|
On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about.
Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line.
First off, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Secondly, prostitution, according to wiki, is the selling of sexual services. That includes a girl selling a blowjob, selling herself masturbating on camera, and selling anything else sexual.
I don't care if girls dress skimpily on their stream. If they flaunt themselves for the purpose of gaining viewers I think they possibly have weak self esteem or are shallow, but they're not immoral.
|
On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious.  Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off. This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen. You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom. Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral. You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women.
Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals.
Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman.
|
On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about.
Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line.
You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in?
|
On May 03 2013 06:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. First off, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Secondly, prostitution, according to wiki, is the selling of sexual services. That includes a girl selling a blowjob, selling herself masturbating on camera, and selling anything else sexual. I don't care if girls dress skimpily on their stream. If they flaunt themselves for the purpose of gaining viewers I think they possibly have weak self esteem or are shallow, but they're not immoral.
Good--I'm glad we agree that women aren't immoral for doing what they like doing. Can't believe it took you this long to see that.
|
On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in?
Nowhere have I stated that dressing a certain way is immoral, luckily.
|
On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
People telling the latter to show her boobs is as bad as people calling the former immoral. Is that so difficult? This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious.
They're her clothes.
|
On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in?
??
I don't know how this is relevant.
Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period.
|
On May 03 2013 06:25 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. First off, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Secondly, prostitution, according to wiki, is the selling of sexual services. That includes a girl selling a blowjob, selling herself masturbating on camera, and selling anything else sexual. I don't care if girls dress skimpily on their stream. If they flaunt themselves for the purpose of gaining viewers I think they possibly have weak self esteem or are shallow, but they're not immoral.
I personally have the same issue with it as I have with all other shallow forms of advertisement, which is that it's kind of insulting to me. I mean, sexual things are fun, but I don't like getting them mixed with everything else. It feels degrading to ME. Treating me like I'm just some walking erection with no interests outside of sex. Does that make it immoral? Not sure. Does that mean it should be illegal? Hell no. But I'll definitely speak out against it.
|
On May 03 2013 06:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that.
Newsflash genius:
this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?"
is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral"
because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification.
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? Nowhere have I stated that dressing a certain way is immoral, luckily.
On May 03 2013 05:11 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There is nothing wrong with stripping on camera. There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified.
Its perfectly fine for you to disagree--as I have said many times already. If you aren't going to say anything and do anything about her stripping--then we are in agreement. As I said, it's okay to disagree. But to go around calling her morally wrong for her actions is absurd. Women are allowed to be sexual, to be beautiful. Women are allowed to do what they want even if you disagree with it. Because she's not doing it for you, she's doing it because she wants to do it. If someone was making her do it--then that's a problem, as much a problem as someone telling her to stop doing it. We don't decide a woman's actions they decide their own actions. ?????? How is calling something morally wrong absurd? Of course you're allowed to be sexual. Of course you're allowed to do things I disagree with. But that has literally nothing to do with the morality of an action. I don't tell women to stop doing it. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral, but that they're free to do so if they wish. Similarly, I don't tell people who believe, say, that welfare is bad, that they're not allowed to think so, but merely that their position is immoral. I'm not about to go start a talk show devoted to convincing women that their behaviour is incorrect, but I'll certainly state my opinion on the subject in the proper arena (e.g. this thread).
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
You just have a far too narrow definition of what constitutes harm
|
On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about.
Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious. Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off. This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen. You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom. Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral. You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women. Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals. Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman.
Who is talking about deciding things for women?
|
On May 03 2013 06:29 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:25 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that.
Newsflash genius:
this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?"
is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral"
because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification.
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. First off, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Secondly, prostitution, according to wiki, is the selling of sexual services. That includes a girl selling a blowjob, selling herself masturbating on camera, and selling anything else sexual. I don't care if girls dress skimpily on their stream. If they flaunt themselves for the purpose of gaining viewers I think they possibly have weak self esteem or are shallow, but they're not immoral. I personally have the same issue with it as I have with all other shallow forms of advertisement, which is that it's kind of insulting to me. I mean, sexual things are fun, but I don't like getting them mixed with everything else. It feels degrading to ME. Treating me like I'm just some walking erection with no interests outside of sex. Does that make it immoral? Not sure. Does that mean it should be illegal? Hell no. But I'll definitely speak out against it.
