|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 18, 2018 12:28 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 00:38, 18 Jan 2018.
|
@ artu:
i never said it completely didn't exist today. what i was trying to point out, is they act like the current environments are sexist/racist like they were in the old days; as if progress never happened. they make mountains out of molehills, just to bully the rest of the population into getting even more than any particular group of people deserves. this is why men are fired/their persona stigmatized for mere allegations of(mostly completely overblown) sexual misconduct; this is why males suffer so much more after a divorce without a prenuptial agreement(or why they don't get custody of their children, but only visitation rights); this is why men go to jail if any women they were with even CLAIM any sort of abuse; this is why women are allowed to say things like men should all be dead/killed/castrated, and are all potential rapists(they even target male children, ffs). females have their own t.v. channels. men aren't even allowed to have THEIR OWN SHOWS anymore. i could go on and on about this, but i think that covers it for the ridiculous feminist p.o.v.
the same goes for the blm movement(and all blacks, really): whites are fired/their persona stigmatized for mere allegations of(mostly completely overblown) racial misconduct; blacks are allowed to say and do racist things towards whites(i see it all the time on t.v., even displayed in the news like it's something humorous); blacks have their own t.v. channels and scholarships(even strictly black dating sites like "blackpeoplemeet.com" advertised on t.v., but the white version is "farmers-only.com", because "whitepeoplemeet.com" would be outed as "racist!!!"), they can get a job or go to college JUST TO FILL THE RACIAL REQUIREMENTS, etc. they're even allowed to riot, break into shops and steal/vandalize whatever they want(or lie down in roads and block traffic), all while cops aren't allowed to DO THEIR JOBS, just because these people rioting are black. and moreover, black crime is downplayed in the media, while anything even REMOTELY white is OVERBLOWN, and in many cases, even outright LIED about(like how cnn originally photoshopped a hispanic george zimmerman to look WHITE, just so that it would look like white-on-black crime). the news will JUMP at the chance to point out(and even lie about) ANY white-on-black crime... but black-on-white crime? they'll do what they can to BURY it, IF they even televise it at all.
tl,dr; women and blacks(in the western world, anyway) have never had it better. both demographics are wayyyy past equal to the people they claim are still oppressing them, at this point. the only people refuting this, are the people who either A: have been convinced/made to feel guilty for being what they are(or what their race/sex did in a long-ago past, even if they NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT); or B: are the same kind of bullies THEY are, who are pushing for special(SPECIAL, NOT EQUAL) treatment. period.
now, to drive the point even further home, the above will undoubtedly be called/viewed both sexist and racist(i may even hear about it from a mod), when it's nothing but the plain and simple truth.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 11:28 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:29, 18 Jan 2018.
|
That's what 4chan wants you to think. 
Seriously though, "men can't even have their own TV shows anymore." How about all those sports channels, wrestling channels, action film channels etc. Who do you think the target audience is with those? No. Because you are a man, you percieve shows for men as "regular shows" but shows for women as "women shows." I have Netflix you know, I'm very aware of what American TV is, saying men can't have their own TV shows is flat out wrong. And about your comments about rape charges, it's true that they are taken more seriously these days (good) and have much more political contoversy surrounding them (bad) but when it comes to convictions, that's another story. (Dig the site a little, not just the page I linked.) The fundamental principle of modern law, "innocent until proven guilty" still applies the same to both men and women, not on an ideal efficiency, of course, but that's nothing new.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 12:15 PM |
|
|
|
Artu, you can explain it to fred with just two words: think porn (and what "women's corner" actually means).
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 12:18 PM |
|
|
artu, your argument doesn't reflect the bias in reality at all.
also, the link you posted crashed my web browser. not sure why. you might want to try and find statistics from another site.
i lol'd at the "4chan" bit, though. you know, if you were a regular there(and were able to sift through the massive amounts of trolling for actual content), you'd find all the statistics you'd ever need. the guys who aren't asshats at 4chan(only a handful of older members, tbh), are quite thorough in providing realistic, statistical information, straight from more reliable sources(and from more than just one website that crashes web browsers, lol).
