Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 08:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's called BDSM, a lot of people are into it (myself included) and to be honest, if I hadn't found online groups to discuss it with others who are interested at a very young age, I would have grown up with a whole lot of unnecessary embarrassment and shame. As long as everyong being filmed has agreed to be and has agreed to what's in the video, it shouldn't be banned or censored.

My generation was exactly the same at that age and we all turned out fine with regard to relationships. Moreover, you can't censor the internet to protect one particular demographic. Do you ban pubs because of the possibility that kids might get in and order a drink?

I absolutely disagree with this. I think it's helped the mental health of a lot of people to be honest. Less sexual repression and embarrassment is a good thing for society in general.

I explicitly said that censorship, of anything, is always a bad idea (with the obvious exceptions of child porn, current court proceedings etc...).

My point also explicitly said that I have no issue with porn. I have an issue with certain porn that came about just after the introduction of high speed broadband. I don't agree with any sexual repression, particularly among young people. The world would be a better place if youngsters learned from a young age about how normal sex is and what real beauty is.

AFAIK, BDSM is a sub-genre that caters to a taste, which I don't think is harmful. My issue is with "regular" porn that's directed in an extremely "rapey" fashion.

It's quite common to see porn that's intended for the general audience that features women being pinned down, forced into certain positions/acts, pretending to be in an amount of pain, mascara running etc... etc... That's extremely unhealthy viewing.

I can't really start researching porn right now (I'm in my college library...) but check out the Your Brain on Porn TED Talk. Even if you disagree, it makes for interesting research into young adult male porn habits over the past 10 years.

ElvisChrist6 · 20-01-2014 08:33PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I explicitly said that censorship, of anything, is always a bad idea (with the obvious exceptions of child porn, current court proceedings etc...).

My point also explicitly said that I have no issue with porn. I have an issue with certain porn that came about just after the introduction of high speed broadband. I don't agree with any sexual repression, particularly among young people. The world would be a better place if youngsters learned from a young age about how normal sex is and what real beauty is.

AFAIK, BDSM is a sub-genre that caters to a taste, which I don't think is harmful. My issue is with "regular" porn that's directed in an extremely "rapey" fashion.

It's quite common to see porn that's intended for the general audience that features women being pinned down, forced into certain positions/acts, pretending to be in an amount of pain, mascara running etc... etc... That's extremely unhealthy viewing.

I can't really start researching porn right now (I'm in my college library...) but check out the Your Brain on Porn TED Talk. Even if you disagree, it makes for interesting research into young adult male porn habits over the past 10 years.

That, in my view, is completely different from bondage purely on the fact it is viewed by those who might not know better as normal sex. This is supposed to represent normal sex and it is assumed by many to be true. That is damaging, whereas with BDSM, the viewer goes in knowing this is a sub-genre and a fetish which may not be standard.

Links234 · 20-01-2014 08:34PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is that site the male equivalent of Jezebel.com then?

Worse

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 08:37PM

ElvisChrist6 wrote: »

That, in my view, is completely different from bondage purely on the fact it is viewed by those who might not know better as normal sex. This is supposed to represent normal sex and it is assumed by many to be true. That is damaging, whereas with BDSM, the viewer goes in knowing this is a sub-genre and a fetish which may not be standard.

100%. BDSM has been around for centuries and the mindset of participants/viewers is completely different. They know it's not a reflection on realty, whereas for many people (particularly teenagers), porn is.

My worry is that young girls will feel the need to play the part, rather than tell your man to cop on to himself.

For most people, porn is just porn. But there is documented evidence of increased porn addiction, destructive behavior and objectification of women (I never thought I'd see myself write that, but five blokes knocking one out onto a chick being held down is pretty much a tipping point...).

What's funny is that it's not the typical suspects (religious organisation, charities etc...) attacking porn... It's scientists; the people we should probably listen to.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 08:38PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

'Whataboutary' appears to be an overused term at present.

I see the logic behind it, of course. If you start a thread on "women discriminated against in the work place" and some bloke butts in and points out "men discriminated against in the work place", then that is what 'whataboutary' was meant to describe - an attempted derailment of the discussion from the original topic.

