Amanda

Amanda

Blue Moose's picture

why the desperation in a

why the desperation in a site designated for rationality? I wouldn't prevent someone's urge to strip if they wanted, but if I want porn I'll go to a porn site. The net is so full of women objectifying themselves for the sake of a few lude comments from complete strangers, and if that's what gets you off go for it. But to be honest Im sick of having this kind of thing saturate everything I visit on the internet, and I just wish people would use their powers of cognition to think about when it's appropriate. This site is about thought, and these pictures took very little.

Hambydammit's picture

It would be hard to disagree

It would be hard to disagree that the internet is saturated by images like this, but it seems awfully presumptuous of you to assign motives to this free-thinking individual of whom you know nothing other than the fact that she likes this website and thought some of us would like to know that she's pretty. Maybe she's making a statement about her freedom from the repressive sexual morality preached by Christians. Maybe she's saying, "Rock on, you sexy atheists! There are sexy atheist women out here, too!"

I disagree with your idea that this is porn. Nudity is not irrational, is it? Maybe this is as close as this girl could get to art with a webcam. If this was done in photoshop and looked like it had had a lot of time put into it, would you still say it was porn? Is porn always bad, or did a Christian tell you that, so you still believe it?

Maybe you're being a little harsh on her, eh?

For the record, my first thought on seeing the photo was, "Wow, what a cool girl!" My first thought on seeing your response was, "Wow, I didn't see that at all." Is it somewhat sexual? Sure! I think that was the point. Is it bad to be somewhat sexual? You tell me. I know the Christians say it is.

Hambydammit's picture

Oh, and unless I miss my

Oh, and unless I miss my guess, I think this lady is a singer from Australia, and some of her photos are quite artistic.

Quote:why the desperation in

Quote:
why the desperation in a site designated for rationality?

Desperation? You posted the same comment on both provocative pictures, are you maybe projecting desperation of your own to be heard? Yes this site is designed for rationality, and as such I must ask you, what is the proof or evidence at least that one showing off their body equals desperation? Do you have any other evidence of desperation other than these pictures? As I see it these pictures are merely evidence that the posers are rather sexually free, in my opinion a rational position. The flipside position might be the irrational closed sexual views of a religious person.

Quote:
I wouldn't prevent someone's urge to strip if they wanted, but if I want porn I'll go to a porn site.

I wouldn't classify that as porn but ok. Anywho, I guess this isn't the site for you then. There are no taboos on this site. Someone might even bring up beastiality at some point! Oh noes!

Quote:
The net is so full of women objectifying themselves for the sake of a few lude comments from complete strangers, and if that's what gets you off go for it.

Actually I believe these women were more interested in getting peoples attention so they would come visit this website about thinking rationally. Some people react to that more than they react to solid logical argumentation which is why most of the culture around us is dominated by capitalizing on peoples sexual desires.

As for lewd comments... you were the first comment.

Quote:
But to be honest Im sick of having this kind of thing saturate everything I visit on the internet

Maybe you should start a Porn Response Squad, or stop using the internet, or stop worrying about how other people choose to present their body.

Quote:
and I just wish people would use their powers of cognition to think about when it's appropriate.

When exactly is it appropriate to enjoy the bodies of other humans? Religion tells us to wait for marriage... I say fuck that.

Quote:
This site is about thought, and these pictures took very little.

These pictures took very little thought as well, and yet they all reside on our site. Do you have something wrong with these:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/image/tid/2001

Am I maybe showing a little too much arm? Is my hair clearly calling to women to be attracted to me? I notice Todangst has a smile on his face, is that a little too sexy for this site maybe?

Hamby, Your comment about

Hamby,

Your comment about Blue Moose desperately posting in both threads about desperation was deleted when I removed the comments from the other thread. There is no need to have the discussion twice. And I agree that posting the comment twice was a desperate attempt to get others to think like Blue Moose all while preaching against desperation... IRRATIONAL. Someone actually interested in discussion of the issue would need only post it once.

First you might want to

First you might want to define what you mean about thought Eye-wink I know if someone likes women they might get a thought or two from that pic.

The thing is what would be pornographic or unseemly? In the past ankle was unseemly. Now the beach is a great place to show off the body, but wear that shit in the wrong place people wheel out the cross and get ready to throw down roman style.

As for seeing it everywhere, yeah you do, it works. Honestly sex sells and it isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not sure what big breast have to do with a messy burger, but I remember Burger King.

I remember talking to a girl in highschool and she was asking what "worked" for guys, like what got their attention, and she asked me about short skirts. I told, "yes, it will get a guys attention, but probably not the kind you're looking for." I remember seeing her in a short skirt later on so I guess she wanted attention any way she could get it...

If you think about our sex drive is a good motivator. I would think any women that has threatened to "cut off" a man knows this. But also shocking or unexpect images or ideas are a very good tool to get a convo going. People talk about it, remember it, and think about it. Hopefully in this case about RRS, but I don't think this image comes with that guarantee...

Blue Moose's picture

I realise most people don't

I realise most people don't share my opinion here which is fair enough. I guess my comments were totally out of place in a site that is dedicated to discussing religion, although I do notice more than one comment alluding to how my views appear to coincide with some religious views.

Quote:
Is porn always bad, or did a Christian tell you that, so you still believe it?

As it happens my views on this matter come from a more feminist background than anything, which can be a bit of a provocative word these days. Again, I realise this is not the time or the place...

Quote:
And I agree that posting the comment twice was a desperate attempt to get others to think like Blue Moose all while preaching against desperation... IRRATIONAL. Someone actually interested in discussion of the issue would need only post it once.

I didn't post two of the same comments in order to get attention, I didn't really expect any response actually I didn't attach much importance to them. The reason I posted this twice is that the point was not to single out and attack any individual but rather the concept of using your tits to get what you want. It pisses me off for various reasons, but I guess that's my problem not yours.

A close friend of mine pointed out that to post a message like this isn't exactly going to endear people to me. I guess he's right, it was my own personal beef about a subject that, although I think does have some pertenence to the subjects discussed in this site as most things do, really wasn't that important.

Quote:
I wouldn't classify that as porn but ok. Anywho, I guess this isn't the site for you then. There are no taboos on this site.

I'd hate for anyone to think I'm advocating censorship, that wasn't my intention at all. I was only posting an opinion and quite expected it to be largely disregarded.

Quote:
Some people react to that more than they react to solid logical argumentation which is why most of the culture around us is dominated by capitalizing on peoples sexual desires.

I suppose the crux of the matter for me was that this society DOES capitalize on this, and it is the logical side of the arguement that I see as being the essence of it. I suppose I see this kind of marketing, if you will, as crude, and the only mileage of it will be to momentarily hold the attention of those who will very soon turn their heads away again.

I see this kind of thing as 'selling out' to a market that largely doesn't think, and I am aware of my wide generalization here. I don't believe that followers to a cause that have no idea why they are following it can do the cause any good. In fact I think they can do an awful lot of harm.

But all of this is by the by. I do accept that my posts were rash and not as appropriate as I first invisaged, I humbly ask that you give this post more consideration than I gave to my first one.

Quote:I guess my comments

Quote:
I guess my comments were totally out of place in a site that is dedicated to discussing religion

Well it would've been nice if you posted a blanket statement in the freethinkers anonymous forum, but we're here now, so no biggie.

Quote:
As it happens my views on this matter come from a more feminist background than anything

Shouldn't there be something embedded in feminism that takes pride in women who are sexually free without inhibitions? Or has feminism come the way of the prudish nun?

