posted
"Those times are the perfect occasion for sexual display while having a pretty good excuse for it. Multiple things could be going on at the same time -- she is just exercising/enjoying the sun, while at the same time engaging in a status competition with other females to show off her body and preen to males."
So you realize that you would be taking those other indulgences away, where they would merely be at the disposal of men.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those times are the perfect occasion for sexual display while having a pretty good excuse for it. Multiple things could be going on at the same time -- she is just exercising/enjoying the sun, while at the same time engaging in a status competition with other females to show off her body and preen to males.
So it's not just that you think women should behave themselves entirely with concern to how that behavior impacts men, you think they largely are already doing that. So I suppose what you're advocating isn't really so much a big change as a modification: skanks of the world, start conducting yourselves towards what men will think in the right way.
I'm just curious, is there anything that would cause you to rethink the universality of this outlook? I ask because for some reason, you've been convinced that this is true for some time. What would it take for you to reconsider the idea that a woman jogging has a large part of her mind devoted towards 'preening for men'? Somehow I doubt there is. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would continue to believe this no matter what actual women might say to you-they're skanks preening for men.
quote:Society limits men's choices in all sorts of ways. Age of consent laws which keep millions of young women out of the sexual marketplace. The prohibition of prostitution. Unfair divorce laws...child support (for a child they didn't want)...etc etc. Men don't have to make choices...it's made for them.
This is a rather abrupt, transparent attempt to shift the conversation onto other pet issues of yours which I'm afraid I can't let you do unremarked. You're talking about entirely different things with all of those examples. We're discussing whether or not women should be trained in schools for 'modesty', and just how much consideration they should take for the feelings they (supposedly) unavoidably trigger in the men around them, and why this means women need to spend so much time thinking about how men think about them. Each of the other issues you raised doesn't have anything to do with this question of how much each gender must think about how the other thinks about it.
Age of consent laws address actions, not thoughts. Prohibition of prostitution, likewise. Divorce laws involve what happens when a legal union is broken. Child support rules involve what actions must be taken with respect to the care of a child. There is a case to be made for reform with respect to many of these questions, but that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is your notion that women should be taught to obsess over how men think about them and behave accordingly, and the lack of a corresponding demand placed on men.
Or perhaps I missed the part where you advocated that men must be taught 'modesty' in schools, and vet every action they take or word they say through the lens of how women will respond to it, and if they make the wrong choice be deemed slutty? I didn't miss it-you don't advocate this. Stop attempting to change the subject.
quote:All those men are utilizing pornography and becoming more and more desensitized everyday. What's an average 20 who is jogging and showing off a lot of skin, when you've been exposed to thousands of images of naked prettier women. It's not civility, but men getting off elsewhere.
All of them? It becomes more clear how you came to think this way. You have no way at all of knowing how many men utilize pornography, what kind of pornography, how often, and in what company much less whether they all do so. I'd be interested to hear how you claim to know this, though, and with what degree of certainty. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. All men are in a feeding frenzy of pornography ingestion by default. This then allows them to refrain without difficulty from leering, catcalling, or horndogging when a woman with the audacity to jog while comfortably clothed passes by. Or when they're teaching a high school class or something.
Multiple times in this and other conversations, you've insisted it is an enormous mental strain to refrain from doing these things, but here you're pointing out a pretty simple method to do so that according to you all men are doing so anyway.
Make up your damned mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those times are the perfect occasion for sexual display while having a pretty good excuse for it. Multiple things could be going on at the same time -- she is just exercising/enjoying the sun, while at the same time engaging in a status competition with other females to show off her body and preen to males.
So it's not just that you think women should behave themselves entirely with concern to how that behavior impacts men, you think they largely are already doing that. So I suppose what you're advocating isn't really so much a big change as a modification: skanks of the world, start conducting yourselves towards what men will think in the right way.
I'm just curious, is there anything that would cause you to rethink the universality of this outlook? I ask because for some reason, you've been convinced that this is true for some time. What would it take for you to reconsider the idea that a woman jogging has a large part of her mind devoted towards 'preening for men'? Somehow I doubt there is. I have a sneaking suspicion that you would continue to believe this no matter what actual women might say to you-they're skanks preening for men.
quote:Society limits men's choices in all sorts of ways. Age of consent laws which keep millions of young women out of the sexual marketplace. The prohibition of prostitution. Unfair divorce laws...child support (for a child they didn't want)...etc etc. Men don't have to make choices...it's made for them.
