Woah Woah Woah. Okay, let's talk about women for a second.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

BloatedGuppy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Women actually being full-time sluts does not contribute to the belief that all women are sluts?

I know a fireman. That never contributed to me believing that all men were firemen.

Revolutionaryloser:
Putting price tags on women doesn't contribute to the belief that women are objects?

You haven't put a price tag on the WOMAN, though, you've put a price tag on an activity performed in the company of that woman, with a set beginning and end point. You're confusing prostitution with slavery.

Revolutionaryloser:
Sex trafficking doesn't contribute to the belief that women are inferior beings?

And again confusing prostitution with slavery.

Revolutionaryloser:
Oh, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Sorry about that.

That's perfectly alright!

Oh. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. A huge amount of prostitution also happens to be slavery. I'm obvouosly not saying prostitution == slavery, but I am saying that a huge part of the prostitution industry involves kidnapping and raping women for profit.

My cynical side sort of wants to rear it's ugly head for a moment here.

No, of course being anorexic and bulimic doesn't mean that you are a bad person. But generally during the modeling business, that's usually a factor of women not thinking they're pretty enough to begin with because of the competition. So obviously, it's easy to see why people have a problem with that.

No, being pretty does not mean they lack a personality and all that nonsense. But being pretty kind of is their job. And, likewise, it's easy to see why people have a problem with that. When that's really the only requirement of their jobs, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see exactly why the business is frowned upon. And getting pissed about people calling them glorified mannequins? Well... that's kind of what they are.

And really, I think you're really playing hard on the sexist angle here, when it generally applies to guy models just as well. The entire business is an ugly thing to me.

Girls showing too much skin? It's just as annoying when guys do it.

I agree with all the other points, so don't get me wrong, but...'5)A thin woman isn't any less of a woman than a woman who has curves or is larger. All women are equal and all bodies are good bodies.'
No, being too fat or too thin is medically unhealthy, it's gonna make you less happy, live shorter, and is avoidable (not easily avoidable, for sure, but you can at least try.)
Hell, if I was anorexcally thin, I'd have a whale of a time. Eating fry ups all the time, constantly having chocolate and sweets...that'd be awesome!
That last sentence was a joke by the way.

museofdoom:
Sorry for ranting, I just had a lot of feelings.

Have you considered making a topic about girls and "how emotional they are"?
Because I believe that I've locked my emotions away and very few things can trigger emotional responses from me.I'm sure you're heard the common word "women are more susceptible to emotions",is that a good or a bad assumption.Of course I don't believe it completely,because otherwise businesswomen wouldn't exist.

Fwee:

Maybe if he'd been getting laid he wouldn't have to try to work out his issues with women. Then again if he were a decent human being he wouldn't have issues with women and therefore getting laid.

This shows me that you do not have an adequate understanding of how women choose people to have sex with... you can be a "decent person" and die a virgin, it's nothing to do with whether you're a raging asshole or not, it's how you present yourself, whether you take special care of certain things such as how you stand, how you speak and how you dress, how you smell is also important. If you have a glandular dissorder that makes you reek, you can be the greatest guy in the world and never get any, you could be shy, due to being brought up in a family that kept you relatively secluded, and "sheltered" you from group activities and social interaction as a child, which could lead you to being less forward and less assertive and thus lead women to see you as undesirable... so yeah, he may have been acting out, but you have no idea what's caused him to go so far, he could have been a completely decent guy who just got pushed over the edge.

To go with the topic at hand to a degree, don't judge people because you see them at their worst either. I've been in a position where I was starting to go positively mental because I couldn't get any, and I'm not exactly a horrible person, I'm kind, considerate, generous and a bit shy by my upbringing, which means, I'm not loud, I tend to put others first and I generally don't just "take what I want", thing is, that's like poison for your sex life, women see you as weak, hell I had to change a lot of my behavioural patterns change how I acted/reacted to situations and alter my posture, my style, and my scent(rather than just being really clean I started using cologne as well), in order to even get a woman to go out with me multiple times, I finally lost my virginity at the age of 24 because I learned that in order to get a woman to want you, you hafta be a "Man" not a "nice guy".

Gratz for you if you had a social life and a father when you were young to automatically teach you how to be around women, but a suprizingly large number of guys... Didn't.

