Ginger_Warrior
-
Posts
7649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Ginger_Warrior
-
-
I'm intrigued; what exactly is a woman's role in preventing harassment against herself, except for reporting such incidents to the relevant authorities?
-
That's too general and it's kind of stating the obvious, lol. I'm not really sure what you had in mind specifically when you wrote it.Both men and women should learn about consent, not just men. It's a two way street.
-
There's definitely a point we can agree on in the first paragraph here. None of us want a return to Victorian-era attitudes and reticence towards sexual relationships, but some of those values have passed down the generations because they haven't been openly challenged. When you know the signs and you accept there's nothing wrong with simply making it known you find someone else sexually attractive, so long as you're not in an inappropriate setting like work, it all becomes very obvious.IDK about that. I think the average guy is so risk-averse that he would rather avoid women completely than risk coming off as creepy in an attempt to pick her up. Men fear being labeled as creepy as much as women fear being labeled as a slut. Both fears are irrational, but they exist on a very large scale nonetheless, and cause a lot of mutual unhappiness and frustration.
[...]
I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you trying to suggest that porn should be abolished or modified because a very small minority try to use porn as an excuse for sexual harassment?
I think on the one hand, Western society does a fantastic job, relatively speaking, at educating young people to recognize when 'No' means 'No'. The majority of men are not misogynistic, would probably sympathize with most women who've been victims of rape or sexual assault / harassment, and wouldn't ever deliberately want to make a woman feel uncomfortable around them. On the other hand, Western society doesn't do a great job of saying, "Look, harassment is wrong, but it's still perfectly acceptable to say this, this and that so long as what you're saying is well received by the other person, and you know to stop when it isn't." The end result is a lot of men playing safe, confusing the really threatening behaviour with innocuous flirting, and not saying anything at all, which definitely makes women feel safer but doesn't really make anyone happier; and on the other extreme, a few men who don't know how to express that desire and so therefore do so with violence and harassment.
We both agree, more or less, on that point.
On the second paragraph, of course not. That's a little bit of a strawman, to be honest. I don't think anyone's sincerely tried to launch a well-substantiated argument to say rapists / harassers use porn as an excuse for their behaviour, or that it is an excuse in the first place. What people argue, and I agree with them here, is that porn, as well as other things, often portrays women as lacking the autonomous ability to set sexual limits to a man making sexual approaches towards them (while I'm here: for a non-pornographic example, have you read the lyrics to Blurred Lines?), or sometimes gives the impression that men have an entitlement to have sex with any girl they want so long as they make the right moves or use the right lines. In this context, persistence is transformed into harassment, consent is transformed into submission (and not the BDSM kind). How many porn videos are there where the plot is basically the woman not initially wanting to have sex with a guy, but after much groping eventually gives in, and at the finale ends up having the most incredibly intense orgasm she's ever had? When you think that, in reality, there are guys in their early teens watching it freely on the Internet, it's a ridiculous and confusing message to be sending out there.
What I'd personally suggest is to teach young girls in sex ed that it's fine to say "yes" to someone you want to have sex with, and that sex is even something you can enjoy (shock!) but more importantly, spend much more time teaching young boys when consent is actually consent and not something warped due to coercion or peer pressure, like you saw in that video you watched when you got back from school in the fifteen minutes you had before your parents got in from work.
-
We could do this argument to death, and I think we've both made our main points, so in the interests of brevity I'll keep this reply to the bit I found most pertinent.
Firstly, the starting paragraph is a strawman. I agree, there's nothing wrong with two people having consenting sex with whoever they want. There's nothing wrong with men initiating flirty conversations. Neither society in general, nor feminism, argue that sex is always something precious and gentle for the woman. As said, I have a lot of close female friends for a guy my age, and I know full well that many of them are just as horny as their male counterparts, and will quite happily have sex with someone they've only just met who they happen to find good-looking. Sex isn't always some drawn-out romantic thing, we get that.Society is full of sexual IMAGERY, but in case you haven't noticed, despite all of the sexual imagery, the act of sex itself is still loaded with all kinds of taboo and irrational irrelevant associations in modern society. Sex is heavily marketed towards everyone, while at the same time, people are shamed for pursuing sex. THAT'S the problem. There's nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, and it's really not that big of a deal. But society (and you) seem to argue that sex is only acceptable within very limited, controlled conditions.
