AD Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Even though a little exhibitionism doesn't bother me, it still does bother quite a few women. Yeah, but women made the choice to enter the competition. And other women clearly object to that. So is it exhibitionism or empowerment? And who decides? It can be both, and it doesn't have to be automatically negative right? Sorry you had to bow out Deb, you seem to be passionate about the issue. Debates are opposing opinions discussing a topic, it won't be as lively without you. But I'm almost done with this as well. AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidy Mae Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Good point AD. I'm just curious as to why women choose to enter these competitions. I can venture a guess that it is for the attention, the fame and notoriety, the wealth, the modelling contracts to follow, etc. These assumptions are admittedly negative. I just think that if someone wants to change the world, they usually do some following an alternate route.The above benefits for the winner, while not inclusive of all contestant's ambitions, are hardly dignified rewards. I guess it's a fine line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Good point AD. I'm just curious as to why women choose to enter these competitions. I can venture a guess that it is for the attention, the fame and notoriety, the wealth, the modelling contracts to follow, etc. These assumptions are admittedly negative. I just think that if someone wants to change the world, they usually do some following an alternate route.The above benefits for the winner, while not inclusive of all contestant's ambitions, are hardly dignified rewards. I guess it's a fine line.Except while there may be benefits for people other than the winner, we don't hear about it so it's impossible to measure. Alternate Route -> Ronald Reagan was an actor, he changed the world a whole lot. Some for the better, some not.Change almost always comes from the unlikliest of places. I'd rather everyone have a chance to do it, rather than exclude people because they won a contest.AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 It just came across to me that Calamity's opinions were disregarded by some. I thought the point of this debate was to get some discussion going...weigh in our male and female opinions and see how each other feels. No not disregarded at all. Just for the record, I never said Calamity Jane's opinions on the subject were obnoxious and have let it be known that I essentially agree with the general consensus that men need to re-evaluate their perceptions of the role of the female in society, and that we've got a long way to go in that respect, myself included, and yes, most of my male friends. My reaction is based on the fact that this debate is not furthered in any way by: telling another person to re-read a link telling another person to look something up in a dictionary telling someone they may think they are a nice person but they really may not be telling someone they "don't get it" referring to someone as “people like you” when all that is being attempted here is a public debate. Deb, I dig your posts, your sense of humour and your contributions to this board. And anyone who loves Bruce Cockburn as much as you do is a friend of mine! I just get frustrated at seeing my friends being spoken down to. I am not blind to the world around me. I cannot believe what I see young women wearing these days, and I’m only 31. Few things are more depressing than seeing 14 year old girls running around half-nude, marinated in cosmetics and presumably emulating whatever media figure they have in mind – Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, whoever the “it” girl is these days. However, I don’t think Brian should be flayed for suggesting there needs to be a sense of relativism in our reactions to situations such as the one in Toronto. The half-nude teenage girls I saw writhing in each others’ laps on the bus last week weren’t taking their cues from the Miss Universe pagaent. They’re not even close to being that sophisticated, such as it may be. They were taking their cues from music videos, television and peer pressure, among other aspects. Now, I also know that all these things are connected, and I completely agree that one can lead to the other and that we need – men especially – to be more vigilant in defining the terms of what is acceptable and what is not. But as much as it is important to not encourage 8 year old girls to become body-conscious, it is also important to allow society to have a sexual component, preferably aimed squarely at adults. I’m not sure where a beauty pagaent fits into this equation but I wouldn’t want to live in a society where men and women can’t enjoy the feeling of being desirable or sexy, no matter what their figures are. Nigel was 100% correct to ask “what’s wrong with being sexy?”. here's an interesting article that takes in a little of what we are discussing. Oh, and I think she is beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 If everyone demanded peace instead of another Television, there would be peace" - J. Lennon Check Mate. ~W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I'm all for an informed debate. That way, I can make up my own mind about the matter.Informed debate doesn't happen when one side is silenced out of hand. I'm generally capable of recognizing an idiot; I don't need someone else to be my moral guardian and do it for me. If anything, I find the implication that I'm incapable of making an informed decision to be degrading. Am I being protected from moral turpitude because I'm a delicate flower of womanhood, or is it because I'm de facto assumed to be one of the stupid masses of humanflesh?When I'm offended, I'm quite capable of expressing it on my own behalf, without demanding that my morals be made into a trump card for whatever reason, be it my gender, my race, my religion, or my social status, or for no reason other than a narcissitic sense of moral superiority. Clearly the pageant winner believed she was doing the right thing in entering this pageant