danot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Trying to have any kind of meaningful debate on here about anything to do with gender and sexuality sometimes feels like having a conversation with someone who doesn't speak the same the language as you. Would you like to explain why feminists would be interested in perpetrating a misogynistic double-standard, please? It isn't a misogynistic double standard, it's a feminists double standard. As much as it pains me to say it, men can't take any credit for this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 You are wasting your time because, as you say, some contributors are short on the sort of terminology you'd expect to find in a discourse on this subject. I strongly suspect that years of unchallenged male gaze media are to blame. :hihi: This is precisely what I mean. You'll criticise men and the media for sexualising women whilst vehemently defending a woman's right to sexualise herself. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The definition could be that certain types of men regard women who are sexually active. More importantly the same men have difficulty sexually in attracting women who are sexually active. In other words, if their not attracted to me then by their definition their "sluts". Ironically the same men who use the word tend to be the one's who are unattractive to most women. Being a man I could be wrong though. Just another power tool is all. You forgot to mention that we suffer from erectile dysfunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 You forgot to mention that we suffer from erectile dysfunction. I forgot about that. Sorted now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Swimwear isn't commercially sexualised though, which is why no one associates swimwear to sex. Yes it is, especially in the lads mags you mentioned. I ask a question and suddenly that isn't associated to what you were saying. The eternally moving goal post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Swimwear isn't commercially sexualised though, which is why no one associates swimwear to sex. Is it becoming clearer Chris? Right so Baywatch was the most popular program in the world due to the original plots and brilliant acting was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yes it is, especially in the lads mags you mentioned. I ask a question and suddenly that isn't associated to what you were saying. The eternally moving goal post. Amazing isn't it? No wonder they can't actually define what "slutish" clothing actually is. It can be anything between burqa and nakedness it seems. It's all dependant on the observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Yes it is, especially in the lads mags you mentioned. I ask a question and suddenly that isn't associated to what you were saying. The eternally moving goal post.No moving goal posts here. To what degree is swimwear commercially sexualised?- 2%?.. 10%? I think you're telling porkies Chris. The only commercially sexualised swimwear I can recall seeing was worn by Ursula Andress in Dr No. Could this be what you're thinking of Chris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Put it like this. A gay chap walks past a bunch of drunk football hooligans with a large hole in his trousers around the bottom area. He is beaten up. Would he have been beaten up if he'd been dressed differently? It's not his fault, but he was beaten up. How could he have avoided this? And yet you fail to ask the question why did the drunken football hooligans beat him up. You picked on the victim as your excuse to divert from the real problem. And why a "Gay Chap"? You don't have to be gay to be victimised by thugs. So less of the stupid analogies please, they become tiring after the first 50, unless of course you know of gays who prance around at football matches with a hole in the rear of their pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Swimwear isn't commercially sexualised though The only commercially sexualised swimwear I can recall seeing was worn by Ursula Andress in Dr No. A contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.