Quote:
I was only posting an opinion and quite expected it to be largely disregarded.

Why did you think it would be disregarded?

Slag's picture

The Importance Of Understanding Each Others Opinions

I personally think that the most important thing to come out of a discussion like this is the need for us rational thinkers to accept the we each have our own opinions. These opinions may differ but I have no doubt that Blue Moose, as well as those that opposed her initial assertions, all came to their views through a process of critically evaluating their experience of the world. This is what we want isn't it?

I'm a great believer in the idea of perspectivism. Two people can have opposing views and both be equally rationally justified in their positions. This is obviously not always the case but I do think it happens a lot more than we tend to note. Each of us has different experiences of the world that shape our values. So long as our experiences are evaluated through rational thought of the evidence then the subjective outcome is a secondary concern.

I think that if our purpose is to encourage others to critically evaluate their surroundings and dispense of fundamentally irrational beliefs, such as the belief in a personal God, then there are no battles to be fought here. Blue Moose, Sapient and everyone else here has critically considered their experience of the world and come to rational conclusions. The last thing we can really afford to do is to start being divisive. Do we really want to end up with rational denominations in the same way that Christianity has branched into a million offshoots? We must stand together and respect each others diversity of opinion.

I also think that it is important that we don't label every opinion that we do not agree with as being irrational or based upon the irrational doctrines of religion. I don't think we're here to compete as to who believes in God the least Eye-wink We're all on the same side here.

I also think that Blue Mooses response deserves credit for having the courage to concede that her initial post may have been 'rash and not as appropriate' as she may have invisaged. It is harder for someone to do that than it is to continue to blindly argue ones point as a matter of pride. I think that is commendable and something that we could all benefit from doing a little more. It is peoples' opposition to doing so that makes it so hard to convince religious individuals that they are wrong.

I believe there is a place for all of us here. Lets try and stick together as much as we can and focus our attention on those who hold IRRATIONAL beliefs before we start on each other Smiling

Great post Slag... Quote:I

Great post Slag...

Quote:
I personally think that the most important thing to come out of a discussion like this is the need for us rational thinkers to accept the we each have our own opinions. These opinions may differ but I have no doubt that Blue Moose, as well as those that opposed her initial assertions, all came to their views through a process of critically evaluating their experience of the world. This is what we want isn't it?

Yes it is what we want and I think all participants in this thread "got that," you're just the first to note it.

Quote:
So long as our experiences are evaluated through rational thought of the evidence then the subjective outcome is a secondary concern.

More importantly I think is a willingness to change your beliefs should enough evidence to the contrary be provided to prove your beliefs aren't as rational or logical as other beliefs.

Quote:
I think that if our purpose is to encourage others to critically evaluate their surroundings and dispense of fundamentally irrational beliefs, such as the belief in a personal God, then there are no battles to be fought here.

I think to some degree we need atheist disagreements for brain food as the Christian brand of brain food offered is not too fulfilling. In theory your idea is an ideal world that doesn't happen. We're not republicans that can get behind a particular ideology and stick with it no matter what happens. We're freethinkers who all think very differently and in a world full of freethinkers there will be just as many disagreements as one full of atheists and theists.

Quote:
We must stand together and respect each others diversity of opinion.

Agreed, however we need to be true to how we view those opinions as well. I respect diversity of opinion, but like I say towards Christianity I don't respect irrational beliefs. I can respect the believer but not the belief, and I refuse to be hypocritical and give irrational beliefs a free pass when it's a non theist holding them.

Quote:
I also think that it is important that we don't label every opinion that we do not agree with as being irrational or based upon the irrational doctrines of religion.

I agree, some beliefs do tend to get to that line however. I was sort of joking when I said she was being irrational, but at the same time I see serious religious connotations in her thinking.

Quote:
I don't think we're here to compete as to who believes in God the least Eye-wink We're all on the same side here.

I love this idealism but in practice it's untrue. We're all on the same side regarding atheism/theism, nothing more. We have many disagreements among us, and I don't think there is much wrong with that.

Quote:
I also think that Blue Mooses response deserves credit for having the courage to concede that her initial post may have been 'rash and not as appropriate' as she may have invisaged. It is harder for someone to do that than it is to continue to blindly argue ones point as a matter of pride.

While I'll agree it's nice to see courage to concede points, none of the actual points being scrutinized were conceded. In fact quite a few poignant questions were posed for her (including comparisons to religion) that were unanswered. I hate moving away from the unifying spirit of your post, but had real concessions been made Blue Moose would have expressed that her view has changed. Instead she told us merely that she didn't think about the type of reaction she'd get or maybe it was in the wrong place, this trivial points aren't of interest to me. The issue at hand is what interests me here, it's why I joined the thread.

I hope I didn't take too much away from your points. I agree with the tone and the feeling behind it. I think we can have these discussions with a sort of mutual respect that we are all wise enough to reject deity belief, but that this similarity is not everything.

Slag's picture

Thanks for the considered

Thanks for the considered response Sapient. I would like to clarify myself on a few points as I'm not sure if they came across as intended.

Quote:
More importantly I think is a willingness to change your beliefs should enough evidence to the contrary be provided to prove your beliefs aren't as rational or logical as other beliefs.

This may be true. However, I do not think that the issue being debated here can be 'proved' for either side of the debate. Whether we are correct or not in showing our naked or semi-naked bodies in public is, if not directed by religious indoctrination, an issue of apposing rational moralities. From Blue Mooses response I trust that her views are not religiously motivated but come from another source regardless of their similarities with views expressed by theists. I believe that your views also are derived from sources external to religion. My belief is that morality is a subjective process. Someone morally disagreeing with someone else simply states that they personaly do not like that kind of behaviour. Any opposition to this is the same. If this is the case and there is no objective morality floating around somewhere, then we can debate our views but are unlikely to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the majority of cases.

Don't get me wrong, I love to debate issues (see this post for example) but I think that both yourself and Blue Moose are completely justified in holding the beliefs that you do.

Quote:
I think to some degree we need atheist disagreements...We're freethinkers who all think very differently and in a world full of freethinkers there will be just as many disagreements as one full of atheists and theists

Yes, I totally agree. I just don't think we gain anything in discussions about morality or ethics. These are subjective entities that, although based on experience of the world, are based upon different experiences dependent upon the individiuals circumstance and can be equally rationally justified given these experiences.

Quote:
While I'll agree it's nice to see courage to concede points, none of the actual points being scrutinized were conceded. In fact quite a few poignant questions were posed for her (including comparisons to religion) that were unanswered. I hate moving away from the unifying spirit of your post, but had real concessions been made Blue Moose would have expressed that her view has changed. Instead she told us merely that she didn't think about the type of reaction she'd get or maybe it was in the wrong place, this trivial points aren't of interest to me.

I don't think that there is a need for Blue Moose to concede that her moral view was wrong. It probably has an equal rational standing to your own. My post was meant to underline the fact that neither of you need to concede your moral opinions. You are both equally entitled to hold onto your subjective positions.

I do believe she did refute any religious comparisons when she explained that her views are based upon things along a more feminist line. That's enough for me. I don't think she needs to prove it to us any further than saying so.

I'm completely aware that disagreements are natural and can be productive in the right circumstances. I guess I just can't see anything to be gained in this instance.

Quote:
I think we can have these discussions with a sort of mutual respect that we are all wise enough to reject deity belief, but that this similarity is not everything.

I just want to agree completely with this statement in relation to debates that can be settled by objective fact.
Thanks again for the considered response.