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 12:21 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 12:22, 18 Jan 2018.
|
JollyJoker said:
Artu, you can explain it to fred with just two words: think porn (and what "women's corner" actually means).
are you really going to argue that ALLLLLLLLL the women in porn are being FORCED into it by their male oppressors, and by the wicked and evil patriarchy? LOL.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 12:40 PM |
|
|
Not at all. But in porn you have stuff "specifically for women" - but there is no section specifically for men - and you have one guess why.
Conversely, I'm not interested at all to discuss porn or prostitution as such. Meanwhile it should be known that in my opinion the counter-productive, religion-based zeal to police the so-called "vices" and punish those who give in to them is creating a lot more evil than the vices could, if left to themselves, ruled, regulated and taxed like everything else.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 01:40 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:47, 18 Jan 2018.
|
@JJ
I think porn would be a good example if you can manage to use it as a magnifier but not exactly accurate if you think of it as "any of the examples reflecting the film/showbiz industry." Porn is unproportionately targeting males, that's a given, but not only because of a patriarchal tradition but also because of the biological differences between male and female sensuality when it comes to sex. Porn is very easy money when the audience is male, but mainstream porn for women would take much more skill:
So, there, you have pure capitalist pragmatism. Shoot porn for males, it's easy to come up with, easy to sell, easy to reproduce. Shoot porn for females, too much "delicacy" to come up with, within the same work hours and money spent.
Maybe, you can kind of think soap operas as porn for women.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 02:16 PM |
|
|
No, I just amplified and shortened your point about "women shows" versus "regular shows", the latter being actually shows targeted at men.
As in "porn for women" and "regular porn", except that with porn it's a lot easier to see that "regular porn" actually IS porn for men.
As an only slightly related sidenote, we are watching The Affair, season 1 at the moment, and the concept to strictly have two points of view (in later seasons even more), telling sometimes the same event completely different (and without solving what ACTUALLY took place), is a truly revolutionary one, denying objective reality (and thereby any notion of an objective history).
Pretty cool stuff.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 02:22 PM |
|
|
On a different tangent, I wouldn't be surprised if someone branded it as pron for men, it could make a success just because of the name.
Mainly because the topic can be linked with shame for some, but if it is branded as something you can give as a gift for your significant other or simply something normal, then I could imagine the woman in a relationship being more acceptable of it or some even encouraging it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 02:34 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:37, 18 Jan 2018.
|
JollyJoker said:
No, I just amplified and shortened your point about "women shows" versus "regular shows", the latter being actually shows targeted at men.
As in "porn for women" and "regular porn", except that with porn it's a lot easier to see that "regular porn" actually IS porn for men.
I realize that and what I partly object to is, maybe porn has another angle to it. Regular porn for women would be Erotica, it exists, women can enjoy porn, men can enjoy Erotica, sometimes they can even prefer it over the other, I dont think I need to be walking on egg shells not to overgeneralize here, the thing is, male arousal is usually something that happens more instantaneously, and porn industry is kind of shaped by that.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 02:49 PM |
|
|
|
I was just trying to make a joke here, and I don't intend to press some point I don't really stand behind. However, if you replace "porn" with "(violent) action", things are actually not that different, aren't they?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 02:57 PM |
|
|
The definition of porn is a philosophical question indeed jolly one and I'm not joking about that one but if we remain less semantical, I guess, you got the nuance I speak of.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 03:24 PM |
|
|
Do you really see a significant difference in men watching porn and men watching action? Doing women isn't so different from doing villains, especially if they are superior in numbers. Just consider that in English you can use the same word beginning with an f to discribe what you did to them.
In that regard I don't see any difference between "explosions", if you know what I mean.
It's a power thing, an empowering thing, which is, what discrimination has always been about. Equality and equal rights and payment and so on is just describing what amounts to an equality in general power, and if an audience has the power to burn enough money, then it will be serviced.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 03:50 PM |
|
|
But there is still a difference between why a man will see a boxing match as "a regular show" as if it targets a unisex audience and why porn (as in sex on camera) will mainly remain targeting males, no matter how egalitarian TV shows can potentially get. And that difference is determined by how quick and contextless male arousal can be, compared to female arousal. You can come up with individual exceptions, there are all kinds of people, but this is still biologically distinctive in general. When it comes to sex, men are more hardwired to "just do it" and porn (in the traditional sense) reflects that.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 04:10 PM |
|
|
The same is true for violence (and watching it).
