Re: fanning the flames
This is all pretty silly and a bit stupid. Men like to look at women, well most men anyway, that's the way we're wired. Society and Political correctness be damned. Most, but not all women, are not wired that way, but some are and they'll admit to leering at men. Some men will look at bare chested young men the way that most others will look at bare breasted young women. Sex has been used to sell since sex was invented. Life is sexist, get used to it. Hooters is sleazy, but I prefer my sleaze a lot sleazier. All of the previous statements are objective facts, except the last, which is my opinion. On 12/8/2013 7:50 PM, knarf wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, crazier. - H.L.Mencken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 12/12/2013 3:45 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: Hooters is sleazy, but I prefer my sleaze a lot sleazier. MARK And my esteem level of you just gone up a million percent. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I don't have time for a lot of silliness, but I spent ten seconds googling this. Here's one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051103000541 On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:57 AM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Giving me authors' names and nothing else is still an appeal to authority. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and others. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 09/12/2013 10:09 PM, knarf wrote: The female breast is not a sexual object. It's merely a producer of infant food. Nothing more. Do you really believe that, Bill? I'm just trying to explain the male fascination with them. I'm told that the fastest way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Jiggles like jello and makes food. What could be better than that? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:13:49PM -0600, Bill wrote: On 09/12/2013 10:09 PM, knarf wrote: The female breast is not a sexual object. It's merely a producer of infant food. Nothing more. Do you really believe that, Bill? I'm just trying to explain the male fascination with them. I'm told that the fastest way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Jiggles like jello and makes food. What could be better than that? access. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 10/12/2013 5:20 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:13:49PM -0600, Bill wrote: On 09/12/2013 10:09 PM, knarf wrote: The female breast is not a sexual object. It's merely a producer of infant food. Nothing more. Do you really believe that, Bill? I'm just trying to explain the male fascination with them. I'm told that the fastest way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Jiggles like jello and makes food. What could be better than that? access. You aren't helping. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I think I see what you're saying. Well, on one hand it makes sense because to establish the point of whether we're hardwired or not would have great influence on how this conversation would develop. On the other hand, Frank, again, if I understand you correctly, you say that the sexualization of the woman's body (or parts thereof) is effectively made by conscious choice or is result of how modern society treats women, which as you say has nothing to do with hardwiring or whatever animal past we may have. This may be true but just like Paul's appeal to hardwiring, it seems to me it would require some reference. That's why I said what I said before. Again, I meant no disrespect to either of you, none whatsoever. As for your coming to Israel. I haven't seen such a behavior in other countries, although I couldn't say that I visited many or spent long enough time in those I happened to visit. Consider this example that happened to me just yesterday in one of the places where we eat lunch at work. Normally this place has no waiters - you take your food along the line, pay by the counter, sit down, eat, leave the place. Your dishes are taken after you leave. This specific couple, in fact, the lady of the couple probably placed some special order and hence it was brought to their table by the guy who usually collects the dishes from the tables. So the guy politely approaches the lady, she smiles back, he gives her the dish, she totally removes him from her environment, turning back to her companion. However, previously she was given some kind of a token to indicate that she's the one to whom the dish had to be brought. So the poor fellow kindly asks her to give that token back to him. Without looking at him she picks it up and extends her arm in his general direction. No eye contact, no nothing. He does not exist as far as her body language goes, and trust me I watched very closely. He takes the token and leaves. In my personal way of things, that was very denigrating behavior on her part. Further, to ever sadder state of affairs, the waiter was black (as in Ethiopian Jew), she was white (probably Ashkenazi Jew). I sat by the table next to them. These things happen not like once a week, but rather lots of times every day around me. I would very much like to have you witness some of them in person and then I would very much like to talk with you about these things, also in person. That's obviously beside great many other things I would like to show you in my country and themes that I might want to discuss with you when you come. Boris On 12/10/2013 7:52 AM, knarf wrote: No I am not appealing to authority. Paul was. Paul made the assertion that we're hard wired in a certain way basing that claim on studies. The authority was studies. That's what he was appealing to. Hence: Appeal to Authority. The problem with it is that I can't refute it. I don't know to which studies he refers. I don't know anything about these studies: their methodologies, their premises, who might be funding them, who they studied, etc. So the statement studies say is meaningless and doesn't add to the argument. As for your assertion that I've appealed to authority, well, I haven't. At all. And I don't have to refute the hard wired theory. It's up to the person making the assertion to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. Otherwise anyone could say any outlandish thing they want, something completely without merit, and then say, Well can you prove it wrong? Then it must be true! All I said Is I don't buy it, and that was because it hadn't been proven. I really don't think I have the energy to address the rest of your post right now. It's late and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow. As much as I'd like to visit you and your country you'll have to explain what any extended stay has to do with this discussion. Cheers, frank Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Frank, purely for the matter of argument, not in any disrespect to you or your reasoning, but didn't you just do the same (appeal to authority)? I mean - who says that we're not hard wired as Paul indicated? Are there studies to support that this specific part of our nature can be modified through proper nurture? Who said that this problem while having ethical aspects in it, does not stem from the way the human nature is, as you put it? You really would benefit from coming over here and spending here more than just a vacation, may be live here for some time. It may prove very interesting. Boris On 12/10/2013 6:50 AM, knarf wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're
