I guess in this day and age when everything is political you have to make a "stance" on the weirdest things. There's been a push against any promotion of sexy female beauty; from chainmail bikinis, to covering up the miss universe contestants, to formula 1 grid girls, to people celebrating if a local Hooters or Tilted Kilt goes out of business........ because #metoo is incompatible with sexy women or something?
This is one of those things where sure, I have to admit my taste could sometimes be considered a bit tacky. I even like going to a strip club once in a while. A friend of mine once argued that he would be ok with strip clubs all being closed....only later (when drunk) to admit that he watches "bukkake" videos online. WTF? I usually don't even like that sort of over-the-top hardcore stuff, but sexy flirty girls put a smile on my face almost every time. We can't even have that anymore? Screw that. Yes to scantily clad women*, I say. Do we have to make a political movement for that now? :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/c0/8f/98c08f06af8d3ee1ec0663b8536006d8.jpg)
*and before anyone says "you mean scantily clad PEOPLE, right?". No. It's women that always get people to freak out
The leftist conundrum of permissivity and prudery... I would suggest Trond, that they made a choice to be scantily clad and I support women's free choice on attire.
I've never had a problem with women's choices in attire...[ATTACH=CONFIG]3443[/ATTACH]
Quote from: shuddemell;1089959The leftist conundrum of permissivity and prudery... I would suggest Trond, that they made a choice to be scantily clad and I support women's free choice on attire.
Absolutely. I know a lesbian woman who is a bit showy, teaches pole dancing, and who tends to like the company of men as friends and such. She used to have a girlfriend who would give her all sorts of attitude for her "supporting women's oppression" or some such. Apparently, that sort of attitude is pretty common in the lesbian community, so it took her a while to find a new partner who can handle who she is.
I support scantily clad women and I love fanservice, especially anime service.
SJW's and Puritans fuck off!
I'll take anime boobs and chainmail bikinis over pretentious woke garbage any day of the week!
It seems to me a very normal thing to stand up for!
Have you seen SJWs? Nobody wants to see them naked. That's why they hate women who look good in sexy attire.
It's truly amazing. These so-called "progressives" love Islam which forces women to wear garbage bags head to toe, but they hate Western Civilization where women can choose to wear as much or as little as they choose.
Women and men should wear what they want to wear, or not wear.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1090089Have you seen SJWs? Nobody wants to see them naked. That's why they hate women who look good in sexy attire.
It's truly amazing. These so-called "progressives" love Islam which forces women to wear garbage bags head to toe,....
The correct term is bee-keeper s......I mean burqa.
I've got several friends who have been dancers. On a good day, they can make a few hundred dollars just by being scantily clad and flirty. On a very good day, they can make a thousand dollars or more by being scantily clad and flirty.
The only reason why leftists scold sexy and scantily clad women is because they are jealous.
Quote from: jeff37923;1090137I've got several friends who have been dancers.
There are benefits for having that circle of friends!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1090196There are benefits for having that circle of friends!
The ones I've known for years are gamers too! It's a win-win!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1090196There are benefits for having that circle of friends!
Damn straight!
Personally, I have no problem with women choosing to be scantily clad. Wear what you want - including nothing - and I'm fine with it. There's no outfit (or lack of one) that gives someone permission to touch or assault you.
And if women choose to wear chainmail bikinis, that's fine.
But in fantasy ART, I prefer armor that looks functional. A woman can be sexy and still be armored. Or ditch the armor - if you're not going to cover your dangly bits, why not wear something that chafes less?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1090446Personally, I have no problem with women choosing to be scantily clad. Wear what you want - including nothing - and I'm fine with it. There's no outfit (or lack of one) that gives someone permission to touch or assault you.
And if women choose to wear chainmail bikinis, that's fine.
But in fantasy ART, I prefer armor that looks functional. A woman can be sexy and still be armored. Or ditch the armor - if you're not going to cover your dangly bits, why not wear something that chafes less?
Fair point, but I still hate seeing SJW prudes attempt to invoke "realism" in fantasy artwork to justify their secular Puritanism
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1090446Personally, I have no problem with women choosing to be scantily clad. Wear what you want - including nothing - and I'm fine with it. There's no outfit (or lack of one) that gives someone permission to touch or assault you.
And if women choose to wear chainmail bikinis, that's fine.
But in fantasy ART, I prefer armor that looks functional. A woman can be sexy and still be armored. Or ditch the armor - if you're not going to cover your dangly bits, why not wear something that chafes less?
I know when I see fantasy ART realism is my main concern.
Quote from: Shasarak;1090454I know when I see fantasy ART realism is my main concern.
I prefer the art to match the mileu. For example, lots of exposed skin in a Dark Sun game. Doesn't matter that going around almost naked is a bad idea in the desert. It fits the sandals and socerey vibe.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/61/01/c2610113a118dff050b7c50ee5281788.jpg)
80's style D&D, I'm fine with big hair and exposed midrifts, in the Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson style.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/f2/fb/75f2fb232174aea3e73f627c2f8c79dc.jpg)
Personally, I find realistic, functional armor to be terribly boring, and I like a more fantastical asthetic.
Is that Dark Sun, or a heavy metal band posing with polearm-shaped guitars?
Quote from: Pat;1090459Is that Dark Sun, or a heavy metal band posing with polearm-shaped guitars?
Maybe both? :D
Quote from: Pat;1090459Is that Dark Sun, or a heavy metal band posing with polearm-shaped guitars?
The Metal never dies.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1090468The Metal never dies.
/insert power chord
Quote from: Snowman0147;1090468The Metal never dies.
Amen!
The Virgin Punk vs. The Chad Metal
Quote from: Ratman_tf;109045880's style D&D, I'm fine with big hair and exposed midrifts, in the Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson style.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/75/f2/fb/75f2fb232174aea3e73f627c2f8c79dc.jpg)
Personally, I find realistic, functional armor to be terribly boring, and I like a more fantastical asthetic.
Chainmail Epilady +1
Quote from: Pat;1090459Is that Dark Sun, or a heavy metal band posing with polearm-shaped guitars?
Yes...
[video=youtube;UOvZKJlrtk8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOvZKJlrtk8[/youtube]
Eh. I'm of two minds on the issue, as I am on most things.
On the one hand, I like seeing good-looking women in scanty clothing, and I'm generally suspicious of cultures or societies which try to enforce universal modesty/sumptuary laws (beyond the absolute basic minimum of prohibiting indecent exposure for the sake of protecting children, that is). If an employer in a free society requires a hotpants dress code, like Hooters, and employees in a free society are OK with that requirement and the occupational hazards it incurs in return for their salary, it's hard for me to say they shouldn't have that choice, especially when I'm likewise perfectly free to go into the restaurant or not as I choose.
On the other hand, regular widespread depiction and/or presentation of women primarily as sex objects (usually for commercial purposes)
does facilitate the bad cultural habit of treating them like sex objects, both personally and professionally. Not all Hooters waitresses get groped, and not all non-Hooters waitresses escape groping, but the numbers on it
don't split anywhere near evenly; and the more waitresses dress like the Hooters waitresses, the more even waitresses who
don't dress that way are going to get groped too. Freely choosing a risk for yourself is one thing; doing things that measurably increase that risk for others, without their consent, is something else.
I guess for me the difference is, are we celebrating the sexy female beauty for its own sake, or are we using it as a tool to sell something or gratify ourselves? It's possible (if tricky) to do the former in a way that doesn't reduce the woman in question to an object; in my observation it's very very hard to avoid objectification once money is involved in some way, because the definition of "money" is a medium of value-translation between commodities, which means by definition anything involving it is being treated as a commodity. A quote from C.S. Lewis, in his book
The Four Loves, comes to mind:
QuoteWe use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he "wants a woman". Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude for her five minutes after fruition.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090690On the other hand, regular widespread depiction and/or presentation of women primarily as sex objects (usually for commercial purposes) does facilitate the bad cultural habit of treating them like sex objects, both personally and professionally. Not all Hooters waitresses get groped, and not all non-Hooters waitresses escape groping, but the numbers on it don't split anywhere near evenly; and the more waitresses dress like the Hooters waitresses, the more even waitresses who don't dress that way are going to get groped too. Freely choosing a risk for yourself is one thing; doing things that measurably increase that risk for others, without their consent, is something else.
I'm genuinely curious how much of this is because sex is considered "dirty".
Quote from: subego;1090697I'm genuinely curious how much of this is because sex is considered "dirty".
I'd say it's more that sex that becomes available (or is perceived to be available, or to be more likely to be available) in a previously unexpected, prohibited or discouraged
context is "dirty", i.e. hits us with the extra appeal of the normally forbidden or inaccessible. The bikini barista becomes that much sexier simply
because she's exhibiting her beauty in a time, place and manner most women don't --
and because she's doing it in a context where not only do you have an immediate and common-sense excuse to interact with her, but
she has a professional obligation to treat you with more friendliness and courtesy than a passerby on a beach boardwalk does. Sex doesn't have to be seen as "dirty" for this effect, it just has to be seen as suddenly much more possible than not.
Essentially, it's when people use female sexiness to create the illusion of potential intimacy, so as to encourage money changing hands, that I think is the problem.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090704I
Essentially, it's when people use female sexiness to create the illusion of potential intimacy, so as to encourage money changing hands, that I think is the problem.
I had a friend (not a close friend, friendly aquaintence?) who racked up hundreds of dollars on a shared phone bill for those fake sex calls.
I do think it's more about intimacy (real or false) than actual sex.
What is not being addressed here is male-insecurity vs. female insecurities.
There is nothing wrong with sexual-attractiveness as an aesthetic. Guys that are insecure make it creepy-as-fuck. Women that are insecure *tend* to be less attractive. The rules of competition are still in play, whether C.S. Lewis wants to admit it or not. Attractiveness *matters*. If it didn't - then most of the Hollywood female actors would be unknown. As would many of the men.
Generally speaking the hoopla about objectification goes both ways. The difference is generally men (that are secure) don't give a fuck. Men that do care (that are insecure) have a new set of parameters which they navigate in order to justify getting laid.
The moment these insecurities became politicized, those low-status women gained some modicum of manipulative power over their higher-status female counterparts. They come up with an endless supply of justifications and inversions of logic to either subvert notions of attractiveness (which do shift - but only within certain parameters), ostensibly because it raises their profile.
Now with the new political rules - the insecure males have to snivel about with labels like "male feminist" just to justify their proximity to women that don't really want them. This is precisely where they have to navigate around to hook up...with mixed results. But hey these are the new rules of the game for the insecure set.
And if you're a guy/gal that just feels uncomfortable with the issue... rest assured. There's nothing wrong with scantily clad adults. If there is, the odds are it's just you.
Edit: I'm waiting for someone to tell me there are no objective standards to attractiveness. We can put that to the Pepsi-Challenge.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090690On the other hand, regular widespread depiction and/or presentation of women primarily as sex objects (usually for commercial purposes) does facilitate the bad cultural habit of treating them like sex objects, both personally and professionally.
My wife can attest to the fact that it does not. If you're a woman, you're much more likely to get groped in a country like Bangladesh (where she's from) or Egypt, than, say, USA (the country that came up with Hooters and Playboy etc etc). Women being groped against their will is a huge problem in those cultures, and yes, more so than in the West. When she was young, she was even surprised to learn that dressing modestly didn't really help that much, the only thing that helped was being part of a big group of people when you go out.
Quote from: Trond;1090730My wife can attest to the fact that it does not. If you're a woman, you're much more likely to get groped in a country like Bangladesh (where she's from) or Egypt, than, say, USA (the country that came up with Hooters and Playboy etc etc). Women being groped against their will is a huge problem in those cultures, and yes, more so than in the West.
That's true, and I'm glad to hear your wife's been lucky enough to escape it by coming here. But I have to note that her perspective and experiences may not be representative of the mean for Western women.
A large part of why the West treats women much better than places like Bangladesh and Egypt, after all, is that for at least the past forty years we've been very emphatic about the undesireability of that behaviour, to the extent that there are now significant economic and even legal penalties attached to being caught at even the most minor forms of it. And part of the reason those penalties were introduced is because that behaviour used to be more common than it is now -- and part of the reason it used to be more common was the flood of sexual imagery that was introduced into our culture during the Sexual Revolution. Remember, what I said was that sexual objectification in media facilitates the habit of sexual objectification in person; it's obviously not an issue if you're comparing this to a culture in which sexual objectification is already explicitly enshrined from the get go.
That the West is far better than many places, even with our sexualized media/pop culture as it is, doesn't mean we couldn't be better still if we controlled it more. Now whether that improvement would be worth the cost of the controls on free speech it would require is another topic entirely.
Why do you come to the conclusion "it" needs to be "controlled"? More specifically why do you even think it can be controlled without deleterious results (and what would those results look like?)
What is the measuring stick you're using? Isn't the example of a culture where women are anything *but* "scantily clad" - practically hidden from view in most cases physically, the polar opposite of this? And yet... what do you think drives the physical and sexual objectification of women in those places?
Sexual objectification is not enshrined in a culture. It's part of our DNA.
To the degree that we act upon those... that's where we can modify for culture and personal mores.
Edit: Speaking of which, my wife grew up in Paris, France. She said the guy's there were really gropey and touchy by American standards.
Quote from: tenbones;1090750Why do you come to the conclusion "it" needs to be "controlled"? More specifically why do you even think it can be controlled without deleterious results (and what would those results look like?)
I think our culture would generally be healthier if we reduced public, for-profit sexual objectification of women in media; you'll note that I do acknowledge that trying to do this through top-down legislation is almost certainly a bad idea, and no, I'm not sure what level it should be reduced to or what other methods would work. Insofar as I have a "measuring stick" for what constitutes such exploitative objectification, I admit to it being much like the judge's classic definition of obscenity: I can't articulate it but I know it when I see it -- most rap videos, I think, would probably qualify. (That I generally tend to loathe rap as a so-called musical genre has nothing whatsoever to do with choosing that example. Really. :) )
Likewise I'll admit that "sexual objectification" isn't merely a question of how much of the face and body can be seen. Sexual objectification is the attitude that the primary, or even the only, value of a woman to men and society is her sexual potential rather than her character or accomplishments. Parts of our culture promote that attitude by wallowing in images of women in ways that allow small groups of men to make a great deal of money off of it, and other cultures promote it by treating actual women as priceless commodities to be controlled and concealed from all but their effective owners -- but it's all the same perspective.