I love women, and I'm an egalitarian. Just because I'm not into modeling doesn't mean I hate women. In fact, one of the reasons I'm not into modeling is because I think it hurts women. My best friend is a woman, my girlfriend is a woman (obviously), and my cat is a wonderful lady as well, so I think women are awesome. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they hate women, and I think it's kind of a cop-out to assume so.

DevilWithaHalo:
Ethnic slur? It wouldn't be reasonable because it's an entirely different set of definitions. "Oh man, she's slept with like 100 dudes in one night, she's such a spic." Nope, doesn't really work. I might as well call this thread a slut.

That's not what he's asking. He's asking if it's okay to call "a spic a spic", since it's "just a label".

DevilWithaHalo:
I don't think I could have asked for a better response than this. Should I point out the difference between name calling and using definitions?

That you continue to cling to the assertion that "slut" is a definition, free of prejudice and 100% neutral without intent, would make any discussion with you on the "difference between name calling and using definitions" pointless in the extreme. And to be honest, I don't even think YOU believe this. I think you've just taken a position, arbitrarily.

DevilWithaHalo:
Should I point out how my response can't be considered an Ad Hominem because I specifically called it an experiment in illustrating the point I was trying to make?

I'm sorry, is this the "I'm not CALLING you an asshole, I'm just saying you look and talk and act just like an asshole" defense? Again, are we five here? What's next? He started it? I know you are but what am I? If you're going to make sneering commentary about someone's "mental capacity" because they disagree with you, then yes...you are engaging in ad hominem attacks.

DevilWithaHalo:
I would agree (mostly). Now kindly point out where I ethically defend the notion.

DevilWithaHalo:
Since you're fond of quotes; "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Maybe that was another experiment. I can't say for sure. Like, maybe it was an experiment in which you used a quote to draw an absurd comparison between calling people names, and struggling to prevent the triumph of evil.

DevilWithaHalo:
Right... because people haven't been talking about weights and sexual proclivities in this thread since the OP... I'm the one "writhing" between the two. Ta ta.

Do you see me putting forth "obese" as an insult? Whoops, I can scroll up the page and see me arguing otherwise. I'm not really concerned about what "people" are talking about. I'm not part of a collective here on the forums that all speak with the same voice.

Okay it's on the previous page now, but still.

T3hSource:

museofdoom:
Sorry for ranting, I just had a lot of feelings.

Have you considered making a topic about girls and "how emotional they are"?
Because I believe that I've locked my emotions away and very few things can trigger emotional responses from me.I'm sure you're heard the common word "women are more susceptible to emotions",is that a good or a bad assumption.Of course I don't believe it completely,because otherwise businesswomen wouldn't exist.

Business women are just better at covering them up... Trust me, I've known a few, quite personally.

Revolutionaryloser:
Oh. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. A huge amount of prostitution also happens to be slavery. I'm obvouosly not saying prostitution == slavery, but I am saying that a huge part of the prostitution industry involves kidnapping and raping women for profit.

I'm aware of the issues with human trafficking, and I'm aware that human traffickers make heavy use of prostitution, so there are blurry lines of correlation between the two, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that prostitution is a direct casual factor in the rise of human trafficking.

If you're anti-trafficking, you and I can stand here all day pounding our bro-fists together, because obviously it's abhorrent. I'm not really with you on the "I saw some prostitutes, and it lead me to believe all women might be prostitutes" line of thinking though, nor do I think trading sex for money is inherently wicked. As a society, we could stand to de-mythologize sex. It's a biological function, like eating and sleeping.

[quote="BloatedGuppy" post="18.365715.14273600] As a society, we could stand to de-mythologize sex. It's a biological function, like eating and sleeping.[/quote]

I agree sex is a biological function, but it should not be likened to eating and sleeping since those are functions necessary for survival and to which an individual is entitled to in a society with basic human rights, while no one is or ever should be entitled to sex (since it has to involve another person).

I prefer to liken it to biological functions like cleaning/bathing. Important, but not life threatening if missed (well... risk of infection is of course there, but...).

MomoElektra:
I agree sex is a biological function, but it should not be likened to eating and sleeping since those are functions necessary for survival and to which an individual is entitled to in a society with basic human rights, while no one is or ever should be entitled to sex (since it has to involve another person).

I prefer to liken it to biological functions like cleaning/bathing. Important, but not life threatening if missed.