This is a rather abrupt, transparent attempt to shift the conversation onto other pet issues of yours which I'm afraid I can't let you do unremarked. You're talking about entirely different things with all of those examples. We're discussing whether or not women should be trained in schools for 'modesty', and just how much consideration they should take for the feelings they (supposedly) unavoidably trigger in the men around them, and why this means women need to spend so much time thinking about how men think about them. Each of the other issues you raised doesn't have anything to do with this question of how much each gender must think about how the other thinks about it.
The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
quote:All of them? It becomes more clear how you came to think this way. You have no way at all of knowing how many men utilize pornography, what kind of pornography, how often, and in what company much less whether they all do so. I'd be interested to hear how you claim to know this, though, and with what degree of certainty. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's true. All men are in a feeding frenzy of pornography ingestion by default. This then allows them to refrain without difficulty from leering, catcalling, or horndogging when a woman with the audacity to jog while comfortably clothed passes by. Or when they're teaching a high school class or something.
Alfred Kinsey found that 54 of men used to porn in the 50s. I'm betting that the usage is considerably higher today, and consists of far extreme stuff than the lads mags of that era.
quote: Multiple times in this and other conversations, you've insisted it is an enormous mental strain to refrain from doing these things, but here you're pointing out a pretty simple method to do so that according to you all men are doing so anyway.
It is a strain, but a tolerable one.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
That's mighty of you-'separate but equal'-given that you're advocating one gender has to orient itself entirely around the other gender's thoughts, or be deemed skanky. It's not some biased outlook on consistency that detects glaring hypocrisy and injustice in that outlook. And yes, the burdens placed on the genders absolutely need to be equivalent unless we're to accept and endorse fundamental social injustice.
I can see why you're happy with that, given your membership in the privileged gender, but thankfully as time passes your ideas grow ever more offensive and embarrassing.
quote:Alfred Kinsey found that 54 of men used to porn in the 50s. I'm betting that the usage is considerably higher today, and consists of far extreme stuff than the lads mags of that era.
So your 'evidence' for this sweeping generalization is part of a study performed over sixty years ago. Very rigorous.
quote:It is a strain, but a tolerable one.
It's not a strain except to weak willed misogynists. But in any event, if it's a tolerable strain, quit whining about it and insisting the other gender needs to run their every word and gesture by you for approval.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a burden I would place on men, as a deal for urging young women to dress modestly: I would ban pornography. Women would be less sexually objectified in the culture at large, and men would be less agitated by the sexual preening of young women and would be less likely to seek out porn. Everyone wins.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is that you are trying to paint an equivalence between men and women so that if I say "women should be modest" I have to also say "men should be...x" as to remain consistent, you getting to be the judge of that consistency. But society asks different things from men and women and there needn't be equivalent burdens placed on the genders.
That's mighty of you-'separate but equal'-given that you're advocating one gender has to orient itself entirely around the other gender's thoughts, or be deemed skanky. It's not some biased outlook on consistency that detects glaring hypocrisy and injustice in that outlook. And yes, the burdens placed on the genders absolutely need to be equivalent unless we're to accept and endorse fundamental social injustice.
Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
quote: So your 'evidence' for this sweeping generalization is part of a study performed over sixty years ago. Very rigorous.
Whatever, it's a forum debate, not a scholarly thesis. Here's a gizmodo entry on porn use.
quote: It's not a strain except to weak willed misogynists. But in any event, if it's a tolerable strain, quit whining about it and insisting the other gender needs to run their every word and gesture by you for approval.
A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
You haven't demonstrated the first necessary part of this belief-that women already do these things intentionally towards men. You've simply submitted it as a given.
You don't get to do that and be taken seriously. But I do appreciate your giving such a nice quote to illustrate that despite your words, you do deem women as second class humans. 'Orient themselves around men in a different way'. I'll be sure to remember that for a few months from now, when you attempt to pretend you're not a misogynist in a different discussion, as you've done repeatedly.
quote:A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
It impacts your happiness. It's far from universal. Right here in this thread you've heard from men who take pleasure in this 'strain'. But in any event, for the sake of argument, sure, it's a strain. Even a nigh-unbearable strain. Alright. Why should this strain trump a woman's right to dress as she chooses, exactly?
