Phaedra

Pages

AuthorTopic: Phaedra
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #75
quote:
From the perspective of the woman wearing the bikini, it is submitting to sexism. She is deigning to wear an outfit which she KNOWS will have an effect on the men around her- halter tops are not worn for comfort, nor are bikinis, nor are thongs. If they are worn to get a rise out of men, it is women selling their dignities for palpable control, which is akin to selling one's self for intercourse for capital. In other words, whoredom.
TM- perhaps the woman is wearing a bikini because she wants to tan her belly, or maybe it is a hot day. Just because you see it as sexual doesn't mean it is to her. If you find a bikini pleasurable that's wonderful, but she isn't necessarily wearing it for you. I am not a feminist as they are way too uptight, but I am also not doing everything just so men will want sex. Such a concept is ridicules.

If you were to walk down the street without a shirt no one would think anything of it. No women would be going “oh look he really wants it.” Yet if I did that it would be considered obscene. I know girls who love wearing thongs, and it's not for the sexuality of them. They leave no lines where underwear would be. Okay so that means that we want our butts looked at. Well they will be looked at anyways, so might as well make them look nice.

quote:
If women wear such garb for the purpose of getting laid, then it is often for gaining social standing. (For instance, statistics report that most women do not find pleasure in sex, especially after repeated instances.)
This may be true for some women, but let me assure you we can receive just as much pleasure from sex as you can. I wonder if those women questioned have ever had a decent lover.

quote:
I cannot describe to you how gut-wrenching it is dealing with masculine insecurity, although I would think that I wouldn't have to. (Posting on SW is a great way to advertise one's own impotency.) Being comparably unattractive has been a force of incredible isolation for me, and not having "gotten the girl" (as it is inevitably the man's position to be the power broker of coochies and cooters) torments me.
Why should women cover their bodies because you have insecurities?

quote:
But don't take my word for it. If you think that pornography leaves you unphased and that faceless sex and that women pandering into demands etc are all amoral activities, so be it- but also note your personal reactions to each of these things and how your doing them or others' doing them makes you think and feel.
We are talking about a woman walking around a hot caves in a bikini as she battles dragons. That's only pornography if you want it to be.
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 22
Profile #76
quote:
If wearing bikinis is pleasurable for men and there is a social pull for it, then it is an act of dominance which intrinsically reflects sexism.
By the same measure, if curries give pleasure to people, and there is a social pull for Indians to make it, then it is an act of dominance, which intrinsically reflects racism?

quote:

Furthermore, women are being relegated to objects.
This is what aggrevates me. I take pleasure in the female form. Does this mean that I am objectifying her? Of course not. It's only a short logical jump from here to inferring that taking pleasure in a woman's company is sexist.

quote:
From the perspective of the woman wearing the bikini, it is submitting to sexism. She is deigning to wear an outfit which she KNOWS will have an effect on the men around her- halter tops are not worn for comfort, nor are bikinis, nor are thongs. If they are worn to get a rise out of men, it is women selling their dignities for palpable control, which is akin to selling one's self for intercourse for capital. In other words, whoredom. If women wear such garb for the purpose of getting laid, then it is often for gaining social standing. (For instance, statistics report that most women do not find pleasure in sex, especially after repeated instances.)
I find this to be more sexist and derogatory than anything posted on this topic so far. Whoredom? Really, TM? The implication I find in the bulk of your post is that women can not possibly sexually compete on an even footing with men, which strikes me as abhorent.

quote:
Women as sexual objects has dragged me to a level where I cannot see any woman beyond her sexual potency- it is a struggle to view girls even down to the age of twelve and lower as actual human beings beyond their sexual capabilities, and it has been rigorous to try and reverse my training as a capitalist stormtrooper as such.
This is you trying to apply your own insecurities and problems onto the rest of us. Just because you cannot view women as anything other than sexual objects, does not mean the rest of us are incapable.