Re: fanning the flames
I absolutely agree with you, Jostein. It seems to me that this whole discussion would boil down to some very fundamental notions (such as nature vs nurture), which cannot be resolved. In fact, the idea that our society is very diverse as far as approaches to these things go, probably contributes much to our species success. To imagine that if all societies will be 100% perfect, women will not be objectified for their sexuality, men will not be objectified for their wealth, etc etc - well, it will be probably very Orwellian... Boris On 12/10/2013 9:23 AM, AlunFoto - Jostein Øksne wrote: I hope we're not going to take this into a nature vs. nurture debate. That subject has remained unresolved since the renessance and will stay that way for as long as the division exist between humanistic and natural sciences. Jostein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. Dave, let me try to explain. Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. Now, consider this: 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry and you were preoccupied with something important. 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being robbed. 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In other words - don't be childish. Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying Be wise, don't be right. I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in that/these photograph/s. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Jostein, I don't understand how it come to be that you inferred from my reasoning that common sense and law don't apply somewhere, say on FB? I would appreciate an explanation, even if off-list. Then, I did not mean to imply that FB were criminals. I meant to illustrate the point that this specific lady struck me as a very special kind of individual - one that is more preoccupied with righteousness than with anything else. I may be wrong, but at least I tried to clarify my view. I think that FB is too big a community to have it change their practices based on experience of a single individual. It is in fact a very interesting issue, because FB is not democratic by design. The rules are not produced by mutual discussion of FB members, but rather are given. But I sense this will lead us even further off the original topic. Cheers! On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Alunfoto - Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but alas... Boris' reasoning has two _big_ flaws. One is accepting that certain geographical (or virtual in the sense of facebook) areas are exempt from common sense and law. I can see no reason why anyone would resign to such a state of affairs. With regards to facebook's community standards, their community is made up by their users. If enough ruckus is made by their community over certain rules, they stand to lose more by not changing their practice. And that leads me to the other flaw in the comparison. Facebook are not, like the thieves in Boris' example, criminals. My two cents, Jostein -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Boris Liberman Dato: 9. desember 2013 09:08 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: fanning the flames On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. Dave, let me try to explain. Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. Now, consider this: 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry and you were preoccupied with something important. 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being robbed. 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In other words - don't be childish. Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying Be wise, don't be right. I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in that/these photograph/s. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Indeed, the FB is American company, as knowing its history, it naturally stands to reason that initially it was tailored/directed to the American judicial system, just like you said. As for being off-topic - that's been my point all along that the real issue at hand has nothing to do with the photographic contents of the photograph that started this thread. Rather the issue lies totally elsewhere, of which we're in total agreement. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Alunfoto - Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: Between your viewpoint from Israel and mine from the Frostpit I think both of us suspect that community rules are crafted by bet-hedging lawyers catering for the American judicial system. :-) My main point was that I failed to see the analogy between your post and the original topic in the way it came out. Sorry about that. ;-) Jostein -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Boris Liberman Dato: 9. desember 2013 13:20 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: fanning the flames Jostein, I don't understand how it come to be that you inferred from my reasoning that common sense and law don't apply somewhere, say on FB? I would appreciate an explanation, even if off-list. Then, I did not mean to imply that FB were criminals. I meant to illustrate the point that this specific lady struck me as a very special kind of individual - one that is more preoccupied with righteousness than with anything else. I may be wrong, but at least I tried to clarify my view. I think that FB is too big a community to have it change their practices based on experience of a single individual. It is in fact a very interesting issue, because FB is not democratic by design. The rules are not produced by mutual discussion of FB members, but rather are given. But I sense this will lead us even further off the original topic. Cheers! On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Alunfoto - Jostein Øksne p...