Wait, I remember. It's because, "...they should orient themselves around men in a different way." Got it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
I get the impression from a lot of people in feminist circles that admiring is objectifying.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There may be people that feel that way, stilesbn, but I'm guessing that most of the time, behavior that is found objectionable goes beyond the thoughts of the admirer.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: There may be people that feel that way, stilesbn, but I'm guessing that most of the time, behavior that is found objectionable goes beyond the thoughts of the admirer.
There are absolutely people who feel that way. I've seen men corrected for either staring at or commenting on a woman's beauty. I think it's pretty gross overkill, but a lot of people, a LOT of people (women mostly, but some men too), are hypersensitive on this issue. I never hear women being corrected for ogling men, however, which I find interesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you made my point...staring or making comments goes beyond what is happening in the thoughts of the admirer. I'd need more context to know whether I agree the behavior is (problematically) objectifying or in any other way offensive.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much depends on context. Criticism for noting someone's physical attraction? Sure, doesn't sound objectionable. First thing someone thinks of as a rule to compliment a woman for? Bit different. Brief passing glance? Sure, hard pressed to object to. Lengthy up and down look, perhaps not so much. Complimenting the woman you don't know on the elevator alone at night? Could be hair-raising. Remarking favorably on a woman's dress at a wedding, almost surely not. So on and so forth.
Of course there will be those who are too sensitive, no doubt, but I generally note that when I think that initially, after a little thought I can see a reason why it might actually be irksome.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For almost anything, I can easily understand if someone is asked not to. And that doesn't mean that they think I'm objectifying them , although I can relate to what stilesb is saying.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't objectifying an internal thing though? How can you know if someone is appreciating or reducing a woman based solely on what they say or do? (Although some words and actions make it much more obvious than others).
I think telling a stranger they look nice isn't objectifying, it's just a little weird. Though some women would like that and some wouldn't. It would also depend on where its being said. If I said it to a friend standing next to me, is it just as objectionable? If I'm staring at a woman but she doesn't notice me at all, is that okay? Or is it only wrong when my staring is noticed and makes her feel uncomfortable?
And where is the line between all that and just plain social convention? None of that automatically implies objectification, it's really just the difference between rude and polite.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
Good post. It is possible - even normal - for grown-ups to admire without objectifying. Or worse insisting that this puts the other person under some creepy obligation.
Dogbreath, you have grown into a markedly healthy, interesting, and admirable man. I am so glad to know you and have you posting here. Thanks!
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: Awww, thank you. I really enjoy the conversations I've had with you here and at Sake. (though I'm currently on the 1 post every 6 months plan or something... :/)
As far as the conversation regarding objectifying/admiring... hmmm. Well I'll start by saying yes, everyone's standards are different. I think the line is drawn at "what makes a person uncomfortable?" I think a glace and a smile is socially acceptable just about everywhere, whereas staring or noticeably looking someone up and down might make a person feel uncomfortable or disrespected, so it's less acceptable. (Though everything has context, i.e, if a female friend asks you "how do I look in this new dress?", that would obviously be the appropriate time, I'm just talking in general here...)
In the cases of women I don't know, I think the whole "objectifying" terminology isn't very easy to define. I mean, if I'm passing a women and don't talk to her, the only things I'm going to be able to know about her is A) her aesthetic beauty (including clothes, posture, style) and B) her sex appeal. I don't think that counts as objectifying unless, say, she introduces herself and we get to know her, and I still think of her exclusively in sexual terms.
I think a big overreaction (or perhaps, miscommunication since a lot of guys here seem to think it's a common thing) is assuming that if someone thinks of someone in an explicitly sexual manner, it is by default objectification. This is obviously not true, as anyone in a relationship or marriage knows. I think of my girlfriend in a far more detailed and explicitly sexual way by far than any other woman I know, and I'd argue I also know her, understand her, and appreciate her more deeply and profoundly in nuanced and detailed and completely non-sexual ways than anyone else in my life.
So for that reason, I don't think appreciating or admiring someone's sexuality is wrong or objectifying until you allow that appreciation to overwhelm or block out other parts of them. I have plenty of female friends who I appreciate for their friendship, and if I see them at the beach or wearing a sexy dress, I might (ok, definitely will) find them very sexually attractive and enjoy that attraction. And I think that's perfectly fine and healthy - it adds to my respect and appreciation of them, not diminishes it.
It only becomes a problem when A) I start making remarks (to them or other men), staring, or acting in way that might make them feel uncomfortable (though some of them I know well enough to say "daaaamnn girl!" or something and have them appreciate it), or B) if I ignore other parts of their personality and character due to that attraction.
That's my take on it - it all has to do with how your reaction is received. Which is also mainly why catcalling, ogling, and sometimes even grabbing is more tolerated when it's woman-on-man: most men don't know what it's like to feel scared or physically intimidated by women, so most men generally enjoy being openly admired and hit on by women more than women enjoy being admired by men. There's an inherent, intense discomfort that comes with being stared at, yelled at or grabbed by a stranger who is physically larger and more powerful than you, even in situations where you know you're probably not going to get hurt. Probably the most intensely uncomfortable moment of my life was being aggressively hit on by a (probably well meaning) gay guy, so I can sympathize somewhat with what women feel.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: A strain is a strain, whether tolerable or not. It effects happiness.
See, this here is, I think, the root of this argument and most of your ****ed up worldview regarding women in general. I, along with the vast majority of men, *like* that strain. It contributes a lot to my happiness - indeed, it's one of the best parts of living in Hawaii. Where else in the world could you walk around a small town in December and see absolutely gorgeous woman riding bikes or going shopping in daisy dukes and and a bikini top? And in turn I really like the feeling I get when I run shirtless and see women (and men) check me out. Not because I'm trying to find a mate (already have one) or exercise sexual power over them or something, but because it feels *good* to feel sexy and desirable. And I imagine those men and women in turn are happy to see me (or hopefully just not horrified, though that may be a possibility too...) and enjoy the feelings they have when they look at me.
You really need to ask yourself why this makes you feel so uncomfortable. You don't have to share if you were abused or something, but you need to realize your feelings are really, really not not normal.
There is no refuting your subjective experience.
I wonder, though, if the effect is as benign as you claim.
quote: Kenrick et al.’s experiments demonstrate that men who view photographs of physically attractive women or Playboy centerfolds subsequently find their current mates less physically attractive and become less satisfied with their current relationships. What then would be the cumulative effect of being exposed to young, attractive women on a daily basis? Would there be any real consequences to the men’s dissatisfaction with their relationships? Secondary school teachers and college professors come in contact with more young women at the peak of their reproductive value than others do. The analysis of a large, representative data set from the United States indicates that, while men in general are less likely to be divorced than women, and secondary school teachers and college professors in general are less likely to be divorced than others, simultaneously being male and being a secondary school teacher or college professor statistically increases the likelihood of being divorced (p <.05). We contend that the contrast effect that Kenrick et al. find in their experiments is cumulative and has real consequences.
quote:Who are they orienting themselves around when they compete with each other to sexually preen, or dress as sexy as possible? Yes, it's around men. The point is that they should orient themselves around men in a different way.
You haven't demonstrated the first necessary part of this belief-that women already do these things intentionally towards men. You've simply submitted it as a given.
Somethings are basic. Posing suggestively and wearing sexy clothing = sexual display.
quote: It impacts your happiness. It's far from universal. Right here in this thread you've heard from men who take pleasure in this 'strain'. But in any event, for the sake of argument, sure, it's a strain. Even a nigh-unbearable strain. Alright. Why should this strain trump a woman's right to dress as she chooses, exactly?
Look at the finding that being male and a high school or college professor increases your chances of divorce (with no similar effect for female teachers/professors.) Those male professors might be made happy at the sight of young women but it's making them unhappy in the long run.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm perfectly satisfied with my relationship, thank you very much. You might be surprised to find that there's a lot more to sexual satisfaction than "oh no! I have laid eyes upon women hotter than my girlfriend, therefore I am no longer satisfied!" But why are you so afraid of the female body if you're not even in a relationship? What harm is it doing you? Jesus dude, you act like normal sexual attraction is a cancerous tumor or something. Benign?