I think what bothers me is that some of these so-called "sex-positive" initiatives, while not necessarily flawed axiomatically, pretty much end up perpetuating the idea that people can be treated as objects supposing some arbitrary set of criteria are met (usually that it's consensual). This rubs me the wrong way because it's basically replacing outright puritanical sexism/sex negativity with person-apathy.
|
On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:28 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:12 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:10 Prevolved wrote:On May 02 2013 20:07 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 20:05 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 20:03 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 20:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This post is literally "yes she got a load of sexist abuse and harassment but she was asking for it by doing X which encouraged male attention". But do you disagree that women on the internet naturally get a lot more attention for a disproportionately lesser amount of effort put into whatever? Not relevant. Can you not see that he just rationalised sexist abuse because this girl asked for it by doing something other than going "please send me sexist abuse"? If so, how can you not see that? People like him are literally the problem. Stop responding to him, he is just acting like this because he is a stupid male. Male are always like that : they want to be right even if it means denying the fundamentals of what constitute reality. + Show Spoiler +How does it feel being disqualified on your gender? Yeah man, because two wrongs make a right. ... Did you even read what I wrote previously? There, let me help you. Wrong. Entirely wrong. Feminism is all about making people conscious of the prejudice associated with each gender (and men are also subjected to it, the proof being the existence of words such as "man up" or "get some balls" : men are always expected to act strong, tough...) in order for individuals to be more free of doing what they really want to do and being what they really want to be, independently of what the society would like them to be given their gender.What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. That's actually historically untrue. Women were going to be given suffrage in the United States for example well before the 1900s, but they absolutely refused to even contemplate the possibility of having to participate in things such as the military draft and other historically 'male' obligations. Not only that, the feminists of the early 1900s didn't give a flying fuck that men below the age of 21 were dying in World War I in the hundreds of thousands, they just wanted their own right to vote and didn't care. Any notion that feminism ever was about equality is just an illusion that most feminists like to utilize in their arguments, when in reality it isn't at all. Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe.
No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards.
Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What?
http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm
Remember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people.
|
On May 03 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
This is complete nonsense. It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them? You actually haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about or, apparently, what anyone else is talking about. Literally nobody is arguing any of these things except you. Um... you actually said that you think its immoral. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious. They're her clothes.
I love how people don't get at all what I actually said.
|
On May 03 2013 06:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:28 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object.
You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist.
Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? Nowhere have I stated that dressing a certain way is immoral, luckily. Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 05:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There is nothing wrong with stripping on camera. There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified.
Its perfectly fine for you to disagree--as I have said many times already. If you aren't going to say anything and do anything about her stripping--then we are in agreement. As I said, it's okay to disagree. But to go around calling her morally wrong for her actions is absurd. Women are allowed to be sexual, to be beautiful. Women are allowed to do what they want even if you disagree with it. Because she's not doing it for you, she's doing it because she wants to do it. If someone was making her do it--then that's a problem, as much a problem as someone telling her to stop doing it. We don't decide a woman's actions they decide their own actions. ?????? How is calling something morally wrong absurd? Of course you're allowed to be sexual. Of course you're allowed to do things I disagree with. But that has literally nothing to do with the morality of an action. I don't tell women to stop doing it. I don't say anything at all unless I'm asked. And if I'm asked, I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral, but that they're free to do so if they wish. Similarly, I don't tell people who believe, say, that welfare is bad, that they're not allowed to think so, but merely that their position is immoral. I'm not about to go start a talk show devoted to convincing women that their behaviour is incorrect, but I'll certainly state my opinion on the subject in the proper arena (e.g. this thread).
" There is in my opinion something wrong with doing so in order that other people will pay you for it because what you are doing is essentially asking people to objectify you in exchange for cash; ergo you are fine with perception of yourself as an object ergo you agree with it. I would never dream of stopping a person from doing this. But I will certainly judge the action because I feel that it isn't particularly dignified."
At least read what you quote. Bolded so that you notice this time.
|
On May 03 2013 06:31 Morken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 05:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um... you actually said that you think its immoral.
[quote] It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that. Newsflash genius: this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't? It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?" is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral" because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification. A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. What I'm standing on has been the same since I started talking in this thread. Women are allowed to do what they want--you acting like a puritan when you see someone naked has nothing to do with them wanting to do it. If they are forced into it, if they have no other choice but to do it, if they are not doing it out of their own free will--then yes its problematic; but not because they're naked, but because their being forced to do things they don't want to do. But if a woman decides she wants to look nice she doesn't need to hear crap from people like you calling her immoral. Why is a woman's desire to take her clothe off ok, while his desire to put her clothe back on is crap? Not taking any sides, just curious. Because he does not decide when her clothes come on or off. This is a typical answer in such a debate. You don't even try to understand what other people mean. In your mind, everyone who doesnt agree with you, is an evil man who only desires to control women, strip them off their rights and keep them as sandwich slaves in their kitchen. You, just as any other person who starts with this gender equality crap, doesnt care the slightest about actual equality and freedom. Of course it is a woman's right (everyones right infact) to run around in a skimpy dress or strip infront of a camera, but so is it everyone's right to not like this behavior and deem it immoral. You dont want men and women to be equal, you just want men to shut the fuck up, if they dont agree with women. Not liking something is different from attacking. You can always disagree--but policing people who act differently than you is wrong. Men are attacked by misogyny as much as women are--and no, I don't mean "sexism" I mean misogynous ideals. Its not about "shutting up" if you don't agree with a woman--it's not having the right to decide things for a woman. Who is talking about deciding things for women?
Being that you equate not telling women what to do with "you just want men to shut the fuck up" apparently that's you.
|
On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that.
