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 

August 21, 2014: Well, hardly ever
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3199

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Catel wrote:
Jabberjay wrote:
Remember: Male sexual desire is always bad and women who act sexual in ways that make Tats uncomfortable have no real agency of their own and are tools of the Patriarchy. They can't possibly be responsible for their own decisions or expected to be held accountable to them, that would be treating them like actual adults or even people.

Tat is more Christian than feminist and the real heroes of Sinfest are probably Ezekiel and Ariel Smile


Whom we see like maybe once a year. Wink

Yinello wrote:
But Tat's views on sex has always been a little shadey for me. Too much women in sex jobs = oppression and too little sexual freedom.


Well, Tat's sort of stacked the deck against himself on that. Who is there for the women of the strip to be sexually free with (aside from each other)? Can anyone here really picture Slick, Crim, Squig, Li'l E, or Seymour having sex with a woman? Don't Answer That. To the casual observer, it'd look like child pornography.

Francis is gay, Cupid is androgynous, Uncle Sam is married (and adultery is usually considered bad*), The Devil is evil, Legion and Milton are at least semi-evil, Porno-Man is I don't know what you'd call him, and who's left? Buddha? Jesus? Father Time? Zombie Boy? Death? I don't think so.

The only other recurring man in the strip is Tat himself. Hm.

All of which added up together just proves that it's entirely possible to lead a happy, fulfilling, productive life without having sex at all. Not that all or even many of the characters are leading such lives, but still.

===

*I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the posts in defense of adultery. Kind of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only reasonable defense of adultery I can think of is that having sex with the same person for the rest of your life (assuming the marriage is a life-long affair) has a risk of getting boring. A marriage should be more about two compatible people loving and supporting each other than a contract of sexual exclusivity by default. This isn't the dark ages, the purpose of a marriage isn't to carry on a family name and fortune through children bearing the father's name or to bind houses together or any of that crap.

Adultery is fine under appropriate circumstances. Cheating is skeezey behaviour but the definition of "cheating" varies between relationships. Sexual exclusivity should be assumed in a serious romantic relationship unless it is specifically mentioned otherwise, though.

I'd like it if Tats' views on sex weren't 30 to 40 years out of date.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jabberjay wrote:
What is wrong with propositioning a woman (or anyone) for sex so long as there is a socially appropriate context?


Nothing. Context is key.

Quote:
What is wrong with pornography? (Remember that one exception disproves the rule before making generalizations in seeking to answer this.)

What is wrong with strip clubs?

What is wrong with phone-sex hotlines? ("They seem creepy" is not a valid response in this instance, the moralities of social justice don't revolve around what does and doesn't creep you out.)

What is wrong with Webcam Shows, besides the obvious malware risk? (I'd never put my computer through that.)


Widespread economic exploitation surrounds the sex entertainment business and makes its current incarnation possible.

Quote:

What is wrong with a 3-D holographic lap dancing app other than it being a frivolous, if inevitable, use of revolutionary technology?


An advertisement for biblical software can be as sexist and problematic as a lap dancing app.

Quote:

Remember: Male sexual desire is always bad and women who act sexual in ways that make Tats uncomfortable have no real agency of their own and are tools of the Patriarchy. They can't possibly be responsible for their own decisions or expected to be held accountable to them, that would be treating them like actual adults or even people.


You are missing some context.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Echo



Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 616

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
You are missing some context.


Well, yeah, what else do you expect when he's trying to validate his own real life activities while faced with this negative portrayal of Squig's recent conduct?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Echo wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
You are missing some context.


Well, yeah, what else do you expect when he's trying to validate his own real life activities while faced with this negative portrayal of Squig's recent conduct?


Not even close.

EDIT: The sex entertainment industry isn't going anywhere. It is changing for the better but the changes would be far less glacial if people who considered themselves progressive would help it change rather than condemn it outright. Be a part of the solution, not just another symptom of a larger problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think retail workers are exploited, particularly in areas where there are no or few options for most people to make a living.