(Men, to an extent, evade this dynamic because our sexual potential has in large part been historically determined
by our characters and accomplishments, so our sexual value to women and our practical value to society have tended to be much more closely entwined. I think much of the internal cultural breakdown we can see going on is largely due to that dynamic now being consciously abandoned for the first time in, well, ever, as far as I know.)
You're absolutely right that the
impulse to reduce people to their sexual value is universal, but there is a difference in how our cultures teach us to control and direct that impulse, and the frequency of sexualized female imagery in our culture
is part of what influences that teaching. Saying that I think it would be better if there was less of it doesn't mean I'm wedded to any one approach as to how to do that, or even that I think there must necessarily be one that'll be worth what it costs. I just think that we should be honest about what's necessarily entailed in our own cultural preferences, because that's the only way we'll shift them if we can.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090690Not all Hooters waitresses get groped, and not all non-Hooters waitresses escape groping, but the numbers on it don't split anywhere near evenly; and the more waitresses dress like the Hooters waitresses, the more even waitresses who don't dress that way are going to get groped too.
Is there any evidence that Hooters waitresses are prone to being groped?
You rarely see men so well behaved as when in the presence of female strippers/exotic dancers; I'd have thought Hooters waitresses would likely have a similar effect. Male strippers seem to have the opposite effect on horny women though.
Quote from: S'mon;1090776Is there any evidence that Hooters waitresses are prone to being groped?
You rarely see men so well behaved as when in the presence of female strippers/exotic dancers; I'd have thought Hooters waitresses would likely have a similar effect. Male strippers seem to have the opposite effect on horny women though.
With strippers, isn't there someone designated to kick the living shit out of anyone who tries?
Quote from: subego;1090812With strippers, isn't there someone designated to kick the living shit out of anyone who tries?
Yes. I know in Tennessee there are strict "no contact" rules in play.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090737...... Remember, what I said was that sexual objectification in media facilitates the habit of sexual objectification in person.....
I don't agree with this part.
In fact, I suspect the "sexual objectification" argument is a bit iffy to start with, but I'd be open to an explanation. I mean, I don't want to have sex with an "object" but with a person. A hot person would be nice, but not a "hot" object. And just thinking someone you don't know is hot, does not mean you see that person as an object, nor does it mean that you don't care about the person's feelings. I do know that there are some people who could rape others and then throw them in the trash like dead meat (sometimes literally), but the problem there is not "objectification", or that they have been reading too much Playboy, but that we're dealing with a psycho.
Just saw this:
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090766Likewise I'll admit that "sexual objectification" isn't merely a question of how much of the face and body can be seen. Sexual objectification is the attitude that the primary, or even the only, value of a woman to men and society is her sexual potential rather than her character or accomplishments.
But it is part of a person's character and accomplishments.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090766Parts of our culture promote that attitude by wallowing in images of women in ways that allow small groups of men to make a great deal of money off of it, and other cultures promote it by treating actual women as priceless commodities to be controlled and concealed from all but their effective owners -- but it's all the same perspective..
No it isn't the same perspective. Not even a little bit. For instance, Playboy models have fans that (for instance) might want to meet her to get a signed photo at some sort of event. Some of them might also give it a shot at asking her out. That's not even close to someone who keeps one or several women behind walls and veils at all times.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090766I think our culture would generally be healthier if we reduced public, for-profit sexual objectification of women in media; you'll note that I do acknowledge that trying to do this through top-down legislation is almost certainly a bad idea, and no, I'm not sure what level it should be reduced to or what other methods would work. Insofar as I have a "measuring stick" for what constitutes such exploitative objectification, I admit to it being much like the judge's classic definition of obscenity: I can't articulate it but I know it when I see it -- most rap videos, I think, would probably qualify. (That I generally tend to loathe rap as a so-called musical genre has nothing whatsoever to do with choosing that example. Really. :) )
Likewise I'll admit that "sexual objectification" isn't merely a question of how much of the face and body can be seen. Sexual objectification is the attitude that the primary, or even the only, value of a woman to men and society is her sexual potential rather than her character or accomplishments. Parts of our culture promote that attitude by wallowing in images of women in ways that allow small groups of men to make a great deal of money off of it, and other cultures promote it by treating actual women as priceless commodities to be controlled and concealed from all but their effective owners -- but it's all the same perspective.
(Men, to an extent, evade this dynamic because our sexual potential has in large part been historically determined by our characters and accomplishments, so our sexual value to women and our practical value to society have tended to be much more closely entwined. I think much of the internal cultural breakdown we can see going on is largely due to that dynamic now being consciously abandoned for the first time in, well, ever, as far as I know.)
You're absolutely right that the impulse to reduce people to their sexual value is universal, but there is a difference in how our cultures teach us to control and direct that impulse, and the frequency of sexualized female imagery in our culture is part of what influences that teaching. Saying that I think it would be better if there was less of it doesn't mean I'm wedded to any one approach as to how to do that, or even that I think there must necessarily be one that'll be worth what it costs. I just think that we should be honest about what's necessarily entailed in our own cultural preferences, because that's the only way we'll shift them if we can.
So, you're a man who knows what's better for women to do for entertainment, money, or simply living their lives.
You're also someone who is positive they objectively know how to make society better.
How...original.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1090834So, you're a man who knows what's better for women to do for entertainment, money, or simply living their lives.
You're also someone who is positive they objectively know how to make society better.
How...original.
I don't believe I claimed to "know" anything; you'll note the liberal use of the caveat "I think" and the deliberate refusal to proscribe policy or call for outlawing or regulating anything.
I will say that as much as I have no interest whatsoever in compelling free adults on how to live their lives, I can't help but notice that the people who most vigorously claim "no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with women showing off a sexy body, or even making money at it"
do tend to be those who'll benefit from the visibility and accessibility of those bodies, or that money.
Yes, in theory, we should be able to admire and celebrate female sexual beauty without concerns of exploitation, financial or otherwise, creeping into it. But in practice, such attempts at celebration almost never
do manage to keep such concerns out of it, and it strikes me as naive at best and disingenuous at worst not to acknowledge that.
Quote from: Trond;1090818No it isn't the same perspective. Not even a little bit. For instance, Playboy models have fans that (for instance) might want to meet her to get a signed photo at some sort of event. Some of them might also give it a shot at asking her out. That's not even close to someone who keeps one or several women behind walls and veils at all times.
But the similarity is that neither the stereotypical Playboy fan nor the stereotypical Arabic sheikh concern themselves with the woman's wants before their own; what's really important to them is not the woman as a
person but the woman as a component of their own gratification.
As a litmus test of this analysis, consider how quickly both of them, if either is ever deprived of their object by something they can't stop (the model retires or the harem girl dies), tend to replace the lost objects of their interest. If it was truly the uniqueness of the person that was important, common sense suggests that loss would take a lot longer to process, like most grief.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090909But the similarity is that neither the stereotypical Playboy fan nor the stereotypical Arabic sheikh concern themselves with the woman's wants before their own; what's really important to them is not the woman as a person but the woman as a component of their own gratification.
As a litmus test of this analysis, consider how quickly both of them, if either is ever deprived of their object by something they can't stop (the model retires or the harem girl dies), tend to replace the lost objects of their interest. If it was truly the uniqueness of the person that was important, common sense suggests that loss would take a lot longer to process, like most grief.
What? This does not make any sense whatsoever. As an analogy, if I buy a Kiss album, and get their autographs, am I also putting my own wants before theirs? If they disband I might feel grief, but I also might not, just like the model retiring. Oh and neither of them is an object.
The major objection to scantily clad women that we see now comes from the left and is quite a bit different from traditional objections. Feminists just don't like men to enjoy seeing naked women. It's not the nudity that the don't like, they will claim that they support women going naked when ever and where ever they like. It's male pleasure that leftists object to. It's all about feminist misandry.
We can see this with the issue of plus sized models. If a fat girl posts nude or scantily clad pictures of herself saying that she is proud of how she looks, then feminists love that - they like it because they think that men don't like it. If some guys then said "Yes, she is beautiful, I like curvy girls with big butts and boobs" then all of a sudden feminists are pissed off again and say that the men are fetishizing the plus sized model. They supported her getting naked when they thought that men objected, but if they see men liking her looks then it becomes objectification.
My question is this: why is make pleasure bad? Why is it bad for men to enjoy looking at a woman's body? It's completely natural biologically. It doesn't hurt the girl being looked at, assuming she choosing to expose herself, and it doesn't hurt society. Men being attracted to feminine beauty isn't somehow reducing women to objects, it isn't persecuting us if a man gains happiness from seeing a female body. This is just a misandrist desire to pathologize healthy male sexuality - which is very visual. I reject the very idea of objectification.
So if some business benefits from showing female bodies - like fantasy fan service art, Hooters, the swimsuit issue, or a billion other possible examples - then why is that bad? They are appealing to their customers, who are men and enjoy seeing pretty girls. That doesn't doesn't make the men bad, it doesn't hurt the women, it doesn't hurt anybody. So I support men having fun seeing pretty girls because I don't see anything wrong with male attraction.
Quote from: Trond;1090910As an analogy, if I buy a Kiss album, and get their autographs, am I also putting my own wants before theirs?
If you bought tickets to a Kiss concert, and Gene Simmons suddenly walked up on stage and said, "Sorry folks, no concert tonight, we're all too tired and depressed to bother playing," and left, would you equably accept the loss of a refund because you were worried enough about the band's feelings not to want to pressure them? Or is the vast majority of the audience going to think, "Screw
that, we paid $300 for these tickets and you promised us a g****m concert!"?
That's the point: what's happening between the Playboy fan and the model isn't a relationship, it's a commercial transaction. The fan doesn't
have to care what the model wants because she's wilfully forgone that expectation by taking his money. If either side becomes incapable of fulfilling their end of the bargain, the bargain tends to dissolve. For most exchanges that's perfectly neutral. I just don't think it's a good idea to involve sexuality in such exchanges, because sexuality is never psychologically neutral (something that a good deal of neuroscience these days is providing backup evidence for) and trying to make it neutral damages it.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about featuring my own teenage wet dream; Lisa Marie Scott. I don't really see the damage being done here. But yes, Hugh Hefner might have made some money on Lisa Marie Scott, also making her pseudo-famous enough to get some other modeling jobs, which is a problem because.......wait why is it a problem?
(https://www.autographworld.com/celebgal/scottlm.jpg)
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090914If you bought tickets to a Kiss concert, and Gene Simmons suddenly walked up on stage and said, "Sorry folks, no concert tonight, we're all too tired and depressed to bother playing," and left, would you equably accept the loss of a refund because you were worried enough about the band's feelings not to want to pressure them? Or is the vast majority of the audience going to think, "Screw that, we paid $300 for these tickets and you promised us a g****m concert!"?
That's the point: what's happening between the Playboy fan and the model isn't a relationship, it's a commercial transaction. The fan doesn't have to care what the model wants because she's wilfully forgone that expectation by taking his money. If either side becomes incapable of fulfilling their end of the bargain, the bargain tends to dissolve. For most exchanges that's perfectly neutral. I just don't think it's a good idea to involve sexuality in such exchanges, because sexuality is never psychologically neutral (something that a good deal of neuroscience these days is providing backup evidence for) and trying to make it neutral damages it.
Following this thinking, by taking the money isn't it the model doing "damage" to the fan? Why are you so much more concerned with the model, who some people saw in the nude, versus the fan, who lost his money? If you ask me, I'm not concerned with either, because I think both are getting exactly what they expect. Or if it is only sexuality and related feelings that are damaging, what about kissing in movies? I would say that falling in love is a much stronger, and even more dangerous, feeling than sexual arousal*. Should actors stop kissing while acting?
*I have known people attempting suicide and doing other kinds of self-harm due to love.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1090911My question is this: why is make pleasure bad? Why is it bad for men to enjoy looking at a woman's body? It's completely natural biologically. It doesn't hurt the girl being looked at, assuming she choosing to expose herself, and it doesn't hurt society. ... So if some business benefits from showing female bodies - like fantasy fan service art, Hooters, the swimsuit issue, or a billion other possible examples - then why is that bad? They are appealing to their customers, who are men and enjoy seeing pretty girls. That doesn't doesn't make the men bad, it doesn't hurt the women, it doesn't hurt anybody. So I support men having fun seeing pretty girls because I don't see anything wrong with male attraction.
I'll let this be my last post on the topic because I think I'll only be repeating myself after this, but to see if I can make my point clear, consider this analogy:
Everything you've said above applies equally well to drinking alcoholic drinks. It's a natural biological process. If done with reasonable moderation and care, it doesn't hurt anyone. Almost everyone loves it; it doesn't make those who drink bad, it doesn't make those who sell the drinks bad. So we can support the habit in principle by a strict definition.
But -- there is still potential for a great deal of harm
if that moderation is not taken. And the first step in abandoning such moderation tends to be the insistence that it's not necessary, and outraged objection to those who disagree.
I'll sign off by agreeing: Nothing is wrong with enjoying sexual beauty, or displaying it if you happen to possess it. It's only ever the
commercialization of those things that I remain skeptical of. Best to everyone.
QuoteWhy are you so much more concerned with the model, who some people saw in the nude, versus the fan, who lost his money?
Betraying my promise above to say this, but I think this is a critical point to make:
Because money is less valuable than human dignity.And now that
is my last word.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090920Betraying my promise above to say this, but I think this is a critical point to make:
Because money is less valuable than human dignity.
And now that is my last word.
Unless you are short on money, when suddenly it become the most important thing. Women are never not victims it seems*. But I was actually more interested in the second part of my post there. Either way, you seem to say that posing and selling your "glam" nude photos is undignified, which is basically just a personal "honor" thing. I think the woman above would simply disagree, and that is of course a personal choice.
*Just a hunch I have; I have a feeling if men had lower sex drive and women were hornier and more visually stimulated, people would STILL blame the men; why? for taking the poor girl's money when she wants a photo of the male model.
Quote from: subego;1090812With strippers, isn't there someone designated to kick the living shit out of anyone who tries?
I have been in a pub back room in Coventry with no security 20 soldiers and 2 strippers and there was definitely no groping!
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090919I'll let this be my last post on the topic because I think I'll only be repeating myself after this, but to see if I can make my point clear, consider this analogy:
Everything you've said above applies equally well to drinking alcoholic drinks. It's a natural biological process. If done with reasonable moderation and care, it doesn't hurt anyone. Almost everyone loves it; it doesn't make those who drink bad, it doesn't make those who sell the drinks bad. So we can support the habit in principle by a strict definition. But -- there is still potential for a great deal of harm if that moderation is not taken. And the first step in abandoning such moderation tends to be the insistence that it's not necessary, and outraged objection to those who disagree.
