• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Sexuality in the media

^^Fair enough Lugo. Although regarding those fantasy novels (I've never come across that theme, but I don't really read those sorts of books) I'd argue that's not necessarily great as well (if it's indeed forcing) but there is the difference that well, it's explicit fantasy (vampires etc.). It's not realistic so it's easier for readers to draw the line.
Although it's true women tend to get away with much moer when it comes to sexual consent, which is really fucked up.

You're right, we don't know the exact context of those quotes and I think I'll try to look into that today and see if I can find them as it would be interesting to know. For me it was just the way they were formulated in a factual manner. They may not be from advice colums, but even if they're from interviews or whatever I think they're pretty out of place, if they're indeed meant as fact as it appears.
 
Sexual objectification is not really a problem as long as it knows its place, and for the most part I feel it does. For the most part it is only found where you seek it out.

I find the prevelant and politically correct gender sterotypes we have shoved in our faces to be insulting and dehumanising to both sexes.
 
Pagey said:
it justifies forcing women to have sex.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
The only quotes that can be seen in any way disregarding consent are 7, 10-12, and 14.
The rest have no insinuation/connotation of any lack of consent.

That's what you can't seem to understand. You can't talk about the sexual aspect and gratification of degradation and humiliation, only to say you're not going to include fetishes.
I never even brought up a rape fetish.

I don't know if you're just naive or something, but there is this whole genre called femdom. You know, females domination people.
Just because it's not on a magazine it doesn't change the exposure, in fact I'd say websites offer more loyal fans and dedicated collecting of porn.


I'll probably abandon this thread after this post.
Enjoy your discussion, I guess.
 
We live in a society that values ratings and the $$$ high ratings draws from advertisers. If advertisers are trying to attract a younger, male audience then putting hot, scantily clad chicks front and center is usually the trick.
 
Abject said:
No, it doesn't.
The only quotes that can be seen in any way disregarding consent are 7, 10-12, and 14.
The rest have no insinuation/connotation of any lack of consent.

That's what you can't seem to understand. You can't talk about the sexual aspect and gratification of degradation and humiliation, only to say you're not going to include fetishes.
I never even brought up a rape fetish.

I don't know if you're just naive or something, but there is this whole genre called femdom. You know, females domination people.
Just because it's not on a magazine it doesn't change the exposure, in fact I'd say websites offer more loyal fans and dedicated collecting of porn.


I'll probably abandon this thread after this post.
Enjoy your discussion, I guess.
Click to expand...

Wow, overreacting much? You don't need to be insulting...if you can't have a level-headed discussion about it then yeah, feel free to leave the thread.

As I said, although I'm doubting you really paid any attention to my posts - I've got no problem with degradation and humiliation amongst partners if they consent to it, whatever. There's a difference between that and saying 'a woman likes to feel like a dirty whore' as if it were universally true and justified always treating them as such.
 
Pagey said:
Freedom of expression has obvious limits that we're both fully aware of. In the UK you certainly couldn't publish anything, say, racist or antisemitic in a mainstream magazine.
Click to expand...

As in, under penalty of common law, or something? Is this actually true? As an American citizen, I find this hard to stomach...is this really standard operating procedure across the pond?

Of course people have a right to express their opinions but as I showed, there is a justified and normal limit to freedom of expression if it's offensive to a large group of people/ has the potential to hurt them.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with the bolded clause. Who sets such limits? Who arbitrates such matters of personal/cultural 'offense?' Sounds like good old fashioned oppression to me.
 
Never Knows Best said:
Check this out, I'm proud of the US for not passing this kind of law, at least.
Click to expand...

Well, geeze, at least this sort of law possesses debatable merit and grants the state a very limited kind of power. As of my preliminary skim, this factoid was of particular interest:

Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I necessarily approve of any such law in fact, but this is an appealing idea in principle. For any state that didn't go Nazi, however, I just cannot understand how/why any citizen would approve of such slippery legislation.

But anyway, thanks for the link. (Again, as an ignorant American) This is pretty shocking stuff.
 
P A said:
As in, under penalty of common law, or something? Is this actually true? As an American citizen, I find this hard to stomach...is this really standard operating procedure across the pond?



I strongly disagree with the bolded clause. Who sets such limits? Who arbitrates such matters of personal/cultural 'offense?' Sounds like good old fashioned oppression to me.
Click to expand...

It is true yeah, under penalty of common law. Of course it all depends on the context - I'm not entirely sure about the UK as I just moved here, but in France racist jokes are usually okay -, but a straight-out racist statement is absolutely illegal in the media, in France anyway. Mayeb I shouldn't have spoken so quickly about the UK but I do believe it's the same here.
I dunno, I think it's normal honestly. The thing is it's a very different state of mind as in the US, but then again I know certain French media have been largely regarded as racist and created lots of controversy in the US when it was absolutely fine in France (like the movie the Untouchables (that's how I suppose it's called in English anyway). But anyway that's another debate.

Never Knows Best said:
Check this out, I'm proud of the US for not passing this kind of law, at least.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Although personally I think that's a great law but again, different countries/backgrounds, different mindsets. The US is much more inked in the notion of complete autonomy after all.
 