Problem is, when you start a thread on "women more discriminated against in the work place than men" and some bloke butts in and points out how men are and perhaps this first claim is not true, then you'll still hear claims of 'whataboutary', despite the fact that it's actually a challenge to the premise of the original thread.

Yet even with clear cut cases of 'whataboutary', it's not necessarily a bad thing that it's there. All too often you'll have threads on how "women are the victims of domestic violence" that perpetuate the belief that only women can be the victims of domestic violence.

Unfortunately 'whataboutary' has become a means to censor dissent or distraction from feminist topics. Women are discriminated against, not people. Women are abused, not people. And if you attempt to correct this, then it's just 'whataboutary'.

Anyhow, 'whataboutary' or just plain disagree with feminism? Best get it out of your system quickly kids, as it could well be illegal before long.

I'm really not sure if all that was directed at me? It's not a term I use very often and I'm not best pleased if you're accusing me of this sort of crap in bold, go read my posts in other threads.

Anyways, it probably is an overused term, it's probably used in situations where it doesn't apply, but it's a term which does describe the de-railing tactics you mentioned, and that does happen. I understand men's anger, I know that there are serious areas in this country where there is woeful discrimination against them (support services for domestic violence, sexual violence, cancer research and family law being the main ones). I can hold that fact in my head and wrap my head around the fact that there are also areas where women are at a disadvantage. Both. At the same time. And yet if I mention the woman's stuff I'm met with cries of "you censoring feminist" and if I mention the man's stuff "wait til the censoring feminists get here".

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should there be equal numbers in everything? In my experience of college the vast majority of younger lecturers are female despite there being a close to 50/50 split in the class. Over in Arts it's all women.

Probably more to do with less experience in general for women. As this changes (just like the civil service) that make-up of top positions will change.

I'm not saying there SHOULD be equal numbers in everything, I'm saying that glib excuses like "they don't apply for it, I guess they don't like it" isn't an answer. My experience with lecturing staff doesn't match up with yours and I'm an arts graduate, but I guess we'll have to take each others' word on that one....and if it was just to do with experience and something that would naturally correct itself over time as that gap closes, wouldn't you expect other countries to be ahead of us?

and yet

The widest gender gap is found in Japan, where women make up just 12.7 per cent of the academics at the country’s top-rated universities. It is followed by Taiwan, where only 21.3 per cent of faculty at the nation’s top seven universities are female.

The UK, which has 48 institutions in the survey, fares slightly better, with women making up 34.6 per cent of academic personnel. It is just behind the US, where the figure is 35.9 per cent among 111 representatives.

The problem persists even in Scandinavian countries (often regarded as among the most progressive in the world), such as Sweden (36.7 per cent), Norway (31.7 per cent) and Denmark (31 per cent).

And again, to reiterate, none of this means that I think men are never at a disadvantage or that they're not discriminated against, or that there are not certain areas where it is acceptable to make comments about or behave towards men in a way that would not be acceptable towards a woman.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 08:40PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't agree with this, but that's just me. To single out one gender's disadvantages where there's the potential that it is *not* a gender-specific issue )IE, both genders discriminated against in their own ways) is sexist.

It's a bit like when discussion of FGM comes up, but a poster is crucified for pointing out that a male baby's right to bodily autonomy doesn't gaerner nearly as emotive a response and questioning the reason for this particular sexist double standard. That can't be classed as wrong since it's an issue which effects both genders, and yet in only one case do you get massive political outcries, ad campaigns, etc.

I find these accusations of whataboutery utterly abused.

I get it.... that sometimes you want to talk about something and you want it to stay on topic and you don't want someone changing the subject because this can get really tiresome and the original subject doesn't get its proper scrutiny.

But I also see it used to silence and control the means of conversation. Someone can call it whataboutery, but I might not see it as that, I might see it as a directly related subject, if not the same exact subject.

GalwayGuy2 · 20-01-2014 08:47PM

Hmmm, has anybody thought that porn is only rapey because it's men on the screen? It's that whole blurred lines debacle. You see a man with a woman and you are 9 times more likely to believe he's going to attack her.

I don't think anybodies complained about the exact same things being portrayed in erotic literature, and non-erotic literature.