When people finally start to realize that sex is:
a) not a big deal
b) natural
c) healthy
All of these crazy arguments about the implications of sex, porn, etc. will magically begin to disappear. But considering that many people don't know how to get laid, I imagine that these irrational stigmas are going to be perpetuated by sexually-frustrated/sexually-inexperienced people like that for a very long time... unless prostitution is legalized, but that's another topic. :P
Additionally, you've argued in the past that marriage is an example of how society looks down on polyamorous relationships. Surely, this too is a strawman: if polyamory were genuinely looked down on that much, it would be a crime, not a legal grounds for divorce which may, or may not necessarily, be pursued by the individual who has been "cheated" on. Society, if anything, says "well, we'd like you to be in monogamous relationships because it's actually quite useful for bringing up children in, so here's this thing called marriage and here's some tax benefits for those who choose it. But we won't force you otherwise, if it's not for you... whatever, good luck, but don't expect us to endorse it as much because, actually, that arrangement doesn't benefit us any more." Personally, I don't actually agree with that statement, due to wider issues concerning things like social class and inequalities for homosexual couples, but that's what society actually says about marriage. Society doesn't say "polyamory is always evil".
Furthermore, I think you do most men an insult in stating that, because they're inexperienced, they can't tell the contextual difference between normal sex and abnormal sex. Most men know when sexual advances are either a) inappropriate; or b) likely to make the recipient feel deeply uncomfortable. Although, I'll concede, there are quite a few who don't.
When we talk about the damaging effects of porn, we're talking about two things which are relevant. Some videos promote sexual harassment in inappropriate contexts such as work. "Reality" videos where the interviewer finds the applicant attractive, makes some lewd comments and things go from there. "Reality" videos where school teachers 'seduce' pupils into sexual acts. For sure, most consumers are able to look at that and see those videos are anything except reality, but nevertheless it partly contributes to creating an attitude that harassment is acceptable, which it never is. Ever. Under any context.
Secondly, we're talking about the objectification of women as nothing more than objects to stick a [bleep] into. Porn isn't the lone culprit in causing this, but I would argue that sexual imagery, far from being normal, has actually been normalised because it is so prevalent in society. Sure, men are objectified too (like James Deen, for example), but as I've said previously, nowhere near the extent that women are. I once knew a guy who had ED, and when he went for treatment, the thing that eventually worked was counseling because they worked out he'd basically watched so much graphic pornography that he didn't find the real thing interesting no more.
So to conclude, and I genuinely hope you find this statement more agreeable: If you're a man, you know the difference between harassment and flirting, you know when to accept that a women has politely rejected your advances, you know that women can feel threatened by unwanted sexual advances, you know that sexual imagery is heavily doctored and provides unrealistic expectations about what women actually look like naked, and you know that some pornography, including some scenes James Deen has filmed, aren't like real life, then by all means, please make sexual advances. Use your sexual liberty to the max and enjoy the fact you live in a society which allows you to [bleep] as many people as you want and whoever you want, so long as they agree to it and can provide consent in the first place.
But if you fit into that category, and I strongly suspect you do, then also recognize that there are some twats out there who don't "get it" like you do, and don't be afraid to call them out on it.
-
My point was that erotic literature fits within the context of a society (in both the US and the UK) where the female body (and the male body, to a much lesser extent) is over-sexualised. FHM and GQ, while they do sexualise women, don't do so anywhere near as much as Nuts or Zoo, which perhaps would have been better examples, although the former recently announced it was to cease publishing due to low circulation.I don't think you're understanding my argument. Continuing upon your argument, I could argue back that FHM and GQ are countered by Cosmopolitan and People magazine, but that would be silly.
It's worth noting 50 Shades was actually slated in the reviews on release, including by female reviewers. It's not a great piece of literature, by any stretch.
