Pornography is discriminating?

Lemming

lazydaisy wrote:

That porn is representation/artifice was something that I thought and think we should always remember, in that its responsibiities do not include accurate or realistic depictions, that's all. Its entertainment ultimately.

"entertainment" is probably the best possible phrase that anyone has used so far to describe it. But like all forms of entertainment once somebody starts indulging excessively in it there is a problem. And that problem will manifest itself in other ways too - attitudes, actions, etc.

So somebody's inability to distinguish between the reality and the fantasy has greater issues to deal with, rather than whether or not porn should be available.

Obviously, my two ot three sentences on D&S and S&M, are reductive, and I did not devote more to the subject for precisely the reason you cite, it is a digression from the topic at hand. But my admittedly little knowlege and understanding of it is that there is a scale, and that D&S can evolve into S&M but the demarcation of when that happens is when intentional physical pain is applied.

There isn't really a scale lazydaisy. Some people will, others will not. It's literally a case of "whatever floats your boat". D/s and S&M can co-exist or exist completely seperate. They can be part mixed, unevenly mixed, etc. and it really will depend on the individual.

I will emphasise again: I am not arguing either side. S&M was only brought up incidentally as one particular and specialised sub genre of porn. So, you said its not about pain, what is it about? The over simplification was important enough that you called it idiotic so you should explain rather than name call.

I wasn't making a name call. I was pointing out that the use of that particular argument was a very poor one to make. It's the proverbial "square peg in round hole" situation. I felt the over simplification was important enough to warrant pointing out because the manner in which the subject was brought up by vangelis was extremely misleading, not to mention deliberately false and laden with innuendo.

Very early on in this thread, I have been trying secure some agreement on what porn is. Because it is an elusive definition and I would wager that each of us has a different scenario in our imaginations or our experiences. I have also been emphasising that porn is being made for women so the argument is shifting. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that.

I also asked for a clarification on what kind of porn Vangelis was referring to. What constitutes porn? I mean, when you get down to it, anything with innuendo in it can fall under the categorisation. Is an erotic story porn? Is page 3 of the sun porn? Is a tv ad porn? Are we referring to "erotic" films? Are we referring to "Gang Bang Girls #25" or some equally absurd title for a film? Are we referring to "Donk3h pr0n: the movie"? What is considered porn in this argument?

As for Sile Na Gig and symbolism. Symbolism changes. Meaning changes. To point to rather stark example, the swastika which has several different meanings throughout time but we all know which one supercedes them all. "Supposed to" - supposed to has nothing to do with how meaning is received or even intended. I did not bring up the word misogyny. I only pointed out that one image echoes another. That is all. Please refrain from telling me what to think or how to read images. Im supposed to look at at this image [Sile Na Gig] and think of someone who can make babies? why am I supposed to think that? because you said so? Well, it doesnt work that way. I will look at the Venus of Willendorf, with wide hips and huge breasts and think that but the Sile Na Gig, I just dont see it, I see an image that is striking to the Vagina Denta. Simu didnt say it best, in fact, she/he just regurguitated the accepted received notion of it school principal style.

To be honest lazydaisy, the Sile Na Gig has never been associated with anything else other than its intended reference. Using the swastika argument is poor because it was the deliberate perversion of a symbol, although technically the swastika is a symbol on its own, since the original symbol it perverted is actually different (the swastika is inverted). The only thing that I can read into your takeo n teh Sile Na Gig is what you take with you. What is inside your own mind. Your own prejudices and innuendos, rightly or wrongly nobody else can say.

Lemming

lazydaisy wrote:

But Lemming - people of course inflict pain on each other. We do it everyday in the most imaginitive of ways from subtle to obvious and often to people we love, while are super nice to strangers. But since your the expert here, isnt the difference that S&M is an erotic experience which involves/requires pain? In the examples you give orgasm is not part of the picture, but with S&M practises orgasm is very much involved? No? Is that wrong?

You're quite right in that it tends to focus on the erotic. Although, again it will vary in degrees with the individual. Like I said before, it's a case of "whatever floats your boat".

I never claimed I was an expert lazydaisy. But I am versed enough to spot misconceptions, or in vangelis case deliberate misrepresentation of the subject.

As for enjoying the act (assuming it is of course safe, sane, & consensual) and/or achieving orgasm? Nothing wrong with it. Ye olde Catholic guilt syndrome is starting to come into play me thinks.

Your reaction to what Vangelis said is a little weird. And also a little defensive. Shes saying that women have adjusted their habits according to what they perceive men expect, which may have little, a lot, or nothing to do what in reality they do expect. In other words, it may be all in womens heads, that men want 34 DD breasts, a 21 inch waist and a mouth like Angelina Jolies and a pudenda like a 12 year olds. They may not expect that at all, and women have just chosen to believe that.

No, there's nothing wierd in my reaction. My reaction was more in response to her entire argument to date, which has been deliberately false and misleading either through sheer ignorance of the subject(s) or trolling I can't tell which.

Nevyn

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/gallery/mythology/europe/celtic/sheila-na-gig.html

The goddess of fertility in British-Celtic mythology.

The sheila-na-gig is both creater and destroyer.
She repasents the mother's womb form which all life comes and the mother's womb the earth into which all life goes to be destroyed so the cycle continues.

Why is that shape so offensive ?
Why do you find female gentials so offensive ?
Do you find your own genitails offensive?
Have you ever taken a good look at them ?
Honestly the idea that there is something wrong with the female gentials goes back to victorian times and the male opression of female sexualtiy for generations has been more damaging and troubling then the minor impact porn has had in comparision.

http://www.yoniversum.nl/yoni/index.html

Talliesin

Silé Na Gigs are partly about fear. The reproductive forces that govern our existence are to be feared as well as honoured; when the power is withheld there's no crops, no meat and you starve to death, and there's nothing men can do to control it.

It's the step from having a degree of fear of something to labelling it dirty, as you have done, that makes something pornographic rather than erotic.

Pornographers are essentially prudes, they agree with the prudes that sex generally and often women's bodies in particular are dirty but they roll around in the perceivied dirt rather than abhoring it (or quite often flip from one response to the other).

One can quite easily pornographify just about any representation of either humanity or sexuality, as you have demonstrated with your Silé Na Gig porn above.

This is quite different to S&M and miles away from D/s though there is of course an intersection, just as there is an intersection between sex generally and pornography generally but neither entirely contains the other. It is quite directly related to why the vast majority of attempts to capture BDSM on film or in print is so lacking in the matters of trust and psychological state that are so much part of it in real life (even in most of the minority of cases where there is even an attempt to capture that trust or the deliberate movement into different states of mind). The little material that does manage it tends not to be found in the BDSM section of porn and erotica collections, but in the fiction sections of BDSM collections.

Nevyn

Well it should be a case of being loved, respected and honoured.
First step to making some one hate something is to teach them to fear it and
then the taboo is established and porn is about taboos.

hepcat

"is porn degrading to women?"

If we leave out the "internalised oppression" argument mentioned by lazydaisy and assume that we are not talking about snuff / rape porn, but male oriented porn which is portrayed by adult men and women who are willing participants, then it really becomes a matter of an individuals preception of what is degrading. If women choose to profit from making porn aimed at male consumers, are they being degraded? Lets assume they could earn money in other ways like working in a shop, but might earn far less, but they instead choose the far higher earnings that go with making porn - is this necessarily degrading to them or can it not been seen as a choice based on financial motivation? Sex sells. We all know that by now, and money / wealth seems to have far greater importance in peoples lives nowadays.

Is such porn degrading women in general? Depends on your attitudes to sex, imo. I don't believe that it always has to be seen as such.

On Sile na Gigs, was always aware that these are ancient fertility depictions, and did not think this was open to interpretation because one is offended by the depiction of female genitalia (or ignorant as to their true meaning??).

the_jocky

ive a mass of dvds ivecollected and i knw a few women interested in it. my brother works in a sexshop in the city . he sees all types of people youd never think would enter such a place.
i did feel a bit of a shove pig at one stage but hey if you like somthing why bother what other people say.
theres always gonna be sombody to knock you off your stool and judge ya.
and there are actualy women directing and producing dvd movies not only staring in them

ps down the hatch dvd series
by mike john prouctions .....recomended completly .
looking for vol 14 bye the way

Vangelis

My last contribution is just an article on the quality of Wikipedia, not that it matters much. I refuse to say anything more as it appears that I will never be understood by anyone. This debate is better off without me.

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=nefd.top

Lemming

Hmmm, no denials or refuttings. Interesting....

Bye bye now.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

My last contribution is just an article on the quality of Wikipedia, not that it matters much. I refuse to say anything more as it appears that I will never be understood by anyone. This debate is better off without me.

http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=nefd.top

Interesting article.

Few points on it:

1: You said

Vangelis wrote:

I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.

They did no such thing. They said it was one third less accuate that Encyclopedia Britannica. That is a very different thing than "afirming its accuracy".

3.86 inaccuracies per article is not something I'd call accurate.

2. They never stated the nature of the inaccuracy. Getting someones name wrong or a date wrong (its quite common in many reports for US/EU date mix ups ie. 2nd Sept instead of 9th Feb) is alot different to completely missing a concept in its review of something. As such, its not a fair report comparison.

3. By and large if you WANT to use statistic from articles like this, Wiki is 30% less accurate than EB. Now we both know that that statistic is (A) misleading and (B) meaningless, but it is still true. This sort of comment is rife in sources like wiki and general journalism but is almost always excluded from peer reviewing in proper research/review literature (be it history, art, science or whatever).


So in summary, Wiki is still not a reliable source.

lazydaisy

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know. How could you? Holding seances and asking the dead what they meant? Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Hepcat- everything is open to interpretation. There is no such thing as an absolutist meaning when it comes to art.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa.

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

Tallesein- I did not label anything as dirty. And you are wrong, labelling something as dirty doesnt make something pornographic. Stop making stuff up about what I said. So, by calling something dirty, it becomes porn. I just dont believe that. So, if you call the millenium spike dirty then that transforms it into something porn? Uh, no, no it doesnt.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa. .

Wrong again.

Medusa was originally a revered figure. She wasn't made a figure of fear until patriarchal greece and then it was a purely political move. Ancient symbols of female power and wisdom became totally unacceptable and as such the image of Medusa was tainted and violated.

It was never about a fear of the feminine.

Lemming

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know.

Ummmm, we do. It's called historical document.

Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Social context tends to follow historical context, save when it is deliberately perverted through a concerted deliberate effort, ie. the nazi party and the swastika or, if you want to look closer to home, the tri-colour by the IRA and their various off-shoot paramilitary organisations. The tricolour is inclusive. The orange stands for the protestant population. That little "fact" has been conveniently glossed over by those seeking to pervert the flag's meaning and twist it into something to suit their own ends.

As I've said, were it not for the willful manipulation by a small group of people, the Irish flag would not convey innuendos towards the British populace. That equally applies towards the loyalist paramilitary groups.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

Erm, the Sile Na Gig is a religious icon to people who to this very day practice old religious beliefs in this country lazydaisy. Like I said, the fact that your own mind places innuendos on it are your problem. Not anybody elses. How about we look at the cross? It looks a bit phallic doesn't it. There that wasn't so hard to do was it?

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

But you are labelling it by your inclusion of it in such groupings. You've clearly stated what you consider it to be, even if you didn't outright label it.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

I wasn't referring to *YOUR* catholic guilt lazydaisy. It was a glib remark about repressive catholic upbringing that is inherently predominant in most Irish people. Even the younger generations today, myself included. But I find your reaction to be most interesting. Very defensive. Very aggressive. But no, you're wrong about the orgasm being connected to the infliction of or receiving of pain. I'll add the caveat that I'm sure there is somebody out there for whom it does connect, but it's about something else that I'm not sure I can accurately convey.

lazydaisy

How was I wrong psi? I pointed to the medusa and to greece. And you verified it.

Youre under the impression that the Original meaning is the one and only meaning. So to you I say wrong again. It was in greece that that meaning developed and the meaning which supercedes the original one. Being a political move does not dilute the replaced meaning. Give up the myth origin. It does not hold.

It is inapppropriate for you to refer to previous arguments that we have had. Your choice of word AGAIN makes this reference. And in our last one, I was not wrong.

So dont call me wrong and then repeat what I said.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

How was I wrong psi? I pointed to the medusa and to greece. And you verified it.

You were wrong because you said that medusa was a symbol of fear of the feminine. It never was.

Youre under the impression that the Original meaning is the one and only meaning.

Erm no, I'm just pointing out how and why it became a symbol of fear. As an example you put forth, its an incorrect one.

So to you I say wrong again. It was in greece that that meaning developed and the meaning which supercedes the original one. Being a political move does not dilute the replaced meaning. Give up the myth origin. It does not hold.

