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.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by HurvartImagine 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.
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by SovrathI 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.
+1. This has made my morning to read. Good to see im not the only person left alive that feels this way.
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
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.
Originally posted by jayarte Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally 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
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.
Well, if nothing else then this thread just might be the only topic hot enough to keep people talking any where on any thing outside of the GW2 forum onsite...
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'.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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 )
The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.
Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
Originally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides. Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.
Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.
Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
Originally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.
Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.
Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.
Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.
As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.
Originally posted by Nailzzz Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides. Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization. I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.
As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.
Its not about forcing people to respect things they don't. Its about fostering a society where mutual respect is a normalcy. This isn't about holding hands and singing around the campfire or participating in everyone's lives and interests. Its about eliminating these paths that people can take that lead to roles of dominance and oppression. Removing a rape victim from a dark alleyway doesn't make the alleyway safe. Issues need to be addressed from both ends instead of validated because both ends exist.
Originally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.
Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.
Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.
Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
Social control is social control. Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"? Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?
No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon. You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.
The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms. It's as simple as that.
The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.
Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models? The overwhelming majority are male, of course. Has this inspired dismay from anyone? Nope, no one even notices.
Originally posted by Rohn Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides. Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
Social control is social control. Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"? Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?
No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon. You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.
The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms. It's as simple as that.
The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.
Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models? The overwhelming majority are male, of course. Has this inspired dismay from anyone? Nope, no one even notices.
This takes place on an individual level. Not an umbrella of social control, or a sweeping array of social change put upon us by governing bodies. We, onour own, must decide to forgive ourselves and those around us and stop the reciprocation of oppression.
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.
1, it speaks to the idea that one person might find the depiciton of something to be acceptable as long as those involved are fine with it and another group that doesn' t think it's fine. So I'll ask you a question, at what point is it ok to add sexuality/nudity depcited? I believe you mentioned art correct? Yet a sculptor such as Rodin not only depcited sexuality in his pieces but he got paid for it. So does that revist the idea that Art can't have any sexuality because the artist/model gets paid for it? Is there ever a point that the artist can depict graphic acts of sexuality, possibly even brutal acts? Or does everything need to be like a Seargent painting? And then who decides that?
2, exactly it is preference.
3, and that's the thing, some deliciously over the top stuff would be lost if we were to get rid of our pulp fiction, our conan, our John Carter. This goes back to preference. It just sounds to me that some would prefer a more santized and white washed world. There is a difference between catagorically thinking of an entire part of the population as "less than" and allowing members of that population to express themselves as they want.
To the poster to asked about why this thread is not locked. It's because we aren't insulting each other and having a conversation. There is a fallacy on this site that anything that is a slight bit controversial will automatically be locked. Not so. You can say anyting you want on this site but you can't insult people, can't be inflammatory, can't "be a troll".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
1, it speaks to the idea that one person might find the depiciton of something to be acceptable as long as those involved are fine with it and another group that doesn' t think it's fine. So I'll ask you a question, at what point is it ok to add sexuality/nudity depcited? I believe you mentioned art correct? Yet a sculptor such as Rodin not only depcited sexuality in his pieces but he got paid for it. So does that revist the idea that Art can't have any sexuality because the artist/model gets paid for it? Is there ever a point that the artist can depict graphic acts of sexuality, possibly even brutal acts? Or does everything need to be like a Seargent painting? And then who decides that?
2, exactly it is preference.
3, and that's the thing, some deliciously over the top stuff would be lost if we were to get rid of our pulp fiction, our conan, our John Carter. This goes back to preference. It just sounds to me that some would prefer a more santized and white washed world. There is a difference between catagorically thinking of an entire part of the population as "less than" and allowing members of that population to express themselves as they want.
To the poster to asked about why this thread is not locked. It's because we aren't insulting each other and having a conversation. There is a fallacy on this site that anything that is a slight bit controversial will automatically be locked. Not so. You can say anyting you want on this site but you can't insult people, can't be inflammatory, can't "be a troll".
Well first when you refer to Rodin you effectively answered it by never having to say it was artificial in it's ideals. Sure it's nude eople and some pieces can be seen as having some form of sexuality, but many are even while nude not done as sexualized pieces and Rodin was quite varied in the body types he would depict from young adults to old even in the nude.
Even his stylized depictions of female forms with angelic aspects weren't unnaturally lithe or lacking in detail like muscle tone that is often avoided in more sexual depictions.
It is like previously stated a very different intent and it is apparent in the way art is composed versus porn. The emphasis on detail in the form, motion, or scene rather than a focus on the assets.
So to answer your question, I effectively repeat what I have said multiple times previously.