Tbh, the porn discussion is a load of fear-mongering rubbish. If it's okay for young women to read graphic depictions that border, and many times completely overstep, on rapiness, then it should be okay for young men to watch 'kinky' sex.

What do people think about the link between shaming sexuality and violent sexual acts? Most people will 'objectify' someone in their lives, and to shame that from a young age is not a good thing.

Doesn't anybody think this whole anti-porn vibe could make more people rape, as it may increase mental health/hatred of sexuality among young men?

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 08:52PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, has anybody thought that porn is only rapey because it's men on the screen? It's that whole blurred lines debacle. You see a man with a woman and you are 9 times more likely to believe he's going to attack her.

I don't think anybodies complained about the exact same things being portrayed in erotic literature, and non-erotic literature.

Tbh, the porn discussion is a load of fear-mongering rubbish. If it's okay for young women to read graphic depictions that border, and many times completely overstep, on rapiness, then it should be okay for young men to watch 'kinky' sex.

What do people think about the link between shaming sexuality and violent sexual acts? Most people will 'objectify' someone in their lives, and to shame that from a young age is not a good thing.

Doesn't anybody think this whole anti-porn vibe could make more people rape, as it may increase mental health/hatred of sexuality among young men?

Yes absolutely. Regardless of how free thinking we think we are, we have prejudicial pictures in our head which will pre-determine our judgements.

Totally agree with you about shame... it only leads to destructive roads.

Personally, I don't like porn, but my take on the whole porn debate when you look at the industry, is it is a bi product of stringent and puritanical sex values. The US is a good example, highly puritanical and a huge sex/porn industry.

Child porn obviously is a whole other debate, one I can't stomach.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 08:55PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, has anybody thought that porn is only rapey because it's men on the screen? It's that whole blurred lines debacle. You see a man with a woman and you are 9 times more likely to believe he's going to attack her.

I don't think anybodies complained about the exact same things being portrayed in erotic literature, and non-erotic literature.

Tbh, the porn discussion is a load of fear-mongering rubbish. If it's okay for young women to read graphic depictions that border, and many times completely overstep, on rapiness, then it should be okay for young men to watch 'kinky' sex.

What do people think about the link between shaming sexuality and violent sexual acts? Most people will 'objectify' someone in their lives, and to shame that from a young age is not a good thing.

Doesn't anybody think this whole anti-porn vibe could make more people rape, as it may increase mental health/hatred of sexuality among young men?

I've nothing against porn, but I'm not sure it corresponds with the erotic literature. It's that the more rapey porn seems to be becoming more and more common, to the point where it's in the majority. If you even look at the names of videos these days, the vast majority are "slut/old bitch/whore gets pounded/punished/f*cked til she screams/can't handle this massive cock". I don't buy into this whole porn dictates real life thing very much, and maybe it's just a fad. But when I was younger I'd have no problem finding porn I could happily watch, I gave up even trying a while ago, would just end up freaked out and ladybonerless by the time I'd sifted through the weird stuff.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:03PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I've nothing against porn, but I'm not sure it corresponds with the erotic literature. It's that the more rapey porn seems to be becoming more and more common, to the point where it's in the majority. If you even look at the names of videos these days, the vast majority are "slut/old bitch/whore gets pounded/punished/f*cked til she screams/can't handle this massive cock". I don't buy into this whole porn dictates real life thing very much, and maybe it's just a fad. But when I was younger I'd have no problem finding porn I could happily watch, I gave up even trying a while ago, would just end up freaked out and ladybonerless by the time I'd sifted through the weird stuff.

Well there are a lot of men very angry. It's not a surprise it comes out in fantasy literature.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 09:08PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well there are a lot of men very angry. It's not a surprise it comes out in fantasy literature.

Erra better out than in I guess and fantasy is fantasy. It'd just give you a pretty bleak attitude to male sexuality if you believed that the proportion of rapey/violent stuff was representative of the proportion of men who enjoyed that in real life.

