Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Forum - Perennial Ideas and Debates that cross societal/time boundaries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 4th, 2012, 12:59 PM   #21

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,488

Maybe it is indeed symbolic.
dagul is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 5th, 2012, 05:26 AM   #22

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,830
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Last week I was at a home party and I stumbled on what I call a feminist squad. We were all sitting around the living room, when some guy talked about his sexual exploits with a girl and his story ended in (his words) ''I *****d in the a*s''. While his words were not classy, they sure were funny after a few liters of wine. A guy got angry and started lecture the whole crowd about woman's domination and so and so. He had his weird socialist friends approving him.

To make a long story short, he called me and my friends morons because we are what he calls 'white men', because we consume porn and because we dominate women. Here's my question; do you think consuming porn reflects a dominatrix stance? do you think porn ''oppress'' women and dominate them? do you think there is such thing as women domination?
how the hell does porn oppress and dominate women? it's a commercial product with lots of variety. and news flash: it's not to be taken real, it's fictitious product. do tarantino movies abuse the justice system? do i want to get a katana and chop off the heads of random people? i rest my case.
infestør is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #23

Black Dog's Avatar
Idiot of the year 2013
 
Joined: Mar 2008
From: Damned England
Posts: 8,054
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
do i want to get a katana and chop off the heads of random people?
I do, frequently. Only the law stops me

I see your point, but most of us never own katanas or pistols or other paraphernalia of Tarantino Movies. But most men will, at some point, have a girlfriend or wife.

These should not be treated like a commodity, but porn films often treat them as such. Just piece of meat and humiliation is a heavy part of modern porn.

Research the difference between men's porn and women's porn and you'll find just as many explicit shots of women in the latter- but degradation and humiliation is totally absent.

I've met some odd women in my time, but none who have really wanted to be gang banged by seven dwarfs or similar.
Black Dog is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #24

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Last week I was at a home party and I stumbled on what I call a feminist squad. We were all sitting around the living room, when some guy talked about his sexual exploits with a girl and his story ended in (his words) ''I *****d in the a*s''. While his words were not classy, they sure were funny after a few liters of wine. A guy got angry and started lecture the whole crowd about woman's domination and so and so. He had his weird socialist friends approving him.
First, if we are to (having this conversation post-Enlightenment) submit to the rules of logic, we must define pornography. If a sexually suggestive set of images (motion or "silent") with only male and/or only non-human females in it (I'm talking of actual animals, not "objectification", we'll get to that later) is pornography by the same definition then no, pornography cannot be defined platonically as "oppression of women", lest "women", not to mention "oppression", is to be redefined by draconically liberal boundaries (I'm rather liberal myself, but when discussing etymology a "liberal" interpretation generally means something bad). The same goes for prostitution; if defined as the exchange of sexual favors for something of (monetary) value or the promise of the same is prostitution, then it cannot be by definition violence against women (again, even if all human beings were women, violence would have to include all forms of monetary transaction for that claim to be valid). Many people, sadly, ignore this fact and tend to redefine terms such as "oppression" to fit their own arguments, which says a lot more of yourself than the people you usually don't know but try to ridicule on account of their differentiating opinions. I personally don't see how you get to the point of seeing anyone as "oppressed" on account of working with pornography, or letting a partner insert their fingers, tongue or manhood into their rectum - I thought we were past condemning people for that, or was it just the traditional way of things (if it indeed existed, think of that every time you hear history as a social argument) that was to be turned over 180 degrees? If your critic, unless I misunderstood, had heard a story of your freespoken friend being penetrated by a male or female partner, would the reaction have been the same? If not, how can that person label him/herself a proponent of equality (as, I believe, was the point)?

If you look upon history then yes; women have generally have fewer social and civil rights, not to mention political, though the same have indeed applied to the vast majority of men in most societies. Indeed, women have (seldomly heard) have quite a few privileges, in the same manner as children. Very few women have been sent to war to die or had to endure public castration or live boiling or most of the many forms of torture (I'm talking of a legal context, not criminal abuse called "torture"), and today we tend to regard "violence against women" as a particularly heinous label, not on account of the act itself but the sexual label of the victim. This nonwithstanding, the same patriarcal, if we are to call them that, mores have condoned violence against women and, yes, children as necessary to keep them submitted to an ostensibly necessary order - Sean Connery would be a late exemplar of a defender of such an order, when he stated that women - on account of women, he didn't mention male partners - can be slapped, not grievously but nevertheless, as a necessary means to subdue "rebellion". In short, (many) men have tended to treat women like kids on account of their sex. And as most orders, and most boundaries, it's hard to get rid of, even if laws are repealed and even if everyone is, pardon me, "coerced" by new standards and mores to condemn it.

In my opinion, these non-rights and privileges go hand in hand, but I find it quite clear that women have been regarded as "adult children", and that their predicament indeed implies inferiority (depending upon what situation you prefer, "security" or "liberty"), with, even if only for a small group of men, the vast opportunities and privileges reserved for members of the male sex. In this sense, there has existed an "oppression of woman", though it would to draw the conclusion of a conspiracy or that solely women have been oppressed, which vestiges are quite apparent as of today. The main quibble here is, I think, that we recognize the difference of sex at all - in legal documents, in manners of speech, in how we name our children et cetera et cetera. If I had to make an outrageous, dictatorial change to something fundamental, it would be to erase this significance. What people personally come up to regarding their gender, sexuality and preferences, including being "f***ed in the a*s", should be subject to them and their partner(s). Indeed, if someone was upset about your friend's acquintance (as you didn't care to elaborate their relationship specifically) and their sexual preferences, you might as well have suggested her to take it up her own a*s and see if she likes it, and if not (or knowing that already from experience) that doesn't necessary apply to everyone else, of your own sex or the other, thank you.

