Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Image Galleries > "Pictures of you with an RRS sign" - Why make it sexy?

I'm unclear on the message RRS is trying to project with this.

This world is suggestive and idolizes women, from an evolutionary standpoint, RRS should be working hard to remove the stigma around this sort of thing. One thing Christians have going for them (and i say this cautiously) is that they don't generally approve of women walking around projecting a strong sexual image. It's really too bad that the women of this (specifically North American) are seen so strongly as sex objects instead of intelligent beings.

Nakedness is natural, the body is natural. It's a real shame that people in this society feel a need to make a statement by linking it to sex and more specifically, the female body. If you want to have a great body, for great sexual reasons, keep it for the great sexual reasons, it doesn't make sense to use this as a way to get viewers or whatever your agenda is.

If you keep this up there... put out a challenge to the men... make it equal, make it sexual (please not pornographic). It's a fallacy to think that only hot women are sexually stimulating... Guys need to recognize that women love hot men too... so hot men out there who want to make a statement... hang it creatively from your dangly. It's not rational however to be fighting the themes of morality while taking steps backwards creating the sexual prison that women find themselves involunatarily and unhappily in and locking men into not being able to release the conditioning that sexual fantasy has to be like this. Would be nice to have a day where people are seen as equals sexually, physically, intellectually. These actions are not condusive to a world where equality exists, and people have natural freedoms.

And to the women... show how brilliant you are intellectually... no one really needs to read it plastered across your chest, they wouldn't be reading that message anyhow. Rise above the stigma that is out there, women are just as sexy and evocative being brilliant, intelligent and well educated.

I'm not about oppressing sexuality, I love it as much as the next, I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect. Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

Drea

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If it hadn't been

Quote:
If it hadn't been for Abrahamic religions, we wouldn't have porn on the net in the way we do today - Period.

There's simply no way you're going to sell this without some proper documentation. You have noticed that there's porn in Japan, right? You know... non-Abrahamic... Oh, and China, and India... I mean, there was porn in China before there was Abraham in Israel. (I prefer the word erotica, anyway... "porn" has a bit of a negative connotation, wouldn't you say? Fear-mongering perhaps?)

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Quote:
Will we tell christians that they should be Atheists becasue we are against gays?

Bad analogy. First, of course, most atheists I know are not against gays because it's irrational to be so. Second, using an irrational fear to scare people into doing something is not analogous to enticing people to do something because of something they like. Third, I don't see that you have any logical link between homophobia and sexual attraction.

Quote:
Why would we use the mysogonistic objectification of women that they created as a means to do it then?

Could you link the peer reviewed scientific journals that document the connection between racy advertising and mysogony?

Lacking science, could you make a logical connection between the two? As it is, there doesn't seem to be any connection.

Quote:
As I said in a different post, this entire debate only exists because the Abrahamic religions made sex and sexuality taboo

Possibly

Quote:
by acknowledging it even so much as rejecting it and especially by using it to manipulate, you are supporting it.

But you still haven't shown a link between women freely expressing their sexuality and Abrahamic, mysogynistic oppression. You've asserted that there is a link, but I'm not seeing it. Could you demonstrate the link?

Quote:
Freedom from religion should also include freedom from the unjustified concepts and changes it has made in our society as well.

You mean like telling women to keep their clothes on when they send pictures to websites?

Sorry, dude. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you're just asserting things. If you're going to make such sweeping generalizations, it would be nice if you could also bring some evidence to the table, too.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: Vorax

kellym78 wrote:
Vorax wrote:

 

The objectification of women in our society IS a direct result of the mysogonistic nature of the Abrahamic religions. Bottom line is, we shouldn't need naked pictures on this site simply because we shouldn't even care at all if women have their tops off - if we are truly to escape the dogma, we should all be as free and open sexually as those tribes men and women in Africa that wouldn't even understand this debate because they don't have the sexual objectification concepts even built into their cultures that created this debate.

Really, this isn't entirely accurate. Our society is particularly obsessed with breasts (mostly because they have removed from their biological function as a mechanism by which we feed babies),

Which is EXACTLY my point.  Christians got women to cover up, made nudity and sexuality taboo, and thus created the fantasy that North American men in particular have about breasts.  If you leverage this "taboo" then you are validating it.

 

Quote:
but indigenous tribes are not as sexually free as you want to present them. The typical African man doesn't care about breasts, but he sure is turned on by thighs, which are generally concealed. The nudist tribes may not have an issue with nudity, but if a man gets an erection in public, it is cause for shame.   

 There are also many strange rituals and beliefs surrounding sex in these cultures. NO culture is completely free of some kind of cultural mentality surrounding sex, just like no culture is free of some kind of conditioning concerning going to the bathroom.

This is a false dichotomy - I never claimed they were totally free, I only meant that in general they are far beyond our levels in North America, and they are.

My point is only that freedom from this sexual objectification is  in my opinion a good thing becasue we arrived at it via biblical trickery based without any rational means.  Our entire fascination with breasts and sexual images was created by Abrhamic sexual repression. The bible created the issue and if we manipulate it, we are supporting it and continuing it.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Which is

Vorax wrote:
Which is EXACTLY my point. Christians got women to cover up, made nudity and sexuality taboo, and thus created the fantasy that North American men in particular have about breasts. If you leverage this "taboo" then you are validating it.

I'm not sure I understand.

By breaking from the social training that was (debatably) brought about by religious dogma we are thereby validating it? Or are you considering pictures of beautiful women weapons and we are using a weapon given to us by religion to recruit onto an atheist website?

HELP! MARCUS IS CONFUSED AGAIN! 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My point is only

Quote:
My point is only that freedom from this sexual objectification is in my opinion a good thing becasue we arrived at it via biblical trickery based without any rational means. Our entire fascination with breasts and sexual images was created by Abrhamic sexual repression. The bible created the issue and if we manipulate it, we are supporting it and continuing it.

Respectfully, you are mistaken.

Recommended reading: Myth & Sexuality, by Jamake Highwater, and The Mating Game (not at my desk... can't remember the author). One of these examines the creation and propogation of sexual mythology and misconception from pre-Judaic civilization to the present, and the other examines mate selection from an evolutionary perspective, mostly dealing with animals other than humans to gain understanding of human mating behaviors.

Our fascination with breasts is not unique in Western society. It is just more pronounced. Furthermore, the bible did not create the issue. The bible simply continued the tradition of male control over female reproduction that was ubiquitous in the Middle East. Control of land and property (including women) was dependent on certainty of parenthood. To say that we are still under the same system would be a bit naive. We've had 2000 years to twist it around and adapt it to changing social standards.

Quote:
This is a false dichotomy - I never claimed they were totally free, I only meant that in general they are far beyond our levels in North America, and they are.

To be honest, I'm not sure I follow this tangent. Human interaction, including sex, is about power struggles. Always has been, always will be. There will always be power gaps, so there will always be some sort of sexual control. I don't see what this has to do with anything. The question on the table is whether or not females who display themselves in an appealing manner for the purpose of enticing people to look at something is inherently bad for women or society at large, and whether it is inherently bad to use physical advantages to advantage.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Sapient

Vorax wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Like me, i htink it's a negative image of what i think of as astheism.

But you admit atheism isn't a philosophy. You should have no expectations of atheism, for if you do, it'll likely let you down.

Would you agree that the goal is to rid ourselves of the the dogmas of religion? If so, then why would we use one of the very artifacts of religion to try and attract people to Atheism? If it hadn't been for Abrahamic religions, we wouldn't have porn on the net in the way we do today - Period.

It's your opinion that religion has made it so that we look at women as more sexual objects, if I understand your position properly. I would argue that any sexuality that appears in religion is a direct result of the sexuality we had in us before man created religions. Now, I'm no anthropologist, and I'd actually like to look one up and ask him/her these question on our show, but I think I've read enough to be able to reasonably conclude that we've taken elements of our sexuality and put them into religion, these elements predate religion. Further I'd argue that religion in fact sexually represses us, making us desire sex less. I'd argue that if it weren't for religion we might all be walking around on hot summer days naked on public streets, that porn would be a bigger business, that it would air on cbs at 8pm, that media would be even more sexual than it is now, and that your wife would never bring up this issue.

see also: burqas, congress pressuring fda to not approve a drug that prevents hpv (hpv is a std) , thwarting abortion so that we are scared to have sex, and skirts below the knee in catholic school.

 

 

Quote:
Step back for a second and view it from another perspective with a different example of an artifact of that religion - Will we tell christians that they should be Atheists becasue we are against gays? The concept that homosexuality is wrong is another meme that was propigated by christianity. Should we use the power of fear which is built into the christian minds regarding gays to try and sway them to this site? No, right? Why would we use the mysogonistic objectification of women that they created as a means to do it then?

I'm not following, but if you want gay men kissing while holding a Rational Response Squad sign just let me know, and I'll call Darth Josh. (ladies, feel free to perform lesbian acts with RRS sign as well)

 

 

Quote:
As I said in a different post, this entire debate only exists because the Abrahamic religions made sex and sexuality taboo - by acknowledging it even so much as rejecting it and especially by using it to manipulate, you are supporting it.

