Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Femme_Fatale · 20-01-2014 11:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bull****, you were trying to imply some seediness (to put it mildly) on my part and then act surprised when I get "defensive". Very poor form.

It's not at all bullsh1t. It's exactly what I was thinking in the first place. "It touches a nerve" simply meant it makes them feel uncomfortable about their viewing choices.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 11:36PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet hardcore porn is also viewed positively, only fantasy, enjoyable; it's celebrated - because pushing the boundaries of sexuality is great.

It's worth pointing out that only someone who watches Internet porn will really understand what hardcore means today.

Ten years ago, hardcore means a big dick and rough sex. Today's hardcore porn goes wwaaaayyyy beyond any of that.

clairefontaine · 20-01-2014 11:39PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yet hardcore porn is also viewed positively, only fantasy, enjoyable; it's celebrated - because pushing the boundaries of sexuality is great.

Violence is not. It may be shown a lot (are decapitations really a part of regular mainstream television?) but not with a positive spin.

No it isn't "celebrated." It's tolerated. You know tolerance, the great liberal buzzword.

Yes decapitations, people getting debowelled, I have seen plenty on tv. Of course it is simulated. Internet you can find the real thing of course.

With porn, the sex is not simulated, perhaps not the beatings either. I don't know... and that is a different story. It is my understanding California is the only state where you can actually produce porn, most likely due to a lobbying group, it has somehow escaped prostitution laws. I'm not too sure about that. Distribution and viewing are another story, they are not illegal in other states.

Smidge · 20-01-2014 11:45PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

No it isn't "celebrated." It's tolerated. You know tolerance, the great liberal buzzword.

Yes decapitations, people getting debowelled, I have seen plenty on tv. Of course it is simulated. Internet you can find the real thing of course.

With porn, the sex is not simulated, perhaps not the beatings either. I don't know... and that is a different story. It is my understanding California is the only state where you can actually produce porn, most likely due to a lobbying group, it has somehow escaped prostitution laws. I'm not too sure about that. Distribution and viewing are another story, they are not illegal in other states.

Porn is most certainly celebrated in today's society.
Ask any man 20 odd years ago about a woman in a porn movie they probably would have said "Well she was blond with big boobs" etc

Now men can list of a ream of names of these "actresses", all the movies they have been in and so on.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 11:45PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

No it isn't "celebrated." It's tolerated. You know tolerance, the great liberal buzzword.

I'd have to disagree with you there. I've never heard anyone speak about porn (all of which is hardcore these days, unless you seek out softer niche genres) in any tone other than a celebratory one.

Although sex education (going on that Channel 4 series where they went around to schools talking to kids) says porn isn't real, young men are told that there's no such thing as too much porn/masturbation and to crack on. And until recently there wasn't yet Western "I want more" culture has actually found a way to create a level of too much of a good thing, if not the greatest thing, in life.

Of course, a sex-ed class could never discuss anything other than normal porn, which doesn't come close to addressing the issues of thirteen year old boys watching very extreme genres. Which they are.

It was also interesting to see how the lads of around 15/16 reacted to the real nude models brought in to show the kids what real people look like. They were all disgusted by normal female bodies - and I mean DISGUSTED - which I'm sure did wonders for the girls' self-esteems. That's playing out on a bigger scale around the world with a lot of kids growing up expecting every girl to have orange skin, no pubic hair, a boob job and an inability to say no, and every man to have a ten inch penis, a six pack, 4% body fat and an insatiable libido.

20-01-2014 11:50PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not at all bullsh1t. It's exactly what I was thinking in the first place. "It touches a nerve" simply meant it makes them feel uncomfortable about their viewing choices.

OK, just go ahead and say it, why do you think would it touch a nerve for me?

Femme_Fatale · 20-01-2014 11:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, just go ahead and say it, why do you think would it touch a nerve for me?

Come on now. I made it clear what I meant by "touch a nerve" - being made to feel uncomfortable about the content of the hardcore porn that they view because of some unpalatable home truths. I did not mean by that that I think there's something dangerous and unsavoury about people who watch hardcore porn (you're the one who suggested that) but they are delusional if they tell themselves it's ok; and if they get pissed off at people pointing out the issues with it, a nerve is being hit - in that they don't like facing up to the reality of what they consume.

Fukuyama · 20-01-2014 11:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, just go ahead and say it, why do you think would it touch a nerve for me?

You constant refusal of a nerve being hit, your elevated outrage and demands for an explanation are a dead giveaway that a nerve has been jackhammered, as opposed to just hit.

20-01-2014 11:59PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Come on now. I made it clear what I meant by "touch a nerve" - being made to feel uncomfortable about the content of the hardcore porn that they view because of some unpalatable home truths. I did not mean by that that I think there's something dangerous and unsavoury about people who watch hardcore porn (you're the one who suggested that) but they are delusional if they tell themselves it's ok; and if they get pissed off at people pointing out the issues with it, a nerve is being hit - in that they don't like facing up to the reality of what they consume.