I also dislike the implication that porn is by definition immoral. But then, I take a far more European attitude to matters of sex anyway.
Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
Profile #77
I get where you're coming from, TM. At first, I thought your only interest in this topic was calling Kel an angsty liberal, but that last post struck a chord with me and impressed me as one of the most sincere things I've ever seen on the internet.

Doesn't anyone else feel a kind of dull sadness at the extent to which sex permeates our culture?

Sexy clothes seem, to me, to be a 21st-Century form of physical domination. The age of violence as an assertion of one's ability to affect the world is waning, so people turn to sex as a physical, therefore direct, means of exerting power over other humans. When a woman wears clothes to "feel sexy," she is probably actively trying to get laid only a small percentage of the time; rather, most of the time she just wants to know that she can create desire, that she has some measure of control. Men, of course, always want, however subconsciously, to get laid, but, like TM said, looks and sex are starting to overtake confrontation as expressions of potency even among our unsubtle and confrontation-driven gender. Because sex (both the physical element and the more subtle aspects) as a power-game and as an expression of intimacy are the same physical act and the same (or a very similar) set of hormones, the latter is devalued by its association with the former.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:39: Message edited by: PoD person ]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #78
If anything, the freedom of women in the US to wear whatever they want, bikinis and all, is indicative of the power they possess in western society. Consider the alternative - the Middle Eastern cultures - where women have many fewer rights and are forced to conceal themselves almost entirely from view. Which society is more sexist?

I think the capacity to attract and beguile is a quite potent tool in its own right, and I definitely don't begrudge women the right to it; I wish I had something comparable.

I agree, it's possible to view women/men on more than one level. I certainly am as guilty as anyone else for constantly scoping, and at some base level aspects of sexuality are always in my thoughts. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting and interacting with all the women in my life, many of whom are my good friends, and several of whom at this point are like sisters.

As for TM, I reckon you just need to get some action. :) It definitely adds perspective. Not to worry though - as Chef said on South Park: "There's a time and a place for everything, children, and that's college." Just don't go to Lawrence University - I guarantee the pool of candidates there isn't stellar.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:12: Message edited by: andrew miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Warrior
Member # 1451
Profile Homepage #79
I think that TM is just angry at how the world, in general, works.

Very few women (or men, but less so) understand why they dress like they do. Most things people do are based on mimicking others. Most of us dress as to not stand out. I, personally, if I were female, would feel stupid wearing something out-of-fasion-for-a-century on a beach instead of something modern, no matter how revealing.

And I do not care in the slightest whether you are insecure, TM. You are not the only one who has not gotten 'laid', but you do not hear me complain. Damnit, getting laid in my case would need throwing away cash or compromising my moral and intellectual principles. But you insist basing your thesis on the fact that you-are-this, you-are-that.

This is not to say that I totally disagree with you. At least I agree that it would make my life easier if people were less concerned with how they look. BUT IT IS NOT HOW THE WORLD WORKS! The world is a cruel, unfair place and you are getting NOWHERE whining.

Why does the world work this way, you ask? Because the world is the people that inhabit it. They are stupid, illogical, ignorant and so on. But they know on instinct that they need:
a. to survive,
b. to reproduce.
They strive to do just that. And if wearing bikinis by women who want, or don't want, to reproduce, who am I to judge? Who are you?

Another thing, although you might question it, everything is subjective. Even the most rudimentary of concepts can be viewed as good or bad, depending on whe is talking. Some might mean mental illness, that concept is also subjective.

This raises the question whether people should judge other people. I generally tend to agree, but also think this judgement is no be kept to thyself. Would you like to be considered stupid or evil by someone who is using his own holier-than-thine beliefs? Maybe the women you are so tirelessly trying to defend are less-than-happy with your judgement of them.

And have you considered if the said women WANT to be defended? Maybe they don't, and I'm sticking to that until you produce a written permission to be their defendant.

