something I just wanted to complain about
Janis Maria Cortese
about the medical industry either. This has just gotten me pissed, and
I thought that this was a decent forum to bitch about it, and it might
start some fruitful and thoughtful discussion.
Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
learning how to relate to the real thing?
I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
using that word in a general way; I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have. You
know -- how their best buddy has a faster computer than they do, how
their friend's speakers are more powerful, how they have fewer cubic
inches than the next-door neighbor. How the other guy in the gym's
girlfriend gives better head, and has bigger tits, etc. etc. etc.
And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on this!
Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like! Get naked and
stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a woman's body?!? Hah!
Think again, sweetheart!
And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real by
cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?" Isn't
that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth as a female
-- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who can't relate to
the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you
forgot about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
clitorises!!
Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've asked him
WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY young girls. You
know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt down the street?
Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to complain if he doesn't know
what he's doing (as he secretly believes he doesn't), she has an
insufficiently formed sense of self-confidence to demand nice treatment
when she doesn't get it, and her personality is in enough flux that she
won't necessitate any messy self-examination on the part of the guy --
she won't expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll
expect him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
Pardon,
Janis
CSMSETS
cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> .. Stuff deleted ...
>the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
>fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
>IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have. You
>know -- how their best buddy has a faster computer than they do, how
>their friend's speakers are more powerful, how they have fewer cubic
>inches than the next-door neighbor. How the other guy in the gym's
>girlfriend gives better head, and has bigger tits, etc. etc. etc.
> ... Stuff deleted ..
Sorry Janis but I've gotta throw in my two bits here,
Men are not the only ones with the "trade up mentality" (I've
been told by a friend {female} from Maine that California is
probably the worst place for this type of behavior), in fact I think
its a problem with people, not just men. (I can smell the smoke from
the flames for this one already...)
--Ed
Peggy Brown
>I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here, but then neither did my rant
>about the medical industry either. This has just gotten me pissed, and
>I thought that this was a decent forum to bitch about it, and it might
>start some fruitful and thoughtful discussion.
>
>Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
>movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
>breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
>About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
>cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
>learning how to relate to the real thing?
>
>I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
Yeah. All true. But women do the same to men and they die
younger.
- Peggy -
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
[...Cool World, and how people aren't cartoons...]
Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that
I'm talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN
PARTICULAR, that I'm ranting about societal values more than any
single man or group of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is
appropriate here, BUT you people seem open-minded enough to allow
me to blow off some steam, and to wring some meaningful discussion
out of this.
But, but... if you're not talking about real people you're talking
about a stereotype or a fantasy. But, maybe you are talking about
something real?
I haven't seen Cool World yet, and if/when I do see it, it's not going
to be to find the meaning of my life -- I'd be more interested in
seeing Bashki's work. And, well, frankly [pun unavoidable] I don't
think he tackled a very easy topic [pinnochio with a more "living" and
less "moralistic" theme than truth or consequences??]. It's very
tough to outdo a classic or a cliche.
As for societal values, well, think about it: how do you provided a
mechanism for the continued existence of the human race which will
work in the face of just about any set of circumstances? [Answer, you
put a lot of failsafes in. Society has to work inside this sort of
constraint.] I, for one, am not going to campaign for an end to sex
drive and silly fantasy, because I don't feel qualified to do so.
Maybe I will be able to empathize with you more strongly after I see
the movie...
--
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell <rock...@socrates.umd.edu>
Leo Smith
No originals to comment on...just a story told to me by a very dear
friend of mine.
Shortly after his marriage had broken up to a girl he was desperately
in love with. (She was going downhill on drink and other things) he
was at a real low ebb. Now this guy is not a prticularly 'liberated'
guy. He used to play guitar in a rock band - which will give you the
context - but somehow he always seemd to attract women who just
always seemd to want to take care of him... well anyway, at the
wedding of a friend, he met a girl: She was a particularly worldly
and wonderfully generous sort of person, and needing a place to stay
for a few days in London, she agreed to return with him as he had
space to spare in the house - what with the breakup and all.
Needless to say, it rapidly turned into an extended lust session. The
girls in question said to him '****, as far as I cam concerned, you
can do anything you like - feel free' and so he did. He indulged
every fantasy, and she complied as well. Likewise he told me that she
asked a few favours too...which he willingly granted.
After three days she said 'Er **** - I think' and he said 'Yeah....I
agree' 'Weve just about covered that, haven't we?' and she left.
He says that she was the best friend to him at that time that she
could have been: By understanding his need to project and fantasise
in order to get through some terrible personal traumas she really
gained his total respect. By leaving quickly she also showed a LOT of
sensitivity that wasn't lost on him either.
I knew her before, and she has to rate as someone who has my respect
as well, and she gets my generosity of the year award as well.
It can be pretty tough being male: just as much as female. We're all
subject to the biological imperatives, and its hard to spot where
friendship ends and biology begins.
Sometimes, by indulging those fantasies to the limit, they change
from potential serious obsessions into just - fantasies - fun things
to dream about and play with your partner, not Dark Urgings from the
Subconscious.
May all of you find such partners :-)
RNA
>Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've asked him
>WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY young girls. You
>know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt down the street?
>Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to complain if he doesn't know
>what he's doing (as he secretly believes he doesn't), she has an
>insufficiently formed sense of self-confidence to demand nice treatment
>when she doesn't get it, and her personality is in enough flux that she
>won't necessitate any messy self-examination on the part of the guy --
>she won't expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll
>expect him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
>
>Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
>
>Pardon,
>Janis
>
<sigh>
Just for the record, this kind of posting would not have been
acceptable if it had been posted by a male with similar comments about
women, even with the "Even though I've just gotten through spewing two
pages of total steriotypical crap about a group that I claim no alliance
with and therefore have no direct knowledge of, it's still okay because I
said at the beginning that there are exceptions and anyone in that gruop
who feels offended should know enough not to include themselves in my
tirade, and besides _I'm not accusing anyone in particular_"
<sigh>
Like since the KKK don't have a problem with _individual_ african
americans, _I_guess_that's_O_K_then_.
"Well, we don't mind _all_ blacks, just the ones we know about."
|RNA (DNA's bad-ass sidekick) / "Decency?! I am a pirate!
|Internet: r...@ux.acs.umn.edu/ I don't _do_ 'decency'!"
|Bitnet : rna@umnacux / - Don Carnage
Stephen R. Figgins
>
> Sometimes, by indulging those fantasies to the limit, they change
> from potential serious obsessions into just - fantasies - fun things
> to dream about and play with your partner, not Dark Urgings from the
> Subconscious.
>
> May all of you find such partners :-)
This reminds me of something from _Weave of Women_, by E.M. Broner.
One of the character's brothers is a real maudlin type. He feels
ashamed of his sister's affair with a politician who is married, and
treats her poorly. He prays for her, rends his clothing, and fasts.
When his sister Vered finds him, he is immovable, he continues to
pray, he does not see her, he says she is dead to him. He is in
serious depression. She takes the matter to her friends. She says
her mother must be brought back to life. Dahlia says he needs another
Vered, another sister. One of the women says she will go to him.
"
She reaches into the lantern case and pulls out the key. It is still
warm from the bulb. She does not knock but opens the door. She
clicks on no lights in the darkened room. She hears soft breathing
and is unafraid.
"Bo," she whispers. Come.
She flicks her lighter. The brother is awake and stares at
her. His senses are sharpened from his fast. He is not insane. He
is bereft.
"I am your sister," says Dahlia, "your mother, your love."
She pulls him from the chushionless chair.
Dahlia unties the halter top. It falls. Her breasts are
already pointing.
"I am here to quench your thirst," says Dahlia.
She unzips her long skirt. Her panties are bikini. Her waist,
stomach and hips are full.
He cries out.
"I am here to give you life," says Dahlia.
He falls upon her and eats until he is sated. When he awakens
her arms are around him. She does not need to sleep. He loves and
sleeps. In the dawn she is gone.
He knocks his body around the room looking for her. He opens
the door, no footsteps down the stairs. She is not in the bath.
She has left him a note on the kitchen sink.
"I am alive. Vered is alive. The Land is full of love for
you."
"
He goes to class, gets a date for a makeup exam.
Next Vered's friend Mihal comes for him.
"I am Mihal from Haifa," says Mickey. "I want a man with whom
I can be gentle and who will treat me softly. I, too, have been badly
wounded."
He studies in the library undistracted. He writes two reports.
The next night comes Tova
"Do not be afraid, Vered's brother," says Tova. "I, too, am
your family."
He looks for part-time work.
The next is Simha, the seer.
It is early evening of that day. A large woman and her baby enter the
room of Vered's brother. The baby is placed carefully on the chair
without its cushions. The woman comes to him.
"I will give you sustenance," says Simha. "I will give birth
to you."
She presses down her nipple and the sweet, thick fluid squirts
into his opened mouth.
He stocks his refrigerator at the corner grocery. That night...
"Laughs?" asks Gloria.
She saunters in. Vered's brother laughs.
He replaces the cushion on the chair, removes the cloth from
the bathroom mirror.
On the sixth day, when the beasts of the earth were created
and cattle and everything that creeps upon the earth, and male and
female created He them, there is a fumbling at the door. There is
some trouble with the lock. Deedee denters, blinking in the dark.
"Something different?" asks Deedee. (the singer)
The following day Vered's brother begins to sing.
The night of the seventh day the door opens. It is Vered.
"Come in, my sister,' Says her brother. "I have been expecting
you."
They lie next to each other. They are family. They are the
past. They both can live.
"Send him away, Vered," says her brother.
"I did," says Vered.
---
The women in the stone house have performed their good deeds.
They are Temple Priestesses, renewing themselves and saving lives.
The book is all very amazing from a pagan viewpoint. The richness of
Jewish culture is something I admire, and I wish Wicca had a similar
identity. I occaisionally pick up a Jewish Feminist magazine "Lilith"
to read about the rituals, and the womens' perspective on God/dess. I
think most pagans would really love this book.
What Leo wrote reminded me of Sex as a way of healing. It also
reminded me of the Charge "all acts of love and pleasure are my
rituals." It reminds me of my own occaisional sexual fantasies of
making love to women I hardly know. Women who live next door to me,
women across the street, women I see walking. Women of all types, a
great variety of women. I want to feel their energies, have a taste
of their lives, share and intimate moment with them. Then I want to
leave, to taste another in a great endless sea of lovers, whose energy
bouys me up, lends me its strength.
Just a fantasy. Maybe in a different society, a different time. I do
have a substitute. Feet. I love to give foot massages. People don't
often realize it, but there are really wonderful chakras in the feet
that are usually unprotected. When rubbed, feet chakras spill out
their energy, giving me a taste of what it might be like to make love
to these people. Full massage is wonderful, sensual, and yes, also
very sexual. I wonder if many massage therapists feel this way?
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Stephen R. Figgins | There was an old woman
kum...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Who lived under the hill
PO Box 1244 | And if she's not gone
Lawrence, KS 66044 | She lives there still
___________________________________________________________________________
clg...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
> I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here, but then neither did my rant
> about the medical industry either. This has just gotten me pissed, and
> I thought that this was a decent forum to bitch about it, and it might
> start some fruitful and thoughtful discussion.
>
> Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
> movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
> breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
> About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
> cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
> learning how to relate to the real thing?
I havn't seen the movie in question but I get the jist of it from your
posting. Why should men not be allowed to have these fantasies about women,
most men now that that is just what they are.If as many men as you make out
cannot relate to the real thing then we would not see so many happy
relationships as we do.
>
> I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
> the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
> sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
> these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
> bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
Of course men like womens bodies, although I think most men have an idea
of what they think womens bodies should be. Some men like women with big
tits and others don't
> Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
> in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
> gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
> using that word in a general way;
I think that many women go on diets not to be more attractive to men but
to have more self confidence in themselves; also I think that peer pressure
has a lot to do with it.
I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
> men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
> fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
> that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
> periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
> parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
> like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
Whats wrong in having these fantasies as long as you know that this is all
they are?
> A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
> athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
> breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
> breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
> up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
> harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
> the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
> fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
> IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have.
How many women have fantasies about me built like Stalone and every women
will have there own idea about the perfect size of dick a man should have,
but when it comes down to a relationship its not sex that matters is it,
what would you do if you found the man of your dreams, only to descover he
only had a 2 inch dick? would you get shot of him because he does not have
the perfect fantasy body that you dream about?
Becoming experienced at sex is like anything else, learn by your mistakes
and the more you do it the better you get.
> Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
> talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
> that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
> of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
> people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
> to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
If you need to blow off some steam then fair enough but is it that important
that a movie with tits in it gets you wild enough to need to blow? I think not
>
> Pardon,
> Janis
>
Ian Davis
Please no Email about womens lib etc as I find it all very boring.
Marcus White
>
>I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>bodies."
Greetings: One of Gilda Radner's characters bemoaned the FDA's ban on
sacharin with the reasoning, "Studies have shown that 3 out of 4 men
prefer women with terminal cancer to women with fat thighs."