And how do you mean very angry? At women? And the expression of that is rape fantasies? That's a surprise to me, that's fcuked up. And no I'm not censoring or shaming anyone's sexuality there, I'm saying that that is not a pleasant or reasonable response to anger at women. That's god's gift to the kind of radical feminist sh1te from the OP like

GalwayGuy2 · 20-01-2014 09:10PM

I've nothing against porn, but I'm not sure it corresponds with the erotic literature. It's that the more rapey porn seems to be becoming more and more common, to the point where it's in the majority. If you even look at the names of videos these days, the vast majority are "slut/old bitch/whore gets pounded/punished/f*cked til she screams/can't handle this massive cock". I don't buy into this whole porn dictates real life thing very much, and maybe it's just a fad. But when I was younger I'd have no problem finding porn I could happily watch, I gave up even trying a while ago, would just end up freaked out and ladybonerless by the time I'd sifted through the weird stuff.

+1 on the use of the word LadyBoner. I really love that word.

Actually, pornographic sex that is aggressive is very common in mainstream novels that are primarily consumed by young women. These are not classed as erotica, such as Anne Rice, Kim Harrison, Patricia Briggs, Laurell K Hamilton, and that's not even mentioning the romance section or fanfiction.

On the use of the words a) I am not doubting what you're saying, but I rarely see words like those. I have no doubt they pop up, but I just haven't seen them. As well as that, the buzzwords are just used to add a little kinkess to what's portrayed. The only one I'd class as BDSM would be punished, but that is quite common among erotica. As well as that, the word punished could just be used for mutally angry sex.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:13PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

Erra better out than in I guess and fantasy is fantasy. It'd just give you a pretty bleak attitude to male sexuality if you believed that the proportion of rapey/violent stuff was representative of the proportion of men who enjoyed that in real life.

And how do you mean very angry? At women? And the expression of that is rape fantasies? That's a surprise to me, that's fcuked up. And no I'm not censoring or shaming anyone's sexuality there, I'm saying that that is not a pleasant or reasonable response to anger at women. That's god's gift to the kind of radical feminist sh1te from the OP like

Ok I don't know who is publishing all this rapey literature of dark violent sex fantasy, nor have I read it and I don't know what proportion it holds in the publishing market - don't want to lose perspective here. But it doesn't surprise me, at least from my perpective. Nor am I particularly alarmed.

It's a fantasy, escape. It may not seem reasonable to you, but humans do have an irrational side ya know.

The Corinthian · 20-01-2014 09:15PM

B0jangles wrote: »

You misunderstand, I wanted to inform anyone following this thread about AVfM's general attitudes and the extreme opinions held by its founder. It was perhaps unfortunate that it was you who brought it up; to be quite honest I'd have preferred if it had been someone else as I am not in the least interested in hearing your opinions on feminism. I have already heard them at very great length before.

Oh, I see you were whatabout... I mean hijacking my post to push your own agenda.

As such, your attack of "AVfM's general attitudes" is probably the equivalent of the Catholic Church's condemnation of Monty Python's Life of Brian, in terms of credibility, TBH.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 09:18PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

+1 on the use of the word LadyBoner. I really love that word.

Actually, pornographic sex that is aggressive is very common in mainstream novels that are primarily consumed by young women. These are not classed as erotica, such as Anne Rice, Kim Harrison, Patricia Briggs, Laurell K Hamilton, and that's not even mentioning the romance section or fanfiction.

On the use of the words a) I am not doubting what you're saying, but I rarely see words like those. I have no doubt they pop up, but I just haven't seen them. As well as that, the buzzwords are just used to add a little kinkess to what's portrayed. The only one I'd class as BDSM would be punished, but that is quite common among erotica. As well as that, the word punished could just be used for mutally angry sex.

Hmm yes I've only read Anne Rice out of the ones you mentioned, but there is some pretty similar stuff in there, it's the language used to describe it that's different. And I can't exactly post links for examples :P

And I dunno, but I wouldn't say the prevalence of that kind of language is just "a little kinky" or that it's representative of the amount of people who are into BDSM, but maybe I'm just naive on that front. Punished could be used to describe mutually angry sex, but then mutually angry sex is not what goes on in most of the videos. There are of course videos of men being dominated by women, but you'd rarely see them without going looking, the rapey stuff seems to have a huge market, whether it's created that or just catered to demand who knows.

The Corinthian · 20-01-2014 09:18PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok I don't know who is publishing all this rapey literature of dark violent sex fantasy, nor have I read it and I don't know what proportion it holds in the publishing market - don't want to lose perspective here. But it doesn't surprise me, at least from my perpective. Nor am I particularly alarmed.

