Some of us disagreeYou are free to explain how masculine poses that emphasize strength, power, and individuality are exploitative and demeaning.Then rather than try and describe something you probably will decide not to agree with, may I recommend you spend a while educating yourself and then coming back to the discussion.
Do a google image search on the words 'gay muscle porn'. If you are still having trouble with understanding how the 'masculine poses' are exploitative and demeaning then come back and we can explain.
You're welcome.
Naw it's cool I don't really want to look at gay porn, and especially don't want any sort of porn on my browser history; and even if I did, they would hardly be any context! You're still free to explain how it's exploitative and demeaning though!
Pulls up chair and gets out the popcorn...
Joins the Jester, offers up some Jaffas or Malteasers.
I wonder if there will be any other stunts than back peddling by the participants after having their argument from "Authority" shot down by somebody pointing out that the world is far more complex than just male-female sexuality.
|
Pulls up chair and gets out the popcorn...Joins the Jester, offers up some Jaffas or Malteasers.
I wonder if there will be any other stunts than back peddling by the participants after having their argument from "Authority" shot down by somebody pointing out that the world is far more complex than just male-female sexuality.
"There is an authority on gay porn here?"
Sits down beside CJ and the Dwarf. Offers up some crisps!
Pulls up chair and gets out the popcorn...Joins the Jester, offers up some Jaffas or Malteasers.
I wonder if there will be any other stunts than back peddling by the participants after having their argument from "Authority" shot down by somebody pointing out that the world is far more complex than just male-female sexuality.
"There is an authority on gay porn here?"
Sits down beside CJ and the Dwarf. Offers up some crisps!
Not only back peddling but back flips as well - this guy is talented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has now been done.
Sorry, I'm not an expert on gay porn.
Use words to explain what you are trying to say.
Watch me use them:
The problem with "feminine" poses is that what they idealize is weakness and submissiveness when they are "realistic" poses, and when they're not realistic poses they are awkward pushes towards making the female character push out her chest or expose as much of her body as she can. This pushes the "ideal female pose" into one that is based entirely around sexualization and submissiveness.
Running opposite of that are masculine poses, which idealize strength, power, and individualism. Masculine poses when they are unrealistic are done to push out and expose muscularity which in turn is tied to physical strength. This pushes that the "ideal male pose" is one based entirely around power.
Perhaps the most damning thing about this is simple: women can engage in male poses without looking rediculous, while men cannot engage in female poses without looking rediculous. This was indeed the purpose of the already given pictures. When a female character is put into a masculine pose, then she takes on the idealization of strength, power, and individualism. Generally most people don't have issues with this; a strong female character is rightfully lauded and appreciated. However, when a male character is put into a feminine pose, then he takes on the idealization of submissiveness and showing off his skin. This is why it looks rediculous - because in society the role of being submissive is a feminine one, and when a male character is pushed into a feminine one, societal views reject it.
Or, to put it more simply, it's seen as alright to work your way up in society, but not to fall down it. It's fine for women to "work up" to male posing, but it's not alright for men to "fall down" into female posing.
You can say what you like, however your points hold no weight as you have already professed taht you are not only ignorant when it comes to the topic, but that you are steadfastly and vehemently resisting any efforts to be informed.
I can only point at you now and state simply, for the record, 'The Emperor has no clothes', and had you but glimpsed at the wisdom we have tried so hard to impart on you, you'd be well aware he was indeed truly naked, and in a pose that emphasized strength, power, and individuality which was also exploitative and demeaning.
I declare your position pretty much defeated as you can't deal with the evidence and have resorted to an equivalent of covering your eyes and stating you are now invisible.
Are you afraid that by liberating your mind your body might follow?
So uh. Is there any way you could make your point without having to sift through gay muscle porn, Shifty?
Well it depends...
Andrew made a point about the poses of men, ProfCirno said he was wrong.
Now the choice is yours...
You can either listen to ProfCirno who has categorically demonstrated he has no true idea of his subject - yet professes he is correct despite not actually knowing.
Or you can take Andrews opinion as valid, with over twenty four million images on Googleimages that reinforce his point.
So the balance is there for you.
Do you wish to accept the opinion of one sharing with us the depths of his inexperience, or would you prefer to accept the opinion of a man with 24100000 pieces of evidence stating categorically he is right.
The only reason you need to trawl through the pile of 'Man Candy' is if you would like to satisfy yourself/challenge that the evidence is valid, or you could simply accept that it is true.
So there's no evidence for Andrew's argument that isn't gay muscle porn?