--
mwh...@gauss.unm.edu | You can't have freedom of | # Vivat #
Mathematics & Statistics | expression and a mandate of | # Res Publica, #
University of New Mexico | politeness at the same time.| # *PEREAT* #
Albuquerque, NM 87131 | Amanda Walker | # Imperator! #
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
today, by a nagging feeling that I've missed the main point. [I've
still not seen the movie, by the way, but that just means I'm even
more opinionated. :-> ]
Janis Maria Cortese:
I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it,
maybe the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that
still sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like
the (and these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have
of women's bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think
she's right. Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural
fat that nature put in our bodies suctioned out at great personal
risk, and get carcinogenic gels injected under the muscle layers
over our sternum? Men (and I'm using that word in a general way; I
KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW men who don't think that way, but
boy are they in the minority) like the fantasy image of women --
fantasies that won't contradict you or say that you've forgotten to
carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have periods, fantasies
that will never say anything wittier than them at parties,
fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up like
twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
Ok, first off, Janis' mom is not a man [as far as I know], so I think
I'd be somewhat interested in what experience she was basing her
opinion on. Janis agrees with her to a certain extent, and I've heard
other women express dissatisfaction of a similar flavor, so there is
obviously something here.
But, when I look at my personal experience, I see something
different... For example, one lady, who I was once quite close to,
would vigorously disagree with me when I told her how beautiful she
was. I don't mean as in playing coy, I mean as in distrusting me, and
getting irate about it. Her hips were too thick [though,
incidentally, not as large as "Holly Would"'s in Cool World posters],
her breasts either too large or too small [depending], her waist too
heavy, and her eyes, she thought, were ugly. Further, she had some
very lovely tiger striping on her breasts [regular "stretch marks"]
that I thought were attractive, but that she would prefer I never
noticed.
I mean, usually if a woman complains to me about how her body is
"blah" I can figure out what she's talking about. And, maybe, there
is something that men do that encourage such a negative self image.
But.. but... I've seen enough of this that I know that if anyone had
the "silhouette that appears on a trucker's mud flap", that she could
be very dissatisfied with her body, and could claim that her self
image was something that men or society had forced on her. And maybe
she would have a point.
A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has
big breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her
that her breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't
stick straight up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger
something is, the harder gravity pulls on it?
Um, "guys have told her"? My first reaction on reading this was that
this was something one guy had told her, and that she was
generalizing. My second is that maybe several guys had said how they
wished her nipples pointed in a different direction, or some similar
disparaging remark. [That might be easy to fix: point body in
different direction... :-]
Still, there's another point here: for at least part of their lives,
most guys have little or know idea how girls look, naked. You might
complain about how a cartoon character has no visible clit, but think
about how much more this is so for people walking down the street
wearing normal clothes. It's... polite society is not without its
drawbacks.
And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on
this! Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like!
Get naked and stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a
woman's body?!? Hah! Think again, sweetheart!
Easy for you to say -- you've years of experience with your own body.
And, you can't really blame an adolescent male's ignorant
misconceptions on a lack of curiosity...
I dunno, maybe the movie was totally embarassing to watch. Maybe the
characters were two-dimensional and cartoon-like. Maybe the plot was
weak and contrived. But, I can't help but think that the problem is
not that this was a sexually oriented cartoon, but that the problem is
the sexual nihlism which exists outside of the cartoon.
And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real
by cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?"
Isn't that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth
as a female -- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who
can't relate to the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women
don't tell you that you forgot about the clitoris again, huh?
Hell, they don't even HAVE clitorises!!
I take it this is a sore point. [I'm not trying to be snide, I'm just
trying to be observant.] I'm a little bemused by that last paragraph
-- is the problem too much emphasis on sex or not enough? Both?
I mean, earlier in the article there's this complaint about how men
are not interested in women's bodies, but that they're interested in
their fantasy images of women's bodies. Addressing the element of
truth in this: about the time a guy hits puberty, he's going to be
aware that girls his age have been getting changes in their bodies.
And, if he's being raised by "good parents", he's not going to have a
clue, for years, what the result is like. This is in spite of the
biological imperatives...
The question I ask is: if you could change this, what kind of changes
would you make?
Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've
asked him WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY
young girls. You know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt
down the street? Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to
complain if he doesn't know what he's doing (as he secretly
believes he doesn't), she has an insufficiently formed sense of
self-confidence to demand nice treatment when she doesn't get it,
and her personality is in enough flux that she won't necessitate
any messy self-examination on the part of the guy -- she won't
expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll expect
him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
You missed a couple bets -- when children are young, they're allowed
to play with each other freely. As they grow older, they get
segregated, for one reason or another. If you're of a conservative
bent, you might wish for "the way things were".
And there's the aspect where some older women have learned to avoid a
variety of things. Be careful about smiling at someone, because you
might give him ideas, that kind of thing. Or maybe it's less
voluntary than this -- but it's always easier to converse with someone
who's willing to talk to you than one who's not, regardless of that
person's age or sex.
Anyways, I hope that this cuts closer to the original subject. [And,
maybe I should go see Cool World -- but not tonight.]
ed...@verifone.com
> I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here,
Well no, Janis, it didn't. However, I am glad you posted it. I think
you should also post it to soc.women and a few other newsgroups that
are more relevent to the issue, including the one for movies.
People learn what we are taught, and films (and fantasies) are just
another means of enculturation -- i.e., we learn about what we are
supposed to be from films we watch (among MANY other things).
Positive human values begin in childhood, taught by the preceding
generation. Mothers need to take more of an active role in the
enculturation of male children for one thing. Dads will teach
their sons what _they_ were taught, or what they learned on their
own, which is often the same thing. Women need to teach positive values
as well, like "this is what you should do" instead of "this is what
you shouldn't do." It's easier to retain and deliniate positive
behavior.
Film-makers make films of what sells. They're in it for the money,
not for the message. If the film is unsuccessful, they don't make
that kind any more. Boycott (or girlcott) Cool World.
And remember, guys (and their bodies) (and their attitudes)
don't always meet the fantasy expectations of women, either.
Hey, in the real world sometimes guys don't get hard all the time
and it has nothing to do with the woman. Although women have been
far more liberal with men than the opposite.
Know this: Until we are all free, none of us are free.
Free men and women from oppressed stereotypical roles. Let each person
determine their own limits based on their own personal limitations.
Eliminate gender discrimination, and start at our basic concepts
of the roles of males and females early in childhood enculturation.
Also: Eliminate the false, manufactured concept of race; we are all one
species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and thank (insert favorite higher
spiritual power) we don't all look alike!
--
//=====================================================================\\
|| Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. Earth ||
|| Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, Earth Native Ed...@VeriFone.Com ||
|| * Opinions Copyright (c) 1992 Ed L'Esperance. All Rights Reserved. * ||
\\=====================================================================//
P.S. Janis, if you post your diatribe to other newsgroups, I will
followup your message with mine. Cooperation accomplishes more.
ed.
Janis Maria Cortese
Don't worry, dear, no flames, but this mentality is EVERYWHERE. I'm not
originally from California but Philadelphia, and it's there, too.
I was disturbed, though, to hear that, out of the estimated 2 million
women with breast implants, 1 million of them are in southern
California. Pretty damned sick, huh?
And, I don't think women have upgrade mentality. Instead, thanks to
the Beauty-and-the-Beast mentality, they think they can get any man off
the street and, by applying their feminine wiles, change him into Prince
Charming. Equally dangerous, and it sticks us with some crummy people.
Every battered wife secretly hopes that someday, her man will wake up
and say, "How I've mistreated you over they years! Come and let me give
you the love and tenderness that your kind and silent suffering tells me
you deserve!"
It does, however, in both instances, lay the responsibility for the
makeover on the woman's shoulders -- she must make herself over to
please him, and she must make him over to please herself. Bet you
didn't know you were expected to be such a wondrous alchemist, ladies of
the net!
Blessings,
Janis
Janis Maria Cortese
Dunno --
I think men do it to each other. Remember the old Charles Atlas
commercials about the 98-lb. weakling who gets sand kicked in his face?
The beach bunny he was with was a lego block, a prop. He built himself
up so that he could show off TO THE OTHER MAN, and go kick sand in his
face.
Anyway, regardless of who does the doing, the same thing IS NOT done to
men. In Victorian days, we had to cinch in our waists so severely that
we passed out if we so much as stood up. In the 1920's, we had to strap
our breasts down so the flapper beads would hang flat. In the `50's, it
was the Jayne Mansfield look -- bleahced hair and DD breasts that stuck
out like missiles. In the `60's, it was Twiggy, and we had to be
pencils. Nowdays, we starve ourselves and get fat sucked out of our
bodies -- we have to be Mrs. Schwartzeneggers with big tits. Even right
down to wearing nylons and putting paint on our faces, we have NEVER
been good enough as nature made us. There was ALWAYS a unified standard
of female beauty against which ALL were measured.
I recently saw the cover of the new TV Guide. It had "TV's New
Turn-Ons" on it -- Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short bald old
guy (with admittedly a REALLY great voice) and a silicone special.
Don't EVER expect to see a grey-haired woman called a "TV Turn-On." Not
in THIS lifetime.
Blessings,
Janis
Larry D. Stratton
>I recently saw the cover of the new TV Guide. It had "TV's New
>Turn-Ons" on it -- Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short bald old
>guy (with admittedly a REALLY great voice) and a silicone special.
>Don't EVER expect to see a grey-haired woman called a "TV Turn-On." Not
>in THIS lifetime.
>Blessings,
>Janis
The essence of your thoughts seems to be captured in your last
paragraph. And, what a sad comment it is on this society.
Thanks for saying it Janis.
ld
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <2A61F3B...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>> I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here, but then neither did my rant
>> about the medical industry either. This has just gotten me pissed, and
>> I thought that this was a decent forum to bitch about it, and it might
>> start some fruitful and thoughtful discussion.
>>
>> Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
>> movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
>> breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
>> About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
>> cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
>> learning how to relate to the real thing?
>
>I havn't seen the movie in question but I get the jist of it from your
>posting. Why should men not be allowed to have these fantasies about women,
>most men now that that is just what they are.If as many men as you make out
>cannot relate to the real thing then we would not see so many happy
>relationships as we do.
So many as YOU do, perhaps. We also wouldn't see so many women who have
silicone injected into their bodies. And before you talk about "so
many happy relationships," recall that the churchmen of the Middle Ages
talked about "wedded bliss," too, despite the fact that any man of that
era could beat his wife to death with no legal backlash.
And think of the high divorce statistics.
>> I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>> the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>> sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>> these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>> bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
>
>Of course men like womens bodies, although I think most men have an idea
>of what they think womens bodies should be. Some men like women with big
>tits and others don't
Oh, come ON. I never heard of any guys saying, "Jeez, my latest
girlfriend is REALLY built. She has AA tits, man!" Are you honestly
going to claim that there is NO standard for women? I suppose all that
liposuctioning and face-painting is just something that we got together
and invented one day.
>> Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
>> in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
>> gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
>> using that word in a general way;
>I think that many women go on diets not to be more attractive to men but
>to have more self confidence in themselves; also I think that peer pressure
>has a lot to do with it.
Ever stop to think about WHY women's self-confidence seems to hinge so
crucially on being thin? And just where the peer pressure comes from?
You've just said the same thing I've said, only using two different
labels for it.
> I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
>> men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
>> fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
>> that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
>> periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
>> parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
>> like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
>
>Whats wrong in having these fantasies as long as you know that this is all
>they are?
They DON'T. They are deluged from birth with images like that and told,
"These are what real WOMEN are like." They DO NOT separate fantasy from
reality. They expect women to be what they are in Penthouse, and then
blame us when we're what we really are. It distorts their expectations,
and they get pissed at us for not living up to them. I, my frind
mentioned below, a very close friend back home, and another EXTREMELY
close friend here have ALL had men tell us that our "tits are too
small," or "disappointing," or "hang too much." I remember putting my
arm around a friend of my roommate at Penn State, a young woman I barely
knew, and patting her on the back as she bawled on my shoulder. She had
come up to visit a new boyfriend and overheard him talking to his
"buddies" about her; she also had big breasts. Whenthe subject came up,
she heard him say (with the chorus of laughter many men reserve for
these things), "Well, I'm sure as hell not going with her for her
PERSONALITY!" (insert laughter here) I barely KNEW this poor thing,
and she was so broken up that she was crying on my shoulder while I
patted her back.
My old boyfriend-creature used to say, "Gee, I wish you're tits were
bigger." He used his hands to describe to me -- ON MY OWN BODY -- what
the proper proportions would be. My friend mentioned below got the same
treatment, except he said, "Gee, I wish they stuck out more." My friend
back home (I'm trying not to use names) was told that they hung down too
much. My close friend here was told they were too small for her height.
That's FOUR WOMEN known ONLY BY ME. We're batting pretty good, huh?
Strip joints and hookers and pornis mags and movies displaying the
female body are a huge industry, while the Chippendales are one tiny
little example of the "now that we're liberated, let's act like men"
attitude that some women have, in a spirit of revenge. Besides, the
Chippendale's club CLOSED, last I heard from lack of business, while the
porn industry that splays women out is still humming along nicely.
Sorry, you can't say, "Oh, women are just as objectifying as men," and
use that as an excuse to say that men can then do what they want to us.
If you think that (most) men know the difference between fantasy and
know enough to not compare us to their ideals, you're smoking something.
>> A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
>> athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
>> breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
>> breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
>> up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
>> harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
>> the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
>> fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
>> IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have.
>
>How many women have fantasies about me built like Stalone and every women
>will have there own idea about the perfect size of dick a man should have,
>but when it comes down to a relationship its not sex that matters is it,
>what would you do if you found the man of your dreams, only to descover he
>only had a 2 inch dick? would you get shot of him because he does not have
>the perfect fantasy body that you dream about?