I think I must have misunderstood your first point. In this point you seem to be agreeing with me and disagreeing with your wife again. You're saying that if I fall prey to sexual taboos, then I have supported the systems of Abrahamic religions? If that's the case, I think you'd be speaking about your wife. Maybe you should just clarify this whole post, and I'll pick it up from there. I think I'm not following because you may have assumed a faulty premise to be true, I can't tell what that premise is though.

 

Quote:
Freedom from religion should also include freedom from the unjustified concepts and changes it has made in our society as well.

If we were truly free from the sexual taboos placed on our society by religion, Seinfeld and Elaine would have had sex on camera with their naked bodies shown at 9 pm on major network tv.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: If a

marcusfish wrote:

If a theist sees a sexy picture which 'represents' an atheist or atheist group they take their opportunity to call us hedonist savages. I say, fantastic.

Me too. It's a great opportunity to show a theist how he/she is utilizing poor modes of thought without having to even discuss religion. Adults who are religious, generally are religious as a result of their inability to think critically. Critical thinking ability and enhancing it is of greater concern than any specific religion.

 

Quote:
IMO we should do less running from the fear of being classified by people who hate us on a fundamental basis. Cudos to the RRS for challenging xian morality, for risking being called amoral, etc.

Here Here!

 

A perfect example of this in yet a different area is our logo. Our logo says "Believe in God? We can fix that." Every few weeks I get an email from someone that says "Why do you say there is no god." Inevitably as I probe for information as to where they heard me say that (I generally don't use those specific words), I come to find out that they misinterpreted our logo. We made that logo in such a manner as to cause you to want to explore further. In fact, one can't be 100% sure without research if we are even atheist or theist. Showing others how they made assumptions about our position is a good icebreaker to showing the other side that they're using faulty lines of reasoning.

For the record, the statement in our logo refers to the fact that belief in god is not rational, that we can help someone see that fact, and that the rational conclusion is to abstain from believing in god. Abstaining from belief in god does not always equal "belief there is no god."

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Vorax

marcusfish wrote:

Vorax wrote:
Which is EXACTLY my point. Christians got women to cover up, made nudity and sexuality taboo, and thus created the fantasy that North American men in particular have about breasts. If you leverage this "taboo" then you are validating it.

I'm not sure I understand.

By breaking from the social training that was (debatably) brought about by religious dogma we are thereby validating it? Or are you considering pictures of beautiful women weapons and we are using a weapon given to us by religion to recruit onto an atheist website?

HELP! MARCUS IS CONFUSED AGAIN!

 

Thanks Marcus. I was thinking the same thing but wasnt sure how to say it.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

Vorax wrote:
Which is EXACTLY my point. Christians got women to cover up, made nudity and sexuality taboo, and thus created the fantasy that North American men in particular have about breasts. If you leverage this "taboo" then you are validating it.

I'm not sure I understand.

By breaking from the social training that was (debatably) brought about by religious dogma we are thereby validating it? Or are you considering pictures of beautiful women weapons and we are using a weapon given to us by religion to recruit onto an atheist website?

HELP! MARCUS IS CONFUSED AGAIN!

 

Thanks Marcus. I was thinking the same thing but wasnt sure how to say it.

This is the same issue I was having.  I think we're having this issue because Vorax has made a few anthropological assumptions and presenting them as fact while arguing. 

 Here's how I see it:

 Religion has repressed us sexually.

Without religion we'd be MUCH more sexual, and references to sex would be much more often and pervasive in our world.  Men would have even more fantasies with breasts and every other body part, and women would feel more free to have men engaging in those fantasies in the real world.  In other words, women would be having the fantasies too (they already do) and THEY WOULD ACT ON IT, more frequently.  It would also be much more acceptable to act on it, more often, and more openly.  

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

There's simply no way you're going to sell this without some proper documentation. You have noticed that there's porn in Japan, right?

You know... non-Abrahamic... Oh, and China, and India... I mean, there was porn in China before there was Abraham in Israel.

In Japan and China (an many other cultures/relgions), it wasn't Abrahamic but the same idea was at work, the concept that women were below men and are property (objectified). The concept of male domination, women are inferer... mysogony. For more information, please google with the key words: "misogyny sexual repression bible" you will find hundreds of sites. This is common knowledge.

Quote:
(I prefer the word erotica, anyway... "porn" has a bit of a negative connotation, wouldn't you say? Fear-mongering perhaps?)

Porn isn't a bad word to me I have no conetation other then people engaged in sexual activities. This is what I meant about you being a victim of that which you think you are free from. You use the terms cautiously as if it were...taboo or something to be fearful of...ask yourself why.

Quote:

Bad analogy. First, of course, most atheists I know are not against gays because it's irrational to be so. Second, using an irrational fear to scare people into doing something is not analogous to enticing people to do something because of something they like. Third, I don't see that you have any logical link between homophobia and sexual attraction.

I agree, that wasn't the point - my point was the concept was spread by religion.

Quote:

Could you link the peer reviewed scientific journals that document the connection between racy advertising and mysogony?

Lacking science, could you make a logical connection between the two? As it is, there doesn't seem to be any connection.

Why are so many women featured on magazines, in adds, etc. over men? It's sexual -- sex sells. Why are images of scantily clad women so compelling? We are all born naked, why in our culutre is sexuality so enticing? Our culture is a result (in part) from the misognystic teachings spread by religion. If you disagree with that assesment, please state why.

Quote:
As I said in a different post, this entire debate only exists because the Abrahamic religions made sex and sexuality taboo

 

Quote:
But you still haven't shown a link between women freely expressing their sexuality and Abrahamic, mysogynistic oppression. You've asserted that there is a link, but I'm not seeing it. Could you demonstrate the link?

See above.

Quote:
You mean like telling women to keep their clothes on when they send pictures to websites?

No, like giving women the idea that this is even something to consider. I'm not saying don't send in nude photos, I'm saying by doing so you are feeding the christian taboo of sexuality and objectifying women. I would have a world where we would all have naked pictures of us on this site and not a single mention of it would be made...picture human society 50,000 years ago. They probably wouldn't have a clue what we are debating right now and might think we were nuts...certainly irrational.

Quote:
Sorry, dude. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but you're just asserting things. If you're going to make such sweeping generalizations, it would be nice if you could also bring some evidence to the table, too.

No sweat, all I request is you keep an open mind about what I am saying - you're mind may not be as free as you think in this regard.

Ever see the Matrix? This conversation reminds me of the talk between Neo and Morpheus...Neo says (paraphrasing), "You mean I will be able to dodge bullets?", Morpheus says, "When you are ready, you won't have to." I feel like you are unable to recognize that you are fighting the concept of sexual repression without understanding that your reason for you doing so is because you are still trapped by it....My theory is that when your mind is free, you won't need to fight it and you will see that those using it to their advantage are only validating it and supporting it...I could be wrong, but I was raised by a women liberation leader and without any religion at all...and to me, you guys sound like you have unresolved issues with sexuality.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:   This is

Sapient wrote:

 

This is the same issue I was having. I think we're having this issue because Vorax has made a few anthropological assumptions and presenting them as fact while arguing.

Here's how I see it:

Religion has repressed us sexually.

Without religion we'd be MUCH more sexual, and references to sex would be much more often and pervasive in our world. Men would have even more fantasies with breasts and every other body part, and women would feel more free to have men engaging in those fantasies in the real world. In other words, women would be having the fantasies too (they already do) and THEY WOULD ACT ON IT, more frequently. It would also be much more acceptable to act on it, more often, and more openly.

 

 

First I want to say everytime I log into these forums Im in over my head. But I will take a shot at my understanding of what is going on.

Basically what Vorax is saying is that by us going against what religion says we are actually empowering religion?

 

I could be way off on this. Please correct me if Im wrong. But if Im right then this whole page needs to be taken donw right now. Tongue out

 

We dont want to be giving more power to religion by going against what they say. Wink


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Blah! no one is making this

Blah! no one is making this easy for me  Laughing out loud Now i have to figure out how the whole quote mechanism works, and pick at all the statements to me. Ok... here goes... (opened another tab so i can try to scrounge up them all)

I opened making a statement somewhere that RSS should be working hard to remove a stigma... i was wrong. It's not part of your agenda or mission, like Kelly says, it's your site, and your agenda. 

Sexual prison i agree on both sides, Kelly is right in that men are as imprisoned. I come from a generation where women are constantly pressued to look just "so". I take issue with it. I'm with all those women who are upset about the rake thin women, about the model idea, about inequallity for women etc etc. I don't see it as having a holistic healing effect for young girls damaged by this. I was raped when i was younger by a guy so i take sexuality very seriously. My ex husband was charged and convicted with assault  and many other things against me because he saw me as someone who wasn't an equal. He was scared of my looks, he knew people were attracted to me even tho i worked hard not to project that image, and he took it out on me. People with unhealthy attitudes towards attractive women/girls i am very sensitive about. I'm not saying that all women who use this to their advantage propagate this idea but... i would suggest it's not helping send a message that we are equals. Many many other women out there deal with the same thing, have to fight that same image. I'm making it personal but if we don't want patterns to continue, mindsets need to change. Families will suffer from women with image problems, i'm probably one of them however i try to keep a healthy perspective on it.