There we go, you were implying that I watch that kind of stuff. You're completely wrong but go ahead and keep saying "Oh anyone who disagree with me obviously likes that stuff."

Dean0088 wrote: »

You constant refusal of a nerve being hit, your elevated outrage and demands for an explanation are a dead giveaway that a nerve has been jackhammered, as opposed to just hit.

The nerve hit was the implication of an untruth about me. As I said before.

20-01-2014 11:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, just go ahead and say it, why do you think would it touch a nerve for me?

You're being way too sensitive, it wasn't a personal jibe and it was a perfectly valid general observation.

That said, perhaps one doth protest too much...

Fukuyama · 21-01-2014 12:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There we go, you were implying that I watch that kind of stuff. You're completely wrong but go ahead and keep saying "Oh anyone who disagree with me obviously likes that stuff."

The nerve hit was the implication of an untruth about me. As I said before.

You say there's nothing wrong with it, but in the same breath say you would absolutely positively never ever ever ever in a million years dream of watching it.

You then flip **** over an imagined accusation of same.

I think you see the picture I'm painting here. If everything was okay with todays extreme porn, maybe you wouldn't mind some anonymous person on the internet thinking you watch it. But you do mind. Which is interesting.

Femme_Fatale · 21-01-2014 12:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

There we go, you were implying that I watch that kind of stuff. You're completely wrong but go ahead and keep saying "Oh anyone who disagree with me obviously likes that stuff."

Wait now, I wasn't even referring to you at all with that post about touching a nerve. I meant any people who get defensive and dismissive re criticisms of hardcore porn - it is a phenomenon I have noticed.
When you responded to me I assumed you were a consumer of hardcore porn.

21-01-2014 12:02AM

Candie wrote: »

You're being way too sensitive, it wasn't a personal jibe and it was a perfectly valid general observation.

That said, perhaps one doth protest too much...

No, I just wanted the under-handed implication of an untruth about me to be said clearly so I could address it.
Next time one of you object to someone on AH using a word like "munter" or saying they got with a slag or something (weekend nights will give a high hit rate) shall I just say "Oh well you disliking that says a lot about you"? It's a nice zinger but the implication and intent to undermine someone I've never met and know very little about is pretty obvious.

21-01-2014 12:05AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I just wanted the under-handed implication of an untruth about me to be said clearly so I could address it.
Next time one of you object to someone on AH using a word like "munter" or saying they got with a slag or something (weekend nights will give a high hit rate) shall I just say "Oh well you disliking that says a lot about you"? It's a nice zinger but the implication and intent to undermine someone I've never met and know very little about is pretty obvious.

You inferred something not implied.

FF has told you there were no personal implications, and as a reader of that post, I saw it as a general observation. One I happen to agree with generally, and not something that you need to take as being personally levelled at you.

Smidge · 21-01-2014 12:07AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I just wanted the under-handed implication of an untruth about me to be said clearly so I could address it.
Next time one of you object to someone on AH using a word like "munter" or saying they got with a slag or something (weekend nights will give a high hit rate) shall I just say "Oh well you disliking that says a lot about you"? It's a nice zinger but the implication and intent to undermine someone I've never met and know very little about is pretty obvious.

But I can only assume that a person would only take offence to a "zinger" as you put it, such as slag etc, if the person that it was directed at knew that there was an element of truth to it.
Otherwise, it would be meaningless to that person as any form of jab.

21-01-2014 12:08AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

You say there's nothing wrong with it, but in the same breath say you would absolutely positively never ever ever ever in a million years dream of watching it.

Stop making things up, it's unbecoming.

You then flip **** over an imagined accusation of same.

I think you see the picture I'm painting here.

I "flipped" over the use of an untruth and the fact that the implication was being used to undermine any argument or opinion I would've put forward if an even discussion was possible without "Oh well you would say that"-type innuendo being thrown around.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Wait now, I wasn't even referring to you at all with that post about touching a nerve. I meant any people who get defensive and dismissive re criticisms of hardcore porn - it is a phenomenon I have noticed.
When you responded to me I assumed you were a consumer of hardcore porn.

I wouldn't get defensive, I'd make some points that you would likely disagree with and that would apparently be evidence of defensiveness because of something you assumed about me and used to undermine said points.

21-01-2014 12:10AM

Smidge wrote: »

But I can only assume that a person would only take offence to a "zinger" as you put it, such as slag etc, if the person that it was directed at knew that there was an element of truth to it.
Otherwise, it would be meaningless to that person as any form of jab.

You wouldn't take offence to something someone said about you/your family if it was untrue?

Candie wrote: »

You inferred something not implied.

FF has told you there were no personal implications, and as a reader of that post, I saw it as a general observation. One I happen to agree with generally, and not something that you need to take as being personally levelled at you.