It's extraordinarily life threatening, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the species, as opposed to individual units.

And while I don't think that ENTITLES anyone to sex, I'll never understand why we do so much hand-wringing and moralizing over it. We don't carry on about the ethical ramifications of our bowel movements.

BloatedGuppy:
We don't carry on about the ethical ramifications of our bowel movements.

some do... I had a friend who went to a private catholic school tell me they said that pooping made god ashamed of you because it was a disgusting act which is why it is done solely in private and should never ever be discussed

people will argue morality and ethics about everything and anything simply because both are arbitrary things based off opinion so no one can ever prove their way is the truth.. and some people have truly fucked up ways of looking at the world making for some weird opinions

Seems like some good to know common sense material right there, except for one thing: body size. A women who is too thin or too heavy does not have a body as good as a women with healthy proportions. It is simply not true (mostly in terms of health).

Morals and ethics also change from person to person as well.

BloatedGuppy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Oh. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. A huge amount of prostitution also happens to be slavery. I'm obvouosly not saying prostitution == slavery, but I am saying that a huge part of the prostitution industry involves kidnapping and raping women for profit.

I'm aware of the issues with human trafficking, and I'm aware that human traffickers make heavy use of prostitution, so there are blurry lines of correlation between the two, but I don't think it's been demonstrated that prostitution is a direct casual factor in the rise of human trafficking.

If you're anti-trafficking, you and I can stand here all day pounding our bro-fists together, because obviously it's abhorrent. I'm not really with you on the "I saw some prostitutes, and it lead me to believe all women might be prostitutes" line of thinking though, nor do I think trading sex for money is inherently wicked. As a society, we could stand to de-mythologize sex. It's a biological function, like eating and sleeping.

Well, thanks for considering my post. My line of work deals quite a lot with those issues so I can tell you most human trafficking is related to prostitution and/or stealing organs. It's pretty simple really. Uneducated, third world women who can't speak anything but their native language only have one use in the eyes of gangsters.

I could argue my belief that women who prostitute their bodies by choice are effectively reinforcing and condoning a culture that sees women as objects with a price tag and therefore that it's perfectly alright to strip a woman of her rights and sell (or rent as it may be) her body for money. I won't argue it because obviously I can't give any numbers.

I do think however that selling sex for money is terrible. I think it's a crime and I think it's absolutely immoral. I understand that a lot of people don't share that view with me. Love is the founding principle of my personality or something like that. I think love is the most important thing in human culture. Maybe I'm just being a religious fanatic or something but the idea of putting a price on love-making strikes me as sacriligious.

Liquidacid23:
some do... I had a friend who went to a private catholic school tell me they said that pooping made god ashamed of you because it was a disgusting act which is why it is done solely in private and should never ever be discussed

Well...I stand corrected. Gotta love those zany Catholic schools.

BloatedGuppy:

MomoElektra:
I agree sex is a biological function, but it should not be likened to eating and sleeping since those are functions necessary for survival and to which an individual is entitled to in a society with basic human rights, while no one is or ever should be entitled to sex (since it has to involve another person).

I prefer to liken it to biological functions like cleaning/bathing. Important, but not life threatening if missed.

It's extraordinarily life threatening, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the species, as opposed to individual units.

But that's a different sort of survival. I thought we were talking about the individual?

And while I don't think that ENTITLES anyone to sex, I'll never understand why we do so much hand-wringing and moralizing over it. We don't carry on about the ethical ramifications of our bowel movements.

Who's hand-wringing or moralizing?

It is a fact that if I have no money to pay for it myself I can get food and shelter in my country. I am entitled to that. If you (generic you) liken sex into that category "necessary for survival", entitlement to sex is a natural conclusion.

I'm only pushing this because I know people who want to cash in on this entitlement (i.e. sex is a biological function necessary for survival) and make sex work mandatory services from health care providers, without caring much who's to do the actual providing. Yeah, they are rare, but they do exist.

I agree with some of the OP, but others have already pointed out the potential flaws and contradictions in it.

Revolutionaryloser:
Well, thanks for considering my post. My line of work deals quite a lot with those issues so I can tell you most human trafficking is related to prostitution and/or stealing organs. It's pretty simple really. Uneducated, third world women who can't speak anything but their native language only have one use in the eyes of gangsters.