@alunfoto.no wrote: I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but alas... Boris' reasoning has two _big_ flaws. One is accepting that certain geographical (or virtual in the sense of facebook) areas are exempt from common sense and law. I can see no reason why anyone would resign to such a state of affairs. With regards to facebook's community standards, their community is made up by their users. If enough ruckus is made by their community over certain rules, they stand to lose more by not changing their practice. And that leads me to the other flaw in the comparison. Facebook are not, like the thieves in Boris' example, criminals. My two cents, Jostein -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: Boris Liberman Dato: 9. desember 2013 09:08 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: fanning the flames On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. Dave, let me try to explain. Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. Now, consider this: 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry and you were preoccupied with something important. 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being robbed. 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In other words - don't be childish. Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying Be wise, don't be right. I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in that/these photograph/s. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Re: fanning the flames
I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. Compare your scenario to this one. I'm having a party at my house and I have a bunch of friends over. No big deal. Someone who has a grudge against me calls the police and my party is shut down because of the complaint, even though none of my neighbors had a problem with the party. Come some time later, I have another party, and the same person (or any other person really) calls the police again because they have a grudge against me. Again the party is shut down for no good reason. What you are saying is that it is my fault for having the party and that I should know better than to have a party. That is blaming the victim. Instead of pursuing the person making the accusations, you are saying that the victim deserved what she got. That whore should know better than to dress like a slut, what did she think was going to happen? That is equivalent to what you are saying, she should have known better, and she has no one to blame but herself. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. Dave, let me try to explain. Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. Now, consider this: 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry and you were preoccupied with something important. 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being robbed. 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In other words - don't be childish. Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying Be wise, don't be right. I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in that/these photograph/s. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Well, you're right but not completely. I'm not saying that FB were right to apply whatever corrective action their applied following (supposedly) report of this image via their standard procedures. I'm saying that the problem is elsewhere, and not in the what picture shows or FB action, especially if Larry's right and the action is taken automatically after so many people have filed their complaints with the system. Now, I wonder - was it a smart move on your part to invite over the same person who called the police previous time over? Specifically, if you had made amends with them - then most certainly - yes, it was a good faith move to invite them over. But if you were still having problem with them - why would you have to invite them to begin with? In order for some other person to come along? Have you taken your time to consider the implications? I'm not suggesting that you're guilty, Dave. However I believe there're questions that deserve to be asked here regarding the smartness of your move. And no, you're not guilty for having a party and thus the police are not right to have shut down your party. But you cannot blame the police for doing their work, right? Or do you suggest that the police officer arriving at the scene should have in mind the potential idea that everything may be kosher and that you're falling a victim of someone's ill-conceived move? Of course there're cases that saying that victim deserved what they got is really wrong thing, by more than one count. I still maintain this specific case is not such. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: I understand what you are saying, but I think you are wrong. Compare your scenario to this one. I'm having a party at my house and I have a bunch of friends over. No big deal. Someone who has a grudge against me calls the police and my party is shut down because of the complaint, even though none of my neighbors had a problem with the party. Come some time later, I have another party, and the same person (or any other person really) calls the police again because they have a grudge against me. Again the party is shut down for no good reason. What you are saying is that it is my fault for having the party and that I should know better than to have a party. That is blaming the victim. Instead of pursuing the person making the accusations, you are saying that the victim deserved what she got. That whore should know better than to dress like a slut, what did she think was going to happen? That is equivalent to what you are saying, she should have known better, and she has no one to blame but herself. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:19 AM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote: Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. Dave, let me try to explain. Dave, consider this scenario. You drive in a neighborhood and in great hurry you leave your car windows open. Your car gets robbed. You invoke insurance, and so on. While engaged in damage control you are let known that this neighborhood is rather full of thieves. A week later you have to pass by the same route again. This time, rather knowingly and on purpose you leave your car doors opened one more time and your car gets promptly robbed. This time however, along with invoking the insurance, you also start a very loud publicity campaign. Now, consider this: 1. Although you were quite right both times (as far theft being out of the law, etc), you were not very smart to leave your car doors opened. The first time over you were being normal human - you were in a hurry and you were preoccupied with something important. 2. The second time you did it on purpose. Further, this time you were knowingly inviting the thief so that you can cry out loud. Again - you were right by the letter of the law, but you were very non-smart other than that. Ultimately, I should point out that in this case your behavior may indicate a deeper underlying problem than just being robbed. 3. Finally, if your original plan was a publicity campaign against thieves in general or in this very neighborhood, don't tell me that the damage done to your car is something you cannot possibly stand. In other words - don't be childish. Now, my understanding (from reading the blog post comments) that this is not the very first time this lady has problem with FB authorities. Ultimate bottom line here is Hebrew saying Be wise, don't be right. I hope I got my point across. Also let it be noted that this direction of the discussion has nothing to do with whatever was depicted in that/these photograph/s. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE
Re: fanning the flames
I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It seems to me that in order to maintain the position that to the portrayal of a beautiful woman's sexuality is dehumanizing, you have to start from the premise that sex itself is necessarily degrading to women and renders men incapable of appreciating them in a more holistic fashion. That may be the case for some women and some men, but I don't think it's true of the majority of us all. And I don't see how achieving a greater sense of balance alleviates the perceived problem, anyway. Instead, it seems to compound it by saying, Look, in order to remedy the problem of sexual dehumanization, we're going to have to dehumanize the sexes more equitably. -- Walt On 12/8/2013 6:50 PM, knarf wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:53:45AM -0600, Walt wrote: All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Best known to Star Trek fans, probably, as Vina in the original pilot episode The Cage -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Sun Dec 8 09:55:19 EST 2013 Attila Boros wrote: On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Larry Colen lrc at red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ I agree that no sane person would find that sexual. However the FB terms of service is meant to deal with the abnormal cases. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. What a hideous use of language. They need grammar police. Their lawyers must have had a C- in English composition. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies. They enforce it very strictly, not so much for our protection, but to avoid getting themselves into trouble because some user posted something that _might_ cause a lawsuit. But there are much stranger terms: It is very likely that the photo was in the first place reported by one of the people who didn't like the success of that woman's blog (which is a money-earning website). Competitors? But even within those rules, the question is what does one define as nudity. A woman without burqa - does it fall in that category? Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 09/12/2013 9:53 AM, Walt wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. Of course, everyone here has it wrong, since they are either arguing for or against the femal breast being sexual. It isn't and as any healthy male knows, the female breast represents food, Is it was they that nourished us during our early life. Of course, larger breasts represent more food, which is why so many of us find larger breasts more attractive than smaller ones. That they jiggle like a bowl of Jello only adds to their charm. But, my dear friends, if you think the female breast is a sexual thing, you are mistaking one desire for another. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It seems to me that in order to maintain the position that to the portrayal of a beautiful woman's sexuality is dehumanizing, you have to start from the premise that sex itself is necessarily degrading to women and renders men incapable of appreciating them in a more holistic fashion. That may be the case for some women and some men, but I don't think it's true of the majority of us all. And I don't see how achieving a greater sense of balance alleviates the perceived problem, anyway. Instead, it seems to compound it by saying, Look, in order to remedy the problem of sexual dehumanization, we're going to have to dehumanize the sexes more equitably. -- Walt On 12/8/2013 6:50 PM, knarf wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 09/12/2013 9:35 PM, knarf wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... Yes well, when men start creating FOOD by biological process within their bodies, you might be on to something. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
The female breast is not a sexual object. It's merely a producer of infant food. Nothing more. Do you really believe that, Bill? Cheers, frank Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/12/2013 9:35 PM, knarf wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... Yes well, when men start creating FOOD by biological process within their bodies, you might be on to something. bill “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Not to flog this dead horse, and I'll happily leave it alone after this, but I do have to point out that in your original message on the subject you said this: But here's the rub: showing genitalia and breasts is sexual. It sexualizes the women. Even if they consent to it they are being portrayed in such a way that shows them as primarily sexual persons *which takes away from other aspects of their being*. [Emphasis, mine.] That struck me as the premise you were operating from, and that your proposed solution -- that is, more balance -- is essentially to portray men more frequently in ways which you see as taking away from other aspects of their respective beings. But, if you don't really believe that, and what you're making a stand against the generalized denigration and offensive portrayals of women in ways that include (though, not in all cases) nudity, I don't see how abstaining from viewing tastefully presented images of nude women addresses the disparity you've resolved to combat. Again, I completely respect the choice you've made and admire your willingness to stand on principle. It's just that it strikes me as a bit misdirected. -- Walt On 12/9/2013 9:35 PM, knarf wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It seems to me that in order to maintain the position that to the portrayal of a beautiful woman's sexuality is dehumanizing, you have to start from the premise that sex itself is necessarily degrading to women and renders men incapable of appreciating them in a more holistic fashion. That may be the case for some women and some men, but I don't think it's true of the majority of us all. And I don't see how achieving a greater sense of balance alleviates the perceived problem, anyway. Instead, it seems to compound it by saying, Look, in order to remedy the problem of sexual dehumanization, we're going to have to dehumanize the sexes more equitably. -- Walt On 12/8/2013 6:50 PM, knarf wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
Re: fanning the flames