I'll sign off by agreeing: Nothing is wrong with enjoying sexual beauty, or displaying it if you happen to possess it. It's only ever the commercialization of those things that I remain skeptical of. Best to everyone.
I don't think that commercialization meshes well with the alcohol analogy. Alcoholism is bad when it comes to dominate someone's life or causes them to act badly. If you're drunk all the time and can't hold a job, then that's bad. If you drive or get into fights when you're drunk, that is bad. Drinking isn't bad because of bars or liquor stores.
If we extended that analogy to looking at naked girls, it becomes bad if someone watches pornography all the time to the exclusion of having real relationships. It becomes bad if the person engages in some kind of bad behavior associated with the pornography. But just watching and having pleasure from it isn't bad.
Quote from: Trond;1090924Unless you are short on money, when suddenly it become the most important thing. Women are never not victims it seems*. But I was actually more interested in the second part of my post there. Either way, you seem to say that posing and selling your "glam" nude photos is undignified, which is basically just a personal "honor" thing. I think the woman above would simply disagree, and that is of course a personal choice.
*Just a hunch I have; I have a feeling if men had lower sex drive and women were hornier and more visually stimulated, people would STILL blame the men; why? for taking the poor girl's money when she wants a photo of the male model.
I'm inclined to say that the fan who lusts for a model is losing his dignity (in addition to his money) more so than the nude model. He is the one who is emotionally invested in someone who is only interested in his money.
Of course, if both parties agree, then how is it anybody else's business?
Quote from: S'mon;1090927I have been in a pub back room in Coventry with no security 20 soldiers and 2 strippers and there was definitely no groping!
Lack of security is not the norm in my experience.
So now we should invert the obvious and let all the men and women in the Middle-East pound a bunch of alcohol and see what happens.
This social experiment is purely for science. I swear.
I sense a rhetorical point I'm too much of an idiot to get.
People are different, and their views on nudity (their own vs. others) vary wildly based on many factors, so I don't think there can be any blanket agreements on what is or what is not "healthy" sexuality in entertainment.
Again, that's the importance of FREEDOM OF CHOICE so those who want to get naked, those who want to pay to see Da Naked, and those who want to avoid Da Naked all have their choices honored in society.
Honored as in "not stopped." Not as in "get a trophy"
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090914I just don't think it's a good idea to involve sexuality in such exchanges, because sexuality is never psychologically neutral (something that a good deal of neuroscience these days is providing backup evidence for) and trying to make it neutral damages it.
This is a very fair point.
Humans are weird about both money and sex. Combine the two and some humans get extra-weird.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1090920Because money is less valuable than human dignity.
I absolutely disagree with this.
People trade their dignity for scraps of cash at dead end jobs every day. For many, its the nature of work.
And I mean jobs that don't involve any sexuality.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1091030Humans are weird about both money and sex. Combine the two and some humans get extra-weird.
I was brought up in a pretty strict military family. My dad was a cop. So as a kid, prostitution was seen as something *intensely* gross and wrong. In fact one of the big early family dramas was my cousin's wife confided she met my cousin while "working" - he was her third client (which is what she told me years later and I believe her).
Well it got out (not from me). Hysteria ensued, as these things did in the mid-70's. But the whole family except me, my sister, and my father (shockingly), ostracized them both for years. For me - I really liked her, so did my sister. She was *totally* normal (she was from the mid-west, came out to Los Angeles and was totally lost.) We knew she had it rough, and my cousin walked on the wild-side... but when they met, his whole life (and hers) changed. Everyone loved them... then the news came out and HOLY crap... the shit-storm. The moral outraaaage!
I didn't "get it" - I mean I got it, but the *shock* of nearly everyone turning on a fucking dime on them was the first big kick in the nuts for me about morality and ethics. Especially in my family where my dad emphasized "Family above all else" - which he maintained. I remember asking him why HE wasn't mad at her. He said "You know how many prostitutes I've banged across south-east Asia as a Marine, son? You probably have fifty-brothers and sisters you never heard of. They're just people trying to get by. Life is tough but you get by and do what you have to." I know my dad gave my cousin a huge wedding bump of cash to get them going because he felt bad how the rest of the family treated them.
Okay gross but true story. And yeah... money+sex = weird. And yet... not that weird. It's weird.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1091030I absolutely disagree with this.
People trade their dignity for scraps of cash at dead end jobs every day. For many, its the nature of work.
And I mean jobs that don't involve any sexuality.
And this is why I think it's weirdly "Not Weird". Remember that movie "Indecent Proposal"? When that movie dropped everyone made this huge deal out of it. And it's a fun movie! Fun to talk about. I remember saying "I'd let Robert Redford fuck me for a million dollars and I'm not even gay." and I remember people in my social circle laughing at it. I've seen MANY women in my social circles say "I'd totally fuck Robert Redford for a million dollars." I've told my wife - "If Robert Redford offers you a million dollars - you're *are* going to fuck him right?" Her reply was/is "Oh hell yeah I'm going to fuck him."
Sure we're all laughing. And truthfully... I think we're all half-serious.
Then along comes Harvey Weinstein... and everyone freaks the fuck out. Sure he's a creep. He's certainly not Robert Redford. But he was also ponying up a LOT more than a million-bucks to a lot of these Hollywood ladies for whatever creepy shit he wanted to do - and they took him up on it or ignored it. And everyone turned on him like my cousin, yet deep down we all know some of our most "beloved" female actors probably did take him up on multiple indecent proposals for a lifetime of fame and money... I'm not judging them for doing that. I'll judge them for being outraged suddenly after the fact.
There are certainly worse things that have happened that didn't involve sex. I'm not sure I place too much on the idea of dignity that is awarded from others and not one's self. I trust no one to put that pricetag on it for me or anyone else.
Edit: Now I'm hoping when I do 23-&-Me that I find out I have fifty brothers and sisters in South-East Asia I can meet and game with.
Interesting thoughts tenbones. My in-law family in Norway had a similar situation (Thai callgirl/hooker married into the family). There was some rolling of eyes and snickering but that was it.
Some awkwardness about sex is natural, I suspect it has to do with incest avoidance and avoiding jealousy, so we don't usually talk about it with family and we don't rub it in people's faces (no pun intended). Still, I am more and more thinking that guys need to make a stand. It's like every time a WOMAN protests something everyone thinks it is gospel (even though far from all women agree), but guys are so unused to saying anything of the sort that they hardly even admit enjoying a glimpse of a bit of booty every now and then, much less prostitution or strippers. Most just nod along and go "yeah, you know people; sex sells" as if they themselves have nothing to do with it. This one thing that I liked about Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop; the guy was the hero but he still liked (ghasp) strippers. It doesn't have to be stripper of course; it could also be formula 1 grid girls, or whatever.
Quote from: Trond;1091091This one thing that I liked about Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop; the guy was the hero but he still liked (ghasp) strippers. It doesn't have to be stripper of course; it could also be formula 1 grid girls, or whatever.
That was before the dark times... Before Disney owned him.
But doesn't it come down to letting "authorities" - be they Hollywood, our Government, or Religion define the *nuances* of our morality and ethics - rather than being responsible for our own understanding? Those so-called authorities want it that way, naturally.
Most people don't have any idea what formal ethics are because they're raised without any formal structure in them. So I'm not shitting on religion or even the Government etc. because in varying forms we need these institutions at scale. I'm really pointing at parents, second, ourselves first. Because you do get something of a pass as kid. You're just getting filled up with your social mores by whomever your parents let have access to you.
But once you're out on your own... it's totally on you.
It's funny to watch institutions and groupthink make these kinds of demands and it's horrifying to watch people succumb so easily. And it happens *because* we don't teach this stuff to our kids generally. There is an inoculation effect when you're raised with a bit of John Stuart Mill, classical Stoicism, and "lessons" on objectivist vs. relative ethics disguised as conversation with kids. I find myself doing this with grown adults all the time and it stuns me how little their worldviews are held together by little more than a feeling + favorite entertainer opinion.
For me - these days are rich time for hard lessons.
People are now talking about the new Battletoads designs. I didn't even know what it was, but I have to say that the difference between old (left) and new (right) versions of the 'Dark Queen" villainess is.....rather striking :D
(https://i.redd.it/7qf6gl3n6e331.png)
Quote from: Trond;1091489People are now talking about the new Battletoads designs. I didn't even know what it was, but I have to say that the difference between old (left) and new (right) versions of the 'Dark Queen" villainess is.....rather striking :D
(https://i.redd.it/7qf6gl3n6e331.png)
That is REALLY disappointing.
While the new Dark Queen has no breasts and no feet, she still has long lustrous feminine hair! Why oh why must they persist in objectifying and sexualising strong independent women?!?! :mad::mad::mad:
Quote from: S'mon;1091566While the new Dark Queen has no breasts and no feet, she still has long lustrous feminine hair! Why oh why must they persist in objectifying and sexualising strong independent women?!?! :mad::mad::mad:
Did you just assume gender??? :mad::mad::mad:
Please report, immediately, to the nearest Community Re-Education Center for proper treatment, Citizen.
Meant to do this privately but the OP's inbox is full, so I may as well eat my crow publicly: Some time away from this thread has made me realize I was being more of an angry a-hole than I intended. Apologies to Trond and everyone else for letting my temper get the better of me. I will try to be more courteous in future, whatever inevitable disagreements may come.
Quote from: Trond;1089053I guess in this day and age when everything is political you have to make a "stance" on the weirdest things. There's been a push against any promotion of sexy female beauty; from chainmail bikinis, to covering up the miss universe contestants, to formula 1 grid girls, to people celebrating if a local Hooters or Tilted Kilt goes out of business........ because #metoo is incompatible with sexy women or something?
This is one of those things where sure, I have to admit my taste could sometimes be considered a bit tacky. I even like going to a strip club once in a while. A friend of mine once argued that he would be ok with strip clubs all being closed....only later (when drunk) to admit that he watches "bukkake" videos online. WTF? I usually don't even like that sort of over-the-top hardcore stuff, but sexy flirty girls put a smile on my face almost every time. We can't even have that anymore? Screw that. Yes to scantily clad women*, I say. Do we have to make a political movement for that now? :D
I say
hell yes to this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3501[/ATTACH]
I say
fuck no to this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3502[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Trond;1091489People are now talking about the new Battletoads designs. I didn't even know what it was, but I have to say that the difference between old (left) and new (right) versions of the 'Dark Queen" villainess is.....rather striking :D
(https://i.redd.it/7qf6gl3n6e331.png)
God forbid the hot villainess has big titties and an ass...
Googling for the "Battletoads Dark Queen", I found a lot of references to a larger trend of shittifications attributed to "CalArts" graduates:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/calarts
Can't say it's wrong. I was just thinking the other day how most current cartoons look like shit, and cloned shit at that.
Quote from: Brad;1091668God forbid the hot villainess has big titties and an ass...
The God of the Woke does in fact forbid that.
Quote from: tenbones;1091877The God of the Woke does in fact forbid that.
OMG, don't you mean the Godx of the Woke?
Putting an x at the end of words makes them extra woke!
Because now you can't guess the deity's gender or even pronounce the sentence!! Progress!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1091950OMG, don't you mean the Godx of the Woke?
Putting an x at the end of words makes them extra woke!
Because now you can't guess the deity's gender or even pronounce the sentence!! Progress!
A few weeks ago, I heard a radio interview in which the interviewee tried to use "Latinx" consistently, but she slipped up several times.
Just CalArts doodle their precious, ideally in abayas: Exalted, Buffy & Angel, Chronicles of Darkness, Captain Marvel, NuStar Wars Rey & Kylo, Cause Celebs, Fave Politicians, etc. ;) It'll end soon enough.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1091950OMG, don't you mean the Godx of the Woke?
Putting an x at the end of words makes them extra woke!
Because now you can't guess the deity's gender or even pronounce the sentence!! Progress!
well shit. Now I'm going to have to give myself penance by flogging myself with dildo-nunchucks for an hour while being forced to chug rotten tofu-chunks floating in spoiled soy-milk. Godx demands sacrifice!
Quote from: tenbones;1092623well shit. Now I'm going to have to give myself penance by flogging myself with dildo-nunchucks for an hour while being forced to chug rotten tofu-chunks floating in spoiled soy-milk. Godx demands sacrifice!
Soy For The Soy Godx!!
Late to the party, scantily clad women?... Yes! Scantily clad men?... Yes! Whoever said women are less visual is half right, my wife went with our son and me to see Thor just because Thor was shirtless and a hunk.
SJWs do hate male sexuality, unless it's gay male sexuality, and even then they are now turning on them too (Not oppressed enough I guess). And they seem to believe men have this weird power where we touch women with our eyes, they call it "the male gaze", my best guess it's something like the omega effect of Darkseid.
This is because in the 60's-70's the sex positive feminists won the battle but lost the war, the sex negative ones (and the political lesbians) went into hiding in the education institutions, mainly academia, and started publishing shit articles that then were cited by more shit articles and now we have sexist glaciers and stuff. (Newton's Principia is called a rape manual by a famous feminist I shit you not)
Now regarding "objectification" to my best understanding of this piece of feminist propaganda this means the person reduced to an object has no agency and is acted upon. Lets put this to the test with the Playboy models shall we?
Model agrees to be photographed in the nude and the photographs to be put in a magazine (and now online) so the magazine can profit of them (and thus pay her for the job). Where exactly did she lost her agency? At what point was anything done to her without her consent? The answer of course is never.
Second part of the business is when someone buys the mag (for the articles only of course) and looks at the photos of the models. Is the model being acted upon? is anything being done to her against her will? The answer of course is no and no.
Now lets say the buyer is lonely and uses the photos as masturbatory inspiration. Is the model being acted upon? Is anything being done to her against her will? Again no and no.
So how the fuck is she being "objectified"?
Lets change to a strip club, model agrees to strip for money, patrons agree to give her money if they want. When does the stripper lose her agency? Never.
But lets say you hire her for a private lap dance, the moment you step outside HER rules you get thrown out and probably beaten up, the moment you have no more money you are changed for a new ATM sorry patron. If anybody is being treated as an object is the patron, a money dispensing object.
In truth they both agree to the rules of the game so not my business.