and all the ones leading up to it. Perhaps she should be the one to explain her reasoning.Stupid things don't necessarily go away just because they're banned. Stupid things go away when people understand that these things are stupid. History has some spectactular examples of good or innocuous things being banned, just because someone didn't understand or agree with them. The use of native languages, the sale of alcohol, the sale of seltzer water on Sundays, the belief that the earth is not flat--all squashed by our moral superiors. I'm sure that the people opposed to these things were all very sincere and presented some very compelling arguments, but looking back at them, we shake our heads in wonder. How and why did these people get so much power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calamity Jane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 GOD -- it is all too easy to misinterpret TONE on here. Even you came to your own defense on the "obnoxious" comment people misunderstood, so allow me to do the same: (and I'm taking the effort here, because I also have a high opinion of you, Marc-O) anyway, I was in NO way "speaking down" to Hamilton (though without the para-language clues of body language, facial expression, tone & volume of voice, how could anyone know that?) IMO, his post suggested he had not read the article, and I simply stated he should do that. I did not TELL him to "re-read" it, and I specifically avoided such condescending phrases as "I suggest you should actually read the article..." to specifically avoid being heard as arrogant. I stand by my "purplpe font" humour to look up the difference between sexy/sexual and sexist. It was intended as a light-hearted jab (again hard to decipher as I continually and frustratingly realize) and NOT as an "arrogant-I-know-more-than-you" thing. "nice guy" was in quotes for a reason -- it's a cliche. "nice guys" or well-intentioned people can do alot of damage without intending it -- does that mean we shouldn't challenge them on it? Reread my post in CONTEXT -- see what it is I'm saying he "doesn't get" (Hi Hamilton, sorry to be talking about you in the third person!! Suppose someday we'll put faces to names?) Anyway, if someone has a better suggestion for how we should challenge people's acceptance of the status quo, and NOT offend them, I'm open to hearing it. Agreeed: "people like you" is a sweeping over-generalization to be avoided. Now Marc-O, it's people like you who give me hope: I am not blind to the world around me. I cannot believe what I see young women wearing these days, and I’m only 31. Few things are more depressing than seeing 14 year old girls running around half-nude, marinated in cosmetics and presumably emulating whatever media figure they have in mind – Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, whoever the “it” girl is these days. However, I don’t think Brian should be flayed for suggesting there needs to be a sense of relativism in our reactions to situations such as the one in Toronto. The half-nude teenage girls I saw writhing in each others’ laps on the bus last week weren’t taking their cues from the Miss Universe pagaent. They’re not even close to being that sophisticated, such as it may be. They were taking their cues from music videos, television and peer pressure, among other aspects. Now, I also know that all these things are connected, and I completely agree that one can lead to the other and that we need – men especially – to be more vigilant in defining the terms of what is acceptable and what is not. THANKS FOR THAT! THIS CONFIRMS MY SENSE OF YOU. and to your point about not wanting "to live in a society where men and women can’t enjoy the feeling of being desirable or sexy, no matter what their figures are. Nigel was 100% correct to ask “what’s wrong with being sexy?”..... you're SO RIGHT...this IS what to strive for. So in that pursuit, I loudly bring back the voracious demand for "MORE BOY TITTIES!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeps Posted July 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) I'm all for an informed debate. That way, I can make up my own mind about the matter.Informed debate doesn't happen when one side is silenced out of hand. I'm generally capable of recognizing an idiot; I don't need someone else to be my moral guardian and do it for me. If anything, I find the inplication that I'm incapable of making an informed decision to be degrading. Am I being protected from moral turpitude because I'm a delicate flower of womanhood, or is it because I'm de facto assumed to be one of the stupid masses of humanflesh?When I'm offended, I'm quite capable of expressing it on my own behalf, without demanding that my morals be made into a trump card for whatever reason, be it my gender, my race, my religion, or my social status, or for no reason other than a narcissitic sense of moral superiority. Clearly the pageant winner believed she was doing the right thing in entering this pageant and all the ones leading up to it. Perhaps she should be the one to explain her reasoning.Stupid things don't necessarily go away just because they're banned. Stupid things go away when people understand that these things are stupid. History has some spectactular examples of good or innocuous things being banned, just because someone didn't understand or agree with them. The use of native languages, the sale of alcohol, the sale of seltzer water on Sundays, the belief that the earth is not flat--all squashed by our moral superiors. I'm sure that the people opposed to these things were all very sincere and presented some very compelling arguments, but looking back at them, we shake our heads in wonder. How and why did these people get so much power? At what point was it implied that you couldn't fend for yourself?I don't see what harm discussing the morality of particpation in anything could do.Her entering the contest at all is of relevance and my objection is not in any way an attempt to take her voice, it's my opinion.Confused.Deeps Edited July 20, 2005 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 The other day, I stuffed