Wha? Your posts are making less and less sense. I could give you a long and details analysis of how and why Medusa became an item of fear. She was always an emblem of death, but this was not due to her femininity. She is actually an offshoot of a Libyan goddess worshipped by Libyan Amazon - the snake hair was originally dreadlocks. She was part of a trinity of goddesses, each with a different aspectof the life cycle. Medusa was destruction or death.

As such your example of her being fear of femininityis wrong.

It is inapppropriate for you to refer to previous arguments that we have had. Your choice of word AGAIN makes this reference. And in our last one, I was not wrong.

Well I meant wrong like you have been so many times in this thread. Particularly about SnG. But it tends to be the only consistent thing about your posting so, hey stick with it.

Oh and you were wrong before

lazydaisy

psi-

First you said the medusa was never a symbol of fear and then you said you described how it became a symbol of fear. What? These are entirely contradictory and oppositional.

I didnt say fear of femininity- I said fear of the feminine, they are different terms.

Wrong about SnG. That is your opinion. Interpretation is not factual. You cant be right or wrong about it. You are wrong for calling anyone wrong when it comes to interpreting art.

No I wasnt wrong before.

lazydaisy

How can I be wrong about something when I was asking a question about it. you keep on saying that and yet you dont explain much about S&M. Dont I have to make a statement to be wrong?

There's a historical document attached to the SnG? Where is it? Well, doesnt that have to be interpreted too?

No,no Im not labelling it nor did I include it any groups. What was I was trying to illustrate is that we accept many images that are in classical art and when we find the same or similar or resonant ones in modern popular images [erotic, porn, whatever] we are repulsed. It was a comparison. I dont care who practices what with the Sile Na Gig. Thats their business and no concern of mine. If I cared, I would ask what your point is. The cruxifix, well, no, its not phallic. But New York jews dont exactly get excited when they see one, and to them it doesnt mean resuurection or sacrifice, it means something else and to vampires or bram stoker something else again. My point was illustrating a relativity in meaning and symbolism.

The Irish Flag, thats fine that thats what it means, the green, white and orange, but does the meaning change when you cross the border? What about the union jack, dont you think that means something different to britons than it does to the irish?

The american flag. Fifty stars for 50 states, to invoke e pluribus unum. The stripes for the 13 colonies. For people who burn the flag it probably has a very different meaning than for those who display it proudly in 4th July.

Take even the Bible, is there one interpretation and are you really going to base it on originial intention to secure an absolutist meaning? Scary if you say yes.

I cannot have a discussion with people who have cudgels out at every moment. I am also wasting my breath. You have already decided what you are going to believe and are going to stick to it. Discussing things on this board is like talking to fundamendalists about the Bible. Your way or the highway.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

psi-

First you said the medusa was never a symbol of fear and then you said you described how it became a symbol of fear. What? These are entirely contradictory and oppositional.

My goodness! You do waste alot of time trying to nit pick at points off topic and it only further spirals your posts into the nonsensical abyss.

If you are bothered to read. my first comment was "medusa wasn't afigure of fear until patriarchal greece".

Thats from my first post on the topic. I bet you can't find the bit where "I first said it wasn't"

I didnt say fear of femininity- I said fear of the feminine, they are different terms.

Ohkaaay. If you really want to go and split hair over the terms I'll say so what, you're still wrong in both cases.

Wrong about SnG. That is your opinion. Interpretation is not factual. You cant be right or wrong about it. You are wrong for calling anyone wrong when it comes to interpreting art.

So its your opinion against all the experts and literary sources.
Fine. A post like that tends to make it look like you might have your head in the clouds.

No I wasnt wrong before.

Ah you were, but I admire your attempts to continue making it look like you have a leg to stand on, with any of your arguments.

Vangelis

I like to say to those who have righteously criticised my use of sources:
Find good sources yourselves for whatever your arguements are. Instead of taking pride in debunking someone's wrongful statements or use of inaccurateo or false sources, provide something that proves otherwise instead of having this "I told you so"-attitiude. Being proud of one's own knowledge is little helpful and doesn't create a good atmosphere in the debate.

I have retreated as I understand I need more education on the subject and am currently occupied with other things so it's only fair that I leave. But that is not to say that everyone else is omni-potent: I see little sources given by other people to refute my statements. Neither am I asking for people to harrass me with any "I told you so"-attitudes, or like Lemming said on the previous page: "No denials or refuttings... That's interesting." That is the kind of comment that makes me pewk with resentment, and isn't that full of selectiveness and manipulation, like I have been accused of as well?