I swear, women are nothing to be afraid of. You're not going to lose control or be dominated or diseased or weakened if you look at a woman without your strange mixture of fear, disgust, and longing. Just relax and have fun. I promise you, it won't hurt.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm perfectly satisfied with my relationship, thank you very much. You might be surprised to find that there's a lot more to sexual satisfaction than "oh no! I have laid eyes upon women hotter than my girlfriend, therefore I am no longer satisfied!" But why are you so afraid of the female body if you're not even in a relationship? What harm is it doing you? Jesus dude, you act like normal sexual attraction is a cancerous tumor or something. Benign?
I wasn't commenting on your personal relationships but your claims about the "vast majority of men." The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large: It makes men less satisfied with whomever they shack up for life. This is why we should teach young women modest behavior and urge them to wear conservative clothing: To save marriages. To save families. To save America.
quote: I swear, women are nothing to be afraid of. You're not going to lose control or be dominated or diseased or weakened if you look at a woman without your strange mixture of fear, disgust, and longing. Just relax and have fun. I promise you, it won't hurt.
posted
I honestly can't tell if you're being serious any more.
But you still haven't answered (and no, it's not unanswerable): why are you so afraid of women? What's so fundamentally awful about seeing their bodies? I *am* being serious with these questions - if you feel they're condescending, it's because you've put yourself in a position that is difficult to even address honestly without being condescending.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I think "real" women aren't nearly as attractive as 2D women.
You know those come in 3D now.
The '3D' CGI stuff comes off as really stiff and uncanny compared to more traditionally drawn 2D stuff, though there is the MMD animation stuff which is decent.
This way I can rest assured that No Women Were Harmed(tm).
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...startin' to get a lil creepy, Elison. I could be alone in thinking that, but if I'm not I thought you might like to know.
--------
Sa'eed,
quote:There is no refuting your subjective experience.
I wonder, though, if the effect is as benign as you claim.
Do you have, like, an irony-capable rebreather? Or did you seriously just brush off someone else's subjective experience on this subject?
quote:Somethings are basic. Posing suggestively and wearing sexy clothing = sexual display.
I just listed a variety of activities in which it wasn't a sexual display, to which your response was 'of course they're preening for men'. So no, some things are not 'basic'. You still haven't made an argument for these basic things. You don't get to simply say 'it's basic' and then have it taken as given.
quote:Look at the finding that being male and a high school or college professor increases your chances of divorce (with no similar effect for female teachers/professors.) Those male professors might be made happy at the sight of young women but it's making them unhappy in the long run.
Let's suppose for a moment that this study is absolutely conclusive and reveals undeniable facts about human sexuality: why is the inability of these male teachers and professors to resist temptation supposed to be the problem of the women themselves? Of their subordinate students, no less?
Well, I know the answer. You've brought up Saudi Arabia more than once so it's plain what your answer is, however much you head-fake towards finding a 'happy medium'.
quote:I wasn't commenting on your personal relationships but your claims about the "vast majority of men." The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large: It makes men less satisfied with whomever they shack up for life. This is why we should teach young women modest behavior and urge them to wear conservative clothing: To save marriages. To save families. To save America.
To save men from themselves, in other words. We need to make it the duty of women to change their behavior because men simply can't handle it currently.
OK, this answers my question about your irony-capable rebreather.
quote:I'm not afraid of anything. I'm just defending the mother of blog post in the OP.
Everyone's afraid of something, and it's obvious you're afraid of women. Why wouldn't you be? According to you, their slutty behavior causes men unhappiness. It causes you unhappiness, and also according to you there's little or nothing you can do to stop it. You're helpless before this onslaught of burden and unhappiness. Are you saying the thing that inflicts mental pain on you that you can't resist doesn't frighten you, even a little?
Wow, I guess you're an alpha after all! Way to go, bro.
