42 replies to this topic

[Theevenger]

Cryptozoology, on 25 April 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

More like CHUCK it's privilege! OUT THE WINDOW! Along with whoever decided to cater only to straight male nerds by handing out a scantily clad woman as a prize. The half-naked woman stands on a pedestal, elevated by her male creators and is locked in mid hula dance. Sexism, objectification, cultural appropriation all wrapped up in one creepy little virtual statue.

Is this how women are regarded by the BattleTech community ? As frozen, lifeless objects standing on ivory pillars and able to do nothing but dance for the amusement of their male owners ?

For shame.

What are you talking about? This is not true at all! She bobbles.

[Texas Merc]

if she aint got me a sammich then totally worthless

[Kaio-Kerensky x10]

Texas Merc, on 26 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

if she aint got me a sammich then totally worthless

Ah, misogyny. Always edgy and hilarious.

[TOGSolid]

Voridan Atreides, on 26 April 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

I'm a happy boy!!!...hubba hubba hubba hubba hubba!

Holy ****, someone other than me who has heard that song.

[Voridan Atreides]

TOGSolid, on 27 April 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Holy ****, someone other than me who has heard that song.

hahah. My uncle would sing it all the time on our guy only fishing trips.

[Cryptozoology]

Voridan Atreides, on 26 April 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

A lot of things.

expand pls on what exactly is wrong with these pictures

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ter Ushaka, on 26 April 2013 - 03:08 AM, said:

I would like to see an option for a male hula dancer bobblehead. They do exist you know:


Seriously, what's wrong with it:

They should make them more appropriate to the ppl actually playing the game

[Straften]

Edit: I would buy this bobblehead ^

Edited by Straften, 28 April 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[Voridan Atreides]

Cryptozoology, on 27 April 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

expand pls on what exactly is wrong with these pictures

A lot of things.

[Cryptozoology]

Voridan Atreides, on 28 April 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

A lot of things.

sorry by expand i meant could you please let me know maybe one or two or perhaps all of the things you find wrong with them

[ThinkTank]

Cryptozoology, on 28 April 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

sorry by expand i meant could you please let me know maybe one or two or perhaps all of the things you find wrong with them

Somebody cropped the hot chicks out of them.

[Cryptozoology]

ThinkTank, on 30 April 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Somebody cropped the hot chicks out of them.

pls expand on why women who fall into your definition of attractiveness need to be put on display and why objectified womens' absence is a make-or-break deal for you

[Texas Merc]

Cryptozoology, on 30 April 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

pls expand on why women who fall into your definition of attractiveness need to be put on display and why objectified womens' absence is a make-or-break deal for you

because P Enis.

[ThinkTank]

Cryptozoology, on 30 April 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

pls expand on why women who fall into your definition of attractiveness need to be put on display and why objectified womens' absence is a make-or-break deal for you

Lol. Serious or troll? Maybe both? Am I serious or troll? Maybe both. I've no objections to a male hula dancer. I wouldn't get one. I'll leave the reasons why to your imagination. Do you have as many issues with objectifying men in the same way?

Scantily clad humans of any physique will always be attractive to at least one other human because we are biologically hard-wired to react to secondary sex characteristics. If you deny that people are attracted to other people for the purposes of reproduction, then there is no satisfactory answer for you. Standards of beauty do exist and vary from culture to culture. Images of the current standard of beauty are no different than fertility statues featuring men and women with exaggerated secondary sex characteristics from the Stone Age.

Some contemporary humans attempt to downplay our biological drives in an attempt to be "progressive" and "civilized." Contemporary humans are no different, physically or mentally, from our earliest forebears. Now that many of us don't have to hunt and gather, we think we are more advanced and smarter than our biology. Most men enjoy viewing "fertility statues" of their era. Most women enjoy viewing "fertility statues" of men of their era. It's not right or wrong to find a member of the opposite sex attractive, it simply "is."

I won't address homosexuality here, other than to say it exists on a spectrum, and does not have the moral implication that many would ascribe to it. It is simply another function of our biology.

I don't like "Cosmopolitan" magazine because they portray unrealistic female forms and encourage feelings of inadequacy amongst females. My wife thinks she needs to have 20 purses and 100 pairs of shoes to be "fashionable." I tell her she is beautiful and does not need all that stuff to be attractive. Also, to be honest, I don't necessarily think the images presented in many fashion portrayals are of attractive members of the opposite sex.

I do like "Playboy" magazine because they present fertility statues that I do find attractive. Playboy also presents images that are often not representative of the typical female form and encourage feelings of inadequacy amongst women. How do I reconcile the implicit hypocrisy in this statement? Simple. I like what I like and you can't stop me. I accept my biology. I married a woman that generally accepts her biology. I don't pretend to be offended when she finds some random dude attractive. She doesn't pretend that I went blind when we got married.


TL:DR
If you don't want to view contemporary fertility statues for whatever reason, don't. I applaud your efforts at homogenization of our species. However, I don't think you will ever be successful at making the rest of us ***** (rhymes with thorny) animals see your point that we should be offended by something we find beautiful.

Edit: clarify blocked word

Edited by ThinkTank, 01 May 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[Cryptozoology]

that sure is a really long and convoluted effortpost packed full of biotruths, thanks man. hey on the topic of objectification there's some pretty interesting word choices in that post, the most interesting being that playboy models are fully equivalent in your mind to fertility statues, which, i really have to be honest with you, is one i have never heard before ever so good on you.

Edited by Cryptozoology, 01 May 2013 - 03:04 PM.

[ThinkTank]

I'm glad you learned something. The spectrum of human sexuality and people's attitudes regarding it make for interesting reading.

[Straften]

ThinkTank, on 01 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I do like "Playboy" magazine because they present fertility statues that I do find attractive. Playboy also presents images that are often not representative of the typical female form and encourage feelings of inadequacy amongst women. How do I reconcile the implicit hypocrisy in this statement? Simple. I like what I like and you can't stop me. I accept my biology. I married a woman that generally accepts her biology. I don't pretend to be offended when she finds some random dude attractive. She doesn't pretend that I went blind when we got married.

For me, when I look see women of reproductive age, the question is not "Which one's would I shag?" The question is "Which one's wouldn't I?"

[ThinkTank]

Straften, on 02 May 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

For me, when I look see women of reproductive age, the question is not "Which one's would I shag?" The question is "Which one's wouldn't I?"

Biology at work, my friend. Trait discrimination is important and helps prevent the spread of undesirable genotypes.

[Cryptozoology]

ThinkTank, on 02 May 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

I'm glad you learned something. The spectrum of human sexuality and people's attitudes regarding it make for interesting reading.

well i definitely learned a few things about your attitudes in particular towards sexuality and human beings in general. if i might continue the ride of this train here and ask you a question, do you find anything weird about explicitly equating (women) sex workers with inanimate objects

[Straften]

Cryptozoology, on 02 May 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

well i definitely learned a few things about your attitudes in particular towards sexuality and human beings in general. if i might continue the ride of this train here and ask you a question, do you find anything weird about explicitly equating (women) sex workers with inanimate objects

Yes. Real people are much more pleasurable than objects. At least so far...
The Japanese are working on sexbots though. We all (men and women alike) patiently await!

Edited by Straften, 02 May 2013 - 07:08 PM.