I'm also thinking that you are in a way greedy for a non-capitalist. Think about it, you obviously want the world to change for the better for you, as in allowing you a chance at getting laid, while disregarding all those who might be worse off with the change.

And, as I have heard or read in numerous instances, you do not look for a woman with brains (no offense, ladies), you do not go to the beach or pub. You go to a library.

In conclusion, this how the world works and noone of us is in any position to change it. But we can get to know how it does and then we will be better off, as with the proverbial 'Knowing is half the battle'. The other half is getting off your ass and doing something with that knowledge.

PS: I believe this topic was about an easter egg someone found in a scenario not the discussion of whether women have the right to dress as they wish.

EDIT: Typo.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:23: Message edited by: Abu Dhabi ]

--------------------
I am pleased to make contact with your entities.
Posts: 123 | Registered: Sunday, July 7 2002 07:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #80
Thanks to Morgan for being the only person to argue against me without feeling the need to mock me for anything.

"By the same measure, if curries give pleasure to people, and there is a social pull for Indians to make it, then it is an act of dominance, which intrinsically reflects racism?"

I'm not arguing that bikinis are intrinsically "evil"- they're just fabric. But insomuch as women know that they are filling the shoes we made for them, then yes- it does! "What's wrong with being sexy?" Only the same thing that's wrong with being ethnic.

"This is what aggrevates me. I take pleasure in the female form. Does this mean that I am objectifying her? Of course not. It's only a short logical jump from here to inferring that taking pleasure in a woman's company is sexist."

If taking pleasure in a woman's company demands appreciating her body, then yes, absolutely. Appreciating the female body and so-forth isn't the subject at hand- the subject at hand is placing caveats or eliminating entirely aspects of her personality for the sake of her body.

"This is you trying to apply your own insecurities and problems onto the rest of us. Just because you cannot view women as anything other than sexual objects, does not mean the rest of us are incapable."
Right- and I'm not saying that you shouldn't be friends and even intimate with women. Did you read me correctly, or are you just putting steeples in my stead? (Not that any religion argues against that anyway, but...) The problem comes when her dignity is compromised (and yours as well, but I won't get into that).

"If anything, the freedom of women in the US to wear whatever they want, bikinis and all, is indicative of the power they possess in western society."
Stop deluding yourself- the 60s brought you playboy, flavored douches and an end to intimacy. (I find it particularly interesting that most 60s hippies now constitute the hard-right wing of politics.)

"Consider the alternative - the Middle Eastern cultures - where women have many fewer rights and are forced to conceal themselves almost entirely from view. Which society is more sexist?"
You're right, massah. Calling blacks "negroe" is much more polite than "nigger". I'm 100% sorry for complaining about us darkies' position in our society, massah.
(I hope you're joking.)

"I think the capacity to attract and beguile is a quite potent tool in its own right, and I definitely don't begrudge women the right to it; I wish I had something comparable."
Right- so you can act all animalistic and chuck your self-respect and dignity in the waste basket for the sake of being a more marketable quantity? I think Team America had a song that reflects the dead-pan stupidity in this notion.

"I agree, it's possible to view women/men on more than one level. I certainly am as guilty as anyone else for constantly scoping, and at some base level aspects of sexuality are always in my thoughts. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting and interacting with all the women in my life, many of whom are my good friends, and several of whom at this point are like sisters."
How many are cute?
No, really. How many women who you are close to are good on the eyes?

Thing is, sexism ain't always sexual. (Well, no duh, but...) The whole concept of "cute" is to infantize, disenfranchize and subjugate women. How do your relations with these sisters treat them in their stereotypical roles? Are you closer to the prettier ones or the uglier ones?
If I'm shooting in the breeze and you're actually able to relate to them, I'm sorry, Mr. Yahweh-bar-Yeshua.

"As for TM, I reckon you just need to get some action. [Smile] It definitely adds perspective."
[Smile] to you too. I'd rather not have faceless intercourse under any situation, though- I've already become calloused enough as-is.

