Objectifying women

[Edwardo Piet]

Saying someone could take precautions and saying someone should take precautions because 'it's their fault' are two completely different things.

EvF

[fr0d0]

As a female you have to put up with the disadvantages and advantages of being a female. You can do your best to reduce risk, but the dangers remain.

[Dotard]

I took it to mean you thought someone in this thread (Dotard sprung to mind) was a rapist ...

Hey! WTF?!

[Tiberius]

I took it to mean you thought someone in this thread (Dotard sprung to mind) was a rapist ...

Hey! WTF?!

I was referring to her earlier statement:

Ok, you wanna play that game? Play with me. Ask me that question. I'll tell you exactly what I like a woman to wear when I fantisize about raping them.

And his true colors are revealed.

I.e, her complete lack of an ability to comprehend a blatant taunt and separate it from "reality".

[Autumnlicious]

I.e, her complete lack of an ability to comprehend a blatant taunt and separate it from "reality".

To be fair, the medium of text communication as we use it is, by its nature, devoid of emotional and facial context. So a statement made in seriousness or jest can be misinterpreted.

Often it is on the fault of the viewer for a lack of subtlety, but it occurs quite frequently as the fault of the writer for not judging their audience accurately as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

He said "play a game"... can't get any more blatantly jokey than that.

Not only did he say it in a jokey way but he even blatantly stated he was only playing.

Misunderstandings can happen offline too... I don't see what facial expression would need to go along with Dotard's blatantly non-serious post.

EvF

[Dotard]

She was intent on going down that road no matter what path everyone else was taking.

So I taunted her, yes. All she was accomplishing was demonstrating she thought all men as rapist pigs no matter their intent.

So fine. If she insisted on 'playing that game' I was willing to go down the road with her and start feeding her the same shit she has been dishing out.

'prob have gotten banned in the process but geez she was beginning to piss me off.

For the record:
Rape really isn't in my mental library of sexual fantasies. Had a girly-friend once, who had this desire to 'role-play rape' quite often. I would play along, of course, she played along with my more sick and twisted ones, but honestly I found the humpty-dance less enjoyable. It's the consensual part that heats me up. When they 'want' it. (even if it's a fake role-playing want)

Can we derail this thread into one about sexual fantasies now?

[Godhead]

Dotard -

That's a good idea, but maybe we could talk about the topic of the thread (before ITM got us all talking about rape).

Objectifying women. Not a problem. Women are sex objects and there's nothing wrong with that. We're all sex objects.

[Cego_Colher]

For a sec, Dotard, I thought you said that she was saying everyone was a rapist on this thread. In which case I would have said "So, I must be too, but have had dreams where I was raping women." But that was just in dreams so it's okay I'm not even sure if I was a guy the entire time, either.

are you a table, Godhead? what I really mean is with sexual things, yes we are sex objects. If we are talking about things that aren't directly related to sex, being an object isn't really a good thing. and I know you are also talking about it being okay, because men are too. Though, I am at least pretending to recall that this thread was about sexism.

I'm going to talk about Simone de Beauvoir for a bit now. en-soi and poir-soi, en-soi means in itself. like an object, but not a people object an actual one that is- say a chair, it can be nothing other then a chair. Whereas poir-soi means being for itself. like someone who can grow from what they see and learn and such. Well, what I read of hers that was talking about for and in itself was about dependent love in women, which was the woman would look to the man to know what she was and she wasn't anything without him. like we say the chair is a chair and sitting on it is how it's used, but a person they don't need someone to say what they are for.

I suppose if we go with that and Godhead's we are all learning objects. Oh, well.

but if you want to talk about fantasies go ahead-- not that I could stop you anyway.

[Godhead]

Cego -


Agreed, to an extent. I just think that even in non sexual situations, there's no point in drawing a bold line (boundary), rather a blurry one. In other words I think it's good to be ourselves.