[W:517] Sexual Hypocrisy

[Angel]

Sexual Hypocrisy

Look up the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"

Then look at some of our pop cultural depictions of women

in movies and magazines

in commercial advertisements

on billboards, bus stop shelters, and the sides of buildings

and then tell me we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me why we must say we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me what's wrong with the sexual objectification of women

Pop Culture is Pornography

Pop Culture is Pornography Promoted and Approved by Sexual Hypocrisy

What do you think about that as a thesis?

​

 

[soylentgreen]

Sexual Hypocrisy

Look up the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"

Then look at some of our pop cultural depictions of women

in movies and magazines

in commercial advertisements

on billboards, bus stop shelters, and the sides of buildings

and then tell me we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me why we must say we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me what's wrong with the sexual objectification of women

Pop Culture is Pornography

Pop Culture is Pornography Promoted and Approved by Sexual Hypocrisy

What do you think about that as a thesis?

​

Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.

 

[Angel]

Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.

And so you needed to quote the entire OP at post #2 just in order to demonstrate your misreading and misrepresentation of the OP?
Read better and think before you post.
And wipe that snide from your nose -- it's a turn-off.

 

[HonestJoe]

Then look at some of our pop cultural depictions of women

And men? Maybe less common, pervasive or obvious but it still happens.

and then tell me we deplore the sexual objectification of women

Who is “we”? Some people object to sexual objectification but they’re not going to be the same people involved in producing it by definition. There can also be a range of opinions and perceptions involved. Some people will object to any sexual objectification at all while others only object when the only presentation of women is sexual and are only seeking a balance. There can also be a difference between a third party presenting a woman as a solely sexual object and a woman presenting herself as a sexual object in a specific time and place of her choosing.

Pop Culture is Pornography

Only if you’re using a new definition of the word “pornography”. Pop culture includes some pornography but that doesn’t make it pornography in itself.

What do you think about that as a thesis?

I don’t think it is a thesis, I think it’s a largely disconnected rant in to the void. You’ve no focus on what the actual problem you percieve is, who is responsible and what practical changes you’re proposing.

 

[zyzygy]

Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.

Why can't Angel just post a post?

 

[Angel]

And men? Maybe less common, pervasive or obvious but it still happens.

More grist for the mill then.

Who is “we”?

We the people of the United States.

Some people object to sexual objectification but they’re not going to be the same people involved in producing it by definition. There can also be a range of opinions and perceptions involved. Some people will object to any sexual objectification at all while others only object when the only presentation of women is sexual and are only seeking a balance. There can also be a difference between a third party presenting a woman as a solely sexual object and a woman presenting herself as a sexual object in a specific time and place of her choosing.

The nuances of hypocrisy, yes.

Only if you’re using a new definition of the word “pornography”. Pop culture includes some pornography but that doesn’t make it pornography in itself.

Offensive sexual content.

I don’t think it is a thesis, I think it’s a largely disconnected rant in to the void. You’ve no focus on what the actual problem you percieve is, who is responsible and what practical changes you’re proposing.

And I don't think you looked up "hypocrisy." Your opinion, however, is noted.

 

[kitsune]

This is the problem with Heteros. It's sex sex sex 24/7. It's all they frigging think about. There ARE other things to think about, but you'd never know it living in a Hetero society.

 

[HonestJoe]

We the people of the United States.

But you the people of the USA don’t all share a singular opinion on the topic (or any other topic). I’d suggest you probably have around 300 million different opinions in fact. I don’t see how you can unilaterally condemn the whole. And anyway, wouldn’t that blanket condemnation include yourself?

The nuances of hypocrisy, yes.

The nuances are real and significant. If you’re not interested in discussing relevant details, what’s the point of discussing anything at all. And again, it’s only hypocrisy if someone is actively creating or supporting something at the same time as complaining about it. I challenge you to identify anyone who is actually doing that.

Offensive sexual content.

That is not the definition of the word pornography. You may well find some or all pornography offensive but that doesn’t change the definition of the word.

