Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Hurvart
Imagine a professional model helping a big corporation sell one of the most popular products in the world. She is very proud and other models and women that would like to become models envy her. Men admire her... She earns more money than most people can dream about. She is happy and feels she is very lucky... How can it be a problem? Its not a problem for her...

 

But there are real problems. Like women working in factorys getting payed less than men doing the same job. That cant afford to live and eat properly. And in some parts of the world women have almost no rights at all. Not even basic human rights. Fathers, brothers and husbands beat them every day. They are not allowed to own property or to drive a car.. I think it is way more important to focus on that. The model earning millions is not suffering....

I actually care about womens rights. But I think all this talk about objectification, sexualisation and models is unimportant. And wrong...

 

---

 

Why do you think those other women are beaten, paid less than men, and devalued?

Not because of models and the corporations they are working for.  The problems are much older than that. The first priority is to try to make sure human rights are respected everywhere. And that means equal rights for men and women. The fight for those rights has not even started in most of the world. And it must... Trying to stop corporations from using sexy models to help them sell products will not help. It is a waste of time and effort.

Oh you silly humans.

---

Originally posted by Cinatrot
Oh you silly humans.

 

---

I know right?

Still, that dragon is hot!

Originally posted by Nailzzz

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz
Ah how cute. I love when people get all indignant about this subject. Yes of course i was serious. the fact that you didnt dispute any of my points, just my conclusion, would indicate you are well aware of this even if you refuse to admit it. But ill do you the favor of disputing your points to show that i am in fact serious.

---

 

Ok. I'll dispute your points.

 

---

At least in the US we have more female voters than we do male ones, and yet somehow we still wind up with male presidents.

---

Electing women to office doesn't fix anything. This isn't about having the same power and influence as a man. Its not about taking over. Its about mutual respect and inclusion. Its about abolishing dominance and oppression.

 

Well, first off good luck on abolishing such commonplace human behaviour. While i dont like to encourage such behaviour the idea that you believe it is an attainable goal to eradicate it entirely scares me. What measures would you be looking to utilize? Attempting to suppress human behaviour to the point of abolishing it seems like it would run the risk of being, well, Oppressive.

---

Most CEO's are male despite that most discretionary spending is done by women giving them much influence as a group over which businesses succed or fail.

---

Source? This doesn't have anything to do with objectification so I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway. That women have power because they spend money? Show me where women drive the spending market. They don't. But that point is irrelevant anyway.

 

     Source for women doing the vast majority of discretionary spending? How about every commercial add agency in existence. But this seems like a good source since you require one. http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women Now im not sure why you think this point is irrelevant. The ability to control economics is not without its perks in influencing the behaviours in others. Seems incredibly shortsighted to think its of no use. If women continue to use there vast amounts of wealth to support businesses that engage in objectification in its marketing then they have influenced them to continue to do so. If they instead choose to support other businesses instead then the objectification in advertising would likely stop. Hardly seems irrelevant to me.

 

 

---

Most men in jail were raised by their single mothers despite claiming to be victims of males (who really victimized who?).

---

Patriarchy is participated by women as well as men. This isn't about men v women.

 

      I never claimed this was men vs. women. This was illustrating a cycle. Patriarchy doesnt try to convince women to go be single mothers. It actually took a pretty dim view of single motherhood so im not clear on how you can blame this on patriarchy. Most patriarichal societies seemed to acknowledge that mothers are an integral part of a family and are not actually that big on encouraging fathers abandoning thier children. They did have penalties for this sort of behaviour though much like today not enough to stop it entirely.

 

 

---

Women claim to want nice guys, but then sleep with men of selfish charachter rather than any genuinely nice guys they know, and then wonder why guys are jerks. Women get pregnant and choose to keep the child because they want something to love them, despite that they may hate thier own parents.

---

So instead of trying to figure out why this happens, you use it as a reason to label women as screwed up. Why are these women you're referring to acting this way?

     I do find it funny that despite that i used 2 different negatives to describe the male participants(selfish, jerks), you instead choose to focus entirely on how the women are depicted. As for the reasons that women act this way, i wont insult them by pretending to know or understand why. Im just pointing out an obvious contradiction in motivation vs action which is surprisingly typical.

Your last paragraph dismisses patriarchy because you claim women have the power to influence and control just as much as a man. They do. And they participate in patriarchy as well. This isn't about men vs women. Its about society as a whole and the roles of oppression that we play in them.     

