounds of safety or legality. Maybe this porn is targeting Sadists without partners? Maybe Masochists identify with the humiliated and enjoy it vicariously as well?
I don't really know... just trying to get into other people's headspace.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...there's porn and there's what I would call erotica.
Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But I can't help but be depressed everytime I see some perfectly nice looking young girl with one of those tattoos on their lower back. Because it's true what Vince Vaughn said in the Wedding Crashers, that's like a stamp that say's "I'm easy!" (paraphrasing)
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Let's see. I got my first tattoo on my lower back when I was 18, I believe, and I didn't have sex for the first time until I was 22, and it was with the man I married.
I AM SUCH A DEGENERATE HARLOT! IT IS OBVIOUS FROM MY BODY ART!
Get thee away wench, for I cannot associate with one such as ye, lest thine stained virtue washes down upon me.
I call upon the great Legion of Decency to smite thee for thine evil ways.
Also, is it a cool tattoo?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I have been attacked because of this view.
I expressed largely the same view, and yet I wasn't attacked. Why do you think that might be? I promise it's not because I was given a free pass.
quote:Read my first post here and the MPH's first post. I just put something out there, and BOOM! I'm called a hypocrite. His tone never changed.
I called you hypocritical not because you think that porn is evil, but because you appeared to think it's vile to produce it but fine to watch it. That is a blatantly hypocritical stance, which it appeared you had, which is why I said that it seemed hypocritical. It really did.
And if you'll notice, my tone did change several times.
The difference between us (on this issue) is that I think porn should be illegal. That was what I was "attacked" for. I put that in quotes because I don't really think they were attacks. But if you and I had the exact same viewpoints, I would get a different, more hostile response. And that's probably because of the tone and manner that I use, like everyone is saying. And so I resolved to try and adjust. I'm still being hammered by erosomniac, but I'm starting to think this person is naturally adversarial. Could be wrong, though.
I do want to set the record straight, though. I don't think watching porn is ok when producing it is wrong. I think I said somewhere that I used to not have a problem with it, but I do now. So I don't think I'm a hypocrite, which is why I felt offended at being called one. Because of that misunderstanding, you thought your post was perfectly reasonable, as did PapaMoose. And it was. But please, no more of that hypocrite stuff. At least, not on this issue. I'm sure you could find other examples of hypocrisy on my part somewhere else if you keep your eyes open.
[ December 22, 2006, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: But I can't help but be depressed everytime I see some perfectly nice looking young girl with one of those tattoos on their lower back. Because it's true what Vince Vaughn said in the Wedding Crashers, that's like a stamp that say's "I'm easy!" (paraphrasing)
Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Let's see. I got my first tattoo on my lower back when I was 18, I believe, and I didn't have sex for the first time until I was 22, and it was with the man I married.
I AM SUCH A DEGENERATE HARLOT! IT IS OBVIOUS FROM MY BODY ART!
I deserve that, I guess. I was generalizing, and trying to be somewhat facetious. It's just that it's a stereotype that does seem to have a ring of truth to it. And I had just finished looking at the controversial pictures of Miss Nevada and whadaya know? she has one. I'm sorry, Libbie, you do prove the point that people shouldn't make judgments about people based on some particular feature. I admit that when I see a girl with a tattoo on her lower back I, at the very least, think that the odds of this girl being promiscuous or easy or a tease or whatever are higher. It's not right, but I'm honest and I promise you, many guys think the same.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
Winner.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
Winner.
Kinda like when George Carlin said "Have you ever noticed how everyone on the road who drives slower that you is an idiot and everyone who drives faster that you is a maniac?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In a somewhat similar vein, the Internet has three kinds of people : Trolls, who are snarkier than you, wimps who are less snarky than you, and nice people who remain capable of telling it like it is - that's you.
I sense a whole category of these things. A Lisp programmer would no doubt write a macro for it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I sense a whole category of these things. A Lisp programmer would no doubt write a macro for it.
You shoot yourself in the hand which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the hand which holds the gun with which...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's recursion. Macros are abstraction.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In a somewhat similar vein, the Internet has three kinds of people : Trolls, who are snarkier than you, wimps who are less snarky than you, and nice people who remain capable of telling it like it is - that's you.
