Honestly, not really.
It seems like a lot of effort and I suspect that we'd end up agreeing anyway.
Advertisement

by Alvecia » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:03 am

by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:04 am
Ifreann wrote:Naushantiya wrote:The west is the sole reason for the objectification of women and the mouthpiece of this is the playboy magasin
Are we to take your word for this, or can you explain why depictions of naked people performing sex acts from other cultures do not contribute to the objectification of women?

by The Archregimancy » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:28 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Ifreann wrote:Are we to take your word for this, or can you explain why depictions of naked people performing sex acts from other cultures do not contribute to the objectification of women?
I can field this one, i've dealt with these types before.
Because capitalist patriarchy wasn't involved in their production, commodification, and distribution. You see, those other ones are women freely expressing their sexuality.
But western society is imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, and hierarchical. As such, when they do it, it's bad and fundamentally oppressive, because western society is fundamentally oppressive due to its structure being imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, etc.

by Ifreann » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:44 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I can field this one, i've dealt with these types before.
Because capitalist patriarchy wasn't involved in their production, commodification, and distribution. You see, those other ones are women freely expressing their sexuality.
But western society is imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, and hierarchical. As such, when they do it, it's bad and fundamentally oppressive, because western society is fundamentally oppressive due to its structure being imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, etc.
You're very likely overthinking Naushantiya's approach here, which can probably be summed up as:
"Western culture is bad (and British culture is very bad)"
"Anything associated with Western culture is the root of all bad things in India, thanks to the very bad British."
"Playboy is therefore bad because it's associated with Western culture; the Khajuraho Monuments are irrelevant because they were brought up by a notoriously and openly British moderator who was clearly trying to distract us from the evils of Western culture."

by Ostroeuropa » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:45 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
I can field this one, i've dealt with these types before.
Because capitalist patriarchy wasn't involved in their production, commodification, and distribution. You see, those other ones are women freely expressing their sexuality.
But western society is imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, and hierarchical. As such, when they do it, it's bad and fundamentally oppressive, because western society is fundamentally oppressive due to its structure being imperialist, colonialist, capitalist, etc.
You're very likely overthinking Naushantiya's approach here, which can probably be summed up as:
"Western culture is bad (and British culture is very bad)"
"Anything associated with Western culture is the root of all bad things in India, thanks to the very bad British."
"Playboy is therefore bad because it's associated with Western culture; the Khajuraho Monuments are irrelevant because they were brought up by a notoriously and openly British moderator who was clearly trying to distract us from the evils of Western culture."

by Ereria » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:34 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Ereria wrote:Why won't they start making porn? Like Reality Kings or Brazzers. They already have a brand name, they could reach the top pretty fast.
I imagine because that type of pornography doesn't fit their brand image.
Hefner's first-ever editor's letter claimed that Playboy was aimed at men who 'enjoy mixing up cocktails and an hors d’oeuvre or two, putting a little mood music on the phonograph and inviting in a female acquaintance for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex'.
Whether anyone contributing to this thread buys into that attempt to claim sophistication for a Playboy brand that was becoming increasingly frayed at the edges is another matter entirely, but - and I can't really speak from experience here - I don't imagine that your average video on Reality Kings or Brazzers involves a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche or jazz over a freshly mixed drink.
Dropping the nudes and keeping the articles is likely far more in keeping with what Hefner wants Playboy to be than hardcore pornography would be.

by Gauthier » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:41 am

by Czechanada » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:46 am

by Gauthier » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:48 am
Czechanada wrote:I feel the need to say something, but I cannot quite imagine what it should be.

by Galloism » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:51 am

by Czechanada » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:52 am

by Gauthier » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:56 am
Czechanada wrote:Gauthier wrote:
That it's sad when porn is so commonplace that one of the pioneers in the field decide to drop nude pics altogether?
No, it would be moreso that it's strange that we still consider it be to a necessary distinction to identify between those who are clothed or naked, and the fact that there is still stigma around purchasing and viewing pornography to begin with.

by Czechanada » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:58 am
Gauthier wrote:Czechanada wrote:
No, it would be moreso that it's strange that we still consider it be to a necessary distinction to identify between those who are clothed or naked, and the fact that there is still stigma around purchasing and viewing pornography to begin with.
Would you work at a steel mill naked?

by Cetacea » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:07 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Ifreann wrote:India famously has no deceptions of sexual acts at all. Kama Sutra? No, that's from the vile, decadent west. Or it doesn't count as porn.
I can't post specific examples without breaking the site rules, but anyone who thinks Hinduism doesn't do pornography should google 'Khajuraho monuments' - the latter are a UNESCO World Heritage site consisting of a series of Hindu and Jain temples whose famous medieval erotic sculpture far surpasses the tame nudes in Playboy.
Playboy, for one, has never attempted to show anyone having sexual intercourse with a horse.
The Wikipedia entry is mostly safe; but I wouldn't open up the Google Images results for that search unless you're at home.

by The Archregimancy » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:18 am
Cetacea wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
I can't post specific examples without breaking the site rules, but anyone who thinks Hinduism doesn't do pornography should google 'Khajuraho monuments' - the latter are a UNESCO World Heritage site consisting of a series of Hindu and Jain temples whose famous medieval erotic sculpture far surpasses the tame nudes in Playboy.
Playboy, for one, has never attempted to show anyone having sexual intercourse with a horse.
The Wikipedia entry is mostly safe; but I wouldn't open up the Google Images results for that search unless you're at home.
decadent westerner! thats Art not Pornography!![]()
ps is it true that an elephant is depcted amongst those monuments too?
Gauthier wrote:I thought manisdog was DoS.

by Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:20 am
The Archregimancy wrote:Cetacea wrote:
decadent westerner! thats Art not Pornography!![]()
ps is it true that an elephant is depcted amongst those monuments too?
There are certainly sculptures of elephants next to copulating humans; I don't know if any show humans attempting to copulate with elephants - and I'm not inclined to go looking.

by Eol Sha » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:22 am
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
There are certainly sculptures of elephants next to copulating humans; I don't know if any show humans attempting to copulate with elephants - and I'm not inclined to go looking.
The logistics of such an activity baffles me. *breaks out a piece of paper, a ruler and a calculator*

by Olthar » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:24 am
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:
There are certainly sculptures of elephants next to copulating humans; I don't know if any show humans attempting to copulate with elephants - and I'm not inclined to go looking.
The logistics of such an activity baffles me. *breaks out a piece of paper, a ruler and a calculator*

by Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:25 am

by Sun Wukong » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:27 am

by The Huskar Social Union » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:30 am

by Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:30 am

by Eol Sha » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:31 am

by Internationalist Bastard » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:39 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Escalia, Fartsniffage, Immoren, Kostane, New Ciencia, The Grand Duchy of Muscovy, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement