[RD] What does free speech mean?

[AmazonQueen]

I really do want to help resolve the conflict between male sexuality and female inclusion. But you cannot make natural and innate parts of people's sexualities go away. Shaming normal sexuality, saying it's bad, making it into an Albatross for men (especially young men) to carry around their necks is a non-starter. It will not work and it accomplishes nothing besides making people ashamed and miserable about who they are, their hormones, and their needs. Christianity has been trying for millennia to shame and pray away sexual things it deemed verboten. It never worked. Gays and naughty thoughts and stolen glances have always existed, no matter how hard Christians tried to root them out. But frankly, what I'm seeing here is more extreme than what I'd ever expect to hear from my grandma, a 77 year-old Evangelical Christian who's extremely squeamish about sexuality.

Moreover, this whole idea that visual stimulation by merely looking upon the female likeness is tantamount to dehumanization, to objectification of the singular woman in particular or all women in general, is flat out not how it works. It's just not. Finding women visually attractive, looking upon them, in no way inherently demeans them or denies them rights or equality. And most men do not find objects very attractive anyway. Men are not typically interested in verisimilitudinous sex dolls. Personality, humor, coolness, accomplishments, values, and so on are attractive. Calendars are totally compatible with this. It's just eye candy. That's all it is. Plain and simple. So at the end of the day, this idea that guys appeasing their desire for visual stimulation must objectify women and makes men seek human sex dolls is pseudo-psychological nonsense.

Ultimately, this whole thing is so deeply misguided. It proposes an unworkable and profoundly harmful solution to a completely misunderstood problem.

Its funny. Women have to hide breast feeding and menustation, completely natural parts of their lives because men find them icky.
They mutilate their bodies, starve themselves, have unnecessary cosmetic procedures all to please men but suggest to men that perhaps they shouldn't force what they want on women in every area of their lives and we're suppressing your freedom.

 

[Arwon]

natural and innate parts of people's sexualities

This sort of question begging really can't just be left hanging, undefined and elaborated.

 

[Truthy]

Its funny. Women have to hide breast feeding and menustation, completely natural parts of their lives because men find them icky.
They mutilate their bodies, starve themselves, have unnecessary cosmetic procedures all to please men but suggest to men that perhaps they shouldn't force what they want on women in every area of their lives and we're suppressing your freedom.

Look, I think women should be allowed to breastfeed in public and I don't like women feeling the need to cosmetic procedures. But we strayed into territory of saying a guy shouldn't want to have a swimsuit calendar, that that's inherently demeaning to women in general. There is a middle ground. Reducing the harms women face doesn't need to make unrealistic and unfair demands on men. And let me make it clear: it is well-known, outside of these kinds of internet debates, among psychologists that sexual shaming in general is not good for people. It makes young women miserable. It makes young men miserable.

 

[Truthy]

This sort of question begging really can't just be left hanging, undefined and elaborated.

What needs justification? That heterosexual men are naturally attracted to the bodies of women? That men--straight, gay, or bi--are generally more visually oriented than women? That it is natural for men of any orientation to like things like swimsuit calendars? Those are so obviously true and so indisputable, there is no need to give you all a crash course on common sense and thousands of psychology papers. And look at the context of the thread before making swipes like this. I reminded Mary that she herself has conceded men are to some extent "wired differently." She did not dispute that. Therefore, I took it as a given that that was not in contention.

 

[Arwon]

The fact of attraction existing is one thing. The accepted norms and mores around the expression of that attraction are far more contingent and socially bound, however. The idea that, say, the existence of commercially available swimsuit calendars in a given society is somehow biologically determined is a rather more shaky premise than "most men like women".

It's very common for people to assume that the precise shape and accepted expressions of sexual attraction in their own society and culture are linearly and purely derived, in a vacuum, from biological universals, and are thus inalienable and unquestionable. But the thinking don't make it so. The way you get off is as socially constructed as anything else.

 

[Patine]

Its funny. Women have to hide breast feeding and menustation, completely natural parts of their lives because men find them icky.
They mutilate their bodies, starve themselves, have unnecessary cosmetic procedures all to please men but suggest to men that perhaps they shouldn't force what they want on women in every area of their lives and we're suppressing your freedom.

I have never actually been a supporter of women being pressured to alter their appearances in unnatural ways to find acceptance. Anymore than I want to be pressured to be "big" and "ripped." I am actually an opponent of that level of social coercion, and believe natural appearance has a definite and strong quality all it's own.

 

[Truthy]

The fact of attraction existing is one thing. The accepted norms and mores around the expression of that attraction are far more contingent and socially bound, however. The idea that, say, the existence of commercially available swimsuit calendars in a given society is somehow biologically determined is a rather more shaky premise than "most men like women".

It's very common for people to assume that the precise shape and accepted expressions of sexual attraction in their own society and culture are linearly derived purely from biological universals, and are thus inalienable and unquestionable. But the thinking don't make it so. The way you get off is as socially constructed as anything else.

No it's not. People like sex. If the mores of a society permit these calendars or images, many people are going to want them because they like sex. And look, what we're arguing about is whether men should want such calendars. We are being told the desire to have these calendars and images is wrong. What expressions of desire are permitted is socially contingent. But the desire to have images is not, provided you live in a society where photography exists. That is my point. Desire and its many manifestations are largely innate and not even thousands of years of Catholic shaming change it much.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Look, I think women should be allowed to breastfeed in public and I don't like women feeling the need to cosmetic procedures. But we strayed into territory of saying a guy shouldn't want to have a swimsuit calendar, that that's inherently demeaning to women in general. There is a middle ground. Reducing the harms women face doesn't need to make unrealistic and unfair demands on men. And let me make it clear: it is well-known, outside of these kinds of internet debates, among psychologists that sexual shaming in general is not good for people. It makes young women miserable. It makes young men miserable.

