Originally posted by Deivos

Read my edit.

 

t's not a nice discussion when everything I say id handwaved only to later be turned around and used as if I myself hadn't said tha same damn stuff in a different context. It's an insult to my intelligence.

 

At this point is is an argument for me because it lost any chance of merit. It feels like very little account for the whole or even original purpose of the discussion because what you've done isn't even a shifting mark, but a roundabout loop that ended up just parroting words that not only I but Foomerang, another you had 'debated with' had previously stated and has been present as part of most our comments.

 

As I said, by intent or not, it's become somewhat insulting as a result. We aren't learning anything from this, we aren't gaining insight, we are just getting an amalgam of text.

 

EDIT: Point in case. The addendum you making effectively being a repeat of Foomerang and mine own early posts.

Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.

Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.

Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.

If you take issue with other aspects, then debate those aspects in the first place.

EDIT: -snip-

EDIT2: Fark it, I wanna see what tangent you got off to and why it lead to this annoying loss of point.

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.

i am okay with it as long as they promise me to sell this girl :P

Originally posted by Deivos

Originally posted by Sovrath

Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.

Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.

If you take issue with other aspects, then debate those aspects in the first place.

I will be very careful and pull out specific things you both said that seem like you are "sayign something else".

There are sentences you both have made that strike me to be "about something else' " or saying something else". I thought that I had addressed them besides my regular arguments. They will be very pointed, I promise.

Originally posted by Toxia

Trion has finally figured out how to please both sides of the arguement!

How to give men the eye candy and yet stop the women from feeling sexualized...

SLAP SOME BLINDERS ON THE SCANTY ARMOR! Men can look, women can't see them looking! Done!

I care for women aswell.... Mostly when im drunk.

Ok, my plans were pushed back so I'll give this as my last post for teh night.

The problem isn't the existence, it's the purpose.

Some one wants to call nudity artistic and natural?

Then it has to be displayed in a natural way. Not an overt or engineered way. There is a difference between art and porn and it is in the display as well as intent behind it's existence.

You want freedom of choice for people to make and play games they want. Fine. Not one person has argued against that.

But don't try and pretend it's more or less than what it is.

That seems to be more the point than anything else in Foomerang's rhetoric.

There is a difference between art and porn. But I would argue that difference is intent and not necessarily the display. Again, look at Iris. It's essentially a woman in a provacative pose. If no explanation was given and it was shown to the average person who had no knowledge of the work I bet two to one they would call it porn. It is very much a simliar pose as one would find in some skin mags. If i was to show it to to some groups they might downright denounce it as porn and humiliating to women.

But yet it's art. It is presented as art that might tantalize or tease or excite.

did Rodin know that it was erotic? yes. Did Rodin know that it was taking a woman and objectifying her? Probably given where he wants the audience to look. Is it Porn? I don't think so But yet there are going to be groups of people who think that it's horrible and objectifying women.

"But dont' try to pretend that its' more or less what it is"

And I believe that is where my issue lies. I'm not saying that penthouse is "art". I might ponit to a particualr photographer and indicate that photographer had an artistic eye but clearly penthouse pics are for titillation.

But if i was to take one of those penthouse poses, perhaps change the background in some way, add things to the photo that are meant to suggest satire or something else, but kept the exact pose, maybe even the exact model, even though my intent is that it's Art, someone is going to point out that it's porn and objectifying women. I can explain all I want but someoen, yourself perhaps, is going to say "dont' pretend it's anyting other than it is". Even though I present it and have added to it to "make it art".

And that's part of the crux of my issue wiht the discussion. someone is always going to look at a photo or painting and see what they think are artistic merits and someone is going to look at it as porn. And then I would say "who is to say", especially if it occupies some sort of gray area. Read "not specifically presented as porn".

And like the rest of this I had addressed those aspects in some of my previous posts as well. Like when you tried using the burlesque group as a point of debate.

As for your art comment I fidn it a bit incoherent because due to your own previous commentary you proclaim at least as much that sex is natural. So if sex is natural, can it not be presented in a natural way? 

In fact is that not what Rodin did with some of his couples sculptures? Sure it displays sex, but it's not a forced action or pose in most any case.

Andf that's a fundamental difference. You almost even touched on this when you admitted there being unnatural extremes to fetishes, there is a threshold for what is natural and what is forced from things such as nudity and activities had therein.

