Sexpresso?

[sleepysparrow]

The media could represent much more normal looking women while still achieving the goal of appealing to men, certainly. But at some point you have to draw a line or you're either outlawing all sexuality like the taliban or trying to portray an obese middle aged woman who hardly anyone wants to see naked as the ideal of attractiveness.

Beauty is defined by society. What you think as beautiful is because someone else told you it is. You are shaped by what you see/hear/read, that's why it's important to question why you feel this way.

I have a daughter, and i'm never buying her a Barbie doll.

 

[Angie973]

What I don't understand is why men try to justify this kind of stuff. Why are some of the guys who posted on this thread so adamant about defending a bunch of macchiato serving whores in bikinis? I really don't think of this as harmless. This crap really effects women. It promotes this idea that sex/women can be bought and sold. It makes women like objects.

If women doing anything that men might feel lust over is bad, you end up with the Taliban.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Why isn't it possible to live in a place where men and women respect each other equally? Why is it either a bunch of whores running around and selling themselves or the Taliban?

Oh well that's just my 2 cents. Bring on the bitchy responses. lol

 

[TAMPA-BAY]

I agree with thelma. This is a artifical problem. People that benifit from this sort of stuff typicaly create a problem then pretend to ride in on a white horse with the solution.

The faces change but its the same game.

Feed people junk so when they get overweight you can sell them some exircise machine.
Start a war so you can sell the two sides weponds.

Notice how they make guys believe that they need a wash board stomach and a high paying job to be a man. Unfortunately females think its only them.

 

[sleepysparrow1]

I agree with thelma. This is a artifical problem. People that benifit from this sort of stuff typicaly create a problem then pretend to ride in on a white horse with the solution.

The faces change but its the same game.

Feed people junk so when they get overweight you can sell them some exircise machine.
Start a war so you can sell the two sides weponds.

Notice how they make guys believe that they need a wash board stomach and a high paying job to be a man. Unfortunately females think its only them.

Of course it's not only females, but this topic is about females. It's not right either way. In regards to females being objectified as sex objects, it is obviously much more common than men.

 

[Andrew]

Beauty is defined by society. What you think as beautiful is because someone else told you it is. You are shaped by what you see/hear/read, that's why it's important to question why you feel this way.

I have a daughter, and i'm never buying her a Barbie doll.

Beauty is not really defined by society. Beauty is defined by fundamental aspects of the human brain. In terms of human sexuality, sexual arousal based on specific aspects of a human, such as their symmetrical appearance, is an evolutionary response that makes us select the partners that are most likely to survive and carry on our genes more successfully.

For example, asymmetrical features are actually an indicator of having genetic diseases. The hip to waist ratio of a female is a very good indicator of the fertitility of a female.

On a slightly related note, gender differences are not defined by society either. Females and males are biologically different - from the anatomy of the brain to the different hormones that regulate behaviour and so on.

 

[sleepysparrow1]

Beauty is not really defined by society. .

Ok, maybe I should have said beauty is SOMEWHAT defined by society. Just like everything else, our whole brain is wired to believe and do what we are told to do - go to school, get a job, watch television, watch the news, get married, look this way, act this way... Human evolution aside, we're all a bunch of robots being trained to act and do and feel what we are supposed to do, because society says we should.

 

[Hoth]

Beauty is defined by society. What you think as beautiful is because someone else told you it is. You are shaped by what you see/hear/read, that's why it's important to question why you feel this way.

I have a daughter, and i'm never buying her a Barbie doll.

Just teach your daughter to think independently. Society only controls everyone's opinions when people don't want to bother thinking for themselves.

I do agree that barbie dolls are kind of a sick thing to give little girls, of course. I've no idea why parents want to teach their daughters from a young age that the important things in life are what you wear and that you have an impossible figure. (Same goes for G.I. Joe, boys shouldn't be taught that their purpose is to shoot people in some stupid war.)

I believe barbie dolls are the sort of thing that's thousands of times more powerful than Java Girls or ads for sexual attractant products featuring naked women, because it's teaching from parent to child, it's something she'll interact with a whole lot more, and it's targeted specifically to children specifically as something to imagine their adult life being like.

 

[sleepysparrow1]

Society only controls everyone's opinions when people don't want to bother thinking for themselves.

Yes, this is a very good point.

 

[Hoth]

What I don't understand is why men try to justify this kind of stuff. Why are some of the guys who posted on this thread so adamant about defending a bunch of macchiato serving whores in bikinis?

Because it's a matter of principle to defend the right of consenting people to indulge in weird things. Same reason I'd be defending a transvestite convenience store that doubles as a strip club, or a gay male trapeze artist nude car wash. Plus I like a good debate and my style is to make my points strongly.

