welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2012-08-12: Porn Cave
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6118
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't know if that would really solve the problem, though. the problem is people like crayven and Guest who think "rape culture" means "we condone rape." saying you've got a "rape-supportive culture" would imply to people like them that we all "support" rape, and of course we don't, and you wind up in the same place as before.

i think the real problem here is that, whether you call it rape culture or rape-supportive culture or rape-rationalizing culture or purple platypus mango monkey wrench, the concept is still saying that there's more to incidences of rape than just the rapist, and rape as a social issue isn't just a matter of some isolated evil people jumping out of the bushes and raping somebody. if it's just isolated evil people doing what isolated evil people do, then you don't have to examine the ways in which you might inadvertently be contributing to it, or the ways in which other things in your life might be contributing to it.

there's an analogy to be made in how white mass murderers and terrorists (like the guy who shot up that Sikh temple, or the Aurora shooter, or the Norwegian kids' camp shooter, or the Tucson shooter) are treated as "lone gunmen" and isolated individuals, whereas other mass murderers and terrorists (like, say, pretty much any terrorist of Middle Eastern background) is treated as a representative of their background. if mass murder and terrorism is only something brown people do, then you don't have to look at it too hard when white people commit acts of mass murder and terrorism.

which, i guess, leads to the other problem: no matter what you call it, people like crayven and Guest will assume that when you talk about "rape culture" what you're really doing is accusing everyone of being a rapist. and, of course, you're not, but that won't make a difference to people like him.

maybe a different name might reduce the kneejerk reactions that this thread put on display. on the other hand, it's still talking about rape, and on some level we all appear to agree that that's a pretty horrible crime--but once you go talking about more than just the rapist, some people just don't seem to be able to handle the thought that the rapist doesn't exist in a vacuum. i'm not sure what you can really do about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6574

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Sinfest has taught me anything it is that almost all arguments devolve into pointless bickering over semantics.

One sliver on the pie chart is reserved for "argument devolves into incomprehensible gibberish on one end, opponent unofficially declared winner and given a churro" and two very small slivers for "opponents mutually agree to disagree" and "one person actually admits defeat, either sarcastically or earnestly, nobody can ever tell which."
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
mouse wrote:
trader joe's sells cheese curds, which they recommend for use in poutine, but they are cheddar sorts of curds.


I must obtain those when I can! We're finally getting a TJ's closer to us than any other (an hour away but still!) soon.

Check the more expensive food stores by you. I would suggest looking around by the deli section where they sell the imported and better cheeses, not in the dairy section where the sell the cheaper domestic stuff. But that might just be how stores are arranged in the NE, down in Florida it might be different.

Also, you could always make your own curds.

also Poutine is shit next to chili cheese fries Twisted Evil
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6118
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
One sliver on the pie chart is reserved for "argument devolves into incomprehensible gibberish on one end, opponent unofficially declared winner and given a churro"


speaking of which i deserve a churro the size of a fucking station wagon for this thread

jesus christ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ktern



Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 950

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't eat it all at once
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1168
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samsally wrote:
If Sinfest has taught me anything it is that almost all arguments devolve into pointless bickering over semantics.

Thus why you had me make the Darth Vader "semantics" image. Hahaa
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Check the more expensive food stores by you.


Ouch! Alas, that puts making it right out of my price range. Sad Mozzarella (and other inexpensive ones) it may have to be, then...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10626
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
Darqcyde wrote:
Check the more expensive food stores by you.


Ouch! Alas, that puts making it right out of my price range. Sad Mozzarella (and other inexpensive ones) it may have to be, then...

Why? Curds themselves aren't expensive, it's just that nicer, pricier food stores are a lot more likely to carry them because they tend to have a larger selection of products in general.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
EmptyOnion



Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
i was not actually comparing the iPhone ad to the beer ad's use of models

what i was actually doing was denying your claim that internalization of impossible, harmful body images is simply advertising

so...the point is...?


You were trying to explain how advertising works without actually catching the point of what I was saying with advertising. The models aren't for sale in the beer commercial. They aren't for sale in the music videos. They aren't for sale in pretty much any form of media you have them in.

Why are they there then? Because if I put a can of beer on a stool and show you that image, on a scale of 1- 10 you may react with an amount of interest totaling.. 2? if I put a can of beer in the hands of a hot model and show you that image, on a scale of 1 - 10 you may react with a ? 3? Therefor, the guy trying to sell you the can of beer, will use the model.

Now he picks the model with that same thought in mind, which one will raise the amount of interest you have in that can of beer the most.

This isn't different for music videos, or any of the other things. The standard of beauty is an exaggerated one, and it is harmful because of its exaggeration, but the reason it is the one that becomes "socialized," is because it is the one that -we- picked by showing more interest to one standard for beauty than the other. Women and men both chose the unrealistic ideals for body images (and I do mean both genders, there are tons of guys with eating problems who work out all the time just to try to attain an image like brad pit in troy (super unhealthy btw, but it looked cool!)) by showing higher rates of interest and more reaction to that type of body image than the other one.

A good example of this selection by the audience would be Twiggy in the 1960s. You have, previously to her, a love for the curvy blonde, the sexy girl.. and then Bam! something -different- appears and because of its difference catches the attention/ interest of everyone around. Twiggy, super skinny girl. She changed the ideal for beauty and the expectations of beauty in the fashion world. Most critics/ ad agencies/ whatever refused to admit that this was the case, but sure enough the public said "Yep! that's the one we want!" (or at least among the largest growing spending group) not a bunch of evil executives in an office who had already purchased contracts for girls with a completely different style deciding they wanted to make women suffer more from anorexia.