...

And I can think of nothing even remotely nice to say to Abu Dhabi, so I'll abstain from commenting.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 1451
Profile Homepage #81
quote:
Right- so you can act all animalistic and chuck your self-respect and dignity in the waste basket for the sake of being a more marketable quantity?
Once more, why do you assume YOU are the authority on whether some act violates self-respect and dignity? Even if -- why do you even CARE? It's their life to spend as they see fit.

quote:
[Smile] to you too. I'd rather not have faceless intercourse under any situation, though- I've already become calloused enough as-is.
Then don't complain you don't get it.

quote:
And I can think of nothing even remotely nice to say to Abu Dhabi, so I'll abstain from commenting.
You had it coming. But thanks anyway.

--------------------
I am pleased to make contact with your entities.
Posts: 123 | Registered: Sunday, July 7 2002 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #82
quote:
Originally written by Le Martyre de la Terreur:

"If anything, the freedom of women in the US to wear whatever they want, bikinis and all, is indicative of the power they possess in western society."
Stop deluding yourself- the 60s brought you playboy, flavored douches and an end to intimacy. (I find it particularly interesting that most 60s hippies now constitute the hard-right wing of politics.)

I strongly disagree. My relationship with my fiancee is incredibly intimate.

quote:
"Consider the alternative - the Middle Eastern cultures - where women have many fewer rights and are forced to conceal themselves almost entirely from view. Which society is more sexist?"
You're right, massah. Calling blacks "negroe" is much more polite than "nigger". I'm 100% sorry for complaining about us darkies' position in our society, massah.
(I hope you're joking.)

I'm not certain where your facetiousness is coming from on this one. Perhaps "Middle Eastern cultures" is too broad a swath - pardon the gross generalization - but how about Saudi Arabia, where women are entirely concealed, an ankle bared entices, and women aren't even allowed to drive? Women in the US, by contrast, theoretically have as much of a right to do as they please as men do. No one is making them do anything.

quote:
"I think the capacity to attract and beguile is a quite potent tool in its own right, and I definitely don't begrudge women the right to it; I wish I had something comparable."
Right- so you can act all animalistic and chuck your self-respect and dignity in the waste basket for the sake of being a more marketable quantity? I think Team America had a song that reflects the dead-pan stupidity in this notion.

Sure! Cultivating attractiveness seems to me to be a pretty effective way for anyone to accomplish his or her goals. Obviously female attractiveness has ensnared you to a great extent. What makes this stupid? It's a dog-eat-dog world, and we've all got to run with what we've got. While men tend to be physically more capable, women compensate with their physical appeal, taking advantage of men's hormones. Makes sense to me.

quote:
"I agree, it's possible to view women/men on more than one level. I certainly am as guilty as anyone else for constantly scoping, and at some base level aspects of sexuality are always in my thoughts. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting and interacting with all the women in my life, many of whom are my good friends, and several of whom at this point are like sisters."
How many are cute?
No, really. How many women who you are close to are good on the eyes?

Thing is, sexism ain't always sexual. (Well, no duh, but...) The whole concept of "cute" is to infantize, disenfranchize and subjugate women. How do your relations with these sisters treat them in their stereotypical roles? Are you closer to the prettier ones or the uglier ones?
If I'm shooting in the breeze and you're actually able to relate to them, I'm sorry, Mr. Yahweh-bar-Yeshua.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that most of them are pretty easy on my eyes. It's natural, however, that we're drawn to those we find attractive, but I think that holds with whom we choose to associate with among both sexes, not just the one we find sexually attractive. As someone who wasn't one of the "cool kids" in high school, I know all too well about this.