I could argue my belief that women who prostitute their bodies by choice are effectively reinforcing and condoning a culture that sees women as objects with a price tag and therefore that it's perfectly alright to strip a woman of her rights and sell (or rent as it may be) her body for money. I won't argue it because obviously I can't give any numbers.

I do think however that selling sex for money is terrible. I think it's a crime and I think it's absolutely immoral. I understand that a lot of people don't share that view with me. Love is the founding principle of my personality or something like that. I think love is the most important thing in human culture. Maybe I'm just being a religious fanatic or something but the idea of putting a price on love-making strikes me as sacriligious.

Well, I think if we could stop moralizing about prostitution, legalize it, and regulate it, you'd close off a lot of avenues for human traffickers. Just as the war on drugs and prohibition demonstrated, these moral crusades usually result in an ERUPTION of crime, not a cessation of it.

I also think that a lot of people end up in prostitution due to need, and not by choice, and I 100% support outreach and assistance in terms of getting people out of that lifestyle if it's not something they're comfortable with. I'm not suggesting we open "Prostitute University" and start offering scholarships or anything. But it would be nice if these women (and men) could enjoy safe working conditions and health care instead of being driven into the margins of society. I live in a city where over 50 women were murdered by serial killer before someone finally looked into it, because they were prostitutes, and it took over 20 years to get the police to take it seriously. That's a serious fucking problem.

As for the love thing, I hear you, but love =/= sex. They often go hand in hand, like ice cream and cones, but they are not the same thing. Whether we like admitting it or not, sex is a basic a priori biological drive, and people are going to have a compulsion to engage in it that is completely and entirely separate from love.

MomoElektra:
Who's hand-wringing or moralizing?

I didn't mean to imply you were, specifically. I was speaking in general terms.

MomoElektra:
But that's a different sort of survival. I thought we were talking about the individual?

I'm only pushing this because I know people who want to cash in on this entitlement (i.e. sex is a biological function necessary for survival) and make sex work mandatory services from health care providers, without caring much who's to do the actual providing. Yeah, they are rare, but they do exist.

I think we can both agree those people are ludicrous. We can properly acknowledge sex is a biological function that people have a compulsion to perform without skidding down a slippery slope and making sex work a mandatory part of health care.

Well the one point I hoped that OP would take up was the one with amount of sex.
Because usually we see
Man fucks a lot = Hero
Girl fucks a lot = Slut
Both genders can and shall enjoy sex as they want to, it then differs from person to person, not based on gender.

BloatedGuppy:

Liquidacid23:
some do... I had a friend who went to a private catholic school tell me they said that pooping made god ashamed of you because it was a disgusting act which is why it is done solely in private and should never ever be discussed

Well...I stand corrected. Gotta love those zany Catholic schools.

ya he said they were bad... like detention, confession and ruler to knuckles for farting in class... harsh

I always wondered how those people dealt with doctors... I mean pretty much every time I see a doctor if i'm feeling ill one of the first questions is about poop... how often, what's it look like, and so forth

what do they do? tell the doctor they can't answer because god says poop is the devil?

as weird as all that shit is I do love catholic schools... they turn out some of the sluttiest girls in the world :P

BloatedGuppy:

I think we can both agree those people are ludicrous. We can properly acknowledge sex is a biological function that people have a compulsion to perform without skidding down a slippery slope and making sex work a mandatory part of health care.

whaaa? it would be awesome if my health care provider covered hookers... I'd stop caring so much when my premium went up

Guffe:

Because usually we see
Man fucks a lot = Hero
Girl fucks a lot = Slut

well you know how the saying goes

"A slut is just a woman with the morals of a man" :P

OP, whilst I agree with many of the points you make -

museofdoom:
Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. )

This is, unfortunately, where we mus disagree. Slut-shaming doesn't happen enough, in my opinion. I am sick of people dressing whorishly and then trying to defend it on grounds of "independent woman" or "I don't have to fit your stereotype". No, ladies, you do not. What you do have to do, hoever, is have some damn dignity and realise how damaging this kind of behaviour will be, not just now, but later in life, when you lie ridden with STI's, or with the baby you didn't want, or having not developed a personality because the boys preferred your boobs.

Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

BloatedGuppy:

I didn't mean to imply you were, specifically. I was speaking in general terms.

Ah, ok.

MomoElektra:
But that's a different sort of survival. I thought we were talking about the individual?