On another note, you serve as an excellent example of the dangers and hypocrisy of censorship. It's revealing that once again, the person most concerned with censoring the behavior of others on moral grounds...well when you look at this person-you in this case, Sa'eed-you begin to discover that they're probably not the person that should be the moral watchdog at all. Or...tell us some more about how much you'd like to have sex with girls in high school. Tell us more about how women already orient themselves totally around men. Tell us more about 'erotic capital' and how much you want to be able to purchase it from prostitutes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: The study points out a situation where men are surrounded by young women, and the effect only seems to be that it makes them more likely to get divorced. Perhaps the immodesty of young women, and their relentless sexual preening, has a similar cumulative effect on society at large
Or perhaps creepy guys seek out jobs where they get to oogle young women, so there's a higher than average percentage of men in such professions that will end up divorced. We don't have any idea about causality here, so jumping from "male teachers are slightly more likely than the average to be divorced" to "because the relentless sexual preening of their students makes them unhappy" is ridiculous.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB] ...startin' to get a lil creepy, Elison. I could be alone in thinking that, but if I'm not I thought you might like to know.
I'ld argue there is a clear ethical point in favor of illustrated or otherwise animated adult materials in that at most, a woman only lends her voice to the production. As opposed to the 'live' porn industry where you can never be sure if that actress is there with her free will.
That and well, they are both fiction meant to satisfy the audience fantasies there's that basic equivalence.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, the 'no actual women have been hurt' thing took my mind to thinking 'women, animated or photographed, are being harmed etc etc.' with the virtue of artificial pornography being that no real women are being harmed.
--------
So I was driving home from taking my dogs to the groomers this morning, and passed a carwash. A place of business I mean, not a fund raiser or anything. Stopped at a light (a crappy, too-slow-on-Saturday-mornings-freakin'-light) I noticed that one of the employees was female. From a distance she appeared attractive, and was wearing some sort of sleeveless shirt and shorts, with a hat. Big surprise, right, Florida September morning on a sunny day and all that. I noted in my mind 'nice legs!'
But then I tried to imagine what it would be like if I were a man such as Sa'eed or a like-minded man, who would view such a thing as provocative 'sexual preening' that this woman should be criticized for not...validating or fulfilling or whatever to men who see her. I tried to imagine how it would be like to view her-from a distance, without knowing her, without hearing her voice or knowing any of her thoughts, without ever having even been to that car wash and knowing if they did a good job!-what it would be like to view her with antagonism, exclusively on the basis of her appearance to me personally.
I'm not sure I could complete the circuit in my mind. I don't think I did. I kept coming back to 'it's September in Florida, on a sunny day'. I could imagine her taking satisfaction in that clothing and looking attractive to the world at large, but I couldn't legitimately imagine (that is, imagine it and have it feel like my own thought) that she was engaging in 'sexual preening'.
I don't understand where you're coming from, Sa'eed. I can analyze other things you say and comfortably label you a misogynist, but this outlook of yours is alien to me. I suspect it's baffling to others too, when it's not offensive. You have done a poor job of making your case if after all this time I can't even imagine what it's like to feel that way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Ah, I had assumed it was some sort of tentacle rape thing or something.
That's not my thing, but I can understand the argument and largely agree with the argument, "This fictional character unquestionably enjoys it, so its okay." It's a pretend world of pretend people doing pretend things, like reading a book.
I am not making the argument of "porn inherently demeans women" as certainly there are plenty of AV actresses who would likely strenuously disagree, and surely plenty who do enjoy and derive satisfaction from the work. The argument I make is instead a probabilistic one.
The possibility from randomly watching clips or movies on the internet containing content that likely contains actual exploitation or at least AV actors who truly aren't comfortable and rather not be there if it weren't for circumstances is sufficiently non-zero that I don't feel comfortable watching it.
The probability of anyone being harmed from the production of doujinshi manga is sufficiently near-zero that I think it should be understandable as a preference as any other.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your only concern is literally 'was anyone directly, personally harmed in the conception, creation, production, distribution, sale, etc. of this media', then sure it seems to me you've got a pretty solid argument.
But-and maybe it's just me again, so I may be misreading you-but if you're saying 'this drawn, fictitious woman unquestionably enjoys being assaulted by a many-appendaged creature, therefore it's unobjectionable'...well. I suppose before saying more I should ask if that is what you mean.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People complain about "Walls of text" when I try to give nuanced answers, nonetheless! I will still attempt a satisfactory answer.