As for the female friends I consider sisters, close friends, boon companions, what have you, it's more that I've known them long enough and know enough about them that any sexual interest is a minimal part of the relationship. Sexual intimacy is only one flavor of intimacy.

quote:
"As for TM, I reckon you just need to get some action. [Smile] It definitely adds perspective."
[Smile] to you too. I'd rather not have faceless intercourse under any situation, though- I've already become calloused enough as-is.

Let me qualify my statement, then: I reckon you just need to get some action with someone with whom you share an exclusive loving relationship. [Smile]

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:57: Message edited by: andrew miller ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #83
Reading this thread while working on the endless task of indexing the Pied Piper forum archives puts several things into perspective.

Whose line is it?

quote:
Welcome to Spiderweb. Leave your emotions at the door
quote:
If you look like this (*cue picture of Ayumi Hamasaki*), and I meet you on the street, then run. I will attempt to stick it to you whatever way possible
...

quote:
I'd rather not have faceless intercourse... I've become calloused enough as it is.
In light of that, I would now like to ask:

Who the heck are you and what have you done to the
other TM? :confused:

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 13:44: Message edited by: Rebel without a Cause ]

--------------------
EncyclopaediaArchivesMembersRSS [Topic / Forum] • BlogPolarisNaNoWriMo
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
I have a love of woodwind instruments.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #84
quote:
Originally written by Le Martyre de la Terreur:

Not much is left to guess at. From this, the conclusion can be drawn that an attractive woman wearing a bikini is wearing an outfit which is pleasurable to men.
Yes, but it's a long way from there to say that she's wearing it because it's pleasurable to men. I think we had a certified girl dispute this point.

[F]emales are now wholeheartedly encouraged to display more skin.
Again, I think this generalization is far too broad. Some women describe feeling this suggestion from mass culture; some don't.

Furthermore, women are being relegated to objects.
In general? I think this is an even broader, even less valid generalization. I think women are less objectified now than they ever have been in the past; women used to be property.

She is deigning to wear an outfit which she KNOWS will have an effect on the men around her- halter tops are not worn for comfort, nor are bikinis, nor are thongs.
But again, knowing that wearing certain clothing will have an effect on others is far removed from wearing that clothing specifically in order to have that effect. I know that when I wear my NCS Volleyball shirt, others will think that I am a volleyball player, but I generally wear that shirt for the reason that I have no other clean shirts to wear.

If they are worn to get a rise out of men, it is women selling their dignities for palpable control, which is akin to selling one's self for intercourse for capital. In other words, whoredom.
Woah, woah, slow down there. Even if a woman wears something to provoke a response in men (and I recognize that some do, don't get me wrong), she may be using it to control them, not because they force her to please them. The control runs at least as much the other way as you're suggesting.

And being controlled does not equal being a whore.

(For instance, statistics report that most women do not find pleasure in sex, especially after repeated instances.)
Wow. NO. As emphatically as I can say it, NO. Women do get pleasure out of sex, at least when their partners are remotely competent. If women didn't get pleasure out of sex, lesbians wouldn't ever have sex at all, but they do.

(Posting on SW is a great way to advertise one's own impotency.)
The number of people here with significant others suggests otherwise.

Women as sexual objects has dragged me to a level where I cannot see any woman beyond her sexual potency-
As others have pointed out before me, your hangups are not necessarily anyone else's. I have no trouble seeing women as having many aspects to them, including a sexual one.

If you think that pornography leaves you unphased and that faceless sex and that women pandering into demands
I'm sorry, were we talking about Phaedra? Out of proportion, just slightly?
And on the Phaedra subject, what in the scenario suggests that I endorse Phaedra or anything about her? As I said before, I obviously don't endorse Lucretia in LP.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Le Martyre de la Terreur:

[T]he 60s brought you playboy, flavored douches and an end to intimacy.
Because in the 1950's, men and women were so much more intimate behind their white picket fences and inability to talk about women's sexuality.

Really, if you think that women had a better position in the 1950's than they do now, you'd better do some research. I'd start with Betty Friedan and her "problem without a name."

