originally posted in:Secular Sevens
It's not a matter of using -blam!- to motivate other issues, it's a matter of an earnestly held belief that those behaviours can lead to an increased incidence of -blam!-. Maybe you should try reading the actual link next time.
English
-
Funny how you tell the OP to read the link and you analyzed it completely wrong.
-
Well then feel free to enlighten.
-
Believing your own propaganda doesn't really make it all that better.
-
Edited by Seggi: 10/20/2013 7:14:02 AMExcept that it invalidates the OP's complaint that the writer's just trying to use -blam!- to manipulate people. Which is, you know, what this thread is ostensibly meant to be about.
-
[quote]-He has gone to a strip club. -He is anti-abortion. -He watches pornography in which women are depicted. -He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. -He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. -He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” -He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” -[b]He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing[/b]and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing (This needs clarifying. Is the action of telling someone they're not appealing to them demeaning? Because that is certainly what some people do in order to establish boundaries around platonic relationships.) [/quote] There isn't anything wrong with discussing the sexual types he finds attractive, nor is there anything wrong with pornography. Or going to a strip club. Or most of those things. None of these quoted things should be demonized in and of themselves, but rather in specific contexts that should be expanded upon by the author. Whoever wrote this is unnecessarily creating a pathology around normal behaviors, which takes away from the discussion of -blam!- and the culture that we create promoting it.
-
Edited by Seggi: 10/18/2013 12:37:10 PMI don't actually agree that all of the behaviours listed encourage -blam!-, I was just disagreeing with fatman's characterisation of it as being a way to manipulate people through emotional issues. Fatman's probably the most prominent antifeminist I can think of on this site, so when I see him make this kind of argument I know it's not out of a need to set the record straight on a particular aspect of feminist discourse he thinks should be revised, but rather an opportunity to lash out. If I had any restraint and/or thought it'd make a difference, I'd just ignore his petty comments, but seeing this forum used as a platform for it really annoys me.
-
>Anti feminist Because I'm against women's rights and activists? No. Look at the first sentence of my post, "internet feminists". Feminists who make blogs about "international castration day", and this particular blog. Actual women's rights activists? People who fight for equal rights especially in places like saudi arabia? Oh I'm in full support of them. If I had to come up with a term for feminists I dislike, lets call it "internet feminists" or "bloggy feminists" if you will. And lashing out? I am calling out on this blogger's use of raype, and oh believe me I am taking it very personally. I talk about what aspects of females I find attractive with guys, I watch porn. To say that those behaviours are more likely for people to be tolerable of raype, is implying that I'm to be more tolerable of raype. And considering my actual best friend was rayped, of course I'm going to be disgusted at this blogger's use of raype and implications.
-
Edited by Seggi: 10/20/2013 1:19:01 AM[quote]And lashing out? I am calling out on this blogger's use of raype, and oh believe me I am taking it very personally. I talk about what aspects of females I find attractive with guys, I watch porn. To say that those behaviours are more likely for people to be tolerable of raype, is implying that I'm to be more tolerable of raype. [/quote] oh, so your problem is that it might be saying something bad about you lol
-
Something bad about just me? Ha, of course you'll like to say that. Like if a blog said something so vague in it's potential racism that a black guy gets offended, he can be laughed at because "his problem is that insults him" Thing is, it's not insulting me. It's insulting a helluva lot of people, from pro-choice people to people who just like talking about what their attracted to, to friends. It's saying alot of people (alot of people would be on her "list") support -blam!- and effectively tries to do that so people will attack people who are on that list, even if the item of listing is irrelevant to the issue of raype.
-
Sorry, champ, but the fact that it might be saying something bad about you does not and should not mean dick.
-
[quote]It's insulting a helluva lot of people, from pro-choice people to people who just like talking about what their attracted to, to friends. It's saying alot of people (alot of people would be on her "list") support -blam!- and effectively tries to do that so people will attack people who are on that list, even if the item of listing is irrelevant to the issue of raype.[/quote] Looks like you need to read. I did right there say this isn't just about me, it's damn near the whole population through her insanely vague list
-
And that still doesn't mean anything.
-
Yeah but once I looked at women and thought "I'd like to have sexual relations with her." There is so much spin in both articles I don't know what the ramifications of my actions were. Am I rapist? Am I just human?
-
Read the article - she wasn't saying you're a rapist, she's saying you're participating in and possibly perpetuating an aspect of a culture that leads to increased incidence of -blam!-.
-
This excrement gets ejected from the mouths of feminists so often that I am amazed they haven't become tired of it. Then again, feminists are simpletons and shitheads...
-
A meaningless assertion when anything about human sexuality could be said to be "perpetuating an aspect of a culture that leads to increased incidence of -blam!-".
-
You're reaching.
-
For what? All I'm saying is that you could make that argument with anything that potentially involves genitals.
-
Not really.
-
Yeah, really.
-
I read the article and didn't understand it, honestly.