2) yay repeating things as if there's a point
And back with the third to address why I say that about the second, because I have at no point been out to address what people like. Like I have, again, said previously people can like what they want, but they need to acknowledge when something is what it is.
The purpose of some things are worn on the cuff, others are tucked in it's sleeve waiting for a reveal. Like the attempts you have made previously to justify things in different kinds of media they each have a recpective scale they address because of the differing intents and implementations behind them. Not once have I damned anyone for liking something, but I have been adamant that people need to be considerably more aware.
Even as you make your arguments there are rational and irrational aspects as an example. Like I already mentioned about the examples you have picked over time, you have taken a few that at face value I would certainly agree with your point, but when I consider the actual content I end up with these rebuttals. It's an awareness and an acceptance, but it's passive and it does not benefit anyone or anything.
Worse yet, the part that I have actually said in specific is bad is something that in repeat gets handwaved over time. Namely exacerbation of ideals and the fact that they have been and are still getting pushed to extremes in many ways that are damaging to people's health.
This is not a comment associated with the idea that medicine and modern science can support people and more lifestyles. it's that because our passive acceptance that these things exist and false notion that they will solve all problems that we ignore very real issues that not only linger, but get worse.
Imean I've commented on some of this a few times and all that happens is a little nod, some barely related remark, and then moving on. And back to what? To retread the attempts at saying 'Porn in every facet of life is alright!' And to that I can only say 'Whatever floats your boat.'
The things I have been aiming to address multiple times has nothing to do with seuality being a part of us. It has everything to do with the fact that it is only a 'part' of us. I don't say don't accept it. I say spend some time thinking about other things, finding other things to value, and looking for ways to be better.
EDIT: And Birdy that would be a fair comment if they didn't put the same kinda thing on their other ads as well as in their game.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
i use to complain in rift cuz there was no eye candy....Rift female models have the most clothes on then any other mmo out there...in some of mmos the higher your level the less armor you have on and yet u still have over 9000 defense ...meh i say so what...my gf when she plays games she likes "cute" outfits. Whats up with the english major above me :P
Originally posted by Nailzzz The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides. Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
Social control is social control. Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"? Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?
No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon. You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.
The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms. It's as simple as that.
The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.
Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models? The overwhelming majority are male, of course. Has this inspired dismay from anyone? Nope, no one even notices.
This takes place on an individual level. Not an umbrella of social control, or a sweeping array of social change put upon us by governing bodies. We, onour own, must decide to forgive ourselves and those around us and stop the reciprocation of oppression.
Some people are just evil. I didnt always believe this but as ive grown older i have had to come to grips with this fact. There are many people who lack any sense of empathy to whom others are either fodder for thier own whims or as undeserving of consideration. Dealing with them on an individual level would eventually either lead to the evil individual's taking advantage of all those around them with nothing to stop them aside from disaproving stares(which mean less than nothing to evil/selfish individuals) or a certain degree of babarism and anarchy while people deal with them accordingly on an individual level meting out personal justice.
This is why civilized people tend to put thier faith in a system of governance that handles social control. Usually such controls are well established and understood by those living under them. While individuals may not agree with many of the rules, they are at least aware of them and the potential punishments to keep people in line. Social control on an individual level is more or less ineffective as it only applies to the offenders relationship to the victimized. The only remedy would be the victimized seeking personal retribution, leading to a hatfield and mccoy type anarchic situation.
Comments
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.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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.
+1. This has made my morning to read. Good to see im not the only person left alive that feels this way.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 resistInterestingly, 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.
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
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.
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'.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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.
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
)
The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.
Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.
First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.
Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.
Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.
I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.
As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.
I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.
As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.
Its not about forcing people to respect things they don't. Its about fostering a society where mutual respect is a normalcy. This isn't about holding hands and singing around the campfire or participating in everyone's lives and interests. Its about eliminating these paths that people can take that lead to roles of dominance and oppression. Removing a rape victim from a dark alleyway doesn't make the alleyway safe. Issues need to be addressed from both ends instead of validated because both ends exist.
Social control is social control. Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"? Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?
No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon. You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.
The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms. It's as simple as that.
The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.
Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models? The overwhelming majority are male, of course. Has this inspired dismay from anyone? Nope, no one even notices.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Social control is social control. Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"? Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?
No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon. You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.
The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms. It's as simple as that.
The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.
Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models? The overwhelming majority are male, of course. Has this inspired dismay from anyone? Nope, no one even notices.
This takes place on an individual level. Not an umbrella of social control, or a sweeping array of social change put upon us by governing bodies. We, onour own, must decide to forgive ourselves and those around us and stop the reciprocation of oppression.