Sorry. As far as the dick size goes, that's YOUR dream, mister. I have
NEVER KNOWN ONE WOMAN to talk about how a guy's dick should be a certain
size. MEN talk about it all the time, though. The very tall very close
friend mentioned above has a husband who used to get teased in the
shower by the other men around him. MEN are the ones obsessed by penis
size, NOT WOMEN. I HAVE no perfect fantasy body for men, and I have no
society that demands that I do. I have no constant influx of images
telling me, "This is what you want." How DARE you lecture me on
something that I know perfectly well. Remember the old Charles Atlas
commercials? I mention this in another post. The 98-lb. weakling gets
sand thrown in his face by the beach bully, embarrassing him in front of
the beach bunny. The beach bunny's opinion was NEVER stated in the ad,
was it, and at any rate the ad was written by men. Remember how the
98-lb. weakling built up and went back to kick sand in the bully's
face? The men that wrote that ad didn't give a SHIT about the beach
bunny -- they made the 98-lb. weakling fear the OTHER MAN. MEN have
their own fantasy images of what they should look like, too, and their
not what women want. I SAY AGAIN FOR EMPHASIS, I HAVE NEVER HEARD *ANY*
WOMAN TALK ABOUT HOW "MY MAN HAS A LITTLE ITTY-BITTY DICK SO I'M GOING
TO DUMP HIM." Men love to imagine that that's so, and they're DEAD
FUCKING WRONG, in general -- yes, ingeneral. The same way that many men
are NOT infected with fantasy-itis IN GENERAL.
What the HELL does this have to do with pedophilia?
>> Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>> talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>> that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>> of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>> people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>> to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
>
>
>If you need to blow off some steam then fair enough but is it that important
>that a movie with tits in it gets you wild enough to need to blow? I think not
>> Pardon,
>> Janis
>>
>
>Ian Davis
>
>Please no Email about womens lib etc as I find it all very boring.
>
Oh, poor you. You didn't seem bored by it in your post. If you find it
boring, too fucking bad. Feminism is about my achieving the status as a
human being I deserve. Fuck you, too.
Janis
Janis Maria Cortese
In many instances (and I'm speaking from experience), if a woman's body
does not conform to what she's told (by various means) is nice, and
someone compliments her, she feel slike she's being made a fool of, made
fun of, or patronized. She may have gotten irate because she felt that
you were patting her on the head, saying, "Oh, sweetie, even if everyone
else says you're ugly, *I* think you're very nice," in an appropriately
condescending tone of voice.
Even if that was NOT what you intended (and I'm pretty confident that
that's what it is), it comes across that way at times. Open a woman's
magazine and look at how many ads there are for creams to remove not
"very lovely tiger striping" but "unsightly stretch marks." We are
NEVER told that stretch marks are attractive. You can't cure a lifetime
of put-downs with one "I think you're pretty."
>I mean, usually if a woman complains to me about how her body is
>"blah" I can figure out what she's talking about. And, maybe, there
>is something that men do that encourage such a negative self image.
Next time you go to the supermarket, look at how many magazines have
model's faces on them. "This is what you should look like." The next
time a commercial for a product that has "only xxx calories" comes on,
notice whether the company shows a man or a woman eating it, and keep
stats.
>But.. but... I've seen enough of this that I know that if anyone had
>the "silhouette that appears on a trucker's mud flap", that she could
>be very dissatisfied with her body, and could claim that her self
>image was something that men or society had forced on her. And maybe
>she would have a point.
It's either that or say that women are just genetically prone to lack of
self-confidence and a good body image, and that's just preposterous.
(I'm waiting for the follow-up to THAT.)
> stick straight up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger
> something is, the harder gravity pulls on it?
>
>Um, "guys have told her"? My first reaction on reading this was that
>this was something one guy had told her, and that she was
>generalizing.
Try about four or five, the MAJORITY of her boyfriends.
>My second is that maybe several guys had said how they
>wished her nipples pointed in a different direction, or some similar
>disparaging remark. [That might be easy to fix: point body in
>different direction... :-]
>
>Still, there's another point here: for at least part of their lives,
>most guys have little or know idea how girls look, naked. You might
>complain about how a cartoon character has no visible clit, but think
>about how much more this is so for people walking down the street
>wearing normal clothes. It's... polite society is not without its
>drawbacks.
My mother was very forward-thinking, and I was exposed to many of the
booklets in school that girls are given that talk about menstruation.
Get a few of them and see how many of the DON'T EVEN INDICATE the actual
entrance into the body. Every boy know what a penis is; I was a
teenager before I even knew that a clitoris existed. Keep in mind that,
again, I had gotten supposed education in school about female anatomy.
I mentioned this to my mom one time, and she said, "WHAT!?!?!?" She had
assumed that the booklets were more enlightened than in her day, and was
rudely awakened when I informed her that they weren't.
> And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on
> this! Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like!
> Get naked and stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a
> woman's body?!? Hah! Think again, sweetheart!
>
>Easy for you to say -- you've years of experience with your own body.
>And, you can't really blame an adolescent male's ignorant
>misconceptions on a lack of curiosity...
When that curiosity is satisfied by pornies and trucker's mudflaps, I
can get pissed about it, though. Why else do you think so much
ignorance exists? You can see tons of mags and TV/movie examples of
fake cartoon-female impersonator women, and NOT ONE about honest truths
of sexuality. We're too busy drooling over the cartoon to even CONSIDER
the reality. The cartoon is a smokescreen, keeping us from
investigating what's really there.
>I dunno, maybe the movie was totally embarassing to watch. Maybe the
>characters were two-dimensional and cartoon-like. Maybe the plot was
>weak and contrived. But, I can't help but think that the problem is
>not that this was a sexually oriented cartoon, but that the problem is
>the sexual nihlism which exists outside of the cartoon.
And the two of them are anything but unrelated.
> And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real
> by cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?"
> Isn't that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth
> as a female -- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who
> can't relate to the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women
> don't tell you that you forgot about the clitoris again, huh?
> Hell, they don't even HAVE clitorises!!
>
>I take it this is a sore point. [I'm not trying to be snide, I'm just
>trying to be observant.] I'm a little bemused by that last paragraph
>-- is the problem too much emphasis on sex or not enough? Both?
Too much emphasis on sex from only one point of view. Feminine concepts
of sexiality are ignored -- there's far too little emphasis on that.
Masculine concepts of sex (or what are called predominantly masculine,
at least) are blown wa-a-a-ay out of proportion, until we only get one
side of the question. THAT'S what the sore point is. Sex is seen from
the eyes of only the men -- and not even REAL men! The point-of-view of
the men is just as much a cartoon fantasy as the women it sees.
>I mean, earlier in the article there's this complaint about how men
>are not interested in women's bodies, but that they're interested in
>their fantasy images of women's bodies. Addressing the element of
>truth in this: about the time a guy hits puberty, he's going to be
>aware that girls his age have been getting changes in their bodies.
Oh, really? How many little boys do YOU know of that understand the
mechanism of menstruation?
>And, if he's being raised by "good parents", he's not going to have a
>clue, for years, what the result is like. This is in spite of the
>biological imperatives...
He will, however, have yards of crap like this (a PG-13 movie so the wee
ones can see it) to fill up the void. Instead of truth, we fill our
young children's minds with misinformation and falsehood.
>The question I ask is: if you could change this, what kind of changes
>would you make?
I can't say. You don't get rid of crap like this by passing a law or
making it illegal. For YEARS (thousands of `em) sex has been called
filthy and shameful and driven underground, and this is the result.
Clearly censoring sex isn't the answer; that's what got us here in the
first place!
I'd like to see little kids' honest questions met with equally honest
answers about what the opposite (or same if you lean that way) sex is
like, so that they aren't filled with shit and then disappointed later
on when all that misinformation has NOTHING to do with reality.
That's awfully abstract, though. As to how to get it across concretely,
if I knew that, I wouldn't be so frustrated.
> Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've
> asked him WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY
> young girls. You know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt
> down the street? Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to
> complain if he doesn't know what he's doing (as he secretly
> believes he doesn't), she has an insufficiently formed sense of
> self-confidence to demand nice treatment when she doesn't get it,
> and her personality is in enough flux that she won't necessitate
> any messy self-examination on the part of the guy -- she won't
> expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll expect
> him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
>
>You missed a couple bets -- when children are young, they're allowed
>to play with each other freely. As they grow older, they get
>segregated, for one reason or another. If you're of a conservative
>bent, you might wish for "the way things were".
How many kids' parents in this country do you think wouldn't freak out
if they found their kid playing doctor in the garage with the neighbor's
kid? Kids are NOT allowed to deal with sex freely. Playing dodge-ball
is not the same as screwing a thirteen year old.
>And there's the aspect where some older women have learned to avoid a
>variety of things. Be careful about smiling at someone, because you
>might give him ideas, that kind of thing. Or maybe it's less
>voluntary than this -- but it's always easier to converse with someone
>who's willing to talk to you than one who's not, regardless of that
>person's age or sex.
Especially if the conversation is sure not to verge into the areas of
himself that the man would rather avoid.
>Anyways, I hope that this cuts closer to the original subject. [And,
>maybe I should go see Cool World -- but not tonight.]
What IS the original subject, by your definition?
Blessings,
Janis
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <2A61F3B...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>> I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here,
>
>Well no, Janis, it didn't. However, I am glad you posted it. I think
>you should also post it to soc.women and a few other newsgroups that
>are more relevent to the issue, including the one for movies.
>
>People learn what we are taught, and films (and fantasies) are just
>another means of enculturation -- i.e., we learn about what we are
>supposed to be from films we watch (among MANY other things).
>
>Positive human values begin in childhood, taught by the preceding
>generation. Mothers need to take more of an active role in the
>enculturation of male children for one thing. Dads will teach
>their sons what _they_ were taught, or what they learned on their
>own, which is often the same thing. Women need to teach positive values
>as well, like "this is what you should do" instead of "this is what
>you shouldn't do." It's easier to retain and deliniate positive
>behavior.
I think dads should be more unafraid to act as something other than
family disciplinarian. Too many children grow up with distant fathers
and never have an image of caring and gentle men in their lives.
>Film-makers make films of what sells. They're in it for the money,
>not for the message. If the film is unsuccessful, they don't make
>that kind any more. Boycott (or girlcott) Cool World.
I intend to do so, but I have read about it (so I can talk about it
intelligently). I just don't want to give the movie company my $6.50.
>And remember, guys (and their bodies) (and their attitudes)
>don't always meet the fantasy expectations of women, either.
>Hey, in the real world sometimes guys don't get hard all the time
>and it has nothing to do with the woman.
ExCUSE me?
>Although women have been
>far more liberal with men than the opposite.
>
>Know this: Until we are all free, none of us are free.
>
>Free men and women from oppressed stereotypical roles. Let each person
>determine their own limits based on their own personal limitations.
And (as I said in a previous post), teach our children honestly about
sex and the opposite sex, so that their little brains are filled with
accuracies instead of the cotton-candy fluff (like this horseshit) that
we give them now.
>Eliminate gender discrimination, and start at our basic concepts
>of the roles of males and females early in childhood enculturation.
>
>Also: Eliminate the false, manufactured concept of race; we are all one
>species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and thank (insert favorite higher
>spiritual power) we don't all look alike!
You're not kidding! Although this is unrelated to my current rant, it
pisses me off as well. The most "attractive" black women are also
frequently the ones with the "whitest" features; READ UP and talk to
black women if you dont' believe me. I have, and TO A PERSON they have
all agreed -- the whiter-looking you are, the prettier you are. Gentile
is prettier than Jew. Blond is prettier than brunette. We're trying to
stomp ourselves (inCLUDING women) into one big homogeneous pancake, and
the death of possibility and diversity makes me sick. You won't find a
blond dying her hair brown, but you'll see MANY Chicanas and Mexicanas
bleaching theirs, and wearing blue contact lenses. You will see women
with the lightest-skinned black men they can find, instead of the really
blue-black black men (and women).
We're killing our diversity this way.
>P.S. Janis, if you post your diatribe to other newsgroups, I will
> followup your message with mine. Cooperation accomplishes more.
>ed.
Every single time I've posted to other groups, it's brought nothing but
a deluge of hate-mail and pornographic suggestions. If I had a nickel
for every time that Usenetters in situations like this have called me
EXPLICITLY a fat chick who doesn't get any, or a feminazi, or speculated
on my cup size or height or weight, I'd be sunning my bare ass on the
Costa Del Sol. I've been ranted at too damned much, and I'm sick of it.
I just can't bring myself to open myself up to that again.
Thanks for the offer, though.
Janis Maria Cortese
[deleted]
>Even if that was NOT what you intended (and I'm pretty confident that
>that's what it is)
I didn't realize at the time how this came across. I meant to say that
it seemed to me that you WEREN'T being condescending.
Hope there wasn't any misunderstanding,
Janis
Paul Harvey
>I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here,
Sounds like a pretty good definition of pagan. Anyway, lots of
interesting viewpoints on the always interesting system of oppression we
call modern civilization or the mainstream. Thanks. Teaching disrespect
of elders is a pretty clever trick, but that's how it works. Young women
are taught to look to older men for guidance. Older women are taught
that they are not wanted any longer. Why? Simple. It's the older women
who have seen the system in action for awhile, it is they who may have
learned how it works. We can't have them telling the young women about
it. That would break the system and all the cycles upon cycles of
disrespect. You know the funny thing is that, I bet that a greater
percentage of women think young women are more valuable, than men think
young women are more valuable. Isn't that interesting? And tell me the
system doesn't work. Who knows what would happen if there really was equality
of rights for all, regardless of race, sex or age. Personally, I think it
might be worthwhile finding out, it's gotta beat what we got now. But
will those of privalege that they are not entitled to be willing to give
it up for the greater good? What to do? Well, we can always toss on a
rekkid from the Wailers, maybe they know.