I'm only pushing this because I know people who want to cash in on this entitlement (i.e. sex is a biological function necessary for survival) and make sex work mandatory services from health care providers, without caring much who's to do the actual providing. Yeah, they are rare, but they do exist.

I think we can both agree those people are ludicrous. We can properly acknowledge sex is a biological function that people have a compulsion to perform without skidding down a slippery slope and making sex work a mandatory part of health care.

Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.
Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

ToxicOranges:
OP, whilst I agree with many of the points you make -

museofdoom:
Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. )

This is, unfortunately, where we mus disagree. Slut-shaming doesn't happen enough, in my opinion. I am sick of people dressing whorishly and then trying to defend it on grounds of "independent woman" or "I don't have to fit your stereotype". No, ladies, you do not. What you do have to do, hoever, is have some damn dignity and realise how damaging this kind of behaviour will be, not just now, but later in life, when you lie ridden with STI's, or with the baby you didn't want, or having not developed a personality because the boys preferred your boobs.

Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

It's interesting how men aren't responsible for anything in your examples.

MomoElektra:
Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.

Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

Entitlement is certainly this year's buzz word, isn't it? I'm already sick to death of it.

As procreation requires a WILLING partner, clearly there are some considerations there that don't apply to having a snooze or filling your pie hole. I just don't think we need to spell them out, in the same way I think the printer cartridge doesn't really need a notice on it warning people not to eat the toner.

museofdoom:
So upon reading through that thread on super models, I saw some pretty awful commentary.

There was a lot of shaming being done, and stereotypes and generalizations being thrown. So let me make some things clear.

1) Just because a woman is thin, doesn't mean she's anorexic.
2)Some women are anorexic or bulimic, and that doesn't mean they are a bad person, they are suffering terribly.
3)Being pretty doesn't mean they lack a personality, or kindness or intelligence.
4)There is nothing wrong with girls who make a living from modeling. If they love doing it, then that's perfectly ok!
5)A thin woman isn't any less of a woman than a woman who has curves or is larger. All women are equal and all bodies are good bodies.

Also, while we are on the topic of women, I would like to say that people need to stop slut shaming. Like, it's a problem. People seem to think that how much skin a woman chooses to show is directly proportional to how much self respect they have. People also like to shame women who enjoy having sex. STOP IT. Girls can enjoy having sex, casual sex, kinky sex, and if they want to show boobs on the internet that's fine too. Not everyone has to uphold the same morals.

Sorry for ranting, I just had a lot of feelings. (and I'm not attacking men here, girls are perfectly capable of slut shaming and being sexist. It actually happens quite a bit.)

Shaming, insulting, assuming, its all natural on a forum populated by insecure gamers who'd never be able to even get close to a supermodel in this life or the next, let them have their rage

ToxicOranges:
Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

You're kind of what's wrong with your own generation, stop giving a shit about stuff that is so fucking banal it's actively bizarre that you care at all.

BloatedGuppy:

MomoElektra:
Yes, we can, but not if we liken sex to eating and sleeping.

Or well, if you say "sex is as natural as eating and sleeping (or breathing)" or something like that I won't mind, because then the context clearly shows entitlement is out of the question.

Entitlement is certainly this year's buzz word, isn't it? I'm already sick to death of it..

Understandable, but entitlement and the problems surrounding it have been around a lot longer than this one video game.

As procreation requires a WILLING partner, clearly there are some considerations there that don't apply to having a snooze or filling your pie hole. I just don't think we need to spell them out, in the same way I think the printer cartridge doesn't really need a notice on it warning people not to eat the toner.

Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

Hoplon:

ToxicOranges:
Slut-shaming needs to start, and increase, until we don't have to be embarrassed about our own generation. I'm 17, and I fucking hate teenagers today.

You're kind of what's wrong with your own generation, stop giving a shit about stuff that is so fucking banal it's actively bizarre that you care at all.

What? Why is it banal that we allow people to shame society like they do? Would you rather I didn't care at all, and had no opinions about anything? Why is it a problem that I care about the dark hole that our generation is slowly slipping into?
People are gonna look back on teens today and laugh at us. At least I care.

museofdoom:

Revolutionaryloser:

I posted earlier but I really want to know this. Why isn't it OK to slut shame a woman who chooses to walk around looking like a hooker? I mean literally looking like a hooker. I really wish I knew the answer to that.