I take it you're talking about Fifty Shades of Grey? Vintage Books apparently.

Didn't know that it had that much of an effect on men's psyches - learn something new every day.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:19PM

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis—1928

This quote, I think sums it up quite nicely. People think they are on the right side of things but have NO clue as to the direct and practical consequences of that they are doing.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 09:21PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok I don't know who is publishing all this rapey literature of dark violent sex fantasy, nor have I read it and I don't know what proportion it holds in the publishing market - don't want to lose perspective here. But it doesn't surprise me, at least from my perpective. Nor am I particularly alarmed.

It's a fantasy, escape. It may not seem reasonable to you, but humans do have an irrational side ya know.

No no no I meant porn sites.

Yeah horses for courses, I know it doesn't do any good to read too much into an individual's taste in porn. I just do find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many men seem to have an appetite for seeing images of women being degraded or simulating being raped. Quite possible that's just complete naivety on my part though, though I wouldn't consider myself a prude.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 09:22PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, has anybody thought that porn is only rapey because it's men on the screen? It's that whole blurred lines debacle. You see a man with a woman and you are 9 times more likely to believe he's going to attack her.

I don't think anybodies complained about the exact same things being portrayed in erotic literature, and non-erotic literature.

Tbh, the porn discussion is a load of fear-mongering rubbish. If it's okay for young women to read graphic depictions that border, and many times completely overstep, on rapiness, then it should be okay for young men to watch 'kinky' sex.

What do people think about the link between shaming sexuality and violent sexual acts? Most people will 'objectify' someone in their lives, and to shame that from a young age is not a good thing.

Doesn't anybody think this whole anti-porn vibe could make more people rape, as it may increase mental health/hatred of sexuality among young men?

No, it's rapey because of the lines and actions, many of which are agressive. I'm no puritanical saint or anything, and oppose censorship of any kind. But when I do use porn I avoid the "normal" stuff in favour of less extreme, "softcore" porn. Which is odd, because the porn I watch no is the same that was bog standard around 2000. So there has been a marked increase in the aggressiveness portrayed in porn.

A previous poster put it well regarding the titles. Most porn titles contain buzz words that are either violent or demeaning.

Science is starting to back me up on this. Studies are showing addiction rates and erectile dysfunction among young men that's caused by porn. Of course you don't hear about this because no bloke casually mentions that he can't get it up to a real woman anymore, only porn.

Joseph Gorden-Levitt chose this subject for his debut as a director - Don Jon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A63Ly0Pvpk

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:23PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

No no no I meant porn sites.

Yeah horses for courses, I know it doesn't do any good to read too much into an individual's taste in porn. I just do find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many men seem to have an appetite for seeing images of women being degraded or simulating being raped. Quite possible that's just complete naivety on my part though, though I wouldn't consider myself a prude.

They probably had crazy mothers or some ex wife or something destroyed them somehow.

Or they are really just ****ing out there weirdos.

Its pretty distrubing that Grand Theft Auto is sold in Toys R US. So we are at a new level playing field these days.

ElvisChrist6 · 20-01-2014 09:24PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, has anybody thought that porn is only rapey because it's men on the screen? It's that whole blurred lines debacle. You see a man with a woman and you are 9 times more likely to believe he's going to attack her.

I don't think anybodies complained about the exact same things being portrayed in erotic literature, and non-erotic literature.

Tbh, the porn discussion is a load of fear-mongering rubbish. If it's okay for young women to read graphic depictions that border, and many times completely overstep, on rapiness, then it should be okay for young men to watch 'kinky' sex.

What do people think about the link between shaming sexuality and violent sexual acts? Most people will 'objectify' someone in their lives, and to shame that from a young age is not a good thing.

Doesn't anybody think this whole anti-porn vibe could make more people rape, as it may increase mental health/hatred of sexuality among young men?