I sense a whole category of these things. A Lisp programmer would no doubt write a macro for it.
Is that what a Troll is? I keep getting called that here and I never knew what it meant. I took it as an insult (how could you not) but if all it means is that I'm snarkier than the guy calling me that, well... that's not so bad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So I don't think I'm a hypocrite, which is why I felt offended at being called one.
If you look closely, nobody called you a hypocrite. I said that your actions and attitudes seemed hypocritical.
And given what I knew at the time from your first post, they really did.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
The difference between sexual abstinance and repression is pretty much the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm always hearing about how I present myself. I always come across as an ass, as the morally righteous one, holier-than-thou. But I swear, I am always the one on the defensive. Always, in every thread, it's me against everyone else. Even when I have a like minded person, like mph in this one, I'm still without allies.
I think this may be your problem: it's often you "against" everyone else, even when there are people who agree with you, precisely because you present yourself (and, more importantly, your arguments) very badly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexual partners than you approve of.
The difference between sexual abstinance and repression is pretty much the same thing.
A very cogent point, actually; but I think I would offer another distinction. Namely, abstinence is what you, yourself, do not do; but repression is what you force other people not to do.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*raises hand*
I would also like to be present when CT, Chris and KMboots compare libraries.
I combat verbal cultural inequities by calling men "boys" and the promiscuous boys "sluts". Makes me feel all tingly and righteous.
Porter, your posts have been brilliant examples of... well... how to express an opinion many here do not share without disrespect to yourself or others. Your wife also rocks (not that it has anything to do with this thread, just that seeing you here reminded me I've missed her recently).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Namely, abstinence is what you, yourself, do not do; but repression is what you force other people not to do.
That definition does not cover the cases where I have been accused of being sexually repressed, since nobody is forcing it on me.
Olivet: Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Namely, abstinence is what you, yourself, do not do; but repression is what you force other people not to do.
That definition does not cover the cases where I have been accused of being sexually repressed, since nobody is forcing it on me.
Well, I suppose one could argue that your parents sexually repressed you, and 'you are repressed' is just shorthand. But I'm not going to do so, since I don't think such repression actually works very well. So, fair enough, you have my permission to tell such people they are mistaken. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Nah. I like my definition better.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Help help, I'm being repressed! My two cents: Saying that women were more proper 'back then' is like saying that there were no gays 'back then.' There were women who behaved as one would deem 'proper,' there were women who behaved 'improperly' and no one knew about it, there were women who behaved 'improperly' and it was known about. I can as good as guarantee you that more people behaved improperly than you would think. They just don't have to hide it anymore.
By the way, I'm glad to be one of those non-slutty unattractive girls for ya. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Namely, abstinence is what you, yourself, do not do; but repression is what you force other people not to do.
I think repression can be both internal and/or external. I see repression as making somebody less comfortable with their own sexuality. I see abstinance as refraining from sex. Repression could lead to abstinance, but abstinance does not necessitate repression.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Less comfortable than what? Or less comfortable at all?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Less comfortable to a degree where such repression causes phobias, overreactions to sexual impulses, fear of intimacy, etc.
I like Amanecer's definition, vague though it has to be -- it would vary from person to person, as nearly everything having to do with sexuality must. I honor those who remain abstinent themselves through personal responsibility or dedication to an ideal, but I think that abstinence due to fear of sex -- planted there by "sex is evil" type teachings -- can lead to psychological problems.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Instead of "sex is evil," how about "sex outside of marriage is wrong." Do you think that can that lead to problems?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Instead of "sex is evil," how about "sex outside of marriage is wrong." Do you think that can that lead to problems?
Depends on the people involved.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think sexual relationships between people are -- for most of us -- complicated, messy, fraught with unexpected events and responses, and prone to misunderstandings. They are also often warm, nurturing, extemely pleasurable, and life-affirming.
Add in the potential for (covert and overt) abuse, and that's a powerful mix for anyone not very firm and sturdy in him- or herself to handle. Not for kids, and not for people who are not in clearly delineated relationships. For many people, that means marriage. I myself would leave open the possibility that there are other clearly delineated relationships that would suffice for others, though -- but I understand that other sensible people might not agree.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That's recursion. Macros are abstraction.