I wasn't making judgements on RRS, i was making a judgement on the image that the world is sending out. If RRS feels this is fine and has no issues with it, then that is their freedom and right to do so. I can't agree.

My comments about the beer sign. You advertise your sexuality to sell them on anti theology. It's not the same. Men want cheap beer, they don't come for stamps. This was what i was getting at. It's not about beer on the outside and specialty beer on the inside. 

 Ok, about the Christianity views. I mentioned it because i think iIF the site was to help Christians explore the merits or validity of their religion, then perhaps this would be a bit too much for them. It was about appearances and a step by step approach to making that transition. Clearly, that is not hte mission of this site. I'm a newb... i shouldn't have even broached this topic before examining this site futher for it's own philosophies. Clearly, my views are not inline. I did say that while my views are aligned closely to Christian ones, it doesn't make my views Christians, but mistakenly, that was a conclusion i jumped to because i thouht it had been implied. Perhaps not.

About the atheist philosophy, there IS no atheist philosophy. Atheism is just a belief, a statment. I don't believe in God, or any god or any ruler of my universe and i accept there might be nothing after i die. It's not a philosophy, it's an opinion. What an athiest does after they have that revelation is up to them and that's part of their own philosophy. That's my interpretation of it, not necesarily everyones. 

 About this thing where people seem to think i have issue with sexuality. I don't. I just think that the image it projects to our socity is wrong. What people do wiht like minded respectful individuals is one thing, and perhaps they are the enlightened of our society. I sit with my legs crossed because it's comfortable, not because i'm sending a message. I act very sexually when i want to as well. I'm not about oppression, i'm about messages that are sent out to people who can't handle it, who are conditioned by the chains of society not to interpret it properly, and who use it to their advantage. Yes, as you know from my posts i'm really against that. And i'm not speaking as someone who is bitter that i don't have that advantage.

I'm not irrational, i see spikes in our country, in our society, in our kids of people who are messed up because of the strong sexual messages being sent. I see rapes happen mor eand more often to our girls in high school. People are teaching that NO means NO to boys and that we can turn around as women and tease them to get what we want hoping that the No means no will be respected? we are fucking up the guys too!!! it's not fair either way. What about the disrespect women show to the wives and families of the men who can't help but be susceptible to this because they are weak even when they try to be strong. I love vorax completely but... he's been conditioned. If someone tries to take advantage of him i'll bitch slap her back to the stone age because she disrespected ME and my family. There has to be a mindset change. It' not the same.

Sex might be part of nature, but nature also has it that unattractive women rule too. And it's not always the pretty ones that end up on top. It's the ones that gang up together and knock the harlot who's seducing their husbands who win too. There is a lot of strength in the rage of women against injustice. A woman might want to feel sexually free but it comes at the cost of being accepted in general society and with the women of general society. If that's what they want, then fine. The average doesn't look like you Kelly, and it's the majority that will show their disdain for this approach the strongest. Right or wrong... that's nature.

I am NOT goign to enjoy a man disrobing me in his brain unless it's someone i'm trying to turn on and for my own sexual gratification. Wear a fat suit for a month? Tyra Banks did it and showed just how bad the women have it. She also showed the ridicule and it's cruel for those women. More reason that we try not to make them feel worse about themselves.

I addressed the part about the avatar.

 About equality... ok, i conceded that i'd rather have a male fireman rescue me from a building on fire. But that's a different thing. If China was runnign in to get me, i'd probably let her carry me out too. It's not about the gender, it's about the ability in that case to get a job done. I know it wasn't pointed out but i wanted to just rid that point right away. About eqality, in Canada, you have to give equal opportunity to everyone. A number of Native Americans have to be hired if they apply, other races, other everything as well as equal gender reperesentation. But we all hear stories about a woman getting it over a man because some asshole boss thought she was better to look at. I do not apply for jobs by unbuttoning my top an extra loop, and i don't act suggestively or flirty. I can't say i don't have a flirty nature, i do, but i don't use it in situations where i have a chance ot manipulate things. I know when i go to a certain store yeah, dude will probably try to serve me first. I can't say i don't like it, but i don't practively and openly TRY to get to the front of the line. In fact, i've been known to say another person was there first and then had soeone else attend me. Equality i mean by levelling playing fields. Again, my view.

The message about atheism... it's not just nothing. Its also about freedom, liberation. There is a an unnerviing joy when you realize you aren't shacked. I might believe in nothing, but it's a great freedom to have. What i was trying to get get across was that Christians who still are shackeled psychologically, who still find images like those not consistent with their morals and who are still on a perceived moral high ground, it might be counter productive. Again, this isn't osmehting that bothers the founders of this site and perhaps the people who are questioning will find alternate sources for their inspiration.

Posting... more to come.... gotta catch up on whatever else has been posted since i started this one. 

 

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: That's

Sapient wrote:

That's funny man. Did your wifes evolutionary advantages just make you lighten up your stance on her. Did her beauty possibly (maybe even subconsciously) enter the equation when lightening up your position? Want to make sure you can have your bioligical need to spread your seed met? Eye-wink (man, did I just cross a line? lol)

LOL...no actually we had this conversation yesterday and we are both in the same position...in essense I disagree with her - but we both respect each other enough to not take it personally.

Quote:
And I don't think I've said it yet but welcome aboard to both of you. And anyone new who I haven't said hi to for that matter. Maybe we can come up with a "cute couple" badge for Vorax and Drea. Although Drea... would that be bad?

Thanks!  And I'm sure she wouldn't have a problem that - she is against the mixed message os sexual images on the site, I am against supporting christianity in anyway period... I think in the end here with this discussion, we all agree that we don't want to support irrational christian ideals, we just aren't sure how to best do that Smiling

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: I would have a

Vorax wrote:
I would have a world where we would all have naked pictures of us on this site and not a single mention of it would be made...picture human society 50,000 years ago.

I would have to agree. However, I don't see how this is really helpful. My perfect world would be lots of things. *shrug* Where does that get us?

Quote:
..I could be wrong, but I was raised by a women liberation leader and without any religion at all...and to me, you guys sound like you have unresolved issues with sexuality.

I assert that everyone has sexual issues of some kind or another (I think Kelly mentioned this earlier). That is, unless we are not part of a society or if that society is somehow 'enlightened' beyond the point of such material things.

Are you promoting that you are, in fact, void of any sexual issues whatsoever? That'd be pretty neat.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: We are all

Vorax wrote:

We are all born naked, why in our culutre is sexuality so enticing? Our culture is a result (in part) from the misognystic teachings spread by religion. If you disagree with that assesment, please state why.

Our culture also is a result of our biology. For example we must eat to survive. In fact we need to do it often as compared to say, clipping our toenails. Because of this, we have lavish meals together as a family, we take dates to restaurants for food, we have barbeque picnics to socialize and eat. Do you remember the last time you were at a toenail or haircutting party? My point is that there are biological aspects of who we are that exist outside of religion, while existing inside our culture (like sex). We need to have sex to spread our seed, this exists outside of religion. To put things into your own language here... If we were free of religion both women and men would be "objectified" more often, the only difference would be that nobody would call it "objectifying" it would just be considered "normal."

 

Quote:
My theory is that when your mind is free, you won't need to fight it and you will see that those using it to their advantage are only validating it and supporting it...I could be wrong, but I was raised by a women liberation leader and without any religion at all...and to me, you guys sound like you have unresolved issues with sexuality.

Wow that's a big theory. I'll note it, and self analyze. I can agree to disagree, I can understand what would make you say that, I happen to currently disagree. Personally I think being free from religion has allowed me to express myself sexually however I choose, and to be free to accept anyone for any method of sexual expression they choose, including but not limited to naked pictures with RRS signs.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Picking up where i left off

Picking up where i left off in the threads...

Sapient, haven't watched your show that you cited yet  (will move to my uber comp for that) and seeing as you think it's pertanant, i'll reserve my comments for later.

I do admit atheism isn't a philosophy. Philosophy is an interpretation of life. I'll tell you what my expectation of atheism is in a perfect world setting... it's that it gives an ideology to people. It's not based around sexuality, or anything, it's just a simple concept, portrayed in a simple logical sense. Now, PREPARE TO BE DISAPPOINTED DREA. Yup, lol, i'm pretty used to that. Atheists don't have to believe evolution, but it's a damn good reason not to believe in God, but it's not about being Atheist. Anyhow, we could totally go another route on that one. I think what i will concede is that i had a different image about your site when i joined than i have now and that's a fair observation. I brought up a point that seemed valid with my perspective however is not respresented here and that's fine with me.

 About the majority rules.. Kelly is right and you should stick to your guns when you have made a decision about your site. I just wanted to represent another view.

 Hambydammit... if you are part of the squad, please feel free, as any of you, to look up other positions of mine on the google groups site Christians vs atheists, well, just use my email and look me up on it... they are all listed under Drea. I can make arguements and back them up.