 

---

When i watch television and movies you know what i see? I see lots of graphic scenes of death casually handled like its every day involving men. Hard to be much more helpless than dead. Anytime you see a movie or tv show with a woman's death scene, it is usually a very dramatic meaningful affair. Where as most of the on screen deaths involving men are sometimes even played up for comic relief at times if given any meaning at all outside of a main charachters death.

---

Why do you think when a woman on tv or film is killed it is usually a dramatic, meaningful affair? Because we as a society view women as helpless. As a creature that cannot fend for themselves. We have this thrown at us constantly to the point where we no longer see them as equal, but as fragile beings that need our protection. And why wouldn't they? We live in a world where women are sexually objectified for profit. To sell anything. They are dehumanized in order to sell a product. It is a fact that when we dehumanize someone or something, it is easier for us to act out in violence against it.

 

          Actually we portray any misfortune that befalls a women as more dramatic and meaningful because we give more weight to thier humanity than we do to men. Truth is we simply care more about women as a society. What you see as evidence of us treating women as lesser is actually evidence of the opposite. We value women. We do not tend to value men until they have shown some value on thier own behalf that makes us care about them. A man's value is not inherent. This is why we have so little problem sending men off to die in wars. This is why when a woman does die tragically in a war, we focus all the attention on her death with nary a mention of the 100's of guys who died with her. Your right though. We dont treat women as equals of men in this society. To do that would be a demotion to women.

---

As for women being the majority of victims of domestic violence well yes. Officially any way and that is likely to actually be the case, but with the rather large differences in what vaious places reguard as domestic violence on top of cultural attitudes about a male that is beaten or abused by a female, we may honestly never know the truth on this one and i wont pretend we do. Still even if you accept the official statistics, it still comes down to a 40%/60% in favor of women. Not a margin i would choose as a crushing defeat of my point. Especially since men are the victim of violence in general far more often than women.

---

Um no. We know the truth. Women are in the majority at about a60% to 40% ratio considering the most broad definition of dom violence. But the most violent acts including rape and murder are being done to women by a much larger margin. Source And since when is this a contest? A crushing defeat? A narrow margin? Its all awful.

          Ordinarily that would be a good source. But given the methodology that law enforcement statistics are arrived at they are inacurate. Many jurisdictions do not actually recognize men as possible victims of domestic violence since many dept's use the duluth model which alleges that men cannot be victims in such situations. Then there is the common use of the "Primary Aggressor Doctrine" which instructs officers on the scene of a domestic disturbance are to take factors outside of who is abusing who and use criteria such as who could do more harm to the other, who is more likely to be afraid, who is bigger, etc. All which typically weight against the male being seen as any sort of victims in such situations. And that isnt even going into the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which sets up any dept with additional funds for every domestic violence arrest made as long as it is a man arrested which poses a serious conflict of interest since the dept wont get any additional funds for arresting a violent female.

---

To the majority of rape victims being women, that could be true. But having been locked up at some earlier point in my life im pretty sure convicts arent making it onto those statistics. Id much rather be a scantily clad woman walking down a dark alley than a prisoner in any prison. While i was lucky in my short time inside, alot of others were not. Ive actually never heard of a single credible source documenting stats on males being raped. So lets not pretend women win this stat on anything other than a default assumption.

---

So you're saying since prison conditions involve men getting raped, then that negates rape against women in the outside world? That makes absolutely no sense. The prison system is one of the most repulsive and inhumane inventions we have ever come up with. But because awful things happen to men in there, its ok that similar things happen to women who are just walking to their car, or going to the store? No.

 

     Not sure where i minimized rape against females. But since you clearly see male suffering as being worth less consideration than females, i guess my bringing up that it happens to alot of men too, would be off putting. I never at any point claimed that rape was somehow not one of the worst possible things that can happen to a person. I would love to see that conclusion highlighted in anything i have said. Would love to see where i stated that rape was ok. When i was 4 yrs old, i was in the same bed as my mother while she was being raped by a drunk biker. I dont count it as an ok experience. 13 yrs later i lost my virginity being drugged and raped. Neither of these events happened in prison to me. But if they had, who would care? The difference in how much people care about rape happeneing to a woman walking down the street vs a man in a cell is like night and day. Neither is ok, but they arent treated the same. Ask yourself why?