"This is stand up for my rights. I know what that is, see? An' I don't
care 'oo the guy is, because my right is my right." -B.Marley
I say preacher man don't tell me, heaven is under the earth
I know you don't know, what life is really worth
it's not all that glitter is gold, 'alf the story had never been told
so now you see the light, you stand up for your right
Get up, Stan' up, Stand up for your right
Get up, Stan' up, [in the morning] don't give up the fight
Get up, Stan' up, [life is your right] don't give up the fight
most people think, pray God will come from the sky
take away everything, make everybody light
if you know what life is worth, you will look for yours on h'earth
so now you see the light, stand up for your right
you know we're sick and tired of your booshit game
you lie and go to heaven in a Jesus name
we know and we understand, the mighty God is a livin' man
you fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time
so now we see the light, we're gonna stand up for our right
"Me life is all important, if me can have plenty people. If me my life
is me my own security, than me no want it. My life is the people. That's
the way me is." -B.Marley
In article <2A64A6...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>
D. 'krikket' Krick
I figure, someone's gotta take you up on this issue, from a male's point of view. So I am. (With my luck, all this will get is is instant notariety on "alt.pagan", and I'm not refering to the good kind... Ahh well.)
In article <2A61F3B...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Maria Cortese) writes:
>Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
>movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
>breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
DD breasts? No thanks. I prefer the smaller ones anyways... :)
>About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
>cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
>learning how to relate to the real thing?
Can't say I've seen the movie *YET*, but I intend to soon. (Then again "soon" for "Lethal Weapon 3" was last week, instead of when it came out... Not enough time in the day, I guess...)
>I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
The image society projects is that of the cartoon woman. Personally I feel that the women are just as guilty of that as the men. God knows how many females I've told (many of whom I was dating at the time) *NOT* to diet or what-have-you to look better. Simply because I felt they looked their best as is. But I have yet to be beleived by a single person! Even when the majority of her (and/or) my friends agreed that the weight-loss would be silly...
>Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
>in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
>gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
>using that word in a general way; I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
>men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
>fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
>that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
>periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
>parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
>like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
Yeeesh. I *KNOW* that *I* wouldn't have anything to do with a cardboard image like that. And neither would most of the men I know!
>A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
>athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
>breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
>breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
>up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
>harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
>the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
>fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
>IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have. You
>know -- how their best buddy has a faster computer than they do, how
>their friend's speakers are more powerful, how they have fewer cubic
>inches than the next-door neighbor. How the other guy in the gym's
>girlfriend gives better head, and has bigger tits, etc. etc. etc.
Once again (and I admit, I may be in the minority here) but I PREFER women with smaller breasts. More than a mouthful *IS* a waste in my book. (There was one person who I dated, and I could take her ENTIRE breast in my mouth - God/dess, what a turn-on!) Side comment: I also don't date/not-date females because of their breast size. I've also been with a few with bean-bags with breasts...
>And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on this!
>Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like! Get naked and
>stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a woman's body?!? Hah!
>Think again, sweetheart!
That's the capitolistic system for ya! It isn't the first, and won't be the last... How many cartoons are out there with the guy just as characterized? Think about it. Even in the saturday-morning cartoons. No real man has shoulders THAT big. Or muscles THAT large. Or... All cartoons are characterized in the way society looks at 'em. And then they are lampooned for effect. It's nothing to get angry about! Yeesh!
>And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real by
>cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?" Isn't
>that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth as a female
>-- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who can't relate to
>the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you
>forgot about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
>clitorises!!
And how many cartoon men have penises?
>Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've asked him
>WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY young girls. You
>know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt down the street?
>Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to complain if he doesn't know
>what he's doing (as he secretly believes he doesn't), she has an
>insufficiently formed sense of self-confidence to demand nice treatment
>when she doesn't get it, and her personality is in enough flux that she
>won't necessitate any messy self-examination on the part of the guy --
>she won't expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll
>expect him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
I have to disagree with you on this one BIG-TIME! And I'm most-likely going to get flamed from half of the Net for explaining this one in full.
I am 21. I was recently [forcibly] seperated from my better half [Teri] by her parents. [She is 15.] We dated for a YEAR with her Father knowing my age. (Her Mom thought I was 19, but the rest of the facts remained the same.)
I did not date her for any lack of self-confidence. I dated her because of who she was. Yes, I'll admit her personality was in flux, but then again so is EVERYONES to some extent. No one is EVER "permanently sane". The relationship started at a showing of Rocky Horror, when I didn't know her age. Later when I found out, I attempted to leave her, but she didn't want to end the relationship. So we seperated for a month. After that month, we both realized that we still had feeling for each other, and th
en resumed dating. (I had guessed her age to be 18!) In short, we decided that we were in love, and in time understood each other. (We both WORKED at understanding each other, and outselves through LOTS of self-examining and heart-working questions...)
The reason we were seperated by her parents was because I decided to shelter her for a DAY (not night, just the day - approx 10am to 10pm) during a time she was afraid of getting beaten by her father. (Didn't take her to her mothers, because her mom's live in lover is an abusive alcoholic.) Should have brought her streight to DCFS, but alas, I didn't. So I was THREATENED (only threatened) with "contributing to the deliquency of a minor". And should I ever attempt to comunicate with her again (even via
phone, even if she initiates the calls - And there is a trap on the line to ensure that this doesn't happen) I'm going to be brought up on charges. Not to mention the death threats...
But I'm most likely getting a bit off what you were driving at, so let me back up.
I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because - well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes, we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar things that women look for in men...
And a word in my defence, no I don't go after the youthful females as a rule. The average age of the females I've dated is probably about 21. (range 15 to 33)
>Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
And don't take this message as a comment that I think you're attacking me. I'm just comming to the defence of all men...
Krikket ! kri...@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick ! Team Star Charter Member ! Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers> ! Wheaton, Il 60187
Take the skinkeads Bowling ... Take them Bowling
MICHAEL CARSON
>
>I think dads should be more unafraid to act as something other than
>family disciplinarian. Too many children grow up with distant fathers
>and never have an image of caring and gentle men in their lives.
Agreed. Now, how are we gonna get the people who perpetuate these
attitudes to agree?
>And (as I said in a previous post), teach our children honestly about
>sex and the opposite sex, so that their little brains are filled with
>accuracies instead of the cotton-candy fluff (like this horseshit) that
>we give them now.
This change will be extremely difficult to make. Parents raised
on "sex is wrong. sex is evil." will naturally have that attitude, and
resist teaching their sweet inocent children about this evil thing either
at home or at school. Their children will then believe "sex is wrong..."
too, perpetuating the problem. Even harder than figuring out how to get
around that attitude is this: What RIGHT do we have that allows us to
force parents to give up this censorship brainwashing and open up?
>
>You're not kidding! Although this is unrelated to my current rant, it
>pisses me off as well. The most "attractive" black women are also
>frequently the ones with the "whitest" features; READ UP and talk to
>black women if you dont' believe me. I have, and TO A PERSON they have
>all agreed -- the whiter-looking you are, the prettier you are. Gentile
>is prettier than Jew. Blond is prettier than brunette. We're trying to
>stomp ourselves (inCLUDING women) into one big homogeneous pancake, and
>the death of possibility and diversity makes me sick. You won't find a
>blond dying her hair brown, but you'll see MANY Chicanas and Mexicanas
>bleaching theirs, and wearing blue contact lenses. You will see women
>with the lightest-skinned black men they can find, instead of the really
>blue-black black men (and women).
>
>We're killing our diversity this way.
Something I saw in Scientific American, that I thought was interesting:
if we keep having children across races (not a bad thing) we will eventually
wind up with a single gene pool. Humanity grew up in varied enviroments, and
was adapted for the environment at hand. With modern technology, adaptation
on the biological level is no longer related to survival. Thus, there is no
reason (other than curtural, which is what we are trying to eliminate) to
prevent all these adapted genes from mixing, giving us the homogeneous gene
pool I mentioned above. My bioloy knowledge is pretty poor, can anybody
tell me what a person would look like if their family history contained
portions of each "races" genes equal to that race's porportion of the
world's population? I'm not saying that there will be only one set of genes,
but that people will eventually have as similar a set of genes as "white" or
"black" or "Indian" etc people do today.
|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
|o| Of Course I speak | michael carson | Carpe Diem, Man. |o|
|o| only for myself. | c1...@moncol.monmouth.edu | -me |o|
|o| Would YOU let me +---------------------------+-------------------------|o|
|o| speak for you?!? | All flames to: nob...@moncol.monmouth.edu |o|
|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
clg...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
My long term girlfriend is on a diet after a few years of putting on weight
although I said nothing to her about her weight, but if she wants to lose
weight its up to her as long as she is happy then I'm happy but my point
is that if a relationship is worth having then its not the sex thing that
matters in the long run, its personality.
Janis, for Gods sake, if some guy told you that your tits wern't good
enough for him you should have told him to piss off.I'm not saying that all
men are perfect, and most of the boy talk that goes on is more to show off
and help a guys "manlihood" than anything to do with his true feelings.
>
> My old boyfriend-creature used to say, "Gee, I wish you're tits were
> bigger." He used his hands to describe to me -- ON MY OWN BODY -- what
> the proper proportions would be. My friend mentioned below got the same
> treatment, except he said, "Gee, I wish they stuck out more." My friend
> back home (I'm trying not to use names) was told that they hung down too
> much. My close friend here was told they were too small for her height.
> That's FOUR WOMEN known ONLY BY ME. We're batting pretty good, huh?
>
> Strip joints and hookers and pornis mags and movies displaying the
> female body are a huge industry, while the Chippendales are one tiny
> little example of the "now that we're liberated, let's act like men"
> attitude that some women have, in a spirit of revenge. Besides, the
> Chippendale's club CLOSED, last I heard from lack of business, while the
> porn industry that splays women out is still humming along nicely.
> Sorry, you can't say, "Oh, women are just as objectifying as men," and
> use that as an excuse to say that men can then do what they want to us.
>
> If you think that (most) men know the difference between fantasy and
> know enough to not compare us to their ideals, you're smoking something.
Well Janis how many women have the ideal body and how many women end up
in long term relationships? (Your not allowed to smoke in the computer labs)
If men were only interested in the ideal body then I think that we would
see a lot less relationships happening.
I think that you picked me up wrong in this point here Janis, I did not
expect you to drop a guy because he has a small dick, the point was that
if you found some one who had the perfect personality to match your own,
or had the same outlook in life as your self etc , or you just loved the
guy then it would not matter about the size of his dick. Well its just
the same with guys, if they fall for a woman then the body thing becomes
secondary.
I'm sorry that you had to add this into the discussion because it sort of
lowers the tone a bit.
Maybe its just the screwed up American society that causes so many problems
with the silicone implants etc as they are uncommon in Europe, and mostly
unheard of in the rest of the world.Perhaps women in the states have a lower
(dont know if thats the right word) view of themselves than other women in
the world, but I now that in my small part of the world women have achieved
there rightful status in society ( we had a woman PM for over ten years as
one example) or maybe I'm just to laided back for my own good in thinking
that the size of a women's tits does not particularly matter.
> Janis
>
> Ian Davis
Rick MacKinnon
getting too f***ing long.]
I don't disagree with a thing you said, Janis. I would, however, like to give
you the other side of the issue.
Women *do* have their standards and fantasies about men which can be just as
damaging. They're more subtle, but they *are* there. Now, it's probably
pretty aruguable that all of these are extensions of a male-dominated society,
but there are too many modern women and feminists (I know a lot of women who
would be radical feminists 50 years ago, but are basically mainstream today,
as opposed to what today's feminists are) who do not look at how *their*
perceptions have been affected and how it might be helping to keep things
the way they are.
I once knew a guy who got handfasted to a girl who treated a book of Diannic
Wicca as dogma. He had just discovered an interest in paganism, and she
took it upon herself to make him Diannic. She would always force him to play
the role of the God, even though he told her he was uncomfortable with it.
I have since lost contact with him, and I don't know if he stayed with it
after they broke up. (This is an unusual example, for sure, but it does show
an attitude of "he's a man, so he must do this".)
Then, of course, there's the sexual matter. Men are expected to be the
aggressors and women are expected to be the deniers. (The women's side
has many unpleasant ramifications, but let's look at the men's side.)
Non-aggressive guys end up on the short end of the stick because women
refuse to "make the first move" or make the first call, or whatever.
(Standard disclaimer--nobody in particular, society in general). These
guys often end up with shrewish, dominating women because they're convinced
that they can't get anyone else (almost always untrue). Another aspect
of this is a guy I went to high school with. He had decided to save himself
for marraige. Most of the girls thought he was either gay or a total wimp.
Here's another good example. A friend of mine lost his job and ended up
staying at home and taking care of his 18-month-old son. He had decided
that he likes the role of househusband. But he says that he gets dirty
looks from the women at the grocery store because he's invading "their turf".
He also says that people often assume he is gay because of it.