By saying this, do you think that I am saying all commerce is bad? Or that people who shop at any time, or like shopping, are evil?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not entirely sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I'll read your post three more times over and see if that helps.

Nope, still don't see it. But I'll play along and see if it clarifies things.

I think exploitation is somewhat, but not entirely, subjective. People in almost any industry with a chain of command structure are going to make far less at the bottom than they would at the top, even if the effort invested is similar or the same. That could be regarded as exploitation and would definitely be seen as such by some of my friends in the IWW. They generally prefer the co-op structure of business over the corporate hierarchal structure. But another way to measure whether or not it is exploitation is whether or not the retail wage is livable. My country (Canada) has high taxes but free healthcare and a high minimum wage in pretty much every province. Even if the employer is screwing the employee by giving them less than a fraction of the profit they earn for the company as wage (a situation I was familiar with when I was employed with a survey company) they will still earn enough to feed themselves and keep the power on without having to worry about going bankrupt over a hospital visit.

So I guess I'd say "exploitation" has to do with what one feels that they or some other person or group is owed. Some things, like chattel slavery, are obvious exploitation. Other things, like wage slavery, are subjectively exploitative.

But I don't feel this analogy is really adequate, at least in a way that supports your point. Retail work will always exist just like how sex work will always exist. Retail workers need to be treated with more dignity and respect and probably be better protected by law so they can make a livable wage and not have to work two jobs or go into debt to stay afloat, just like how sex workers need to be treated with more dignity and respect and be protected by law so they don't need to pay a pimp most of their wages for protection, or otherwise worry about soliciting while unprotected, even by law. The analogy falls apart after that, though. Nobody really *needs* to see a prostitute while some people do need to shop at stores known for exploiting their employees, like Wal*Mart, because that is the only way they can afford to make ends meet.

In either case the solution is to try to make things better for the people most affected, not to try and condemn and entire industry with generalizing statements that will just cause most people to disregard you out-of-hand. That's just counter-productive.

Edit: I'll go one step further and provide an example.

Instead of saying "Porn Harms" which condemns any explicitly sexual act recorded, photographed, or drawn for the intent of arousal you could try "The mainstream industry of video pornography is problematic in both the mistreatment and underpayment of its actors and actresses as well as in its attempt to portray sexuality as violent and violence as sexual as being the default human sexual condition."

It doesn't really have the same ring to it but it makes you seem more like a reasonable individual who condemns bad things happening to good people rather than a crazy person condemning an entire means of sexual expression and enterprise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2721
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronald wrote:


Well, Tat's sort of stacked the deck against himself on that. Who is there for the women of the strip to be sexually free with (aside from each other)? Can anyone here really picture Slick, Crim, Squig, Li'l E, or Seymour having sex with a woman? Don't Answer That. To the casual observer, it'd look like child pornography.

Francis is gay, Cupid is androgynous, Uncle Sam is married (and adultery is usually considered bad*), The Devil is evil, Legion and Milton are at least semi-evil, Porno-Man is I don't know what you'd call him, and who's left? Buddha? Jesus? Father Time? Zombie Boy? Death? I don't think so.

The only other recurring man in the strip is Tat himself. Hm.

All of which added up together just proves that it's entirely possible to lead a happy, fulfilling, productive life without having sex at all. Not that all or even many of the characters are leading such lives, but still.

===

*I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the posts in defense of adultery. Kind of.


Good point but if I was Tat (I'm not, lel) I'd let Uncle Sam and Liberty break up, allegories be damned. It's portrayed as a relationship that is going off the rails constantly and it feels wrong to just let them stay like that. Liberty seems like a good candidate to be a sexually liberated woman (freedom and stuff).
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jabberjay, I am limiting the scope of my conversation so it is easier to keep track of what is going on and where/how I have not been clear. Also, it limits stress.