Because people should be allowed to dress how they want to dress without being chastised for it. If a woman wants to show off a lot of skin, let her. She's comfortable enough with her body to show it off and that's great. So what if she wants to wear fishnet leggings and stilettos? If it makes her happy, then so be it. It's not affecting you personally, so why do you have the right to be a jerk and try to make someone feel ashamed of the way they choose to dress?

a.) as a straight man, it is inherently physiologically distracting to me when a woman has a plunging neckline or other equally revealing attire. What's more, it "makes her happy" because she likes the attention she gets from strangers. It's the only possible reason she would dress overly revealingly in public "just because", otherwise she could just do it in private. While I normally wouldn't just point this out (why would I?), I would be happy to do so if said woman somehow retaliated to glance or something. You can call it "slut shaming", I just call it honest retaliation. I bring it up only because woman who dress this way ARE going to be treated differently. That's just the reality. Those who have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise are often the ones I see crying foul. Also, I have every right to be a jerk. Your own subjective views don't somehow undermine those rights. If I'm a total nihilist, I'm not going to give a crap what you think and I don't have to. That's sort of how reality works. All responsibility is self-imposed, others can only persuade us to impose it on ourselves via logic or consequences.

b.) I'd argue against Revolutionaryloser that there's no reason to give a crap if a woman dresses like a slut. Unless she's in a place for children or she's attempting to chastise you for looking, why should you care how she's dressed? Even if she's dressed like a prostitute, what's wrong with being a hooker? Seriously. Unlike some manipulative people, at least hookers are honest about having sex in exchange for something. If anything, I feel bad for those who got forced into that line of work. It's certainly not something I see as worth shaming over.

MomoElektra:
Understandable, but entitlement and the problems surrounding it have been around a lot longer than this one video game.

Fair enough, but I'm still sick of it. It got abused so regularly I just get hives looking at it now.

MomoElektra:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

BloatedGuppy:

Revolutionaryloser:
Well, thanks for considering my post. My line of work deals quite a lot with those issues so I can tell you most human trafficking is related to prostitution and/or stealing organs. It's pretty simple really. Uneducated, third world women who can't speak anything but their native language only have one use in the eyes of gangsters.

I could argue my belief that women who prostitute their bodies by choice are effectively reinforcing and condoning a culture that sees women as objects with a price tag and therefore that it's perfectly alright to strip a woman of her rights and sell (or rent as it may be) her body for money. I won't argue it because obviously I can't give any numbers.

I do think however that selling sex for money is terrible. I think it's a crime and I think it's absolutely immoral. I understand that a lot of people don't share that view with me. Love is the founding principle of my personality or something like that. I think love is the most important thing in human culture. Maybe I'm just being a religious fanatic or something but the idea of putting a price on love-making strikes me as sacriligious.

Well, I think if we could stop moralizing about prostitution, legalize it, and regulate it, you'd close off a lot of avenues for human traffickers. Just as the war on drugs and prohibition demonstrated, these moral crusades usually result in an ERUPTION of crime, not a cessation of it.

I also think that a lot of people end up in prostitution due to need, and not by choice, and I 100% support outreach and assistance in terms of getting people out of that lifestyle if it's not something they're comfortable with. I'm not suggesting we open "Prostitute University" and start offering scholarships or anything. But it would be nice if these women (and men) could enjoy safe working conditions and health care instead of being driven into the margins of society. I live in a city where over 50 women were murdered by serial killer before someone finally looked into it, because they were prostitutes, and it took over 20 years to get the police to take it seriously. That's a serious fucking problem.

As for the love thing, I hear you, but love =/= sex. They often go hand in hand, like ice cream and cones, but they are not the same thing. Whether we like admitting it or not, sex is a basic a priori biological drive, and people are going to have a compulsion to engage in it that is completely and entirely separate from love.

I'm seriously not with you on the legalizing anything. Hell, considering the embarassingly high death tolls due to alcohol in the US I would actually consider making alcohol illegal in the US. I don't know if you've heard of the Opium wars but basically there was a time when drugs were legal and a lot of people died because of it. I would rather have gangsters making money than that level of tragedy. In any case, slaves will always be cheaper than working women so the human trafficking isn't going to go away just because we regulate it. After all, if you're willing to have sex with a prostitute, you're willing to rape a woman if you think the mob will help you get away with it. You'd be amazed how easy it is for someone to lie to themselves about that.