I'm not a watcher of porn, but I'm not anti-porn in the least. There definitely is porn out there which shows normal sex, and I don't know if porn is particularly rapey, but the violent orgasms and long-lasting 9-inch mickeys is what I do know of. (Also, I do find a lot of "literature" aimed at women and girls to be disgusting and possibly damaging to thought processes.) I don't have a problem with there being the more aggressive styles of porn, but I wish that it was made more clear that this isn't necessarily standard. Whether it be aggressive seduction or sex from men or women. I wasn't taking it from a gender standpoint by any means. Purely the mistaken views of sex kids could have by not understanding the difference between porn and sex.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 09:24PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

No no no I meant porn sites.

Yeah horses for courses, I know it doesn't do any good to read too much into an individual's taste in porn. I just do find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many men seem to have an appetite for seeing images of women being degraded or simulating being raped. Quite possible that's just complete naivety on my part though, though I wouldn't consider myself a prude.

I don't think anyone who watches rape porn (which, incidentally, is one of the fastest growing genres) would actually commit rape. It's likely fantasy. However, it says a lot about their mental health and view of women if it turns them on to see a woman getting raped (even if it is staged). Again, you'd be forgiven for thinking rape porn and similar genres were on the fringes - quite contrary. It's just everyone know how taboo it would be to discuss the latest rape scene they shot their bolt to. A quick browse on PornHub or similar sites will confirm that these videos have view stats into the hundreds of thousands within days of being posted, which over shadow many less extreme genres.

poundapunnet · 20-01-2014 09:25PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

They probably had crazy mothers or some ex wife or something destroyed them somehow.

Or they are really just ****ing out there weirdos.

Its pretty distrubing that Grand Theft Auto is sold in Toys R US. So we are at a new level playing field these days.

How does that even work???? Are games not rated over there? It's a good game though

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:27PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

How does that even work???? Are games not rated over there? It's a good game though

Yes they are rated. Shrug.

WHy is it sold in a toy shop? Even the creators came out and said any parent who lets their child watch this is a bad parent.

I think my point is that the barometer for what is normal in violent drives and fantasy is changing rapidly.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 09:28PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

They probably had crazy mothers or some ex wife or something destroyed them somehow.

Or they are really just ****ing out there weirdos.

Its pretty distrubing that Grand Theft Auto is sold in Toys R US. So we are at a new level playing field these days.

GTA was one of the funniest games to date - they backtracked on a lot of the sex and extreme violence stuff that previous games had.

Most 18s movies surpass GTA by a mile. If a parent lets their kid play GTA then they're a tard. Just the same way you don't let little Johnny watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

The Corinthian · 20-01-2014 09:31PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I just do find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many men seem to have an appetite for seeing images of women being degraded or simulating being raped.

Indeed, however I find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many women went out and bought Fifty Shades of Grey though, so it's probably a slightly more complex issue than we may wish to admit.

Dean0088 wrote: »

Joseph Gorden-Levitt chose this subject for his debut as a director - Don Jon.

It's not really about porn, you know. It's about superficial hyper-individualism and consumerism in modern society, with most of the principle characters treating each other like objects or resources in different ways and no one truly listening or 'connecting' with each other. Porn, for the title character, was simply one example of this.

GalwayGuy2 · 20-01-2014 09:33PM

And I dunno, but I wouldn't say the prevalence of that kind of language is just "a little kinky" or that it's representative of the amount of people who are into BDSM, but maybe I'm just naive on that front. Punished could be used to describe mutually angry sex, but then mutually angry sex is not what goes on in most of the videos. There are of course videos of men being dominated by women, but you'd rarely see them without going looking, the rapey stuff seems to have a huge market, whether it's created that or just catered to demand who knows.

We see certain things as demeaning depending on gender. A woman deep throating a man is demeaning, a woman sitting on top of a mans face isn't demeaning. Both are in the BDSM sphere and both can be completely outside of it.

My own opinion about why women watch rape pornography is that its a fear response. If a woman is afraid of something, and I'd say plenty of women are terrified in this day and age, then it may feed into the woman's sexual fantasies. I think it's a good way of getting over that fear, which is why I will never complain about Fifty Shades Of Grey. Anything that helps women with the fear of getting attacked is good in my book.

Although it does raise a question. If you make men afraid they are going to turn into rapists, then would that make them have rape fantasies?

20-01-2014 09:34PM

B0jangles wrote: »

When I was reading up on the ratio of men to women in the Gardaí, I came across this thesis written by a serving guard for her Masters in Criminology.

