• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:517] Sexual Hypocrisy

Is feminism equal to American culture? Does feminism both promote and deplore sexual objectification? Who are the politically correct men who are both promoting and deploring sexual objectification? Where is the hypocrisy?
Feminism is "equal" to American culture as sexism is equal to American culture, yes. Feminism has both promoted and deplored sexual objectification at different times in its history, yes.
Would you please broaden your understanding of the concept named by the term "hypocrisy." Your posts seem to expect clairvoyance as a necessary condition for designating any discourse as hypocritical.

Hypocrisy
Alternatively, the word is an amalgam of the Greek prefix hypo-, meaning "under", and the verb krinein, meaning "to sift or decide". Thus the original meaning implied a deficiency in the ability to sift or decide. This deficiency, as it pertains to one's own beliefs and feelings, informs the word's contemporary meaning.

Social psychologists have generally viewed hypocrisy as an instantiation of attitudinal and/or behavioral inconsistency.
Hypocrisy - Wikipedia
 
Feminism is "equal" to American culture as sexism is equal to American culture, yes. Feminism has both promoted and deplored sexual objectification at different times in its history, yes.
Would you please broaden your understanding of the concept named by the term "hypocrisy." Your posts seem to expect clairvoyance as a necessary condition for designating any discourse as hypocritical.

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy - Wikipedia

Demonstrate how feminism has promoted sexual objectification.
 
Demonstrate how feminism has promoted sexual objectification.
First you "demonstrate" that you are engaging in a discussion with these posts of yours and not some sort of Grand Inquisition. You can do this by answering the question put to you -- "glorification or objectification?" -- or by otherwise taking a stand on the question mooted in this thread. Your being asked for your bonafides in case you don't understand this.
 
x5IVxYG.jpg


Her Signature Role

Exploitation?

Glorification?

Objectification?

Celebration?

 
Hollywood Hypocrisy: Hard to Tell Difference Between ‘Fifty Shades’ and #MeToo Moments
The “Fifty Shades” trilogy is far more than just entertainment. The series normalizes the very abuse the #MeToo movement is seeking to eradicate.

The erotic films seem to roll out the red carpet and put Hollywood’s hypocrisy on brilliant display. While Tinseltown is roiling with allegations of sexual wrongdoing, it’s releasing a trilogy that blurs the lines between sexual abuse and adventurism.
Hollywood Hypocrisy: Hard to Tell Difference Between ‘Fifty Shades’ and #MeToo Moments | IJR %

Hollywood’s #MeToo Hypocrisy
'Call Me by Your Name' gets recognition despite its unpopularity — in a clear demonstration of the shallowness of Tinseltown

“At the height of Hollywood’s #MeToo moment, they have just given Oscar nominations to a film glorifying statutory rape. After the year they’ve had, what are they doing?” host Laura Ingraham said during Tuesday night’s “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News.

Still, what Hollywood says and does usually tends to be different — so the fact that these entertainment elites continue to be hypocrites when it comes to sexual misconduct should not surprise any of us. If they truly cared about sex abuse and not just their egos or images, they would not be elevating a movie of this sort.
Best Picture Nominee Shows Hollywood's #MeToo Hypocrisy

Hollywood hypocrisy
Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age story about 17-year-old Elio and 24-year-old Oliver having a summer romance in Italy during the summer of 1983. While the film is gentle and watchable, beautifully shot and well-acted, the premise is straight from the headlines of the Kevin Spacey situation, when he was a young 26-year-old man flirting and kissing 14-year-old actors at parties. Had Elio been a female character, the power dynamic would have been another problematic theme as well. Isn’t the idea of older men using their influence part of the problem? Instead, Hollywood has embraced this film as a beautiful love story.

This isn’t the only example of Hollywood hypocrisy. Remember, this is an industry that criticizes guns for solving nothing while using only guns to solve every action star’s problems. This is just another example of Hollywood saying it wants to solve the problem, but then celebrating it at the same time.
https://www.vcreporter.com/2018/01/hollywood-hypocrisy/

Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood Hypocrisy
Did no one think that Weinstein's reprobate behavior was a problem when Harvey and Bob Weinstein released the NC-17 child-porn flick, Kids? Hollywood has a sexual appetite that never seems to be satiated.

