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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
. 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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. ;-)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