Lets go even deeper (pun intended) You hire a prostitute, you pay her to leave after having sex with you, you don't really care if she feels like having sex. But again, unless she's a minor or being forced by a pimp to prostitute herself she is freely exchanging her time and know how for your money, what is the difference? Or the problem?
Puritans of all kinds will try and censor/prohibit stuff, not because they don't want to do it or because it's bad for them, but because they know what's best for you and are willing to use the state to force you to comply to their mores. The religious kind because it's a sin and corrupts society, the lefty ones because think of the wahmen, while they happily get women out of jobs, many times well paying ones, for the greater good.
Sex sells, period, get used to it or move to Londonistan
Oh boy. Maybe you guys already knew this, but they hired feminists to make the next James Bond movie more #Metoo friendly. You have got to be kidding me. Well, let's just hope they don't completely ruin the franchise, but I am very skeptical here.
https://pluralist.com/james-bond-intimacy-coaches-metoo/
Also mentioned in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa_kegufPg
Quote from: Trond;1093034Oh boy. Maybe you guys already knew this, but they hired feminists to make the next James Bond movie more #Metoo friendly. You have got to be kidding me. Well, let's just hope they don't completely ruin the franchise, but I am very skeptical here.
https://pluralist.com/james-bond-intimacy-coaches-metoo/
Also mentioned in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMa_kegufPg
Yeah, I knew, consider the franchise ruined, so far no franchise handled by a feminist has escaped that fate : Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, She-Ra, Thundercats, all of the CW . . .
Quote from: Trond;1093034Oh boy. Maybe you guys already knew this, but they hired feminists to make the next James Bond movie more #Metoo friendly. You have got to be kidding me. Well, let's just hope they don't completely ruin the franchise, but I am very skeptical here.
So now James Bond is going to be a Black Trans Paraplegic Leprechaun with a licence to leave snarky twitter comments? Finally a blow against the oppressive toxic masculinity of the Patriarchy.
Quote from: Shasarak;1093053So now James Bond is going to be a Black Trans Paraplegic Leprechaun with a licence to leave snarky twitter comments? Finally a blow against the oppressive toxic masculinity of the Patriarchy.
Snarky twitter comments? Are you crazy? Oh, maybe you mean snarky against the perceived alt-right and such. Then he surely will have a license to dox.
Quote from: Trond;1093034Oh boy. Maybe you guys already knew this, but they hired feminists to make the next James Bond movie more #Metoo friendly. You have got to be kidding me. Well, let's just hope they don't completely ruin the franchise, but I am very skeptical here.
https://pluralist.com/james-bond-intimacy-coaches-metoo/
Something that might not be clear from the link. Intimacy coaches are normally unrelated to making the film content feminist -- they're about trying to make things better for the actors on set. I have a close friend who works in film, and from what I hear, the situation really sucked previously. Filming sex scenes was always rough and often abusive. (I have more inside stories from low-budget movies than big studio ones, but there are similarities.) As for whether the coaches are helping - I don't know, but I think it's worth an effort to try to improve.
As for James Bond, eh - the Hollywood rumor mill always seems ridiculous to me.
I did eventually see the last James Bond movie Spectre on an airplane, which was decidedly non-feminist. My understanding is that it did mediocre at the box office - less than Skyfall. So who knows what the producers are thinking.
Quote from: Trond;1093066Snarky twitter comments? Are you crazy? Oh, maybe you mean snarky against the perceived alt-right and such. Then he surely will have a license to dox.
Thats great! The head of SPECTRE gets taken out by a flash antifa mob while James Bond sips their non-alcoholic beverage
The Bond franchise had its last breathe with Skyfall.
Quote from: jhkim;1093087Something that might not be clear from the link. Intimacy coaches are normally unrelated to making the film content feminist -- they're about trying to make things better for the actors on set. I have a close friend who works in film, and from what I hear, the situation really sucked previously. Filming sex scenes was always rough and often abusive. (I have more inside stories from low-budget movies than big studio ones, but there are similarities.) As for whether the coaches are helping - I don't know, but I think it's worth an effort to try to improve.
As for James Bond, eh - the Hollywood rumor mill always seems ridiculous to me.
I did eventually see the last James Bond movie Spectre on an airplane, which was decidedly non-feminist. My understanding is that it did mediocre at the box office - less than Skyfall. So who knows what the producers are thinking.
They talked about this coaching in video interviews as well. Of course, it might be that they said this just to build hype, and when the movie comes out we can't tell the difference (we can always hope).
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1093039Yeah, I knew, consider the franchise ruined, so far no franchise handled by a feminist has escaped that fate : Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, She-Ra, Thundercats, all of the CW . . .
Ghostbusters
might recover - the new movie starts filming next month, it's a sequel to the original two films and has thoroughly pissed off the folks from the 2016 film.
Still don't know a whole lot about it, but it's Jason Reitman so I'm hopeful.
Quote from: Thornhammer;1093212Ghostbusters might recover - the new movie starts filming next month, it's a sequel to the original two films and has thoroughly pissed off the folks from the 2016 film.
Still don't know a whole lot about it, but it's Jason Reitman so I'm hopeful.
Yeah, forgot about that, they might just manage to reboot the franchise. I think they are going for a passing of the torch story.
Would the actresses of the 2016 GB make a cameo appearance :p ?
Quote from: Godfather Punk;1093260Would the actresses of the 2016 GB make a cameo appearance :p ?
The only way I'd be okay with that is if they showed up as the spiteful ghosts of SJWs past... and were promptly destroyed by crossing the streams.
No Harold Ramis, No Ghostbusters.
Ramis was a genius. Now we're getting Rehash via Nepotism.
However, the 2016 debacle was so crapass that Reitman's bar for "success" is low. All he has to do is make a cheaper movie with less PR costs, then gross the same amount. Poof! Movie breaks even.
Yeah. Not to turn this into a Movies thread, but I liked the Heat, I thoroughly enjoyed Spy. But I hardly got 2 or 3 chuckles out of the 2016 GB; what a failed opportunity.
I'm a fan of Bond, but it's hard to say 'this film ruined the franchise'. It's a wonky franchise and there are a lot of films that people will point out as ridiculous or terrible for one reason or another. Part of the appeal of the fanship is to compare the various Bonds and what made them bad or good relative to the others. I personally felt that the Pierce Brosnan films hold together better than most - but every Bond actor has moments that are completely outlandish or out of character for the way the movies have been established.
Despite that, it's pretty easy to enjoy a Bond film. You're going to have over-the-top action stunts, you're going to have gadgets, you're going to have 'high society shindigs' and you're going to have villainous plots that need thwarting. You don't need Bond slapping women on the butt and telling them 'man talk, honey' to be Bond.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1094350I'm a fan of Bond, but it's hard to say 'this film ruined the franchise'. It's a wonky franchise and there are a lot of films that people will point out as ridiculous or terrible for one reason or another. Part of the appeal of the fanship is to compare the various Bonds and what made them bad or good relative to the others. I personally felt that the Pierce Brosnan films hold together better than most - but every Bond actor has moments that are completely outlandish or out of character for the way the movies have been established.
Despite that, it's pretty easy to enjoy a Bond film. You're going to have over-the-top action stunts, you're going to have gadgets, you're going to have 'high society shindigs' and you're going to have villainous plots that need thwarting. You don't need Bond slapping women on the butt and telling them 'man talk, honey' to be Bond.
What if I want to see Bond slapping women on the butt?
You should watch Goldfinger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGFESbLMKU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGFESbLMKU)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1094367You should watch Goldfinger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGFESbLMKU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpGFESbLMKU)
That's the stuff.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1094350....Despite that, it's pretty easy to enjoy a Bond film. You're going to have over-the-top action stunts, you're going to have gadgets, you're going to have 'high society shindigs' and you're going to have villainous plots that need thwarting. You don't need Bond slapping women on the butt and telling them 'man talk, honey' to be Bond.
Slapping butts or no, you kinda do need the hot chicks though. It wouldn't really be Bond without them.
Quote from: Trond;1094388Slapping butts or no, you kinda do need the hot chicks though. It wouldn't really be Bond without them.
Xis name is Soy, James Soy, and xe likes xis soy milkshakes laced with quick drying cement to throw them in the faces of the fash
Quote from: Trond;1094388Slapping butts or no, you kinda do need the hot chicks though. It wouldn't really be Bond without them.
I agree that you need 'Bond Girls', but I think there has been a lot of variety over the years. Since 'hot' is a subjective description and the girls have varied in any number of attributes, I don't think that all girls in all movies were intended to be equally attractive to all men. Michelle Yeoh (Wai Lin/Tomorrow Never Dies) and Halle Berry (Jinx/Die Another Day) are 'ass-kickers' in their own right compared to more demure women like Shirley Eaton (Jill Masterson/Goldfinger), but OVERALL, the Bond franchise has had attractive women with more agency than other contemporary action-oriented movies.
Quote from: Trond;1094388Slapping butts or no, you kinda do need the hot chicks though. It wouldn't really be Bond without them.
Heh. To throw in RPGs briefly, I ran a James Bond 007 campaign for a while -- and the most promiscuous PC was a beefy upper-class spy names Quentin who was gay. So the most regular eye-candy of the game were sensual NPCs who showed up with names like Phil McCracken and Ivan Moorcock. That campaign was a lot of fun.
As for the real movies, I feel like the series is really just rehashing the old stuff, and they need to change up something significantly to get my interest again. Spectre had all of the classic elements, and I thought it was terrible - nearly an unintentional self-parody. I could see the series going in different directions, but I don't have a strong feeling about what the change of direction should be.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1094416I agree that you need 'Bond Girls', but I think there has been a lot of variety over the years. Since 'hot' is a subjective description and the girls have varied in any number of attributes, I don't think that all girls in all movies were intended to be equally attractive to all men. Michelle Yeoh (Wai Lin/Tomorrow Never Dies) and Halle Berry (Jinx/Die Another Day) are 'ass-kickers' in their own right compared to more demure women like Shirley Eaton (Jill Masterson/Goldfinger), but OVERALL, the Bond franchise has had attractive women with more agency than other contemporary action-oriented movies.
I really don't think 'agency' is that important at all, as long as there is some variety. Women with plenty of agency have been around in movies since the 30s at least. I think the 'problem' of damsels has been exaggerated. I like some of the kick-ass women, but I also like the more passive girl in From Russia With Love for instance.
Quote from: Trond;1094542I really don't think 'agency' is that important at all, as long as there is some variety. Women with plenty of agency have been around in movies since the 30s at least. I think the 'problem' of damsels has been exaggerated. I like some of the kick-ass women, but I also like the more passive girl in From Russia With Love for instance.
Notice how it's never a problem when it's a man being the damsel in distress? As in Agent Salt for instance? How about in Alien? Wonder Woman? Nope, you'll only hear crickets from the same people that say this is somehow "problematic". What they fail to understand (or hide to push their ideology) is the fact that if women weren't considered of value the damsel in distress trope wouldn't exist in the first place. And we must not forget that going to the rescue of a loved one can never be a bad thing be it a male or female doing the rescuing.
This is more post-modernist drivel and as such should be laughed at.
Honey Rider is portrayed as a relatively capable woman who helps save James Bond. She is doing her own thing and while he is clearly the protagonist, she contributes more than simply being a woman in need of rescue. While I like all the Indiana Jones movies, I think that Willie Scott's contributions are significantly less than Honey Rider's. While she reverses the trap before Indy and Short Round die, her primary purpose is to scream. What's surprising is that the character SHOULD have been a strong character - she took off as a performer half-way around the world in a time where that wasn't widely respected.
Willie Scott's primary purpose in Temple of Doom was to marry the director!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1094640Willie Scott's primary purpose in Temple of Doom was to marry the director!
How dare you speak truth to narrative! :D
....and now they are getting rid of "ring girls" in Australian boxing.
https://www.rt.com/sport/467812-ring-girls-replaced-fight-progress-managers/
The irony is through the roof here: the jobs will be taken by men, and the feminists behind this move also cry about protecting the "women and children", inadvertently showing what they think of these women.
Quote from: Trond;1101979....and now they are getting rid of "ring girls" in Australian boxing.
https://www.rt.com/sport/467812-ring-girls-replaced-fight-progress-managers/
The irony is through the roof here: the jobs will be taken by men, and the feminists behind this move also cry about protecting the "women and children", inadvertently showing what they think of these women.
Feminism, intersectionality, socjus, socialism, call it what you want, is an atheist religion. They are just as puritanical (and hypocritical) as the televangelists preaching fire and brimstone against homosexuality while being closeted homosexuals.
More of the same. Oh joy....
https://amp.scmp.com/sport/martial-arts/mixed-martial-arts/article/3026680/ufc-ring-girls-should-be-scrapped-melbourne?__twitter_impression=true
Quote from: Trond;1103931More of the same. Oh joy....
https://amp.scmp.com/sport/martial-arts/mixed-martial-arts/article/3026680/ufc-ring-girls-should-be-scrapped-melbourne?__twitter_impression=true
Feminism, fighting to make women wear burkas.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1103962Feminism, fighting to make women wear burkas.
"If I can't be pretty, NO ONE can be pretty!"
Quote from: S'mon;1103965"If I can't be pretty, NO ONE can be pretty!"
Exactly and precisely. Plus, if you amend to "If I can't be pretty
any more..." you get Hollywood and #PoundMeToo.
Quote from: S'mon;1103965"If I can't be pretty, NO ONE can be pretty!"
The sad thing for them is that physical beauty really IS in the eye of the beholder...
but showing that you are that ugly and hateful on the inside is pretty much a universal avoid at all costs flag.
Meh, they made their bed. They can sleep in it.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1104006Meh, they made their bed. They can sleep in it.
Alone. They sleep in it alone.
Which may or may not have anything to do with how many of them as angry dangerhair lesbians.
Quote from: Chris24601;1104034Alone. They sleep in it alone.
Nah. They have cats.
Quote from: Tait Ransom;1104039Nah. They have cats.
Those poor poor cats........
Quote from: jeff37923;1104063Those poor poor cats........
Press F for those kittens.
Quote from: jeff37923;1104063Those poor poor cats........
It's the cats being fed a Vegan diet I feel truly sorry for. Their only escape is the sweet release of death.
Ring girls are bad but this is ok....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3838[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3839[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3840[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Gagarth;1104088Ring girls are bad but this is ok....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3838[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3839[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3840[/ATTACH]
On behalf of the LGBT community, I'd like to apologize for those photos and I honestly wish that those photos didn't represent the community.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who do that shit in front of kids at Pride events are the inmates running the asylum now.