I don't accept that but let's move on to what you say there. Basically "anyone who disagrees with me (and FF) does so because they lovely degrading hardcorse porn"?

Fukuyama · 21-01-2014 12:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't get defensive, I'd make some points that you would likely disagree with and that would apparently be evidence of defensiveness because of something you assumed about me and used to undermine said points.

Several people have made points that have been disagreed with. The tone has been relatively civil until you got all jumpy over somebody maybe kind of sortof saying you watch porn.

21-01-2014 12:11AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

Several people have made points that have been disagreed with. The tone has been relatively civil until you got all jumpy over somebody maybe kind of sortof saying you watch porn.

I've disagreed with others and as far as I can tell they were fine it, as was I. I'm not fine with people making false implications against me and claiming I said things I didn't.

Pumpkinseeds · 21-01-2014 12:13AM

This started as a light-hearted amusing thread. Now it's descended into a row about the glass ceiling. As a lady I'd advise other ladies to stop worrying about bumping your head on the glass ceiling and just get on with your careers or not, whatever.

clairefontaine · 21-01-2014 12:14AM

Candie wrote: »

You're being way too sensitive, it wasn't a personal jibe and it was a perfectly valid general observation.

That said, perhaps one doth protest too much...

It's not really, it's ad hominem. It would annoy me too frankly.

Femme_Fatale · 21-01-2014 12:14AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've disagreed with others and as far as I can tell they were fine it, as was I. I'm not fine with people making false implications against me and claiming I said things I didn't.

Jesus Button, that wasn't done by my post you have taken such issue with. What's the point in asking for clarification when you're going to ignore it and rant on anyway?

Smidge · 21-01-2014 12:15AM

[QUOTE=Deleted User;88572850]You wouldn't take offence to something someone said about you/your family if it was untrue?

I don't accept that but let's move on to what you say there. Basically "anyone who disagrees with me (and FF) does so because they lovely degrading hardcorse porn"?[/QUOTE]

Wait, who said anything about your family?
I thought you had taken umbridge as you thought someone had inferred you were into porn?
What has that got to do with your family?

Quietyou · 21-01-2014 12:17AM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

This started as a light-hearted amusing thread. Now it's descended into a row about the glass ceiling. As a lady I'd advise other ladies to stop worrying about bumping your head on the glass ceiling and just get on with your careers or not, whatever.

If people stopped fighting and did more ****ing all the problems would go away.:pac::D

Plus weed, weed would make these people happier.

21-01-2014 12:18AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You wouldn't take offence to something someone said about you/your family if it was untrue?

I don't accept that but let's move on to what you say there. Basically "anyone who disagrees with me (and FF) does so because they lovely degrading hardcorse porn"?

Calm down, it's been iterated and reiterated that you're not the target of any jibe. You can either accept that or give yourself a heart attack over an imagined slight.

People can disagree with me til the cows come home, but y'know, I'm still entitled to my own opinion just the same as they are.

21-01-2014 12:19AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Jesus Button, that wasn't done by my post you have taken such issue with. What's the point in asking for clarification when you're going to ignore it and rant on anyway?

Because rather than address the implication and then have you deny it I wanted you to say it clearly so that I could address it.

Smidge wrote: »

Wait, who said anything about your family?
I thought you had taken umbridge as you thought someone had inferred you were into porn?

She didn't infer I was into porn, she implied I was into a certain kind of porn.

What has that got to do with your family?

Nothing, I was addressing the "oh you'd only be annoyed if it's true" rubbish, it was just another example of things that could be said that someone would take offence to if untrue.

Smidge · 21-01-2014 12:20AM

Candie wrote: »

Calm down, it's been iterated and reiterated that you're not the target of any jibe. You can either accept that or give yourself a heart attack over an imagined slight.

People can disagree with me til the cows come home, but y'know, I'm still entitled to my own opinion just the same as they are.

Agreed

21-01-2014 12:20AM

Quietyou wrote: »

If people stopped fighting and did more ****ing all the problems would go away.:pac::D

But only the kind of ****in' that I like. :P

Candie wrote: »

Calm down, it's been iterated and reiterated that you're not the target of any jibe. You can either accept that or give yourself a heart attack over an imagined slight.

People can disagree with me til the cows come home, but y'know, I'm still entitled to my own opinion just the same as they are.

It'll be all the salt in my diet that gets me before this thread does. :pac:

Fukuyama · 21-01-2014 12:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Because rather than address the implication and then have you deny it I wanted you to say it clearly so that I could address it.

She didn't infer I was into porn, she implied I was into a certain kind of porn.

Nothing, I was addressing the "oh you'd only be annoyed if it's true" rubbish, it was just another example of things that could be said that someone would take offence to if untrue.

You're being that drunk a55hole who keeps insisting someone said something about him behind his back, despite a room full of people saying otherwise and trying to calm him down.

clairefontaine · 21-01-2014 12:22AM

Can you guys drop it? This was interesting before the bickering started.

Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Comments