Nailzzz makes a lot of valid points. +1

---

Originally posted by Hurvart

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Hurvart Imagine a professional model helping a big corporation sell one of the most popular products in the world. She is very proud and other models and women that would like to become models envy her. Men admire her... She earns more money than most people can dream about. She is happy and feels she is very lucky... How can it be a problem? Its not a problem for her...   But there are real problems. Like women working in factorys getting payed less than men doing the same job. That cant afford to live and eat properly. And in some parts of the world women have almost no rights at all. Not even basic human rights. Fathers, brothers and husbands beat them every day. They are not allowed to own property or to drive a car.. I think it is way more important to focus on that. The model earning millions is not suffering.... I actually care about womens rights. But I think all this talk about objectification, sexualisation and models is unimportant. And wrong...  

---

  Why do you think those other women are beaten, paid less than men, and devalued?

---

Not because of models and the corporations they are working for.  The problems are much older than that. The first priority is to try to make sure human rights are respected everywhere. And that means equal rights for men and women. The fight for those rights has not even started in most of the world. And it must... Trying to stop corporations from using sexy models to help them sell products will not help. It is a waste of time and effort.

---

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think that's a very cynical way of looking at it.

You call it a justification and I call it "how we are wired".

regardless of how a man or woman is presented, if people want to look at these images then I say "good".

Because in the end you are saying, at least from what I gather, that imbuing people with sexuality is a bad thing. no? I say MORE SEX.

I'd rather have more sex than violence. And I dont' find the added images of beautiful people a bad thing as it speaks to what I want.

But perhaps I'm wired to be a bit more of a Libertine (in certain definitions).

It doesn't matter that it's highly idealized. That's part of  what art is. All it does is play upon our base instinct but additiionally tantalize our intellect. And it IS an intellect thing. Animals don't fantasize about sexual partners in a way that is far beyond what is natural. But we humans do.

Not cynicism Sovrath. Idealism.

I'm not content to trust or rely on basic instinct to drive me. I will never be content to give into something just because that's 'how we are wired.

It's a copout. It does not affect you physically, so you see no reason to do anything about it. You instead justify base behavior as just 'something we are compelled to do'. That is not libertine. I see something that influences me, controls me. I will not accept control. Not from others and not from myself. I will accept only the conclusions I reach with what I can trust to understand.

Sure, there is flaw in that logic. I do not know everything. I can not always tell when or how my emotions or biology influence me. However, it is something I am not content to handwave. 

As I had said previously there is a difference between artistic nudity and porn. When something is built on the premise that 'sex sells' it is not art. Its intent is not there and the results are noticably different. You take only a part of what I have said. You want to call justifying base instinct freedom, and you say it is bad to want to ascend from being a puppet to chemicals.

You say animals don't fantasize about sexual partners beyond the natural. Yet we have many instances already that refute that from canines, dolphins, birds, and even other primates. It is an intelligence, yes. But it is just another rationalization and justification, and it is not exclusive to us.

That is effectively the same justification someone might give for fighting, drugs, or many other things that when not given a measure of restraint and respect can cause a person's undoing.

We are not greater than any other species for doing what we do or accepting what we are. We are greater because we can transcend what we are.

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Hurvart

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Hurvart Imagine a professional model helping a big corporation sell one of the most popular products in the world. She is very proud and other models and women that would like to become models envy her. Men admire her... She earns more money than most people can dream about. She is happy and feels she is very lucky... How can it be a problem? Its not a problem for her...   But there are real problems. Like women working in factorys getting payed less than men doing the same job. That cant afford to live and eat properly. And in some parts of the world women have almost no rights at all. Not even basic human rights. Fathers, brothers and husbands beat them every day. They are not allowed to own property or to drive a car.. I think it is way more important to focus on that. The model earning millions is not suffering.... I actually care about womens rights. But I think all this talk about objectification, sexualisation and models is unimportant. And wrong...  

---

  Why do you think those other women are beaten, paid less than men, and devalued?

---

Not because of models and the corporations they are working for.  The problems are much older than that. The first priority is to try to make sure human rights are respected everywhere. And that means equal rights for men and women. The fight for those rights has not even started in most of the world. And it must... Trying to stop corporations from using sexy models to help them sell products will not help. It is a waste of time and effort.

---

You still didn't answer my question.