Plenty of women are okay with these sorts of things too. Not here apparently, but for example, try this thread where most of the responses argue there's nothing wrong: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765390 . Personally I disagree with having those screenshots in a general use public area, because it's not the appropriate context for sexuality (just as Java Girls should ideally not be next to a school, and that ad shouldn't be on a billboard).

Some people insist that the existence of pornography is a threat to women's equality. Plenty of prominent feminists disagree, however.

Why isn't it possible to live in a place where men and women respect each other equally?

Why isn't it possible for men and women to respect each other equally while coffee fetish places, strip clubs, porn et all remain? I've no doubt that a lot of the people who go to those places don't respect women, but that some do, so I'd rather focus on the real problem. And, as mentioned in my above post, I think there are much more critical things like to go after when it comes to misrepresenting women.

 

[sleepysparrow1]

..............................

 

[Thelema]

Beauty is defined by society. What you think as beautiful is because someone else told you it is. You are shaped by what you see/hear/read, that's why it's important to question why you feel this way.

I have a daughter, and i'm never buying her a Barbie doll.

Beauty is not really defined by society. Beauty is defined by fundamental aspects of the human brain. In terms of human sexuality, sexual arousal based on specific aspects of a human, such as their symmetrical appearance, is an evolutionary response that makes us select the partners that are most likely to survive and carry on our genes more successfully.

For example, asymmetrical features are actually an indicator of having genetic diseases. The hip to waist ratio of a female is a very good indicator of the fertitility of a female.

On a slightly related note, gender differences are not defined by society either. Females and males are biologically different - from the anatomy of the brain to the different hormones that regulate behaviour and so on.

This is dissproven by looking at cultures around the world. Some cultures link the fattest woman with the most desirable. Different men like different women. It isn't simply biological, it has to do with the individual and the society they grow up in.

Gender is learned, not inherited. You're confusing gender with sex.

We're 99% the same. The reason women are discriminated is because of their genitals. That's the only reason. Being born a male makes you instantly superior in every culture, even before birth having a male child is seen as better. Any biological reason as to why having a penis makes you superior is retarded...so it's just plain bullshit

Even every religion discriminates against women. Eve got Adam and herself thrown out of Eden. Being born with a vagina makes you cursed by God...so it is only natural for a man to discriminate if God does, right?

Buddha wasn't birthed through his mother's vagina...being born through a vagina isn't becoming of Buddha...so he was removed somehow..I don't remember how the story goes...there's an elephant and some miracle happens..its just a bunch of bullshit added on by some crazy religious people.

And it goes on and on and on.

 

[Andrew]

This is dissproven by looking at cultures around the world. Some cultures link the fattest woman with the most desirable. Different men like different women. It isn't simply biological, it has to do with the individual and the society they grow up in.

No it isn't. Culture probably does play a role, as does individual preference, but the most significant role is played by the common aspects of the human brain due to evolution. The example of a few cultures liking fat people is always used in this debate. That is almost the only example there is and it doesn't prove anything as a) the hip to waist ratio is still the same, b) people in certain geographic regions may have developed specific genes that determine this attractiveness, and c) they still like everything else that every other culture likes (boobs, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
"There appear to be universal standards regarding attractiveness, such that raters agree who is and isn't attractive both within and across cultures and ethnicity."

Gender is learned, not inherited. You're confusing gender with sex.

No I am not. A minority of gender behaviour is learned, the majority is biological.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_gender

 

[sleepysparrow]

------

 

[Thelema]

This is dissproven by looking at cultures around the world. Some cultures link the fattest woman with the most desirable. Different men like different women. It isn't simply biological, it has to do with the individual and the society they grow up in.

No it isn't. Culture probably does play a role, as does individual preference, but the most significant role is played by the common aspects of the human brain due to evolution. The example of a few cultures liking fat people is always used in this debate. That is almost the only example there is and it doesn't prove anything as a) the hip to waist ratio is still the same, b) people in certain geographic regions may have developed specific genes that determine this attractiveness, and c) they still like everything else that every other culture likes (boobs, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
"There appear to be universal standards regarding attractiveness, such that raters agree who is and isn't attractive both within and across cultures and ethnicity."

Gender is learned, not inherited. You're confusing gender with sex.

No I am not. A minority of gender behaviour is learned, the majority is biological.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_gender

Gender, by definition, is what you learn. A girl learns to grow her hair long and a boy learns he shouldn't wear make up. There's nothing biological about it...Sex is the physical differences and gender is the learned differences.

