Quote:
If society encourages casual sex culturally and promiscuity it encourages human beings to be more selfish
See, I don't think you understand how sex works. At the very least, you sound like a terrible lay.
Quote:
See, I don't think you understand how sex works. At the very least, you sound like a terrible lay.
This. Is. Wonderful. I can't even bear to reply to Graffic and "family values"-oriented tyrades, where he cites his extensive experience of humanity, which probably is not a vetted source of record.
Quote:
where he cites his extensive experience of humanity, which probably is not a vetted source of record.
I find it amusingly absurd that he thinks we should "just take his word for it" as if personal anecdotes counts as conclusive evidence for anything. :rolleyes:
The problem with anecdotes is that one can possibly find a contradicting one, if one looked or asked (I actually may know some guys that like "bad girls despite graffic's claim they don't exist). Basically, "every case is different" and thus it would be faulty to universalize it without some deeper investigation.
Quote:
How many men fantasize about a "bad women"? Hardly any. I know it to be true and I see it all the time in everyday life.
I'll meet you anecdote for anecdote. I've come across plenty of blokes who are crazy about girls who are crazy.
Quote:
Pornography is mostly watched by males.
From the sounds of it the best-selling novel
50 Shades of Grey is a pretty pornographic work. It is my understanding that many readers of that novel are female. So that would suggest that women don't watch less porn than men, they just prefer it in a different format.
Quote:
Most advertising uses images of "sexy woman". How often do you see sem-naked men on bill boards or the cover of magazines. Advertisers know soft porn of women sells because men are more interested in sex and are more visual.
I see bare-chested men all the time in advertising. Who do you think advertisers get to wear the male underwear they're selling? Certainly not some flabby specimen, or a skinny rake like me.
Quote:
If society encourages casual sex culturally and promiscuity it encourages human beings to be more selfish (more consumerist), and to emphasise certain things that make them attractive to the opposite sex with the end goal of getting casual sex. For women that includes not wearing a lot and for men it might be acting like an arsehole. Neither is erotic or embracing, it's cheap and it results in an in-equality and a dysfunctional society. It should be discouraged culturally.
Nothing about casual sex requires men to act like arseholes. I've had casual sex without having to be an arsehole to get it.
Quote:
"Heat" you know having a mating season. I may have read into what you were arguing - I thought you were arguing that women only have sexual attractions for part of the month or something.
No I was referring to the shifts in attraction from physical features to emotional features, men also experience small shifts in behaviour but it happens over the period of a day corresponding to peaks and valleys in hormones and also relative to physical activity.
What's the purpose of OI again? A place for reactionaries to say reactionary things?
Quote:
I think men might be attracted to femme fatale type for casual sex just like any physically attractive women and I think heterosexual men would be uninterested in the relationship appeal of a femme fatale.
I think you just haven't met enough heterosexual men...
Luís Henrique
It is true sadly, violent criminals are swamped with letters from female admirers in their jail cells. A violent personality might be attractive for a number of reasons. It can reflect the basic quality of the genome - vitality, immunity, physical strength (very relevant in evolutionary periods where foods and spoils went to the greatest warrior, as opposed to smartest man). Another is that females might have felt that violent men would be superior at protecting her and offspring against rapists and general predators. Also the most obvious reason would just be that a violent man promises to provide a fertile woman with strong sons, with the greatest chance of survival.
Quote:
It is true sadly, violent criminals are swamped with letters from female admirers
So is Justin Bieber, I'm sure.
Quote:
So is Justin Bieber, I'm sure.
And I wonder which is worse...
Luís Henrique
Quote:
So is Justin Bieber, I'm sure.
Yeah but he only opens the ones from boys.
Me so funny.
I understand that I haven't provided conclusive evidence however that would involve the effort of finding articles on the net and I can't be bothered.
If there is no in-equality in sexualization and consensual sex why is the feminist movement for women to be more promiscuous seen as "liberating" but the male reaction of the corrupting "Lad culture" is obviously chauvinistic and disgusting. That implies that female sexuality is by definition more "prudent" than male sexuality.
Lad magazines and culture exist in a society of blatant exploitative capitalism where young men are constantly bombarded with images where women are represented as sexual objects such as a seductive woman in a TV ad for cars, or showing breast cleavage on a poster campaign to sell underwear. They all commodify women's sexuality to market products.
I think that in a hippy commune the idea of "free love" might work to an extent, or might not work, however in a capitalist society where profit exists I don't see anything mercenary in prudence.
Encouraging casual sex culturally doesn't seem to me to be the best way to combat objectification of women within a capitalist society that exploits promiscuity and casual sex in the sexualization of advertising.
Quote:
I understand that I haven't provided conclusive evidence however that would involve the effort of finding articles on the net and I can't be bothered.
If there is no in-equality in sexualization and consensual sex why is the feminist movement for women to be more promiscuous seen as "liberating" but the male reaction of the corrupting "Lad culture" is obviously chauvinistic and disgusting. That implies that female sexuality is by definition more "prudent" than male sexuality.
Because the promiscuity in "lad culture" is not the only way that male promiscuity can manifest, even under capitalism. Ever heard of swingers?
Quote:
Lad magazines and culture exist in a society of blatant exploitative capitalism where young men are constantly bombarded with images where women are represented as sexual objects such as a seductive woman in a TV ad for cars, or showing breast cleavage on a poster campaign to sell underwear. They all commodify women's sexuality to market products.
I think that in a hippy commune the idea of "free love" might work to an extent, or might not work, however in a capitalist society where profit exists I don't see anything mercenary in prudence.