 

I think if we cold go back in time to the stoneage we would find the same problems. Men was the hunters and women had to do lighter less dangerous work and look after the children. At first it was practical because mens greater physical strenght was important and made a difference when hunting or when doing heavy work. And eventually it became part of the societys traditions and its culture and its religion... And later when the society and technology became more advanced the traditions, the norms and the religion remained the same. Even if women could have participated much more and done almost everything men could do they had to stay at home because it was the way it had always been. The priests and the leaders told them it had to be that way. That it was Gods will..and so on.

To fix the problem those old norms, traditions and believes must be replaced by modern human rights. Equal rights for men and women.

Originally posted by Deivos

 

Not cynicism Sovrath. Idealism.

One can still have "Ideals" and acknowledge that we are wired a certain way and that in some isntances, allowing ourselves to "be human" is part of who we are.

I often feel that those who say "I'm do so because of high ideals", set some high bar that is really more academic than practical.

It's like saying Socialism or Communism takes the best of what we want for humanity and embodies high ideals. How lovely. Classless society where everyone has a part in how the state runs? From each according to his ability to each according to his needs? Heck, sign me up!

and that's the thing, I'm more than familiar with the whole "I have high ideals" part. Heck, that was me in my younger life. But you know what? I found it didn't work. I was essentially claming certain high ideas but found it difficult to be happy within those hihg ideals.

Then it hit me: Maybe it's about knowning who I am and adjusting those ideals to who I really was and what I really wanted from life.

The thing is, one should always be reaching for the best in humanity. And no, I am not advocating "becoming pissed and hitting someone" because of chemicals.

But I'm also aware that there are times that allowing ourselves to "be ourselves" can be pretty great as well. I just dont' believe that we are only about our minds and beliefs. We are body AND mind. And it's finding a good balance where we can live with each other and ourselves which is the key.

So yeah, i don't have any problem with people expressing their sexuality and I have no problem with companies profiting from it but only if the people who are involved are all on board.

The rebuttal might be "but they don't know they are being taken advantage of". And I might say that of course i know that there are a lot of scummy people out there and a lot of people out their who might very well be victims.

Yet, my mind goes back to a previous post where a group of actors put on their "Slut Cracker" show. As I said, they don't make a killing, no one is getting rich on it. They do it because it's fun and it's a way of expressing themselves. If suddenly some entity found a way to make a lot of money for everyone involved then is it suddenly a group of people being taken advantage of? Especially because they are still the same people involved.

Originally posted by Deivos

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think that's a very cynical way of looking at it.

You call it a justification and I call it "how we are wired".

regardless of how a man or woman is presented, if people want to look at these images then I say "good".

Because in the end you are saying, at least from what I gather, that imbuing people with sexuality is a bad thing. no? I say MORE SEX.

I'd rather have more sex than violence. And I dont' find the added images of beautiful people a bad thing as it speaks to what I want.

But perhaps I'm wired to be a bit more of a Libertine (in certain definitions).

It doesn't matter that it's highly idealized. That's part of  what art is. All it does is play upon our base instinct but additiionally tantalize our intellect. And it IS an intellect thing. Animals don't fantasize about sexual partners in a way that is far beyond what is natural. But we humans do.

Not cynicism Sovrath. Idealism.

 

I'm not content to trust or rely on basic instinct to drive me. I will never be content to give into something just because that's 'how we are wired.

 

It's a copout. It does not affect you physically, so you see no reason to do anything about it. You instead justify base behavior as just 'something we are compelled to do'. That is not libertine. I see something that influences me, controls me. I will not accept control. Not from others and not from myself. I will accept only the conclusions I reach with what I can trust to understand.

 

Sure, there is flaw in that logic. I do not know everything. I can not always tell when or how my emotions or biology influence me. However, it is something I am not content to handwave. 

 

As I had said previously there is a difference between artistic nudity and porn. When something is built on the premise that 'sex sells' it is not art. Its intent is not there and the results are noticably different. You take only a part of what I have said. You want to call justifying base instinct freedom, and you say it is bad to want to ascend from being a puppet to chemicals.

You say animals don't fantasize about sexual partners beyond the natural. Yet we have many instances already that refute that from canines, dolphins, birds, and even other primates. It is an intelligence, yes. But it is just another rationalization and justification, and it is not exclusive to us.

 

That is effectively the same justification someone might give for fighting, drugs, or many other things that when not given a measure of restraint and respect can cause a person's undoing.