The same goes for the "oppressive" practice of wearing sexually suggestive underwear (which, if you prefer to, would be "easier" for a woman I must say, just like Hillary Clinton wearing a suit would cause a lesser scandal than Barack Obama struggling into a dress for a formal dinner or fundraiser). In these regards, the rollback of actual restraints of women (laws and vigilantee enforcement of abolished laws) have made woman the "sex of liberty", while men to a greater extent remain trapped in being naturally pushed to be the "superior", which may be either good or bad, depending upon what sort of underwear, prom night clothing, profession or looks you may prefer. Lipstick or not? If you're a guy, it's rather chosen for you, and while breaking that code shouldn't earn you a beating (though it may) it will in that case be the topic of your night out, whether you want it to or not. Repeating what I said at the end of last paragraph; as most orders, and most boundaries, it's hard to get rid of, even if laws are repealed.

Another example I must add, as we're talking of pornography; erotica and pornography are usually said to be for "women" and "men", respectively, and they have a clearly positive/negative connotation. I don't believe it's true that erotica is defined as "pornography for women" and vice versa, but given how the words are used, they say a lot of society's view on the "proper" view on the sexual urges of men and women. Or maybe I have just met too few beer-drinking sexist common men to weigh up the balance. I wouldn't say "they" represent society's view (that thing called "political correctness"), if it indeed exists.

When this differenting of sexes arose in the first place and who created it is not known to me, or anybody else, though it is generally speculated to have risen along with the neolitic revolution, when property, society and political entities in the modern sense were born. If you own a property, you must - if you question the logic, take into account that it isn't mine - control the source of your wife's children, to secure they're indeed yours, and so forth. This has, of course, varied throughout times and cultures, so to claim that humanity is consistently or institutionally marked or marred by this, forgive me, "incidental" oppression, would be a crude mistake. To claim moral superiority on account of your female ancestors being denied their rights (and remember, I have just as many female ancestors as any woman, and most of their husbands and boyfriends didn't have much civil rights either) or being actually enslaved (I would say very few people have no slave or serf ancestors, and claim anyone who says differently an ignoramus of gargantuan proportions) is just reprehensible. If you didn't follow this second-to-last sentence, please read it again and skip the parentheses, I kind of like it.



If you didn't care to read this post, just take the last two sentences. They pretty much sum it up.

Or, in a single, shorter, pitiful sentence; "Applying words such as 'oppression' (or 'domination', in a negative sense, then they're essentially equated) to consensual acts is just a stupid and tedious form of personal Newspeak and of trying to control your environment through verbal (and sometimes legal, if we are to get into politics) acts of intimidation." The obvious answer to the suggestion that you "dominate women" would be "How come?" (if you regard "domination" as a negative) or "So what?" (a positive).

Last edited by Chancellor; December 7th, 2012 at 05:32 PM.
Chancellor is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 05:13 PM   #25

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
To make a long story short, he called me and my friends morons because we are what he calls 'white men', because we consume porn and because we dominate women. Here's my question; do you think consuming porn reflects a dominatrix stance? do you think porn ''oppress'' women and dominate them? do you think there is such thing as women domination?
About your foe's accusation - calling you "moron" on account of skin color does indeed constitute a racist statement, something you might have said only to be met with stubborn pride, but I'm just saying to clarify my ideas of tying together an opinion with the speaker's ethnic background, which, again, says more of your own and your supporters' values and/or adherence to their brainpower than of the person you try to ridicule. To perceive another person as "superior" in his/her racial origin (while still trying to profess yourself as "equal" or, indeed, "superior but equal") and hence impossible to degrade on account of race, is a logical fallacy as respectful to the great resource between your temples as drilling a hole into one of them, stuffing in a straw and sucking it out from sheer reflex.

I don't quite get what you mean by a "dominatrix stance" and "woman domination". Please clarify.

Last edited by Chancellor; December 7th, 2012 at 05:29 PM.
Chancellor is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 04:50 AM   #26

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

Might I get some response on my response? I spent almost an hour writing that post.
Chancellor is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 04:58 AM   #27

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowniesRule View Post
Last week I was at a home party and I stumbled on what I call a feminist squad. We were all sitting around the living room, when some guy talked about his sexual exploits with a girl and his story ended in (his words) ''I *****d in the a*s''. While his words were not classy, they sure were funny after a few liters of wine. A guy got angry and started lecture the whole crowd about woman's domination and so and so. He had his weird socialist friends approving him.

To make a long story short, he called me and my friends morons because we are what he calls 'white men', because we consume porn and because we dominate women. Here's my question; do you think consuming porn reflects a dominatrix stance? do you think porn ''oppress'' women and dominate them? do you think there is such thing as women domination?
My guess is that they were the weak, submissive kind of men. Also, femdom.
Darth Roach is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 07:50 AM   #28

Chancellor's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: The far North
Posts: 882

I should apologize on the "live boiling" part, since I now recall it was used on a female poisoner as well under the rule of Henry VIII. Bad example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Roach View Post
My guess is that they were the weak, submissive kind of men. Also, femdom.
What's wrong with femdom?
Chancellor is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology

Tags
domination, porn, white, woman


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Capitalism and War exists because of females.(Male domination theory) stigmatized69 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 0 December 17th, 2011 09:21 PM
Reverse domination from middle to west . Tuman bay General History 9 April 7th, 2010 03:29 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.