As I understand, it's the

As I understand, it's the gripe of feminists that men seuxally objectify women, however doesn't feminism allow for women who are sexually uninhibited to show their body however they choose to show it? If it does not then feminism is not the embodiment of feminity but more of a way for prudish snobby women to bitch and moan. Now, I take that liberty because I know some feminists who are not inhibited, I personally would gladly fight for equality among women any day. But I got a message for women who want equality... you want to be equal to men? Well most men would have no problem showing off their six pack or biceps if they thought it would get them somewhere. And most men wouldn't assume that this action equated to others thinking they were brainless. It ocurrs to me that being mad at sexual objectification should be more of an attack on prejudice. Just because someone is sexy does not mean they are smart or dumb, and assuming so would make one prejudiced.

Oh I just have so many problems with the thought that covering up ones body is the preferable thing amongst people who consider themselves thinkers. This whole conversation developing over the equivalent of a bikini being worn just seems ridiculous to me.

/rant

Hambydammit's picture

I hold a lot of views that

I hold a lot of views that are difficult for many people, even atheists, to swallow. I have what I believe to be empirical backing for those beliefs. If I am proven wrong, I am proven wrong, and I'm prepared for that. This is what I expect from other free thinkers.

My objection to Blue Moose's objection was that she was obviously projecting her interpretation of nudity onto a person she didn't know. I don't claim to know Amanda's motivation any more than I know Blue Moose's. I suggested that Moose might be influenced by religion because I've seen many "feminists" who are driven by anger and resentment -- and in almost all cases, they have been oppressed or repressed by Christian dogma. I submit that freedom from Christianity does not equate to freedom from Christian repression, and that nudity is not inherently wrong, even if it happens to be a young, attractive female who happens to be nude.

I am threatened by young, attractive males with six packs. I admit it. They get more hot women than I do. I am human, and I dislike it when more desirable males get to move to the front of the pecking order. Am I bitter? Maybe a bit. Do I resent them for getting the women I'd like to date? Yeah. Do I think it's wrong for them to do that? No. It's the way the species works. I was gifted with a lot of things, but devastating looks -- not one of my strong suits. We all use what we have to get the mates we think are in our league.

I am sorry for everyone who has been repressed, oppressed, or abused by Christian morality. I am sorry for everyone who has been abused by blatant sexual exploitation. Nevertheless, I can't understand the argument that any sexual display is exploitation. That argument falls apart in the same way as the argument for god's existence. There's a leap of faith necessary -- and I'm not willing to make the leap.

darth_josh's picture

Wow. With all of that out of

Wow. With all of that out of the way......

When can we expect a picture of you, Blue Moose, with an rrs sign?

Here, I'll be fair.

Her face is attractive, but

Her face is attractive, but from this angle it appears that she could stand to gain a few pounds.

Blue Moose is probably upset because she is not nearly as attractive.

Hambydammit's picture

ouch. I'd suggest that you

ouch.

I'd suggest that you might be projecting a little yourself. You might be right, but based on what little info you have, you might be wrong, and that's a damn touchy subject.

I'd suggest that there are a lot of alternatives to your theory, and we don't know enough about Moose to know.

I'm very interested in knowing if Moose has a defense for her suggestion that a semi-nude picture of a girl she doesn't know is automatic proof that the girl is desperate. I'm not particularly interested in how she's going to react to being called less attractive than a girl who you think could stand to gain a few pounds. My guess is she'll not be particularly happy with the suggestion, and will be defensive, even if she happens to be very attractive.

It's getting awfully... um... hormonal in here...

maybe we could get to some rational responses to rational questions?

Slag's picture

From what I've read I

From what I've read I seriously don't think that Blue Moose was calling any individual desperate. It appears that she is calling the act of using sex to sell something a desperate measure.

I seriously don't think that personal attacks have ANY place in rational debate and am quite disgusted with some of the remarks I find above in this discussion. I thought that these forums where a place to rationally debate issues that are genuinely debatable. Once again we are onto subjective issues such as who finds who most attractive given the minute amount of information that is presented. How is this at all appropriate?

I thought these forums may also be a good place to meet like-minded, people who accept that they have differences without the need to insult each other. People who don't feel they need to continue to attack someone who has retracted their statement but wishes to hold onto their moral views. It appears that some people want to argue for the sake of argument and I seriously wouldn't blame Blue Moose for not responding. I certainly don't want to associate myself with this kind of disagreement as it borders on childishness.

And before I'm accused of defending the view that men/women should cover themselves up in public, I actually don't believe that personally. However, my justifications for this are not the final word in this SUBJECTIVE matter. No-one is going to change anyones mind here, especially not by throwing out and out insults or veiled insults in the form of subtle digs within their 'rational' responses. I'd expected more of intelligent individuals such as yourselves.

Hambydammit's picture

I'm actually not surprised

I'm actually not surprised by this thread at all. Almost everybody here is an ex-Christian, and if there's one thing that's more difficult than giving up irrational views about god, it's giving up irrational views about sex. God, after all, is a figment of people's imagination, and being filled with the holy spirit is a made up act. Sex, on the other hand, is very real and personal, and if you've grown up with even one fucked up delusion about sex, it can spill over into many, many areas of your life. Ex-Christians are as vulnerable to those delusions as anybody else. Remember, just because a person's dealt with the god-myth, it doesn't mean they've necessarily even thought about their own delusions about sexuality.

To soothe any ruffled feathers, I'm not talking about anybody at all! I'm pointing out that the defensiveness we've witnessed in this thread is a good indicator that there are some irrational views on sexuality being tossed about. Could be me, could be moose, could be insidium, could be slag.... But I do think that discussions of sexuality are relevant on a board about rational responses because Christianity has such a repressive cultural model, and there are lots of delusions floating around regarding sex.

Hambydammit's picture

Since I got that disclaimer

Since I got that disclaimer out of the way, Moose, if you'd like to have a discussion about your post...

Quote:
I do notice more than one comment alluding to how my views appear to coincide with some religious views.

Well, yeah. That's because many of us have noticed how Christianity teaches women that their bodies are for private consumption, and only then in certain situations. We wonder why that should be so when the very biological responses in question seem to be pre-programmed in a very different manner. It seems very logical to assume that in an overwhelmingly Christian culture, many women's views on sex would be colored by the Christian morality. Feminism, in particular, one would expect to be directly related to Christianity, since it is the Judeo-Christian patriarchy that handed us the repressive and oppressive views we hold today.

Quote:
As it happens my views on this matter come from a more feminist background than anything, which can be a bit of a provocative word these days

Just to reiterate: Christianity, in large part, made feminism necessary. In a way, feminism is like atheism. If there were no irrational beliefs about the sexes, there would be no need for feminism. Where feminism and atheism differ is that many versions of feminism DO try to substitute their own brand of truth. It appears to me, Moose, that you'd like all of us to also be offended when we see a woman take her clothes off and send us a snapshot. I'd submit to you that first, you need to make a rational argument that there's anything wrong with it.

Quote:
The reason I posted this twice is that the point was not to single out and attack any individual but rather the concept of using your tits to get what you want. It pisses me off for various reasons, but I guess that's my problem not yours.

In a way, yes. It is your problem, not ours. However, we specialize in pointing out cognitive dissonance, and quite a few people on this board specialize in logic. If it is a "problem" we can quite possibly help.

Quote:
I suppose the crux of the matter for me was that this society DOES capitalize on this, and it is the logical side of the argument that I see as being the essence of it.

I submit that a society capitalizing on a thing is not inherently good or bad. Are you saying that women's sexuality is something that should not be marketed? Why?