Newsflash genius:
this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?"
is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral"
because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification.
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period.
But in the context of the article, is posting sexist comments actually policing anything? She still retains her right to dress however she wants, and viewers still retain their right to disagree with her apparel in the comments. People can say whatever they want, thats just free speech, that doesn't mean she has to listen or even read whats posted. Dressing herself up in whatever clothing is still her choice.
|
On May 03 2013 06:31 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:29 Acritter wrote:On May 03 2013 06:25 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object.
You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist.
Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. First off, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. Secondly, prostitution, according to wiki, is the selling of sexual services. That includes a girl selling a blowjob, selling herself masturbating on camera, and selling anything else sexual. I don't care if girls dress skimpily on their stream. If they flaunt themselves for the purpose of gaining viewers I think they possibly have weak self esteem or are shallow, but they're not immoral. I personally have the same issue with it as I have with all other shallow forms of advertisement, which is that it's kind of insulting to me. I mean, sexual things are fun, but I don't like getting them mixed with everything else. It feels degrading to ME. Treating me like I'm just some walking erection with no interests outside of sex. Does that make it immoral? Not sure. Does that mean it should be illegal? Hell no. But I'll definitely speak out against it. I think what bothers me is that some of these so-called "sex-positive" initiatives, while not necessarily flawed axiomatically, pretty much end up perpetuating the idea that people can be treated as objects supposing some arbitrary set of criteria are met (usually that it's consensual). This rubs me the wrong way because it's basically replacing outright puritanical sexism/sex negativity with person-apathy.
Well, the issue is whether it's actually consensual, or just something they're doing because they need the money and can see no other way to manage it. If a girl honestly likes being a porn star or what have you for whatever reason, then who has the right to tell her to not do what makes her happy with her own body? But it's awful to see someone forced into a job they find degrading because they can't see any other alternative.
Hint hint, this applies to all work. Not just sex work.
|
On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:37 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
It's actually like talking to a wall that takes what you say and throws it into google translate until it says something completely different, then replies to that.
Newsflash genius:
this : "It doesn't make sense to you that some women like being pretty and others don't?
It doesn't make sense to you its wrong for us to decide for them?"
is not the same as " I'll say that what I think they're doing is immoral"
because despite your attempts to pretend that stripping on camera for money is an exercise for women who "like being pretty" it is objectification.
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object. You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist. Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period.
Yet this whole debate is about telling people how to act infront of women. lol
|
On May 03 2013 06:34 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 06:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:26 Morken wrote:On May 03 2013 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 06:11 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:59 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:55 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2013 05:49 Shiori wrote:On May 03 2013 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
A woman doing what she chooses to do is not objectification. A woman being used as an object is objectification--because she's being used as an object.
You wanting to call women who act sexual immoral is sexist. For much the same reason that if a woman is told she has to strip in front of a camera to increase ratings is sexist.
Women's rights is not about putting clothes on women who are naked. Women's rights is about giving women the power to act the way they want to act. You can treat yourself as an object. That's all I have to say about this nonsense. People who sell their sexuality aren't "acting sexual"; they're treating themselves as objects. And my statement applies to male prostitutes as well as women. It has nothing to do with sexism at all. You're grasping at straws. Face it: you've got nothing to stand on here. I think you're misunderstanding his point. It's that other people don't get to decide how it's okay for an individual to express themselves (assuming they're not harming anyone). It's not just about you adding things to your list of acceptable ways to be a woman, it's about you not defining the acceptable ways to be a woman. Implicit presumption of utilitarian ethics. I abide by the Kantian dictum that one should never treat any human being as anything other than an end i.e. not as a means to an end. Selling oneself is treating oneself as a means ergo it is as morally flawed as viewing prostitutes as objects. I feel that I should reiterate that this has nothing to do with women specifically. I am equally not a fan of male prostitutes. Woman taking her clothes off =/= being a prostitute Selling it is, though, which is what I've said from the start. Stop strawmanning me or I'm just not going to reply to you. It's the SELLING that's the moral issue, not the taking off of clothes. Is she fucking people for money? If yes--that's illegal in the US. If no--then she's not a prostitute. if she wants to dress skimpy while on stream--then that's her call. if someone is making her dress skimpy on her stream--then that is sexist. you can dislike it, you can disapprove of it, but if you go around telling her how she should or shouldn't dress calling her immoral just because she lives life differently than you--then you're crossing the line. You mean like those millions of christians who go around telling people what they should believe in? ?? I don't know how this is relevant. Any group or person trying to police how another group or person should act is wrong. Period. But in the context of the article, is posting sexist comments actually policing anything? She still retains her right to dress however she wants, and viewers still retain their right to disagree with her apparel in the comments. People can say whatever they want, thats just free speech, that doesn't mean she has to listen or even read whats posted. Dressing herself up in whatever clothing is still her choice.
Her complaint in the article is that the society of the group she associates with attacks her making her feel unwanted and disrespected for her views. It's not about free speech--it's about being in a society that feels hostile to be in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