I've made many valid statements, most of them theoritical and opinions which are hard to back up. About your notion that you need stats showing impact of sexuality on society, i'll have to get back to you on that but i would suggest that the rise of rapes and sexual abuse, the amount of women dealing with self esteem issues becaues of pop culture imagery is on the rise. Hurting and cutting out women and making the ones who can't compete on this level IS hurting our society. I see it in the kids going thru high school now, and i see it walking around our city. I'm not thrilled with it, and all things considered, i shouldn't have to be. i perhaps have a jaded viewpoint but it doesn't mean that i'm not a product still of a socity that is screwed up and sending wrong messages.

I think when i politely declined to contiue this i allueded to thefact that i woudl be very happy to continue the same topic privately but that the thread had lost the message for which it was intended. I don't duck or hide from backing up my opinions and i'll be the first one to say i'm wrong when i think i am. I invite anyone to continue this discussion with me, i just suggested that possibly the stream was exhausted already.

Sound logic, lol, if you request stats, i'll find them. I'll find sites that talk about the problems of adolescent girls and body image. I'll talk about the unfairness that women can exploit themselves sexually and scream bloody murder if the guy actually hits on them. You want to tlak about unfair? Lets find stats where there were lawsuites filed against men for sexual advances that women didn't make themselves available for. C'mon... we all hvae been professionals long enough that we've seen it. We know how women maniupulate it and then they guy falls and she strikes. I've seen it. I mean, everywhere is rift with it. SOme guys can handle it, some just don't. Way too many people get hurt. Not just women tho too, many MANY guys do the same thing to women, hot men get hired by women who aren' thappy by their life. I'm not excuding gender, i'm excluding the principal of it. We just see the physical impact primarily in women. 

I agre with Kelly tho when she says what one society sees as fine, others might see as sexual. She is very right in saying that every society makes their own taboos about their own things. If it's human nature to repell some things... maybe it should be respected. Just another thought. 

 

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hey Pariah Thanks for

Hey Pariah

Thanks for joining in and i didn't mean to start this thread as a way to censor anything. In all respects i came to this site and joined up to contribute because i liked it. I had already seen the debate adn watched the days it was aired, and i had already heard the interviews with Kelly and Sapien so i knew their positions in general.

You are very right, this site is really cool, non offencive in appearance and i have no issues with it. I thought it woudl be more fun for people to express themeselves in fun poses... i don't care what the bear, i just saw it weird having those pics there... was unnecessary, but meh, if everyone wants them, defends them, thinks it's all in good fun or whatever, then fine.

Obviously i did draw some issues but... you're right pariah, it's not a predominant part of the site and in generally, i've been enjoying the discussions i've seen since... well, late last night.

And yes Sapien... i totally would love a cute couple badge. It's not sexually maniulative unless you request a picture of us copulating in a very erotic pose and tell everyone it's a good reason to be atheist and market it for the betterment of the site. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
To clear up the confusion

To clear up the confusion on "What is Vorax trying to say" I offer the following:

- We live in a society that was formed based on (but not limited to) misogonistic philosophies and religions.

- Men, the primariy (if not entire) creators of the Abrahamic religions (and other religions) took advantage of mens position and created scripture around the idea that men were superior to women

- Men actively opressed women sexually as a means to control them and assert their authority over them.  They were forced to cover their bodies in shame rather then just to keep warm.

- Men were also repressed as a side effect of this opression.  Sexuality became something taboo.

- Many Atheists have freed their minds in many ways, but there are still underlying portions of this misogonystic world view that are pervasive amongst them.

- By rejecting the idea that women should be ashamed of their bodies Atheists are supporting the women in their liberation from sexual repression.

- By encouraging women to continue this roll as objects for male fantasies, we are continuing the misgonistic tradition. 

- Ideally, all women and men should be judged by their intellect not their bodies.

- If we lived in a society where naked men is just as prevelant as naked women, and this didn't effect the general judgments of their persons, I would say 100% lets all be naked.  The power would have been removed in that case and now it's freedom of expression rather then manipulation becasue of misognostically originated concepts.

A) By encouraging women to NOT post sexual images of themselves (Drea's point), we are validating the objectification. Bad idea.

B) By encouraging women TO post sexual images of themselves (Kelly's point), we are validating the objectification. Bad idea.

 My point was that BOTH Drea an Kelly are wrong in my opinion, we shouldn't encourage or discourage - the entire thing shouldn't be an issue becasue the issue itself is irrational and shouldn't be validated by using it (Kelly's call to bring people in with it) or validated by denying it (Drea's call to not allow such posts).

I don't have a solution, I just don't agree with either of them and I would prefer no policy regarding it.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Do you

Sapient wrote:

Do you remember the last time you were at a toenail or haircutting party?

 

I was trying to forget those days. Frown


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
AbandonMyPeace

AbandonMyPeace wrote:
Sapient wrote:

Do you remember the last time you were at a toenail or haircutting party?

 

I was trying to forget those days. Frown

Damnit Abandon! Put a warning on that shit. You know how much it hurts to squirt coffee out your nose?!?!? A LOT.

*goes to find some paper towels* 

Laughing


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Lol, is this going to be

Lol, is this going to be one of those "agree to disagree" threads? Or will this be perceived as a cop out on my part.

Not bad... a newb with a comment pulls in the two big wigs and gets 3 pages of posts in over half a day.

I really hope we can all consider each others perspectives and respect it. I do, i won't leave the site or boycott or anything, i like people who stick to their guns. I'll still contribute, with my own Drea logic Eye-wink and again, feel free to question me, i love being challenged. Please also be prepared for my right brained logic, it's another of my stunning attibutes which makes logical arguements hard for the left brain analytics. But i do try my best to back up my opinions so... challenge me! and if more pops up on this thread... yehaw. Ummm, i have another avatar i can use... me with my SG (my new axe). Rockstar Drea... would that be more prefereable? it's not sexy, it's a chick with an axe, oh wait, that's totally freaking sexy.

 

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
On a last note... something

On a last note... something interesting with reference.

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1.htm

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Vorax

marcusfish wrote:

Vorax wrote:
I would have a world where we would all have naked pictures of us on this site and not a single mention of it would be made...picture human society 50,000 years ago.

I would have to agree. However, I don't see how this is really helpful. My perfect world would be lots of things. *shrug* Where does that get us?

It's something to shoot for...a world devoid of religion and all the irrational ideas and meme's that stemmed from them.

Quote:
 

Quote:
..I could be wrong, but I was raised by a women liberation leader and without any religion at all...and to me, you guys sound like you have unresolved issues with sexuality.

I assert that everyone has sexual issues of some kind or another (I think Kelly mentioned this earlier). That is, unless we are not part of a society or if that society is somehow 'enlightened' beyond the point of such material things.

Are you promoting that you are, in fact, void of any sexual issues whatsoever? That'd be pretty neat.

No, but I do think this is an issue that I came to terms with a long time ago.  First, I live in Ontario, Canada - a province where women are allowed to go to any beaches topless.  We are more European in our personal and sexual freedoms then much of States (still a ways to go tho) and i'd guess less sexually repressed in many ways (from the visits to the States I have made and the many Americans I know).  My mother, a respected leader for womens rights at the time, educated me over 20 years ago on this topic. (BTW: she is wiccan and has no issues with nudity) She instilled one thing in me that I'll never forget - she wasn't against women being attractive, she was against women using it to control men, becuase it's illusionary - the effect of that is marganilizing other women and it promotes men viewing women sexually first, then as people. It becomes a crutch for some women and a bane for others and all are marganilized by it. Women deserve to be viewed for their brains first, then their bodies.

Here's a thought...how many christian men flat out disregarded Kelly's comments in the Comfort/Cameron debate?  I'd guess a lot and that's wrong, but until guys can look in the eyes and not wonder whats under the dress, it won't change.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
LOL, Vorax... I'll get to

LOL, Vorax... I'll get to why I'm laughing out loud, but I'll respond specifically first...

Quote:
In Japan and China (an many other cultures/relgions), it wasn't Abrahamic but the same idea was at work, the concept that women were below men and are property (objectified). The concept of male domination, women are inferer... mysogony. For more information, please google with the key words: "misogyny sexual repression bible" you will find hundreds of sites. This is common knowledge.

I accept your admission that porn (we'll use that term from now on) is not unique to Abrahamic religion. Thank you for the veiled concession.

Actually, I think you may be suffering from a little google-misinformationitis. True, women have been objectified. However, there's a nasty conflation of terms here. "Objectification" is not the same as "Repression" or "Oppression." Look, men and women are objectified daily. You think it makes me happy to go to a movie and watch my date swoon over Vin Diesel? Not only am I having to suffer through one of his movies, I'm also having to face the reality that I weigh 175 pounds, and at least 15 of it is a beer gut. I'm not as sexually attractive as Vin. But.... I own shit. Lots of it... because I'm smart and figured out at a very early age how to make lots of money. I get a lot more dates when I wear Armani, you know? Am I repressed or oppressed because I'm scrawny? Well, no, but I don't get laid because of it. I do sometimes have women falling all over me when they find out I have money. Am I being used? Objectified? Well, yes. Are women being used for their bodies? Yes. Do women with better bodies get more dates? Probably so... with better looking men, quite often. All of this is objectification. Not only is it not evil or wrong, it's how we make pretty babies. It's evolution at work.