my 40-something-year-old ass into a pair of butt-hugging, low-slung pants. I yanked on a belly-baring, skin-tight top over my bra-less breasts. Then I went out vacationing for the day.My belly button was out there for the world to see, with my four-month pregnancy sticking out right behind it.Tell me I'm not beautiful. I dare ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Stupid things don't necessarily go away just because they're banned. Stupid things go away when people understand that these things are stupid.I think you're spot on there. Banning things may sometimes be necessary, but often enough that repression just squishes them somewhere where they erupt with that much more force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I could see banning her from City Hall if she was a terrorist. A terrorist of beauty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 At what point was it implied that you couldn't fend for yourself?At the moment it was decided that I needed to be shielded from something deemed offensive, just because my reproductive organs are on the inside.At the moment it was decided that I was part of a bunch of stupid people.At the moment it was decided that I required some degree of shock value to stimulate a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I could see banning her from City Hall if she was a terrorist. A terrorist of beauty! Well played, old boy. Well played. AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calamity Jane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I could see banning her from City Hall if she was a terrorist. A terrorist of beauty! i suppose it's a good thing this thread is getting silly... W -- are you drinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeps Posted July 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 At what point was it implied that you couldn't fend for yourself?At the moment it was decided that I needed to be shielded from something deemed offensive' date=' just because my reproductive organs are on the inside.At the moment it was decided that I was part of a bunch of stupid people.At the moment it was decided that I required some degree of shock value to stimulate a response.[/quote']What in Gawd's name are you talking about?Did we (all men), (all people), do this? or are you referring to societal pressures and ideals?When has this come into play for you in your life time?....examples would help.Deeps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I have gotten *no* work done today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidy Mae Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 At what point was it implied that you couldn't fend for yourself? At the moment it was decided that I needed to be shielded from something deemed offensive' date=' just because my reproductive organs are on the inside. At the moment it was decided that I was part of a bunch of stupid people.*** At the moment it was decided that I required some degree of shock value to stimulate a response. [/quote'] Okay, I may be totally dense here (after all, I have been number crunching all bloody day). Are the comments regarding being "shielded" from something "offensive" relating to something someone posted on this thread? Are these comments directed towards a certain statement or opinion? What relevance does your attire have to this debate? I'm not trying to be a smartass (believe it or not ), but I'm having one hell of a time following along. I am so confused. ***If by "stupid people" you are referring to women, I don't think this statement is fair. From the views expressed by both men and women on this thread, I don't think anyone has expressed that belief. Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I have gotten *no* work done today.Oh good, you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AD Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I have gotten *no* work done today. Situation normal for me!! AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 At what point was it implied that you couldn't fend for yourself? At the moment it was decided that I needed to be shielded from something deemed offensive' date=' just because my reproductive organs are on the inside. At the moment it was decided that I was part of a bunch of stupid people.*** At the moment it was decided that I required some degree of shock value to stimulate a response. [/quote'] Okay, I may be totally dense here (after all, I have been number crunching all bloody day). Are the comments regarding being "shielded" from something "offensive" relating to something someone posted on this thread? Are these comments directed towards a certain statement or opinion? What relevance does your attire have to this debate? I'm not trying to be a smartass (believe it or not ), but I'm having one hell of a time following along. I am so confused. Seconded. No disrespect intended but I also am unclear as to what you are referring to or reacting to. One might even say your post is.... (wait for it).... arcane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calamity Jane Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 me confused also. and would someone please cut off my jambands connection so I can get some work done!!! I already tried to walk away once....but you "keep pulling me back in!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 i've been downloading mp3's all day, and amusingly reading this thread progress...i'm wondering where Hamilton went...as i know he is not one to back down....probably away from his pc (i wish i was as well, lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 Brian is at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeps Posted July 20, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 I have gotten *no* work done today.Yep me too! It's awesome eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted July 20, 2005 Report Share Posted July 20, 2005 funnily enough Brian is the only person involved in this thread that actually did get work done today.I love everyone. Let's all have sex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now