BTW, about the need v. choice thing. I can reassure you there are an insignificant amount of women who actually go into prostitution for need. The amount of money prostitutes generally earn could get them out of the gutter with a week's work. Most willing prostitutes I've encountered do it mostly because of laziness and drug addiction. The "I'm in need" excuse wears pretty thin once you consider being a stripper is totally legal but prostitutes prefer to work less hours.

Stilt:

Shaming, insulting, assuming, its all natural on a forum populated by insecure gamers who'd never be able to even get close to a supermodel in this life or the next, let them have their rage

Thanks for generalising the entire forum, we all appreciate it.

It's funny the person you quoted disliked the generalisations made towards supermodels so you thought it was appropriate to generalise the population of this forum.

BloatedGuppy:

MomoElektra:
Well clearly I think we do.
I know I'm splitting hairs but I think it's important to make that distinction.

Devil in the details with your example: Procreation should happen with a willing partner, of course.
It doesn't always. Those details are important.
You did, without meaning to, just exclude a whole group of people from the discussion as if they don't exist.
Details are important.

If it makes you feel better, yes, we can agree on that distinction formally. We're not really passing anything into law here, mind you. We're just having a gab on a forum. For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

Thanks.

For the purposes of which I generally like to work on the friendly assumption that people are anti-rape.

The poster above you just said women are responsible for his instinct reactions (here the male gaze) because of what they are wearing, not he himself. It's ironic, isn't it...

BloatedGuppy:
That's not what he's asking. He's asking if it's okay to call "a spic a spic", since it's "just a label".

You're arguing from intention, not definition. If I consider that the definition contains a derogatory notion, it's still the intent driving the definition. A spic is merely a Spanish-American person. No more or less insulting then calling me a cracker.

BloatedGuppy:
That you continue to cling to the assertion that "slut" is a definition, free of prejudice and 100% neutral without intent, would make any discussion with you on the "difference between name calling and using definitions" pointless in the extreme. And to be honest, I don't even think YOU believe this. I think you've just taken a position, arbitrarily.

I'll point you back to slut parades. A definition of a word does not dictate the intentions people have in using it. You'd think that it would, but it doesn't.

BloatedGuppy:
I'm sorry, is this the "I'm not CALLING you an asshole, I'm just saying you look and talk and act just like an asshole" defense? Again, are we five here? What's next? He started it? I know you are but what am I? If you're going to make sneering commentary about someone's "mental capacity" because they disagree with you, then yes...you are engaging in ad hominem attacks.

You're failing to consider that the example I used illustrated the perceptions you would take toward a term defining mental capacities are more insulting than they are defining. If I continually explain that my intentions are not insults, point out the definition of the word we are discussing correctly defines the idea in question and you continue to argue from the alternative perception, then you are again, by definition, demonstrating your limited mental capacities in either correctly reading my position or choosing to misinterpret it; IE, you're being an imbecile.

Satire...
Someone - You shouldn't slut shame people.
Me - It is not insulting to say someone is a slut if they are in fact a slut.
You - Slut is a derogatory term, you're being insulting.
Me - My intention is not to insult, I'm merely using the most fitting term.
You - You're being insulting.
Me - ...

BloatedGuppy:
Maybe that was another experiment. I can't say for sure. Like, maybe it was an experiment in which you used a quote to draw an absurd comparison between calling people names, and struggling to prevent the triumph of evil.

I've already responded to this. It was a response to the suggestion that it's easier to ignore something rather than condemn it. You're taking something I said entirely out of context and applying it to an argument I'm not even making.

BloatedGuppy:
Do you see me putting forth "obese" as an insult? Whoops, I can scroll up the page and see me arguing otherwise. I'm not really concerned about what "people" are talking about. I'm not part of a collective here on the forums that all speak with the same voice.

Stick to the point. You accused me of drawing an analogue between 'sluts' and 'obese', when in fact the thread has contained the notions of both in it, whether arguing from a definition or intention standpoint. In fact, now that I think about it, the basis for near every response you've made toward my commentary as been an extremely negative interpretation of intention, a distinct lack of understanding and a continued willful ignorance to the contrary. If you feel like indulging my curiosity, what are the points I am trying to make?