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 14:31: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #85
You know what's most shocking about this topic?

I actually agree with TM. It's not a subject I've thought about at great depth, but TM's first in-depth topic made sense to me.

(yes, the world is ending)

To those of you who are angry a TM's attempt to tell you what you can and cannot wear: He is not demanding anything. He is issuing a warning. I heard one guy sum it up very well.

"If you're not in business, don't advertise."

quote:

If they are worn to get a rise out of men, it is women selling their dignities for palpable control, which is akin to selling one's self for intercourse for capital. In other words, whoredom.
Woah, woah, slow down there. Even if a woman wears something to provoke a response in men (and I recognize that some do, don't get me wrong), she may be using it to control them, not because they force her to please them. The control runs at least as much the other way as you're suggesting.

And being controlled does not equal being a whore.
Uh, Kel? You seem to be aswering a different statement than the one TM made. He said the women have the control, but they are selling their dignity for it. I would agree with TM that this is a form of low grade whoredom.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 14:58: Message edited by: The Creator ]

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #86
quote:
Originally written by The Creator:

To those of you who are angry a TM's attempt to tell you what you can and cannot wear: He is not demanding anything. He is issuing a warning. I heard one guy sum it up very well.

"If you're not in business, don't advertise."

I think that's a disgusting point of view. A woman should be free to wear whatever the hell she wants without her choice being interpreted as advertising that she wants anything or not.

This is tantamount to the point of view described before, that a woman who dresses revealingly and gets raped was asking for it.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Shaper
Member # 5437
Profile #87
quote:
"If you're not in business, don't advertise."
I've gotten catcalls while wearing “conferrable” clothes. Why? Because some things are too obvious to hide. What more can I do to “not ask for it”?

A male being to charged to control his urges while looking at a woman in whatever she wears is his issue, not hers.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 15:09: Message edited by: Dolphin ]
Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Originally written by The Creator:

Uh, Kel? You seem to be aswering a different statement than the one TM made. He said the women have the control, but they are selling their dignity for it. I would agree with TM that this is a form of low grade whoredom.
You're right: I was answering something I read generally in his post rather than that specific statement. My mistake. The logic does follow somewhat better that way... but I still think the point stands as a general statement towards TM's post.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 15:13: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #89
I'm not saying they would deserve it, but they would be making themselves tempting.

Unless they make efforts to control it (and not many do), men will be aroused by the sight of a woman's body. Therefore, a woman who dresses to 'get attention' is most likely to get only one sort of attention. Men who like to think of women as people will tend towards those who don't make it difficult for them.

By the way, I'm mainly talking about those who dress revealingly in order to be 'attractive'. A warm day on the beach, for example is a different matter.

Edit: I agree Dolphin, that men need to control themselves. Making it difficult for them, however, is not helpful to equality of gender.

And please, all of you remember, this is not an attempt to control you, it's a general warning.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 15:31: Message edited by: The Creator ]

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
BoE Posse
Member # 112
Profile #90
Oops, double post.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 15:26: Message edited by: The Creator ]

--------------------
Rate my scenarios!

Areni
Revenge
To Live in Fear
Deadly Goblins
Ugantan Nightmare
Isle of Boredom
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #91
I think, again, that society places an unreasonable emphasis on nubility in the woman, which in turn shapes the standard of attractiveness in unreasonable ways and leads to nonsense like chain-mail bikinis. I also think that TM makes a piss-poor advocate for that side of the debate, because he's sensationalist and irrational and has managed to get just about everyone picking on him out of a sense of irritation with his deranged ranting about sexism.

It is a real problem which needs to be addressed candidly. And no, there's nothing wrong with dressing sexily, but there's a thin line and the fantasy genre in particular does a disgusting amount of crossing of it. Phaedra is a perfect exhibition of that; she pretty much sits on the line.

I also have no problem with TM participating in the discouse so long as he doesn't veer into lurid Dworkin-style shouting and crying again. It's asinine, contributes nothing in particular, and gives the neanderthals a fine opening to butt in.