Another role that women often have for men is the "protector". My wife
used to get very mad that I wouldn't fly into a jealous rage whenever a
guy looked at her cross-eyed. She also expected me to be the defender,
despite the fact that she has martial-arts training, and I couldn't punch
my way out of a wet paper bag.
So, you see, women *do* put their standards on men. The results aren't as
obvious, but they are damaging. Non-aggressive guys are taught by both sexes
that you have to be a swaggering jerk to get a date. Guys who would rather
stay home are afraid to because of the hostility of their neighbors. It's
not all one-sided. Whenever two or more people are involved in something,
there's *always* more than one side.
Twisted
P.S. I would beat the crap out of a guy (with a heavy object, since my fists
won't do!) who said that he was going out with his girlfriend just because
of her tits.
Steve Boylan
In article <2A648C...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu
(Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> I recently saw the cover of the new TV Guide. It had "TV's New
> Turn-Ons" on it -- Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short bald old
> guy (with admittedly a REALLY great voice) and a silicone special.
> Don't EVER expect to see a grey-haired woman called a "TV Turn-On." Not
> in THIS lifetime.
But, Janis, I can't help myself - my heart just leaps whenever I catch
a glimpse of Angela Lansbury . . .
:-)
Seriously, I, for one, find Cindy Crawford pretty unappealing - she looks
quite deformed. My wife, however, would agree with the above assessment
of Patrick Stewart - although, if were up to her and her friends, it
would probably be a toss-up between Patrick Stewart and Steve Thomas!
- - Steve
Janis Maria Cortese
>Janis,
>
>I figure, someone's gotta take you up on this issue, from a male's point of view. So I am. (With my luck, all this will get is is instant notariety on "alt.pagan", and I'm not refering to the good kind... Ahh well.)
Are you trying to defend all men or something? I'm not slamming all
men. I'm slamming the general values that are propagated -- and those
values damage men as well.
>In article <2A61F3B...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
>Maria Cortese) writes:
>>Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
>>movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
>>breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
>
>DD breasts? No thanks. I prefer the smaller ones anyways... :)
That is not the point, but I see the smiley.
>>About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
>>cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
>>learning how to relate to the real thing?
>
>Can't say I've seen the movie *YET*, but I intend to soon. (Then again "soon" for "Lethal Weapon 3" was last week, instead of when it came out... Not enough time in the day, I guess...)
>
>>I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>>the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>>sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>>these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>>bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
>
>The image society projects is that of the cartoon woman. Personally I feel that the women are just as guilty of that as the men. God knows how many females I've told (many of whom I was dating at the time) *NOT* to diet or what-have-you to look better. Simply because I felt they looked their best as is. But I have yet to be beleived by a single person! Even when the majority of her (and/or) my friends agreed that the weight-loss would be silly...
We're saying the same thing -- but I don't think guilt is the right word
for women. More like the women who are like that have been so
browbeaten that they've unfortunately internalized what THEY'VE BEEN
TOLD ALL THEIR LIVES. Do you blame battered child for thinking they're
scum? Do you say to that kid who's grown up with the shittiest possible
self-image, "You believe it, so you're to blame for your problems."?
Of course not! When women subscribe to the bullshit lines, I get pissed
at them, sure. But, can I blame them? It's the message they've
received from the time they were little girls, from the word go.
And I've heard several men so far say, "Well she doesn't believe me when
I tell her she's pretty, so it's her fault" as if youi can cure a
lifetime of negative body images with one "I think you're pretty." If a
psychologist who worked on abused children thought they could cure a kid
of the constant trampling their self-image took over YEARS of being told
they were dirt by simply saying, "Oh, no you're not" that shrink
wouldn't be in business for long. Women have been so inundated by
negative images of what is out body reality from day one; it will take
long, hard, patient work BY BOTH SEXES to blast us out. And that
includesw not answering little boys' natural curiosity about little
girls with the false and misleading, stereotypical crap that litters our
culture.
I've said it again, LITTLE KIDS ARE CURIOUS ABOUT THE OPPOSITE SEX. Do
we fill that questioning void with meaningful information about the
opposite sex? Do we tell them what the opposite (or same if you're
gay/les) sex is REALLY like so we enable our kids to meet their
sexuality head-on and in a responsible manner? Nope. We throw shit
like this at them.
>>Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
>>in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
>>gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
>>using that word in a general way; I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
>>men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
>>fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
>>that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
>>periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
>>parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
>>like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
>
>Yeeesh. I *KNOW* that *I* wouldn't have anything to do with a cardboard image like that. And neither would most of the men I know!
Sorry. You must know some extraordinary men. Go around and ask that
question again to the "people" living on Fraternity Row in any nearby
college or university. And, those types are -- I'm sorry to say -- more
numers than the good and open-eyed men who appreciate what women really
are. Else why did it take me so long to find the man I have now?
>>A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
>>athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
>>breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
>>breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
>>up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
>>harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
>>the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
>>fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
>>IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have. You
>>know -- how their best buddy has a faster computer than they do, how
>>their friend's speakers are more powerful, how they have fewer cubic
>>inches than the next-door neighbor. How the other guy in the gym's
>>girlfriend gives better head, and has bigger tits, etc. etc. etc.
>
>Once again (and I admit, I may be in the minority here) but I PREFER women with smaller breasts. More than a mouthful *IS* a waste in my book. (There was one person who I dated, and I could take her ENTIRE breast in my mouth - God/dess, what a turn-on!) Side comment: I also don't date/not-date females because of their breast size. I've also been with a few with bean-bags with breasts...
Y are permitted to have WHATEVER taste you want; you are not ththe
totality of men in this world, and I am not attacking your preferences.
From the experience I've had, and just about ALL of my female friends
(read my other posts; I don't want to mention names) have have been told
that we were unsatisfying for whatever reason. Your tastes are not in
question.
>>And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on this!
>>Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like! Get naked and
>>stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a woman's body?!? Hah!
>>Think again, sweetheart!
>
>That's the capitolistic system for ya! It isn't the first, and won't be the last... How many cartoons are out there with the guy just as characterized? Think about it. Even in the saturday-morning cartoons. No real man has shoulders THAT big. Or muscles THAT large. Or... All cartoons are characterized in the way society looks at 'em. And then they are lampooned for effect. It's nothing to get angry about! Yeesh!
IT's nothing to get angry about? Think about it -- who watches the
muscle-man Sat. morning cartoons? Little boys. Who watches the fantasy
sex-kitten shit like this? Men. We are feeding our little boys garbage
when it comes to sexuality!!
I'll say it again:
In the 1890's, we had our waists cinched in so much so that we couldn't
even stand UP without nearly passing out.
In the 1920's, we had to flatten down our breasts so the flapper beads
would hang straight.
In the 1950's, it was bleach time, antime for the trucker's mudflap
thang.
In the 1960's, we had to be twigs.
Nowdays, we have the magic of silicone to further the false image, and
we have to be built like Arnoldita Schwartzenegger to boot.
Aside from the brief bit with goofy face hair, there has not been ONE
similar incident when men have had to put up with this much pushing and
shoving of their bodies. Look at the front cover of TV Guide. TV's
newest "Turn-Ons" have been chosen (how I can't imagine). Guess who?
They are Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short, middle-aged bald
guy and some silicone special. When will you ever find a short, grey-
headed middle-aged WOMAN chosen as a major "TV Turn-On?"
>>And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real by
>>cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?" Isn't
>>that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth as a female
>>-- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who can't relate to
>>the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you
>>forgot about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
>>clitorises!!
>
>And how many cartoon men have penises?
Look in the latest issue of Heavy Metal and ask that question again.
>>Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've asked him
>>WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY young girls. You
>>know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt down the street?
>>Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to complain if he doesn't know
>>what he's doing (as he secretly believes he doesn't), she has an
>>insufficiently formed sense of self-confidence to demand nice treatment
>>when she doesn't get it, and her personality is in enough flux that she
>>won't necessitate any messy self-examination on the part of the guy --
>>she won't expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll
>>expect him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
>
>I have to disagree with you on this one BIG-TIME! And I'm most-likely going to get flamed from half of the Net for explaining this one in full.
>
>I am 21. I was recently [forcibly] seperated from my better half [Teri] by her parents. [She is 15.] We dated for a YEAR with her Father knowing my age. (Her Mom thought I was 19, but the rest of the facts remained the same.)
>
>I did not date her for any lack of self-confidence. I dated her because of who she was. Yes, I'll admit her personality was in flux, but then again so is EVERYONES to some extent. No one is EVER "permanently sane". The relationship started at a showing of Rocky Horror, when I didn't know her age. Later when I found out, I attempted to leave her, but she didn't want to end the relationship. So we seperated for a month. After that month, we both realized that we still had feeling for each other,
>
>
>en resumed dating. (I had guessed her age to be 18!) In short, we decided that we were in love, and in time understood each other. (We both WORKED at understanding each other, and outselves through LOTS of self-examining and heart-working questions...)
>
>The reason we were seperated by her parents was because I decided to shelter her for a DAY (not night, just the day - approx 10am to 10pm) during a time she was afraid of getting beaten by her father. (Didn't take her to her mothers, because her mom's live in lover is an abusive alcoholic.) Should have brought her streight to DCFS, but alas, I didn't. So I was THREATENED (only threatened) with "contributing to the deliquency of a minor". And should I ever attempt to comunicate with her again (eve
>
>
>phone, even if she initiates the calls - And there is a trap on the line to ensure that this doesn't happen) I'm going to be brought up on charges. Not to mention the death threats...
>
>But I'm most likely getting a bit off what you were driving at, so let me back up.
>
>I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because - well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes, we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar things that women look for in men...
This is meaningless. We like them because we like them. Great
reasoning. As to what women look for in men, go back and reread what I
wrote about TV Guide.
>And a word in my defence, no I don't go after the youthful females as a rule. The average age of the females I've dated is probably about 21. (range 15 to 33)
I appreciate your situation with your ex, but surely you're not trying
to say that men who go after 16 year old prostitutes are doing it to
shelter them from a poor home life. I'm just not able to see the men
who fantasize about 15-year old twins as altruistic father figures just
trying to help out a child in need. Again, yr situation is NOT TYPICAL.
Sorry.
>>Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>>talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>>that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>>of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>>people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>>to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
>
>And don't take this message as a comment that I think you're attacking me. I'm just comming to the defence of all men...
Again, you need not defend them. By citing your atypical tastes, you
are not coming to the defense of all men but yourself. I am angry
because we are destroying the sexuality of our children by filling them
up with shit like this.
Paul Harvey
>that the women are just as guilty of that as the men. God knows how many
>females I've told (many of whom I was dating at the time) *NOT* to diet or
>what-have-you to look better.
Just remember that we have a system of oppression in place. Men are the
oppressors, women are the oppressed. How many women film producers do you
know of? Can you really say that women are as guilty as men?
>All cartoons are characterized in the way society looks at 'em.
By society you mean the mainstream right? By society you mean men right? White
middle class men? Did you ever think that those who are not White middle
class men might view things a little bit differently? When was the last time
you saw a "positive" woman role model in film? Or were they just objects to
be possesed? Objects to fulfill some fantasy?
>I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because -
>well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes,
>we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar
>things that women look for in men...
Actually, by the rules of the system, women look for older, more knowledgable
men. As the saying goes, men age gracefully, women do not. Do you have any
idea where those concepts might come from. Young women are more "attractive" or
"sexy" and older men are more "attractive" or "sexy". What purpose could
that concept serve? Men are valued if they are bright and wity, women are
valued by the youthfullness of their bodies. Ask yourself, "why do I say
this?" Is physical attractiveness all you look for in a relationship? Do you
prefer women who are less brainy? Do you ever find young women to be too
pointy, not well rounded? Why? Is it really your desire, or is it something
that has been implanted in you? Who am I, where did I come from and where am
I going. Why do I do the things I do?
>And don't take this message as a comment that I think you're attacking me.
>I'm just comming to the defence of all men...
Why so defensive? Should us men fear something about women? What do they
want from us? Do you think there is any room for improvement on the part
of men? Is there any reason for men to change or change the system? If we
let women have what they want, will we have to give something up?
Rick MacKinnon
The talk about the misinformation about women's sexuality brings to mind a
"joke" which has been posted and reposted ad nauseum on rec.humor:
"How do you get a woman to orgasm?"
"Who cares?"
This, I think, is the blatant statement of men's attitudes towards women.
It's saying that sex is for the man's pleasure; the woman is irrelevant.
She's nothing more than a blow-up doll combined with a bottle opener. It
also says that men have no concept about what gives a woman pleasure, nor
do they care. (BTW, know how many flames this joke got? Absolutely none.)
I think it's because the male orgasm is a lot more visible than the female
orgasm. The guy comes in a forceful spurt, and then it's all over. The
women's, though, is all internal, and she can keep going. What you don't
see, you don't pay attention to... Also, men (regretfully) discovered
that the female orgasm is not necessary for the completion of intercourse,
or even conception (gotta have a talk with the Goddess about the wisdom of
this one...) I've known too many women who have never had an orgasm
during sex.
I wish I had a solution. I can change myself; I can educate my kids.
I think it is starting the slow road to change; women can express themselves
better sexually now (as opposed to, say, 30 or 40 years ago). But
I don't think I can change the whole world. Pity... ;-)
Twisted "*I* know what a clitoris is! How come these bozos can't?!?!"
Ed Carp
: It does, however, in both instances, lay the responsibility for the
: makeover on the woman's shoulders -- she must make herself over to
: please him, and she must make him over to please herself. Bet you
: didn't know you were expected to be such a wondrous alchemist, ladies of
: the net!