Frank, purely for the matter of argument, not in any disrespect to you or your reasoning, but didn't you just do the same (appeal to authority)? I mean - who says that we're not hard wired as Paul indicated? Are there studies to support that this specific part of our nature can be modified through proper nurture? Who said that this problem while having ethical aspects in it, does not stem from the way the human nature is, as you put it? You really would benefit from coming over here and spending here more than just a vacation, may be live here for some time. It may prove very interesting. Boris On 12/10/2013 6:50 AM, knarf wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:50 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and others. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:50 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Right and wrong are largely a matter of what nature dictates. We instinctively know that violence is immoral. The consequences support that. But in matters sexual, nature's way seems best. Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. I find desire and sexuality to be positive instincts. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
No I am not appealing to authority. Paul was. Paul made the assertion that we're hard wired in a certain way basing that claim on studies. The authority was studies. That's what he was appealing to. Hence: Appeal to Authority. The problem with it is that I can't refute it. I don't know to which studies he refers. I don't know anything about these studies: their methodologies, their premises, who might be funding them, who they studied, etc. So the statement studies say is meaningless and doesn't add to the argument. As for your assertion that I've appealed to authority, well, I haven't. At all. And I don't have to refute the hard wired theory. It's up to the person making the assertion to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. Otherwise anyone could say any outlandish thing they want, something completely without merit, and then say, Well can you prove it wrong? Then it must be true! All I said Is I don't buy it, and that was because it hadn't been proven. I really don't think I have the energy to address the rest of your post right now. It's late and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow. As much as I'd like to visit you and your country you'll have to explain what any extended stay has to do with this discussion. Cheers, frank Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Frank, purely for the matter of argument, not in any disrespect to you or your reasoning, but didn't you just do the same (appeal to authority)? I mean - who says that we're not hard wired as Paul indicated? Are there studies to support that this specific part of our nature can be modified through proper nurture? Who said that this problem while having ethical aspects in it, does not stem from the way the human nature is, as you put it? You really would benefit from coming over here and spending here more than just a vacation, may be live here for some time. It may prove very interesting. Boris On 12/10/2013 6:50 AM, knarf wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan
Re: fanning the flames
Giving me authors' names and nothing else is still an appeal to authority. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Masters and Johnson, Kinsey and others. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be sure, my initial impression of her was that she was just drop-dead gorgeous -- which is an observation I wouldn't likely make of a male, no matter how handsome he might be. My interest just isn't captured by attractive men. So, the very fact that I noticed Susan Oliver at all could be laid at the feet of sexual objectification, or sexism, whatever you want to call it. But, as I started to learn more about her and her accomplishments, I developed a more wide-ranging kind of admiration for her. The fact that my initial interest in her was sparked by sexual attraction didn't in any way detract from my appreciation of her as an accomplished woman any more than learning more about her considerable achievements minimized my appreciation of her as a smokin' hot sex kitten. It “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I hope we're not going to take this into a nature vs. nurture debate. That subject has remained unresolved since the renessance and will stay that way for as long as the division exist between humanistic and natural sciences. Jostein knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: No I am not appealing to authority. Paul was. Paul made the assertion that we're hard wired in a certain way basing that claim on studies. The authority was studies. That's what he was appealing to. Hence: Appeal to Authority. The problem with it is that I can't refute it. I don't know to which studies he refers. I don't know anything about these studies: their methodologies, their premises, who might be funding them, who they studied, etc. So the statement studies say is meaningless and doesn't add to the argument. As for your assertion that I've appealed to authority, well, I haven't. At all. And I don't have to refute the hard wired theory. It's up to the person making the assertion to prove it. It's not up to me to disprove it. Otherwise anyone could say any outlandish thing they want, something completely without merit, and then say, Well can you prove it wrong? Then it must be true! All I said Is I don't buy it, and that was because it hadn't been proven. I really don't think I have the energy to address the rest of your post right now. It's late and I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow. As much as I'd like to visit you and your country you'll have to explain what any extended stay has to do with this discussion. Cheers, frank Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Frank, purely for the matter of argument, not in any disrespect to you or your reasoning, but didn't you just do the same (appeal to authority)? I mean - who says that we're not hard wired as Paul indicated? Are there studies to support that this specific part of our nature can be modified through proper nurture? Who said that this problem while having ethical aspects in it, does not stem from the way the human nature is, as you put it? You really would benefit from coming over here and spending here more than just a vacation, may be live here for some time. It may prove very interesting. Boris On 12/10/2013 6:50 AM, knarf wrote: I don't agonize but I am concerned. And my concern is that the blatant sexualization of women in the media is degrading to them. If you don't see it by now you never will. Btw what you're doing is called the appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy. Who says that? Please cite authors and studies. If you're going to pull studies out of your hat I'll call you on it. Who says we're hard wired that way? And how do they