Now, in Iran, women are oppressed. They have to wear veils when they go out, and they must be accompanied by a male family member. If a woman is raped, the man pays the family some money and then they kill the girl. That's oppression.

Repression is harder to define. Some men repress their urge to rape women. Is that bad? Of course not. (Personally, I don't get off on subjugation, but it's just my bag, you know?) I repress my urge to try to get into my date's pants on the first date... most of the time. She often does the same thing. Most likely, this is a good thing, most of the time. It doesn't do to make babies with people you can't stand, after all.

But... my last girlfriend (raised very Christian, but agnostic when we dated)... well, I'm not going to give you the gory details, but it was more work than it should have been to talk her into some pretty ordinary stuff. When I finally talked her into them, she got mad at me for not making her do them sooner. Go figure. Anyway, the point is, repression involves NOT doing things. Put another way, you can't say that something a woman does is repression. Something she doesn't do is repression.

Now, mysogyny. Hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. If I look at a woman with a banging body and ask her out because she's hot, is that hatred, dislike or mistrust? No. If I look through Playboy? Nope. What about if I take nudie photographs of my girlfriend? Nope. But.... what if I don't ask out the girl who's shaped like a bowling ball and has pimples and bad breath. Do I hate women? Nope. Just don't want to have sex with that particular one. Fair? Nope. Hatred, mistrust, or dislike? No.

So, do many societies subjugate women? Of course. They often use repressive sexual laws and cultural standards to do it. No argument. Now, what is the correlation between this and people getting their panties in a wad when they see a boob on prime time tv? Is it that boobs are bad, or that the people who get their panties in a wad have something bizarre going on in their heads? Is the website that calmly allows a woman to post a saucy pic of herself repressing or oppressing anyone, or is the person who gripes about it displaying a repressive attitude?

So, lots of terms being thrown around in your post, but also lots of conflation.

Quote:
Porn isn't a bad word to me I have no conetation other then people engaged in sexual activities. This is what I meant about you being a victim of that which you think you are free from. You use the terms cautiously as if it were...taboo or something to be fearful of...ask yourself why.

As I said above, I'm happy to use the word. I am fearful to use it because it has been given such negative connotations by people who would tell women that they shouldn't make it.

Quote:
I agree, that wasn't the point - my point was the concept was spread by religion.

Ok, so we can abandon this as not relevant to the conversation, then?

Quote:
Why are so many women featured on magazines, in adds, etc. over men? It's sexual -- sex sells. Why are images of scantily clad women so compelling? We are all born naked, why in our culutre is sexuality so enticing? Our culture is a result (in part) from the misognystic teachings spread by religion. If you disagree with that assesment, please state why.

The reason we get ants in our pants over adults being naked is because men get wood and it pisses off the guy who's already got horizontal mambo priviledges with the woman who inspired the wood. (The guy who, in western society, the woman chose. Women are the selectors, you know! Tell me again how that's oppressive?) Likewise, it wouldn't do for my date to be agape at the pumped up guy with the huge shlong at the next table when I'm trying to stare longingly into her eyes over sushi. Because we are sexually selective, we don't display all the goods to everybody all the time. We reserve our best assets for when it will be to our best benefit to display them. (Again, you really should read that book I mentioned... The Mating Game.)

I agree that the Abrahamic religions promote misogyny. I still don't see the connection between misogyny and sexual expression for pleasure or advertising.

Quote:

Quote:
But you still haven't shown a link between women freely expressing their sexuality and Abrahamic, mysogynistic oppression. You've asserted that there is a link, but I'm not seeing it. Could you demonstrate the link?

See above.

I looked again, and I still don't see the link between sexual expression and misogyny. I see a link between the repression of sexual expression and misogyny, but you seem to be arguing the opposite. Please explain.

Quote:
No, like giving women the idea that this is even something to consider. I'm not saying don't send in nude photos, I'm saying by doing so you are feeding the christian taboo of sexuality and objectifying women.

This just doesn't make any sense! By breaking the taboos inspired by the misogynistic religion, we are feeding the taboos? And again, what's with this obsession with objectification? You haven't given any evidence that it's bad.

Quote:
I would have a world where we would all have naked pictures of us on this site and not a single mention of it would be made...picture human society 50,000 years ago. They probably wouldn't have a clue what we are debating right now and might think we were nuts...certainly irrational.

So tell me again why your jeans are all twisted up over someone sending in a non-nude photo?

Quote:
No sweat, all I request is you keep an open mind about what I am saying - you're mind may not be as free as you think in this regard.

My mind's as open as Paris Hilton's legs. You gotta come up with something besides contradictory assertions before I'll buy anything you're selling, though. Many people have pointed out how you're contradicting yourself. Care to make a non-contradictory statement of your beliefs, and then back them up with some non-conflated terms?

Quote:
I feel like you are unable to recognize that you are fighting the concept of sexual repression without understanding that your reason for you doing so is because you are still trapped by it

Interesting... because I think it's silly to tell women not to do what pleases them, I'm trapped by repression, and can't see that my permissive attitude is actually repressive. Maybe you're not being clear again.

Quote:
My theory is that when your mind is free, you won't need to fight it and you will see that those using it to their advantage are only validating it and supporting it

I like women. I like sex. I don't have big biceps, but I do have a big brain, a nice house, two awesome cats, a freaky nice kitchen that I know how to use, a grand piano I know how to play, a nice car, and a fat wallet. I will use my advantages to try to get laid. I hope every woman around me will use whatever advantages she has, physical, material, or intellectual, to find the best mate she can. What is it that I'm fighting against again?

Quote:
I could be wrong, but I was raised by a women liberation leader and without any religion at all

So, you're aware of the enormous differences of opinion in feminist philosophy, right? And, if you've studied some psychology, you're also aware of the effects of oppression, and you know about residual resentment and how it can have a detrimental effect on the oppressed individual's ability to think rationally about her oppressor, right?

Quote:
and to me, you guys sound like you have unresolved issues with sexuality.

Here's what I was laughing about at the beginning. What exactly about the opinion that sex is good, fun, and pretty fun to look at, do you think is an unresolved issue? I'm sorry, but you're just not making much of a dent in the objections to your um... objections... to our objections... to your wife's objections...

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Hey

Drea wrote:

Hey Pariah

Thanks for joining in and i didn't mean to start this thread as a way to censor anything. In all respects i came to this site and joined up to contribute because i liked it. I had already seen the debate adn watched the days it was aired, and i had already heard the interviews with Kelly and Sapien so i knew their positions in general.

You are very right, this site is really cool, non offencive in appearance and i have no issues with it. I thought it woudl be more fun for people to express themeselves in fun poses... i don't care what the bear, i just saw it weird having those pics there... was unnecessary, but meh, if everyone wants them, defends them, thinks it's all in good fun or whatever, then fine.

Obviously i did draw some issues but... you're right pariah, it's not a predominant part of the site and in generally, i've been enjoying the discussions i've seen since... well, late last night.

And yes Sapien... i totally would love a cute couple badge. It's not sexually maniulative unless you request a picture of us copulating in a very erotic pose and tell everyone it's a good reason to be atheist and market it for the betterment of the site. 

No worries.  Just wanted to jump into the melee. Eye-wink  Or actually, wade very carefully into it. 

I just think that sometimes we think about stuff like this too ethnocentrically, that's all.  I'm guilty of it quite often. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
OMFG. I type a response,

OMFG. I type a response, and by the time it's posted, there are six other posts...

Anyway, very briefly...

A cogent argument would be based on:

1) peer reviewed data showing correlation between two things.

2) a logically sound proof that backs up a conclusion derived from the data.

So far, I'm hearing a lot of rhetoric, and precious little argument, in the logical sense. Drea, I'm well aware of the issues that teens and women have with body image. (Adult men, too!) I don't see a necessary correlation between sexual competition, anxiety over body image, and saucy pictures, nor do I see that religion is connected to self-image anxiety, necessarily. In fact, I see a natural result of diversity. Where to go from there? I dunno.

Just to save you some trouble, there's a direct correlation between the prevalence of rape and the repression of female sexual expression (judged by both legal and cultural norms!). I've got to go now, but I'll do a post on it in the next couple of days.

Anyway, I'm ducking out because I have to do some actual work, or I won't make money, and then I'll never have sex axain. I may check in later tonight. If not, I'm sure you're in capable hands here. Enjoy the discussion.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I just think that

Quote:
I just think that the image it projects to our socity is wrong.

Can you express why the image of sexuality is wrong? Is it raelly just the idea of equality? That some people have it and some don't?

Quote:
I am NOT goign to enjoy a man disrobing me in his brain unless it's someone i'm trying to turn on and for my own sexual gratification.

