Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the idea of not selling these magazines but violence against women (and indeed against men by women) has nothing to do with "sexism" at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Real-One)
    That's because feminists are fat ugly lesbians...:woo: :eek3: :yep:
    I'd imagine you'd describe any girl not wanting to have sex with you as being a 'fat, ugly lesbian', which is all of them then I guess.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    As do all free publications. Are you in favour of banning violent movies, rock and roll, or rap music? What you are doing is trying to justify acts of sexual violence, to blame them on those civilised individuals who are capable of controlling themselves and excersizing their rights freely and responsibly. You excuse those mentally disturbed persons who cannot control themselves and shift the blame onto the whole of society. Including the independent women who make a free choice to exhibit their sexuality.




    What a vauge, self rightous statement formed from your own misguided opinion rather than fact.


    Perhaps you would be happy if we were to cover every inch of female flesh, to completely remove any 'coarsening' or temptation from society.
    You completely misunderstand. The manner in which women are portrayed in these 'lads mags' is in an overtly, if degradingly, sexual way. Their are shown to be sexual objects, rather then people. Therefore it is ludicrous to say "cover all female flesh!" for it is the manner and context in which womens' bodies are portrayed which is the issue.

    As for your first paragraph, it is barely coherent and completely nonsensical. How in any way am I 'trying to justify acts of sexual violence' and excusing 'those mentally disturbed people'? What?!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    causation and correlation.

    women have been degrading since beginning of humanity. prostitution is one of the oldest profession. yet mainstream porn has only been around since the internet and mass media. hell, the printing press is only 600 years old roughly even.

    so obviously history shows in a wolrd without porn, not much would change. in fact back then women had it worse probably.

    you have no statistical evidence whatsoever for porn causing the objectification of women (and no, you saying this happens because its "obvious" is simply not a valid argument). and we are talking about lads mags even, not even hardcore porn.
    Your arguments are the wrong side of relevant for me to be bothered arguing with you. But just a note - it is clearly not possible to have 'statistical evidence' for the objectification of women. It is unquantifiable. Do you know what 'objectify' means?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You completely misunderstand. The manner in which women are portrayed in these 'lads mags' is in an overtly, if degradingly, sexual way. Their are shown to be sexual objects, rather then people.
    Women and sexual objects are synonymous to the heterosexual man. A women is a personality and a sexual object at the same time. Both men and women want and need sex as a part of a loving relationship. It is what we naturally require.

    Women dress up as sexual objects all the time with the sole intention of having sex. Women dress up to look sexual and therefore attractive. Often these are confident self assured women. Some women do actually have sexual needs lol.

    One women striking a sexual pose does not show all women as sex objects. If you feel degraded as a women by another women acting sexually, then you are very insecure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    You completely misunderstand. The manner in which women are portrayed in these 'lads mags' is in an overtly, if degradingly, sexual way. Their are shown to be sexual objects, rather then people. Therefore it is ludicrous to say "cover all female flesh!" for it is the manner and context in which womens' bodies are portrayed which is the issue.
    So would you ban those women who choose freely to wear next to nothing on a night out? Would you enforce a dress code which you deem modest and appropriate for your totalitarian society? If you are to follow this line of reasoning you must at least be consistent.

    As for your first paragraph, it is barely coherent and completely nonsensical. How in any way am I 'trying to justify acts of sexual violence' and excusing 'those mentally disturbed people'? What?!

    You are blaming the women who choose freely to exhibit their sexuality and beauty for any ills which befall our society. Not only that you are implying that the civil, law abiding individuals who make up Great Britain and are in the almost complete majority. Need to be controlled, lest they become drooling, slavering rape monkeys.

    Why do you do your fellow individuals such a disservice? Would you say that seeing a naked man oiled up and leering in a magazine tailored for horny women would make you objectify men in any dangerous way? Are you admitting that you have such a weak mind that a picture erases all experience with real, male human beings? :lolwut:

    I assume it does not. Which leads me to ask why you feel you are so superior to your fellow human being?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Your arguments are the wrong side of relevant for me to be bothered arguing with you. But just a note - it is clearly not possible to have 'statistical evidence' for the objectification of women. It is unquantifiable. Do you know what 'objectify' means?
    yes there is. just because you do not see it clearly, doesnt mean it is impossible. one could think up any number of experiments, surveys, observations and create some sort of data set.

    http://feministphilosophers.wordpres...ilences-women/

    this is something i found in less than a minute on google (yes i had to look for it because i obviously hadn done any research into it myself). if you note the second word in the paragraph is "experiments". do you still believe statsitical evidence is useless? at the end it says "it’s great to finally have social scientists studying the effects of objectification on women." - just because something has never been done before or because you dont know how it would be done (note, i dont even claim i personally could do this, just saying i am sure some people can if they wanted to) doesnt mean its impossible or useless.

    but simply saying "objectifying exists" based on nothing but your opinion will never get you anywhere. at least from my perspective.

    ps the "objectification" or whatever you understand by it, is the whole point of a lads mag. when im having a **** i dont want to know what the woman's hobbies are or what her interests are. i just wanna get it off. in fact, i dont think it would be healthy if guys started reasearching women's interests, etc, without knowing them. i believe its called stalking (im no expert but i guess stalking has to start somehow).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    yes there is. just because you do not see it clearly, doesnt mean it is impossible. one could think up any number of experiments, surveys, observations and create some sort of data set.

    http://feministphilosophers.wordpres...ilences-women/

    this is something i found in less than a minute on google (yes i had to look for it because i obviously hadn done any research into it myself). if you note the second word in the paragraph is "experiments". do you still believe statsitical evidence is useless? at the end it says "it’s great to finally have social scientists studying the effects of objectification on women." - just because something has never been done before or because you dont know how it would be done (note, i dont even claim i personally could do this, just saying i am sure some people can if they wanted to) doesnt mean its impossible or useless.

    but simply saying "objectifying exists" based on nothing but your opinion will never get you anywhere. at least from my perspective.

    ps the "objectification" or whatever you understand by it, is the whole point of a lads mag. when im having a **** i dont want to know what the woman's hobbies are or what her interests are. i just wanna get it off. in fact, i dont think it would be healthy if guys started reasearching women's interests, etc, without knowing them. i believe its called stalking (im no expert but i guess stalking has to start somehow).
    Research, evidence and experiments, especially in areas such as this, really are not the same as 'statistical evidence' specifically. Statistics really wouldn't be helpful in this case. Objectification is not a scientific term and isn't something that can be mathmatically, statistically proven.