Consequently, you've got more reasonable gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals just saying "Fuck this" and quietly leaving the organized community and just living our own lives as peacefully and quietly as we can.
We already got what we wanted (equal rights) and we're fine with that.
Now the organized LGBT scene has been hijacked by trannies, trenders, dyed-haired radfem militant lesbian sows, hardcore furries and other degenerate fetishists that make me look like a prude by comparison.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104093Unfortunately, the kind of people who do that shit in front of kids at Pride events are the inmates running the asylum now.
It's basically the geek social fallacies in play, in another community. What's really weird is how the middle ground has vanished. On the one hand, we have people saying that tolerating intolerance is bad, but that's being used as an excuse to exclude anyone who isn't exactly like me. And on the other hand, if someone is part of the ingroup, nobody is allowed to criticize their behavior.
Tolerance is important, but it has to be extended to the outgroup, otherwise it's not tolerance. And bad behavior needs to be called out, but that needs to be true for your in group as well. There's nothing revolutionary about any of this, it's just common sense and social skills 101.
Quote from: S'mon;1104068It's the cats being fed a Vegan diet I feel truly sorry for. Their only escape is the sweet release of death.
I consider forcing an obligate carnivore to adhere to a Vegan diet is one of the worst forms of animal cruelty and slow torture.
Quote from: jeff37923;1104112I consider forcing an obligate carnivore to adhere to a Vegan diet is one of the worst forms of animal cruelty and slow torture.
It's also proof that extended Veganism leads to gross stupidity in omnivores too.
There are plenty of studies linking the need for various fatty acids obtained primarily from meat for proper human brain function, so of course they want us to stop eating meat. People who think properly don't vote the way they want them to.
Seriously, the leftist position is like someone read '1984' while watching 'Idiocracy' and decided both were instruction manuals.
Quote from: Chris24601;1104122Seriously, the leftist position is like someone read '1984' while watching 'Idiocracy' and decided both were instruction manuals.
I'd add "Animal Farm" and "Demolition Man" for good measure.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104154I'd add "Animal Farm" and "Demolition Man" for good measure.
Indeed with a little "Brave New World" thrown in, to add insult to injury. Like leftists to liberals, the radical lgbt crowd radically misrepresents the lgbt community. I have a number of gay friends that cringe everytime they see things like that, as centrist liberals cringe when they are being ostensibly represented by the leftist progressives. It's sad, but the squeaky wheel always gets the grease.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104093On behalf of the LGBT community, I'd like to apologize for those photos and I honestly wish that those photos didn't represent the community.
Why do you need to apologize? Your not doing this so it isn't your sin. If anyone should be feeling guilty it is them.
Quote from: Snowman0147;1104814Why do you need to apologize? Your not doing this so it isn't your sin. If anyone should be feeling guilty it is them.
Ask Sammy if he was off his meds around the time those photos were taken. Sure, he sounds very reasonable right now, but there was a time (or many times)... ;)
Quote from: HappyDaze;1104825Ask Sammy if he was off his meds around the time those photos were taken. Sure, he sounds very reasonable right now, but there was a time (or many times)... ;)
Lol. True.
But in all fairness, I've never advocated doing that kind of behavior in front of small children.
There are certain lines even I won't cross, and I've been in 2D relationships to Noctis Lucis Caelum AND Vito Scaletta back in the day...:D
Seriously though, those Pride events have gotten out of hand.
If you're gonna have all that nudity and kink stuff, that's fine and dandy, but only if you do it in a private venue and make sure the event is clearly advertised as an 18+ event.
If you're gonna have the event be a public one and have children and families attending, then have some common decency and put on some goddamn pants!
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104093On behalf of the LGBT community, I'd like to apologize for those photos and I honestly wish that those photos didn't represent the community.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who do that shit in front of kids at Pride events are the inmates running the asylum now.
Consequently, you've got more reasonable gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals just saying "Fuck this" and quietly leaving the organized community and just living our own lives as peacefully and quietly as we can.
Now the organized LGBT scene has been hijacked by trannies, trenders, dyed-haired radfem militant lesbian sows, hardcore furries and other degenerate fetishists that make me look like a prude by comparison.
I see that there is something that we agree on.
On behalf of all parents, I'd like to apologize for the "parents" who take their children to these events to prove how "woke" they are and abuse their children in so doing.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104913But in all fairness, I've never advocated doing that kind of behavior in front of small children.
There are certain lines even I won't cross,
Good to know, and thank you for acknowledging that they have crossed a line that should not be crossed.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1104913Lol. True.
But in all fairness, I've never advocated doing that kind of behavior in front of small children.
There are certain lines even I won't cross, and I've been in 2D relationships to Noctis Lucis Caelum AND Vito Scaletta back in the day...:D
Seriously though, those Pride events have gotten out of hand.
If you're gonna have all that nudity and kink stuff, that's fine and dandy, but only if you do it in a private venue and make sure the event is clearly advertised as an 18+ event.
If you're gonna have the event be a public one and have children and families attending, then have some common decency and put on some goddamn pants!
I like this Doc Sammy far better than the ranting one. Glad to read reasonable posts.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1105060I like this Doc Sammy far better than the ranting one. Glad to read reasonable posts.
My new meds are doing wonders for me.
Also, even I get tired of ranting after a certain point.
I'm baffled. How is a thread about standing up for scantily clad women now fully in favor of ensuring men always wear Burkas?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105082I'm baffled. How is a thread about standing up for scantily clad women now fully in favor of ensuring men always wear Burkas?
That's not what we're advocating for, you dishonest SJW punk. Don't you have a Crass concert to attend?
Nobody's advocating men always wear burkas. We're advocating for men not to expose their junk in front of small children in a public venue. If it were women doing the exact same thing, I'd be against it as well.
I'm a fan of hot women and hot men in scantily clad outfits, but I wouldn't want either of the two genders to just strut around in the nude or decked out in obvious fetish gear in public in front of minors.
Now, if these guys and gals want to strut around naked or in black leather bondage gear in an 18+ event, then I'm all for it. I ain't no Puritan prude and we're all adults at an 18+ event.
But if I had a kid and I was taking them to the local park, the last thing I want them to see is some weirdo in a pup play mask with their junk hanging out.
There is a vast difference between actual real-life displays of fetishism and sex acts in front of minors in a public place and some fictional woman in a bikini on a book cover, or a fictional man in a loincloth on a book cover.
The one thing that SJW Neo-Bolsheviks and Bible Belt Neo-Puritans have in common is that they both hate fun and so they'll go out of their way to ruin a good time for everyone just so they can push their own propaganda on everyone.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105133But if I had a kid and I was taking them to the local park, the last thing I want them to see is some weirdo in a pup play mask with their junk hanging out.
You're worse than the Taleban! :eek:
We have indecency laws. If you're naked in most of the United States in public, you're subject to arrest and/or fine, even if you're at a gay pride event.
If the minimum standard is that a guy has a sock on his penis a la Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, I don't have a problem with it.
For reference, the minimum standard in Knoxville is (http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ae016.pdf):
QuoteSECTION 1: Indecent exposure.
a) A person commits the offense of indecent exposure who, in a public place or so near
thereto as to be seen from private premises, intentionally exposes his or her genitals,
breasts, or buttocks to one or more persons with the reasonable expectation the acts
will be viewed by another.
b) "Exposing the genitals, breasts, or buttocks" shall mean displaying the pubic hair,
anus, vulva, genitals or any display of the female breasts with less than a fully opaque
covering of any part of the nipple and areola.
SECTION 2:
A person commits an offense of indecent exposure who, having ownership or control
over a public place wherein any member of the public is invited to enter, knowingly
allows indecent exposure to occur within or upon such public place.
Bondage gear? Fine. Just make sure that your chaps aren't assless.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105138We have indecency laws. If you're naked in most of the United States in public, you're subject to arrest and/or fine, even if you're at a gay pride event.
If the minimum standard is that a guy has a sock on his penis a la Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, I don't have a problem with it.
For reference, the minimum standard in Knoxville is (http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ae016.pdf):
Bondage gear? Fine. Just make sure that your chaps aren't assless.
Neither do most of the leftie pedo apologists.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105138We have indecency laws. If you're naked in most of the United States in public, you're subject to arrest and/or fine, even if you're at a gay pride event.
If the minimum standard is that a guy has a sock on his penis a la Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, I don't have a problem with it.
For reference, the minimum standard in Knoxville is (http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ae016.pdf):
Bondage gear? Fine. Just make sure that your chaps aren't assless.
Yeah, once again you miss the point entirely. At this point, I can't tell if it's due to stupidity or intentional dishonesty.
Given these statements, constantly invoking SJW talking points like some contrarian hipster dipshit, and your constant shilling of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I'd say it's a mix of both.
We are not RPG.net and this is a free speech forum.
You have every right to make these statements on this forum, just as I have every right to call you out on your idiocy.
I think it's funny (and worth pointing out that it is hypocritical) to make fun of people because they're offended by something and then make a big deal about how you're offended by some other behavior and want it to stop.
Either getting offended is justified and you should try to lobby society to change to protect your delicate sensibilities or, if you think that you aren't entitled to be offended about someone else's choices that aren't about you at you, you should just be quiet.
I do think it is ridiculous to see people clutching their pearls and saying 'what about the children'!? When people do that, you really do have to call them pussies.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105168Either getting offended is justified and you should try to lobby society to change to protect your delicate sensibilities or, if you think that you aren't entitled to be offended about someone else's choices that aren't about you at you, you should just be quiet.
That's a terrible argument, you're literally equating every possible type of offense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105168I think it's funny (and worth pointing out that it is hypocritical) to make fun of people because they're offended by something and then make a big deal about how you're offended by some other behavior and want it to stop.
Either getting offended is justified and you should try to lobby society to change to protect your delicate sensibilities or, if you think that you aren't entitled to be offended about someone else's choices that aren't about you at you, you should just be quiet.
I do think it is ridiculous to see people clutching their pearls and saying 'what about the children'!? When people do that, you really do have to call them pussies.
Because we all know that exposing little children to weird sexual fetishes isn't going to have a psychological impact on them right?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105168I think it's funny (and worth pointing out that it is hypocritical) to make fun of people because they're offended by something and then make a big deal about how you're offended by some other behavior and want it to stop.
Either getting offended is justified and you should try to lobby society to change to protect your delicate sensibilities or, if you think that you aren't entitled to be offended about someone else's choices that aren't about you at you, you should just be quiet.
I do think it is ridiculous to see people clutching their pearls and saying 'what about the children'!? When people do that, you really do have to call them pussies.
I'm not offended by your stupidity and blatant dishonesty, just baffled.
Also, I find it ironic that you of all people are chiding others about hypocrisy. Don't throw stones in glass houses.
And no, I won't be quiet. This is a free speech forum and you aren't a mod or an admin. You can't tell me to do shit.
Oh, and what I'm advocating for isn't Helen Lovejoy-tier "Think of the Children!" bullshit either. There's a world of difference between skimpy bikinis on a book cover and what was going on in those Pride pictures.
I guess the Left's disdain towards binary absolutes only applies to human biology...
You wouldn't let your kid watch hardcore fetish porn, so why would you take them to a gay fetish event?
I'm curious to know why a straight hipster like you would even have a dog in the race other than to just be a contrarian and hypocritical hipster. Why would crass behavior at LGBT events concern you?
You aren't LGBT, I am. And shit like what was going on in those pictures concerns me greatly because all it does is give ammunition for the fundamentalist wackos on the Religious Right to use against LGBT rights and civil liberties. We already fought hard to get marriage equality on the federal level, among other issues.
We don't need a bunch of spoiled Millennial SJW's and unfettered degenerates ruining it for everyone and undoing fifty years worth of progress.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105133I'm a fan of hot women and hot men in scantily clad outfits, but I wouldn't want either of the two genders to just strut around in the nude or decked out in obvious fetish gear in public in front of minors.
Have you ever been to a convention? Like, are you just saying it's context? Booth babes are fine
in public,
in front of minors but as soon as it is at an event that is related to sex and sexuality the
exact same outfit becomes inappropriate?
I'm just trying to ascertain your position. I know that referring to male burkas was a deliberate mischaracterization, but there is a lot of 'not wearing pants' that is 'not fetish wear'. Ever hear of shorts?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105195Have you ever been to a convention? Like, are you just saying it's context? Booth babes are fine in public, in front of minors but as soon as it is at an event that is related to sex and sexuality the exact same outfit becomes inappropriate?
I'm just trying to ascertain your position. I know that referring to male burkas was a deliberate mischaracterization, but there is a lot of 'not wearing pants' that is 'not fetish wear'. Ever hear of shorts?
Are boot babes engaging in fetishist conduct? No? so one more time you're being a disingenuous twat.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105180I'm not offended by your stupidity and blatant dishonesty, just baffled.
Also, I find it ironic that you of all people are chiding others about hypocrisy. Don't throw stones in glass houses.
And no, I won't be quiet. This is a free speech forum and you aren't a mod or an admin. You can't tell me to do shit.
Oh, and what I'm advocating for isn't Helen Lovejoy-tier "Think of the Children!" bullshit either. There's a world of difference between skimpy bikinis on a book cover and what was going on in those Pride pictures.
I guess the Left's disdain towards binary absolutes only applies to human biology...
You wouldn't let your kid watch hardcore fetish porn, so why would you take them to a gay fetish event?
I'm curious to know why a straight hipster like you would even have a dog in the race other than to just be a contrarian and hypocritical hipster. Why would crass behavior at LGBT events concern you?
You aren't LGBT, I am. And shit like what was going on in those pictures concerns me greatly because all it does is give ammunition for the fundamentalist wackos on the Religious Right to use against LGBT rights and civil liberties. We already fought hard to get marriage equality on the federal level, among other issues.
We don't need a bunch of spoiled Millennial SJW's and unfettered degenerates ruining it for everyone and undoing fifty years worth of progress.
I find it hilarious, the white straight male savior telling the bisexual he's wrong to call out the behavior of some of the LGBTQWERTY "community". Think he can with the white man's burden?
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105180You wouldn't let your kid watch hardcore fetish porn, so why would you take them to a gay fetish event?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105197Are boot babes engaging in fetishist conduct? No? so one more time you're being a disingenuous twat.