I was under the impression that LISP was an entirely recursive language. I knew a guy that, after learning and enjoying the language, said, completely unpremeditatedly, "I think I'm starting to think recursively now. Think about that."
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'd just like to point out that, as far as I understand it, no one is here using the proper definition of repression-- the unconscious channeling of sexual urges into other activities... but neither am I a psychological expert, so grain of salt and all that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How about the conscious channeling of sexual urges into other activities? 'Cuz I've done that plenty in my life.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Instead of "sex is evil," how about "sex outside of marriage is wrong." Do you think that can that lead to problems? "
Sure. I disagree with just about any flat statement like that. If that's all you teach, and your child has premarital sex anyway and the sky doesn't fall, he or she might start to disregard your other teachings. Better to teach the principals behind the idea so your child understands why it's so important.
"Sex always has consequences, and you are responsible for everything you do."
I can teach that with no hesitation at all.
"Respect others, at all times."
Also an excellent message.
"Giving into your impulses without regard for the outcome is always wrong."
Lay down that basis, and then when you explain that you believe sex outside of marriage is needlessly risky, disrespectful of your partner, and irresponsible, your child will understand what you mean and why. Then, if later on he or she engages in premarital sex anyway, it will (hopefully) be with open eyes, with a strong sense of responsibility, and with care for what may happen as a result.
That's what I want from my children.
"How about the conscious channeling of sexual urges into other activities? 'Cuz I've done that plenty in my life."
Sure, go for it. I suspect most people have done that at times, celibate or not. And self-control is a worthy goal no matter who you are.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If that's all you teach, and your child has premarital sex anyway and the sky doesn't fall, he or she might start to disregard your other teachings.
Um... *raises hand*
Teacher? I don't get it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Worse scenario, Chris, because sexual behavior is quite personal, is that they feel that they are wrong as people. This *feels good* and they *want* it so therefore there must be something horribly wrong with them for so doing. I suspect that much worse than having your kids question your wisdom is having them think you'd hate them if you really knew them.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How about the conscious channeling of sexual urges into other activities? 'Cuz I've done that plenty in my life.
I believe that's just called "distracting yourself" and I don't know of any particular issues with it, per se Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Hmm. I just had premarital sex and it doesn't seem to have been as wrong as my parents said it was. Actually, it was kinda fun. Maybe they were a little too extreme on that no-drugs thing, too..."
or
"I did something wrong and it felt great. I must be a bad person. I can't ever tell my parents because they'll know I did something wrong, so I better start keeping secrets from them now. No one caught me, everything's cool, so I guess as long as I don't get caught I can do whatever I want."
OK, extreme. But as soon as someone discovers that the world isn't as black and white as they've been told, it's only natural to start wondering about other black-and-white statements you might have made.
This has been backed up by the studies made of abstinence-only sex ed. Teaching abstinence as the only method of birth control resulted in teens waiting a bit longer to have sex, but then having a larger percentage of unprotected sex than teens that were taught more comprehensive sex ed.
A responsible sex life -- which in the eyes of you and many other people means a married sex life -- should be the ideal to always strive for. I just advocate teaching why over issuing declarations.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: "I must be a bad person."
I just want to say that I have seen this particular attitude wreak a lot of havoc. I was more talking about that than any permissiveness associated with it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Hmm. I just had premarital sex and it doesn't seem to have been as wrong as my parents said it was. Actually, it was kinda fun.
Of course, this assumes that if something is fun, it can't be wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
BTW, I agree with much of what you've said, Chris. I believe that teaching somebody why something is wrong is much more effective than just telling them that it's wrong.
I'm very glad that I was taught why extramarital sex was wrong, as it helped me to live my life that way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This assumes that a teen dealing with peer pressure and hormones might have that belief, yes. Is that an unrealistic assumption?
I propose teaching that sex always requires respect and responsibility. That, to me, addresses many more social problems than if I taught only that "premarital sex is always wrong", especially since the ideal of marital sex fits nicely into it.
(Posted before reading your last response, BTW)
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:But what about MY points? How is it a right? How are they not exploited? How about almost any issue I try to address on these boards, and the overwhelming response to my arguments are :"You're a jerk!" How about you think not about how I'm saying it, and instead think about WHAT I'm saying.