    At the very most we can do a survey such as- 'Do you watch porn? Do you think women are inferior to men?' and get percentages and statistics from that, but even that would be really unreliable, and without qualitative data wouldn't be very helpful at all. Qualitative evidence is much, much more useful in situations like this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    Women and sexual objects are synonymous to the heterosexual man. A women is a personality and a sexual object at the same time. Both men and women want and need sex as a part of a loving relationship. It is what we naturally require.

    Women dress up as sexual objects all the time with the sole intention of having sex. Women dress up to look sexual and therefore attractive. Often these are confident self assured women. Some women do actually have sexual needs lol.

    One women striking a sexual pose does not show all women as sex objects. If you feel degraded as a women by another women acting sexually, then you are very insecure.
    Being sexual and being a sex object are not the same thing. Treating someone as a sex object is treating them as if sex is all that they're there for, as if they are purely an instrument for sexual pleasure. That's certainly not the same as being sexually attracted to someone. You can be sexually attracted towards someone without forgetting that they're more than a masturbation tool. The key word is 'object'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Being sexual and being a sex object are not the same thing. Treating someone as a sex object is treating them as if sex is all that they're there for, as if they are purely an instrument for sexual pleasure. That's certainly not the same as being sexually attracted to someone. You can be sexually attracted towards someone without forgetting that they're more than a masturbation tool. The key word is 'object'.
    People see each other like that, both women and men. It's been like that before the Sun, and will do forever. You can't change an essential part of being human

    Sex and babies is all a women and a man are to each other, the rest is just evolutionary psychology and social construct.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Research, evidence and experiments, especially in areas such as this, really are not the same as 'statistical evidence' specifically. Statistics really wouldn't be helpful in this case. Objectification is not a scientific term and isn't something that can be mathmatically, statistically proven.

    At the very most we can do a survey such as- 'Do you watch porn? Do you think women are inferior to men?' and get percentages and statistics from that, but even that would be really unreliable, and without qualitative data wouldn't be very helpful at all. Qualitative evidence is much, much more useful in situations like this.
    You study English Literature, yes?

    I think that is all one needs to ask with regards to such a poor post.

    edit: please read this http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Lie-Stat...5414802&sr=8-4
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    People see each other like that, both women and men. It's been like that before the Sun, and will do forever. You can't change an essential part of being human

    Sex and babies is all a women and a man are to each other, the rest is just evolutionary psychology and social construct.
    innit, check out the buffness that is elvis in her display pic. talk about hypocrites.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    You study English Literature, yes?

    I think that is all one needs to ask with regards to such a poor post.

    edit: please read this http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Lie-Stat...5414802&sr=8-4
    I have no idea what you mean, but do feel free to actually, yknow, make some sort of point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    People see each other like that, both women and men. It's been like that before the Sun, and will do forever. You can't change an essential part of being human

    Sex and babies is all a women and a man are to each other, the rest is just evolutionary psychology and social construct.
    Nothing is 'essential' to human beings. The fact that there are many people who don't view each other as masturbatory tools proves that it's not a necessary part of us. I certainly don't view men as sex objects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I have no idea what you mean, but do feel free to actually, yknow, make some sort of point.
    Are you winding me up?

    But ok, you are trying to tell someone who is studying statistics as a major part of his degree, what stats is and when or when not it is appropriate, when you yourself study an art. Do you not see the irony?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Nothing is 'essential' to human beings. The fact that there are many people who don't view each other as masturbatory tools proves that it's not a necessary part of us. I certainly don't view men as sex objects.
    Then what's up with the Elvis picture? Or are you just a big fan?

    Because you know, men just so happen to be big fans of big boobs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Then what's up with the Elvis picture? Or are you just a big fan?

    Because you know, men just so happen to be big fans of big boobs.
    What, you think Elvis is sexy? I don't.

    Men can be fans of boobs. Men can find women sexual. I find men sexy. That's not the same as viewing them as sex objects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    What, you think Elvis is sexy? I don't.

    Men can be fans of boobs. Men can find women sexual. I find men sexy. That's not the same as viewing them as sex objects.
    I find Elvis sexy, yes.

    But how do you want know whether or not I see women as sex objects? Because unless you can read my mind, then saying I do is completely unsubstantiated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    Are you winding me up?

    But ok, you are trying to tell someone who is studying statistics as a major part of his degree, what stats is and when or when not it is appropriate, when you yourself study an art. Do you not see the irony?
    Yeah, I do see the irony, I think it's ironic that you claim to know so much about statistics yet are blind to their limits. you're stubbornly refusing to realise that there are many other measurements and analyses of value that aren't statistical.

    Again, if you'd like to make, yknow, some kind of counter argument, or point, or anything that isn't 'I study stats therefore I am right'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I find Elvis sexy, yes.

    But how do you want know whether or not I see women as sex objects? Because unless you can read my mind, then saying I do is completely unsubstantiated.
    Er, I never claimed you did, and quite frankly I don't care if you do. We're not talking about you.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2010
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.