Ringo's' Random Real Women Thread
category: residue [glöplog]
Nudity/good looks provides health benefits for your body and brain. Its true.
So basically what you're saying is
"Hey, I know there's a lot of beauty in the world. There's good lokoing women, men, children, animals, plants, mountains, clouds, stars, and there's a seemingly unending plethora of art. But trust me, it's just a coincidence that I'm concentrating solely on what makes me feel warm and fuzzy down there".
I don't even.
"Hey, I know there's a lot of beauty in the world. There's good lokoing women, men, children, animals, plants, mountains, clouds, stars, and there's a seemingly unending plethora of art. But trust me, it's just a coincidence that I'm concentrating solely on what makes me feel warm and fuzzy down there".
I don't even.
Yeah, but I don't understand why we make the distinction. It's ok to concentrate on plants, animals and stuff, but suddenly not ok to concentrate on women?
I don't know if that was aimed at me kebee, but if it was - no that's not what I'm saying at all. Maybe you should reread my post.
Essentially I'm saying that if I'm comfortable showing this thread to the woman who means the most to me in my life then I fail to see who I could possibly be seen to be "objectifying" women. Surely if this was just a "perv thread" then no matter how permissive my relationship with my wife of nearly 18 years then there would be no way I'd be prepared to show her.
If I were posting pics of skinny, "teen-aged looking" pr0n starlets or Playboy centrefolds I might be a hypocrite but since I don't, I'm not.
Looking at the pics of women who have modeled and /or are cosplayers I think I can safely say that they appear to be successful, independent women who are clearly enjoying making a living doing what they do. The fact that I (and clearly some of you guys) find their physical forms aesthetically pleasing is really just a bonus wouldn't you agree?
Essentially I'm saying that if I'm comfortable showing this thread to the woman who means the most to me in my life then I fail to see who I could possibly be seen to be "objectifying" women. Surely if this was just a "perv thread" then no matter how permissive my relationship with my wife of nearly 18 years then there would be no way I'd be prepared to show her.
If I were posting pics of skinny, "teen-aged looking" pr0n starlets or Playboy centrefolds I might be a hypocrite but since I don't, I'm not.
Looking at the pics of women who have modeled and /or are cosplayers I think I can safely say that they appear to be successful, independent women who are clearly enjoying making a living doing what they do. The fact that I (and clearly some of you guys) find their physical forms aesthetically pleasing is really just a bonus wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
I'm comfortable showing this thread to the woman who means the most to me in my life then I fail to see who I could possibly be seen to be "objectifying" women.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
etc.
Just because you're comfortable showing something to your wife doesn't mean other women will appreciate it. If you know what I mean.
Quote:
Yeah, but I don't understand why we make the distinction. It's ok to concentrate on plants, animals and stuff, but suddenly not ok to concentrate on women?
Yeah, the Random Plant and the Random Mountaintop thread have their own slew of probl... no wait, THEY DON'T EXIST.
Instead there's this one thread that just completely randomly out of the blue coincides with you sexual desires. How surprisingly convenient and certainly without any ulterior motives at all. Really!
I don't believe you. To put one anecdote against the other: I have enough experience talking to people working in modeling (from amateur fashion via alt and fetish to full-on porn) that I know that there's absolutely NO distinction if you just look at the images closely or if you whip out your member while doing it, or if your wife and kids are watching while you do any of the two former. Not at all. There's nothing too bad about looking at what strikes your fancy but please stop denying WHY you do it.
Quote:
I can't get either the concept of objectifying by posting pics of women that look nice.
See what you did? It is RIGHT THERE.
Quote:
It's ok to concentrate on plants, animals and stuff, but suddenly not ok to concentrate on women?
Plants, animals and stuff are objects, yes. Are you suggesting beautiful women should be put in that category?
Yes, I never denied why I do it. I am a man and I sexually like women. I just can't get the objectification part.
You can do an google image search with "men" as a keyword as you can do with "women" or "animal" or "plants" you get tons of results. Does it mean than men/women are suddenly objectified? And of course we have a special preference watching women for the reasons stated, it's obvious, I don't deny any of it. I just can't add more complexity to it right now, like wrap my head around some additional property that there is something wrong with any of these, rather than being natural male attitude.
Sexual objectification:
To paraphrase: things like this thread reduce women to their mere looks without taking anything else into account. It's not about the person in the picture, it's the appearance. That is insulting to many people, both because it enforces stereotypes (the woman is there to look good for the man to admire, in other hands the man is the subject and the woman is the object of the action) and because the standards of "being a woman" it creates.
Of course, a lot of people don't care at all about this.
Quote:
Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a "sex object". Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity. Objectification is most commonly examined at the level of a society, but can also refer to the behavior of individuals.
