[RD] What does free speech mean?

[AmazonQueen]

They were not thinking solely of you when they launched their website.

But hopefully not just of men either.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note when CFC started it was towards the tail end of the shock type stuff of the 90s.

Say with Married with Children through Nirvana through to Southpark, Nu Metal, Monday Night Raw.

It's not 2001 anymore.

 

[CurtSibling]

But hopefully not just of men either.

I'm sure they had fun in mind.

 

[Truthy]

A forum like this is effectively a public place. Behaviour/humour/images that might be acceptable in a private male only environment may not be on here.

Ok, so then that’s where you’re saying the line is, yes? Swimsuit calendars should exist only in explicitly male-only spaces or explicitly adult-content spaces. Correct?

 

[CurtSibling]

Because only men find women attractive.

 

[Truthy]

What is with this disingenuousness? Even before the advent of pornography as we currently understand it, women were objectified not just socially, but legally, they were literally seen as the property of their husbands or family.

You don't need to be some bleeding heart liberal to acknowledge that wasn't and still isn't, a healthy environment or place to be in.

Even worse is when you look at those growing up who are forced, by societal pressure, to yearn for the unrealistic standards set by the bodies they see, it leads to mental illness, eating disorder, suicide and self harm, even in adults. It doesn't benefit anyone in the long term for this cycle to continue unchallenged.

It is not unhealthy to satisfy visual-stimuli sexual systems with images of members of the sex(es) one is interested in, no.

Also, I’d still like you to clarify where sexual imagery is ok. Because... it is part of human nature to be interested in sex. Culture reflects that. However, there are certainly negative downstream effects. But is the solution to cleanse public spaces of sexuality?

 

[Patine]

A forum like this is effectively a public place. Behaviour/humour/images that might be acceptable in a private male only environment may not be on here.

A movie theatre is also a privately-owned public place, of sorts, but if the marquee makes clear the film being shown will offend you or make you uncomfortable, do they have an obligation to pull the show?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ok, so then that’s where you’re saying the line is, yes? Swimsuit calendars should exist only in explicitly male-only spaces or explicitly adult-content spaces. Correct?

That's not what I said.
I said I'd prefer not to see threads devoted to pictures of scantily clad women here and don't consider them suitable.

 

[Zardnaar]

CFC isn't public.

It's like a pavilion put up in a public park but the pavilion has security guards. With rules.

 

[AmazonQueen]

A movie theatre is also a privately-owned public place, of sorts, but if the marquee makes clear the film being shown will offend you or make you uncomfortable, do they have an obligation to pull the show?

A movie theatre charges you before you enter the area where you see the content and you are paying specificly to see that content. It is most certainly not a public place as you will discover if you try and enter without paying.

 

[Truthy]

That's not what I said.
I said I'd prefer not to see threads devoted to pictures of scantily clad women here and don't consider them suitable.

Ok. Yes, I misunderstood. It’s the nature of a babe thread in particular that bothers you. However, it still seems that you’re saying that for the most part, things like swimsuit calendars or arousing imagery of women should not be found outside of male-only or adult content spaces. Also, the Debbie Harry thing was an example of what I might post in a babes thread. The point was visual attraction isn’t just about objectification.

 

[AmazonQueen]

CFC isn't public.

It's like a pavilion put up in a public park but the pavilion has security guards. With rules.

More like an amateur theatre with rules on what the performers can say but anyone can view it.

 

[Patine]

A movie theatre charges you before you enter the area where you see the content and you are paying specificly to see that content. It is most certainly not a public place as you will discover if you try and enter without paying.

The threads you're complaining about were labelled as such. You don't have to visit or open them, unless you misclick (and then that's on your head). Saying they shouldn't exist at all, when the format requires a conscious choice to visit a labelled thread, is "moral tyranny" - a la, Oliver Cromwell or Thomas Winthrop, as historical examples of that attitude.

 

[CurtSibling]

Some people just want to get offended, Mr Wayne.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It is not unhealthy to satisfy visual-stimuli sexual systems with images of members of the sex(es) one is interested in, no.