I undress women in my mind constantly. I'm a neanderthal like that.

But in all seriousness, I am a sexual creature; nature and social programming be damned. The fact that I obsess over attractive women (or men, depending on if it's Tuesday or not) in no way implies that I think less of them. I doubt that at that moment I am wondering if they can perform advanced mathmatics ...

 
Quote:
Wear a fat suit for a month? Tyra Banks did it and showed just how bad the women have it. She also showed the ridicule and it's cruel for those women. More reason that we try not to make them feel worse about themselves.


Self image is tough stuff. I am, as yet, not convinced that there is a source for this difficulty other than puberty. Everything about our environment helps shape who we are, for better or worse. I'm not saying that advertizing etc doesn't share the responsibility, just that it is a pretty convenient entity to blame for a very complicated issue. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: - By

Vorax wrote:

- By rejecting the idea that women should be ashamed of their bodies Atheists are supporting the women in their liberation from sexual repression.

- By encouraging women to continue this roll as objects for male fantasies, we are continuing the misgonistic tradition.

I don't think you can have both of these at the same time. If you admit women shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, you have opened up the floodgates to allow women to act however they choose with their bodies. While this is something I support, you must understand that men will be just as fascinated (have fantasies) as compared to a time of sexual repression. In fact, I'd wager that due to our biological need to have sex we likely think about sex with a smiliar (if not the same) frequency as any other culture on the planet at any given time period.

 

Quote:
- Ideally, all women and men should be judged by their intellect not their bodies.

Wow! Why?

Why judge at all? What happened to equality? Why should we all judge women based on their intelect and not their beauty? Why not the other way around? Would the beauty queen who is an idiot like it if you judged her solely based on her intellect? Is that not the same sort of oppression you're seeking to thwart?

 

Quote:
B) By encouraging women TO post sexual images of themselves (Kelly's point), we are validating the objectification. Bad idea.

1. Kelly doesn't have bad ideas. (yes I'm biased, but I can at least prove this one.....)

2. That was never Kellys point or the RRS point. We never said "women" send your pics. It was always gender neutral. Which is exactly something you just claimed to be a proponent of.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: On a last

Drea wrote:

On a last note... something interesting with reference.

Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), wrote a document used in the court case Murray v. Curlett, 1961-APR-27. It reads, in part:

"An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth - for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."

www.religioustolerance.org/atheist1.htm

 

That quote makes me tear up. I've only read it a couple of times, but it is by far one of my favorites.  


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

LOL, Vorax... I'll get to why I'm laughing out loud, but I'll respond specifically first...

...

 

Here's what I was laughing about at the beginning. What exactly about the opinion that sex is good, fun, and pretty fun to look at, do you think is an unresolved issue? I'm sorry, but you're just not making much of a dent in the objections to your um... objections... to our objections... to your wife's objections...

I think I may have addressed all of this in my other post so I'm gonna skip a bunch here, I read what you said though. But wanted to comin in with your summary - you seem to be under the preconception that I take issue with nudity or sex... FAR from it. I've probably done many things you've only seen on DVD Eye-wink I have nothing against sex - I am against objectifying women. You are using a strawman here.

Read my other two posts and if you still disagree with my position then lets just agree to disagree.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, and people, quit

Yeah, and people, quit telling me what i think about sex. My message was against manipulation of sexual fantasy to real messages.

I'm not a prude, get over it, I have a good attitude about sex. Holy Jesus on a bun! i keep looking at the responses and keep thinking that just because i make a statement about mixed messages everyone thinks i'm a prude.  You want me to make facts and support for my opinions, they are my freaking opinions. Geeze. How many times do i have to say this!!! I made my opinions based on the world around me, not wanting to damage people. The Buybull is NOT for me, but if you read that quote i posted above, you'll see what i envision. I'm not a feminist. I don't care what Hambydammit uses to get his rocks off how how many chicz he scews and what his prerequesites are. Hell, i've broken up with dudes who are not "appended" enough for me, and i have some odd festishes that might be referred to in that dvd by voran. That said, i don't use my sexuality to advance myself. I'll use it to find a partner/mate whatever but... i DON"T use it to further an agenda outside that.

So, Mr Hambydammit, i'm probably not going to back up my opinions since mine won't change as much as yours won't. I don' tthink i'm close minded as i think i'm very sexually open in many respects, or have been at certain points of my life. That said, even during those points i was aware of the people around me, how i was being percieved and had respect for those around me who would be impacted by my actions had i chosen NOT to respect them.

NUFF SAID

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Vorax

Sapient wrote:
Vorax wrote:

- By rejecting the idea that women should be ashamed of their bodies Atheists are supporting the women in their liberation from sexual repression.

- By encouraging women to continue this roll as objects for male fantasies, we are continuing the misgonistic tradition.

I don't think you can have both of these at the same time. If you admit women shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies, you have opened up the floodgates to allow women to act however they choose with their bodies. While this is something I support, you must understand that men will be just as fascinated (have fantasies) as compared to a time of sexual repression. In fact, I'd wager that due to our biological need to have sex we likely think about sex with a smiliar (if not the same) frequency as any other culture on the planet at any given time period.

I agree that men are men and we are evolutionarily inclined to be attracted to females.  But manufacturing levels beyond that is counter productive for women. (my opinion)

 

Quote:
 

Quote:
- Ideally, all women and men should be judged by their intellect not their bodies.

Wow! Why?

Why judge at all? What happened to equality? Why should we all judge women based on their intelect and not their beauty? Why not the other way around? Would the beauty queen who is an idiot like it if you judged her solely based on her intellect? Is that not the same sort of oppression you're seeking to thwart?

Your idiot beauty queen question is interesting - if this is all she has to offer then she is at a disadvantage.  I do think this is not the typical case though, but it is a valid flaw to point out.

 

Quote:

Quote:
B) By encouraging women TO post sexual images of themselves (Kelly's point), we are validating the objectification. Bad idea.

1. Kelly doesn't have bad ideas. (yes I'm biased, but I can at least prove this one.....)

2. That was never Kellys point or the RRS point. We never said "women" send your pics. It was always gender neutral. Which is exactly something you just claimed to be a proponent of.

 I can't deny gender neutral is good and I commend you guys for getting the pick of the guy and the big dick sign Smiling

 

Anyway - I'm officially agreeing to disagree, with some concessions.  I will concede the problem with my position is its utopian and thus unrealistic - maybe in a few hundred years it will make more sense.  If women feel the best way to gain respect right now is by expressing their sexuality openly, then go for it - but there is a cost in my opinion.  The cost is time - they gain partial respect today and perhaps full respect tomorrow.  Maybe this is a necessary step to the elimination of inequality between men and women and it couldn't be gotten any other way... I probably won't live long enough to find out. Smiling

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Yeah, and

Drea wrote:

Yeah, and people, quit telling me what i think about sex. My message was against manipulation of sexual fantasy to real messages.

I'm not a prude, get over it, I have a good attitude about sex. Holy Jesus on a bun! i keep looking at the responses and keep thinking that just because i make a statement about mixed messages everyone thinks i'm a prude.

I'm not sure who is calling you a prude, it must have been implied somewhere because I can't find it, but I imagine they were hoping to get you to make an argument.

I generally consider the expression of an opinion based on no identifiable argument to be ... well ... useless. It is the assumption that when a person starts a thread that they want to have a discussion. Having a discussion is generally more involved than people coming together to express their personal and undefendable opinions, at least on boards like this. This may be why you are meeting resistance (in addition to the fact that your point is contrary to some of those around you). 

I think the phrase "agree to disagree" is overused. It is generally used when two or more people disagree on a point but don't really know why. From what I can see here this is not the case. An opinion that goes up against arguments supported by (or at least an attempt to support by) logical reasoning is usually just dismissed as folly. 

 

Quote:
You want me to make facts and support for my opinions, they are my freaking opinions. Geeze. How many times do i have to say this!!!

Some have displayed a desire to see 'why' you have your opinions and what you think makes them valid ... if there is any logic or evidence to back up your idea.

Quote:
I made my opinions based on the world around me, not wanting to damage people.

Which is perfectly reasonable (not that you need permission) but I think folks here were hoping for something a little more tangible or engaging.  

 

Quote:
The Buybull is NOT for me

What is buybull?


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Buybull = Bible (sound it

Buybull = Bible (sound it out Eye-wink)


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
"If women feel the best way

"If women feel the best way to gain respect right now is by expressing their sexuality openly, then go for it - but there is a cost in my opinion.  The cost is time - they gain partial respect today and perhaps full respect tomorrow.  Maybe this is a necessary step to the elimination of inequality between men and women and it couldn't be gotten any other way... I probably won't live long enough to find out.Smiling"

I don't know where the quote thingy is and not wasting a ton of time finding it. COST IS TIME???!! Wtf? how can you equalize a whole bunch of attractive women manipulating their opponities with their sexuality somethign that gains them ANYTHING? C'mon... women are more in the work force now. Women have a distinct distaste for women who exploit. Women who treat all women equally as professionals will probably band together and backstab that skank outta there. Same way they will do it to some ahole guy that is acting like a jerk too. I don't see a future for women gaining respect from women who do this, and we have a lot of influence on things. There will always be more women who aren't gifted with those attibutes or refuse to use them for their advancement because they are against being objectified and want to feel equal because of their qualifications.