Because women like her caught the interest/ attention of girls/ teenagers/ adults everywhere, overnight almost the fashion world changed. It didn't dictate what people thought was attention grabbing, it changed because of what people's attention was grabbed by.

When groups try to go against this formula, when they try NOT to push unhealthy images of women.. well, look at Dove's Real Beauty Campaign... it was met with at first a cheer.. and then a problem.. and turned out to be a big bleh/flop. People, didn't, want, to see the ads. They didn't remember them. The images of normal people didn't generate any interest among women, as women chose, in a very financial way, to tell Dove in 2004 "please don't show us images of real women, they aren't interesting."

This is why I come tot he conclusion that it is the people who choose the images of unhealthy unrealistic forms of beauty. I'm not going to argue with the fact that "after the fact" the image was pushed to the point where girls and women thought it must be "normal..." to look like that. The source covers that fact pretty well. I'm just arguing, that it was women who chose the images, by how they reacted to the images in market studies and stuff like that. You know, reacting positively to those images that psychologically damage tons of teenage girls and some guys (no saying how many, but at least one right?)

Recap:
Standard of beauty: Decided by interests of the audience. Follow the dollar thinking.
Fashion magazines: Purchased to attain standard of beauty.
_________________
Warning: Nothing is without influence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Why? Curds themselves aren't expensive, it's just that nicer, pricier food stores are a lot more likely to carry them because they tend to have a larger selection of products in general.


Oh! That's very different then. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6118
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

none of that actually has anything to do with what we were talking about.

talking about "how advertising works" is a) wrong, because what i said actually is an abbreviated version of it how it works, and b) irrelevant, because "advertising" is not the original source of unattainable ideals of beauty. you are moving the goalposts to talk about something that can't actually be determined with any sort of accuracy. where did that standard of beauty come from? i don't know. cultural standards of what makes a woman beautiful have changed numerous times over the centuries. it's probably not a bunch of women sitting down and all deciding that they want to perpetuate unhealthy body images, though.

on the other hand, you are assuming that "people choosing images of unhealthy unrealistic forms of beauty" and supply and demand exist in a vacuum. it's like you haven't stopped to consider why "people choose images of unhealthy unrealistic forms of beauty." your analysis simply stops at "people choosing images of unhealthy unrealistic forms of beauty." and because your analysis simply stops there, you miss a variety of important points--like how it's much more questionable to call it a "choice" when you have a background of internalized standards and indoctrination that is constantly reinforced by inescapable advertising and mass media. it quite heavily smacks of blaming the victim (and really, blaming the victim is never cool and usually doesn't stand up to the facts anyways)

this is why i made all those mocking posts about how things change when you selectively ignore major parts of them. that's exactly what you're doing here. you're ignoring a major part of the equation and coming to a skewed and useless answer that does not reflect reality. it's like conducting a poll in which your sample consists solely of Democrats and then concluding that Barack Obama is going to utterly crush Mitt Romney in the election in November. you missed some important parts there.

and really, the reason why "people choose images of unhealthy unrealistic forms of beauty" is that they are socialized to choose such images. that is what i have been saying all along. simply blaming women for perpetuating these harmful body images is not only kind of cruel, but simply wrong, because you are ignoring major parts of the issue.

which is what the first half of that Westminster College paper was all about. it set up clearly how it's not just advertising and not just women choosing to buy fashion magazines that lead to these internalized negative body images; it's a process of socialization that starts practically from the moment you emerge from the womb.

so we're back to you ignoring parts of the issue so that you can arrive at a certain conclusion.

if you want to actually prove me wrong about this, you will have to prove that all this socialization is either not happening (in which case you probably shouldn't cite that Westminster College paper because it says point-blank that it is happening) or you'll have to show that girls internalize those images at a very young age and yet that has nothing to do with them buying fashion magazines that claim to give them advice on how to reach the unattainable standard of beauty that they've been internalizing at a very young age.

or i guess you could argue that this internalization isn't happening or something else, but you'd be contradicting yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6118
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in conclusion, cheese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EmptyOnion wrote:
Recap:
Standard of beauty: Decided by interests of the audience. Follow the dollar thinking.
Fashion magazines: Purchased to attain standard of beauty.


I have one comment and one question here.

Comment: Even if one grants all of this, it is still a cycle. (Or in this case a vicious circle.) Because it loops back around as the magazines (and other sources) all reinforce that standard, which affects the interests of the audience to spend their dollars on the magazines which reinforce the standard and so on and so on. The interests of the audience aren't floating in a vacuum any more than the executives who make the magazines are.

Question: How, then, would you propose to change or improve the situation?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
and then concluding that Barack Obama is going to utterly crush Mitt Romney in the election in November


oh

dear God

please

please

yes

please

yes


Ahem, sorry. Embarassed Razz Carry on...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3333

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:


Question: How, then, would you propose to change or improve the situation?


I'll give you the question you SHOULD be asking.

Question: How can one even discuss changing or improving the situation when to even bring it up for discussion is like lighting the beacon for every misogynistic prick to roll in with their usually woefully uninformed opinions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 28 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group