(May 6, 2013 at 5:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I like magazine covers with dogs on them, Pomeranian especially.

I don't much care for either sex or violence in the media. I prefer hearing the gunshot off screen and watching the shadow of the dead body falling. It's more artistic and leaves more to the imagination. Same for sex.

I do hope all of you xtain dimwits leave sex to the imagination.

You know, I actually agree, Chad. Sometimes it doesn't work, of course, but I DO like the noir-esque sort of scene-aversion. Done properly, it can be very poetic and dramatic. Same with sex scenes. Only problem is that sex-scenes nowadays are overly, dare I say, Christian in their nature? There's never any passion, never any energy...a bunch of scenes of slowly rolling bodies, six or seven thrusts, almost always in missionary or with the girl on top, and that's it. YAAAAWN. Fucking BORING. I'm not asking for porn, but Jesus Christ on a T-stick, sex between two people who are in love as much as they are claimed to be in those movies is a LOT more frantic and wild. One position or two won't cut it. Girl I most was in love with, when we first had sex, we didn't care how practical the positions were, we were twisting each other around in knots practically, the bed was in danger of breaking, and it went on for a LONG ass time. Yet in movies with sex scenes, it's always this thing where it's the pairing's first time together....and it looks so G-rated that it's just not even worth throwing into the movie.

Hell. Sometimes I feel it actually DETRACTS from the movie to have a subpar sex scene. Love is a primal emotion and the physical expression of it is equally primal. Passion should be raw, wild, unbridled, given no control, not tame and muted and appealing to "good Christian values" or some bullshit like that.[/rant]

(May 6, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Pomeranians are not dogs.. They are overgrown dust-bunnies, who wish they were something canine

Asta! Attack....grrr, .nip, nip nip.

Showing tits on TV causes men to rape women, and more misogynist rapist-apology nonsense, tonight at 11.

I think there's room for both, and both can be done well or poorly. I tend to have a low tolerance for squick, so it may be difficult for me to watch something like Saw, but that doesn't in and of itself make that aspect of it a bad thing. Perhaps that visceral thrush from such experiences is a part of the point. I know that as much as I can reasonably stomach, I try to expose myself to things which may violate my pre-existing sensibilities, say in music, and I don't think that something making you feel uncomfortable or unpleasant is enough to show that in some sense it's an inferior effort. That says more about you than it does about that thing.

(May 6, 2013 at 10:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

*Step and squish!*

Yip, yip, yip!

*Silence*

It depends. Most balanced people see a pair of boobs in a magazine in good humour.

Just because some weirdos go and sexually harass or even rape a woman due to that, doesn't mean the many cannot enjoy racy advertisements.

Article aside the distinction here I think is important and I agree:

"But we do think it is problematic when nearly all images of women depict them not simply as ‘sexy women’ but as passive objects for someone else’s sexual pleasure.”

I don't read Rolling Stone. I haven't taken notice of many of their covers. I don't know how they portray women. Showing a woman as a sexual being is one thing. Depicting us as objects here only for the sexual pleasure of men is another. Since I don't read the magazine, I don't know which they do.

And isn't it the weirdest thing that in muslim cultures where women are de-sexualized to the point of looking like ambulatory garbage bags they still get raped.

(June 8, 2013 at 5:29 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And isn't it the weirdest thing that in muslim cultures where women are de-sexualized to the point of looking like ambulatory garbage bags they still get raped.

And that's a problem too. There is more than one way to dehumanize a woman and turn her into an object.