[RD] What does free speech mean?

[Truthy]

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

Yes and I appreciate the answers. I’m not even sure the babe thread should be brought back. I don’t want my work filled my swimsuit calendars. What I’m trying to tease out is how this community balances “come chill, be yourself, even if it involves some sexual stuff” and discomfort for what high libido people being themselves entails

 

[MaryKB]

In principle, should an anonymous Internet forum not contain images of women in swimsuits to ensure women visitors are not discomfited? I’m honestly trying to figure out where the proposed lines are. Because “men doing whatever they want” is a very large set.

The idea is for men to see women as people and not sexual objects ... men should evolve past the stage of wanting to possess images of women intended to provoke a sexual reaction.

Men have long dominated women, and we're still nowhere close to being equal. Women have been treated as sub-human property, our existence solely being to provide pleasure to men. When you have a swimsuit calendar, you're sending a message to women "Your bodies belong to me for my pleasure, and I can do with them what I want." When you see a very male-dominated area, and there are images on display of women's bodies being used to please men, you're reminded of how that's all your really seen as.

So ultimately those "swimsuit calendars" should not only cease to exist, but men's desire to have them needs to go away as well. Again, I'm not condemning male sexual energy - I'm solely talking about how women are portrayed and used.

 

[Truthy]

The idea is for men to see women as people and not sexual objects ... men should evolve past the stage of wanting to possess images of women intended to provoke a sexual reaction.

Men have long dominated women, and we're still nowhere close to being equal. Women have been treated as sub-human property, our existence solely being to provide pleasure to men. When you have a swimsuit calendar, you're sending a message to women "Your bodies belong to me for my pleasure, and I can do with them what I want." When you see a very male-dominated area, and there are images on display of women's bodies being used to please men, you're reminded of how that's all your really seen as.

So ultimately those "swimsuit calendars" should not only cease to exist, but men's desire to have them needs to go away as well. Again, I'm not condemning male sexual energy - I'm solely talking about how women are portrayed and used.

My sexuality has a large visual component. Many men are the same way and it is not tenable from a psychology perspective to argue this is not a natural part of average male sexuality. You did mention in a previous thread that you can accept that men are, to some extent, “wired differently.” Anyway, visual stimulus doesn’t inherently entail objectifying women. I could write at length about my dating preferences. I’m pretty sure you would approve of that list. Looking like a model or being an object is not on that list. However, I still like looking at images of attractive women. When I read a post like this, it is hard not to read it as shaming and telling me my sexuality is wrong. For example, saying “evolve” suggests my sexuality is insufficiently “evolved” for your standards. Note: by my reading, you are not just saying such images shouldn’t be in public spaces, they shouldn’t be in private spaces either.

 

[Zardnaar]

No sarcasm Mary but what's your opinion on this piece. It's from 1989 in a book I got mid 90s.

Not exactly cheesecake and shes smacked down an Ogre.

This yay/nay

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Please spoiler large images. Thank you.

 

[MaryKB]

My sexuality has a large visual component. Many men are the same way and it is not tenable from a psychology perspective to argue this is not a natural part of average male sexuality. You did mention in a previous thread that you can accept that men are, to some extent, “wired differently.” Anyway, visual stimulus doesn’t inherently entail objectifying women. I could write at length about my dating preferences. I’m pretty sure you would approve of that list. Looking like a model or being an object is not on that list. However, I still like looking at images of attractive women. When I read a post like this, it is hard not to read it as shaming and telling me my sexuality is wrong. For example, saying “evolve” suggests my sexuality is insufficiently “evolved” for your standards. Note: by my reading, you are not just saying such images shouldn’t be in public spaces, they shouldn’t be in private spaces either.

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, I'm saying nen shouldn't want them to exist

I'm not telling you how to explore your sexuality, I'm exclusively talking about how you use women to do so. We are more than our bodies, and we don't exist for your gratification.

If you can't find a way to feel sexual without objectifying women, that's a problem you (and your gender) need to work on.

 

[Patine]

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

Also, my issue of where does "censorship by moral standards of decency" have it's endpoint?

 

[Estebonrober]

Problem is that YT wrongly identifies "hate speech" (objectively so, its bots are pretty trash), censors people who showcase publicly available articles from mainstream media (whistleblower's name), creates vague standards and yet still manages to objectively apply them inconsistently.

This is less a matter of free speech and more that YT is provably behaving dishonestly/fraudulently and lying about doing so. The way they're handling garbage COPPA interpretation is itself garbage, too.

The proper thing for YT to do would be to make clear rules and clear punishment for violating those rules. Not randomly censor people for "hate speech" while refusing to even disclose what specifically met their hidden standard.

Also note that if YT/Twitter/facebook/etc can be considered targets for "election meddling" despite being private firms, it is not coherent to then claim they're private firms that can censor as they please. If that were true, allegations of election meddling on these platforms would be irrelevant...