You both are singling out fetishism as if that's the dividing line. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't let my underage kid watch porn in general - regardless of whether it was gay fetish porn or non-fetish heterosexual porn.
For me, the issue is how much something is sexualized, not whether it's fetishist.
To the broader topic, there are various public events which have sexualized conducts -- like many Mardi Gras celebrations which have naked and semi-naked revelers as well as Gay Pride parades. Most often, I feel that problems with these events and kids are the fault of irresponsible parents rather than the revelers. It could go either way, though.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105197Are boot[h] babes engaging in fetishist conduct? No? so one more time you're being a disingenuous twat.
They kind of are. It's less explicit, but booth babes are still highly sexualized.
The difference is basically the rough edges. Behavior and dress for booth babes, or more generally attractive women in skimpy costumes used to sell products, has developed a set of boundaries. They might wear a bikini, but they're not topless. They stand there and act friendly, and may pose in sexualized positions, but there's some distance or level of abstraction; they don't jump down and wag their asses in people's faces. The line is pretty arbitrary, and can be really hard to precisely define, and it varies in different situations and communities (naturism is a classic example), but the line is there, and and most of the time it's pretty clear when something crosses that line.
The problem is the LGBT parades draw as much from behavior and dress in places like strip clubs or BDSM dungeons, which are generally considered on the other side of the line.
Quote from: jhkim;1105204You both are singling out fetishism as if that's the dividing line. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't let my underage kid watch porn in general - regardless of whether it was gay fetish porn or non-fetish heterosexual porn.
For me, the issue is how much something is sexualized, not whether it's fetishist.
To the broader topic, there are various public events which have sexualized conducts -- like many Mardi Gras celebrations which have naked and semi-naked revelers as well as Gay Pride parades. Most often, I feel that problems with these events and kids are the fault of irresponsible parents rather than the revelers. It could go either way, though.
News flash, I didn't let my underage kid watch porn either, guess what? He and his equally underage school mates did anyway, just like any kid before them.
But there's a big difference here, on the porn issue I have some kind of control, on a street even in broad day light what am I supposed to do? Stay indoors until the degenerates go to theirs?
Second difference is that I don't think Mardi Gras is something done in broad day light and you have to go there. While the other degenerates go to your town. At least here, our own version of Mardi Gras takes place in Veracruz, and the day time vs night time conduct is ... Well like night and day.
But I do agree with you regarding the idiots taking their kids to witness the degeneracy and debauchery to signal their wokeness.
Quote from: Pat;1105207They kind of are. It's less explicit, but booth babes are still highly sexualized.
The difference is basically the rough edges. Behavior and dress for booth babes, or more generally attractive women in skimpy costumes used to sell products, has developed a set of boundaries. They might wear a bikini, but they're not topless. They stand there and act friendly, and may pose in sexualized positions, but there's some distance or level of abstraction; they don't jump down and wag their asses in people's faces. The line is pretty arbitrary, and can be really hard to precisely define, and it varies in different situations and communities (naturism is a classic example), but the line is there, and and most of the time it's pretty clear when something crosses that line.
The problem is the LGBT parades draw as much from behavior and dress in places like strip clubs or BDSM dungeons, which are generally considered on the other side of the line.
Except they aren't, unless to you dancing in a bikini or posing in it is a fetish, in which case we should make all the beaches and pools either pg13 by forcing the burkini or stop taking children there.
Certain amount of exposure to nudity/semi-nudity is even good for children, prevents them from becoming puritanical idiots, but from there to butplugs and other debauchery that should remain in the bedroom of the degenerates that enjoy it well the distance is very big.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105209Second difference is that I don't think Mardi Gras is something done in broad day light and you have to go there. While the other degenerates go to your town.
I don't get the go there vs go to your town. To pick two well-known examples: both New Orleans Mardi Gras and San Francisco's Gay Pride are predominantly tourist events -- the out-of-towners overall outnumber the locals, even though there are a lot of locals who participate. It depends on where you live, but in both cases there are some participating locals and some opposed locals.
The daytime vs nighttime could be a real difference -- but I don't think it changes all that much. If a Gay Pride parade were to happen at night, would you be OK with it?
I'm curious to see where some people are drawing the line. It seems to me that it isn't about the amount of exposed flesh - because men wearing Speedos on the beach is apparently okay - but it is about some form of perceived 'flaunting of sexuality'.
If it's not a problem at a beach, than I don't think it's a problem at a parade. If there's a line to be drawn it seems it literally depends on how 'in your face' the bulge is.
Put another way, I think that since gay pride is associated with sex (specifically gay sex) and beaches are associated with play, people are 'less okay' with the same outfit in each.
I think that indicates a certain amount of discomfort with gay sexuality, and people are using 'near-nudity' as a hedge to avoid specifically confronting that they are uncomfortable with displays of gay pride.
I'm not opposed to scantily clad women, and I'm not opposed to scantily clad men. Even at a gay pride parade. I think that public indecency laws are pretty well accepted (and in the case of Mardi Gras, apparently female nipples are not considered indecent as an exception to the general rule) and are pretty easy to enforce.
If your position is 'I'm okay with a certain level of near-nudity, but when that exact same level is associated with a gay-pride event, I'm not', I think it's a fair question to ask if it's maybe the gay pride event that you're not okay with.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105218I'm curious to see where some people are drawing the line. It seems to me that it isn't about the amount of exposed flesh - because men wearing Speedos on the beach is apparently okay - but it is about some form of perceived 'flaunting of sexuality'.
Of course it is, and you know it. That's all it's ever been, and pretending otherwise is absurd.
Quote from: jhkim;1105214I don't get the go there vs go to your town. To pick two well-known examples: both New Orleans Mardi Gras and San Francisco's Gay Pride are predominantly tourist events -- the out-of-towners overall outnumber the locals, even though there are a lot of locals who participate. It depends on where you live, but in both cases there are some participating locals and some opposed locals.
The daytime vs nighttime could be a real difference -- but I don't think it changes all that much. If a Gay Pride parade were to happen at night, would you be OK with it?
I'm okey with pride parades at any time of day, it's about some stuff some of them do that I'm not okey with.
But to answer what I think you're asking, if they saved the debauchery for past 9pm I would have no problem with it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105218I'm curious to see where some people are drawing the line. It seems to me that it isn't about the amount of exposed flesh - because men wearing Speedos on the beach is apparently okay - but it is about some form of perceived 'flaunting of sexuality'.
If it's not a problem at a beach, than I don't think it's a problem at a parade. If there's a line to be drawn it seems it literally depends on how 'in your face' the bulge is.
Put another way, I think that since gay pride is associated with sex (specifically gay sex) and beaches are associated with play, people are 'less okay' with the same outfit in each.
I think that indicates a certain amount of discomfort with gay sexuality, and people are using 'near-nudity' as a hedge to avoid specifically confronting that they are uncomfortable with displays of gay pride.
I'm not opposed to scantily clad women, and I'm not opposed to scantily clad men. Even at a gay pride parade. I think that public indecency laws are pretty well accepted (and in the case of Mardi Gras, apparently female nipples are not considered indecent as an exception to the general rule) and are pretty easy to enforce.
If your position is 'I'm okay with a certain level of near-nudity, but when that exact same level is associated with a gay-pride event, I'm not', I think it's a fair question to ask if it's maybe the gay pride event that you're not okay with.
You disingenuous twat, it's the but plugs, the bdsm clothing and the evident sexual debauchery not about showing skin, and you know it but you want to call Doc Sammy (who is bisexual) an homophobe because you're the white straight savior and you can speak for us poor non-whites or non-straight people.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105211Except they aren't, unless to you dancing in a bikini or posing in it is a fetish...
Sure they are. Chainmail bikinis, for instance, are sexualized armor. Posing with your butt stuck up on a car is a form of sexuality. But so is a low cut dress. Or wearing sleeveless shirts to show off your biceps. Or lipstick, or cologne. You're stuck on the word "fetish", but that isn't where the boundary is normally drawn. A fetish is just a form of fairly explicit or strong sexuality, that's either uncommon or kept behind closed doors. Yes, it's usually for things that over the commonly accepted line, but there are all kinds of more mainstream forms of sexuality, that are generally considered unacceptable in most situations, but aren't really fetishes, like topless women, or men in speedos when not at the beach. It is very explicitly about sexuality, but it's lot more complex than just fetish yes/no?
Quote from: Pat;1105224Sure they are. Chainmail bikinis, for instance, are sexualized armor. Posing with your butt stuck up on a car is a form of sexuality. But so is a low cut dress. Or wearing sleeveless shirts to show off your biceps. Or lipstick, or cologne. You're stuck on the word "fetish", but that isn't where the boundary is normally drawn. A fetish is just a form of fairly explicit or strong sexuality, that's either uncommon or kept behind closed doors. Yes, it's usually for things that over the commonly accepted line, but there are all kinds of more mainstream forms of sexuality, that are generally considered unacceptable in most situations, but aren't really fetishes, like topless women, or men in speedos when not at the beach. It is very explicitly about sexuality, but it's lot more complex than just fetish yes/no?
Again, is it sexual? yes, is it something that should be verboten for kids to see? No, why you say? because Boot[h] babes aren't humping a pole or one another dressed as gimps with a but plug in their asses. One is low sexuality if you wish and the other should stay in the bedroom (or dungeon) of those who enjoy it.
Or to you erotica and porn are just the same?
We're a sexual species, many things are sexual, and if you don't want sexually neurotic SJWs or puritans of the mainstream religions then some exposure to low forms of sexualized conduct is okey, it normalizes it and prevents lots of problems. Shoving your dick (covered with a speedo or not) in someones ass or face isn't that chief.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105227Again, is it sexual?
Absolutely.
But you've missed my point. You're stating what you think should be on one side of the line, and what should be on the other, using specific terms like fetish or sexuality, as if they were binary and unamibiguous. I've been pointing out those are vague terms covering a very broad set of conditions of behaviors, and they don't really map to the line you're trying to define.
Quote from: Pat;1105229Absolutely.
But you've missed my point. You're stating what you think should be on one side of the line, and what should be on the other, using specific terms like fetish or sexuality, as if they were binary and unamibiguous. I've been pointing out those are vague terms covering a very broad set of conditions of behaviors, and they don't really map to the line you're trying to define.
Oh yes, they map very well, no humping, no but plugs, gimp suits etc? one side any of those? on the other side.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105231Oh yes, they map very well, no humping, no but plugs, gimp suits etc? one side any of those? on the other side.
No, they don't. Because eyeshadow is also sexuality, and bare tits aren't fetishes. Your examples make it reasonably clear where you draw the line, but asking whether they're sexual or fetishes do not.
I'm not sure whether a catwoman costume is the same as a fetish suit or not. It's not a question of it just being tight leather, apparently?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105235I'm not sure whether a catwoman costume is the same as a fetish suit or not. It's not a question of it just being tight leather, apparently?
Disingenuous twat. But plugs, gimp suits, not the same, and if you don't see a difference you need to stay away from geek conventions since you're a danger to others and yourself.
They're both fine. Am I the only who thinks that?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105195Have you ever been to a convention? Like, are you just saying it's context? Booth babes are fine in public, in front of minors but as soon as it is at an event that is related to sex and sexuality the exact same outfit becomes inappropriate?
I'm just trying to ascertain your position. I know that referring to male burkas was a deliberate mischaracterization, but there is a lot of 'not wearing pants' that is 'not fetish wear'. Ever hear of shorts?
Shorts are fine, but that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
GeekyBugle said it best. The difference between the booth babes and those pup play dudes is that the booth babes are not publicly performing sexual fetish acts in front of minors.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105168I think it's funny (and worth pointing out that it is hypocritical) to make fun of people because they're offended by something and then make a big deal about how you're offended by some other behavior and want it to stop.
Either getting offended is justified and you should try to lobby society to change to protect your delicate sensibilities or, if you think that you aren't entitled to be offended about someone else's choices that aren't about you at you, you should just be quiet.
I do think it is ridiculous to see people clutching their pearls and saying 'what about the children'!? When people do that, you really do have to call them pussies.
So are you maintaining a current address with the police as part of your sex offender registration? If I were in Knoxville, instead of southern Ohio can I assume I would recognize you from the postcards they send out when one of you sexual predators are prematurely released from prison and are allowed to move back in proximity to future victims?
Quote from: Crimhthan;1105247So are you maintaining a current address with the police as part of your sex offender registration? If I were in Knoxville, instead of southern Ohio can I assume I would recognize you from the postcards they send out when one of you sexual predators are prematurely released from prison and are allowed to move back in proximity to future victims?
Damn! I think Crimthan just laid the verbal smackdown on deadDMwalking with this one...
I think part of the problem with the LGBT community is the Millennial component of it doesn't really know about any of the actual dangers and hardships nor do they care. I've read articles about how AIDS is becoming far more prevalent again and mostly among Millennial gays, partly because the new retroviral drugs have made HIV less of a slow painful death sentence compared to how it was in the 80's and 90's. There is a legit concern that this risky behavior is going to create highly virulent and drug-resistant strains of HIV nowadays.
Between the risk of getting #MeToo'd by some vindictive woman or Super AIDS from some irresponsible man, I've now gone full "volcel" and just avoid sex and relationships altogether.
Of course, the SJW secular puritans will turn a blind eye to actual degeneracy when it's the fringe elements of the LGBT scene that's doing it.
The Millennial Left seems to be fine with tolerating open pedophilia or the AIDS pandemic getting a second wind in the Western world, but God forbid anyone sees an anime girl with large breasts wearing a bikini...
At least in the 1970's, I could understand the LGBT community being ultra-hedonistic. Nobody knew about HIV/AIDS and that whole pandemic was one of those black swan moments in history. The rampant sex and hookup culture was also a response to prior decades of oppression and repression as well as being part of a wider cultural zeitgeist in the 70's with "Free Love" and the Sexual Revolution.
Even back then, it was mostly an 18+ thing and while you had groups like NAMBLA trying to co-opt the movement for their own perverse ends, they were highly controversial at best and outright despised at worst.
One thing I noticed is that the early Pride events in the 70's were actually
more restrained than they are now, at least the ones that were held in public spaces. You really didn't see people performing sex acts or parading their fetish in the most blatant way possible. At most, you might have a few drag queens or butch lesbians or maybe some leather men who were wearing clothes that could actually be passed as off as biker gear to a casual observer. You didn't have pup play furries on leashes with their junk hanging out back then, at least not in the public parades.