Might be worth reading if you really are interested in hearing about the issues faced by women in the GS

http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=aaschssldis

It would be awesome if you could sum up or mention pertinent parts of it rather than just link to a 13k word document. However I went looking straight for states and found that until 1998 less than 10% of the force was female and this more than doubled til 2009. Since then it has likely increased again with retirements of senior (predominantly male) Gardai and no new recruits.
I also came across this, confirming that women have the same success rate as men when applying for promotions.

The current thesis confirms that women are under-represented both laterally and
vertically in the Garda Síochána.17 In the current study 40% of participants believe there
are fewer opportunities for promotion for females compared to their male colleagues. As
demonstrated in Table 4.2. in 2008 45% of women compared to 67% of men eligible to
go for promotion applied for same. Approximately one quarter of both males and
females were successful but the reduced numbers applying for promotion amongst female
candidates resulted in fewer numbers achieving promotion.

I had a skim through some other stats and couldn't see any evidence of discrimination. What I did find was some perception of "discrimination", like this:

whilst another implied that ‘senior male members of the same rank believe they are superior to women’.

Compelling.
Some other highlights, 28% have felt they're isolated solely due to their gender while 67% said they didn't feel "a sense of camaraderie with other policewomen." Not quite the same question but interesting all the same.
And just to finish off the area of perception for now:

65% of participants suffer performance pressure and believe policewomen have to work harder than policemen to prove themselves to their peers. One participant commented ‘In order for women to succeed half as much as men, they must do everything twice as well’.

Sounds like something in a canteen or a bingo hall.

And on the topic of female representation in politics, I thought this was an interesting piece:

http://politicalreform.ie/2011/05/18/women-in-irish-politics-why-so-few-and-are-quotas-the-answer/

Again a summary would be nice. The conclusion states quotas must be considered, guess what, I disagree.
The introduction also has some issues. The author reckons there's 5 issues; childcare, cash, culture, confidence and candidate selection.
Childcare: Don't have kids or have kids with someone who will support you. It's a good idea to look for such qualities in a partner whether kids are involved or not.
Cash: How many male candidates have been on average industrial wage before standing for election? I don't buy the argument at all, whether someone makes 150k per year or 135k per year (bearing in mind the wage gaps of <10% takes into account hours worked while not counting experience so I'm being generous with that pay difference) is unlikely to influence their decision to run.
Culture: Again, just an excuse. People have no problem electing female candidates in Ireland.
Confidence: I lack confidence, can I be included in the women part of the quota? After all, it's not the shape of genitals a candidate has that's important, right?
Candidate selection: Women make up a greater proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates. There's no evidence to back up the candidate selection argument.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 09:35PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

We see certain things as demeaning depending on gender. A woman deep throating a man is demeaning, a woman sitting on top of a mans face isn't demeaning. Both are in the BDSM sphere and both can be completely outside of it.

My own opinion about why women watch rape pornography is that its a fear response. If a woman is afraid of something, and I'd say plenty of women are terrified in this day and age, then it may feed into the woman's sexual fantasies. I think it's a good way of getting over that fear, which is why I will never complain about Fifty Shades Of Grey. Anything that helps women with the fear of getting attacked is good in my book.

Although it does raise a question. If you make men afraid they are going to turn into rapists, then would that make them have rape fantasies?

In a fantasy you control everything anyway. With rape or sexual assault your control over your sexuality is taken away from you.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 09:35PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, however I find it surprising and more than a little alarming that so many women went out and bought Fifty Shades of Grey though, so it's probably a slightly more complex issue than we may wish to admit.

It's not really about porn, you know. It's about superficial hyper-individualism and consumerism in modern society, with most of the principle characters treating each other like objects or resources in different ways and no one truly listening or 'connecting' with each other. Porn, for the title character, was simply one example of this.

For most of the film, he battles with his addiction to porn, the fact that he prefers it to his girlfriend etc... There are other themes worked in such as real beauty and detaching from objects (his pad, his ride etc...). The sex scene between himself and the older girl he met at night class was one of the most intense I've ever seen on film, and it only lasted a few seconds, contained no nudity and was the kind of sex people in love have.

The whole film revolves around porn addiction.

Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Comments