Revolutionaryloser:
I'm seriously not with you on the legalizing anything.

I know you're not, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Revolutionaryloser:
Hell, considering the embarassingly high death tolls due to alcohol in the US I would actually consider making alcohol illegal in the US. I don't know if you've heard of the Opium wars but basically there was a time when drugs were legal and a lot of people died because of it.

You need to legalize AND regulate. Legalizing things is half the battle, yo. Drugs are illegal now, and lots of people are dying because of it. The only way to eliminate the criminal enterprise is to eliminate the market. Telling people the market is immoral is clearly not working.

Revolutionaryloser:
After all, if you're willing to have sex with a prostitute, you're willing to rape a woman if you think the mob will help you get away with it. You'd be amazed how easy it is for someone to lie to themselves about that.

Yeahhhh no. No. I'm sorry, but that sounds like an extraordinarily specious assertion. I do not agree that all Johns are willing rapists. Going on to assert that "people are willing to lie to themselves" doesn't make it go down any easier, either. I can say something completely crazy and then chase it with "but everyone is lying to themselves about it" as well, it wouldn't make it any less crazy.

Revolutionaryloser:
BTW, about the need v. choice thing. I can reassure you there are an insignificant amount of women who actually go into prostitution for need. The amount of money prostitutes generally earn could get them out of the gutter with a week's work. Most willing prostitutes I've encountered do it mostly because of laziness and drug addiction. The "I'm in need" excuse wears pretty thin once you consider being a stripper is totally legal but prostitutes prefer to work less hours.

Well, I'm not a prostitute, so I can't really speak to this. You probably have a point about drug addiction keeping a lot of women in the lifestyle longer than they need to be. I had an ex-girlfriend who almost turned to prostitution in a moment of pure desperation, though. I ended up taking out a loan and giving her several thousand dollars so she wouldn't have to. I can guarantee you her desperation was real.

axlryder:

museofdoom:

Revolutionaryloser:

I posted earlier but I really want to know this. Why isn't it OK to slut shame a woman who chooses to walk around looking like a hooker? I mean literally looking like a hooker. I really wish I knew the answer to that.

Because people should be allowed to dress how they want to dress without being chastised for it. If a woman wants to show off a lot of skin, let her. She's comfortable enough with her body to show it off and that's great. So what if she wants to wear fishnet leggings and stilettos? If it makes her happy, then so be it. It's not affecting you personally, so why do you have the right to be a jerk and try to make someone feel ashamed of the way they choose to dress?

a.) as a straight man, it is inherently physiologically distracting to me when a woman has a plunging neckline or other equally revealing attire. What's more, it "makes her happy" because she likes the attention she gets from strangers. It's the only possible reason she would dress overly revealingly in public "just because", otherwise she could just do it in private. I would be happy to point these things out to said woman if she somehow retaliated to glance or something. You can call it "slut shaming", I just call it being honest. Also, you have every right to be a jerk. Your own subjective views don't somehow undermine those rights. If I'm a total nihilist, I'm not going to give a crap what you think and I don't have to. That's sort of how reality works. All responsibility is self-imposed, others can only persuade us to impose it on ourselves via logic or consequences.

b.) I'd argue against Revolutionaryloser that there's no reason to give a crap if a woman dresses like a slut. Unless she's in a place for children or she's attempting to chastise you for looking, why should you care how she's dressed? Even if she's dressed like a prostitute, what's wrong with being a hooker? Seriously. Unlike some manipulative people, at least hookers are honest about having sex in exchange for something. If anything, I feel bad for those who got forced into that line of work. It's certainly not something I see as worth shaming over.

In response, I would only care if:

She was related to me in some way which is regretably the case some of the time. I know in an ideal world it shouldn't have to be like this but I can't help but worry when I see a 14 year old niece of mine walking down the street and my first impression is "It's a hooker, better ignore her." before I do a double-take.

The other reason would be that she came up to me for something and then I would have to actually think on my feet if I should a) listen to what she wants because she might not be a hooker and just wants a light or something b) assume she's a hooker and get the fuck out of there because in the best case scenario she's offering her services which is enough of a humiliation as is if I'm not also caught in a raid to boot and in the worst case she's trying to distract me while her pimp stabs me in the kidneys and steals my wallet.

OK. Granted. Maybe I'm paranoid but it just so happens that a cousin of mine died that way.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked