Arm around girlfriends neck ......is it a display of ownership?

Hitchens

According to the great Helen Mirren it is! I would say it's an affectionate gesture myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/14/helen-mirren-arms-necks-sexism

DoYouEvenLift

Wonder what she must think of having your hand on and grabbing their arse.

Akrasia

It's because the man is usually taller than the woman, so the man puts his arm around her shoulders, and she puts her arm around his waist

It;s nothing to do with domination or ownership unless he has her in a headlock

kfallon

Jaysus I hardly recognised Helen Mirren there with her clothes on!!

Dr.Internet

Assert your dominance by pissing on them

SEPT 23 1989

Hands around neck maybe

suicide_circus

Nothing says I love you like a stone cold stunner

Oh goodie - another person who knows why _they_ engage in a certain activity or gesture - and extrapolates this into an assumption that anyone else who uses the same action or gesture must be doing it for the same reasons.

I am sure they will be loving the click bait proceeds all the same.

Severard

How about minding your own damn business? Jesus Christ these people are so pitiful that they would complain about something like this. The author of the post Lucy Mangan is such a bloody idiot as well. I wanted to post a quote from it to put into context just how retarded she is but every paragraph is filled with nonsense. How the hell do these people remain in this job?

Oh right, she works for the Guardian. Well that explains it.

darkpagandeath

I like to tell people what is healthy and how to run their relationship between 2 consenting adults.... Oh wait it don't it's none of my business.

FluffyAngel

I have put this in the filing cabinet under the heading "

couldnt careless about english actress giving a rancid view of her lovelife and projecting it on to others as gospel"

Menas

Arm around someones neck is not a sign of ownership IMO. But I was reading an article recently about pimps who use tattoos to ‘brand’ prostitutes in some parts of the US. I know that happened back in the days of slavery but apparently it is back. Some sort of symbol tattooed in a visible place so people know who the prostitute ‘belongs’ to. Horrible .

Wibbs

It should be a rule that actors and actresses are never allowed to speak in public, unless they're parroting the lines of writers and sticking to the script. This goes triple when the subject turns to more intelligent discourse, as it almost inevitably ends badly.

suicide_circus

Arm? No.
Shackles? Yes.

eviltwin

Must be a slow news day

Potatoeman

I think Helen is suffering from a bit of jealously. It's something young people in relationships do. I wouldn't say it's a sign of ownership but of a relationship. The author of the article seems to think people that are not in relationships do it to cockblock. That a very odd perspective.

Boring username

If this is her idea of ownership, I can't wait to hear her opinions on the Burka.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

It should be a rule that actors and actresses are never allowed to speak in public, unless they're parroting the lines of writers and sticking to the script. This goes triple when the subject turns to more intelligent discourse, as it almost inevitably ends badly.

+1. Why people insist on treating these people as if they're experts if something that will forever be beyond me.

LETHAL LADY

You'd have to wonder if either Helen Mirren or Lucy Mangan would ever approach the cockblocking, pint holding aggressor and ask him to remove his heavy arm from the fragile wilting lily if it upsets them that much. I doubt they would get the response they desire. What a load of auld twaddle.

valoren

Dear Helen,

You know that advert for L'Oreal where you tell us you're worth it?
Yes, the one where at the end of it you oogle some young man stretching by the riverside before he goes running, then you give us that knowing look of 'Phwoar!...Rather!'. That's sexist! Please refrain from checking out young men in future as it is degrading. How dare you find a member of the opposite sex attractive! How very, very dare you.

:pac:

Ave Sodalis

It is possessive to a certain extent but so is holding hands, linking arms and most other public displays of affection. I don't personally feel the need for having an arm over my shoulders. It's fairly restrictive when walking and just gets in the way, but some people do and as long as both parties don't care or they're not in the way by doing so, it shouldn't matter. Can it be used as a dominance posture? I would imagine it very well can be. I doubt it is for the most part though, more possessive.

The Corinthian

Hitchens wrote: »

According to the great Helen Mirren it is!

I bet she thinks enough time has passed that we've forgotten that she was in Caligula. Sorry, but it's going to take a lot longer for her to get her feminist credentials back after that fiasco.