To paraphrase: things like this thread reduce women to their mere looks without taking anything else into account. It's not about the person in the picture, it's the appearance. That is insulting to many people, both because it enforces stereotypes (the woman is there to look good for the man to admire, in other hands the man is the subject and the woman is the object of the action) and because the standards of "being a woman" it creates.
Of course, a lot of people don't care at all about this.
Although, I do agree than there are many women who don't take it positively, and if your family women like it then it doesn't prove that everyone likes it of course. But I'd like to investigate more into, read opinions and wrap my head around because I can't yet :)
solely down there.. ABANDON THREAD.
Ok, I'll read the wikipedia article.
So far, what confuses me is, there is a difference if I go out and open a thread that claims "Women are just for sex" to just looking or posting pictures of women. Ok, if there is a subliminal message there I understand (and that's not just me, it's society, it's even human nature, men like good woman looks, they post what they like), but have to make up my mind, if my intention was never to claim "women are just for sex", how can it be such a bad thing.
So far, what confuses me is, there is a difference if I go out and open a thread that claims "Women are just for sex" to just looking or posting pictures of women. Ok, if there is a subliminal message there I understand (and that's not just me, it's society, it's even human nature, men like good woman looks, they post what they like), but have to make up my mind, if my intention was never to claim "women are just for sex", how can it be such a bad thing.
Quote:
So far, what confuses me is, there is a difference if I go out and open a thread that claims "Women are just for sex" to just looking or posting pictures of women. Ok, if there is a subliminal message there I understand (and that's not just me, it's society, it's even human nature, men like good woman looks, they post what they like), but have to make up my mind, if my intention was never to claim "women are just for sex", how can it be such a bad thing.
The difference is there of course, but considering the imbalance how the sexes are treated in media and in the society in general, the difference is to many people lot less than you think. By participating in such a thread, you implicitly say that you think it's okay to reduce people to their mere looks only, and to emphasize the looks that fulfill somewhat arbitrary criteria and exclude a lot of others. Of course, you're free to do that of course, and I believe most of us do it one way or another, but don't be surprised if some people react to it badly.
There's also an another but related thing here: Women, in general, are less represented in society in many roles. For example, when it comes to media, think of how many movies, TV series and computer games have male protagonists, and how many female. Think of what kind of roles they play. Think of politics (what's the gender ratio of MPs, ministers, heads of state?), think of management in companies, think of how much less female dominated professions such as child care pay compared to male dominated ones. Think of a situation like a job interview where women are judged for their looks and not for their competence. Think of this: http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/13/the-glass-ceiling-illustrated-in-one-meet-the-staff-web-page-4186032/. Do you see anything wrong with it?
Many people feel that sexual objectification enforces the stereotype that women are supposed to be passive caretakers, while men are active decision makers. A lot of is really implicit and built into subtle power structures such as the difference between maternity and paternity leave, which varies from country to country but I hardly suspect that it's completely equal anywhere.
jesus christ, girls freewillingly posing with half their boobs hanging out, and guys looking at them are at guilt of "reduce people to their mere looks only, and to emphasize the looks that fulfill somewhat arbitrary criteria and exclude a lot of others. "
next time you know masturbating will be illegal, no make the whole evolution illegal ! because we have some built in preferences, so our genes will survive! mother nature is an ebjevtifying asshole! :)
next time you know masturbating will be illegal, no make the whole evolution illegal ! because we have some built in preferences, so our genes will survive! mother nature is an ebjevtifying asshole! :)
copy paste arguing for the rescue! :)
firing back:
"By participating in such a thread, you implicitly say that you think it's okay to reduce people to their mere looks only" = https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope + https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
firing back:
"By participating in such a thread, you implicitly say that you think it's okay to reduce people to their mere looks only" = https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope + https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
It's a thread dedicated solely for visual representation of women. Saying that out loud is not a logical fallacy.
Also, how exactly are you NOT objectifying people by calling them "random" right in the fucking thread title?
"It's a thread dedicated solely for visual representation of women. Saying that out loud is not a logical fallacy."
I agree with that 100%. Anyway first please tell the ladies who love getting objectified by hanging half of their boobs out, that they are insulting others. Because guys are fucking them in their minds.
I agree with that 100%. Anyway first please tell the ladies who love getting objectified by hanging half of their boobs out, that they are insulting others. Because guys are fucking them in their minds.
Yeah, thing is, women are people. As such, some of them are shitty, too. What was your point again?
Quote:
To paraphrase: things like this thread reduce women to their mere looks without taking anything else into account. It's not about the person in the picture, it's the appearance. That is insulting to many people, both because it enforces stereotypes (the woman is there to look good for the man to admire, in other hands the man is the subject and the woman is the object of the action) and because the standards of "being a woman" it creates.
I'd say that sine most photos in this thread are modeling photos, the objects in them themselves chose to be objectified, because they know beforehand that the subject looking at the photos will probably not know who they are or even have a chance to get to know the personality of the model, even if they wanted to.