I'm not asking you to not look at swimsuit calendars or pictures of scantily clad women. There are plenty of other places where you can do so. But I don't want a games site I've used for years to be somewhere I feel I have to avoid parts of.
To me your attitude seems very selfish. I'm a man I have needs and its an infringement of my rights if that's limited in any way. Never mind how anyone else might feel.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I have never actually been a supporter of women being pressured to alter their appearances in unnatural ways to find acceptance. Anymore than I want to be pressured to be "big" and "ripped." I am actually an opponent of that level of social coercion, and believe natural appearance has a definite and strong quality all it's own.

And yet many women do feel pressured by a constant focus on an ideal appearance and a Babe thread is part of that.

 

[Truthy]

I'm not asking you to not look at swimsuit calendars or pictures of scantily clad women. There are plenty of other places where you can do so. But I don't want a games site I've used for years to be somewhere I feel I have to avoid parts of.
To me your attitude seems very selfish. I'm a man I have needs and its an infringement of my rights if that's limited in any way. Never mind how anyone else might feel.

You persuaded me on the babes thread point. I agree with you now. But we have moved on to an entirely deeper and more problematic issue, as far as I am concerned.

 

[cardgame]

I don't think we're arguing about bringing the thread back, but moreso the attitudes toward male sexuality now on display in this thread.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You persuaded me on the babes thread point. I agree with you now. But we have moved on to an entirely deeper and more problematic issue, as far as I am concerned.

Well on that I'm not in complete agreement with either Mary or you.
Although I feel that sexuality is natural and to be celebrated in most of its diverse forms I also feel its personal and private and shouldn't intrude into every area of life. That could be my age speaking though.

 

[Patine]

And yet many women do feel pressured by a constant focus on an ideal appearance and a Babe thread is part of that.

Also, for the record, I didn't actually ADVOCATE for a "Babe thread," (that's not even a term I use in RL, actually). I was actually concerned about the concept of whole threads being shut down due to various posters' objections to them, even if they had never planned on visiting them, and how is it we would have any threads left but basic administrative pinned ones, at the end of the day.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not asking you to not look at swimsuit calendars or pictures of scantily clad women. There are plenty of other places where you can do so. But I don't want a games site I've used for years to be somewhere I feel I have to avoid parts of.

No-one would tell you that you would have to avoid such parts though, it would just be your own inclinations (or lack thereof) that would lead you to avoid them. And surely there are already many, many forums and sub-forums of this site that you avoid, and probably even many OT threads that you've never been inclined to even open and take a look at, based on the titles alone?

 

[AmazonQueen]

No-one would tell you that you would have to avoid such parts though, it would just be your own inclinations (or lack thereof) that would lead you to avoid them. And surely there are already many, many forums and sub-forums of this site that you avoid, and probably even many OT threads that you've never been inclined to even open and take a look at, based on the titles alone?

Because of lack of interest, not because I dislike the content.
Its still going to affect me if on opening OT there are half a dozen threads on the front page I have to avoid. Its going to affect the perception of visitors as to the type of place CFC is and the type of members it attracts.
If CFC allowed an anything legal goes attitude it would soon be like reddit or worse sites.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well it would be one thread, not half a dozen. I get your point, but it was hardly like living inside a copy of Loaded when the thread actually existed as far as I recall. But again the "type of place" comment implies that it would be seen as a bad type of place, something "seedy", which in turn implies there is something wrong or morally objectionable with such content, which personally I don't think there is. But that's just my opinion too. So... well I don't know, the end I guess.

 

[Patine]

Because of lack of interest, not because I dislike the content.
Its still going to affect me if on opening OT there are half a dozen threads on the front page I have to avoid. Its going to affect the perception of visitors as to the type of place CFC is and the type of members it attracts.
If CFC allowed an anything legal goes attitude it would soon be like reddit or worse sites.

Well, personally sick of about as many threads a day moaning and groaning, hyperbolically, and completely out of proportion about Donald Trump, often on clear labelled threads. I wish I had somewhere in the Internet that wasn't monomaniacal in it's purpose of existence where I could away from endless chatter about him. He's taken completely out of proportion as a President, and I'm sick of his overexposure. But I bet YOU'RE not sympathetic to that...

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, personally sick of about as many threads a day moaning and groaning, hyperbolically, and completely out of proportion about Donald Trump, often on clear labelled threads. I wish I had somewhere in the Internet that wasn't monomaniacal in it's purpose of existence where I could away from endless chatter about him. He's taken completely out of proportion as a President, and I'm sick of his overexposure. But I bet YOU'RE not sympathetic to that...

Not particularly. Your aversion doesn't stop you coming here, reading those threads or commenting in them.

 

[Patine]

Not particularly. Your aversion doesn't stop you coming here, reading those threads or commenting in them.

*sigh* You've just sabotaged the sincerity of your own position. You may not realize it, or accept it, but you have.

 

[AmazonQueen]

*sigh* You've just sabotaged the sincerity of your own position. You may not realize it, or accept it, but you have.

No, I just think you enjoy being outraged, hyperbolic and angry.