Part of the reason was because the public Pride events were meant to show the straight community that LGBT people were often just normal everyday citizens just like anyone else and what consenting adults did in the privacy of their own homes was not the government's business.
Great to see such pure examples of cultural Marxism in action in a venue where it can be called out by the Sane.
Funny to see Doc Sammy as one of the Sane, but there you go!
As for those of you on the Alinskyite side, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you vile creatures.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105138We have indecency laws. If you're naked in most of the United States in public, you're subject to arrest and/or fine, even if you're at a gay pride event.
If the minimum standard is that a guy has a sock on his penis a la Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers, I don't have a problem with it.
For reference, the minimum standard in Knoxville is (http://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ae016.pdf):
Bondage gear? Fine. Just make sure that your chaps aren't assless.
You have that bookmarked because you wear assless chaps when you shit in public parks.
Nothing but ad hominems? I guess people aren't able to clearly articulate a difference between beachwear and inappropriate dress at a pride event.
Maybe it's fair to say that it isn't the clothing that's causing offense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105365Nothing but ad hominems? I guess people aren't able to clearly articulate a difference between beachwear and inappropriate dress at a pride event.
Maybe it's fair to say that it isn't the clothing that's causing offense.
Yes, it's not clothing (with certain obvious exceptions) but behavior that is the problem. When you behave in an overtly sexual way with children in public, you are certainly due for rightful criticism, particularly when more extreme aspects of the left are openly advocating for pedophilia to be normalized and considered a sexual preference rather than a deviant abomination.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105365Nothing but ad hominems? I guess people aren't able to clearly articulate a difference between beachwear and inappropriate dress at a pride event.
Maybe it's fair to say that it isn't the clothing that's causing offense.
Disingenuous twat, several times several people told you as much, maybe stop getting high on your own farts?
Quote from: shuddemell;1105367Yes, it's not clothing (with certain obvious exceptions) but behavior that is the problem. When you behave in an overtly sexual way with children in public, you are certainly due for rightful criticism, particularly when more extreme aspects of the left are openly advocating for pedophilia to be normalized and considered a sexual preference rather than a deviant abomination.
Doc Sammy, my self and others told him this several times, but he keeps trying to build a strawman he can beat.
Quote from: shuddemell;1105367Yes, it's not clothing (with certain obvious exceptions) but behavior that is the problem. When you behave in an overtly sexual way with children in public, you are certainly due for rightful criticism, particularly when more extreme aspects of the left are openly advocating for pedophilia to be normalized and considered a sexual preference rather than a deviant abomination.
I see extremely sexualized women at car shows. I've seen them at conventions. I don't have a problem with sexualized males (even homosexual ones). I've never accidentally gotten caught in a gay pride parade.
Gay pride is not equivalent to pedophilia. Adult males walking down the street during a pride event with other adult men on leashes is not equivalent to pedophilia. Gay men in camp dress with feathers, boas, and speedos is not equivalent to pedophilia.
As a society we do have limits on what you can reveal. There are more limits on women (beasts and nipples) then men. As a hetero Male, I've never had a problem with female sexuality - I'm all for it - but I refuse to support a double-standard because I'm not attracted to men. I can totally accept that it isn't for me.
And for those who think that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, it is not. In any situation where one party is an adult and the other is a minor, there's a huge power imbalance. Children cannot consent to a sexual relationship - sex with a minor is always rape. People tend to lump all of the things they find distasteful into a single bucket and call it 'gross' but pedophilia is also morally wrong and should be illegal and prosecuted fully. And considering that children are at a power imbalance, 'the system' needs to take any accusation of misconduct extremely seriously - even if there is no supporting physical evidence.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105365Nothing but ad hominems? I guess people aren't able to clearly articulate a difference between beachwear and inappropriate dress at a pride event.
Maybe it's fair to say that it isn't the clothing that's causing offense.
It would be more accurate to say that you don't know what you are talking about. Again. Did you even bother to read the ordinance you Googled and linked to?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105370Gay pride is not equivalent to pedophilia. Adult males walking down the street during a pride event with other adult men on leashes is not equivalent to pedophilia. Gay men in camp dress with feathers, boas, and speedos is not equivalent to pedophilia.
When they are exposing their junk in front of children and simulating sexual acts that is equivalent to pedophilia. Do you have a probation officer? Does that person know that you are out supporting the extremes of the LGBT++++ that are doing these things in front of children? Are you even allowed to be on the internet?
Yeah you pretty much can't defend people wearing fetish gear and having their junk out in PUBLIC and in front of CHILDREN. The booth babes have their privates covered up and are at special events. You got no ground to stand on deadDMwalking.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105370I see extremely sexualized women at car shows. I've seen them at conventions. I don't have a problem with sexualized males (even homosexual ones). I've never accidentally gotten caught in a gay pride parade.
Gay pride is not equivalent to pedophilia. Adult males walking down the street during a pride event with other adult men on leashes is not equivalent to pedophilia. Gay men in camp dress with feathers, boas, and speedos is not equivalent to pedophilia.
As a society we do have limits on what you can reveal. There are more limits on women (beasts and nipples) then men. As a hetero Male, I've never had a problem with female sexuality - I'm all for it - but I refuse to support a double-standard because I'm not attracted to men. I can totally accept that it isn't for me.
And for those who think that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, it is not. In any situation where one party is an adult and the other is a minor, there's a huge power imbalance. Children cannot consent to a sexual relationship - sex with a minor is always rape. People tend to lump all of the things they find distasteful into a single bucket and call it 'gross' but pedophilia is also morally wrong and should be illegal and prosecuted fully. And considering that children are at a power imbalance, 'the system' needs to take any accusation of misconduct extremely seriously - even if there is no supporting physical evidence.
I never equated homosexuality with pedophilia. I said that sexual behavior with children in public is an issue, it would be with heterosexual folk too. I have no axe to grind with LGBT folks in general, but I wouldn't accept that behavior, straight or gay, with children in public. It's demented, crass, and way beyond smaller children's ability to make any real sense of. Now, I know what goes on at both Mardi Gras and Gay Pride Parades, and if I had children, there's no way we are going to either. So the parents are at least as responsible as the parade participants, but (and I don't mean an assless chaps butt) people used to have the common decency to keep their sexuality a little more subdued in the company of children and they still should.
I guess he's fine with the small boys dressed as twinks, since it's 'just clothing'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105370I see extremely sexualized women at car shows. I've seen them at conventions. I don't have a problem with sexualized males (even homosexual ones). I've never accidentally gotten caught in a gay pride parade.
The difference being the Insectionalist Jihadists like yourself (despite your supposed personal opinions) have campaigned and have been very successful at having the practice of having ring girls, models at car shows and booth babes ended. Typical intersectional jihadist double standard.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105370I see extremely sexualized women at car shows. I've seen them at conventions. I don't have a problem with sexualized males (even homosexual ones). I've never accidentally gotten caught in a gay pride parade.
Gay pride is not equivalent to pedophilia. Adult males walking down the street during a pride event with other adult men on leashes is not equivalent to pedophilia. Gay men in camp dress with feathers, boas, and speedos is not equivalent to pedophilia.
As a society we do have limits on what you can reveal. There are more limits on women (beasts and nipples) then men. As a hetero Male, I've never had a problem with female sexuality - I'm all for it - but I refuse to support a double-standard because I'm not attracted to men. I can totally accept that it isn't for me.
And for those who think that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, it is not. In any situation where one party is an adult and the other is a minor, there's a huge power imbalance. Children cannot consent to a sexual relationship - sex with a minor is always rape. People tend to lump all of the things they find distasteful into a single bucket and call it 'gross' but pedophilia is also morally wrong and should be illegal and prosecuted fully. And considering that children are at a power imbalance, 'the system' needs to take any accusation of misconduct extremely seriously - even if there is no supporting physical evidence.
No one ever equated gay pride to pedophilia in this thread and you know it.
Also, I find it interesting that a straight dude like you can speak on behalf of the LGBT community better than an actual queer dude like myself can.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105441No one ever equated gay pride to pedophilia in this thread and you know it.
Also, I find it interesting that a straight dude like you can speak on behalf of the LGBT community better than an actual queer dude like myself can.
It's "The Straight Man's Burden".
And when he speaks on behalf on non-whites it's "The White Man's Burden".
In other words he, as a Progressive WSM is superior to all of those who aren't and he can't help it.
I have mentioned this before, but here's my general view on this.
My wife and I once lived in the gay village of Montreal (it was cheap), and so most my neighbors were gay. They seemed to like us, and we liked many of them. But sometimes it was a bit awkward, e.g. when I asked to use the bathroom in a cafe, and they were showing hardcore gay porn on the screens in there. But whatever. I don't throw a tantrum or make a stink over such things, nor do I feel the need to complain to the authorities. Whatever floats their boat and doesn't hurt anyone is fine. I don't mess with other people's preferences. SO I EXPECT THAT OTHERS DON'T MESS WITH MINE. SJWs in some other places I have lived have been a constant pain, especially to straight guys like myself. Guys who like, I don't know, Tilted Kilt or booth babes or whatever are "toxic". In one place I lived feminists were campaigning to make strip clubs illegal etc etc. Because reasons. I find that people who love to point out the "problematic" content in games are much the same. If I like games or comics featuring hot women, then others should leave that alone. It hurts nobody (seriously). I don't usually swear, but SJWs, please f**k off.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105449It's "The Straight Man's Burden".
And when he speaks on behalf on non-whites it's "The White Man's Burden".
In other words he, as a Progressive WSM is superior to all of those who aren't and he can't help it.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Despite being at the bottom of the Progressive Stack, deadDMwalking thinks he's hot shit and doesn't realize that the Progressive Stack is a crock of shit and Intersectionality is a dangerous cult-like ideology that needed to be stopped a long time ago.
When it comes to the rhetoric of the Millennial Left, always remember what a wise man once said...
"It's all bullshit and it's bad for you."
-George Carlin
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105441No one ever equated gay pride to pedophilia in this thread and you know it.
Quote from: shuddemell;1105367Yes, it's not clothing (with certain obvious exceptions) but behavior that is the problem. When you behave in an overtly sexual way with children in public, you are certainly due for rightful criticism, particularly when more extreme aspects of the left are openly advocating for pedophilia to be normalized and considered a sexual preference rather than a deviant abomination.
Quote from: Doc Sammy;1105441Also, I find it interesting that a straight dude like you can speak on behalf of the LGBT community better than an actual queer dude like myself can.
I'm only speaking on behalf of myself. As a straight dude, I don't mind people (male or female) wearing skimpy outfits.
Originally the accusation against gay-pride participants is that they were wearing 'fetish wear' in public. It sounds like people are now claiming that there are swinging dicks and actual sexual acts taking place - that's not something I've ever seen happen and not something I expect. Walking around like a dog isn't 'disgusting' even if it's not 'my bag'. I don't mind my children seeing people 'playing that they're puppies' - my kids would only think it's weird that adults are pretending to be dogs because usually that's a game they play with kids - not something they expect to see from adults.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105466I'm only speaking on behalf of myself. As a straight dude, I don't mind people (male or female) wearing skimpy outfits.
Originally the accusation against gay-pride participants is that they were wearing 'fetish wear' in public. It sounds like people are now claiming that there are swinging dicks and actual sexual acts taking place - that's not something I've ever seen happen and not something I expect. Walking around like a dog isn't 'disgusting' even if it's not 'my bag'. I don't mind my children seeing people 'playing that they're puppies' - my kids would only think it's weird that adults are pretending to be dogs because usually that's a game they play with kids - not something they expect to see from adults.
"Look how tolerant I am!"
Get some help.
I've been at the West Hollywood Halloween event many times, and you can find extremely sexual costumes and behavior, especially later in the evening when nobody expects kids to be around and the drinks have been flowing. The BDSM / fetish / public sex aspect of gay culture isn't for children and no gay man I've met has supported exposing children to that.
Unfortunately, the "Alphabet Community" has been pushing for the acceptance of pedophilia, especially through the "love is love" and "love knows no age" slogans attached with the push for "transgender" children to make adult decisions. The gay guys I know are worried this trans / pedo idiocy is going to empower a nasty backlash. I agree with them and suggested the G-dudes distance themselves from the rest of the letters before the shit hits the fan. If they don't loudly denounce nonsense like "Desmond is Amazing" and "Child Molester Library Story Hour", then the social gains made by gays, bi and lesbians are gonna be fucked by the freakshow and their SJW "allies".
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105502I've been at the West Hollywood Halloween event many times, and you can find extremely sexual costumes and behavior, especially later in the evening when nobody expects kids to be around and the drinks have been flowing. The BDSM / fetish / public sex aspect of gay culture isn't for children and no gay man I've met has supported exposing children to that.
Unfortunately, the "Alphabet Community" has been pushing for the acceptance of pedophilia, especially through the "love is love" and "love knows no age" slogans attached with the push for "transgender" children to make adult decisions. The gay guys I know are worried this trans / pedo idiocy is going to empower a nasty backlash. I agree with them and suggested the G-dudes distance themselves from the rest of the letters before the shit hits the fan. If they don't loudly denounce nonsense like "Desmond is Amazing" and "Child Molester Library Story Hour", then the social gains made by gays, bi and lesbians are gonna be fucked by the freakshow and their SJW "allies".
THIS GUY FUCKING GETS IT!!!I know I say it far too many times, but it's true.
As a bisexual male, I've pretty much been staying the fuck out of the "Alphabet" community and I'm sort of keeping a fair distance from any Pride events or anything like that.
Currently, I'm going the extra mile and going full "volcel" (voluntary celibate) for personal safety reasons. The weird part about that is a couple of days after I made that choice, a guy I'm friends with hit me up online for a hook up and trust me, it was tempting but I politely turned his offer down.
Even if I'm practicing safe sex (and I always do), I still don't want to get involved in any casual hookup messes for emotional reasons.
In the case of hetero encounters, it's to also avoid getting the #MeToo treatment because I somehow picked the wrong woman to sleep with.
Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly strike up a platonic friendship with someone of either gender if we have common ground but I'm avoiding any form of sex or romance for the time being.
Besides, I need to focus on improving my own personal life anyway.
Doc Sammy, I agree you need to focus on improving your own life. That's crucial for your long term success and happiness.
However, the volcel stuff isn't healthy because the freaks represent a tiny minority of people. The vast majority don't subscribe to SJW bullshit and keeping your eyes wide open, using common sense and a dash of wariness will let you navigate the dating scene with minimal drama. The important "skill" you need is to be aware of warning signs and then cleanly walking away from drama queens (both male and female).