 

We are not greater than any other species for doing what we do or accepting what we are. We are greater because we can transcend what we are.

 

Originally posted by Foomerang

---

Originally posted by gaeanprayer
While I can understand the arguments and anger behind over-sexualization of women in fictional medium, it's really not as wide-spread as people think. Some of it is actually driven by women. Did my thesis on the shift in depiction of women in American Art and it lead me to places I hadn't expected, namely that there are as many feminists for the sexualization ("freedom of expression" vs. the more Victorian era prudishness in regards to women) as there are against it. Both sides have some good points. 

Bit of a segue there but, yeah, this is not just a male thing even if the gaming market is (for now) dominated by men. People offended by this should really consider what it is they're offended by, the actual depiction or the so-called "principle" behind it. Personally, I don't mind it. What I do mind is when people throw a fit when the same thing is done to men; remember the MMORPG.com fuss from that MMO advertisement with the pirate dude and the low-rider pants? Equal nudity for all, I say!

---

What you're describing is called economic whoredom. Women embrace and often profit from willfully objectifying themselves. They even claim that it empowers them. The problem is that they are only empowered within a patriarchy that allows them to be objectified in exchange for a sense of power and control within this system.

During your thesis, did you you read any books by Bell Hooks or other noted feminists? Most of them feel the opposite of what you are referring to.

---

Originally posted by jayarte

---

Originally posted by Foomerang

---

Originally posted by gaeanprayer
While I can understand the arguments and anger behind over-sexualization of women in fictional medium, it's really not as wide-spread as people think. Some of it is actually driven by women. Did my thesis on the shift in depiction of women in American Art and it lead me to places I hadn't expected, namely that there are as many feminists for the sexualization ("freedom of expression" vs. the more Victorian era prudishness in regards to women) as there are against it. Both sides have some good points. 

Bit of a segue there but, yeah, this is not just a male thing even if the gaming market is (for now) dominated by men. People offended by this should really consider what it is they're offended by, the actual depiction or the so-called "principle" behind it. Personally, I don't mind it. What I do mind is when people throw a fit when the same thing is done to men; remember the MMORPG.com fuss from that MMO advertisement with the pirate dude and the low-rider pants? Equal nudity for all, I say!

---

What you're describing is called economic whoredom. Women embrace and often profit from willfully objectifying themselves. They even claim that it empowers them. The problem is that they are only empowered within a patriarchy that allows them to be objectified in exchange for a sense of power and control within this system.

During your thesis, did you you read any books by Bell Hooks or other noted feminists? Most of them feel the opposite of what you are referring to.

---

 

Very well said. Saves me having to respond, although now I can't resist :p

Interestingly, a debate on BBC R4 the other day touched on this very subject and one of the debaters (can't remember the names, unfortunately, but neither of them was Germaine Greer for a change) pointed out that the latest wave of feminism contains a lot of women who might label themselves as "feminist" but actually have no understanding of the class politics of gender. In fact, a lot of contemporary "feminists" are actually influenced by the Thatcher/Reagen legacy of "me, me, me" and, for example, espouse the "right" to work in the sex industry as an expression of a skewed concept of freedom with no understanding of that industry, its place in patriarchal capitalism and its true cost in terms of human lives.

---

Thank you. I know some of you folks think this is some type of crusade against men or that women need to take over power structures. That is nonsense and equally as bad as what we have now. This is about anti-oppression across all races, sex, nationalities, age, body types, everyone who is a participant in oppression whether the dominator or the oppressed.

These comments on society today are not my own conjured up view. Any sociology course or cultural anthropology course teaches this. Its textbook definitions of what western civilization is today.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Deivos

 

Not cynicism Sovrath. Idealism.

One can still have "Ideals" and acknowledge that we are wired a certain way and that in some isntances, allowing ourselves to "be human" is part of who we are.

Nah, technocracy is better.

On a more serious note I have to address the use of examples like 'Slut Cracker' as being a somewhat poor one as it's a very overt use of sexualization. In part it results in that behavior as being used in comedy, not just to appeal to basic desire. That, like how I mentioned a previous distinction between porn and art, makes the show distinctively different from just being more porn. The fact it's a satire burlesque show is fair to imply that they don't take much of it's contents seriously.