I asked you if my saying, "Retail workers are exploited" appears the same as saying "Participating in commerce is bad, and you should feel bad for wanting to buy thing."
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yinello wrote:
Ronald wrote:


Well, Tat's sort of stacked the deck against himself on that. Who is there for the women of the strip to be sexually free with (aside from each other)? Can anyone here really picture Slick, Crim, Squig, Li'l E, or Seymour having sex with a woman? Don't Answer That. To the casual observer, it'd look like child pornography.

Francis is gay, Cupid is androgynous, Uncle Sam is married (and adultery is usually considered bad*), The Devil is evil, Legion and Milton are at least semi-evil, Porno-Man is I don't know what you'd call him, and who's left? Buddha? Jesus? Father Time? Zombie Boy? Death? I don't think so.

The only other recurring man in the strip is Tat himself. Hm.

All of which added up together just proves that it's entirely possible to lead a happy, fulfilling, productive life without having sex at all. Not that all or even many of the characters are leading such lives, but still.

===

*I'm kind of looking forward to seeing the posts in defense of adultery. Kind of.


Good point but if I was Tat (I'm not, lel) I'd let Uncle Sam and Liberty break up, allegories be damned. It's portrayed as a relationship that is going off the rails constantly and it feels wrong to just let them stay like that. Liberty seems like a good candidate to be a sexually liberated woman (freedom and stuff).


Even if she doesn't become liberated, seeing her in another relationship would be much better.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
Jabberjay, I am limiting the scope of my conversation so it is easier to keep track of what is going on and where/how I have not been clear. Also, it limits stress.

I asked you if my saying, "Retail workers are exploited" appears the same as saying "Participating in commerce is bad, and you should feel bad for wanting to buy thing."


It doesn't, but if this is going where I think it's going then it is an inappropriate analogy anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
EverythingsJake



Joined: 26 Jun 2014
Posts: 245
Location: The Jazz Age

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Because it's not going where he wants it to go, as is often the case when someone argues with a high word volume and wobbles about like that.

It's difficult to debate "Is X right and moral?" when cultural context varies so much globally and historically, and so many beliefs and emotions are bound up in the topic. "Does it cause harm to individuals? Does it help or harm the society at large?" are questions that have the potential for more objective arguments, but beliefs, ever bound up with emotions (both controlled by the limbic system), will always intervene. Hence arguments like, "I know your statistics say X, but I still believe Y, because... because... I just do! It just seems like it's that way!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jabberjay



Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Posts: 259

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jake, statistics have never once been mentioned here. If you're going to accuse me of dismissing factual evidence when it conflicts with one of my points then at least wait until it actually happens, jeeze.

Where this seems to be going is a comparison between "Tats says sex workers are exploited equals he hates expressions of male sexuality" and "retail workers are exploited therefore commerce should be despised."

The "male sexual desire is wrong" has a lot more to do with the fact that any time a male expresses lust in Sinfest they are being a creep, perv, or idiot. That and that in the anti-porn stance male porn actors, particularly gay porn actors, are never even mentioned. Aren't they being exploited too? If anyone can be accused of ignoring facts its Tatsuya for taking a stance on pornography that flat-out pretends that gay porn, which makes over a third of all porn, doesn't even exist.

Also I know a lot of people who work in retail, and a few people who work in amateur pornography and publishing erotic literature. Only some of them feel like they are being exploited and they all work retail for corporations. The internet is the best thing to ever happen to self-employed pornographers since now literally anyone can become one. It's the dawn of a new golden age of pornography. You can enter it with dignity or you can be dragged in kicking an screaming, but you can't escape the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3199

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
Even if she doesn't become liberated, seeing her in another relationship would be much better.


With whom? Francis is gay, Cupid is androgynous, The Devil is evil, Legion and Milton are...

Which indirectly raises the question: Are there Malebots?

Hm, remove one letter there and you get "Malbots," which sounds like it should be related to malware. Hm.
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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