Never Knows Best said:
Check this out, I'm proud of the US for not passing this kind of law, at least.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but my basic understanding of US law would lead me to believe that holocaust denial could be prosecuted in the US as libel (if it's in print) or defamation (if it's spoken). A law against holocaust denial is not so much a suppression of the freedom of speech as it is a suppression of blatantly false information. It's a huge difference. It would be illegal for a newspaper to put in print that Brad Pitt is the son of a crackhead and a prostitute because that's not true. With that in mind, it would seem possible that anyone stating that the holocaust never happened could also be prosecuted. It gets dicey, though, because if you say "the holocaust *may not* have happened" then that's technically not libelous.

Anyway, I don't even know what this thread is about anymore. I clicked on it expecting sex. Instead I got nerdy law talk. Talk about disappointment.
 
if it wasn't lads mags it would be himmler spouting anti jew shit.

people need to question all info their brain digests
 
Well Effuzion, help the thread get back on track by giving your thoughts about the article & the original post. That's what it's meant to be about after all.
 
Effuzion said:
I'm no lawyer, but my basic understanding of US law would lead me to believe that holocaust denial could be prosecuted in the US as libel (if it's in print) or defamation (if it's spoken).
Click to expand...

You're referring to the possibility of a tort claim by a single plaintiff (or a collection of plaintiffs) against the offending party, which is another issue entirely. This would be a kind of civil suit involving two opposing parties, whether they be two private organizations, two individuals, an individual vs an organization, &c. Contrastingly, if federal or local governments began bringing down the banhammer upon anyone who printed something in vague disagreement with their prescribed strictures, the situation would be a very different one indeed. Can you spot the difference?

A law against holocaust denial is not so much a suppression of the freedom of speech as it is a suppression of blatantly false information. It's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Not really. The end result is virtually identical. Basically, an institution of disproportionate power dictates what an individual (or group of individuals) should or should not write/say/do based upon a set of semi-arbitrary conventions and un-democratically approved pieces of arguably useless legisation. For better or for worse, that's the issue in a nutshell, viz., whether you find such a scenario acceptable or not, for any reason.
 
It wasn't that long ago that women were still considered property, to be raped and killed just because they were there--spoils of war, etc.

Hell, in some socially/morally conservative countries it still is okay to use and abuse women.

Those same cultures also censor any expressions of sexuality that we in the "socially liberal" west take for granted.


:?

How do we explain violence before the advent of mass media?
 
Last edited:
cheerio said:
Hell, in some socially/morally conservative countries it still is okay to use and abuse women.

Those same cultures also censor any expressions of sexuality that we in the "socially liberal" west take for granted.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, there's no shortage of such miserable misogynistic cesspits on this planet. I'm not quite that naive. I was just shocked to learn that a state as comparatively 'civilized' as the U.K. (a wealthy Western democracy-of-sorts) would be so compromising on the whole 'freedom of speech' schtick, which I've always considered a fundamental cornerstone of a free and open society.
 
P A said:
You're referring to the possibility of a tort claim by a single plaintiff (or a collection of plaintiffs) against the offending party, which is another issue entirely. This would be a kind of civil suit involving two opposing parties, whether they be two private organizations, two individuals, an individual vs an organization, &c. Contrastingly, if federal or local governments began bringing down the banhammer upon anyone who printed something in vague disagreement with their prescribed strictures, the situation would be a very different one indeed. Can you spot the difference?
Click to expand...

Ok that was a bad example, but I still think that--depending on the intent--spreading false information is illegal. Just a few months ago during Hurricane Sandy some dude posted on Twitter that the NYSE was flooded and a lot of news outlets took his tweet as fact and reported on it, even though it wasn't actually true. Just making that tweet isn't illegal (or at least he hasn't been prosecuted yet), but if he was spreading information to gain an advantage in the stock market he would face criminal penalties.

http://gigaom.com/2012/10/30/tweeting-fake-news-in-a-crisis-illegal-or-just-immoral/

So I still stand by my original point that just saying the Holocaust didn't exist is ok, but using that "information" to incite people is illegal.
 
P A said:
Well, of course, there's no shortage of such miserable misogynistic cesspits on this planet. I'm not quite that naive. I was just shocked to learn that a state as comparatively 'civilized' as the U.K. (a wealthy Western democracy-of-sorts) would be so compromising on the whole 'freedom of speech' schtick, which I've always considered a fundamental cornerstone of a free and open society.
Click to expand...

Can you really get away with saying literally anything in the media in the US? I'd be extremely surprised if that's the case, especially considering that simply swearing on TV is such a big deal there from what I've seen (not making any sort of judgment, just pointing out).
 
No you can not. Threaten the President's life via twitter and see how that goes?

Although, that is a digression....

I don't believe the media conditions males to be cads, it just ( at worse ) is a reflection of a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement that reaches back before recorded history.

There is a more base genetic and physiological component to the generally malecentric impulse to use and/or subjugate the feminine gender.
 
cheerio said:
No you can not. Threaten the President's life via twitter and see how that goes?

Although, that is a digression....

I don't believe the media conditions males to be cads, it just ( at worse ) is a reflection of a deeply ingrained sense of entitlement that reaches back before recorded history.

There is a more base genetic and physiological component to the generally malecentric impulse to use and/or subjugate the feminine gender.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I figured. Just to show that total freedom of speech really is a bit of an illusion.

I agree with you, I don't think the media is responsible for this in any way, more likely is it just reflecting reality. I'm curious to know what you mean exactly by genetic and physiological impulses to subjugate the feminine gender? Dyou not think it's just something that's been present in society for so long & become so ingrained that we see it as 'normal' now? I don't really see any logical explanation why men would have such impulses when you consider that they're predominantly taken care of/brought up by women etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top