Re: Off Sub, SI Swim Chics...
posted at 2/14/2013 2:21 PM EST
In response to softlaw2's comment:
No, of course it doesn't. But, as usual, you are making straw man arguements. I only said that you can't forget to judge the p.i.m.p and the john when judging the prostitute. **
You just made the only staw man argument. "Pimps and johns" don't have anything to do with women agreeing to take thousands of dollars to sell their sexual images as intellecutal property in commerce.
Intellectual Property and commerce analogy: A band makes money from producing hit record. Hit record recording and distribution made possible by record company who will make signifcantly more off it than artist, and a consumer population demanding this product.
Same. Exact. Thing.
** This is a separate theoretical arguement from the arguement in which my stance is that it is a horrible twisted moral-trojan-horse to state that there is 'responsibility' that must be taken for posing in naked pictures
The horrible twist is using hyberbole "naked pictures" and "pimps and johns" with regard to women taking responsiiblity for selling images of women as sexual objects in commerce.
OK, if "naked pictures" is hyperbole, then so is your "selling sex" notion.
This is akin to the arguement that a woman who dresses sexy is asking to be raped. No. Note to men: despite what you have been taught in our gender-skewed culture, you CAN keep it in your pants, and you don't HAVE to be a slave to your base carnal instincts.
No, this is not "akin to the argument than a woman who dresses "sexy" or similar to a New York street prostitute "is aking to be raped". A more accurate analogy would be a woman who dresses sexy and says yes, or no, when a man asks if she will accept a thousand dollars to join him in a hotel room.
OK, let me get this straight. You criticize my statements about taking "naked pictures" and "pimps and Johns" as hyperbole ... but you then apply the 'more accurate analogy' of taking these pics to accepting a thousand dollars to join a man in a hotel room? Forgive if i am being confused, but you just brought the pimps and johns into the equation in a much more direct way than i did.
The culture, today, is gender confused, not "gender skewed". Your comments reflect the culture that refuses to place responsiblity with individual decison makers. A culture that sells women as commercial sexual objects doesn't do so because of slavery. It exists because of individual women saying one word: "yes".
OK. We, as usual, will just have to leave it at I say potato and you say po-tah-to. I think it is both very foolish and very dangerous to look at the commercialization of female sexuality as the result of womens willingness to do so. This viewpoint is at the heart of Rape Culture, and most certainly this view is "gender skewed". We are all responsible for the commercialization of female sexuality.