I don't see why promiscuity under capitalism necessarily has to be mercenary, either. There are plenty of free dating websites where one can look for "casual fun".
Quote:
Encouraging casual sex culturally doesn't seem to me to be the best way to combat objectification of women within a capitalist society that exploits promiscuity and casual sex in the sexualization of advertising.
I don't think capitalism actually promotes casual sex. It might use sexual imagery to sell products, but that's superficial shit that doesn't actually involve intimately touching another human being.
Quote:
If there is no in-equality in sexualization and consensual sex why is the feminist movement for women to be more promiscuous seen as "liberating" but the male reaction of the corrupting "Lad culture" is obviously chauvinistic and disgusting.
The feminist movement is very diverse; there are even feminists who think all sex is rape. So it is not the case that all feminists see promiscuity as liberating.
Quote:
That implies that female sexuality is by definition more "prudent" than male sexuality.
It has historically been so. But it doesn't mean it cannot change, especially since we now have reliable contraceptives and women keep sexual active lives beyond menopause.
Quote:
Lad magazines and culture exist in a society of blatant exploitative capitalism where young men are constantly bombarded with images where women are represented as sexual objects such as a seductive woman in a TV ad for cars, or showing breast cleavage on a poster campaign to sell underwear. They all commodify women's sexuality to market products.
That is true. What isn't true is that this implies that the commodification of women is somehow ingrained into human genoma.
Quote:
I think that in a hippy commune the idea of "free love" might work to an extent, or might not work, however in a capitalist society where profit exists I don't see anything mercenary in prudence.
But on the other hand capitalist societies will increasingly erode the traditional safeguards of "feminine decency", making "prudence" an increasingly rare phenomenon. Trying to resist this is not going to lead us nowhere.
Quote:
Encouraging casual sex culturally doesn't seem to me to be the best way to combat objectification of women within a capitalist society that exploits promiscuity and casual sex in the sexualization of advertising.
We don't need to encourage casual sex culture. It is here to stay, and to become more and more predominant, whether we think this is a good or a bad thing.
Trying to disencourage it isn't the best way to combat objectification of women. Or to do anything else that I can see, by the way.
Luís Henrique
I'm reeeally struggling to figure what the OPs point is...I assume he has one, that there's a lesson in this that we all need to learn as mis-guided lefties...but as I say, I'm lost as to what it is exactly.
Quote:
I'm reeeally struggling to figure what the OPs point is...I assume he has one, that there's a lesson in this that we all need to learn as mis-guided lefties...but as I say, I'm lost as to what it is exactly.
I was saying that social liberalism that encourages sexual promiscuity within blatantly exploitative capitalism culturally encourages humans to be more primal, and to encourage one to irrationally focus on "appearing" more attractive physically. This is social darwinistic in the sense looks matter more, and it encourages men to behave badly because they know if they get power and wealth they will be rewarded with the attention of attractive women. When all this goes on under a free-market, the market will naturally commodify women's sexuality to market products.
I think that free love and encouraging casual sex culturally within capitalism leads to the commodification of sexuality.
Quote:
I don't think capitalism actually promotes casual sex. It might use sexual imagery to sell products, but that's superficial shit that doesn't actually involve intimately touching another human being.
No, it does not. But it does constantly "remind" (manipulate) people to think about sex. Constantly being "reminded" by these capitalist propaganda techniques certainly makes men think about women more as sexual objects in the public sphere. I don't think we are questioning sex in the private as itself, but the psychological/emotional manipulation of persons in Capitalism.
Take the differences for instance: I personally grew up on the land, where there were very little advertisements and Television was a bore. The relation between rural male and female pedestrians is a lot more equal, human, compared with the relation between urban individuals who are constantly made to think of other persons in terms of sexuality.
Quote:
My question is whether women's attraction to "bad guys" (for example drug dealers, criminals, spivs, general exploiters) is natural or nurture and influenced more by the attitudes of society. In a more egalitarian society will women stop being attracted to bad men and powerful men? Another question is how much of an influence does the knowledge that bad behaviour will result in the attention of attractive women influence mans decision to behave badly in the first place. Is the "appeal" of bad men to heterosexual women the symptom of a capitalist, chauvanist society or is it natural instinct. If it is the way round that natural instinct is part of the root of a chauvanist, capitalist society that continues to perpetuate the attitudes of heterosexual in-equality in a continuous cycle why would it be in anyone's interests to encourage social liberalism within the capitalist, chauvanist society which is what social democrats and bourgeoise liberals advocate.
If it is the "natural instinct", surely the institution of marriage is in the interests of women because it gives them power. This is where perhaps some conservative morality is evolutionary and rational because if we understand the "natural" state of human behavior to an extent socially conservative ideas like the institution of marriage and discouraging casual sex culturally for example are tackling bad behaviour rather than encouraging it. Just like how we understand greed to be natural to an extent, it is rational to combat it rather than encourage it.
Obviously male sexual attraction is un-equal in a social darwinistic sense however there is no drive for women who perhaps aren't "physically attractive" in the social darwinistic sense or who are but want to get male attention to behave badly or exploit people to win the attentions of attractive men, because male sexual attraction is more visual.
This obviously only relates to heterosexual attraction however perhaps there are similarities in gay attraction.
Because "nice guys" are a bunch of moralistic socially inept and passive aggressive conservatives?
Other than that all I see is a bunch of unfounded claims.
oh god i can't handle that link hahahaha
Fuck, and I thought I was socially inept...