Oh, bullshit! It goes the other way, too -- ask me how many times I've
been turned down for a date, 'cause I didn't have the right clothes, or car,
or wasn't tall enough, or didn't make enough money ... all by the women
you so adroitly defend as being downtrodden. Women do plenty of trodding
themselves. It works both ways, not just one.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG e...@apple.com <-- preferred email address!
"In wildness is the preservation of the world." - Henry David Thoreau
** Member, Linux port team - uucp division ** :) 801/269-8125
Ed Carp
: Anyway, regardless of who does the doing, the same thing IS NOT done to
: men. In Victorian days, we had to cinch in our waists so severely that
: we passed out if we so much as stood up. In the 1920's, we had to strap
: our breasts down so the flapper beads would hang flat. In the `50's, it
: was the Jayne Mansfield look -- bleahced hair and DD breasts that stuck
: out like missiles. In the `60's, it was Twiggy, and we had to be
: pencils. Nowdays, we starve ourselves and get fat sucked out of our
: bodies -- we have to be Mrs. Schwartzeneggers with big tits. Even right
: down to wearing nylons and putting paint on our faces, we have NEVER
: been good enough as nature made us. There was ALWAYS a unified standard
: of female beauty against which ALL were measured.
Who's doing the measuring? My tastes in women have changed over the years,
but *never* in accordance with society's wishes.
: I recently saw the cover of the new TV Guide. It had "TV's New
: Turn-Ons" on it -- Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short bald old
: guy (with admittedly a REALLY great voice) and a silicone special.
: Don't EVER expect to see a grey-haired woman called a "TV Turn-On." Not
: in THIS lifetime.
Well, there's this woman I know who is absolutely *gorgeous*! She also
happens to have short silver hair.
Screw the networks. I'll take a silver-haired, mature woman with a smile
on her face over a bleached blonde DD society drone *anyday*.
Janis Maria Cortese
>Janis,
>I figure, someone's gotta take you up on this issue, from a male's point of view. So I am. (With my luck, all this will get is is instant notariety on "alt.pagan", and I'm not refering to the good kind... Ahh well.)
>In article <2A61F3B...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Maria Cortese) writes:
>>Are there any other women or men out there who are pissed about the
>>movie "Cool World?" You know, the one about the fantasy about how DD
>>breasts are somehow miraculously exempt from the force of gravity?
>DD breasts? No thanks. I prefer the smaller ones anyways... :)
Oh. I guess that women aren't subjected to tremendous peer pressure
then, if you like them smaller. Forgive me (or don't if you want) for
sounding snotty, but you are not standing accused of anything, and I
didn't ask if YOU liked them big or small.
>>About how a woman becomes real through splitting her legs for some
>>cheesehead who spends more time fantasizing about fake women than
>>learning how to relate to the real thing?
>Can't say I've seen the movie *YET*, but I intend to soon. (Then again "soon" for "Lethal Weapon 3" was last week, instead of when it came out... Not enough time in the day, I guess...)
>>I remember my mom one time (I forget what motivated her to say it, maybe
>>the release of the movie "Heavy Metal") saying something that still
>>sticks in my head: "Men don't like women's bodies. They like the (and
>>these are her exact words) fantasy cartoon image they have of women's
>>bodies." Boy, what a mouthful; more than that, I think she's right.
>The image society projects is that of the cartoon woman. Personally I feel that the women are just as guilty of that as the men. God knows how many females I've told (many of whom I was dating at the time) *NOT* to diet or what-have-you to look better. Simply because I felt they looked their best as is. But I have yet to be beleived by a single person! Even when the majority of her (and/or) my friends agreed that the weight-loss would be silly...
And after a lifetime of negative conditioning and being told that her
body is not the ideal one, after a lifetimne of seeing fantasy image
women thrown in her face, she's suddenly supposed to just perk right up
and come out from under all that bullshit because you tell her, "I think
you're pretty." Oh, okay.
Any psychologist who works with abused kids of battered wives who tried
to overturn YEARS AND YEARS of being told that the patient was worthless
and ugly by just saying, "No, you're not" and then throwing up their
hands would be out of a job VERY soon. Women are told FROM DAY ONE that
their bodies aren't good enough as they were made (and neither are their
faces, else why buy all that damned warpaint?), and just because you
say, "Oh, you look fine to me" they're supposed to just get better? Do
you have a magic wand?
We are inundated from the word go with negative images about ourselves;
it will take much patient effort by BOTH sexes before we are blasted
out. Anyone who thinks he can just say, "I think you're pretty" and
make it all better like a fairy godfather is dreaming. This goes far
deeper.
The abused child has been shit on and told that they're worthless from
the outset. Are they, as you put it, "guilty" just because they've done
what human beings are best at -- learned from their environment and
internalized the lessons taken in from childhood? You have a strange
definition of guilt.
I WOULD though, just once, love to see women knock off subscribing to
the damned stereotype. I must admit that when a woman shaves her leg
hair off because she's learned that leg hair is "unfeminine," she is
propagating the falsehood that leg hair is unfeminine by pretending she
doesn't have any. But again, is there BLAME or GUILT (your word) to be
assessed here?
>>Why else do we starve ourselves, and get the natural fat that nature put
>>in our bodies suctioned out at great personal risk, and get carcinogenic
>>gels injected under the muscle layers over our sternum? Men (and I'm
>>using that word in a general way; I KNOW men who are sweet and I KNOW
>>men who don't think that way, but boy are they in the minority) like the
>>fantasy image of women -- fantasies that won't contradict you or say
>>that you've forgotten to carry the two, fantasies that won't EVER have
>>periods, fantasies that will never say anything wittier than them at
>>parties, fantasies of (as I've said before) DD breasts that stand up
>>like twin torpedoes, the silhouette on the trucker's mudflap.
>Yeeesh. I *KNOW* that *I* wouldn't have anything to do with a cardboard image like that. And neither would most of the men I know!
Again, just because YOU or your friends (people tend to hang around with
similar types) don't doesn't mean that the stereotype and societal
pressure doesn't exist. Try visiting your neighborhood Fraternity Row
and ask the denizens that question again. There are MANY MORE of that
type, in my experience, than otherwise. It took me 25 YEARS before I
had a really nice boyfriend. 25 YEARS. I met NO ONE as an undergrad
who I thought was open-minded and free enough of the bullshit that I'd
want to go with. THIS PROBLEM EXISTS, and just saying, "Well, *I*'m not
that way," doesn't solve it. You overcome obstacles and clear away
barriers by UNDERSTANDING THEM, and ACKNOWLEDGING THEM, not pretending
they aren't there.
>>A friend of mine, as well as having a very strong, muscular, and
>>athletic dancer's body, is also "generously constructed" -- she has big
>>breasts. She has herself remarked on how guys have told her that her
>>breasts are "disappointing." What, you mean they don't stick straight
>>up? No, stupid, have you forgotten that the bigger something is, the
>>harder gravity pulls on it? Jeez. NO HUMAN WOMAN EVER ALIVE has had
>>the softballs-with-nipples that men want. Perhaps they should stop
>>fantasizing and making themselves eternally unsatisfied with life AS IT
>>IS, and get rid of the upgrade mentality that they seem to have. You
>>know -- how their best buddy has a faster computer than they do, how
>>their friend's speakers are more powerful, how they have fewer cubic
>>inches than the next-door neighbor. How the other guy in the gym's
>>girlfriend gives better head, and has bigger tits, etc. etc. etc.
>Once again (and I admit, I may be in the minority here) but I PREFER women with smaller breasts. More than a mouthful *IS* a waste in my book. (There was one person who I dated, and I could take her ENTIRE breast in my mouth - God/dess, what a turn-on!) Side comment: I also don't date/not-date females because of their breast size. I've also been with a few with bean-bags with breasts...
Do you want a medal? Are you saying that women haven't had to:
- wear girdles so tight and restrictive in the 1890's that we passed out
if we so much as stood up?
- flatten out our breasts during the 1920's so the flapper beads would
hang straight?
- bleach our hair and have big Jayne Mansfield DD breasts that stuck out
like missiles in the 1950's?
- diet until we were twigs in the 1960's?
- get implants and look like Arnoldita Schwartzenegger nowdays?
One woman who wrote me to agree mentioned that she had heard that women
had had RIBS REMOVED to fit into ball gowns in previous centuries. Even
nowdays, we cover up our faces with paint. Look at any movie poster
that has close-ups of men and women's faces (Batmen Returns and Silence
of the Lambs spring to mind). The man's face looks normal, lines and
all. THe woman's face has been smoothed ARTIFICIALLY until it looks
like porcelain or marble -- certainly not SKIN.
Nowhere will you find such glaring and constant examples for men that
their bodies aren't good enough and that they have to push, shove, or
cram them into unnatural and frequently unhealthy shapes.
>>And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on this!
>>Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like! Get naked and
>>stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a woman's body?!? Hah!
>>Think again, sweetheart!
>That's the capitolistic system for ya! It isn't the first, and won't be the last... How many cartoons are out there with the guy just as characterized? Think about it. Even in the saturday-morning cartoons. No real man has shoulders THAT big. Or muscles THAT large. Or... All cartoons are characterized in the way society looks at 'em. And then they are lampooned for effect. It's nothing to get angry about! Yeesh!
Think about these, too. You can also mention the Rambo and Chuck Norris
movies, and the Terminator stuff, too. While there are women who watch
them, what is the typical audience, of them as much as the Space Carnage
Saturday morning cartoons? Little boys and men. We cram fantasy images
down little boys throats about themselves, and we cram fantasy images of
women down EVERYONE'S throat. WE ARE DAMAGING OUR LITTLE BOYS' SENSE OF
SECURITY IN THEMSELVES AND SENSE OF APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THE OPPOSITE
SEX REALLY IS, and we are DAMAGING LITTLE GIRLS' SENSE OF SELF-
CONFIDENCE BY CONSTANTLY TELLING THEM THAT "REAL" WOMEN LOOK LIKE NO
IDEAL THEY CAN EVER HOPE TO ACHIEVE.
Look also at the latest issue of TV Guide -- I'v mentioned it before,
but it bears repeating. TV's biggest "Turn-Ons" have been picked --
Patrick Stewart and Cincy Crawford. A middle-aged bald guy and a
silicone special. When will you see a middle-aged grey-haired woman
called a "TV Turn-On?"
>>And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real by
>>cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?" Isn't
>>that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth as a female
>>-- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who can't relate to
>>the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you
>>forgot about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
>>clitorises!!
>And how many cartoon men have penises?
Look in the latest issue of Heavy Metal magazine and ask that again.
Male genitals are totemized, not denied.
>>Many men -- and my SO has agreed with me on this one when I've asked him
>>WHY in god/dess's name it's like this -- like REALLY young girls. You
>>know -- that fifteen year old inthe short skirt down the street?
>>Simple. She is inexperienced enough not to complain if he doesn't know
>>what he's doing (as he secretly believes he doesn't), she has an
>>insufficiently formed sense of self-confidence to demand nice treatment
>>when she doesn't get it, and her personality is in enough flux that she
>>won't necessitate any messy self-examination on the part of the guy --
>>she won't expect him to be in touch with himself any more than she'll
>>expect him to understand her. He's safe three ways from zero!
>I have to disagree with you on this one BIG-TIME! And I'm most-likely going to get flamed from half of the Net for explaining this one in full.
So you claim that since you were altruistic enough to want to get
someone out of a bad situation that the pedophilia that characterizes an
unfortunate part of men (NO NOT ALL OF THEM, GOD DAMN IT) doesn't
exist?
>I am 21. I was recently [forcibly] seperated from my better half [Teri] by her parents. [She is 15.] We dated for a YEAR with her Father knowing my age. (Her Mom thought I was 19, but the rest of the facts remained the same.)
>
>I did not date her for any lack of self-confidence. I dated her because of who she was. Yes, I'll admit her personality was in flux, but then again so is EVERYONES to some extent. No one is EVER "permanently sane". The relationship started at a showing of Rocky Horror, when I didn't know her age. Later when I found out, I attempted to leave her, but she didn't want to end the relationship. So we seperated for a month. After that month, we both realized that we still had feeling for each other,
>en resumed dating. (I had guessed her age to be 18!) In short, we decided that we were in love, and in time understood each other. (We both WORKED at understanding each other, and outselves through LOTS of self-examining and heart-working questions...)
>The reason we were seperated by her parents was because I decided to shelter her for a DAY (not night, just the day - approx 10am to 10pm) during a time she was afraid of getting beaten by her father. (Didn't take her to her mothers, because her mom's live in lover is an abusive alcoholic.) Should have brought her streight to DCFS, but alas, I didn't. So I was THREATENED (only threatened) with "contributing to the deliquency of a minor". And should I ever attempt to comunicate with her again (eve
>phone, even if she initiates the calls - And there is a trap on the line to ensure that this doesn't happen) I'm going to be brought up on charges. Not to mention the death threats...
>But I'm most likely getting a bit off what you were driving at, so let me back up.
>I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because - well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes, we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar things that women look for in men...
So in other words, you like young women because you like young women.
Again, forgive any snottiness, but I'm not exactly writhing in the
crushing grip of your logic. Go back and reread what I said about the
TV Guide thang.
>And a word in my defence,
I though you were speaking in defense of all males. At any rate, your
actions seem above reproach in this case.