Slag's picture

Ok. I completely respect

Ok. I completely respect Hambydammits view that these are things that he feels should be discussed. My main concern was pointing out that any subjective arguement that is based upon opinions that cannot be justified by objective, evidence based fact will always infinitely regress. By inifinite regression I mean that one can ask "Why?" after every assertion in order to ask for a justification. If at any point someone says 'just because' or words to that effect then the chain of justification is broken and everything that is based upon is is equally as unjustified. I was asking less for a cease to debate and more for a mutual respect based on the fact that no-one can KNOW what is right and wrong as these are subjective and each side of the arguement infinitely regresses.

I, however, would like to say that I don't think that any of my negative statements about the way people are approaching disagreements (rather than whetrher they're worth having) with each other applies to Hambydammits assertions. I think your last two post show the type of respect that is needed if we are to avoid begging the question (which, in Philosophy terms, means to presume ones own conclusion to be correct from the outset and thus put others down for opposing views before their justifications have even been fully established.)

It was merely a call for mutual respect which I think is generally accepted by people on here but not always put into practice. Thanks for taking these thoughts into consideration though. I hope Blue Moose hasn't been put off by the more extreme comments here as it would be interesting to hear her responses to your questions.

Hambydammit's picture

I haven't stated an opinion.

I haven't stated an opinion. I have pointed out that the opinions that have been stated haven't been backed by rational argument.

That's not begging the question. That's begging for backing.

In an argument, (discussion, whatever... I'm using argument in the logical sense) the person making the claim is responsible for presenting evidence. I've just asked for evidence to back up the claims that seem to be inherent in Moose's post.

(either that or a clarification of what she meant if I've interpreted her meaning incorrectly)

Slag's picture

I'm not disputing any of the

I'm not disputing any of the above post and haven't in any of my previous posts as far as I am aware.

Hambydammit's picture

Quote:I, however, would like

Quote:
I, however, would like to say that I don't think that any of my negative statements about the way people are approaching disagreements (rather than whetrher they're worth having) with each other applies to Hambydammits assertions. I think your last two post show the type of respect that is needed if we are to avoid begging the question (which, in Philosophy terms, means to presume ones own conclusion to be correct from the outset and thus put others down for opposing views before their justifications have even been fully established.)

I misread this paragraph, slag. I thought you were saying I was begging the question. I see what you were saying now.

My bad.

Slag's picture

No probs mate. It's easily

No probs mate. It's easily done Smiling

Quote:I'd suggest that you

Quote:
I'd suggest that you might be projecting a little yourself.

What? I was speculating on Moose's motives for her reply. Your accusation of projection on my part is baseless.

Christen's picture

I think you could consider

I think you could consider it desperation if Sapient was posing in the nude behind a RRS sign. Smiling I really don't understand why people freak out when a little skin is showing, especially considering the fact that she is quite beautiful. I admire her boldness. It would take a lot of booze or some serious chemicals to get something like that out of me.

Blue Moose's picture

and finally

I apologise for my late reply, I have been busy with work, I will try and cover as many points as I can,
and attempt to be as brief as possible!

Quote:
"From what I've read I seriously don't think that Blue Moose was calling any individual desperate. It appears that she is calling the act of using sex to sell something a DEsperate measure."

This is correct Slag, and a key point. The very reason I posted my message on both threads is to get away from any kind of personal attack. It is not the individuals I was highlighting as the problem, but the act itself in this context.

Quote:
"I do think that discussions of sexuality are relevant on a board about rational responses because Christianity has such a repressive cultural model"

I agree, I do think that discussions of how sexuality is influenced by religions (of all kinds) is relevent on this site for the reason you state here, amongst others. However this is not what the discussion has become in this case, and for good reason. The reason is that there is no religious motivation behind my opinions on this matter, as I quite clearly stated in a previous post. You point out that many people have battled with their own beliefs and come out the other side as atheists. This may be true, but it is not true of me, as I have been an atheist throughout my life and have no emotional attachment to a set of religious values, which is not to say I have been unaware of them.
Quote:
"I suggested that Moose might be influenced by religion because I've seen many "feminists" who are driven by anger and resentment -- and in almost all cases, they have been oppressed or repressed by Christian dogma."

Being influenced by religious doctrine does not imply fighting for it- as you say yourself feminists have fought against many aspects of repression that are deeply embedded in religious social practice. This being so, it is mysterious how you imply
that I fight for these very values that I should oppose as a "feminist". Maybe it is this perceived contradiction you wish to point out, rather than to confuse exactly why it is you suspect I harbour Christian values? This link you are attempting to make between my views on sexual expression
and religion (you have chosen Christianity as a base point) are tenuous at best, and boldly disregard my assertions that religion has no part in my views on this. I used to be a vegetarian, do you presume that therefore I must have been acting under the religious ideals of Jainism? I am aware of Christianity's wider reaching values, but I think you Understand my point.

And back to the subject of feminism...

Quote:
"As I understand, it's the gripe of feminists that men seuxally objectify women, however doesn't feminism allow for women who are sexually uninhibited to show their body however they choose to show it?..."

'A' gripe, sure, and it is not just feminism that fights for the right of females to have equal chance to explore their own sexuality as men have. People with a social conscience of all kinds fight for equality and against repression of both sexes. I point this out because I would NOT label myself as a feminist, perhaps I did not make this clear when I alluded to feminism. I was trying to convey succinctly that the approach I was coming from in regards to Amanda's post is motivated by views on the political act of undressing, rather than the moral act. I do not regard myself as a feminist, although there are views expressed by people who do that I would entirely agree with.

Quote:
" ...If it does not then feminism is not the embodiment of feminity but more of a way for prudish snobby women to bitch and moan."

It is important to note here that feminism does not profess to exclaim that everybody should express their sexuality all the time no matter what the context. That is one of the benefits of
political movements such as feminism rather than religious groups, for movements such as feminism seek only to gain EQUALITY of rights, and not to dictate how far these right are to be exercised in a social context, throughout society, for everyone. I think you will find that everyone has different, subjective views on this, and it is this very subject that I sought to express my views on. I would not express my sexuality the way Amanda has done here if I were, for instance, at my 6 year old cousin's birthday party, or attending a job interview as a proof reader. I would not express my sexuality in this way in a university seminar on Vorticism, no matter how much I wanted my classmates to agree that Ezra Pound is an unreadable poet. This is not merely because I would be likely to be arrested, but it is because I acknowledge that there are some contexts in which sexuality is not overtly expressed. I do not express my
new-found omniverous values at every and any opportunity by eating a leg of ham in the face of every man woman and child I meet, because it is irrelevent most of the time. And Amanda's naked flesh is far from relevent to the cause of advancing atheism.

But it is not only irrelevence
with which I have an issue, if it were then there are many more photographs I could have criticised.Instead it is the act of sexual advertising for this cause that I oppose, and for the sake of brevity I refer you to a previous post of mine explaining beriefly why I object to it in this case. (I am
happy to expand on this point if anyone is interested or confused.) I also, however, take exception to this generally accepted, nay EXPECTED practice of using the naked or sexualised female body in society at large...

Quote:
"Are you saying that women's sexuality is something that should not be marketed? Why?"

...but if you would like a crash course in feminist (or more appropriately in my opinion, egalitarian) views on the Marketing of sexual ideals, I think a private message to me or a Discussion on another forum would be more appropriate.