Sure, but this wasn't the argument I was countering. I'm not doubting James Deen is more attractive to women than men. My objection was your statement that "[most] women like watching porn with James Deen in it". I was simply saying you can't possibly know that, because:James Deen is the most popular porn star to women because he's something different and better than his contemporaries. James Deen basically introduced women to porn in the same way most men have already been introduced to it.
Again, there's a reason why James Deen has an effect on women that no other male porn star has ever achieved (as far as I know). It's because he's a better representation of what women fantasize about than any other porn star.
a) You don't know how many women porn-watchers like James Deen in the first place, but even assuming most did;
b) You don't know how many women watch porn full stop.
I think you're right here, but I want to make two points.I predict in the future that there will be a lot more James Deen-type porn stars, and as a result, women will start to watch porn more. Men will probably always watch porn more though since they tend to be more visually-stimulated than women.
Firstly, it's a "two wrongs make a right" approach. Around ten or fifteen years ago, we (quite rightly) realised that there was a huge disparity in the way that women were sexualised in the media compared to men. Lads mags were booming, pornography was becoming instantly accessible through the Internet, and Photoshop was starting to create unattainable fantasies about what the female form should look like. While some reacted to that by saying "Let's stop portraying women as being the sum total of a nice pair of [bleep] with a decent hip:waist ratio", others decided to go the other way and sexualise men as well, but still in far lesser quantities than women. James Deen is an example of that. As are the hundreds of female porn actors in the industry who outnumber him.
Secondly, the kind of girls James Deen is having sex with in his movies aren't exactly "average" girls off the street, given over two-thirds of the US population is overweight or obese. Even if you argue for James Deen from a pseudo-feminist perspective, what you're actually saying is this: "Only if you look as extremely attractive as these models do would you possibly hope to have sex with a man like James Deen." If one was to be far more cynical, the very attractive females could be shown as evidence that, in reality, the porn is actually being marketed towards men (fancy that!). As a heterosexual male, I can't remember the last time I looked at a porno and thought, "Gosh, that bloke is very good looking!" and I can't imagine women do it for their own sex either. If James Deen was having sex with average-looking girls, I might be more tempted to believe it's being scripted for average-looking women, but then that wouldn't sell for obvious reasons.
So yes, more women probably will watch more porn, but it's hardly because the industry is becoming more female friendly. It's because society in general is becoming more sexualised.
Erm... yes. Why must you assume that anyone who argues against you is doing so from a position of ignorance, rather than a position of disagreement? It's very disrespectful, to be honest.Out of curiosity, did you know anything about James Deen prior to reading this thread today? >_>
-
And there's also a reason why for every one James Deen there's a good hundred or so female porn stars.
There's also a reason why every copy of 50 Shades is countered with numerous copies of FHM and GQ magazine.
This is going back to the whole alpha thing at its core. You pigeonhole people into highly generalized groups, including yourself (which I find slightly weird to say the very least). I don't because I think it's crass and disempowering to both men and women.
Can we just leave it there and carry on deluding ourselves we're both right?
-
... I give up...
-
Again, you're making mass generalizations which can't possibly cover all 3 billion women on the planet.
Women you've come across who love James Deen =/= women love James Deen.
It's really no different in concept to me seeing a black guy walk out of KFC with a bucket of chicken and shouting "Black guys love southern fried chicken". One is an example of racism which wouldn't be tolerated. The other is sexism disguised as a pseudo-intellectual argument.
-
1
-
-
Meh... I think the problem with porn is that it attempts to take sweeping generalizations about "what women really want" and warp those concepts to being the same as what the viewer (be it male or female) wants. Generalizations such as "women love James Deen porn", or "women are secretly into lesbianism" for example.
It's an industrial and commercial fantasizing of (mostly) male sexual desires.
I'm not suggesting there aren't some women who watch porn, I'm just stating that, overwhelmingly, it's consumed by men, dreamt of by men, filmed by men, funded by men, directed by men, and scripted by men. Just because some websites produce "female friendly" porn doesn't mean that all of a sudden, women are crazy over it. Most of the girls I talk to about sex, and I know quite a lot, still find porn to be deeply unrealistic, pressuring in terms of male expectations, unsatisfactory for their own desires and, above all else, misogynistic.
