Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual objectification of women and feminism. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    x
    So you agree with my last post or not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I don't get your logic.
    Your problem, not mine.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Except it isn't? Censorship is when you edit out various parts. Not when you prevent the release of something in general.
    Google gives you a definition at the top of the page if you search for a single word. Do better, man.

    Can I just ask, what is actually wrong with censoring things that are that inappropriate and obscene?
    A lot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Your problem, not mine.
    You're a great debater.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    L)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    Google gives you a definition at the top of the page if you search for a single word. Do better, man.



    A lot.
    censor |ˈsɛnsə|

    noun1: an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. the report was approved by the military censors. the movie has been given an adults-only rating by film censors.

    Your point is?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You're a great debater.
    There was nothing to debate? I made a point you don't understand, not particularly interested either way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    So you agree with my last post or not?
    I haven't been following, but no I don't think the government should have suppressed Blurred Lines and it really seems too obvious for me to explain why at this time of night. I have no problem with individual venues (including SUs) choosing not to play it, however.

    As it happens, I'm not really what people seem to consider an identifying "feminist" in real life, but I come across more so on here because there is so much blatant misogyny. Most people I meet are similar - we don't really identify as feminists, but if pressed we would probably say we were. And if I were a strongly identifying feminist, I wouldn't consider Blurred Lines to be a very important issue at all. I am fairly strongly socially liberal, so censorship is a very natural thing to oppose for me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Well I think she should have known that!

    Everyone should, that song is disgusting, worse is that I actually liked it when I was younger and didn't know what it meant. Sad that 13/14 year olds were singing it around whilst walking around to our next lesson...
    Is it? Why? Lolita is about and even narrated by an active paedophile who has a sexual affair with a prepubescent child. One is praised and taught in schools and universities while the other is villified and banned by dictatorial student unions and god knows who else. That one is a masterpiece and the other is not is irrelevant. One is a story of a man legally raping a child multiple times and and the other can be interpreted as 'triviliasing sexual consent' in highly ambiguous language. Thicke has repeatedly denied that this interpretation is his own and offered an alternative. Even if we know that is what it is about - which we don't - what is the difference between the two? On what grounds should we be concerned about the effects of either one of them? How does anyone have the right to ban either one of them in any context whatsoever? What damage is done by children and others being exposed to the song (especially when, like you didn't, they don't even have any awareness of this interpretation of its lyrics)?

    It has always seemed to me that arbitrary personal disgust is enough reason in people's minds to campaign against this song's consumption by other people, whether by way of bans or shaming tactics, and that is simply not good enough.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    censor |ˈsɛnsə|

    noun1: an official who examines books, films, news, etc. that are about to be published and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. the report was approved by the military censors. the movie has been given an adults-only rating by film censors.

    Your point is?
    Jesus, are we really getting into this much pedantry? The censor will suppress the entire document if they think the entire document is objectionable. Are you being deliberately obtuse here? I honestly can't tell if I'm being trolled.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HepaxLegomenon)
    I really don't think you know what censorship is, at least not in the sense we're discussing. And as to answer your question: everything is wrong with censorship. You can't live your life expecting everything you deem inappropriate or obscene to be censored. I completely disagree that censorship is at all acceptable, but I'd die on a hill for your right to be allowed to argue that it is (your right to free speech).
    I don't think you properly understand what censorship is though... I don't see censorship as completely stopping something from going into the public eye. I see it as something which suppresses areas of something before it is eventually released.

    I don't think censorship should really be a thing but I also don't think stuff that essentially an apologism of rape is okay and I don't think, therefore, it should be released to the public where it could be overtly influential. It's disgusting and harmful. It glamourises objectification and I just don't think that's okay. Sorry :lol:.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I haven't been following, but no I don't think the government should have suppressed Blurred Lines and it really seems too obvious for me to explain why at this time of night. I have no problem with individual venues (including SUs) choosing not to play it, however.

    As it happens, I'm not really what people seem to consider an identifying "feminist" in real life, but I come across more so on here because there is so much blatant misogyny. Most people I meet are similar - we don't really identify as feminists, but if pressed we would probably say we were. And if I were a strongly identifying feminist, I wouldn't consider Blurred Lines to be a very important issue at all. I am fairly strongly socially liberal, so censorship is a very natural thing to oppose for me.

    No, my last post to you about 'choking', you said something about it being okay because it's in a lot of pop songs and I disagreed with you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, my last post to you about 'choking', you said something about it being okay because it's in a lot of pop songs and I disagreed with you.
    I am saying it's a very obvious reference to cannabis and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of sexual violence, objectification or oppression.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    Is it? Why? Lolita is about and even narrated by an active paedophile who has a sexual affair with a prepubescent child. One is praised and taught in schools and universities while the other is villified and banned by dictatorial student unions and god knows who else. That one is a masterpiece and the other is not is irrelevant. One is a story of a man legally raping a child multiple times and and the other can be interpreted as 'triviliasing sexual consent' in highly ambiguous language. Thicke has repeatedly denied that this interpretation is his own and offered an alternative. Even if we know that is what it is about - which we don't - what is the difference between the two? On what grounds should we be concerned about the effects of either one of them? How does anyone have the right to ban either one of them in any context whatsoever? What damage is done by children and others being exposed to the song (especially when, like you didn't, they don't even have any awareness of this interpretation of its lyrics)?

    It has always seemed to me that arbitrary personal disgust is enough reason in people's minds to campaign against this song's consumption by other people, whether by way of bans or shaming tactics.
    Lolita is beautiful, it is a masterpiece and I never said Blurred lines should be censored but that doesn't change my opinion on it being disgusting, same goes for Lolita, the actual intent behind it is disgusting, but the writing is beautiful, it's a beautiful work of literature.

    Another thing, Lolita isn't targeted at young 13 or 14 year olds to read and if they did they wouldn't understand it, but blurred lines, everyone was singing it, understanding it or not, it was massively popular. The difference between the two is that the material catered to different audiences, Lolita, like most literature does have several interpretations, Blurred lines isn't very subjective.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Do you know what 'Blurred lines' means? It wasn't because of naked girls in the videos that people accused him of being a rapist.
    What does 'blurred lines' mean?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'm dead serious
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    It glamourises objectification and I just don't think that's okay..
    So do you want to censor half of the songs released in the last 50 years?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmashConcept)
    I am saying it's a very obvious reference to cannabis and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of sexual violence, objectification or oppression.
    No, I don't believe you.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F.Nietzsche)
    What does 'blurred lines' mean?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'm dead serious
    It basically means the lines are 'blurred' between you consenting to sex, and not consenting. You are saying 'No' but 'I know you want it' so I am going to interpret it as a 'yes' and rape you.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    It basically means the lines are 'blurred' between you consenting to sex, and not consenting. You are saying 'No' but 'I know you want it' so I am going to interpret it as a 'yes' and rape you.
    Ohhhhhhh

    It makes sense now, thanks!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Lolita is beautiful, it is a masterpiece and I never said Blurred lines should be censored but that doesn't change my opinion on it being disgusting, same goes for Lolita, the actual intent behind it is disgusting, but the writing is beautiful, it's a beautiful work of literature.

    Another thing, Lolita isn't targeted at young 13 or 14 year olds to read and if they did they wouldn't understand it, but blurred lines, everyone was singing it, understanding it or not, it was massively popular. The difference between the two is that the material catered to different audiences, Lolita, like most literature does have several interpretations, Blurred lines isn't very subjective.
    Do you think that violent video games should be banned?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.