No. This is fudging stupid. Whatever standard they want and how they enforce is their business unless we change the law. Facebook is a right wing nightmare. I just point it out, I'm not after facebook other then breaking it up for its overwhelming advertising power.

I personally like Twitters stance of not accepting any political advertising. Its the way is "should" be honestly.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Also, my issue of where does "censorship by moral standards of decency" have it's endpoint?

Presumably you accept that society has standards of decency that people are generally expected to keep to. The endpoint is what is generally expected in a society, something that does change over time.
As for this being a limitation of your freedom I'm reminded by what DH Lawrence once wrote about a Mexican feeling his freedom was infringed if he couldn't rest his feet on the back of the chair of a person sitting in front of him.
Freedom isn't absolute and your choices have effects on others.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I used to frequent another forum that was largely male (although probably less so than here), but also had a significant gay membership. Rather than the babe/hunk dichotomy, there was just a general purpose "Eye Candy" thread, that contained everything from your typical swimsuit models/hunks, to twinks and ageing drag queens/divas. It was actually quite a fun thread that everyone enjoyed posting in and commenting, with no-one moaning about what other people found attractive. To sum it up in a word I'd choose "positive". But I guess the whole thing relied on none of the participants being incredibly uptight and disgusted with the notion of humans finding the bodies of other humans sexually arousing.

Also, hi.

 

[CurtSibling]

Plenty of people here calling for free expression to be quashed...Most puritanical and interesting.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Let's move on from discussing whether babe/hunk threads should be allowed or not. Thank you.

 

[Patine]

Presumably you accept that society has standards of decency that people are generally expected to keep to. The endpoint is what is generally expected in a society, something that does change over time.
As for this being a limitation of your freedom I'm reminded by what DH Lawrence once wrote about a Mexican feeling his freedom was infringed if he couldn't rest his feet on the back of the chair of a person sitting in front of him.
Freedom isn't absolute and your choices have effects on others.

I was not aware of a universal consensus on the issue. Everything I've seen in my experience points to the contrary and, like everything, an evolving dialogue - and often argument - on this particular matter. From Ayn Rand, Larry Flint, and Abbie Hoffman to Jerry Falwell and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the standard of decency in public expression and the rights of individuals therein is a matter of immense disagreement.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Find a way to talk about your sexual desire without turning women into sex objects, and you'll be perfectly fine.

But nah, men being able to do whatever you want whenever you want without any accountability is much more important than women being able to feel comfortable and safe as equals

we treat not only women, not only other people, but even ourselves more and more as wares, as commodities, as enterprises that have to self-regulate, grow, improve, get more efficient and productive, skinnier, healthier.

all of human relations has become more and more material in the last century, peaking right now and here. now I do think a decent part of it is oldschool sexism, mysoginy and patricarchy, but that's not all of it. sexism, especially in young people, I don't think is always a continuation of patriarchal relations of power, but rather a symptom of a society where everyone is to some degree dehumanized and materialized, and there is only a small step for materializing to objectifying to being a self-declared incel, imho.

 

[MaryKB]

I get what you're saying, but it's not at all the same.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not telling you how to explore your sexuality, I'm exclusively talking about how you use women to do so. We are more than our bodies, and we don't exist for your gratification.

If you can't find a way to feel sexual without objectifying women, that's a problem you (and your gender) need to work on.

Who's this we? He's not looking at your body. And apparently there are plenty of women willing to sell pictures of their bodies, or to show off their bodies for free. They are certainly not part of your "we".

Sexual desire is natural. Arousal is natural. Forget about quashing it, and don't even try to demand of other people to avoid it. The Catholic Church has been doing that for centuries and produced only grief.

 

[Truthy]

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.

 

[Patine]

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 the Church 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, an 80 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, 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. 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.

She seems to want us to all be plastic people in a clinical, bland, pastel-coloured, transhumanist dystopia where no "unwanted" emotions (except being offended) ever come to the surface - or so it would seem. You could write a creepy, cautionary science-fiction novel, or a Bradbury Theatre production, on such an issue, really. "Demolition Man," and the "pacified universe" hinted at outside Sogo in "Barberella, Queen of the Universe," touched upon this social viewpoint.

 

[Truthy]

She seems to want us to all be plastic people in a clinical, bland, pastel-coloured, transhumanist dystopia where no "unwanted" emotions (except being offended) ever come to the surface - or so it would seem. You could write a creepy, cautionary science-fiction novel, or a Bradbury Theatre production, on such an issue, really. "Demolition Man," and the "pacified universe" hinted at outside Sogo in "Barberella, Queen of the Universe," touched upon this social viewpoint.

The Ludovico Technique comes to mind

 

[Patine]

The Catholic Church has been doing that for centuries and produced only grief.

And don't forget the even greater extremes of forced modesty in notoriety of Wahabbi, Deodandi, and Shi'a Islam.