know it? And just because we're hard wired (which I don't buy) how does that make it right? Finally, nature doesn't dictate anything. It just is. In any event this isn't a natural problem, it's a human problem. It has to do with how we humans treat each other. It's an ethical issue. But, as with so many discussions that we have Paul, we've reached a stalemate. I don't think either of us will change the mind of the other. :-) Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:35 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I know I said I was done with this thread. Apparently I lied. ;-) But I had to jump in to completely disagree with your assertion wrt the underlying premise. To my mind the premise is that there is a huge disparity in the way that women and men are portrayed in the media including the arts. Women tend to be sexualized far more than men and often in denigrating and offensive ways. That includes but doesn't have to mean nudity. People can point to exceptions but that doesn't change the fact that women are sexualized far more often and in different ways than men. This doesn't mean that sex is dirty or wrong or that it doesn't make the world go 'round. A bit of balance would be nice, that's all... But those who study human sexuality contend that while men take considerable pleasure in female nudity, most women are not deeply aroused by the male body. Seems to be the way we're wired. Why agonize over it? Nature doesn't dictate balance in all things. Cheers, frank, back to spectating - for now Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: I think the underlying premise -- that to portray a human as a sexual being is to inherently denigrate other aspects of their humanity -- is a false one. All of this calls to mind a recent discovery for me: a woman named Susan Oliver. I just happened to see her in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show that was on the TV at the bar where I worked and was struck by just how beautiful a woman she was, and as it turned out, a woman at the bar happened to know her name. So, I started doing a little reading up on her on the internet, and as it turned out, she was an absolutely fascinating person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver Now, to be
Re: fanning the flames
Larry, I agree with you and all those others that this is plain ridiculous. However, I think it is a knee jerk reaction because the social media have been severely criticized for being soft on weirdos in recent times. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, there is a misguided belief that AIDS can be cured by having sex with an infant or an old lady it happens almost every day. Often they kill the victim too. The risk of being caught punished seems to be no deterrent. Alan C -Original Message- From: Larry Colen Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 10:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: fanning the flames On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ I agree that no sane person would find that sexual. However the FB terms of service is meant to deal with the abnormal cases. You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies. They enforce it very strictly, not so much for our protection, but to avoid getting themselves into trouble because some user posted something that _might_ cause a lawsuit. But there are much stranger terms: You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook ... I really hope I'm not under oath there:) You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date. This one is so low on my list of priorities, I can't even see it from here. I don't mean to play the devil's advocate and I agree that this is nonsense. Sadly from a legal point of view we live in a very strange world. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
The situation is silly, but I don't know why you would protest on Facebook about Facebook when your business relies on Facebook access. On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Yes, I said that, and of course: 1) I was talking about adults, although lord knows kids much younger than her have been sexualized through kiddie beauty pageants and the like, and, 2) I was talking about society's view of nudity not my personal view. That being said there is obviously nothing wrong or sexual about this photo. Sometimes I think that people do crap like this in hopes that some people will get all up-in-arms and yell and scream about political correctness run amok. So yes, an obviously stupid decision that we can all tut-tut about and shake our heads at and wonder what the hell they were thinking. But in the end what does it mean or prove? And what does it have to do with our earlier thread on nudity and sexualization and disparity in gender portrayals? Here's a question you may want to ask: would we all be crowing were this a photo of a 21 year old with a skinny waist and 36 inch bustline? Would anyone dare say there's nothing sexual about that photo? Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 04:11:29PM -0500, knarf wrote: Yes, I said that, and of course: 1) I was talking about adults, although lord knows kids much younger than her have been sexualized through kiddie beauty pageants and the like, and, 2) I was talking about society's view of nudity not my personal view. That being said there is obviously nothing wrong or sexual about this photo. Sometimes I think that people do crap like this in hopes that some people will get all up-in-arms and yell and scream about political correctness run amok. So yes, an obviously stupid decision that we can all tut-tut about and shake our heads at and wonder what the hell they were thinking. I think that in this case it was a mom showing off a cute picture of her daughter. But in the end what does it mean or prove? And what does it have to do with our earlier thread on nudity and sexualization and disparity in gender portrayals? There are people who can sexualize *anything*, and if we let the attitudes of the few dictate the actions of the many, then nobody can do anything. Here's a question you may want to ask: would we all be crowing were this a photo of a 21 year old with a skinny waist and 36 inch bustline? Would anyone dare say there's nothing sexual about that photo? If a photo of a bare chested 21 year old man can be not sexual, then one of a 21 year old woman can also be not sexual. There are people that would sexualize one of Darby's street photos of a pretty girl smoking more than they would of the same girl topless in a recreation of the photo I linked to. Don't believe me? google smoking fetish sometime and see what you get. I think that the situation with this particular photo is that facebook's system is entirely automated, and all it takes is a few people reporting a photo for it to automatically be taken down, with no sentient oversight. It's almost enough to make someone want to start a campaign to get people to start flagging photos of christmas decorations as inappropriate. Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Dec 8, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Larry Colen wrote: ... It's almost enough to make someone want to start a campaign to get people to start flagging photos of christmas decorations as inappropriate. And thus starteth the revolution! Great idea! stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