Obviously the human species is going to have certain constants of attractiveness, but some cultures find some pretty weird stuff attractive...like thongs or lip plates or liking big butts and not being able to lie

There's nothing biological about women being told to become nurses instead of doctors or to be elementary school teachers rather than college professors. Its called sexual discrimination. It isn't biological. You know they used to say black people had smaller brains so they were biologically inferior and less evolved

 

[Andrew]

Gender, by definition, is what you learn. A girl learns to grow her hair long and a boy learns he shouldn't wear make up. There's nothing biological about it...Sex is the physical differences and gender is the learned differences.

The debate is about how much the gender roles relate to the biological differences between the sexes. Some feminists argue that there would be no differences between the sexes if not for socialisation. What I am saying is that there are clear biological differences between the sexes and that it is crazy to think that they don't have an effect on behaviour.

Obviously the human species is going to have certain constants of attractiveness, but some cultures find some pretty weird stuff attractive...like thongs or lip plates or liking big butts and not being able to lie

Lip plates are not even related to physical attractiveness as far as I know. I am not sure what any of this has to do with my argument. The notion was that the 'ideal' body is just another social construct, when in fact it is mainly based in evolution and biology and is constant across cultures. It has very little to do with media and so on.

There's nothing biological about women being told to become nurses instead of doctors or to be elementary school teachers rather than college professors. Its called sexual discrimination. It isn't biological. You know they used to say black people had smaller brains so they were biologically inferior and less evolved

No but there is something biological about the biological differences between male and female brains.

 

[Thelema]

Gender, by definition, is what you learn. A girl learns to grow her hair long and a boy learns he shouldn't wear make up. There's nothing biological about it...Sex is the physical differences and gender is the learned differences.

The debate is about how much the gender roles relate to the biological differences between the sexes. Some feminists argue that there would be no differences between the sexes if not for socialisation. What I am saying is that there are clear biological differences between the sexes and that it is crazy to think that they don't have an effect on behaviour.

Obviously the human species is going to have certain constants of attractiveness, but some cultures find some pretty weird stuff attractive...like thongs or lip plates or liking big butts and not being able to lie

Lip plates are not even related to physical attractiveness as far as I know. I am not sure what any of this has to do with my argument. The notion was that the 'ideal' body is just another social construct, when in fact it is mainly based in evolution and biology and is constant across cultures. It has very little to do with media and so on.

There's nothing biological about women being told to become nurses instead of doctors or to be elementary school teachers rather than college professors. Its called sexual discrimination. It isn't biological. You know they used to say black people had smaller brains so they were biologically inferior and less evolved

No but there is something biological about the biological differences between male and female brains.

Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal. You either believe they are equal and you're a feminist or you don't believe they are equal. Feminism isn't just a bunch of lesbians that don't shave their pits and don't wear bras

What have children taught us that had no human contact? The girls that grew up with wolves don't come out of the jungle in high heels and brushing their hair. The male children don't come out with short hair and with a football under their arm....they come out the same...wild and acting nothing like a human being. Any other way to determine the differences are simply impossible. We're indoctrinated in to gender from the second we're born.

Again, look at a dictionary. Gender=social Sex=biological "As distinct from 'sex' (which is biological), gender usually refers to socially/culturally constructed (invented) characteristics which are then attributed to the different biological sexes. If sex is 'female and male'; then gender is 'femininity and masculinity'." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e:gender&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Trying to look in to ratios of brain matter is pretty damn stupid and has to be on the same scientific level as phrenology

Nothing to do with the media...right...We really just all dream of sleeping with a 90 pound crack addict super model...obviously biological...cave men just loved their women that threw up the meal they spent a week chasing down on the tundra...

 

[Andrew]

We are debating semantics. Some people define gender as being only those behaviours that can be solely attributed to society, while others say that it is simply the behavioural differences between men and women.

Some feminists claim that there is no such thing as biological-based behavioural differences, I am saying that they are in fact the driving force when analysing the behavioural differences between men and women. Society usually provides the superficial layer or makes things black and white when they are not, but it is not the major driving force that determines the behavioural differences between men and women.

No matter where someone grows up, whether it is with wolves or whatever else, the male and the female will have generalisable behavioural differences between each other due to their biological differences.

 

[Thelema]

We are debating semantics. Some people define gender as being only those behaviours that can be solely attributed to society, while others say that it is simply the behavioural differences between men and women.

Some feminists claim that there is no such thing as biological-based behavioural differences, I am saying that they are in fact the driving force when analysing the behavioural differences between men and women. Society usually provides the superficial layer or makes things black and white when they are not, but it is not the major driving force that determines the behavioural differences between men and women.

No matter where someone grows up, whether it is with wolves or whatever else, the male and the female will have generalisable behavioural differences between each other due to their biological differences.

Where's the evidence?