[W:517] Sexual Hypocrisy

devildavid said:

You fail to present any example of how Ameican culture, in general, is hypocritical about sex. How is both the promotion of and deploring of sex coming from the same source?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

Vargas was an early example in this thread. Do you recall the Vargas posts?
The "source" you ask for is American culture, pop culture specifically where it intersects with political culture of the last fifty years in its most recent manifestation.
The essential thread question, drawn from the Vargas posts and reiterated over a dozen times in the course of the thread in the parade of sex symbols, is:

Glorification or Objectification?​

There are only four ways to answer this question, and three involve the respondent in the cultural hypocrisy. How do you answer the question?

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

Vargas paintings demonstrate American culture's sexual hypocrisy? In what way? How does Amercan culture answer the question you pose? You tell me, and give examples.

Some Ameicans may enjoy Vargas paintings, some may not. And some have no idea about them. Where is the evidence of a general American culture reaction which is hypocritical?

What is your answer to your own question and is your answer the equivalent of the attitude of American culture in general?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

It's in the air in the last fifty years. Feminist pollution.

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Pollution???
Is this closer to your worldview?

"Is education a waste of time for married women?" - Australian ABC Women's World, 1961

Click to expand...

Angel said:

Regretfully I cannot view the linked Facebook page without a browser upgrade, but responding only to the titular question visible in the link, my answer is, of course, No -- education is never a waste of time for anyone in any circumstances.

But tell me, am I guilty of blasphemy for calling third-wave feminism a form of cultural pollution?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

But tell me, am I guilty of blasphemy for calling third-wave feminism a form of cultural pollution?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

So you avoid answering the question yourself. Noted.
I suspect your avoidance reflects a reluctance to take a stand on a matter you don't full understand. That's understandable.

Instead you reply by asking six questions, all of which have already been answered in the course of the thread. This inattention is less understandable.

Your posts are in full contrarian mode: if I were to post that grass is green, your post in reply would be, first, that it is not green, and second, that you want examples, and third, that you demand to know the source of the greenness.

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Browser upgrade??? Does your 1990's browser also prevent you from watching YouTube, too?

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I am not interested in helping you with your distorted view of liberals by playing along with the cardboard cutouts and puppets you manufactured.
Are you of the opinion that a married woman would become frustrated by too much education?

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

By the way, a cheap Chromebook may be had for as low as around 149 dollars, maybe half that if you buy a used or refurbished one from a reputable eBay seller. If you really only love the internet, you can throw away your creaky XP or 1990's Mac unit and use the Chromebook to your heart's content.
I've even seen decent used ones at yard sales for fifty bucks.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

I've already answered this question. Why are you making this a partisan issue?


You guess right -- I'm on a 17-yr-old computer running the original XP and haven't allowed a Mozilla update in ten years -- all by choice, mind you. It's complicated.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

I've already answered this question. Why are you making this a partisan issue?

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

You have yet to establish the claim of hypocrisy. It is not self-evident, like the color of grass.

Pictures of women is not evidence of hypocrisy. What part of American culture both objectifies women and deplores it. Did Vargas? Do you? Does your opinion reflect Amercan culture?

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

...
You already answered this question? Sorry, just as you're not willing to step into the 21st century, I am not willing to scroll through endless minutae if you won't just say "YES" or "NO", but that's okay, I'll depart from this thread.

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Because statements like "third wave feminism [...] form of cultural pollution" suggests it is a partisan issue, for you.
Step outside feminism and suddenly women are back to being docile subservient little flowers who shrink at the thought of self-determination and who believe that they only exist to please men.

Let's see...which part of the political spectrum supports that? Hmmmmmmm...

Click to expand...

Angel said:

I answered No a few posts ago, in reply to you.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

My quarrel is with third-wave feminism, not with feminism. Indeed, I believe second-wave feminism has a quarrel with third-wave feminism.

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Ahhh well, I have a "quarrel" with having to look at the furniture guy who showed up to deliver a bed to my house the other day wearing something like this in his ears:...

Click to expand...

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Then you surely understand why feminism became a reality so long ago.
In today's NON-feminist societies, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, women seeking an education are subjected to extreme violence.

A FEMINIST
...

Click to expand...

Angel said:

More question from the poster who refuses to answer a question.

American culture both "objectifies women and deplores it." Your own posts have recognized and complained about the objectification of women in Hollywood movies ("girlie pictures").

If the concept of "the sexual objectification of women" has currency in America today, and it does, then a century of movies, magazines and commercial ads (of which examples are provided throughout this thread) has been devoted to the sexual objectification of women. But for eighty years of that century that objectification business has been viewed as the glorification of women.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

I was not complaining but pointing out how a thread ostensibly about sexual hypocrisy became a meaningless parade of girlie pictures. Those pictures by themselves demonstrate nothing but your personal interest in the history of female sex symbols. Nothing about them even suggests hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

devildavid said:

I was not complaining but pointing out how a thread ostensibly about sexual hypocrisy became a meaningless parade of girlie pictures. Those pictures by themselves demonstrate nothing but your personal interest in the history of female sex symbols. Nothing about them even suggests hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

A brand of movie from the Seventies designated "Exploitation Movies" or even "Sexploitation Movies"

And yet the Queen of Seventies Exploitation Movies gets the cover of

Angel said:

The condescending attitude expressed toward "girlie pictures" in your posts "suggests hypocrisy," as pointed out to you a dozen times already.
The condemnatory attitude of latter-day feminists toward the "sexual objectification of women" -- particularly as that attitude has been adopted by politically correct men, and most particularly as that attitude finds public expression -- "suggests hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is a form of self-contradiction, as pointed out to you a dozen times in this thread: a preaching that is not practiced or a practice that is not preached.

Vargas created the same "girlie pictures" -- as you contemptuously call pictures objectifying women sexually -- for Esquire and Playboy.

The same images that our soldiers carried into battle in the Second World War had later to be adjudicated in favor of Esquire by the Supreme Court and later still appeared on the covers of Playboy and later still were condemned publicly by feminism and later still are objected to by one devildavid in this thread.

Get it yet?

Click to expand...