Because it doesn't matter how quick the arousal is, but how much fun something is to watch (for the watcher).
The typical action/violence stuff has an introductory climax as well within the first couple of minutes. All Bond movies start with a sequence of immediate action, for example.
Which means, I wouldn't agree with you on this. Quick arousal time is one thing, but fun watching something quite another.
But maybe I don't understand you correctly.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 04:35 PM |
|
|
Your argument can be summed up as gore = porn. Action would be more like eroticism, it's more subtle, there is a choreography to it after all. It is indeed a valid argument to me but what I emphasize is the difference between what is directly sexual and indirectly sexual. One is more open to transformation exactly because it is indirect. There will always be porn that just screams out "I am porn for the sake of it" and that one's customer will always be dominantly male even if we live under some matriarchy in the future, because it reflects male sensuality on a biological level. (You can of course, come up with some potential übermensch who is able to transform his primitive tendencies not through sublimation but through vaporizing them completely but that would be sci-fi as of now.) Hope I made myself clearer now, because I really get what you're saying and not exactly refuting it, but rather expanding it.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 05:04 PM |
|
|
artu said:
There will always be porn that just screams out "I am porn for the sake of it" and that one's customer will always be dominantly male even if we live under some matriarchy in the future, because it reflects male sensuality on a biological level.
you don't think that maybe women watch porn for the exact same reason? contrary to popular feminist belief, females don't want emasculated men OR sexuality. they want a man to BE a man, because that's what turns them on; and has for a bazillion years. that same sexuality and biology isn't going to change just because some feminists want it to. i think we can at least agree on that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 05:21 PM |
|
|
Mainstream porn is overwhelmingly based on male fantasies, some women can enjoy it, too, of course, but I'm not suggesting women never watch porn anyway. (Neither do feminists, btw.) But generally speaking, they dont enjoy it as on/off as we do, it's more sophisticated for them to get into the mood, once they do get in the mood, they can go brutal but that wouldnt be because porn is porn, that would be because they are in the mood.
I'm not suggesting "the mood" means nothing to us either, btw. But it's usually easier to get into. Think of it like this, you are not devoted to anyone, you are walking in the street, a real hot girl comes out of nowhere and gives you the "come here honey" finger, (sounds like a porn plot doesnt it), you'd follow her like a puppy wagging his tail. Real hot guy does the same to a woman, what are his chances, not zero but significantly less.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 06:13 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Your argument can be summed up as gore = porn. Action would be more like eroticism, it's more subtle, there is a choreography to it after all. It is indeed a valid argument to me but what I emphasize is the difference between what is directly sexual and indirectly sexual. One is more open to transformation exactly because it is indirect. There will always be porn that just screams out "I am porn for the sake of it" and that one's customer will always be dominantly male even if we live under some matriarchy in the future, because it reflects male sensuality on a biological level. (You can of course, come up with some potential übermensch who is able to transform his primitive tendencies not through sublimation but through vaporizing them completely but that would be sci-fi as of now.) Hope I made myself clearer now, because I really get what you're saying and not exactly refuting it, but rather expanding it.
Well - no, it's not clearer, because you could say the same about gore. On the other hand it's probably true that men are generally "simpler" and easier/cheaper to satisfy (in a broader sense).
But that coincides with them used to make all the calls, so being served easily due to primitive tastes is one thing, but having the power and the money to pay for it is another.
Which would mean, if we would indeed live under a matriarchy, and women had all the power (and consequently the jobs, the say, and the purse), the market would produce the stuff WOMEN would find fun, because they'd be the ones to serve. "Cheap" porn would still exist - but it would be categorized as "porn for men" and one category between others like "extensive foreplay", "sixpacks", "circumsized", "dreamy looks", "obedient", "cuddly" and who-knows-what, plus some turn-the-tables stuff.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 18, 2018 06:23 PM |
|
|
The key here is whether you think there is a biological distinction between male arousal and female arousal. If you think not, then you would (and you do) hypothesize a completely symmetrical matriarchy. Our hormones dont function identically though, so there is a real difference.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