You presume that I keep silent because I don't know how to defend myself. Well, I have now openly admitted that it was silly of me to mention the example that I mentioned, as it doesn't speak for all people who practise S&M. I am not defending myself now. But are you, Lemming, capable of providing something that speaks for S&M-practitioners in general? If so, I suggest you post that instead of complaining to me for not being fair to the debate. Do you know anything yourself?

And peckerhead said that I have been misquoting the Bible: I haven't. And neither am I hiding behind an excuse that English is not my first language. Other people here came up with that idea and he used this against me as if I was using this excuse. I wasn't. peckerhead seems to have selectively interpreted this as if I have been hiding behind it. So who says anything about being selective or manipulative?

And if no one can come up with a better arguement against porn or whatever, other than verbally harrassing/ridiculing someone(speaking in general) - there isn't much of a debate. peckerhead, you haven't done much else in this debate than pointing at my flaws, which makes me think that you are reading this thread to criticise me only. Not very good. Do you have something to contribute with that is better than what I have said, then it is very welcome.

And also about the inaccurate Wikipedia: I understand that it is not a reliable source. But PSI, instead of spending a whole post on telling how inaccurate it is in percentage, in comparison with the EB and so on, why not privde a more reliable source to make up for my mistake? That way, the debate might become more efficient.

I see you are discussing mythical figures at the moment. How the IRA and loyalists came is a puzzle. But I don't think it's fair to reduce this debate to mythical figures. Porn is much more than that.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

And also about the inaccurate Wikipedia: I understand that it is not a reliable source. But PSI, instead of spending a whole post on telling how inaccurate it is in percentage, in comparison with the EB and so on, why not privde a more reliable source to make up for my mistake? That way, the debate might become more efficient.

Because I don't agree with the point you're making. Why would I try back it up? More than that, I don't think I *COULD* find reliable sources to back up your arguments.

I'm taking in most of the posts and alot of what I think has been said by other posters.

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

But I don't think it's fair to reduce this debate to mythical figures. Porn is much more than that.

In real life most people don't have porn star figures. Doesn't that make them mythical? :v:

lazydaisy

psi-are you even reading the thread.

The thread has bifurcated. There are two parts two it.

1. Arriving at an agreement on what is porn. Which no one has done yet. Are we talking soft, hardcore, mainstream, film, literary? Hetero, gay? what?

2. Then determining if it is degrading to women. And if so, who is doing the degrading?

No one is missing the main point of the thread except possibly you.

You fall down in knowing right from wrong and when it is appropriate to apply those criteria. Its not math. Its art. There is consensus and and then there is deviation from that consensus. I suggest you brush up on your literary/art theory.

Your contribution so far is to hover around like a gadfly and self appointed referee without offerring any perspective on the subject yourself.

You seem to think there is some sort of establishement commitee when it comes to interpretation. There isnt. Even Sile Na G- there is no uniform "wisdom" on the figure. All the experts and literary sources? Which ones would those be? Art historians would tell you that "fertility figure" is a term that is thrown around to cover up" haven't got a clue".

So the porn debate shouldn't be a problem for you, you should just accept what the establishment say is porn and what isnt and you should just accept whatever the majority say is degrading to women. You can just consult the "experts."

Your illustration of the medusa figure does not contradict anything I said. Somewhere in your reading of my posts you have come up with your own assumptions. What you call nit picking - whats that saying about pot and kettle? Fear of the feminine and fear of femininity - they are very different and specific things.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Because I don't agree with the point you're making. Why would I try back it up? More than that, I don't think I *COULD* find reliable sources to back up your arguments.

I was referring to pornography in general, not something to prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

I think lazydaisy has done well in this debate, far better than me and she knows more than me too.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

I am sure you have an 'allready made-up mind' on certain things yourself that you debate. No one embarks on a discussion without some kind of an opinion. No one here is a blank sheet of paper awaiting to be coloured by other knowledgeable people and sources. And there is no problem with that! As long as one is prepared to view a case from different angles, and I AM. It's just that I lack the knowledge to do it.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

No need to offend me with the 'preaching in a pulpit'-thing. That's a lowly comment. But give evidence then! Instead of repeating your complaints about my lack of knowledge. Do you know anything yourself?

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

It had better be! Because I have been attacked personally a lot in this thread and it doesn't seem like everyone is like that. And I second everything that lazydaisy said.

Lazydaisy, out of curiosity - I'm full of it! - how do you discern between fear of the feminine and fear of feminity?