I'll take a gander at this. The two biggest arguments against porn that I hear is that woman are exploited and objectified. *I am going to leave my personal experience off to the side of this post that most people I have known who like porn are actually woman. That could be a fluke.*
I feel the exploitation issue has already been exhaustively dealt with in this thread. Child porn is illegal. We are talking about adult porn. While it is true that adults can be exploited, they are also responsible for their decisions.
If they are being exploited, then there is probably some other illegal activity going on like drug addiction. If it is social, like poverty, then religious organizations, family, concerned citizens, and support groups need to step up to the plate.
I imagine many woman feel empowered. How many industries out there pay women more then men?
I will focus on "objectifying" women. My response is, "so what?" We objectify everything. It is how our brains codify information. We reduce everything, including people, into dehumanizing objects and roles so that we can better communicate and understand each other.
We do it in families, religion, work, school, EVERYTHING. My wife is my son's "mom." She is my "wife." I am "dad." I was once an "Elder" for the LDS church.
Now I am "inactive" maybe even "apostate." You might be a "teacher" or "nurse" or "stay at home mom." I am a "graduate." I am an "employee" with a "boss." This list goes on...and it is not bad.
If I only ever looked at H. as my son's mom...if that is the only role I saw her in...if that was her complete identity to me, then I would be dehumanizing her. That would be sick.
Objectifying people is not bad; not being able to recognize when you objectify someone and not being able to stop objectifying someone...that is bad. It is damaging. There is a time to see her as T's mom and a time to view her as my lover.
When we are intimate there are times when I want to be objectified. Our relationship is not founded on objectifying each other sexually. I know we will age. We have friendship and common goals. Lots of times I want the intimacy and love. But darn it, sometimes appreciating her like that (and being appreciated like that) makes both of us feel better.
My name and actions say more about me than any role I assume or get assigned. I only mind being objectified if those close to me can't see past the objectification.
If people want to objectify sex via DVD or cable tv, what is the big deal? We objectify people, why not sex? If a woman loves porn and can only see men as porn objects, then she has a problem. But if someone objectifies men to satisfy an urge or have fun for a moment, as long as they can step away from that, I don't care.
It doesn't involve me. Consenting adults are consenting adults. I am much more leery of men who consistently leer at woman and only views them as sex objects then I am of someone watching late night cable TV.
I do see a distinction.
I view people who only see women as sex objects at all times in much the same way I view an old boss who viewed everyone as his subordinate employee--even after you quite or were off work. Both types of people are the same type of ass.
I understand what you are saying Reshpeckobiggle, I just don't buy it. As a parent I am concerned about how sexualized our music and culture is. I fear T. might not have as much time in innocence as I would like him to have. I'm sure I am not the first parent to feel this way or the last, so I am going to focus on my sphere of influence when he is developing, and I will trust and accept him as he finds his own identity.
I'm certainly not going to judge every girl with a tattoo on her back like you do. That would be an example were someone cannot step away from their objectification--just like that leering man and boss.
EDIT to change LSD to LDS . I would also like to add that I am part of the 5%.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lem....excellent post!
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: lem....excellent post!
Heartily seconded.
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
quote:If that's all you teach, and your child has premarital sex anyway and the sky doesn't fall, he or she might start to disregard your other teachings
Although if you're religious and what you've taught is 'do that and you'll go to hell when you die' the kid would have to be pretty stupid to figure that the sky hadn't fallen, since they'd think it was coming. Of course that could easily instead lead to them saying "I'm on my way to hell now, in for a dime etc" and start doing lots of other bad things.
Also I have to respectfully disagree about the erotica/porn being the same thing. As I understand it erotica is porn that focuses on more gentle, emotional, and stylised in a sort of 'beautiful' way and 'porn' is mostly used to refer to all the other porn. I'd explain better but I've got to do something else so I'll just phrase it like this -
Erotica - making love to a beautiful woman that you possibly love on the beach in a tropical paradise under the wonderful romantic starlight.
Porn - anything else less beautiful and romantic, all the way down to the worst of it. If you want a one liner that characterises it by gross generalisation - Shagging some stupid slut's brain's out with your massive wang.
And yes, wang was not the word I would have chosen were this not really a PG style place. And I hope that sentence did not cross any taste lines!