>no I don't go after the youthful females as a rule. The average age of the females I've dated is probably about 21. (range 15 to 33)
>>Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>>talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>>that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>>of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>>people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>>to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
>And don't take this message as a comment that I think you're attacking me. I'm just comming to the defence of all men...
You mention several times, "Well *I* don't like big breasts (as if it
matters) and tell about an incident (for which you have my sympathy)
about attempting to help a kid with a shitty home situation -- but you
present it as if it's some sort of balm, saying, "You're wrong -- that's
not why ALL MEN like little girls!"
A fellow I know very well lost his virginity when he was 17 with a 14
year old girl he knew in high school. He mentioned this one time to
friends here in the physics department. The response? "FOURTEEN?!?!
Way to go!" I suppose that guy was touched by the first guy's
altruistic assumption of the role of father figure and benevolent
protector to a poor helpless little damsel in distress.
You mention a VERY atypical situation (I'm not saying it doesn't happen,
but if you claim that men who get turned on by little kids are doing so
out of a sense of benevolent assistance, you're dreaming), and then say
that you're defending all men. You are defending yourself, and you
don't even need to.
Blessings,
Janis
Janis Maria Cortese
fantasies, BUT . . .
I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position lately, but
not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
has posted to support my position publicly.
What, do you want me to do all the dirty work about defending this view
while I get private pats on the back and NO PUBLIC support?
I don't need to be an underground success.
If you don't want to help support my position publicly, keep the private
pats on the back to yourself.
Appreciative of the support, but peeved nonetheless,
Janis
Ed Carp
: And, THEN -- of course the cartoon *W*O*M*A*N* has to become real
: by cracking her thighs. Isn't that what makes us ALL "real women?"
: Isn't that just the be-all and end-all of your life on this earth
: as a female -- to be the ultimate fantasy woman for some creep who
: can't relate to the real thing? But, then, I guess cartoon women
: don't tell you that you forgot about the clitoris again, huh?
: Hell, they don't even HAVE clitorises!!
:
: I take it this is a sore point. [I'm not trying to be snide, I'm just
: trying to be observant.] I'm a little bemused by that last paragraph
: -- is the problem too much emphasis on sex or not enough? Both?
Don't forget the cartoon *M*A*N* who has to have a toothpaste smile,
be at LEAST 6 foot, have a thin waist, barrel chest, broad shoulders,
rippling muscles, and a fat wallet. I know *lots* of women who tell me
that's what they're looking for in a man. Bah.
Janis Maria Cortese
>[lots of good ranting-and-raving Janisism deleted because the message was just
>getting too f***ing long.]
Jeez, I *hope* this was a compliment, but . . . er . . . I'm not all
that sure, umm . . . Oh, screw it.
>I don't disagree with a thing you said, Janis. I would, however, like to give
>you the other side of the issue.
>
>Women *do* have their standards and fantasies about men which can be just as
>damaging. They're more subtle, but they *are* there. Now, it's probably
>pretty aruguable that all of these are extensions of a male-dominated society,
>but there are too many modern women and feminists (I know a lot of women who
>would be radical feminists 50 years ago, but are basically mainstream today,
>as opposed to what today's feminists are) who do not look at how *their*
>perceptions have been affected and how it might be helping to keep things
>the way they are.
This is HIDEOUSLY bad, and I've unfortunately found some of the same.
>I once knew a guy who got handfasted to a girl who treated a book of Diannic
>Wicca as dogma. He had just discovered an interest in paganism, and she
>took it upon herself to make him Diannic. She would always force him to play
>the role of the God, even though he told her he was uncomfortable with it.
>I have since lost contact with him, and I don't know if he stayed with it
>after they broke up. (This is an unusual example, for sure, but it does show
>an attitude of "he's a man, so he must do this".)
Or, rather, it shows "He has to believe the same thing *I* do." My SO
knows a fellow (who I tend to think of as a weasel, but that's beside
the point) who tries to convert every woman with whom he has a serious
relationship into a catholic. These kinds are EVERYWHERE. "You're a
heathen because you don't think what I think." Gag.
>Then, of course, there's the sexual matter. Men are expected to be the
>aggressors and women are expected to be the deniers. (The women's side
>has many unpleasant ramifications, but let's look at the men's side.)
This one pisses me off -- when I see women (one friend of mine with whom
I was once much more close than lately) putting up the token argument.
Are we supposed to demand AND GET the respect for "no" that we need
desperately by pulling this shit?
>Non-aggressive guys end up on the short end of the stick because women
>refuse to "make the first move" or make the first call, or whatever.
This one makes me gag, too. Ugly girls (or ones that the crowd has
DECIDED are ugly, which are by no means always the same thing) sit there
at dances and stuff just waiting, but guys DO have a lot of pressure
from having to MAKE the first move.
I was particularly guilty of that through being told year in year out in
school that I was a dogface (that's what you get if you have dark hair
and dark eyes and medi features in a school full of Irish-catholics),
and now I have a rough time "making the first move" in what appears to
be something that could be deep -- especially, as my SO can attest -- if
the guy is really nice. I simply couldn't get it through my head that
someone so sweet and (IMNSHO) great-looking could be interested in me.
This, however, is off the subject. Your claim is correct -- the present
situation screws over men out of the mainstream of behavior just as much
as it does women out of the mainstream of looks.
>(Standard disclaimer--nobody in particular, society in general).
I *love* disclaimers!! Besides, anyone unable to appreciate the fact
that society DOES INDEED have a life of its own, an existence greater
than the sum of the people making it up, should have their head
examined.
>These
>guys often end up with shrewish, dominating women because they're convinced
>that they can't get anyone else (almost always untrue). Another aspect
>of this is a guy I went to high school with. He had decided to save himself
>for marraige. Most of the girls thought he was either gay or a total wimp.
Believe me when I say that my heart goes out to him.
>Here's another good example. A friend of mine lost his job and ended up
>staying at home and taking care of his 18-month-old son. He had decided
>that he likes the role of househusband. But he says that he gets dirty
>looks from the women at the grocery store because he's invading "their turf".
Those women should have their head examined. This is APPALLING!!!!
When the hell is society in general (everyone in it) going to just let
non-boring type remarkable people BE? Especially when women bitch so
much about how men just aren't "sensitive" enough.
>He also says that people often assume he is gay because of it.
>
>Another role that women often have for men is the "protector". My wife
>used to get very mad that I wouldn't fly into a jealous rage whenever a
>guy looked at her cross-eyed. She also expected me to be the defender,
>despite the fact that she has martial-arts training, and I couldn't punch
>my way out of a wet paper bag.
This one is irritating for a variety of reasons. We women have no
reason to assume that men will be our protectors. When I am walking
home alone at night to my apt, why do I *need* an escort in the first
place? Because the one thing I dread meeting most, alone, undefended,
is another one of my "protectors."
Since your wife is also so physically fit and able to defend herself (or
was, as you use the past tense), this is weird three times over. It's
not your responsibility to stamp "Property of XXXX" on her forehead.
>So, you see, women *do* put their standards on men. The results aren't as
>obvious, but they are damaging. Non-aggressive guys are taught by both sexes
>that you have to be a swaggering jerk to get a date.
I agree wholeheartedly, but just saying the "men have it bad too" must
not be taken as an excuse to NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE INEQUITIES
suffered by BOTH sexes. ALL of this shit is going to have to go.
Believe me -- and if you dont' read my other posts -- I've known MANY
men who have been told because they are quiet or non-athletic or
artistic all throughout school and beyond that they are inadequate men.
These men -- these good and kind, sweet men -- have to battle tremendous
insecurity for all their lives because of it. Unfortunately, I know
more than a couple who then fixate on porn as a means of "getting back"
at what they think has caused all this insecurity -- women.
Why else do you think that engineering students with the pocket
protectors and the wrist calculators (puh-LEEZE no flames on this one)
are so unfailingly in support of wars and conservative political views?
Not only does conservativism like engineering jobs -- this is NOT THE
ONLY REASON -- but these guys have gotten shoved in a lot of gym
lockers. They tried to prove to the captain of the football team that
they were more than just the water boy, and they're still trying to
prove it.
>Guys who would rather
>stay home are afraid to because of the hostility of their neighbors. It's
>not all one-sided. Whenever two or more people are involved in something,
>there's *always* more than one side.
>
>Twisted
Agreed. But this cannot degenerate into finger-pointing; THAT'S the
reason I posted my original rant in the first place. To blow off steam
and TO GET DISCUSSION GOING.
>P.S. I would beat the crap out of a guy (with a heavy object, since my fists
>won't do!) who said that he was going out with his girlfriend just because
>of her tits.
I'd LOVE to introduce you to my ex . . .
Janis Maria Cortese
one got in . . .
Janis
Janis Maria Cortese
>cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>: It does, however, in both instances, lay the responsibility for the
>: makeover on the woman's shoulders -- she must make herself over to
>: please him, and she must make him over to please herself. Bet you
>: didn't know you were expected to be such a wondrous alchemist, ladies of
>: the net!
>
>Oh, bullshit! It goes the other way, too -- ask me how many times I've
>been turned down for a date, 'cause I didn't have the right clothes, or car,
>or wasn't tall enough, or didn't make enough money ... all by the women
>you so adroitly defend as being downtrodden. Women do plenty of trodding
>themselves. It works both ways, not just one.
Oh, okay then. I guess male domination and patriarchy are all just
figments of someone;s imagination. So sorry to have wasted your time.
Janis
bill nelson
: >P.S. I would beat the crap out of a guy (with a heavy object, since my fists
: >won't do!) who said that he was going out with his girlfriend just because
: >of her tits.
:
: I'd LOVE to introduce you to my ex . . .
I don't know about beating the crap out of him. But, if I was alone with him,
I would probably tell him he was a fool. However, with my circle of friends,
I don't think I will ever encounter such a situation.
Bill
MICHAEL CARSON
>We're saying the same thing -- but I don't think guilt is the right word
>for women. More like the women who are like that have been so
>browbeaten that they've unfortunately internalized what THEY'VE BEEN
>TOLD ALL THEIR LIVES. Do you blame battered child for thinking they're
>scum? Do you say to that kid who's grown up with the shittiest possible
>self-image, "You believe it, so you're to blame for your problems."?
What you seem to be saying is that women can not help but to accept
what society tells them (agreed, enculturation is a powerful factor) but that
by some miracle men can easy overcome the same pressures. That I don't buy.
Roger Powell
[... stuff deleted]
>
> My mother was very forward-thinking, and I was exposed to many of the
> booklets in school that girls are given that talk about menstruation.
> Get a few of them and see how many of the DON'T EVEN INDICATE the actual
> entrance into the body. Every boy know what a penis is; I was a
> teenager before I even knew that a clitoris existed. Keep in mind that,
> again, I had gotten supposed education in school about female anatomy.
> I mentioned this to my mom one time, and she said, "WHAT!?!?!?" She had
> assumed that the booklets were more enlightened than in her day, and was
> rudely awakened when I informed her that they weren't.
Yeah, I remember when I came across the word 'clitoris' for the first
time at age thirteen. I asked my mother what it meant; she,
uncharacteristically, directed me to the dictionary. When I found out
what it was, I was profoundly shaken to realize that there was a macroscopic,
external, standard feature of human anatomy I had never in thirteen years
heard even a whisper of. I had long since seen the incomprehensible
cutaway diagrams of the internal reproductive organs of both sexes --
all focused on the mechanics of reproduction, of course, and neglecting
to mention that it felt good, much less _where_ it felt good.
[... more stuff deleted]
> >I mean, earlier in the article there's this complaint about how men
> >are not interested in women's bodies, but that they're interested in
> >their fantasy images of women's bodies. Addressing the element of
> >truth in this: about the time a guy hits puberty, he's going to be
> >aware that girls his age have been getting changes in their bodies.
>
> Oh, really? How many little boys do YOU know of that understand the
> mechanism of menstruation?
Depends how little. By junior high, I think most guys have some clue
as to what menstruation is, though the picture is pretty fuzzy. After
all, menstruation is about reproduction, and it isn't fun or anything,
so it's okay to tell kids about it. And even the most ill-informed
little boy is aware that _something_ is changing...
> >And, if he's being raised by "good parents", he's not going to have a
> >clue, for years, what the result is like. This is in spite of the
> >biological imperatives...
>
> He will, however, have yards of crap like this (a PG-13 movie so the wee
> ones can see it) to fill up the void. Instead of truth, we fill our
> young children's minds with misinformation and falsehood.
Mmm-hmm. We're dealing with a cultural framework where serious discussion
of the more human aspects of sex (how it feels, what people's reasons are
for having sex when they do and with whom they do) are taboo topics;
these can only be addressed in the realm of comedy, and there they are
largely restricted to a cartoonish cultural iconography which deliberately
leaves out a few very important concepts.
>
> >The question I ask is: if you could change this, what kind of changes
> >would you make?
>
> I can't say. You don't get rid of crap like this by passing a law or
> making it illegal. For YEARS (thousands of `em) sex has been called
> filthy and shameful and driven underground, and this is the result.
> Clearly censoring sex isn't the answer; that's what got us here in the
> first place!
>
> I'd like to see little kids' honest questions met with equally honest
> answers about what the opposite (or same if you lean that way) sex is
> like, so that they aren't filled with shit and then disappointed later
> on when all that misinformation has NOTHING to do with reality.
>
> That's awfully abstract, though. As to how to get it across concretely,
> if I knew that, I wouldn't be so frustrated.