As for ideals. I acknowledge I still have emotions and desires. The difference is that I take into account what they are and what they mean and my actions only come when I have reached a conclusion of whether or not they are valuable to any given situation. Hot person standing next to a vehicle at a car show? They can be naked for all I care, their existence is pointless and inconsequential to the purpose of being there, the cars.

Playing games? Depends on the game, but for the most part I'm interested in support, challenge, and exploring. Not digital porn. So when they throw pixelated junk at me it just becomes a nuisance. I'm sure there's plenty of people that value artificial assets due to personal conditions, but I do not.

The rest of this just cycles back on previous comments of your wanting people to simply acknowledge their desires and roll with it. I can appreciate the idea, but as I also said previously it does little to help us and when improperly applied leads not only to social but physical problems.

Like I had said previously, which you ended up skipping addressing, what has come of our modern ideals in terms of sexuality has in many ways caused health problems for females. The figure that is idolozed is not one of health, but of a very controlled lifestyle with honestly little exercise or overall diet. There are few people who naturally are able to fulfill that physical role, and those that can tend to be more susceptible to health problems.

That's part of wy there has been increased movement against it and alternative 'beauty' concepts introduced or addressed in the last few years. Why runway models have been under harassment for being too thin and things are finally being done about that (occasionally).

You can make the claim all you want to be 'allowing ourselves to "be ourselves"', but fact is it's just a poor idea.

You say "Maybe it's about knowning who I am and adjusting those ideals to who I really was and what I really wanted from life." and that part is great. But I am forced to ask how many people do you think are doing that? Even of how many people that say they are doing that are really doing that. 

Like my own ideal I can safely say that you nor anyone else has full understanding of everything taking place and how it's influencing you at any given moment. Even more so since it's still a more active part of your regular rutine to 'let it be'.

And again I am forced to say that you can use as much rhatoric as you want, but fact is 'it is what it is'. Sure, nudity, sexual attraction, etc aren't things to be ashamed of. They shouldn't be our driving force in life however either. It is only the poorly trained dog that goes through life humping legs. Well adjusted people, like well adjusted dogs, should be more free from those basic desires to live life seeing many other aspects that may be appealing to their senses in many other ways. Yet here we are, where the easiest way to attract anyone is not with a treat or something to think about, but instead something that 'revs their engine'.

Originally posted by Deivos

 

Nah, technocracy is better.

On a more serious note I have to address the use of examples like 'Slut Cracker' as being a somewhat poor one as it's a very overt use of sexualization. In part it results in that behavior as being used in comedy, not just to appeal to basic desire. That, like how I mentioned a previous distinction between porn and art, makes the show distinctively different from just being more porn. The fact it's a satire burlesque show is fair to imply that they don't take much of it's contents seriously.

 

As for ideals. I acknowledge I still have emotions and desires. The difference is that I take into account what they are and what they mean and my actions only come when I have reached a conclusion of whether or not they are valuable to any given situation. Hot person standing next to a vehicle at a car show? They can be naked for all I care, their existence is pointless and inconsequential to the purpose of being there, the cars.

The rest of this just cycles back on previous comments of your wanting people to simply acknowledge their desires and roll with it. I can appreciate the idea, but as I also said previously it does little to help us and when improperly applied leads not only to social but physical problems.

 

Like I had said previously, which you ended up skipping addressing, what has come of our modern ideals in terms of sexuality has in many ways caused health problems for females. The figure that is idolozed is not one of health, but of a very controlled lifestyle with honestly little exercise or overall diet. There are few people who naturally are able to fulfill that physical role, and those that can tend to be more susceptible to health problems.

 

That's part of wy there has been increased movement against it and alternative 'beauty' concepts introduced or addressed in the last few years. Why runway models have been under harassment for being too thin and things are finally being done about that (occasionally).

I'll address these parts in the interest of saving my wrists ; )

1, the problem with trying to state the difference between content that is satire and content that is meant to be "porn" or essentially the difference between "art and porn" is that the extremes can be evaluated more easily than the stuff in the middle.

Are you aware that there are people who think such shows such as "The Slut Cracker" or anything that the "Gold Dust Orphans" (the two local shows that I mentioned) are immoral and have no place in our community?

I can show you paintings (which I wont' do in the interest of not offending anyone and not getting banned" that were hanging in MoMA a few years ago that someone could shout "that's not art that's kiddie porn" and I would say in the same breath "no it's not but I can easily see why you say that".