IMHO, they might have a self serving need satiated for a moment, but they married guy who falls for it... his wife suffers, his kids suffer from a bad marriage. The woman who did it... other women know, talk will start, women will back stab that woman, word will spread. I know many professional women who would be really pissed at any woman who used their assets to one up them. This isn't a way for a fair society to operate. If women think it's ok, be prepared for a vicious female retaliation. It's easy to express oneself on the net, but put it into practice and hten demand respect from those around you? BS.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Maybe this is

Vorax wrote:
Maybe this is a necessary step to the elimination of inequality between men and women and it couldn't be gotten any other way... I probably won't live long enough to find out. Smiling

Almost certainly true; though I wonder if the idea of being gender neutrual will be obtained by humanity at any time in the future.

I suspect that social changes would need to be supported by physiological changes, because while we still have hormones we'll be hard pressed to be too terribly enlightened. 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Buybull =

Vorax wrote:
Buybull = Bible (sound it out Eye-wink)

OH LOL what an asshat! Sorry guys, just ignore the fat man behind the curtain.  


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Not bad... a

Drea wrote:

Not bad... a newb with a comment pulls in the two big wigs and gets 3 pages of posts in over half a day.

 Officially welcome aboard!  Just don't go telling stories about this experience to your friends now... wouldn't want them to feel oppressed because they didn't have the "big wig" interaction.  Sticking out tongue

 And on that note... we have one last treat for you today.  A video is being uploaded to our revver account now, just for you and hubby.  Sticking out tongue

 

 

Quote:
I really hope we can all consider each others perspectives and respect it. I do, i won't leave the site or boycott or anything, i like people who stick to their guns. I'll still contribute, with my own Drea logic Eye-wink and again, feel free to question me, i love being challenged. Please also be prepared for my right brained logic, it's another of my stunning attibutes which makes logical arguements hard for the left brain analytics. But i do try my best to back up my opinions so... challenge me! and if more pops up on this thread... yehaw.

We're all good.  Agreeing to disagree is fine, it'll happen a lot here.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: "If women feel

Drea wrote:

"If women feel the best way to gain respect right now is by expressing their sexuality openly, then go for it - but there is a cost in my opinion. The cost is time - they gain partial respect today and perhaps full respect tomorrow. Maybe this is a necessary step to the elimination of inequality between men and women and it couldn't be gotten any other way... I probably won't live long enough to find out.Smiling"

I don't know where the quote thingy is and not wasting a ton of time finding it. COST IS TIME???!! Wtf? how can you equalize a whole bunch of attractive women manipulating their opponities with their sexuality somethign that gains them ANYTHING? C'mon... women are more in the work force now. Women have a distinct distaste for women who exploit. Women who treat all women equally as professionals will probably band together and backstab that skank outta there. Same way they will do it to some ahole guy that is acting like a jerk too. I don't see a future for women gaining respect from women who do this, and we have a lot of influence on things. There will always be more women who aren't gifted with those attibutes or refuse to use them for their advancement because they are against being objectified and want to feel equal because of their qualifications.

IMHO, they might have a self serving need satiated for a moment, but they married guy who falls for it... his wife suffers, his kids suffer from a bad marriage. The woman who did it... other women know, talk will start, women will back stab that woman, word will spread. I know many professional women who would be really pissed at any woman who used their assets to one up them. This isn't a way for a fair society to operate. If women think it's ok, be prepared for a vicious female retaliation. It's easy to express oneself on the net, but put it into practice and hten demand respect from those around you? BS.

I only meant time in that, in the short term some women gain slightly, some progress is made because they aren't being completley surpressed as they would have been say, 100 years ago - at least some males get that they are expressing their freedom and it's not them just being slutty (which a lot of men will think in this society..and that's where they are objectified). 

BUT I think its not the best way because overall women are still objectified, marginalized and dependant on their looks rather then their person, to get ahead in the world.  Eventually I think your point and mine will stand - a point will be reached when women will launch a second revolution for womens rights - where they begin to feel as you do as a whole - where they refuse to be judged by their looks first and refuse to use it as a tool that minimizes the persons of themselves and other women in order to gain power in a male dominated society.  Bottom line, I think women won't need power over men because they will be on equal footing with them in all respects and if there is nudity displayed to all it will hopefully be 50-50 (or at least closer) between the sexes as opposed to the 95-5% we have today, and it won't just be the beautiful people either.

I think the idea of a world where they are judged on the same grounds as men are by men and other women, is hard for a lot of women to imagine.  Many women are VERY uptight about their looks and afraid to present themselves in public without being at their best in any scenario -- that's what the objectification tradition has instilled in them - it's an irrational fear and until it's gone, they won't enjoy the freedom that men have to run out the door without makeup on ...I think it's safe to invest in cosmetics for a while Eye-wink

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Hi Marcus I opened by

Hi Marcus

I opened by saying this in my past paragraph : I'm against the whole idea that society is locked in a mindset that women have to make statements sexually, it degrades a progressive image that we can be free of and respected as women who are intelligent and worthy of equality and respect. Humans as a species don't have a great future to look forward to untill all can be respected for what they are and this message simply destroys that.

It rapidly deteriorated in that we had Sapient and Kelly openly admit that they use sexuality to get users to this site. Kelly openly said near the beginning that there was nothing wrong with her turning on men if it got them here to the site. She also said she's not above using her assets to get her what she wants in life. Sapient totally agrees so does Hdammit. 

I said that this was a counter productive way in making a statement to the world. They countered and i conceded that well, it's their site and it's the image they choose to create. Then i was asked to back up why i am against mixing sexual fantasy into messages and it seems, why i am opposed to women thinking it's ok to manipulate men using their sexual wiles. I gave my observations as rational reasons for this opinion. I also used real world tangible situations, people i knew and situations i've experienced to support it. I don't have science proof, but it is tangible none-the-less.

Ok, maybe it's not messageboard worthy because i only have observations to back it up. I won't concede i'm wrong. My intent was to generate thought, and maybe have people think it could be a lot of fun putting out an atheist message without making it so sexual. So, people decided that it was just me that considered them posing sexually, or they conceded it was sexual but that htere is nothing wrong with it if that's their freedom to do it. Which i conceded again that it WAS their choice to do, but that i didn't have to like it. I see no alternative on my part but to agree that i disagree. 

So, while i have respected both sides, i don't agree, i don't support this mindset etc. I don't have to prove it, there is nothing to prove. It's observations. If i shouldn't have posted it, then fine. I won't make posts about observations and i'll keep them on my blog which is probably a much  better spot for it. 

Bible=Buybull   Thanks to OldMan or Devil from the google messageboard. Been a general adoption but i credit them from the Christianity vs atheistism google groups board. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Women have a

Quote:
Women have a distinct distaste for women who exploit. Women who treat all women equally as professionals will probably band together and backstab that skank outta there...I know many professional women who would be really pissed at any woman who used their assets to one up them...If women think it's ok, be prepared for a vicious female retaliation. It's easy to express oneself on the net, but put it into practice and hten demand respect from those around you? BS.

Wow, I'm pretty sure I'm offended.

You promote in one breath that it is just an opinion, in the next you display open hostility and threats toward women who disagree with you. You loath women using their own abilities in a way that does not pass your personal 'quality test'. Not only this but you proudly claim that you will use retaliation to put them in their place.

How dare they, eh?
How dare they go about their lives in a way that you do not approve of?
Those skanks. 


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
You're right to call me on

You're right to call me on it. I'm getting testy and i shouldn't and i apologize that i offended.

As much as it's human nature for men to gravitate to fantasy women, or women who exploit their opportunity, women will resent it. It's human nature. Women who dont have that option WILL feel threatened by it, will feel inferior. It's human nature. It upsets me when people excuse this behaviour. Yes, in a work environment women who manipulate men, well, they DO get tlaked about behind their backs. It's as human as anything. It's unfortunate that it's human that some women do it, and it's unfortunate that the other women will do damaging acts to that person. I'm presenting a senario, i'm presenting what the typical woman says. Ask them, women aren't nice. Women don't like women that do this. It's human nature. And yes, "skank" woudl be a word that would get tossed around. It's again, my observations. 

Like i have said all along, i think it's important that everyone lives respecting others. I added a mantra earlier, that we should live for the betterment of others. Exploitation of opportunities is not to the betterment of the whole, just to the betterment of an immediate few with long lasting and damaging results for others. 

"that they go about their lives that i don't approve of". Well, no i don't approve of it. Some women are quite content to do this, and get ahead that way. So be it, but there will always be the women that resent it. Me, i don't approve of it.

 Maybe i'm a jerk to all the women out there that use their assets to the advantage of all hte other women out there but know what... it's truly not fair or respectful. I don't have to be nice about it, they aren't better, they just were born with genes that made it advantageous. Like i said, i knwo many professional women who aren't "beautiful" who would agree and object for the same things i do. THey have as much right to that job as anyone else. Denying them of that is wrong.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, I would ask that you

Well, I would ask that you and your friends who plan on doing whatever to the skanks that get in your way just think before you hate.