I believe you missed my point Larry. The tut-tutting and head-shaking are about FB's decision to flag the photo and suspend the account. I'm fine with the photo, as I suspect every reasonable person would be. However, you think a barechested adult male is viewed the same way as a barechested female? Really? Is that why we've fetishized the female breast? Is that why Hooters is one of the most successful bar/restaurant chains in North America? Is that why women pay thousands (sometimes funded by their salivating male partners) to enhance the size of their breasts for no functional advantage whatsoever? I'm not saying that that the female breast is dirty or obscene or anything of the sort. But to say that they aren't sexualized or that there's no difference between the male and the female chest is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 04:11:29PM -0500, knarf wrote: Yes, I said that, and of course: 1) I was talking about adults, although lord knows kids much younger than her have been sexualized through kiddie beauty pageants and the like, and, 2) I was talking about society's view of nudity not my personal view. That being said there is obviously nothing wrong or sexual about this photo. Sometimes I think that people do crap like this in hopes that some people will get all up-in-arms and yell and scream about political correctness run amok. So yes, an obviously stupid decision that we can all tut-tut about and shake our heads at and wonder what the hell they were thinking. I think that in this case it was a mom showing off a cute picture of her daughter. But in the end what does it mean or prove? And what does it have to do with our earlier thread on nudity and sexualization and disparity in gender portrayals? There are people who can sexualize *anything*, and if we let the attitudes of the few dictate the actions of the many, then nobody can do anything. Here's a question you may want to ask: would we all be crowing were this a photo of a 21 year old with a skinny waist and 36 inch bustline? Would anyone dare say there's nothing sexual about that photo? If a photo of a bare chested 21 year old man can be not sexual, then one of a 21 year old woman can also be not sexual. There are people that would sexualize one of Darby's street photos of a pretty girl smoking more than they would of the same girl topless in a recreation of the photo I linked to. Don't believe me? google smoking fetish sometime and see what you get. I think that the situation with this particular photo is that facebook's system is entirely automated, and all it takes is a few people reporting a photo for it to automatically be taken down, with no sentient oversight. It's almost enough to make someone want to start a campaign to get people to start flagging photos of christmas decorations as inappropriate. Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Paul via phone On Dec 8, 2013, at 6:47 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: I believe you missed my point Larry. The tut-tutting and head-shaking are about FB's decision to flag the photo and suspend the account. I'm fine with the photo, as I suspect every reasonable person would be. However, you think a barechested adult male is viewed the same way as a barechested female? Really? Is that why we've fetishized the female breast? Is that why Hooters is one of the most successful bar/restaurant chains in North America? Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. Is that why women pay thousands (sometimes funded by their salivating male partners) to enhance the size of their breasts for no functional advantage whatsoever? I'm not saying that that the female breast is dirty or obscene or anything of the sort. But to say that they aren't sexualized or that there's no difference between the male and the female chest is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 04:11:29PM -0500, knarf wrote: Yes, I said that, and of course: 1) I was talking about adults, although lord knows kids much younger than her have been sexualized through kiddie beauty pageants and the like, and, 2) I was talking about society's view of nudity not my personal view. That being said there is obviously nothing wrong or sexual about this photo. Sometimes I think that people do crap like this in hopes that some people will get all up-in-arms and yell and scream about political correctness run amok. So yes, an obviously stupid decision that we can all tut-tut about and shake our heads at and wonder what the hell they were thinking. I think that in this case it was a mom showing off a cute picture of her daughter. But in the end what does it mean or prove? And what does it have to do with our earlier thread on nudity and sexualization and disparity in gender portrayals? There are people who can sexualize *anything*, and if we let the attitudes of the few dictate the actions of the many, then nobody can do anything. Here's a question you may want to ask: would we all be crowing were this a photo of a 21 year old with a skinny waist and 36 inch bustline? Would anyone dare say there's nothing sexual about that photo? If a photo of a bare chested 21 year old man can be not sexual, then one of a 21 year old woman can also be not sexual. There are people that would sexualize one of Darby's street photos of a pretty girl smoking more than they would of the same girl topless in a recreation of the photo I linked to. Don't believe me? google smoking fetish sometime and see what you get. I think that the situation with this particular photo is that facebook's system is entirely automated, and all it takes is a few people reporting a photo for it to automatically be taken down, with no sentient oversight. It's almost enough to make someone want to start a campaign to get people to start flagging photos of christmas decorations as inappropriate. Cheers, frank Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
