Angstrom wrote:
incorrect
the idea that posting images of women reduces all women to only the specific trait that is illustrated in that image is erroneous. It merely illustrates that particular trait, one that we enjoy.
And interpreting an image which demonstrates one mode of the totality of womanhood in such a fervently anti-man way says more about you than it does about anyone else.
Example:
Incorrect Interpretation : all women are businesswomen, and no more
Incorrect Interpretation : all women are mountaineers, and no more
The reason that men post images of women looking sexual is because heterosexual men enjoy women being and looking sexual. That is logical natural mammalian behaviour.
That behaviour does not in any way 'reduce' all women to that mode, it merely illustrates that mode. Pretending that it is anything else is ludicrous, bizarre and comes from outmoded 1970's era feminism.
Modern feminism is very different. Both of those luscious breast images were sent to me by my girlfriend. Who is a burlesque dancer. I'd be interested to hear your ill informed ideas about that occupation.
Nice. Are you trying to bate me into talking shite about your girlfriend? As long as all parties involved are
voluntarily involved, I don't even mind hardcore pornography. If the majority of pictures posted of women on this forum aren't reductive, how come they all seem to focus on the exact same thing?
What I'm talking about here is how so many people complain about the pornography bot posts – which usually have very revealing topic titles, so avoiding them is pretty damn easy – while most of the tackiest pictures are in fact provided by actual users, often without any sort of connection to the actual topic. I'm not the one saying that all women are (insert fitting adjective or noun). I'm talking about the view on women that is presented through their pictorial representation on the forum.
Oh, yes – very clever posting that picture of a businesswoman. You really got me there. Why don't you start posting pictures of businesswomen completely out of context, then? The pictures posted of women here are almost exclusively of a sexual nature, reducing women to a stereotypical mould, i.e. big tits, slim waist, etc. Most of the remaining 5% or so are of women found by the poster to be "ugly".
How is this not ridiculing women? Altogether, there are surprisingly few businesswomen and mountaineers pictured on this forum – possibly because they don't have a whole lot to do with music production. On the whole, I really don't find this forum all that inviting to women – or to anyone who doesn't conform to the (insecure) heterosexual man (perhaps 'boy' is more fitting) mentality, considering the amazing number of occurrences of words like "tits" and "gay", the latter always denoting a negative attitude towards something.
Oh – this one is so good that I have to quote it one more time:
Angstrom wrote:The reason that men post images of women looking sexual is because heterosexual men enjoy women being and looking sexual. That is logical natural mammalian behaviour.
So the first instinct of a male mammal who's attracted to a female mammal is to post a nude picture of her on the internet? Get real!
Look - I know I'm wasting my time here. I merely chimed in on the debate. I'm not out to police the board or anything - I'd just like to see at least a shred of creativity when posting here just for the sake of banter. I like a bit of banter as much as anyone, but a huge percentage of what's being posted here is pure bollocks.