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #92
You guys all act like you've never seen a hot chick before. I don't care what they wear. They're either hot or not. Just as I am. I dress to look good too, doesn't everybody, maybe not in certain situations but in public. Just because a girl wears something "you" think makes her look good, doesn't mean she wants some. Simply because some people are very desperate does not mean that women are equally desperate.

Oh and this whole topic is about Phaedra right? Is she really that provocative, being hardly at the tip of vividness.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 16:19: Message edited by: VCH ]

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #93
I don't think this topic is just about that one character in particular anymore, somehow.

I think there's a difference between dressing to look pretty and dressing to look sexy.

Dressing to look sexy does send a message out. It tells people "I don't mind that I'm encouraging every other guy to have dirty thoughts about me". Whether you want them to think those things or simply don't care, it does show that you aren't adverse to being thought of as a sex object.

True, there a number of guys (probably a very large number) who are just looking for something to perv at, and will be doing the whole dirty thoughts thing whether you're walking around in a string bikini or just wearing a tight shirt. But what can you do?

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:

It is a real problem which needs to be addressed candidly.
Yes. Yes, indeed. The lack of realism in fantasy literature is a real, genuine problem in the world today. The fact that fantasy literature occasionally portrays situations that are unlikely or contrary to fact is terrible and needs to be stopped. Certainly no good fantasy writers have ever written about situations that were unlikely. And none of the pre-Tolkien sources for fantasy ever went beyond the realm of reality for their stories, either. :P

EDIT: You know, I think that a woman who deliberately makes her own appeal purely physical and sexual is a dumb slut. I agree about that. Such people annoy me, because I really think that society doesn't force them to.

But I really don't think that Phaedra does, and even if she did, I don't think it would be evidence that I'm in any way misogynistic. I think it's far more compelling to write a story like LP's story about Lucretia, who demonstrates through her actions the problems with the idea of flesh as equivalent to sin and pain, than something like Canopy's Lealta, who describes in her dialogue how she dislikes the position of women in Canopy. This falls under the heading of "showing, not telling."

And I think it would be very hard to claim that Phaedra either shows or tells that I think that women are subservient objects.

[ Wednesday, April 13, 2005 17:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #95
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:

It is a real problem which needs to be addressed candidly.
Yes. Yes, indeed. The lack of realism in fantasy literature is a real, genuine problem in the world today. The fact that fantasy literature occasionally portrays situations that are unlikely or contrary to fact is terrible and needs to be stopped. Certainly no good fantasy writers have ever written about situations that were unlikely. And none of the pre-Tolkien sources for fantasy ever went beyond the realm of reality for their stories, either. :P

Clearly just because no one else has bothered automatically means the system is just. Well-put, sir! I concede the point. May the ingenuity of Egypt and the brawn of her slaves last us a thousand years!

--------------------
The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest.
Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #96
Alec, are you seriously suggesting that you actually believe that fantasy should never portray unrealistic situations?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #97
I think so.

Of course, I'm probably using a different definition of 'unrealistic'. I think a story of any genre should be internally consistent. Unless the girl's iron bikini is enchanted and magically keeps her warm and also projects an aura that stops anything sharp from hitting her, having her dressed like that is unrealistic in a bad way.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #98
The caves are pretty warm already, as I've mentioned before. She never mentions that the top is enchanted for defense, but there's no reason to believe that it's not -- one can reasonably assume that just about everything that the party is wearing is significantly magical, and she's at about the same level as the party.

But moreover, this is a default graphic for BoA.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #99
BoA has other default graphics. Shocking, but true.

It's really stretching it to suggest that a curvy lady in a metal bikini is in any way practical as a fighter. At best, you can come up with a plausible excuse, but it's still an excuse.

I do think that it's a pretty insignificant issue as applied to Bahssikava, though.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00

Pages