-
Did a presentation today. Not done a proper presentation in ten years, when I was 14 and pretty much had a breakdown on stage. It's been a huge fear ever since. I remember when we got given the assignment earlier this year, I could feel my heart beating through my chest.
But we nailed it. My bit of the presentation was actually quite complex, but I think I explained it really clearly. The key is definitely preparedness. I went in knowing exactly what I wanted to say, not word for word, just how to structure my ideas together, which I often struggle to manage on the spot.
Quite enjoyed it by the end, it was exhilarating in a way. Definitely a huge confidence boost; if you can manage that skill alright you can do a lot of other things if you prepare yourself properly.
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't suggest I'm closer to people online than in RL so I can't answer that.
I tend to express a lot of myself through body language and actions, and while large parties are a total nightmare scenario for me, I'm more than comfortable "opening up" in a room with a small group of friends I trust. To be honest, opening up is a good thing, because what people tell me about myself is often something I can't see by myself.
I connect very easily with people in real life when the topic of conversation is focused around feelings, interests or expectations. Maybe those topics are easier online where anonymity makes trusting strangers not so much of an issue. When people talk about how wasted so-and-so was at the club two nights ago, it bores me to tears. Dunno, living as a student... those stories strike me as ten a penny and they make my BS tracker go crazy.
-
In terms of physical intimacy? No, of course you're right there. What if my physical needs are being met, though, and what I'm looking for is a person to share an interest with, because none of my real life friends are into the same stuff I am, or they're too busy with life? More likely to find them on the Internet because they're only a Google search away.I'm saying that interacting with someone online can't fulfill one's social needs as well as interacting with someone in real life.
What if I'm a 40-something divorcee who hasn't dated in decades and, understandably, doesn't feel confident about their chances playing the game any more?
There are things you can only get from physical friendships and relationships, and they're very important. But there are certain advantages to socializing online as well.
-
I don't think people generally regret the amount of time they played RuneScape specifically. At the end of the day, if you enjoy something and you're passionate about something, it's not a bad thing to carry on with it. Personally speaking, when I did play RuneScape, I more regret the amount of time I didn't spend doing other things. Drinking. Working. Living. I was more than happy to spend my late teens sat in my room obsessing over xp/hr rates and levels, which held me back a little in my early twenties because I didn't develop those skills along with everyone else my age, and it's noticeable that my time playing RuneScape more or less ended when I got my first proper job.
-
It would be better if it were standardised. Right now you have to assume they're including everyone into the mix. So people who play for forty minutes a day after school are effectively being compared against Drum, for example. There will be plenty and plenty of "poor" accounts swimming around, but if you were to standardise the results to make the amount of time each account plays comparable, you might get a much larger figure than 1%.
-
Two points:Drum is complaining on the hlf atm how his average is closer to 17 hours, not 13 L
1) This contradicts Jagex... if only we knew how they'd obtained the figures in the first place!
2) [bleep] me. I don't want to sound offensive, but... that is one of the most tragic complaints I have ever heard in my life. And working in healthcare, I've heard quite a few!
-
4
-
-
It was 84% and 16%, just for clarity.Says the community is 86% guys and 14% females.
I'd be interested to know how they got the statistics too. Certainly, there's no description of methodology, so it's very, very difficult to draw any real conclusions from this. If their methodology was literally picking avatars, it's deeply flawed.Not sure if that's based upon character avatars or what as the details seem to be a little of how they came up with this. Because on account creation it just used to say Age bracket/Country. And the only other reasonable opinion for it is based on avatars, which seems stupid as any guy can make a female avatar. And any poll or small survey would only indicate a small or biased % of the true statistic.
Bias doesn't necessarily invalidate results though. What matters is how likely it is that sheer probability or bias produced the results. A big enough survey would still be valid, in that regard, it's just that without any simple numbers (not percentages or ratios) or method described, it's impossible to judge.
