Alex Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Don't you already wear sandals Rog? Whenever I read your posts I always have this vision of you wearing shorts with white socks underneath brown leather sandals for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Don't you already wear sandals Rog? Whenever I read your posts I always have this vision of you wearing shorts with white socks underneath brown leather sandals for some reason. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL! Nah. It's Clair who wears the trousers in THIS house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Yeah, I'd agree she's gone too far on some things too, but that doesn't make all her reasoning flawed. I agree, but you can't blame people for branding her a nutter and discounting everything she says. It's the same here with Vader, PK and Rog ps, brace yourself, my wife n kids are going to hit your shop today to get me an extra ticket for tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 i love how the argument is entirely based on the protection of women. "women become objects" et al. what about the men? are they exalted? are they held in some high esteem, because theyre in a porn film? not in my experience. youll see what you want to see. a feminist, might look and see violence and degredation, whereas an "ordinary" guy might look and see entertainment. i look and see sex, which is a good thing in my opinion, cant imagine im alone with that. theres an equivaslent amount of "porn" dedicated to the humiliation of men, but you dont hear us bleating about it, do you? i suggest sand should be washed out of vaginas, sticks should be oulled out of asses, and people should step back, breathe deep, and say "oh yeah, i dont like porn, that means i dont have to watch it, ill let other people live their lives, and ill stop being a curtain twitching, meddling ratbag" simple, really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 Women and kids are the principle victims of porn inspired crime, why therefore should the emphasis NOT be on the impact on them of pornographic inspired crime? In any case when I’ve seen porn of all kinds over the years from ‘snuff’ movies (and they really ARE sick) through to what is wrongly termed porn but is actually simply people engaging in sex, apart from the straightforward ‘decent’ voyeuristic sort of stuff I see denigration of women frequently being either the dominant or at least the background theme. Of porn, real porn, didn’t influence or even in some cases motivate principle men to commit crime or otherwise denigrate women, kids, animals, and in some cases birds and even (God help us) plants, then I could at least acquiesce with the idea of it being a case of if I don’t want to watch it then I don’t need to but it is not. Porn, real porn, corrupts. It is the real porn, the obscene stuff, that should be addressed and disposed of. After all, if what we watch didn’t have an effect upon our behaviour would business corporations and others bother spending billions on advertising ----.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted September 2, 2005 Share Posted September 2, 2005 I agree, but you can't blame people for branding her a nutter and discounting everything she says. It's the same here with Vader, PK and Rog <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On the contrary, people should be wary of branding anyone a nutter as you so nicely put it. You should also be wary of discounting carefully constructed scholarly works. I may be wrong, but I would conjecture you have never read, never mind attempted to understand any of the works you are so ready to discount. The problem facing anyone who dares to say something counter to the (male) norm ..is that she will very quickly find herself demonised, branded a lunatic or marginalised. This is the power of discourse and those people, you would seek to discount, made a substantial contribution to understanding discourse, particularly the discourse which posits women as socially inferior to men. It isnt generally necessary to agree with academic opinions but we should at least acknowledge impeccably crafted work when it is presented to us .. and give it the respect of a reasoned response .... not a normative driven knee jerk please .. you are just providing supporting evidence for the arguments you discount ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 No I've not read her work. I've read about it enough to summerise that her views are extremist nonsense and I'm not prepared to give up any more of my time to her notions. Women who are battered should have the right to kill their batterer? That's a sane and balanced view is it? I don't give a damn if you think this reaction is because of any male establishment, it isn't. I don't give a damn what sex she is, but being beaten up by someone doesn't automatically give you the right to kill them. And the other witterings, that men think all women that are outside at night are sluts and open for abuse. That men use the night to go out and hunt women like prey. This is the kind of feminism that really feks me off, that's not equality, that's anti men. It's all rot, and it's all one sided rot. Women go after men as much as men go after women. Why is it ok when women target a man for sex? I think the biggest thing that the radical femenist misses is that there's not a single objective that defines an encounter, real life is more complicated than that. Men don't just want sex. Women don't just want companionship. Just because you find someone attractive and would quite like to give them one, doesn't mean you don't also want to get to know them better or have any kind of respect or admiration for them in ways other than sexual. And when you read other social studies that attempt to explain the complexities of attraction and desire, which include physical influences, social influences, smell, all sorts of stuff, it just throws the radical femenist stuff as wide of the mark. It's all far too black and white and blanket for me, and back on thread 'all porn is a violation of womens civil rights' simply isn't true. Some is perhaps, but not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 No I've not read her work. I've read about it enough to summerise that her views are extremist nonsense and I'm not prepared to give up any more of my time to her notions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, Im sorry Slim but .. 1: you arent in a position to criticise her as you dont know what she is trying to say. ( you havent read her work) 2: I have read some of her work but I have never studied any of it. However, and based solely on my intermittant and lightweight reading, I have seen no evidence of man hating ..indeed she wrote assertively that the notion of biological supremacy was a nonsense ... and I have also seen no evidence she desired a gynocentric society. I really dont understand how anyone can criticise another person for their ideas when they themselves have absolutely no idea, let alone alone understanding, of what those ideas are. My own position is that .. I have read some of her works and I recognise the quality of her research and arguments ... but I do not agree with the conclusions she draws. ...Isnt that a more reasoned and calmer approach than your own ? Think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Didn't you see the examples of her quotes that I posted? What I'm saying is, I feel its reasonable to discount somones entire work based on nosensicle extracts. I've no time to read the whole lot if the highlights are bollocks. See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Didn't you see the examples of her quotes that I posted? What I'm saying is, I feel its reasonable to discount somones entire work based on nosensicle extracts. I've no time to read the whole lot if the highlights are bollocks. See? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I dont see ... but lets not get hung up on that As for the nonsensical extracts ... they make a lot more sense when they are read in the context which the author intended ... for example she considered men used their penis as weapons against women ... this wasnt intended to be understood as a literal .... she was dealing with discourse and attempting to analyse it. .. lets not get hung up on that either ... Im sure there are much more important things to debate Very interesting though, in this forum, how many folk have bothered to post in this thread ..the international news isnt usually so well supported .. I wonder why that is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn It used to be such an embarrassing word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 For who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survivor Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Personally I don't have a problem with porn - infact, sometimes I kinda like it. But I have to disagree with you BM when you say that it's degrading for women. I'm sure there are some films that look as though the woman isn't enjoying it, and personally I don't find those ones a turn on, but I do think the women are only "acting" (and i mean that in the loosest term ) and therefore don't see the problem. I have also seen films where the woman is the dominant one, so how can that be degrading? I think the time and energy should be spent more on getting rid of the child porn on the internet and the kiddie fiddlers who watch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.