A point I should like to add lastly, is that I cant help noticing the frequency with which people take note of 'attractiveness' when considering the picture and my response. Would people have the same reaction to me response if she were massively obese? Or very ugly?Beauty is a thoroughly subjective thing, and statements about the actuality of a person's beauty, as if it is some kind of general truism, I find irrelevent because of this. I think humans are generally beautiful,and my personal preference was far from what impressed itself on my mind when I reacted to the picture. Do you think that the act would have less worth if she were less 'beautiful'? I suspect some of you might... And I also suspect that the outrage with which my post was met, at the sheer AUDACITY of a person to object to sexualised images of a female, was motivated
largely by a desire to get a quickie of someone's tits whenever possible. As I said, there is a time and a place for everything, wouldn't you be better off reading Loaded?

Hambydammit's picture

Moose, your responses are

Moose, your responses are thorough, and well thought out. Thanks! I'm not going to respond to all of it, because only a few of your responses deal with what I was trying to say.

Quote:
The reason is that there is no religious motivation behind my opinions on this matter, as I quite clearly stated in a previous post.

I'm not saying I believe you or that I don't. However, one of the mantras of this website (translated into Georgia-Speak) is: "Just cause you say a thing is so, it ain't necessarily so." There are many people here who say with complete certainty that god exists. My point was that none of us know you, so without any other information, we cannot assume one way or another, and your assertion is not enough evidence for us to go on. I'm not challenging you to prove yourself -- only pointing out that you could well be deluded with regard to your motivations. (No offense intended... seriously.)

Quote:
it is mysterious how you imply
that I fight for these very values that I should oppose as a "feminist". Maybe it is this perceived contradiction you wish to point out, rather than to confuse exactly why it is you suspect I harbour Christian values? This link you are attempting to make between my views on sexual expression
and religion (you have chosen Christianity as a base point) are tenuous at best, and boldly disregard my assertions that religion has no part in my views on this. I used to be a vegetarian, do you presume that therefore I must have been acting under the religious ideals of Jainism? I am aware of Christianity's wider reaching values, but I think you Understand my point.

Ok. You were responding to someone else, but this touches on my point. I wouldn't assume you to be acting under Jainism because you don't live in India. (If you read some of my threads, you know I accuse a lot of people of a lot of things... but I'm not going to accuse you of anything, and I've been careful to only suggest possibilities.) I suggest that you might be unaware of Christianity's influence on your thought processes, and that even the most introspective people are often blind in one or more areas. Growing up in a Christian country makes it virtually impossible not to absorb, or at least be affected by, some of its doctrine.

A couple more quick points...

*I think it goes without saying that everyone here knows stripping at children's parties is not a very good idea.

*I wonder how you feel about the gay pride parades, the topless protests, and the photos by that guy (whose name escapes me) who gets hundreds of people naked by big monuments and takes their picture. My point is that most people are ok with nudity as protest or "arty art." Perhaps Amanda is doing something proactive instead of reactive. Do you always have to be repressed before you can do something in the nude? (And by the way, I think she lives in Australia, so maybe American prudishness just never occurred to her!)

*I think it's intellectually dishonest to say you're not presuming Amanda's motivation because you're discussing the phenomenon as a whole. If you use her as an example, you're insinuating that she is doing it for the reasons you say. Why else would you use her as an example?

* I fully agree with you that attractiveness seemed to work its way unbidden into the conversation. I don't recall mentioning it, and I don't think it's relevant. I'm not going to make it into a big deal, though. When people look at others, they grade them on attractiveness -- it's biology, and it's neither here nor there. This is a red herring that will only lead to arguments that don't really follow from the real crux of the matter.

Quote:
I also suspect that the outrage with which my post was met, at the sheer AUDACITY of a person to object to sexualised images of a female, was motivated largely by a desire to get a quickie of someone's tits whenever possible.

Hmm... I think arguing about the desire to see tits will go off on a tangent and soon we'll be talking about mate selection and biological imperative.

More importantly, I went back and re-read the thread. I didn't see any outrage. Disagreement, yes. Outrage? no. I think you're the first one to use the word "audacity." And in caps, no less. Most of the posts have been very calm and well thought out.

Projection, maybe?

(There was one comment I thought was just mean-spirited, but I think you'll agree that most of us have not really bothered much with it or agreed with it.)

Slag's picture

Just a quick response to

Just a quick response to some of the points above....Again I want to stress that I'm taking no-ones side here as I don't personally agree with the initial statement that we are discussing.

Quote:
Most of the posts have been very calm and well thought out.

Although most of the posts have been well thought out I don't think they've all been completely calm. I believe that there has been a lot of passive aggressive behaviour towards Blue Moose which is what lead me to come out with my responses about treating each other with respect. For example:

Quote:
Projection, maybe?

I don't think that you've generally been a part of the passive aggressive tendencies of some of the posters here but comments like this tend to be born from, and incite, emotive rather than rational responses.

Quote:
I'm not saying I believe you or that I don't. However, one of the mantras of this website (translated into Georgia-Speak) is: "Just cause you say a thing is so, it ain't necessarily so." There are many people here who say with complete certainty that god exists. My point was that none of us know you, so without any other information, we cannot assume one way or another, and your assertion is not enough evidence for us to go on. I'm not challenging you to prove yourself -- only pointing out that you could well be deluded with regard to your motivations.

Although this may be true of some individals I think the fact that Blue Moose has claimed that she has never been a Christian suggests that she doesn't come from a Christian family and thus it's very unlikely that she has been indoctrinated in any of it's values. I'm not sure what more she can do other than tell us that it is so. So you are correct not to ask her to prove herself as you are pretty much saying that there is no way, even if you met her in person, that she could convince you with mere words that she is telling the truth. I guess, in this case, we just have to take her word for it. As I said before, it's important not to instantly object to things as if they are motivated by religion as some kind of ultimate put down that demolishes an arguement. I think it's even less appropriate to cling on to this assumption when it has been refuted in pretty much every way possible on this forum.

Quote:
I wouldn't assume you to be acting under Jainism because you don't live in India...I suggest that you might be unaware of Christianity's influence on your thought processes, and that even the most introspective people are often blind in one or more areas. Growing up in a Christian country makes it virtually impossible not to absorb, or at least be affected by, some of its doctrine.

I will not make any assumptions about Blue Mooses background. However, one thing I shall say is this: I personally come from England. Although England is considered a Christian country it is incredibly secular in the way it goes about things. Many of our MPs are openly atheists. No-one would even consider teaching Creationism outside of a Religious Education class which explores all religions and favours none...by law! The majority of people in my country do not go to Church and most of us are bought up without religion or with religion merely as a part time hobby. With this in mind I'm pretty sure that coming from a 'Christian country' certainly does not necessitate that one is bought up surrounded by Christian indoctrination. It is a very different state of affairs than that being experienced in America. I can generally say openly that I am an Atheist and expect no-one to even blink an eye at the thought (in the majority of situations). Yet my country is considered 'Christian'.

Quote:
*I think it goes without saying that everyone here knows stripping at children's parties is not a very good idea.

Yes, and I believe so does Blue Moose. I think she was using an example of a time when we would all object to public nudity as an example of the fact that it is not ALWAYS appropriate. You're response suggests that she succeeded in this. If it is the case that it is not ALWAYS appropriate then she is justified in at least questioning whether it is appropriate in the case of raising awareness for atheism or the ration response squad.

Quote:
*I think it's intellectually dishonest to say you're not presuming Amanda's motivation because you're discussing the phenomenon as a whole. If you use her as an example, you're insinuating that she is doing it for the reasons you say. Why else would you use her as an example?