GuanYin

You're having an awful lot of last contributions

Vangelis wrote:

I think lazydaisy has done well in this debate, far better than me and she knows more than me too.

well the yard stick you defined limits your praise.

I am sure you have an 'allready made-up mind' on certain things yourself that you debate. No one embarks on a discussion without some kind of an opinion. No one here is a blank sheet of paper awaiting to be coloured by other knowledgeable people and sources. And there is no problem with that! As long as one is prepared to view a case from different angles, and I AM. It's just that I lack the knowledge to do it.

Never said you need to be a blank sheet. You just need to be receptive to the chance you may be wrong, or that everything you thought you knew is wrong.

No need to offend me with the 'preaching in a pulpit'-thing. That's a lowly comment.

How is a lowly comment. Did I say you preached from a pulpit? Did I accuse you of anything. It was an expression.

But give evidence then! Instead of repeating your complaints about my lack of knowledge. Do you know anything yourself?

I have done/do give evidence.

I know plenty thanks.

It had better be! Because I have been attacked personally a lot in this thread and it doesn't seem like everyone is like that. And I second everything that lazydaisy said.

I've never attacked you personally. I've made comments about your posting style and attitude but thats a different thing and if you take it personally, then its your own sensativities.

Lazydaisy, out of curiosity - I'm full of it! - how do you discern between fear of the feminine and fear of feminity?

I'm interested in this one too.

Nevyn

fem·i·nine

1. Of or relating to women or girls. See Synonyms at female.
2. Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman.
3. Effeminate; womanish.
4. Grammar. Designating or belonging to the gender of words or grammatical forms that refer chiefly to females or to things classified as female.

feminity

\Fe*min"i*ty\, n. Womanliness; femininity.

hard to dicern what you meant in terms of those two words never mind the dear of either of them tbh.

peckerhead

psi wrote:

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

Following a couple of heartfelt pms from you, Vangelis, I promised not to 'attack/hurt/offend' you any more — so I won't. But, since you've pm'd me again since and have addressed your complaints to me on-thread, quoting the terms of my reply to your pm (your side of the deal was to quit bleating and sending me annoying pms, remember?) — I hope you won't mind if I agree wholeheartedly with psi's contribution above? You won't take it as a wilful, personal attack, 'needle-picking in the wounds' or whatever?

To my 'comerades in the conspiracy in the porn-thread' :rolleyes: — I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw from this discussion now.

shaneo3

Sangre wrote:

Well considering that Jenna Jameson is a billionaire I'm not going to feel too bad for being degraded.
The women have a hard to achieve body ideal and are paid accordingly.

sangre is gay:p

hepcat

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know. How could you? Holding seances and asking the dead what they meant? Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Hepcat- everything is open to interpretation. There is no such thing as an absolutist meaning when it comes to art.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa.

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

Tallesein- I did not label anything as dirty. And you are wrong, labelling something as dirty doesnt make something pornographic. Stop making stuff up about what I said. So, by calling something dirty, it becomes porn. I just dont believe that. So, if you call the millenium spike dirty then that transforms it into something porn? Uh, no, no it doesnt.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

Would have classed Sile na Gigs as Antiquities rather than art, and while much of modern art has the "you take what you want from it" thing going on, the same is not true of antiquities and ancient symbols. They had a definite meaning and in their time they represented images of female fertility.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

You're having an awful lot of last contributions

Is this an attempt to tease me?

well the yard stick you defined limits your praise.

I'm not looking for praise. Are you?

Never said you need to be a blank sheet. You just need to be receptive to the chance you may be wrong, or that everything you thought you knew is wrong.

I am, and I was wrong in bringing about Wikipedia-shyte.

How is a lowly comment. Did I say you preached from a pulpit? Did I accuse you of anything. It was an expression.

You STRONGLY indicated that I did. Or so I felt.

I have done/do give evidence.

What? I see only chit-chat about irrelevant mythical figures Where is the real contemporary pornography in magazines and movies. Is it degrading?

I know plenty thanks.

Let's hear! What do you know about pornography and the feminist debate and whether it is degrading to women or not?

I've never attacked you personally. I've made comments about your posting style and attitude but thats a different thing and if you take it personally, then its your own sensativities.

You've been close to offending me. Not everyone have the same limits as you have. Maybe you are a die-hard, I am not. At least not when talking to someone I don't know and try to have a discussion with him/her/it.