I fully acknowledge dating is harder, trickier (and more bizarre) in many ways in this age of social media, but its still worth the effort.
You're a young man. Be safe, be smart and have fun.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105466Originally the accusation against gay-pride participants is that they were wearing 'fetish wear' in public. It sounds like people are now claiming that there are swinging dicks and actual sexual acts taking place - that's not something I've ever seen happen and not something I expect. Walking around like a dog isn't 'disgusting' even if it's not 'my bag'. I don't mind my children seeing people 'playing that they're puppies' - my kids would only think it's weird that adults are pretending to be dogs because usually that's a game they play with kids - not something they expect to see from adults.
No the issue is the left have no problem with men in sexualised clothing in public places but they have a problem with and campaigned against women in sexualised clothing in public places.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105510Doc Sammy, I agree you need to focus on improving your own life. That's crucial for your long term success and happiness.
However, the volcel stuff isn't healthy because the freaks represent a tiny minority of people. The vast majority don't subscribe to SJW bullshit and keeping your eyes wide open, using common sense and a dash of wariness will let you navigate the dating scene with minimal drama. The important "skill" you need is to be aware of warning signs and then cleanly walking away from drama queens (both male and female).
I fully acknowledge dating is harder, trickier (and more bizarre) in many ways in this age of social media, but its still worth the effort.
You're a young man. Be safe, be smart and have fun.
I will have fun, but the SJW stuff is only part of why I'm temporarily swearing off sex and romance.
The main reason is because I need to stay focused on self-improvement right now and I don't want to bog myself down with distractions and complications, so a full-blown relationship might not be the best thing for me right now.
I might revise my policy on casual hookups, but even then I'll be playing it safe.
Quote from: Gagarth;1105566No the issue is the left have no problem with men in sexualised clothing in public places but they have a problem with and campaigned against women in sexualised clothing in public places.
I'd like to take this opportunity to examine this situation in detail. Before I do, let me repost my first comment in this thread.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1090446Personally, I have no problem with women choosing to be scantily clad. Wear what you want - including nothing - and I'm fine with it. There's no outfit (or lack of one) that gives someone permission to touch or assault you.
And if women choose to wear chainmail bikinis, that's fine.
But in fantasy ART, I prefer armor that looks functional. A woman can be sexy and still be armored. Or ditch the armor - if you're not going to cover your dangly bits, why not wear something that chafes less?
In my quote, I talk about 'choice'. If a woman
chooses to be scantily clad (or a man for that matter), there's nothing to be said against it. Lots of women make a conscious choice to wear sexualized clothing in public places.
There's a big difference between a free choice and a
compelled choice. I happen to work in an office environment that is not directly customer facing, and a couple of years ago they went to 'jeans casual' outside of special events which are publicized well in advance. I don't have any reason to complain for myself. But if I got a job at a mall food court and the
expectation was that I wear Sean Connery's Zardoz outfit while I make your frozen lemonade, I would have a problem with that. It would be a highly sexualized outfit
that I'm uncomfortable with and that
I'm being forced to wear that isn't directly related to my job duties.
That's very different.
Now, ring girls, cheer leaders, booth babes etc are absolutely fine. If they're
required to wear a highly sexualized outfit, that can make patrons uncomfortable - part of your admission fee is encouraging that. If you don't WANT it, you should probably let the people putting on the event that you'd prefer not to have it. There are lots of cheer uniforms that aren't highly sexualized; it's possible to have something without it becoming an uncomfortable and exploitive commercial relationship.
Taken further, we know that everybody needs a job. If I'm in the position of hiring someone, I obviously want someone that will work as hard as possible. If that person is also willing to provide sexual favors to show how willing they are to do more than the others, wouldn't that seem okay?
The problem is that people shouldn't have to provide those types of favors, and if it is acceptable that SOME people do, than ONLY people who do are likely to get good paying jobs. As a society we set limits on how much an individual can be exploited, not only for for
their benefit, but
primarily for the benefit of people who are competing with them for those jobs or other opportunities. Now, you can draw the line where ever you think is reasonable, but you can't DENY that there is a line. For some people the line is overt sexual acts; for others it is related to 'sexualizing' the uniform.
There are places where you expect to find nude or near-nude women for your entertainment and benefit (strip clubs, etc), and places where you don't (like supermarkets). If the Kroger decided that female cashiers had to be topless, I'd have a problem with it. While on the one hand I wouldn't mind being surrounded by topless women (and in fact, I might enjoy it), the fact that I would consider it EXPLOITIVE ruins it completely.
Allowing people to wear what they want (even if it is highly sexualized) is
different from
making people wear an outfit that is highly sexualized.
I'm surprised that wasn't obvious to you, but I'm glad I could clarify.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105579I'd like to take this opportunity to examine this situation in detail. Before I do, let me repost my first comment in this thread.
In my quote, I talk about 'choice'. If a woman chooses to be scantily clad (or a man for that matter), there's nothing to be said against it. Lots of women make a conscious choice to wear sexualized clothing in public places.
There's a big difference between a free choice and a compelled choice. I happen to work in an office environment that is not directly customer facing, and a couple of years ago they went to 'jeans casual' outside of special events which are publicized well in advance. I don't have any reason to complain for myself. But if I got a job at a mall food court and the expectation was that I wear Sean Connery's Zardoz outfit while I make your frozen lemonade, I would have a problem with that. It would be a highly sexualized outfit that I'm uncomfortable with and that I'm being forced to wear that isn't directly related to my job duties.
That's very different.
Now, ring girls, cheer leaders, booth babes etc are absolutely fine. If they're required to wear a highly sexualized outfit, that can make patrons uncomfortable - part of your admission fee is encouraging that. If you don't WANT it, you should probably let the people putting on the event that you'd prefer not to have it. There are lots of cheer uniforms that aren't highly sexualized; it's possible to have something without it becoming an uncomfortable and exploitive commercial relationship.
Taken further, we know that everybody needs a job. If I'm in the position of hiring someone, I obviously want someone that will work as hard as possible. If that person is also willing to provide sexual favors to show how willing they are to do more than the others, wouldn't that seem okay?
The problem is that people shouldn't have to provide those types of favors, and if it is acceptable that SOME people do, than ONLY people who do are likely to get good paying jobs. As a society we set limits on how much an individual can be exploited, not only for for their benefit, but primarily for the benefit of people who are competing with them for those jobs or other opportunities. Now, you can draw the line where ever you think is reasonable, but you can't DENY that there is a line. For some people the line is overt sexual acts; for others it is related to 'sexualizing' the uniform.
There are places where you expect to find nude or near-nude women for your entertainment and benefit (strip clubs, etc), and places where you don't (like supermarkets). If the Kroger decided that female cashiers had to be topless, I'd have a problem with it. While on the one hand I wouldn't mind being surrounded by topless women (and in fact, I might enjoy it), the fact that I would consider it EXPLOITIVE ruins it completely.
Allowing people to wear what they want (even if it is highly sexualized) is different from making people wear an outfit that is highly sexualized.
I'm surprised that wasn't obvious to you, but I'm glad I could clarify.
This isn't even an argument, it's just total trash. If you get hired as a ring girl, by definition you CHOSE to wear whatever attire they require. Or are you insinuating people are kidnapping random broads and forcing them into skimpy outfits so they can hold up signs at ring-side?
Dude, seriously, you are a fucking moron.
Quote from: Brad;1105588This isn't even an argument, it's just total trash. If you get hired as a ring girl, by definition you CHOSE to wear whatever attire they require. Or are you insinuating people are kidnapping random broads and forcing them into skimpy outfits so they can hold up signs at ring-side?
Dude, seriously, you are a fucking moron.
To the woke morons (so all the trully woke) women lack agency, so they can never choose to pose nude, make porn, etc. Also they are (contrary to what dDMw claims) each and every one of them sexually repressed puritans.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105579I'd like to take this opportunity to examine this situation in detail. Before I do, let me repost my first comment in this thread.
In my quote, I talk about 'choice'. If a woman chooses to be scantily clad (or a man for that matter), there's nothing to be said against it. Lots of women make a conscious choice to wear sexualized clothing in public places.
There's a big difference between a free choice and a compelled choice. I happen to work in an office environment that is not directly customer facing, and a couple of years ago they went to 'jeans casual' outside of special events which are publicized well in advance. I don't have any reason to complain for myself. But if I got a job at a mall food court and the expectation was that I wear Sean Connery's Zardoz outfit while I make your frozen lemonade, I would have a problem with that. It would be a highly sexualized outfit that I'm uncomfortable with and that I'm being forced to wear that isn't directly related to my job duties.
That's very different.
Now, ring girls, cheer leaders, booth babes etc are absolutely fine. If they're required to wear a highly sexualized outfit, that can make patrons uncomfortable - part of your admission fee is encouraging that. If you don't WANT it, you should probably let the people putting on the event that you'd prefer not to have it. There are lots of cheer uniforms that aren't highly sexualized; it's possible to have something without it becoming an uncomfortable and exploitive commercial relationship.
Taken further, we know that everybody needs a job. If I'm in the position of hiring someone, I obviously want someone that will work as hard as possible. If that person is also willing to provide sexual favors to show how willing they are to do more than the others, wouldn't that seem okay?
The problem is that people shouldn't have to provide those types of favors, and if it is acceptable that SOME people do, than ONLY people who do are likely to get good paying jobs. As a society we set limits on how much an individual can be exploited, not only for for their benefit, but primarily for the benefit of people who are competing with them for those jobs or other opportunities. Now, you can draw the line where ever you think is reasonable, but you can't DENY that there is a line. For some people the line is overt sexual acts; for others it is related to 'sexualizing' the uniform.
There are places where you expect to find nude or near-nude women for your entertainment and benefit (strip clubs, etc), and places where you don't (like supermarkets). If the Kroger decided that female cashiers had to be topless, I'd have a problem with it. While on the one hand I wouldn't mind being surrounded by topless women (and in fact, I might enjoy it), the fact that I would consider it EXPLOITIVE ruins it completely.
Allowing people to wear what they want (even if it is highly sexualized) is different from making people wear an outfit that is highly sexualized.
I'm surprised that wasn't obvious to you, but I'm glad I could clarify.
Feminism the radical concept that women are children.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1105590To the woke morons (so all the trully woke) women lack agency, so they can never choose to pose nude, make porn, etc. Also they are (contrary to what dDMw claims) each and every one of them sexually repressed puritans.
I am all in favor of women choosing to pose nude, and I'm in favor of women being able to choose sex work.
Sometimes, though, the nature of that type of work
can be exploitive. People who are starving don't really have a choice if the only work they're offered is sex work; people aren't going to starve. There is no issue with a woman
choosing that life, but there the possibility that people will be denied opportunities at every other point that it ceases to be a choice. Especially where prostitution is illegal, most women didn't really choose it - it was the end result of a lot of bad options. There are good documentaries about this.
As a result, I am in favor of legalized prostitution. I think that criminalizing it removes societal support from people that need it - it's hard to report you're the victim of a crime if you have to admit that you were committing a crime at the same time. I also think that if prostitution were fully legal, there would be people who choose that as a career, and I think that's fine.
You appear to have fucked your strawman to death.
OK, so regarding ring girls -- I definitely don't see it as the place of government to regulate costumes like these. I approve of such costumes in many circumstances - dance, theater, etc. I've been in local dance and theater shows, for example, that had skimpy costumes.
I'm personally put off, though, by arbitrarily sticking sexy women into promotion for stuff that's completely unrelated. Like with booth babes -- I find it condescending and stupid for the promotion of some kind of tech product. If you want to sell me a tech product, have advertising that shows that the product is good. Expecting me to come drooling over and buy shit because of booth babes feels like the sellers are treating me like an idiot.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1105592I am all in favor of women choosing to pose nude, and I'm in favor of women being able to choose sex work.
Sometimes, though, the nature of that type of work can be exploitive. People who are starving don't really have a choice if the only work they're offered is sex work; people aren't going to starve.
I'm similar about sex work. Even when legal - like in the case of porn - the stories I hear through friends is overwhelmingly full of exploitation like lying, using people's addictions, deceptive contracts, and more. Even if people aren't literally starving, it's possible for an employer to exploit them. For example, a friend described an erotic film he was working on where the lead actresses' boyfriend had pressured her into the work - seemingly with a back deal from the producer. That's incredibly scummy.
Even though in principle I think sex work should be legal and an available choice, it's a cause I'm very ambivalent about.
Quote from: jhkim;1105607I'm similar about sex work. Even when legal - like in the case of porn - the stories I hear through friends is overwhelmingly full of exploitation like lying, using people's addictions, deceptive contracts, and more. Even if people aren't literally starving, it's possible for an employer to exploit them. For example, a friend described an erotic film he was working on where the lead actresses' boyfriend had pressured her into the work - seemingly with a back deal from the producer. That's incredibly scummy.
I suspect this is more a porn/prostitution thing than a Hooters/booth babe thing.
Quote from: S'mon;1105611I suspect this is more a porn/prostitution thing than a Hooters/booth babe thing.
Yes. I was responding to deadDMwalking's comment about sex work.
My comments about booth babes were in a separate section earlier.
Quote from: jhkim;1105615Yes. I was responding to deadDMwalking's comment .
Probably best not to do that. :p
Quote from: S'mon;1105619Probably best not to do that. :p
I know you're joking, but I gotta give deadDMwalking credit and kudos for posting here.
The joke is here he's a "total SJW", but I bet he'd be one step from deplorable on RPG.net.
Quote from: jhkim;1105607OK, so regarding ring girls -- I definitely don't see it as the place of government to regulate costumes like these. I approve of such costumes in many circumstances - dance, theater, etc. I've been in local dance and theater shows, for example, that had skimpy costumes.
I must admit that it does seem strange to me to be worried about what ring girls are wearing when, between the rounds of ring girls, there are two guys trying to give each other maximum brain damage for as long as they can.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1105677I know you're joking, but I gotta give deadDMwalking credit and kudos for posting here.
The joke is here he's a "total SJW", but I bet he'd be one step from deplorable on RPG.net.
I just think it's funny that JHKim is the one on the 'right' between the two!
Quote from: Shasarak;1105686I must admit that it does seem strange to me to be worried about what ring girls are wearing when, between the rounds of ring girls, there are two guys trying to give each other maximum brain damage for as long as they can.
Your facts offend me!!