I believe that Blue Moose used two individuals as an example in order to avoid this criticism....and to avoid personal hurt to Amanda. If there were 100 pictures taken in a similar vein then I believe, given her responses that counter your opinion, that she would have posted the same message underneath each one. Again, if you are not going to take her word that she is not singling out any specific individual then I don't see how she can prove it to you. She is not saying that Amanda is personally motivated by the things she suggests but that the culture in which she lives suggests that this is the thing to do. If this is so she is merely questioning whther Amanda may have been influenced unknowingly by these values in the same way that you suggest that Blue Moose may have been influenced by Christian values.

If we're not actually going to pay any attention to what someone is saying when they speak to us and be skeptical about everything that they utter then how can we discuss anything at all. If someone refutes something that you say or assume about them then we get nowhere by just going "I don't believe you" even if we do dress it up as reserving judgement completely.

Hambydammit's picture

Quote:I don't think that

Quote:
I don't think that you've generally been a part of the passive aggressive tendencies of some of the posters here but comments like this tend to be born from, and incite, emotive rather than rational responses.

Really? It just looks like a question to me. How else would you like me to have suggested that she's projecting?

Quote:
I'm not sure what more she can do other than tell us that it is so.

Exactly.

Quote:
I guess, in this case, we just have to take her word for it.

As far as we can trust her word, which is as far as we can trust anybody's word when they're telling you about their own subjective experience. (That is, we can trust it only so far.)

Quote:
As I said before, it's important not to instantly object to things as if they are motivated by religion as some kind of ultimate put down that demolishes an arguement.

Go back and re-read my posts. I've never tried to demolish her argument. My only point all along is that there are alternatives to her characterizations of Amanda's picture, and that it is presumptuous to assume Amanda's motivations or emotional state.

I object when arguments are based on unproven premises. That makes the whole argument pointless. In the same way that I don't want to argue about whether or not Jesus was crucified in the wrist or the hands, since it has never been established that Jesus lived, I'd prefer not to argue about Amanda or Moose's motivation, since it's all just "he said, she said." (And I think it's kind of insulting to Amanda to insinuate that she's desperate just because she took a sexy picture, so I was taking up for her by saying that there might well be other motivations, and we don't know diddly-squat about it.)

Don't you see? This whole thread has assumed Moose's objection to be valid, and I've been trying to point out that there's no point in arguing about it because her explanation is just one of many possible.

Quote:
I think it's even less appropriate to cling on to this assumption when it has been refuted in pretty much every way possible on this forum.

Actually, no. I've not been refuted once. I've been disagreed with based on subjective opinions. As I said earlier, there is no refutation for my point because there's no way we can know one way or another. Therefore, we have to assume that it's possible that Moose's motivations are not as free of Christianity as she thinks.

Quote:
If there were 100 pictures taken in a similar vein then I believe, given her responses that counter your opinion, that she would have posted the same message underneath each one.

Precisely! And she would be telling each and every one of those girls that they were desperate to post them. Calling ten thousand girls desperate would still be calling each one desperate as an individual.

My point again: There is no way to know Amanda's motivation. There is no way to know Moose's motivation. Unless we start producing some facts or stats or something with some substance, this whole thread has been nothing but name calling, and I object to it.

Quote:
If we're not actually going to pay any attention to what someone is saying when they speak to us and be skeptical about everything that they utter then how can we discuss anything at all. If someone refutes something that you say or assume about them then we get nowhere by just going "I don't believe you" even if we do dress it up as reserving judgement completely.

You get it, but you won't apply it.

I've paid very close attention to everything Moose has written. I am skeptical of absolutely everything.

And you're precisely right! We can't discuss this at all because there's not enough evidence for any of the things anybody has suggested. Notice I've never said I was right about anyone's motivation. I've just said we can't know, and there are different alternatives.

I also never said I didn't believe Moose. I said I don't know, and that's still true.

If I were in Amanda's position, I'd feel like I had been called desperate, and I'd be hurt. I think it sucks to be brave enough to put up a picture and automatically be labeled as desperate without so much as a "by your leave." I suggest that Moose might have a point, but without even establishing that she's correct in her assumptions about racy photos on the internet, it's kind of mean to use Amanda as a lab rat for a subjective argument that doesn't have any factual basis.

Hambydammit's picture

Actually, slag, I'm curious

Actually, slag, I'm curious about one more thing.

What passive aggressive behavior are you talking about?

Calling a proud display of

Calling a proud display of that which is noble, beautiful, or strong an act of desperation reeks to me of Christophile slave morality. We should be proud of that which we are good at (this includes looks), and display it freely. Of course, a certain degree of modesty is necessary lest one comes off as an arrogant charlatan, but Amanda has certainly not crossed that line.

Hambydammit's picture

I give up.

I give up.

Slag's picture

Yeah, me too mate. There is

Yeah, me too mate. There is absolutely no way anyone can prove anything to you people short of carving "I am not a Christian and I'm not calling an individual or their motivations desperate but the act of advertising atheism through sex" on their forhead...and then you'd only go on to say that this proves that they must be to take such desperate measures to prove it.

As I said earlier, I think people should be able to do what they like with their bodies but I really don't think anyone has even listened to word that Blue Moose has said. You have instantly assumed that there is a christian motivation behind her views and, as this assumption cannot be proven either way, have taken it to mean that you're more likely to be right than wrong because, even if she denies it, she doesn't know herself as well as you know her and thus however intelligent or introspective she is then she is always under suspicion on Christian motivations.

I've spent a great deal of time simply asking for people to be fair to one and other....all I've seen is people taking Blue Mooses intial statement as an attack against Amanda personaly and taking it upon themselves to defend her.

There is very little rational debate here and a great deal less respect and understanding than I had come to hope of intelligent people.

I really cannot be fucked anymore....you people can believe what you want about other people that you don't know and don't want to listen to after having made your own immovable assumptions about them.

Maybe your 'I can't be wrong about peoples subconscious Christian conformity because I can't be proven wrong' attitude is derived from the Christian idea that God must exist because it can't be proven that he doesn't. After all you do come from a Christian country.

Blue Moose's picture

quite aside from the

quite aside from the fruitless exercise of arguing about the extent to which I may or may not be 'influenced by Christianity,' which I might add blindly assumes an awful lot about the nature of my social and familial surroundings, I have a rather more pertenent question Hambydammit-

Exactly how, and to what extent, do you imagine my views on this matter may be influenced by religion? To put it another way- what is the nature of this hypothetical influence that might render my opinions invalid?

The reason I ask this is because 'influence' is a word that has an overwealming number of connotations- I could quite validly say that everything you have posted is under the influence of Christianity- and it is, because if Christianity had not 'influenced' you in any way you would not even know of it's existence. Another way of putting this sentence is to say that that 'you are discussing issues in relation to Christianity', or that 'you are utilising your knowledge of Christianity in order to aid the formulation of your set of opinions.' There is absolutely nothing to be suspicious about in these two sentences, yet there is in the sentence 'under the influence of Christianity' in the same way a driver might be under the influence of alcohol and cause a crash. So you see how your choice of language is vital to the connotations of your answer...

Blue Moose's picture

Having read Slags comment I

Having read Slags comment I dont think I really need your answer Hambydammit, it's clear he's largely right and that you have already assumed that this 'influence' is some kind of malevolant irrational force within my psyche. But of course you will have a hell of a job describing it because you have absolutely nothing to go on but some vague concidence between my opposition to using sex to market atheism, and the church's general 'no no' attitude to sexual expression in any way. If you cannot describe the 'influence' of Christianity on myself, how do you intend to make it any more than merely another aspect to the world that I acknowledge, like horseracing, Scotland, or the Liberal Democrat party? I have dispositions towards those as well, they 'influence' me.