1, it speaks to the idea that one person might find the depiciton of something to be acceptable as long as those involved are fine with it and another group that doesn' t think it's fine. So I'll ask you a question, at what point is it ok to add sexuality/nudity depcited? I believe you mentioned art correct? Yet a sculptor such as Rodin not only depcited sexuality in his pieces but he got paid for it. So does that revist the idea that Art can't have any sexuality because the artist/model gets paid for it? Is there ever a point that the artist can depict graphic acts of sexuality, possibly even brutal acts? Or does everything need to be like a Seargent painting? And then who decides that?
2, exactly it is preference.
3, and that's the thing, some deliciously over the top stuff would be lost if we were to get rid of our pulp fiction, our conan, our John Carter. This goes back to preference. It just sounds to me that some would prefer a more santized and white washed world. There is a difference between catagorically thinking of an entire part of the population as "less than" and allowing members of that population to express themselves as they want.
To the poster to asked about why this thread is not locked. It's because we aren't insulting each other and having a conversation. There is a fallacy on this site that anything that is a slight bit controversial will automatically be locked. Not so. You can say anyting you want on this site but you can't insult people, can't be inflammatory, can't "be a troll".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't see why people paint this issue with such a broad brush.
Just because they chose to portray one woman in a sexual light, does not mean that that is what they think of all women.
I think they have every right of displaying a fictional character in sexy clothing.
Well first when you refer to Rodin you effectively answered it by never having to say it was artificial in it's ideals. Sure it's nude eople and some pieces can be seen as having some form of sexuality, but many are even while nude not done as sexualized pieces and Rodin was quite varied in the body types he would depict from young adults to old even in the nude.
Even his stylized depictions of female forms with angelic aspects weren't unnaturally lithe or lacking in detail like muscle tone that is often avoided in more sexual depictions.
It is like previously stated a very different intent and it is apparent in the way art is composed versus porn. The emphasis on detail in the form, motion, or scene rather than a focus on the assets.
So to answer your question, I effectively repeat what I have said multiple times previously.
2) yay repeating things as if there's a point
And back with the third to address why I say that about the second, because I have at no point been out to address what people like. Like I have, again, said previously people can like what they want, but they need to acknowledge when something is what it is.
The purpose of some things are worn on the cuff, others are tucked in it's sleeve waiting for a reveal. Like the attempts you have made previously to justify things in different kinds of media they each have a recpective scale they address because of the differing intents and implementations behind them. Not once have I damned anyone for liking something, but I have been adamant that people need to be considerably more aware.
Even as you make your arguments there are rational and irrational aspects as an example. Like I already mentioned about the examples you have picked over time, you have taken a few that at face value I would certainly agree with your point, but when I consider the actual content I end up with these rebuttals. It's an awareness and an acceptance, but it's passive and it does not benefit anyone or anything.
Worse yet, the part that I have actually said in specific is bad is something that in repeat gets handwaved over time. Namely exacerbation of ideals and the fact that they have been and are still getting pushed to extremes in many ways that are damaging to people's health.
This is not a comment associated with the idea that medicine and modern science can support people and more lifestyles. it's that because our passive acceptance that these things exist and false notion that they will solve all problems that we ignore very real issues that not only linger, but get worse.
Imean I've commented on some of this a few times and all that happens is a little nod, some barely related remark, and then moving on. And back to what? To retread the attempts at saying 'Porn in every facet of life is alright!' And to that I can only say 'Whatever floats your boat.'
The things I have been aiming to address multiple times has nothing to do with seuality being a part of us. It has everything to do with the fact that it is only a 'part' of us. I don't say don't accept it. I say spend some time thinking about other things, finding other things to value, and looking for ways to be better.
EDIT: And Birdy that would be a fair comment if they didn't put the same kinda thing on their other ads as well as in their game.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Some people are just evil. I didnt always believe this but as ive grown older i have had to come to grips with this fact. There are many people who lack any sense of empathy to whom others are either fodder for thier own whims or as undeserving of consideration. Dealing with them on an individual level would eventually either lead to the evil individual's taking advantage of all those around them with nothing to stop them aside from disaproving stares(which mean less than nothing to evil/selfish individuals) or a certain degree of babarism and anarchy while people deal with them accordingly on an individual level meting out personal justice.
This is why civilized people tend to put thier faith in a system of governance that handles social control. Usually such controls are well established and understood by those living under them. While individuals may not agree with many of the rules, they are at least aware of them and the potential punishments to keep people in line. Social control on an individual level is more or less ineffective as it only applies to the offenders relationship to the victimized. The only remedy would be the victimized seeking personal retribution, leading to a hatfield and mccoy type anarchic situation.