True misogyny is repulsive. There should be no place for it in a civil society, no matter which form it takes. Whether it's a Hollywood executive, a politician, a teacher, a pastor, a rabbi, a journalist, or the next-door neighbor — demeaning women and denying all that makes them beautifully and biologically different is wrong. Yet it is celebrated every day in our television shows, our movies, our music, our politics and in the indefensible defense of an abortion industry that kills nearly half a million girls every year.... There are Harvey Weinsteins all around us. And there are enablers and apologizers like his (now-former) attorney Lisa Bloom (daughter of faux-feminist, opportunist and attorney Gloria Allred) who will make all kinds of excuses for reprehensible behavior. How we defend human dignity, especially those who are in vulnerable situations, shows our true humanity. I'm tired of being preached to by the elitist congregation of the Church of Perpetual Contradictions. Sorry, Hollywood. Clean up your own mansions before you pump your faux indignation into our houses.
Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood Hypocrisy - The Christian Post

What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us?
It’s 40 years this week since the director and convicted sex offender went on the run. What does his continued success reveal about the film world’s true attitude towards sexual assault?

What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us? | Film | The Guardian
 
Hollywood Hypocrisy: Hard to Tell Difference Between ‘Fifty Shades’ and #MeToo Moments

Hollywood Hypocrisy: Hard to Tell Difference Between ‘Fifty Shades’ and #MeToo Moments | IJR %

Hollywood’s #MeToo Hypocrisy
'Call Me by Your Name' gets recognition despite its unpopularity — in a clear demonstration of the shallowness of Tinseltown


Best Picture Nominee Shows Hollywood's #MeToo Hypocrisy

Hollywood hypocrisy

https://www.vcreporter.com/2018/01/hollywood-hypocrisy/

Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood Hypocrisy

Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood Hypocrisy - The Christian Post

What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us?
It’s 40 years this week since the director and convicted sex offender went on the run. What does his continued success reveal about the film world’s true attitude towards sexual assault?

What does Hollywood's reverence for child rapist Roman Polanski tell us? | Film | The Guardian

What nonsense to make the connection between metoo and fifty shades. In fact it is totally the opposite, metoo is about the lack of freedom/pressuring women into doing things they do not want/abusing/misusing them where as fifty shades is about VOLUNTARY sex.
 
What nonsense to make the connection between metoo and fifty shades. In fact it is totally the opposite, metoo is about the lack of freedom/pressuring women into doing things they do not want/abusing/misusing them where as fifty shades is about VOLUNTARY sex.
I am not in a position to comment on your comment, Peter, having neither seen the movies nor read the books, but I did read the article before posting it and the author does anticipate your objection and replies to it, here:
While consent might play a role in the trilogy, the romanticization of sexually aggressive behavior and the conflation of love and sex-crazed infatuation certainly overshadows it.
I take it you don't buy the qualification.
 
I am not in a position to comment on your comment, Peter, having neither seen the movies nor read the books, but I did read the article before posting it and the author does anticipate your objection and replies to it, here:

I take it you don't buy the qualification.

I have also not seen it, but from what I know it still is totally about consent in the end, something that the dirtbags who were targeted by metoo did not understand or did not care about. And Polanski is a pervert who needs to be jailed.
 
I have also not seen it, but from what I know it still is totally about consent in the end, something that the dirtbags who were targeted by metoo did not understand or did not care about. And Polanski is a pervert who needs to be jailed.
Nor have we seen the private moments of alleged harassment in the news. So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?
 
Nor have we seen the private moments of alleged harassment in the news. So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?

No, my comment as you well know, was about the books and the movie we were discussing and how the people there have sex with consent. That is what my comment was about. To then take that comment to the Metoo movement is just ridiculous. And we do know what these moments are about because of the testimony of many women who were abused and harassed by asshole men who were in power and used that power to abuse and harass these women. And they did not consent to be abused.
 