AW
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
OR, the kid could have sex, and you've told them that it's a horrible evil thing, and they could start to hate themselves and think that they're terrible people and become horribly depressed and self-destructive. Whether or not they continue to have sex, they're going to be miserable because of what you've taught them. Maybe they'll think they're less valid as people.
-pH
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: OR, the kid could have sex, and you've told them that it's a horrible evil thing, and they could start to hate themselves and think that they're terrible people and become horribly depressed and self-destructive. Whether or not they continue to have sex, they're going to be miserable because of what you've taught them. Maybe they'll think they're less valid as people.
-pH
From personal experience (which I'm not going to go into, so please don't ask), I second his statement.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
How about both can happen? When you establish something, i.e, sex, as being bad then the psyche of the person whom you've raised will have two major options:
a) It is bad, I am bad. b) It is not bad, my parents are wrong; what do they know?
There will, of course, be a blend of the two options. Both are not healthy. The first is the least healthy, because it will lead to complex, psychological issues which may manifest in many ways. The second is also not good, because the parental guidance will also include many useful and important bits of information like, say, believe in yourself, don't do drugs, et cetra.
The concomitant guilt and shame that comes with sexual issues is one of the leading causes of anxiety and depression in people, I suspect.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
all of which is what I was trying to get at with my "Worse scenario" post.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andrew W: Also I have to respectfully disagree about the erotica/porn being the same thing. As I understand it erotica is porn that focuses on more gentle, emotional, and stylised in a sort of 'beautiful' way and 'porn' is mostly used to refer to all the other porn.
Although this is the way most people use the word 'erotica', that just tells us what kind of porn people feel comfortable to admit approving of : The softcore, romantic kind. And yet somehow the market for violent, hardcore stuff is much larger, at any rate on the Internet - presumably because there are some restrictions on what can be printed.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
Winner.
Exactly, just as a slut, or the b word, is often used in place of, "woman who won't, or will no longer have sex with me". Ridiculous. The idea that all of a society disapproved of porn or the vast majority of society at one time did is patently absurd, the enormous usage and popularity of brothels, and the enormous growth rate of playboy upon it debut can attest to the reality which is, privately the vast majority of people enjoyed or used it, but presented a public veneer of "moral decency" for public consumption which of course did not reflect their personal reality.
The reality is, we've always been interested in sex in its many forms, but sexual mores move back in forth in how public this attraction can be, not in the actual rates of attraction in the first place. For instance, although porn is far more in the public eye than ever before, the usage of prostitutes and brothels is far less socially acceptable than in the days before porn videos, dvd's, websites and the like. The means of access have changed, the actual interest, has not for the most part, beyond women gaining greater sexual freedom which is perfectly fine and acceptable as long as responsibility walks hand in hand with such freedom.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Am I correct in thinking that the Japanese have a similar culture as we used to have, that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon, while anything goes in private? (As opposed to our culture where porn = acceptable, prostitutes = icky).
It's probably more complex than that, but I wonder if the metaphor can be loosely framed around that discussion.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Exactly, just as a slut, or the b word, is often used in place of, "woman who won't, or will no longer have sex with me".
Gee, in my experience, that word was "lesbian".
(And no, I'm not insulting any lesbians out there. The men who I refused to sleep with did that.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Am I correct in thinking that the Japanese have a similar culture as we used to have, that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon, while anything goes in private? (As opposed to our culture where porn = acceptable, prostitutes = icky).
It's probably more complex than that, but I wonder if the metaphor can be loosely framed around that discussion.
Not really. Japan is compartmentalized and takes things to the extreme: a lot of Japanese porn is horrifying and read in public, sex-related products are very easily obtained and widely advertised (condom & sex toy stores with enormous, personified versions of the products, vending machines for all sorts of bizarre fetishes on the streets), etc. etc.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Phanto:
Am I correct in thinking that the Japanese have a similar culture as we used to have, that open displays of sexuality are frowned upon, while anything goes in private? (As opposed to our culture where porn = acceptable, prostitutes = icky).
It's probably more complex than that, but I wonder if the metaphor can be loosely framed around that discussion./QUOTE]Not really. Japan is compartmentalized and takes things to the extreme: a lot of Japanese porn is horrifying and read in public, sex-related products are very easily obtained and widely advertised (condom & sex toy stores with enormous, personified versions of the products, vending machines for all sorts of bizarre fetishes on the streets), etc. etc.