You say that as though that amount of evidence alone is insignificant.
It is the most clear cut, decisive, blatant, in your face, crystal clear, indisputable evidence that what he is saying is 100% correct - to the tune of tens of millions of easy to understand images just a lazy mouseclick away.
I don't need to provide further proof.
It's proven.
Waiting for the armstand forward somersault pike.
Do you believe that pornography is exploitative and demeaning?
Not inherently so.
And you believe that masculine poses cannot be exploitative?Do you believe that pornography is exploitative and demeaning?Not inherently so.
If someone has non-muscle dong related arguments that they can be I would be interested in hearing them. For now, let us say no, I do not believe that masculine poses are exploitative.
I was just hoping you'd be polite enough to make your argument in a way that doesn't involve me having to look at gay muscle porn to understand it.
And this has been done for you.
Unfortunately you are now thrust in the position of having to decide whether Andrew is right, and the images are equally demeaning/exploitative, or whether Cirno is right, and they are not.
Now when you make your decsion, you can either accept I have 24100000 bits of evidence to support my position, or you can check the facts for yourself as easily as just doing a google search.
Otherwise you can accept Cirno's position,despite the fact that he has revealed he has no clue at all about the matter.
I leave that up to you.
If someone has non-muscle dong related arguments that they can be I would be interested in hearing them. For now, let us say no, I do not believe that masculine poses are exploitative.
Despite volumes of proof provided to you that you are wrong, and despite the fact that you have openly denounced the thought of looking at the evidence?
To accept your position we would need to be the blind led by the man who has already declared himself blind.
Why won't you accept the evidence?
You wanted a smoking gun, as it were, and were given millions of them.
Why do you now turn away from the evidence you wanted?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not responding to you again until you make an argument. If you have a point to make then make it.Do you believe that pornography is exploitative and demeaning?
If so, do you believe gay muscle pornography is NOT exploitative and demeaning?
And you believe that masculine poses cannot be exploitative?
To put it another way, this is somewhat of a nonstarter. I would return with:
"Why are women in fantasy art drawn as porn when men aren't?"
Of course they are Cirno.
Educate yourself on the topic a bit more. Are you afraid you might rise to the occasion?
Fantasy art is full of man porn.
Fantasy art is full of man porn.
It is indeed full of porn for men.
Now, far be it from me to demean others, let it be known that I've nothing against gay porn, gay porn specifically related to muscle porn, or the viewers, be they men or women, that enjoy it. I simply do not see how it applies to the current argument.
So Cirno you seem to want to backflip on your position a lot.
Your initial position
The whole point is that "feminine" poses are really dumb and exploitative.
and the masculine ones are not?
That is correct. The masculine ones are not.
Some of us disagree
You are free to explain how masculine poses that emphasize strength, power, and individuality are exploitative and demeaning.
...and this was illustrated for you.
Yet you REFUSED to look.
Now you choose to play dumb:
I simply do not see how it applies to the current argument.
So you try to change the topic and run away. Very sad...
You don't consider bare-chested musclemen in loincloths to be porn?
Oh he does, he just doesn't consider porn to be exploitative.
Which odd, because his whole argument is based around 'feminine poses are demeaning', which means apparently just having them spread eagled for wide open beaver shots must be A-OK because theres nothing feminine about that kind of display.
"Why are women in fantasy art drawn as porn when men aren't?"You don't consider bare-chested musclemen in loincloths to be porn?
No, I do not.
Edit: I already see where this can go so let me clarify: not in the realm of mainstream fantasy art and comic books.
No, I do not.
But as you have no authority or expertise, nor even a passing familiarity with the subject, we can easily discard this opinion as having no weight.
Hard to look authoritive when you yourself have publicly maintained a position of ignorance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why are women in fantasy art drawn as porn when men aren't?"You don't consider bare-chested musclemen in loincloths to be porn?No, I do not.
Edit: I already see where this can go so let me clarify: not in the realm of mainstream fantasy art and comic books.
Probably because you're not the target audience. How many romance novels have a shirtless male on the cover, after all?
Edit: Really? You don't think Conan is titilating to female fans?
Or, I could assume that you're full of crap, because you can't even devote one sentence to why your argument has any merit.
"Trust me and look at the fetish porn!" is not an argument. It's a trap.
You dont have to trust me. If I wanted you to trust me I'd just say "DONT BOTHER LOOKING, YOU CAN JUST TRUST ME" (which I did) or you can NOT trust me, and go see for yourself.