And I don't think you looked up "hypocrisy." Your opinion, however, is noted.

I’m not questioning your definition of the word, I’m questioning your overly generic and haphazard application of it, apparently to each and every American.

 

[Angel]

But you the people of the USA don’t all share a singular opinion on the topic (or any other topic). I’d suggest you probably have around 300 million different opinions in fact. I don’t see how you can unilaterally condemn the whole. And anyway, wouldn’t that blanket condemnation include yourself?

The nuances are real and significant. If you’re not interested in discussing relevant details, what’s the point of discussing anything at all. And again, it’s only hypocrisy if someone is actively creating or supporting something at the same time as complaining about it. I challenge you to identify anyone who is actually doing that.

That is not the definition of the word pornography. You may well find some or all pornography offensive but that doesn’t change the definition of the word.

I’m not questioning your definition of the word, I’m questioning your overly generic and haphazard application of it, apparently to each and every American.

This is exactly the point:

it’s only hypocrisy if someone is actively creating or supporting something at the same time as complaining about it

You go and gather your 300 million different opinions. I'm observing a culture as a whole. And the meaning of pornography I rely on is perfectly fine.
And finally, I'm not talking about "each and every American" -- I'm talking about American culture as a whole.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Sex sells. It always has. And we all know why. And it's not going to change. Let's deal with reality.

Men and women are not required to participate.

The Hale bop castration cult had a solution, if this all really bothers you.

 

[Angel]

Sex sells. It always has. And we all know why. And it's not going to change. Let's deal with reality.

Men and women are not required to participate.

The Hale bop castration cult had a solution, if this all really bothers you.

Nothing "really bothers" me, truth be told, least of all American sexual hypocrisy. Which is the "reality" by the way.

And this non-participation clause of yours, just how does one not participate in one's cultural milieu?

The religious throwaway line, I take it, is de rigueur with your posts.

 

[HonestJoe]

You go and gather your 300 million different opinions. I'm observing a culture as a whole.

American culture as a whole doesn't "deplore the sexual objectification of women" though, that's exactly the issue you're highlighting in the first place. The individuals who do object to it are pushing to change American culture as a consequence. I don't see how "American culture as a whole" is being hypocritical and indeed, I'd suggest that any inconsistencies would demonstrate that trying to generalise an entire vast nation like this is fundamentally flawed. Is there even any singular "American culture"?

And the meaning of pornography I rely on is perfectly fine.

It isn't "perfectly fine" to just make up new definitions of commonly used words, especially not to avoid justifying your personal opinions about something. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion of pornography, you're not entitled to redefine it on that basis.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Nothing "really bothers" me, truth be told, least of all American sexual hypocrisy. Which is the "reality" by the way.

And this non-participation clause of yours, just how does one not participate in one's cultural milieu?


The religious throwaway line, I take it, is de rigueur with your posts.

Huh? Okay. I guess I poked you without trying. They figured out how to "not participate" in culture. Going off grid is a less extreme, non-religious way.

Some people are hypocrites. Some people treat others as nothing but objects. The are not the norm. Maybe the window into culture you have is more reflective of unhealthy folks, of maybe it's just that "what sells" bothers you. It's nature. Everyone objectifies to some degree - it's part of selection/filtering.

I'll note that Roger Ailes made Fox a leg show, and it sells.

What do you think of this?
The Large Bathers by Pierre Auguste Renoir | Oil Painting Reproduction

 

[ecofarm]

Just a quick question: what objectification of women is not sexual? I don't understand the qualification. All objectification of women is developmental failure and based in sex. All of it.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Women are beautiful.

Women are people.

These two facts are not mutually exclusive.

That goes for both sides. It's not complicated.

 

[Angel]

Huh? Okay. I guess I poked you without trying. They figured out how to "not participate" in culture. Going off grid is a less extreme, non-religious way.

Some people are hypocrites. Some people treat others as nothing but objects. The are not the norm. Maybe the window into culture you have is more reflective of unhealthy folks, of maybe it's just that "what sells" bothers you. It's nature. Everyone objectifies to some degree - it's part of selection/filtering.