 What if the pretty girl is in fact smarter than you and better at her job?

What if the pretty girl has other qualifications that you are not aware of?

What if, just what if, your entire philosophy of right and wrong in regard to gender relations is built around your own insecurities?

I'm not saying that any of these things are true, but before the hateful retaliation begins, I would hope you would consider these things. I realize that you are probably not the same bitch that will secretly lash out at someone because you perceive yourself as smarter or somehow superior, but it sounds like you know some of those bitches personally. Maybe you could help spread the word that you don't always know the specifics of any given situation. Maybe you could help keep the hatemonger retaliation from happening. 


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Marcusfish,

Marcusfish,

I agree with your criticism but I think you missed her point thather criticizm is not her positiion, it's her observation. She is one of "those skanks" that would get attacked. She sees people not take her seriously because she is attractive, yet she is brilliant, well read and educated. She is talking about human nature the same way we are admitting guys like hot women. Women don't like being marginalized and while they shouldn't take it out on the women that utilized this advantage, they are right to be angry - the problem is the anger is often directed at the women instead of the society that gave her the power.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute - lets say that his is a female dominated society where men are objetified for their looks - lets say that in your office a new pretty boy is brought in who has lacking qualifications gets your promotion because your female boss wanted to watch this guys ass bend over at the water cooler. This is what women face, this and a hundred other examples. Many women can't leave the house without applying makeup or putting on whatever makes them feel they meet up to the minimum standards that society has placed on them (thus my whole complaint with continuing to support it). Imagine if you had to do the same...imagine how much of your life is wasted trying to be "acceptable" in this female dominated society? Eventually, you and the other not so lucky male genetic candidates (not saying your ugly..your hot an you know it! Eye-wink ..hypothetical) would be upset at the pretty boys as well and some among you would want to and would call the guy on it - humans lash out and not always at the right thing... the problem would be the female dominated society, the victim would be pretty boy joe. Joe is empowered and at the same time a prisoner - the other guys in the office are just marganlized and prisoners. Would you be happy in that world? Men wouldn't stand for it, yet we accept and promote women standing for it...are we free or are we slaves to the status quo?

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: Well, I

marcusfish wrote:

Well, I would ask that you and your friends who plan on doing whatever to the skanks that get in your way just think before you hate.

What if the pretty girl is in fact smarter than you and better at her job?

What if the pretty girl has other qualifications that you are not aware of?

What if, just what if, your entire philosophy of right and wrong in regard to gender relations is built around your own insecurities?

I'm not saying that any of these things are true, but before the hateful retaliation begins, I would hope you would consider these things. I realize that you are probably not the same bitch that will secretly lash out at someone because you perceive yourself as smarter or somehow superior, but it sounds like you know some of those bitches personally. Maybe you could help spread the word that you don't always know the specifics of any given situation. Maybe you could help keep the hatemonger retaliation from happening.

Well, it's sad to see this degrateding so rapidly.

This is the senario... two women equally qualified goes to an interview. Worse, one woman overly qualified or well qualified and a woman undermatched apply for a position. The job goes to the woman who looks best and purposely for the interview shows extra leg or cleveage, in this case, the one who was undermatched. Is this fair? no way. Does this happen? yes. Does that other woman have a right to be resentful? you bet! It would be the same if a good looking guy got a job because he was eye candy and a man who was expeienced and would do the job well was turned away. Right to be mad? sure. Is there a problem that this happens? of course. Should the good looking men flaunt this? Should good looking women flaunt it? using ones sexual attibutes to get ahead is wrong. Part of the course of humans is that we natually are more compelled to have beauty and attractiveness around us. Beautiful women should have jobs, but not at the expense of other qualified women or men just becaues they show extra cleaveage or seem sexually available.

 IF i know a woman who purposely does this to give herself an unfair advantage will be judged. If she doesn't give a rats rank weenie about the women around who are more fairly suited for that role, well, they will be judged by our society.

Women are not content to sit aside and let the princesses rule. Women are a strong force, and they will rise up and fight down this oppression that those women are forcing on the rest eventually. Many many of these women are well educated anv ery suited for roles and having them being taken by women who get it by sexual exploitation will not go over easily.

Its as much human nature as a man turned on by them. Women will want to fight back. If a woman is prettier and smarter more power to her, she got htere honestly, no judement. But a bimbo who tries... yeah, she'll not be accepted by the women. I've never had issue with the smart women with honesty and beauty who get where they are by their own hard work.

Don't call the people who are the victims of these exploitative women bitches because they aren't happy, the bitches are the ones that don't deserve to be where they are and only got there by exploitation. Two women sitting in the room, both equally qualified, both equally attractive, so one unbuttons her shirt a bit more and hikes up the skirt, the other with too much pride to do it.... the other gets the job and the one with their pride gets nothing. You might call it survival of the fittest but i'd argue that this exploitation of men is uncalled for and unfair. It is also a sad reflection of our society.

 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Vorax It's an

Thanks Vorax

It's an interesting thing to consider that i'm a victim and am taking it out on the wrong source too... i'll have to think about that. The problem is that women still do it, and they don't think about the impact on the people around them. Women are lax too easily into the mindset that men are pigs and we expect more from women becaues we hold the bar higher for them in most respects. And it's disappointing that they don't help bring up the not as good looking ones in our world. It's sad that more isn't done to make them feel good, positive and have the same advantages. Human nature is a prick.

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Human nature is

Drea wrote:
Human nature is a prick.

I don't subscribe to 'human nature'. I am a prick and it's my own doing Smiling

My mother supported my brother and I with no particular training or education. [I'm using past tense because things have changed, not because she's dead lol] She was beautiful and clever, but lacked the technical background / experience to do much of anything. So she worked multiple jobs, sought out boyfriends that would help her, and did whatever it took to get us through. Sometimes she would use her looks and natural charm to get what she wanted. She had learned that if she did not use all of the guns in her arsenal, that she would be left behind.

So she did whatever she had too. She was the skank that all of the bitches around her hated. She was unapologetic and powerful (in her own way). She was undercut and lost jobs, apartments, and piece of mind by these visciuos people (women) who hated her on sight. 

I reacted strongly to your statement because I do not believe in human nature. I believe that when we lash out in hatred it is our own responsibility. I call these hatemonger women who go after someone that doesn't play the game the same as they do bitches. Fuck all who think everyone must prostrate themselves before a certain dogma. I was not raised that way. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Drea wrote: Well, it's sad

Drea wrote:

Well, it's sad to see this degrateding so rapidly.

This is the senario... two women equally qualified goes to an interview. Worse, one woman overly qualified or well qualified and a woman undermatched apply for a position. The job goes to the woman who looks best and purposely for the interview shows extra leg or cleveage, in this case, the one who was undermatched. Is this fair? no way. Does this happen? yes.

In my world of equality this situation would never happen because both women would be on the floor at home remaining perfectly still in a burlap sack as they revel in their "equality utopia." (see video) Eye-wink

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
LOL! I hope one day I can

LOL! I hope one day I can inspire you guys to make a video for me! Tongue out


Drea
Drea's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Please read my thread, they didn't understand my message.

Hey all, I am  honoured that you took time out of your day to address something that I didn't say. I am glad that you addressed it to me but I see that I'll have to go back to the beginning of the thread. I think you entirely missed my message.

I didn't come out about oppression of beautiful women. I was questioning the mixed message of rational atheism mixed with sexual fantasy. I also was quick to allow you your opinions, and conceded many points due to freedom of expression. I think by publically making this video aimed and addressed at me while clearly not targeting the essense of my message is unfortunate.

Kelly: This is nature. Equality is not a part of nature--sex is. Natural selection is. Ethics and "rights" are man-made constructs based on what we have decided is beneficial to having a productive, semi-harmonious society. Nature just is what it is, and as I said before, I find it more advantageous to adapt to it and hopefully prosper as a result.

Kelly:Should there be a balance--sure. Am I advocating a caste system--no. Do I wish that intelligent, attractive people would out-breed everybody else--yes. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit that. Fortunately, though, I don't expect everybody to share my opinion.

This irked me because she marginalized two kinds of women, those who use looks to get ahead, and those who want to get ahead on an equal basis as everyone else. I never attacked beautiful people, i never asked for oppression of sexuality. I said that women who use their assets to their advantage over other people who have just as much right to that position isn't inline with what i think of as proper conduct. I don't want people walking around with sacks over them, how ludicris, but i don't someone walking into an interview showing off their legs and chest to gain an advantage over an equally qualified other woman or man. It's not fair and not right to suppot "in my opinion"

BUT this thread was essentially started to express an opinion and to understand why sexuality had to be mixed into rational ideas of why God doesn't exist. 

Again, it's unfortuate that it went this far, i'll be VERY carefull how i word things in the future. Thank you for mocking my freedom of expression. 

Quote:
If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him.

Mark Twain