Can I even trust that you aren't a Jew? Or a German woman who likes to breed cats and believes in alien abduction? You can't deny it satisfactorally enough to make it definitely untrue....

hamby wrote: I give up. I

hamby wrote:

I give up.

I did that a few days ago. Eye-wink

slag wrote:

Yeah, me too mate. There is absolutely no way anyone can prove anything to you people...

Nice. Love the "you people" when there are only a few people in the thread. Just come out with it man, don't beat around the bush, it's ok, you're allowed.

slag wrote:
I've spent a great deal of time simply asking for people to be fair to one and other....all I've seen is people taking Blue Mooses intial statement as an attack against Amanda personaly and taking it upon themselves to defend her.

You speak about fairness in discussion and go on to completely misrepresent much of the thread. "all you've seen" is people taking it as an attack on Amanda, eh? ALLRRRIGHHHTY THEN.

Slag's picture

When one has been

When one has been misrepresented is it not "fair" to misrepresent those who have misrepresented you? But to be honest I don't think I've misrepresented anyone here.

By 'you people' why would you assume I meant anyone but people on this particular thread?

Do you not find it frustrating yourself when people won't listen to anything you have to say and just go on assuming what they want to? Picking and choosing what they actually acknowledge of what you've said? Did I not say at the very start of this post that absolutely nothing could be acheived from this kind of discussion?

So...why did I personally continue to contribute? To be proved correct.

Blue Moose's picture

Exactly, and I retracted my

Exactly, and I retracted my first statement a long time ago, realising it could only lead to pointlessness.

I was also sucked in to this banality, due to misrepresentation, and I hereby remove myself from it!

SilkyShrew's picture

Blue Moose wrote:why the

Blue Moose wrote:
why the desperation in a site designated for rationality? I wouldn't prevent someone's urge to strip if they wanted, but if I want porn I'll go to a porn site.

Porn by who's definition? In reality, if we talk in the sense of a state legal system, then porn is determined by a court review in which they decide if, in their subjective opinion, something is "objectionable to the community." If you're talking about porn based on your own subjective opinion, well, the internet, nor the globe decides offensiveness based on one person's opinion. Let me explain further.

dictionary.com wrote:
por·nog·ra·phy /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

ob·scene /əbˈsin/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-seen] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

So, who's determining if Amanda's picture is offensive to morality? (who's morality?) Does porn cause uncontrolled sexual desire? Who's determining if it is controlled? Who's determining if it is abominable, disgusting, or repulsive?

For that matter, since when IS sexual desire completely controlled? Does that mean that the poor kid going through puberty, in the midst of an algebra class, with some old lady teaching, getting a random erection is looking at pornography?

For that matter, who's to determine the difference between porn and erotica?

dictionary.com wrote:
e·rot·i·ca /ɪˈrɒtɪkə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-rot-i-kuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
literature or art dealing with sexual love.

art1 /ɑrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

(I only quoted part of the definitions for art, as there was too many, and I just needed what I applied).

With that in mind of all the following images, which is porn and which is art (or whatever else)? (NSFW) Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3, Picture 4, Picture 5

Blue Moose wrote:
The net is so full of women objectifying themselves for the sake of a few lude comments from complete strangers, and if that's what gets you off go for it.

Objects? I think you need to read something that I wrote a few months ago - and for your benefit, I will put it directly into this post ...

me wrote:
The smooth feel of hot plastic slides under my fingertips, I move slowly, quietly. My breath remains even and strong and the warm moisture laps at my hands; I become more relieved as my task continues and I near completion. I feel so accomplished, so good. With each new stroke, with each new motion, I become so much closer. In just moments I can immerse myself in the sheer pleasure of having finished the task at hand. I can enjoy that peaceful glow, relish in the quiet pleasure of knowing what I have just finished. I pause for a moment, sigh, and return to my task. One last dish to wash...

We humans have a remarkable talent for swaying the thoughts of others through symbols, images, verbal cues...a great number of things, and we do so all the time. In books, news, television, we use this talent to sway the populace to think a particular way - to follow a particular meme. I was toying around on the internet yesterday and ran across someone's discussion on the objectification of women *gasp,* as compared to the objectification of men. Of course, I had to give my point of view and I will share some of what I said here, but I want to elaborate as well.

Sex sells, and so it is used in the marketing industry as one of their main themes. Men are often more targeted than women, causing women to be the most frequently sexually depicted forms of human appearing on the television. Want to sell a burger? Call in Paris Hilton... Sell a car? Someone's got to be dressed sexy and rolling all over the top of it. How many men remember what was sold in the Super Bowl commercial in which the woman's shirt strap began to break from the sheer weight of her own private milk factories?

So we have it that in the marketing industry women have become something of an icon. We have vaginas, most men like them, ergo, our sexuality is used to draw men out of their caves to go eat a hamburger and buy a car.

There is a section of society, though, that raises this flag with a buzz-word known as "objectification." This means the making of something that once wasn't an object, into an object. Aside from the idea that people really can be a form of object, the word has evolved to the point of causing knee-jerk reactions across the nation. (Remember that in grammar class as a kid, you had to learn to use people as objects in a sentence in particular ways, direct object, indirect objects, etc.). The term is used in regards to the alleged objectification of women, and rarely in regards to the alleged objectification of men. When attention was drawn to this issue in another place on the internet, here was my response:

Quote:
With the several ebbs and flows of the feminist movement, people found a problem and pointed one of those fingers in the wrong direction. They saw that women were subjugated, and they blamed the men for it (since they were not subjugated) and applied some motivations. One of those motivations was the way women were enculturated to behave, and the way that men were enculturated to view women. They labeled some of this "objectification." The problem is, it wasn't really objectification. In its most literal sense, people are already a kind of object, though we don't like to give ourselves such a status. The other problem is, what they called objectification was really lust and courting behaviors... by the time anyone realized what happened (which few even like to believe, even though we know this) "objectification" became a buzz word. People were using it to identify what they found to be what was placing women into tight windows of expectations, or what made them just feel uncomfortable.

I will admit, embarrassingly, that I used that word in such a way before - and, unfortunately, due to the manner that so many others use it, I sometimes have to use it to be clear. However, the idea of "objectification" has become kind of a pass target for me, and I try to look at the issue a bit more reasonably.

Here's some things that I discovered in my own trek to sexual rights issues that relate:

* People are gonna look at each other, preen their feathers (dress up and try to be sexy), and do a number of things as precursors to finding mates and courting.
* Someone looking at another is not necessarily harming them.
* Preening (or dressing up and making oneself beautiful) isn't harmful either.
* People have misassociated crimes to fellows of the human species with sexual behavior, and they still do this needs to be rectified.

I'm sure I could think of more ... I don't have any list or anything on hand to look.

People innately respond to sexual stimuli, and that can be used to manipulate the patterns of behavior of other people. I can draw people's attention to this very post by making it seem erotic, making my listeners think of me in some sexual manner. The first few sentences of this post could very easily have led into a description ofme masturbating instead of simply washing some dishes. If I did the introduction well, that is what most of my readers had been expecting.

So, what's the point? Well, it is that sexuality exists and we need to be fighting for sexual rights while accepting that, not while pretending that it isn't there. Whining about people displaying their body, using it as a source of income when it is something that they want to do isn't going to free that person from oppression. They aren't being oppressed when that is what they want to do.