Perhaps I may be missing the point here but I'ld argue that such scenes are indistinguishable from say the 'reluctant but gets really into it' IYKWIM genre for AV films and no one seems to ever complain about those; which would strike me as a double standard.
I think it is also easier to maintain the distinction between production (as you say), and content with animated or doujinshi works than it is for 'regular' adult AV films. The production of the film is the sex they are having, that is how the film is made, which overlaps some with the content no?
But if we are to compare the two purely on matters of content, i.e, the fact that porn is largely seen as a mainstream thing all of its varied genres include, that healthy adults are expected to consume 'just don't talk about it at the family dinner table' and this is normal. That the content is just a fantasy to be consumed and there's a genre for anyone, then yes, I don't possibly see how they can be considered different in that one is objectionable and one isn't just because of medium on content alone.
Sure, you don't to my admittedly non-existent knowledge see or hear about the tentacle thing in AV films (and I am not googling it), but I would bet you real money that they would if it were practical. Sure you'ld roll your eyes at it, or tilt your head oddly but you wouldn't judge* someone for it.
*I know this phrase, and I am pretty sure this isn't the word but I am blanking out, I think it starts with 'r'.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison: I think the main objection to your "wall of text" is how painfully difficult it is to navigate your writing. I realize you probably don't mean to be so obtuse, but you really need to focus on clarity, precision and succinctness. I'm not trying to pick on you, though, so please don't take it the wrong way.
As far as the tentacle rape thing goes:
In theory, I have no problem with it. People get off on different thimgs, and some people like whips, chains, handcuffs, and dominance/being dominated in general. I've always thought the whole "violent video games/movies makes people more violent" argument to be bogus, and I guess the same could be said about unrealistic sexual fantasies. So long as you know it's just make believe, it's probably ok.
That being said... just about everybody knows murder is wrong, and it's pounded into our brain from the time we can first hit other people that hurting other people is wrong. Rape is a far more tenuous subject. I mean, everybody knows lurking in the shadows with a mask and raping an unknown woman is wrong. But a *lot* of young men don't really understand consent, or may be confused as far as what is and isn't acceptable. So the "reluctant at first, enjoys it later" type of porn might legitimately send the message "hey, this is ok! Women like being dominated/held down/roughed up at first, besides, she didn't fight me and she seemed like she enjoyed it"... which is prettty common amoung rapists. (Most of whom don't consider themselves rapists)
That being said, you clearly understand that is is just fantasy are concerned about women were hurt in the making of it, so I don't really think it's harmful for you to watch. But you can understand why rape fantasy porn can make people (including myself) feel extremely uncomfortable.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do want to get back to this (I came around last week, but Hatrack was down again), but I don't have full time right now. I'll put this here as a placeholder, because I want to bring that in. It might be interesting for people to read too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I do want to get back to this (I came around last week, but Hatrack was down again), but I don't have full time right now. I'll put this here as a placeholder, because I want to bring that in. It might be interesting for people to read too.
I found it interesting, and was heartened at the proactive attitude towards the ideal of being an honorable, worthy man...but in the end I felt it was also more than a little patronizing and paternalistic towards women, and also openly in a few lines dismissive of their own capability to stand up for themselves. Lines such as 'spiritual leader', references to a woman's own morality being the last and often weak line of defense-against what it wasn't made expressly clear, but it was interesting to me to note that the blame was indirectly placed on the women when this last, weak line would often fail.
There was also what I felt was a patronizing attitude towards men, strangely enough. It was taken as a given that men would be the transgressors, that it was important that a grim, unpleasant warning be set over them. To my mind, a more effective, more rational, and more egalitarian method is to approach the problem without the implicit assumption 'men will be bad' and the subtle, sometimes spoken sometimes not permission to *be* bad that this implies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yea, my grammar sucks. Thanks for the correction.
Not just your grammar....
Whistled. I'm also advocating that you should be temporarily banned for this (as a long standing pattern of behavior in flagrant violation of the the rules here).
I doubt you'll get anything other than JB telling you to cut it out for the nth time, but God knows you deserve it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I really enjoy the conversations I've had with you here and at Sake. (though I'm currently on the 1 post every 6 months plan or something... :/) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