No, my comment as you well know, was about the books and the movie we were discussing and how the people there have sex with consent. That is what my comment was about. To then take that comment to the Metoo movement is just ridiculous. And we do know what these moments are about because of the testimony of many women who were abused and harassed by asshole men who were in power and used that power to abuse and harass these women. And they did not consent to be abused.
No, this was your comment:
What nonsense to make the connection between metoo and fifty shades. In fact it is totally the opposite, metoo is about the lack of freedom/pressuring women into doing things they do not want/abusing/misusing them where as fifty shades is about VOLUNTARY sex.
You were talking about the MeToo movement as well -- talking authoritatively, to boot, about matters you have not been privy to. And this last piece of business from you prompted the question I put to you in my reply:
Nor have we seen the private moments of alleged harassment in the news. So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?
 
And this was your vomment:
I have also not seen it, but from what I know it still is totally about consent in the end, something that the dirtbags who were targeted by metoo did not understand or did not care about. And Polanski is a pervert who needs to be jailed.
In both cases -- Fifty Shades and MeToo -- you were commenting authoritatively on something you were not privy to.
Thus my question to you:
So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?
 
And here is your answer:

Nor have we seen the private moments of alleged harassment in the news. So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?
And we do know what these moments are about because of the testimony of many women who were abused and harassed by asshole men who were in power and used that power to abuse and harass these women. And they did not consent to be abused.

You "know" because you choose to believe one side against the other side in a matter that was private and that you did not yourself observe, yes?
 
Why?
Why do we believe allegations over denials?
Riddle me that, Batman.
 
Angel's Top 20
Hollywood Sex Symbols
on Parade


The Eighties: Generation X Marks the Spot

#8

RIas9xi.jpg


"God, if the girls back home could see me now!"

Bo Derek

tgZkhVdl.jpg


Glorification or Objectification?




#20 Clara Bow
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-11.html#post1070126612
#19 Louise Brooks
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-12.html#post1070129726
#18 Jean Harlow
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-16.html#post1070134570
#17 Marlene Dietrich
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-19.html#post1070146716
#16 Dorothy Lamour
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-20.html#post1070150130
#15 Betty Grable
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-21.html#post1070157530
#14 Jane Russell
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-22.html#post1070164436
#13 Jayne Mansfield
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-23.html#post1070169165
#12 Marilyn Monroe
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-24.html#post1070176581
#11 Raquel Welch
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-25.html#post1070188023
#10 Natalie Wood
https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-26.html#post1070200362
#9 Pam Grier

https://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/357115-sexual-hypocrisy-28.html#post1070205058
 
No, this was your comment:

You were talking about the MeToo movement as well -- talking authoritatively, to boot, about matters you have not been privy to. And this last piece of business from you prompted the question I put to you in my reply:

Nope, you are misrepresenting that specific discussion.

You wrote:

Quote Originally Posted by Angel
I am not in a position to comment on your comment, Peter, having neither seen the movies nor read the books, but I did read the article before posting it and the author does anticipate your objection and replies to it, here:

I take it you don't buy the qualification.

To which I responded:

Quote Originally Posted by Peter King
I have also not seen it, but from what I know it still is totally about consent in the end, something that the dirtbags who were targeted by metoo did not understand or did not care about. And Polanski is a pervert who needs to be jailed.

Then you made this response

Quote Originally Posted by Angel
Nor have we seen the private moments of alleged harassment in the news. So how do we come by our "knowledge" (=your "from what I know") of what these moments were "totally about" (your words), or that they were not at all in any degree "about consent in the end"?

To which I wrote this

Quote Originally Posted by Peter King
No, my comment as you well know, was about the books and the movie we were discussing and how the people there have sex with consent. That is what my comment was about. To then take that comment to the Metoo movement is just ridiculous. And we do know what these moments are about because of the testimony of many women who were abused and harassed by asshole men who were in power and used that power to abuse and harass these women. And they did not consent to be abused.

That is the correct discussion line, not the one you posted. And as you can see you wrote about not having seen the movie/read the books, I stated that I did not either but understood that it was purely voluntary sex, stating that the metoo bastards was not voluntary and that Polanski is a pedophile that needs to be locked up.

That part of the discussion where I stated "I have also not seen it, but from what I understand it still is totally about consent in the end" purely had to do with the book, that part of the comment had NOTHING to do with the Metoo thing but with the 50 shades movie.
 