They take down that, but TV still allows Honey BoBo and toddlers and tiaras, major child porn and child abuse as far as i'm concerned. Dave On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Facebook's action is ludicrous. Haven't seen those tv shows, but the titles aren't promising. Paul via phone On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:16 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: They take down that, but TV still allows Honey BoBo and toddlers and tiaras, major child porn and child abuse as far as i'm concerned. Dave On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Muscular male trainers sell gym memberships, cheerleaders sell football. Sex makes the world go 'round. It's not evil; it's human nature. Paul via phone On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On 08/12/2013 5:47 PM, knarf wrote: But to say that they aren't sexualized or that there's no difference between the male and the female chest is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. As we age, the differences do become less though. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Guys, guys, guys... I think you missed the point entirely here. Have you read the comments under that blog post? Two thoughts crossed my mind that evening (when I read them): 1. That lady seems to be a minor FB celebrity. I don't have FB acct so I cannot check, but she seems to have very loud voice and she seems to say things that many don't take gladly. Whether or not she's right is totally beside this specific point I'm about to make. What I'm saying here is that having such an image on FB (for all I know in real life she may be entirely different person), it seems only natural to me that she has enemies or people who are on a look out for her even most minor misstep to make her FB life bitter. It seems to be the case here. It totally has nothing to do with what is shown on that picture as long as formally the FB rules may be invoked. 2. The other point that struck me here was the fact that if I understand correctly she posted the photograph of her baby girl in public access. You see, when Paul Stenquist or recently Dag Thrane post pictures of their (grand)kids to this list - this is what I would call sharing your personal family joy with your friends. Some of you seen my children in person and I hope more of you will. Then if I post Anat's or Galia's photograph here (which I rarely do, but still) - it would be totally (-- I cannot possibly stress that word enough) different than posting something like this lady did in FB for public consumption. Granted I would use flickr or other such resource, but nonetheless my point is that the internet is way over saturated with family album pictures posted for general public. Personally, I think it is a bad thing. For example, now she's crying wolf because someone reported her pic as child nudity or whatever. Now, may be she has to look in the mirror and ask herself - am I too exhibitionist?, is it right to be so?. And on a rather jocular note (I am not sure this was mentioned on the list already): A patient comes to see a psychiatrist. Doctor: draws a vertical line, asks patient what it is? Patient: it's a naked woman standing up Doctor: draws a horizontal line, asks patient what it is? Patient: it's a naked woman lying down. Doctor: sir, you may have a serious problem. Patient (vigorously): No, doctor, it is you who drew these dirty pictures in the first place. On 12/9/2013 3:57 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Muscular male trainers sell gym memberships, cheerleaders sell football. Sex makes the world go 'round. It's not evil; it's human nature. Paul via phone On Dec 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: They're using young shapely women to sell beer and chicken wings. That's not sexist? It's tongue-in-cheek? You know that may be worse than more blatant forms of sexism because it normalizes it, it makes it okay in the minds of too many. Even if is tongue-in-cheek (which I don't buy) it's not harmless and IT'S NOT OKAY!!! Anyway I'm out of this thread. It's doing nothing but infuriate me. I don't want to lose friends because of this. Have a great evening. See you on other threads. Cheers, frank Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Paul via phone Hooters is tongue-in-cheek sexism. No bare breasts there. Much less exposure than at the beach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Guys, guys, guys... I think you missed the point entirely here. Have you read the comments under that blog post? Two thoughts crossed my mind that evening (when I read them): 1. That lady seems to be a minor FB celebrity. I don't have FB acct so I cannot check, but she seems to have very loud voice and she seems to say things that many don't take gladly. Whether or not she's right is totally beside this specific point I'm about to make. What I'm saying here is that having such an image on FB (for all I know in real life she may be entirely different person), it seems only natural to me that she has enemies or people who are on a look out for her even most minor misstep to make her FB life bitter. It seems to be the case here. It totally has nothing to do with what is shown on that picture as long as formally the FB rules may be invoked. That's what I believe happened (though I have no idea who she is). It only takes one person to report a picture. Reposting the picture didn't help anything. 2. The other point that struck me here was the fact that if I understand correctly she posted the photograph of her baby girl in public access. You see, when Paul Stenquist or recently Dag Thrane post pictures of their (grand)kids to this list - this is what I would call sharing your personal family joy with your friends. Some of you seen my children in person and I hope more of you will. Then if I post Anat's or Galia's photograph here (which I rarely do, but still) - it would be totally (-- I cannot possibly stress that word enough) different than posting something like this lady did in FB for public consumption. Granted I would use flickr or other such resource, but nonetheless my point is that the internet is way over saturated with family album pictures posted for general public. Personally, I think it is a bad thing. For example, now she's crying wolf because someone reported her pic as child nudity or whatever. Now, may be she has to look in the mirror and ask herself - am I too exhibitionist?, is it right to be so?. Too exhibitionist for showing a picture of her daughter? That is called slut shaming (or victim blaming if you are sensitive), blaming the victim for acting outside your accepted norms. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
An epic head-shaker. Thanks, Larry; I shared that link -- on FB of course. ;-) On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: fanning the flames
Wow, community standards rule :( On 8 December 2013 07:54, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: An epic head-shaker. Thanks, Larry; I shared that link -- on FB of course. ;-) On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On the subject of some people finding any nudity to be sexual: http://thefeministbreeder.com/why-subscribe/tfb-banned-facebook/ -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