Historically, women were subjected to some very poor circumstances, deprived of human rights, and treated as property. This became known as objectification. Over time, though, the word's meaning changed. Once implying something in regards to ownership, it now means something different. It is a scare word. You can use the words "feminist," "socialist," "Marxist," and get knee-jerk reactions that could be similar. Few people like the word "communist," just as few want to be known as an objectifier of women. People distance themselves with it, using it as an excuse for what they perceive as present social ills, and it sometimes leads to not directing the focus on the actual problems that exist. A good example being that the porn industry itself is not really a problem, but, the social attitudes which lead to not protecting sexual career workers is a problem. We can't blame to porn industry, though, for people's lack of empathy and understanding for people in the porn industry who need it due to being violated in some way.

I think that this scare word is becoming something that leads away from our being sexually comfortable. I think that it is counter-productive to sexual movements in which we want to be free from restrictions based on sexuality. It swings us in the opposite direction of the issues we need to be focusing on.

Blue Moose wrote:
But to be honest Im sick of having this kind of thing saturate everything I visit on the internet, and I just wish people would use their powers of cognition to think about when it's appropriate.

Who determines appropriateness?

Quote:
This site is about thought, and these pictures took very little.

Looks like a show of appreciation to me - which may not take much thought, but it certainly has an effect on the people that it was sent to, and I'm sure that it met what it was intended to. I actually think that people being comfortable enough with their bodies to share it is a positive thing. I wouldn't be brave enough to have a photo of myself posted on the internet like that. The reason why I wouldn't is because of my own insecurities - Amanda clearly is a step ahead of me in that regard.

Quote:
As it happens my views on this matter come from a more feminist background than anything, which can be a bit of a provocative word these days. Again, I realise this is not the time or the place...

Which feminist background? There's several different schools of thought in feminism ... not all the schools of thought are very rational.

Quote:
I didn't post two of the same comments in order to get attention, I didn't really expect any response actually I didn't attach much importance to them. The reason I posted this twice is that the point was not to single out and attack any individual but rather the concept of using your tits to get what you want.

People use their arms, legs, toes, abdomen, brains, etc. to get what they want ... it isn't much different than using your breats to.

Quote:
It pisses me off for various reasons, but I guess that's my problem not yours.

What other reasons? Can you give me a rational reason why showing your breasts in a picture is any more evil than showing an arm or finger?

Quote:
A close friend of mine pointed out that to post a message like this isn't exactly going to endear people to me. I guess he's right, it was my own personal beef about a subject that, although I think does have some pertenence to the subjects discussed in this site as most things do, really wasn't that important.

If you can justify your stance logically, then it is indeed important to this site. It isn't a matter of being endeared for a statement or not ... it is a matter of if what you have said is a valid statement or not.

Quote:
suppose the crux of the matter for me was that this society DOES capitalize on this, and it is the logical side of the arguement that I see as being the essence of it.

Society capitalizes on the need for food as well, if someone posted a picture of food ... would that be a problem?

Quote:
I suppose I see this kind of marketing, if you will, as crude, and the only mileage of it will be to momentarily hold the attention of those who will very soon turn their heads away again.

Not any more than other forms of advertising.

Quote:
I see this kind of thing as 'selling out' to a market that largely doesn't think, and I am aware of my wide generalization here.

Selling out in a capitalistic society? Is that surprising? Heck, there's breastfeeding mothers who sell excess milk to help other mothers have healthier babies; there's people who sell their bodies to weld large machines that power dams; there's people who sell there time, their devotion and a number of other things as well in order to survive ... what's the REAL difference here?

Quote:
I don't believe that followers to a cause that have no idea why they are following it can do the cause any good. In fact I think they can do an awful lot of harm.

I'm quite certain that most people who responded to that image were well aware of why they responded to it.

Slag wrote:
I personally think that the most important thing to come out of a discussion like this is the need for us rational thinkers to accept the we each have our own opinions. These opinions may differ but I have no doubt that Blue Moose, as well as those that opposed her initial assertions, all came to their views through a process of critically evaluating their experience of the world. This is what we want isn't it?

Actually, I'm not sure that Blue Moose did come to her conclusions due to a process of critically evaluating anything. In fact, I'm opposed to an aversion to sexuality like that because I think it is counter productive to the health of society.

I think that it is healthy for her stance to be questioned, and for the stance of others to be questioned if need be. If she sees flaws in the thinking of others, she is free to state such. I wouldn't say her stance was religious, but it could be the result of dogmatic thought, and so I think it deserves healthy discussion.

In reality, an aversion to sexuality itself, to sexual display or even human preening *is* unhealthy. It seems to be a sweeping under the rug of things that are natural functions to people.

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Her face is attractive, but from this angle it appears that she could stand to gain a few pounds.

Blue Moose is probably upset because she is not nearly as attractive.

That seems absurd to assume about anybody.

Blue Moose wrote:
...but if you would like a crash course in feminist (or more appropriately in my opinion, egalitarian) views on the Marketing of sexual ideals, I think a private message to me or a Discussion on another forum would be more appropriate.

I would like to see it discussed here, actually, because I find that many views on both sides of "feminism" and "masculinism" are and can be erroneous. This is why, while I agree to the social equality of women - I find that I can't identify with any single school of feminism. So I advocate sexual information and rights.

Quote:
A point I should like to add lastly, is that I cant help noticing the frequency with which people take note of 'attractiveness' when considering the picture and my response. Would people have the same reaction to me response if she were massively obese? Or very ugly?Beauty is a thoroughly subjective thing, and statements about the actuality of a person's beauty, as if it is some kind of general truism, I find irrelevent because of this.

Indeed, lets talk about this. I would think it just as erroneous if they were out to criticize someone who was obese for something like this than you criticizing amanda.

Quote:
I think humans are generally beautiful,and my personal preference was far from what impressed itself on my mind when I reacted to the picture. Do you think that the act would have less worth if she were less 'beautiful'? I suspect some of you might... And I also suspect that the outrage with which my post was met, at the sheer AUDACITY of a person to object to sexualised images of a female, was motivated largely by a desire to get a quickie of someone's tits whenever possible. As I said, there is a time and a place for everything, wouldn't you be better off reading Loaded?

I don't think that they were all that outraged...

If they wanted to see her breasts, and she was willing to expose them, what is the problem with that?

Neither side is having their person violated by this; nobody is harmed ... each side apparently gains some pleasure.

dont fear the natural composition of our bodies

The human anatomy is a beautiful thing. We shouldn't get mixed up with right or wrong. Our physical bodies are something beautiful only made unjust by media. We should take pride in what nature has given us, not hide it.. besides, we are all naked under our clothes.

subzeroiq's picture

Boo Blue Moose

Sorry Blue Moose but...

Your comments seem to be completely against what we are fighting for. Are we not supposed to be arguing against the irrational Iron Age thinking that is so disgusted with our natural bodies that it insists that we (specifically women) be covered up. Seriously, if you take your point of view to its logical conclusion you should be advocating Burqa wear for all women.

Why can't we be proud of the skin we were born in? What is so wrong with sex and sexuality? Of course we need to be careful of STDs, but we don't need dogmatic points of view that do little to protect against the issue at hand and do so much damage to our civil freedoms. 'Objectifying'! Oh please. It is every woman's right to try to be perceived as she so wishes, or are you against that?

Please think about what you are saying.

 

subzeroiq's picture

Sorry Moose

Hi Moose,

I am a recently joined member so I have just been catching up a bit. I guess I was too quick to remark at your initial message.

I hope you are still friendly with everyone here.

Best wishes

SubZeroIQ

willy's picture

why the desperation in a

lighten up for christ's sake, blue moose!