That's fundamentally it. Don't pretend something is more or less that what it is. What is the purpose of any given media. How are they presenting it and what does that do to correlate.

As for things "not specifically presented as porn" that again falls back on a previous statement. If the main purpose behind the existence of something is because 'sex sells' then again, it is what it is.

Originally posted by Deivos

And like the rest of this I had addressed those aspects in some of my previous posts as well. Like when you tried using the burlesque group as a point of debate.

 

As for your art comment I fidn it a bit incoherent because due to your own previous commentary you proclaim at least as much that sex is natural. So if sex is natural, can it not be presented in a natural way? 

In fact is that not what Rodin did with some of his couples sculptures? Sure it displays sex, but it's not a forced action or pose in most any case.

 

Andf that's a fundamental difference. You almost even touched on this when you admitted there being unnatural extremes to fetishes, there is a threshold for what is natural and what is forced from things such as nudity and activities had therein.

 

That's fundamentally it. Don't pretend something is more or less that what it is. What is the purpose of any given media. How are they presenting it and what does that do to correlate.

 

As for things "not specifically presented as porn" that again falls back on a previous statement. If the main purpose behind the existence of something is because 'sex sells' then again, it is what it is.

I think where the issue, at least here, is that I do say sex is natural. But I never claimed that fetishes were unnatural. As I've said, because of our intellect we have evolved so that these things ARE natural. This is our natural state. So to speak.

The whole reason I brought up the burlesque is because of the statement that (paraphrasing) things are porn or not and that one shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's anyting other than what it is.

But someone is always going to think something is porn regardless of how it is intended. With the addition of the burlesque.

So sure, with Rodin's "Iris" you indicated that "didn't he present it in a natural state and therefore not porn". But someone is going to point to it and say "the artist wants you to look at the subject's genitals, therefore it's objectifying the subject.

However, the one thing I've been thinking about this weekend is the "Rift Photo" and the comments that it's not "natural" and that it esentially creates an image that is not "realistic".

Yet some people might find it attractive and the artist clearly created it to be attractive. Yet there was a study done some years back that indicated the preferences for attractive women didn't quite fall into what was being presented by the media. That when asked, at least in the U.S., the subjects that men found attractive really fell more into the "average girl next door" image. And of course measurments were given etc.

And if that were the case why does media present men and women in a certain way unless people actually do find them attractive?  I have no answer. In any case, I think at this point I'm tired of this discussion. Thanks for your time and for being a decent poster.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Being tied up and spanked is not procreating, I'll give you that. Or any other proclivities that humanity has added to its sexual repertoire.

Yes, you did say it was unnatural. At least to the extent it had no natural purpose nor played to to real purpose aside from one's own developed interests. That is rather what unnatural is. It does not benefit the activity, does not increase chances of procreation or personal wellbeing, and in quite a decent subsection introduces many unique health risks or means that decrease chances of reproduction. It's pushed well past just being for reproduction or even something recreational to do with someone you love at home.

Also why I only said you 'almost even'.

Also, you keep railing on perception. I haven't cared about addressing that mostly because I'd assume one can make the distinction and understand that it is also the point of looking for the reason behind something. As I have repeated plenty. I can say the flipside and note that plenty of people can think some art piece is porn. That doesn't change the actual nature of the piece, the intent behind it.

As for the matter of why marketing makes piscures like this rather than the girl next door. It's actually kinda simple. People lie.

Like I mentioned , again, before. There are certain visual aspects that will present themselves in almost any condition. For using the female form one such aspect is hip ratio. Why? Because external to anyone expressing their preferences, there have been multiple tests showing that mentally males respond more positively to a visually more apparent hip ratio. They can say anything they want about their preferences, but their brain chemistry doesn't lie. It's a legacy hardcoded in their noggin because it's a trait that is beneficial technically to the health of females as well as to the ability to procreate.

The second step is public perception. The media uses what is most prevalent. People that have grown up getting fed these perceptions of women in art have developed an internal standard that, while they may not jump to it as what they will call their 'preference', it does exist as something they consider idealized. I mentioned this as a problem before when you brought up pulp fiction. When people grow up with those kind of depictions as a standard it's develops into a passive thing to relate other people and depictions against. It also leads to a spiraling effect as people push to make their depictions more extreme in some way to stand out better or appeal more. Is it all bad? No, but as is our tendency people will polarize on something and push one thing about it until it's out of control.