And this was your vomment:

In both cases -- Fifty Shades and MeToo -- you were commenting authoritatively on something you were not privy to.
Thus my question to you:

More untrue comments, my comment about consent was about the movie only, and thank goodness we have seen plenty of testimonies about women who had suffered from the metoo perverted bastards, tying my comment about to the movie to metoo is nonsense.
 
And here is your answer:



You "know" because you choose to believe one side against the other side in a matter that was private and that you did not yourself observe, yes?

Yup, I believe the victims because they made believable cases, we have had men who confessed to their dirt bag behavior and investigations by companies who have fired staff for those accusations.
 
Nope, you are misrepresenting that specific discussion.

That is the correct discussion line, not the one you posted. And as you can see you wrote about not having seen the movie/read the books, I stated that I did not either but understood that it was purely voluntary sex, stating that the metoo bastards was not voluntary and that Polanski is a pedophile that needs to be locked up.

That part of the discussion where I stated "I have also not seen it, but from what I understand it still is totally about consent in the end" purely had to do with the book, that part of the comment had NOTHING to do with the Metoo thing but with the 50 shades movie.

More untrue comments, my comment about consent was about the movie only, and thank goodness we have seen plenty of testimonies about women who had suffered from the metoo perverted bastards, tying my comment about to the movie to metoo is nonsense.

Yup, I believe the victims because they made believable cases, we have had men who confessed to their dirt bag behavior and investigations by companies who have fired staff for those accusations.
No, your comments about consent extended to the MeToo allegations. It's right there in our exchanges. I've bolded the relevant portions.

My follow-up question asked how it is you feel competent to comment on the matter of consent in both the MeToo allegations and movie since you had no first-hand knowledge of either.
 
No, your comments about consent extended to the MeToo allegations. It's right there in our exchanges. I've bolded the relevant portions.

My follow-up question asked how it is you feel competent to comment on the matter of consent in both the MeToo allegations and movie since you had no first-hand knowledge of either.

No, you misrepresented what I was talking about. The consent was purely about the Movie as that is what we at that moment were talking about. I then mentioned that this was in stark contrast to the disgusting pigs who were exposed by the metoo movement.
 
No, you misrepresented what I was talking about. The consent was purely about the Movie as that is what we at that moment were talking about. I then mentioned that this was in stark contrast to the disgusting pigs who were exposed by the metoo movement.
Peter, it is not important who brought up the MeToo movement and the question of consent, but here below is your first post to this thread, responding to an article linking Fifty Shades and MeToo:
What nonsense to make the connection between metoo and fifty shades. In fact it is totally the opposite, metoo is about the lack of freedom/pressuring women into doing things they do not want/abusing/misusing them where as fifty shades is about VOLUNTARY sex.
Are you not, one, talking about MeToo, and two, asserting that MeToo is about the "opposite" of consent, i.e., non-consensual?

But whether you're ready to acknowledge this or not, my question to you stands, whether or not you, I or the author of the article brought up MeToo:

Why do you believe the allegation over the denial in the MeToo case?
That is the important question.
 
The Running Joke

cOk0jm7.jpg


For decades, through the whole era of sexual liberation and beyond:

"I read Playboy for the articles."

Usually accompanied, fore or aft, by a brisk clearing of the throat.

The Running Joke

I actually had that issue with Marilyn in it, I found it in a paper recycling place I worked at. Of course, I had to keep my mom from finding it. I felt like I had struck gold.
 
I actually had that issue with Marilyn in it, I found it in a paper recycling place I worked at. Of course, I had to keep my mom from finding it. I felt like I had struck gold.
Thereby hangs a tale, I should think. A short story or film short perhaps. A tale of serendipity.
Today that first edition Playboy, which sold for 50 cents in 1954, is apparently worth between $2K and $10K in fair to good condition.

Your Old Magazine Could Be Worth $50,000 – Or More. Here’s How to Sell It - Flipsy
PLAYBOY MAGAZINE FIRST ISSUE - Current price: $5500
Playboy #1 Recently Worth Around 2k, Now Can Be Worth $10,000's
 
Angel's Favorite Marilyn Photo

sFI4rdw.jpg


Check out the tile of the book!
 
Back
Top Bottom