EDIT: Just noticed this:
Not too bothered about gold farming but, those figures really get you thinking...- To put that into perspective, our most fanatical top three players on the high scores #1 ‘S U O M I’ plays an average of 07:27.00 hours a day, #2 ‘Drumgun’ plays on average 13:06.00 and lastly #3 ‘Jake’ plays an average of 12:48.00 per day.
-
That female ratio is surprisingly low. Even in the most male-biased gaming genres, it tends to be around 80:20, and edges towards parity in other areas. A lot of the obstacles which have traditionally been seen as preventing women from joining the gaming community don't really exist in RuneScape. The game isn't particularly tilted towards glamorization of physical strength, and you can make a female avatar with absolutely no disadvantages in real terms towards gameplay. The community, whilst it has its flaws, is generally moderated quite well and I certainly wouldn't describe it as being inherently misogynistic.
I can't really think of an obvious explanation for why that figure is so low, relative to other RPGs.
Don't get me wrong: misogyny is still rife in gaming culture. Here is, quite simply, an hilarious example. I've just never seen that much of it in RuneScape to make me think it would put off female gamers from this game in particular.
-
When I have a reputation for being so laid back about assignment deadlines, because I can do them to a very high mark in around 24 hours. Like I did the last two days. :)
Also, measuring myself for the first time in years and discovering I'm actually just under 5"2', not 5"0' as previously thought. Feel a few inches taller! :P
-
-
You're advertising RS gold on the Off-Topic board?
[bleep]ing brains on this kid.
-
It's not all about money. A better paid job won't necessarily make it a better job or give you a better life.
So long as you have a decent wage, and in the US a quick Google search tells me the median income is only around 40k across all age groups, you're perfectly fine.
Basically I'm saying I don't see the difference happiness-wise between a $40k job and a $60k job. Especially if the extra money comes with extra stress.
-
The main flaw, at least in the UK, happens when students go to university expecting to study their "dream" course. Then they don't do any extra-curricular, voluntary or paid work during their studies, except for placements which the university hands to them as part of their course requirements. Then they graduate with an average grade (a 2:2 or 2:1), describe themselves as "overqualified" and insist that that customer service job at their local Starbucks, which would actually be a golden opportunity to develop basic work skills, is somehow beneath their new stature now that they can legally stick a few letters on the end of their name. Then they resort to applying for Masters or PhD studies, and the cycle repeats itself because ultimately they're only doing that to procrastinate entering the job market a year longer. Or they take a gap year, doing something which doesn't equip with work skills either.
Here is a fantastic article about it, from The Guardian, embarrassingly about a student from Sheffield which, I'm quite proud to say, is where I am currently studying.
By all means, do college/university/whatever-you-call-it. Some of the skills you learn at university are very useful, mainly the ability to think critically, assess "evidence" properly for bullshit, and present your ideas in a cohesive manner, be it orally or written down in essay. You'll use those skills everyday, not just at work, but in life too. I'm a great fan of having as many people as possible receiving a university education.
But for God's sakes, don't for one minute assume that a university education is an alternative to working basic jobs, gaining basic skills, and having to "put in the hard yards" to get to where you want to be.
-
Newcastle as in Australia or Newcastle upon Tyne?
AU obviously :P
Ahh. It's just you said London and I definitely wouldn't describe the latter is being like London! North England and South England are like two different countries. :)
Yesterday, our university volunteering society had its elections, and they voted me as unit manager, which essentially means I run the place and make sure we're doing a good job for the next 12 months. Sweet. My CV's swelling again. :)
I'm not sure whether to see the film Divergent or buy the book first. I know I'd enjoy the film more; the "INFP" stereotype is vastly overplayed and I much prefer reading non-fiction to navigating through a literary dream world. I definitely want to experience it, though.
-
"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice
in Off-Topic
Posted
I was talking about removing the stigma associated with being 'slutty' when in reality all a woman is doing is having consensual sex.
That's a totally separate issue to guys sexually harassing girls. Unless you're suggesting 'slutty' girls deserve to be harassed (please, for the love of god, don't tell me you honestly believe that).