Every Thursday some friends and I have pub and "B/Bad movie night". We essentially watch 60's/70's exploitation films, Roger Corman stuff, Russ Meyer and some of the more outlandish Japanese films among others. It's essentially our own version of "Mystery Science Theater".

One of my friend's wives made a joke regarding our "Thurday Night Porn" and I had to do a double take "what? we don't watch porn!" with her reply "well, does it have nudity?"

Now, we never watch porn as that isnt' what these nights are about and would be uncofortable and "not fun" at best. But through her eyes "nudity = porn". There are always going to be people who make negative value judgements about anytihng with sexuality and start shouting the "it's degrading men and women", hence our discussion on these forums.

2, I would just enjoy the car show with the added bonus of hot women. Provided I truly thought they were hot.

3,  would completley agree that any idea of beauty that makes women have to do extreme and physically/mentally harmful things in order to attain it is atrocious. The artist who created this Rift portrait was probably just creating a piece of "art" to be used commercially. I highly doubt he he an ultierior motive of wanting to force women to measure themselves to his image. Should he have changed it to be more realistic? Well, pulp fantasy has usually depicted men and women as unnatural specimens so it seems to follow in those footsteps. I mean, do you measure of to how Vallejo depicts men? I know I don't. Of course the issue is more with women and this means that there needs to be more education and more institutions embracing different types of beauty. I don't think this means that idealized depictions have to be halted as that's censorship. But a better educated populace is what is needed.

Will companies follow suit? Some have but there is of course a long way to go. However, if the woman depicted was more plump or curvier but wearing that swimsuit/armor thing then would we be having this discussion? If we show women and men in different forms of beauty does that suddenly diffuse the argument about depictions of people as sexual objects and also a means for profit?

Probably not. There are always going to be people who say that depicting sexuality of any type is bad for all the reasons we have been discussing in this thread.

Well lets respond then.

1) that's an argument about a mindset that is not part of this conversation. Certainly there are people that percive a different scale of what is and isn't something. That fails to address the nature of any subject.

2) I find it's purpose to be a weak gambit. Same as anything else that uses the logic 'sex sells'. Not much else can be said on that matter because it's a preference difference.

3) Wong gender. I am well aware of the fantasy depiction of males and females and their illustrious history. That does not make the concept or purpose anything other than what it is in many cases. Especially in the case of both the bad movie night and pulp fantasy you mention they are both part of the problem in the sense of where many ill conceived mindsets have come from, grew up on, and take to the next level.

A lot of people value their posessions more than their own lives.

Just saying.

Originally posted by birdycephon

A lot of people value their posessions more than their own lives.

Just saying.

     I just value my own possessions more than i do other people's lives. But then again i think theft should be grounds for public humiliation/execution.

Originally posted by Citalkay
It's a shame they've sunk to that pathetic level.

Gee wiz, kid. Don't look up Elmore or anything related to Conan over the years, your head might explode.

I'm amazed and heartened  to see some posters chipping in with some well thought-out responses rather than the usual knee-jerk dismissive reply. Strange the thread hasn't been closed down yet; they usually do that when we stray away from the "safe" area of just talking about the games themselves, which really irritates me because obviously mmo's and our response to them don't exist in a vacuum. 

I'm a woman who is a feminist (35 yrs and counting) who includes the plight of men and children as well as women within patriarchy in my analysis, but one of my problems these days is that I find it hard to untangle my own thoughts and strong emotional reactions in order to present a cogent argument. Basically, I usually feel so frustrated and saddened that we are still having the same discourses with each generation that I almost don't know where to start in explaining the errors in thinking which I witness.  
 

The politics of oppression (whether involving gender/class/race/religion and, I would argue, life other than humans) is not about one group/class, or even just about the identified oppressed group, but rather about the whole situation.  For instance, in a patriarchy, it isn't just women who are constrained and limited, but also children and men.  And it isn't just men who advance the "cause" of patriarchy, but also some women.  In a nutshell, any system which is based on oppression rather than true equality (rather than lip-service) harms both the oppressed and the oppressor.  

One simple question when trying to work out the validity of arguments put forward on either side is "who benefits?".  Who benefits from the various inequalities in place around the globe?  Who would benefit from more equality?  What values are people basing their justifications on?  

Basically, try to think beyond the usual knee-jerk response which justifies your position (I include myself here) and just ... think.

(Better stop now before this turns into a disseration :p)