I'll note that Roger Ailes made Fox a leg show, and it sells.

What do you think of this?
The Large Bathers by Pierre Auguste Renoir | Oil Painting Reproduction

Love the Renoir.
I suspect you've got me or the OP wrong. Nothing wrong with sex. Something wrong with selling sex and condemning sex at the same time.

 

[Angel]

American culture as a whole doesn't "deplore the sexual objectification of women" though, that's exactly the issue you're highlighting in the first place. The individuals who do object to it are pushing to change American culture as a consequence. I don't see how "American culture as a whole" is being hypocritical and indeed, I'd suggest that any inconsistencies would demonstrate that trying to generalise an entire vast nation like this is fundamentally flawed. Is there even any singular "American culture"?

It isn't "perfectly fine" to just make up new definitions of commonly used words, especially not to avoid justifying your personal opinions about something. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion of pornography, you're not entitled to redefine it on that basis.

It's not a new definition.

And yes John Q Public deplores or says he deplores the sexual objectification of women and at the same time sexually objectifies and enjoys sexually objectifying women.

 

[ecofarm]

sexually objectifying women.

Do you have an example of the non-sexual objectification of women? If not, drop the ignorant and inherently redundant qualification.

 

[Angel]

Do you have an example of the non-sexual objectification of women? If not, drop the ignorant and inherently redundant qualification.

Funny. I was at this very moment looking to find your post again -- I'd been drawn by a quote notice to another thread, then one of my cats demanded attention.
I think you're right about objectification, but I don't think it's redundant or ignorant.

 

[ecofarm]

Funny. I was at this very moment looking to find your post again -- I'd been drawn by a quote notice to another thread, then one of my cats demanded attention.
I think you're right about objectification, but I don't think it's redundant or ignorant.

The qualification is ignorant because it fails to recognize that all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is redundant because all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is both ignorant and redundant. There can be no debate.


We might also note that objectification is the fundamental of sociopathy and essence of rape.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Love the Renoir.
I suspect you've got me or the OP wrong. Nothing wrong with sex. Something wrong with selling sex and condemning sex at the same time.

Anyone who simultaneously sells something and condemns it is insane.

We have a confused culture for a lot of reasons, mostly I think because there are 330 million of us and we all see things a little differently. The point of the Renoir (we have that print, and 2 others by him) was that where and when that was painted, showing a nude female breast was not considered objectification by most. Here and now, we still have issues with it and default (many do) to a reaction of "that's dirty". There was a recent outrage by some mother that went viral about her sons having to deal with seeing girls in leggings at school. In the 40's there were Vargas in Look magazine.

Sorry if I misunderstood the OP.

 

[Angel]

The qualification is ignorant because it fails to recognize that all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is redundant because all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is both ignorant and redundant. There can be no debate.


We might also note that objectification is the fundamental of sociopathy and essence of rape.

No, the qualification is insightful, pointing out the nature of the dynamic.

No, the qualification emphasizes the aforementioned insight.

There can always be debate.

Yes, sexual objectification has a pathological pole.

 

[ecofarm]

No, the qualification is insightful, pointing out the nature of the dynamic.

No, the qualification emphasizes the aforementioned insight.

There can always be debate.

Yes, sexual objectification has a pathological pole.

"Wet rain" is the same thing.

Your qualification is in error; it implies other forms of objectification. And, in that, apologizes. Don't apologize for objectification with flawed terminology.

 

[Angel]

"Wet rain" is the same thing.

Your qualification is in error; it implies other forms of objectification. And, in that, apologizes. Don't apologize for objectification with flawed terminology.

No, the qualification -- it's not original to me btw -- is not in error at all. There are many other forms of objectification, and in this case it specifies the nature of objectification as concerns women.

It's not like "wet rain" but rather like "horse racing."

 

[ecofarm]

There are many other forms of objectification

False. Provide an example, as per my original request.