Also, I’d still like you to clarify where sexual imagery is ok. Because... it is part of human nature to be interested in sex. Culture reflects that. However, there are certainly negative downstream effects. But is the solution to cleanse public spaces of sexuality?

Of course it is, but if society constantly projects a type of body image that is not only unrealistic but also not obtainable then you're going to get people suffering as a result of that. It's no coincidence that there is a rise in children developing eating disorders as a result of the pressure to stay thin or suffering from mental health problems as a result of not having the "right" body.

I'm not advocating for any sort of "cleansing" so don't get it twisted, I'm advocating for the unrealistic depiction of both men and women cis or otherwise be stopped because it's causing misery to society as a whole.

When we have a culture of people, specifically men, that are told by society the most optimal partner is a beautiful person with a figure only a trained athlete or intensive dieter can achieve then we are setting them up to fail and be miserable.

 

[Truthy]

Of course it is, but if society constantly projects a type of body image that is not only unrealistic but also not obtainable then you're going to get people suffering as a result of that. It's no coincidence that there is a rise in children developing eating disorders as a result of the pressure to stay thin or suffering from mental health problems as a result of not having the "right" body.

I'm not advocating for any sort of "cleansing" so don't get it twisted, I'm advocating for the unrealistic depiction of both men and women cis or otherwise be stopped because it's causing misery to society as a whole.

When we have a culture of people, specifically men, that are told by society the most optimal partner is a beautiful person with a figure only a trained athlete or intensive dieter can achieve then we are setting them up to fail and be miserable.

Sure, I mostly agree with these. However, it’s a different argument than where we started. If a babe thread contained only realistically attractive-looking women, does that change the previous arguments? It’s almost orthogonal.

I’d also quibble with the nature of the downstream effects on men you describe. My ex one time asked why I was attracted to her even though she didn’t look like a model... I was dumbfounded. It was so obvious. The question sounded nuts to me. But I understood it intellectually after thinking about it... these representations had affected her a lot, even though it seemed like it hadn’t affected me much. So to be clear, the effect you’re describing (where real life people feel compelled to compete with essentially fictional representations) is totally real. But understand its self-evident rhetorical power of the effects-on-men side of the coin isn’t uniformly strong among all of your readers.

 

[Arakhor]

Babe/hunk threads have not been permitted at CFC for several years.

 

[CurtSibling]

It also plays into weird stereotypes and sexism. We can agree, not every man who likes bikini models is a slavering, woman-hating disgrace. Sure, there are some "men" (I use the term generously) out there who are creepy and fill
that unpleasant role, but I think most sensible people will censure those types most strongly. We are all adults here, and I believe we can be relied on to mutually decide the proper level of denency without going full Mary Whitehouse.

That said, as Arakhor points out - It's best to avoid the can of worms.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Sure, I mostly agree with these. However, it’s a different argument than where we started. If a babe thread contained only realistically attractive-looking women, does that change the previous arguments? It’s almost orthogonal.

I’d also quibble with the nature of the downstream effects on men you describe. My ex one time asked why I was attracted to her even though she didn’t look like a model... I was dumbfounded. It was so obvious. The question sounded nuts to me. But I understood it intellectually after thinking about it... these representations had affected her a lot, even though it seemed like it hadn’t affected me much. So to be clear, the effect you’re describing (where real life people feel compelled to compete with essentially fictional representations) is totally real. But understand its self-evident rhetorical power of the effects-on-men side of the coin isn’t uniformly strong among all of your readers.

Would it be realistic to limit a babe thread to only realistically attractive-looking women? Whos going to abjudicate on that and is it possible to do it objectively?

You asked a question (of Mary but I answered).
Its not just me who would be uncomfortable with it, its many women.
Not just liberals or feminists, conservative women also.
Not just older women (after all I was around in the era when topless page 3 models and Pirelli calendars were widespread if tacky), younger women also.

CFC is a forum anyone can join, presumably meant to appeal to female as well as male gamers. Can you really not see why the return of babe threads would be a bad idea

 

[Gorbles]

I don't get why this thread has turned into a meta-commentary on CFC rules. I normally hate asking for this, but can someone summarise this? It's hard to know what can be discussed within the forum rules at this point.