In fact the only reason you need to go and have it proven to you is if you categorically DON'T trust me.
But I WAN'T you to trust me, and in doing so, there would be no no need to go look at the evidence so you could dispute the claim...
Edit: Really? You don't think Conan is titilating to female fans?
And male ones, I'd wager there were plenty of guys hoping for a little piece of that particular bulging heap of rough-trade.
WWE Wrestling has a huuuuuuge Gay following, and frankly it's not about the cute days of our lives story lines.
Probably because you're not the target audience. How many romance novels have a shirtless male on the cover, after all?
Edit: Really? You don't think Conan is titilating to female fans?
I think there is a distinctive difference between how Conan is presented and how romance novel cover or male models are presented.
Conan is designed to appeal to heterosexual men, not women - the emphasis is on very large muscles, a heavily scarred body (scars aren't a turn on for most women), and a dour, broadened face, with typically very flat, often oily hair.
Your standard Fabio play in has a fairly broad shouldered body, indeed, but his skin is typically very smooth and unblemished. His face is rounded, and the standard is for him to be very passionately looking into the girl's eyes. His hair is one of three things; if long, very full bodied and likely wafting slightly; if cut short it's cut into a more professional stylized look; if at a medium between, it's kept stylized to show off his face.
Your average male model is in fact usually not broad shouldered but very lithe looking. Muscled in a much more lean manner. As with the romance novel character, his body is entirely unblemished. Hair, likewise, is either kept full bodied and long, professional and short, or stylized and at medium length.
The romance novel picture and the male model are designed to appeal to women. Their poses are ones that either show off a lithe, smooth body, or a more broad shouldered but very passionate one. Conan in comparison is modeled to show off dourness - he's meant to be something of a "man's man," who doesn't show emotion. While the female-designed men have smooth and unblemished skin, Conan's body is frequently painted to illustrate a wide variety of scars. Again, this is because Conan is made for men - an unblemished, smooth body accentuates beauty, while a tough, scar-ridden hide accentuates toughness.
I could go on further if you'd like, but my emphasis is this: Conan is made first and foremost to appeal to heterosexual men by being typecast as a fantasy for them to become. They want to be like Conan, to be tough, uncaring, very physically strong, because these are the values society pushes as being of the highest ideal for men.
Conan is designed to appeal to men, not women
Well you certainly got a lot of that right.
It was so campy you could carve it, that movie was softcore gay porn.
Even old Arny did a Gay cameo - "All of a sudden he found out that Kent had used it as a vehicle in a homosexual pornography movie using Arnold's posing footage, so while he's doing his routine you've got your gay audience self-gratifying themselves."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad dress=104x325201
I don't intend to trust anyone who can't even devote one sentence to explaining his argument or explaining how fetish porn is relevant to it, no. This (greased, heavily muscled) emperor has no clothes.
Then if you don't believe me, you are sort of stuck at having to look at the evidence.
You can't have it both ways, well... you can, I'm broad minded enough not to judge you for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I find that exploitative and demeaning.They want to be like Conan, to be tough, uncaring, very physically strong, because these are the values society pushes as being of the highest ideal for men.
Oh, the topic of men and boys being held to demeaning standards is indeed a very interesting one, and one you might find me agreeing with far more then you might expect.
However, that topic is about the societal expectations of men as far as social functioning goes, not about masculine posing and feminine posing.
Let me put it this way: It is totally wrong that men are pushed into aspiring for physical violence and emotional weakness. However/ that is different from masculine poses. Masculine poses are ones not built on emotional weakness; on the contrary, feminine poses are. Masculine poses are built on both physical and emotional emotional strength; feminine poses are built on both physical and emotional weakness.
Conan is designed to appeal to men, not womenWell you certainly got a lot of that right.
It was so campy you could carve it, that movie was softcore gay porn.
Even old Arny did a Gay cameo - "All of a sudden he found out that Kent had used it as a vehicle in a homosexual pornography movie using Arnold's posing footage, so while he's doing his routine you've got your gay audience self-gratifying themselves."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&ad dress=104x325201
I do not recall Frank Frazetta painting Arnold.
You uh.
You do know Conan exists outside of the movies, right?
You're having me on.
You haven't even explained the relevance, or even what to look for. Just "Go look at fetish porn, and my argument will be obvious!"
I refer you to the above:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gamerLife/talk/womenFighters InReasonableArmor&page=4#183
Relevance explained. You are welcome.
Your invitation to have you on is appreciated, but I will have to pass thanks, I don't go that way.