I've already said this on Hatrack before, but that kind of porn is hardly ever read in public. What you will see is old men reading pornographic comics, and it's only tacitly accepted. The fact that these comics are read in public says more to me about the general Japanese attitudes to public interaction (i.e. there's a lot more of the 'mind my own business' mentality) than about the general populace's attitude towards porn. Japanese people are generally slower to complain about strangers, and would rather just look the other way and forget about it when they get off the train.
And as for the shops, depends where you are. Shibuya, Harajuku, Akihabara, sure. Not so much elsewhere, or outside of Tokyo in my experience.
Every major city has its sleezy areas. Maybe Tokyo's is sleezier. I don't know; I haven't exactly sampled the world's red light districts.
What do you mean by compartmentalized?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...there's porn and there's what I would call erotica.
Erotica is just porn that you personally find acceptable, in the same sense that a slut is someone who has more sexusal partners than you approve of.
For the record, I approve of someone having as many sexual partners as she or he wants, provided that he or she can be good, kind, and honorable to them. However they define that.
My opinions on the difference between porn and erotica are as subjective as my opinions on what is good art. If there is care and artistry and creativity involved in making it, I am likely to consider it erotica. Regardless of the specific acts portrayed. "Crude and vulgar" are not usually trademarks of good art.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:"Crude and vulgar" are not usually trademarks of good art.
Considering how many artists were seen as crude and vulgar in their day, I have a hard time believing this statement.
Even today I am sure there are lots of people who consider Sacha Baron Cohen as a genius because of Borat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did I mention that my opinions on art are subjective?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My opinions on the difference between porn and erotica are as subjective as my opinions on what is good art. If there is care and artistry and creativity involved in making it, I am likely to consider it erotica. Regardless of the specific acts portrayed. "Crude and vulgar" are not usually trademarks of good art.
Well then, that tells us what kind of porn you approve of; it does not establish that the distinction means any more than "this is what kmb approves of".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Was it supposed to?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Did I mention that my opinions on art are subjective?
There's no room for subjectivity in art! Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rash: "Sex outside of marriage is wrong" can be one of the leading causes of "Girls-Gone-Wild" debauchery.
The story goes Girl A succumbs to pressure from Boy A and has sex.
Sex before marriage is wrong.
Girl believes that she has done wrong.
It felt good.
She must be a bad person, and begins treating herself as one.
Every boy she meets wants to have sex with her.
Since this is the only affirmation of her existance that she finds, she continues to agree.
Its a cycle of "This is wrong. I get attention I enjoy. I must be wrong, slutty, sinful. I must punish myself. I punish myself by doing wrong, by piling more abuse on my body, by degrading myself more which gets me more attention, which I enjoy, which means I am more wrong. I must punish myself more...." etc etc until they find themselves plastered with a fake smile licking old beer off of another girl on a cheap video.
If you think the women in the good old days were better mannered, you need to do some research. Try listening to "Harper Valley PTA".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or read "Tess of the D'Ubervilles".
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Once was enough when it comes to "Tess...".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it supposed to?
It certainly looked that way to me. If not, just what was the point of that post?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sometimes people share their views and beliefs and information about themselves in order to get to know other people better and give other people a chance to know them better. Doing so offers trust, and when it is recipricated, social bonds are formed. Such social bonds, sometimes called "friendship," can of great benefit to both parties.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I lived a Tess experience.
---
RPB, I'm still waiting for your response re: Olivet and The Pixiest. I understand you are probably busy with holiday matters, but just thought I'd bump this for good measure, meanwhile.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it supposed to?
It certainly looked that way to me. If not, just what was the point of that post?
Perhaps to illustrate that such judgments are necessarily subjective?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wasn't that KoM's point in the first place?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That he doesn't believe in god, and has nothing but contempt for those who do? I haven't actually read his recent posts on this thread, but it still seems like a safe bet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm sure that was implied.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Course, it'd've been funnier if I'd read your question correctly last night. I thought that you'd said "What was KoM's point in the first place".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Was it supposed to?
It certainly looked that way to me. If not, just what was the point of that post?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)