NachoBusiness

Helen Mirren in talking out her arse shocker.

Akrasia wrote: »

It's because the man is usually taller than the woman, so the man puts his arm around her shoulders, and she puts her arm around his waist

It;s nothing to do with domination or ownership unless he has her in a headlock

Precisely.

Green Peter

Depends on how hard you squeeze!

lawred2

Hitchens wrote: »

According to the great Helen Mirren it is! I would say it's an affectionate gesture myself.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/14/helen-mirren-arms-necks-sexism

personally speaking I wouldn't necessarily see it as a display of ownership.. that's ludicrous

However I would never walk with my wife like that.. primarily for comfort reasons. It would just be awkward.

Now Ms Mirren, rather than focusing on what would be classed in most cases as an affectionate gesture enjoyed by both parties; maybe you could focus your ire on middle eastern cultural norms where women are indeed bought sold and treated as real commodity like possessions.

I guess this is a pic of Helen getting owned...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/03/article-2256867-16BE3447000005DC-895_634x561.jpg

And this must be akin to kidnapping...

http://static1.celebrityredcarpet.co.uk/articles/8/42/48/@/14737-posed-on-the-red-carpet-at-the-uk-592x0-1.jpg

Obviously analysis of gestures and behaviour can be interesting. But when it's Desmond Morris doing the analysis.

osarusan

commentisfree section strikes again.

The Backwards Man

I thought it was only primary school kids that walked around like that?

Never have I ever seen an adult doing that. Unless they're French.

captbarnacles

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Helen Mirren in talking out her arse shocker.



Precisely.

Tom looks clearly subjugated in that pic.

Very Bored

So men are abusive because they treat their wives and girlfriends with affection by basically cuddling them as they walk together which can only be viewed as an act of dominance and possession. Male arms are heavy. And we always have a pint in our hands.

And this writer wants a sexism counter? You're 3-0 down already mate.

GLaDOS

Nobody with an ounce of common sense thinks like that.

NachoBusiness

Appears to me as if this is just Helen being affectionate here, but in fact I guess she must own this little boy .

kylith

It's as much a statement of ownership as a woman putting her arm around a man, in that yes you are saying 'this is someone who I am in a relationship with, hence I am comfortable assuming a position which demonstrates that'.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

It's as much a statement of ownership as a woman putting her arm around a man, in that yes you are saying 'this is someone who I am in a relationship with, hence I am comfortable assuming a position which demonstrates that'.

Reading that just made me think of being frisked and patted down by Helen Mirren for some reason -

"Assume the position!"

"Yes ma'am!" :pac:

razorblunt

Ah Helen Mirren, she's the one hanging out on the banks of the Thames in some makeup advert perving on a younger man isn't she?

Bah beaten to it by valoren!

NachoBusiness

valoren wrote: »

Dear Helen,

You know that advert for L'Oreal where you tell us you're worth it?
Yes, the one where at the end of it you oogle some young man stretching by the riverside before he goes running, then you give us that knowing look of 'Phwoar!...Rather!'. That's sexist! Please refrain from checking out young men in future as it is degrading. How dare you find a member of the opposite sex attractive! How very, very dare you.

razorblunt wrote: »

Ah Helen Mirren, she's the one hanging out on the banks of the Thames in some makeup advert perving on a younger man isn't she?

You both must be mistaken.
Helen would never take part in such a spectacle.
She doesn't believe inter generational tomfoolery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6L9F9F8wq8

SexyCoccyx

It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!

My politics would generally be in line with The Guardian but this kind of stuff is completely cringe-worthy! The paper is FULL of such cringe-worthy, hysterical crap! You can see from the comments below the article that very few agree; these women don't speak for us all!

ancapailldorcha

The Guardian has been deteriorating in quality for a good while now. They're happy to give time to complete morons gender studies graduates while engaging in the sort of behaviour these people rail against such as commenting on actresses' clothing and figures. Women face real issues but the Guardian only seems to be interesting in protecting the feelings of wealthy Western white women.

Agent Smith

I take all my relationship advice from the Guardian...

Boring username

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Guardian has been deteriorating in quality for a good while now. They're happy to give time to complete morons gender studies graduates while engaging in the sort of behaviour these people rail against such as commenting on actresses' clothing and figures. Women face real issues but the Guardian only seems to be interesting in protecting the feelings of wealthy Western white women.

Happily, the Guardian won't last much longer as it was effectively being bankrolled by the BBC. The Tory cuts at the Beeb will finish off the rag once and for all, and the gender studies/political non-entities will be relegated back to where they rightly belong-the fringes of society.

ancapailldorcha

Boring username wrote: »

Happily, the Guardian won't last much longer as it was effectively being bankrolled by the BBC. The Tory cuts at the Beeb will finish off the rag once and for all, and the gender studies/political non-entities will be relegated back to where they rightly belong-the fringes of society.

What do you mean? The Guardian is a privately owned publication.

Medusa22

Nonsense, just nonsense. It is a display of affection and it can signify that the couple are in a relationship, nothing more. Having said that though, I don't often/ if ever see couples walking around like this to be honest. Reminds me of something from grease. http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/12/19/enhanced/webdr06/enhanced-25079-1426202142-3.jpg

I can't remember doing this with my current or previous partners either, usually we'd hold hands or put our arms around each other's waists. I have to say that it doesn't look that comfortable but I certainly don't think of it as a sign of dominance or sexism. I prefer to spend my time arse grabbing anyway

c_man

Typical Guardian clickbait sh!te. Amazing that people actually swallow this guff.

The Rape of Lucretia

kylith wrote: »

It's as much a statement of ownership as a woman putting her arm around a man, in that yes you are saying 'this is someone who I am in a relationship with, hence I am comfortable assuming a position which demonstrates that'.

Clearly is a sign of ownership, however unpalatable, or politically incorrect that fact is to many people these days.

Yes, 'this is someone who I am in a relationship with, hence I am comfortable assuming a position which demonstrates that'. But the male is comfortable demonstrating that to ward off other males, and show his dominance and possession of the female. The female is similarly comfortable with it, with enhanced feeling of security from others by virtue of the the protective nature of having a male possess her.

It does display a certain level of insecurity with the relationship on both their parts however, slightly stronger than that at the root of hand-holding.

Just because it might affect our modern equality sensibilities doesnt make it not true.

The Rape of Lucretia

c_man wrote: »

Typical Guardian clickbait sh!te. Amazing that people actually swallow this guff.

Sh!te.

The Guardian is the best English language paper out there.

ancapailldorcha

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Sh!te.

The Guardian is the best English language paper out there.

That's not exactly a high bar to jump over.

Potatoeman

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Clearly is a sign of ownership, however unpalatable, or politically incorrect that fact is to many people these days.

Yes, 'this is someone who I am in a relationship with, hence I am comfortable assuming a position which demonstrates that'. But the male is comfortable demonstrating that to ward off other males, and show his dominance and possession of the female. The female is similarly comfortable with it, with enhanced feeling of security from others by virtue of the the protective nature of having a male possess her.

It does display a certain level of insecurity with the relationship on both their parts however, slightly stronger than that at the root of hand-holding.

Just because it might affect our modern equality sensibilities doesnt make it not true.

Showing you're in a relationship does not mean you owner the other person. The display in social public places can be a simple way of showing that both parties are unavailable.

Hitchens

Potatoeman wrote: »

Showing you're in a relationship does not mean you owner the other person. The display in social public places can be a simple way of showing that both parties are unavailable.

I used to hate them 'excuse me' dances

RDM_83 again

Boring username wrote: »

Happily, the Guardian won't last much longer as it was effectively being bankrolled by the BBC. The Tory cuts at the Beeb will finish off the rag once and for all, and the gender studies/political non-entities will be relegated back to where they rightly belong-the fringes of society.

They are bankrolled by having sold Autotrader AFAIK and consistently make a loss, then again many newspapers do these days.
They make a big noise about reforming tax structures, but the GMG (guardian media group) use exactly the same tax minimization* strategies as the Guardian Newspaper lambasts

*They are legal

zeffabelli

Well I'll be damned. A feminist telling other people what to do with their bodies.

What are those?

RKO outta nowhere