>
Agreed. Part of the problem is that how kids are raised is a very
emotionally loaded topic, probably even more so today than in previous
decades. The implications of this are that people get very upset if
you let their kids in on some knowledge the parents deem inappropriate;
and this extends to cases where _your kid_ tells _their kid_ the WRONG THING
because you allowed your own child to access the forbidden knowledge.
And, unfortunately, this has all gotten tangled up in the dim collective
consciousness of our society with the very real problem of sexual abuse
of children; a topic which certainly merits public vigilance, but that
vigilance is largely latching onto the wrong targets.
I dunno; somehow I don't think it's this simple. My guess, based on
introspection of my own relatively weak tendencies in this direction,
is that it has something to do with an attempt to vicariously recapture the
mythical wonder of the "first time" -- maybe a wish to go back and do it
right. Some guys (most? hardly any? dunno.) realize that this is definitely
a fantasy, and don't try to play it out in real life. So what would make
a difference? Maybe it would help to see more examples (in real life
and mass entertainment, both) of caring adult relationships between
real grown-ups. Maybe it would help if teenagers had more opportunities
to get to know their opposite-sex peers as real human beings with real
feelings.
I also wanted to respond to remarks about whether women are or are not
concerned about penis size (can't find the reference right now...)
There are a couple of women of my acquaintance who are very vocal about their
requirements in this department, and are clear on the point that a man
with a nice personality just isn't sufficient without the right
equipment. I note that these women are both Yankee women, and
I've never heard a Midwestern woman admit to such a prejudice. I also
note that in this part of the country (New England), I would find it
pretty shocking to hear of a man expressing anything less than delight
with his lover's breasts (though less sexual body parts receive no such
protection, alas). I'm not sure quite what to make of this; some sort of
regional differences may be involved, or it may be a matter of who I choose
to associate with vs. who you choose to associate with; or there could be
age differences (hard to say...)
>
> Blessings,
> Janis
>
>
Blessings likewise,
--roger
r...@HQ.ileaf.COM (Roger Powell)
* Interleaf doesn't even know I have opinions.
Paul Harvey
>fantasies, BUT . . .
a ... damaging fantasies? I'm scratching my forehead now.
>I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position lately, but
>not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
>has posted to support my position publicly.
Now, wait a minute, is that a diss? I thought I supported your position but
maybe I was too subtle. What kind of support are you looking for?
>What, do you want me to do all the dirty work about defending this view
>while I get private pats on the back and NO PUBLIC support?
Does this mean you'll be practicing the technique of "outing"? You know, not
everyone is usenet extroverted, that's a talent you should be proud of. And
you really have to be carefull when spouting the truth. Most people don't
want to hear about it, something about preaching to the already converted. A
lot of people just don't want to hear that the chickens will be coming
home to roost. It's just so much easier to turn on Wheel of Fortune instead.
Someone's gotta do it every now and then though, just to check the waters.
>I don't need to be an underground success.
>If you don't want to help support my position publicly, keep the private
>pats on the back to yourself.
It probably didn't hurt though, did it? And just for the record, you didn't
get any private pats from me. Is that OK?
>Appreciative of the support, but peeved nonetheless,
>Janis
Better peeved than having your finger on an AK-47! Know what I say?
Murray Altheim
>This has minimally to do with the current discussion about damaging
>fantasies, BUT . . .
>
>I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position lately, but
>not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
>has posted to support my position publicly.
Janis, I've followed and enjoyed your posts for quite awhile now, and
never felt the need to actively support a particular issue with/for you
as I don't believe it to be in the best interests of the newsgroup for
people to band together against others. This is open forum.
Besides, you seem to be very capable of defending your own positions.
The discussion of Cool World seems a bit out of place in alt.pagan, but
ok, again you had valuable things to say. Do you really want "public"
support for your views? This is such a non-threatening forum for airing
opinion that it hardly warrants a support network.
Try shouting your views from a soapbox, or protesting in front of a
bunch of riot-geared police. Then support is necessary. But HERE?
And this is not meant as a flame -- in fact, if you and I were in the
same city, I'd love to sit and chat with you over coffee. The discussion
would be lively, and yes, I generally agree with and enjoy hearing your
ideas, especially some of your more "existentialist" ones. Even though my
only knowledge of you is what you post over the net, you seem to
take a reasoned approach to many issues, have a healthy sexuality, and
I'll bet some really sexy typing fingers!! :-) :-)
Peace to you,
-- Murray
--
Murray M. Altheim "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
alth...@csus.edu Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Janis Maria Cortese
>In article <2A65BBB...@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>>We're saying the same thing -- but I don't think guilt is the right word
>>for women. More like the women who are like that have been so
>>browbeaten that they've unfortunately internalized what THEY'VE BEEN
>>TOLD ALL THEIR LIVES. Do you blame battered child for thinking they're
>>scum? Do you say to that kid who's grown up with the shittiest possible
>>self-image, "You believe it, so you're to blame for your problems."?
>
> What you seem to be saying is that women can not help but to accept
>what society tells them (agreed, enculturation is a powerful factor) but that
>by some miracle men can easy overcome the same pressures. That I don't buy.
>
MEN ARE FED FROM THE TIME THEY'RE BORN WITH SHITTY FANTASIES ABOUT WOMEN
AND ABOUT THEMSELVES. THEIR NATURAL CURIOSTY ABOUT SEX, AS WELL AS THAT
OF LITTLE GIRLS, IS ANSWERED WITH GARBAGE LIKE THIS, WHICH IS MERELY ONE
EXAMPLE.
LITTLE BOYS ARE DAMAGED WHEN THE MISINFORMATION AND SHIT THEY'VE HAD
SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS MEANS NOTHING. PERHAPS THAT IS WHY (AS
SOMEONE POINTED OUT) MEN LIKE TO GET YOUNG WOMEN -- THEY CAN GO BACK TO
THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE SO MUCH DISILLUSIONMENT TO CLOUD
THEM.
LITTLE GIRLS ARE DAMAGED BY CONSTANTLY BEING TOLD TO LIVE UP TO A
FEMININE IDEAL THAT IS ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. LITTLE GIRLS ARE
DAMAGED WHEN THEY FIND OUT THAT THE BEAUTY-AND-THE-BEAST METHOD OF
TURNING A MAN INTO SOMETHING ELSE DOESN'T APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD.
Shall I yell louder?
LITTLE KIDS HAVE A NATURAL CURIOSITY ABOUT SEX. INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM
RELIABLE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION ABOUT THE OPPOSITE SEX, OR BETTER YET,
LETTING THEM FIND OUT ON THEIR FUCKING OWN, WE CRAM SHIT DOWN THEIR
THROATS UNTIL MORE EIGHTH-GRADE BOYS KNOW WHERE TO GET THE LATEST COPY
OF PENTHOUSE THAN UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS OF THEIR OWN BODIES AND MORE
LITTLE GIRLS UNDERSTAND HOW TO APPLY EYE MAKEUP THAN HOW TO AVOID
GETTING PREGNANT.
THIS FANTASY SHIT UNACCOMPANIED BY RELIABLE AND TRUTHFUL INFORMATION IS
SCREWING OUR YOUNG CHILDREN OUT OF THEIR BIRTHRIGHT -- TO BE COMPLETELY
FULFILLED AND UNDAMAGED SEXUAL PEOPLE.
'Nuff said.
Blessings,
Janis
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
Janis Maria Cortese:
You can't cure a lifetime of put-downs with one "I think you're
pretty."
How about a hundred?
No, let me rephrase that.. how can I cure a lifetime of put-downs?
And don't forget to factor in that when you do something for someone,
they come to rely on you for that. How can I help to put someone in a
position where she can heal herself?
I know part of the answer is to just let her live her own life. And
another part is to offer support. But what about the other side? I
really dislike having to be a scape goat, or a punching bag,
particularly since to be effective in this role I have to lose, in the
end -- and that's a very lonely road, and not one that I'm convinced
is worthwhile.
Next time you go to the supermarket, look at how many magazines
have model's faces on them. "This is what you should look like."
The next time a commercial for a product that has "only xxx
calories" comes on, notice whether the company shows a man or a
woman eating it, and keep stats.
I used to share a house with a lady who had been a model when she was
younger. According to her, the ideal model was one whose face and
body had no distinction -- this allows the makeup artist to give her
any of a variety of faces. [Indeed, she showed me a portfolio of her
work, and I was astonished by the variety of people she appeared to
be.]
The thing she was unhappy about, though, was that advertisers
generally ignored what she thought were the best pictures of herself,
and they ignored what the photographers thought were the most artistic
pieces -- instead they picked the ones that showed their products to
the best advantage.
Now, assuming that I keep stats on advertising, what should I do with
the results?
>But.. but... I've seen enough of this that I know that if anyone
>had the "silhouette that appears on a trucker's mud flap", that
>she could be very dissatisfied with her body, and could claim that
>her self image was something that men or society had forced on
>her. And maybe she would have a point.
It's either that or say that women are just genetically prone to
lack of self-confidence and a good body image, and that's just
preposterous. (I'm waiting for the follow-up to THAT.)
You mean women aren't genetically prone to a good body image?
ho ho...
Ahem. You really want my thoughts about this mechanism? [It ain't
all that pretty.]
Men, for one reason or another are agressive. If you're a woman, you
can count on *some* guy hitting on you, sooner or later. [And, if no
one actually does so... it's just that much worse, because you know
that other women are getting hit on.]
Now, oddly enough, this gives men a sort of passive power -- by the
simple act of not being aggressive, a man comments on a woman's image
-- usually her appearance, sometimes her personality. Women who are
opressed are, I think, reacting to these absences of warmth. In some
very bad cases, it's what a man does that's a problem [e.g. rapists],
but more often it's what a man doesn't do.
And, I suppose, it's logical that men are aggressive more then women
-- after all, it's the women that gets pregnant, bears the children,
etc. But can you see how twisted this is? The big reason men have
such an oppresive power of women is that women are not at peace with
themselves. [society in general, no one in particular.]
Every boy know what a penis is; I was a teenager before I even knew
that a clitoris existed. Keep in mind that, again, I had gotten
supposed education in school about female anatomy. I mentioned
this to my mom one time, and she said, "WHAT!?!?!?" She had
assumed that the booklets were more enlightened than in her day,
and was rudely awakened when I informed her that they weren't.
Then again, there isn't a "one and only one sort of beautiful
clitoris, where any woman who doesn't measure up is ugly." At least,
I hope not.
>And, you can't really blame an adolescent male's ignorant
>misconceptions on a lack of curiosity...
When that curiosity is satisfied by pornies and trucker's mudflaps,
I can get pissed about it, though. Why else do you think so much
ignorance exists?
Oh, maybe rapist types blaming their victims. Maybe parents believing
lines about how children who understand sex are being victimized.
Maybe children, in their eagerness to imitate their parents, picking
up their parents' weaknesses and inhibitions. Maybe because people
think that talking about sex is the same as engaging in sex.
I can only answer for myself -- do you think that in your case it's
pornies and mudflaps?
You can see tons of mags and TV/movie examples of fake
cartoon-female impersonator women, and NOT ONE about honest truths
of sexuality. We're too busy drooling over the cartoon to even
CONSIDER the reality. The cartoon is a smokescreen, keeping us
from investigating what's really there.
Hmm... which honest truths? How would you depict them?
>I dunno, maybe the movie was totally embarassing to watch. Maybe
>the characters were two-dimensional and cartoon-like. Maybe the
>plot was weak and contrived. But, I can't help but think that the
>problem is not that this was a sexually oriented cartoon, but that
>the problem is the sexual nihlism which exists outside of the
>cartoon.
And the two of them are anything but unrelated.
Actually, I went and saw the movie. Spoiler: it's a joke. No, I mean
really. It's not much of a pinnochio story, more of a pandora's box
story, lampooning people who can't live in the real world [heros and
comic book artists, gamblers and ... but that would be telling].
You're right, the movie does play on sterotyped images of sex. If you
watch the heros instead of the villians, however, you'll see a bit
more. [Holly Would is NOT a sympathetic character.]
> But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you forgot
> about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
> clitorises!!
Actually, in this case, ... aw, never mind.
>I take it this is a sore point. [I'm not trying to be snide, I'm
>just trying to be observant.] I'm a little bemused by that last
>paragraph -- is the problem too much emphasis on sex or not
>enough? Both?
Too much emphasis on sex from only one point of view. Feminine
concepts of sexiality are ignored -- there's far too little
emphasis on that. Masculine concepts of sex (or what are called
predominantly masculine, at least) are blown wa-a-a-ay out of
proportion, until we only get one side of the question. THAT'S
what the sore point is. Sex is seen from the eyes of only the men
-- and not even REAL men! The point-of-view of the men is just as
much a cartoon fantasy as the women it sees.
So, what is the woman's point of view on sex? How would you like it
expressed? You're right -- the cartoon was a fantasy, and something
of a lampoon [but not all of it, not by a long shot]. But you'll get
farther presenting your views if you present them.
At least, that's my opinion.
>I mean, earlier in the article there's this complaint about how
>men are not interested in women's bodies, but that they're
>interested in their fantasy images of women's bodies. Addressing
>the element of truth in this: about the time a guy hits puberty,
>he's going to be aware that girls his age have been getting
>changes in their bodies.
Oh, really? How many little boys do YOU know of that understand
the mechanism of menstruation?
That's not a visible change. Which is why I said:
>And, if he's being raised by "good parents", he's not going to
>have a clue, for years, what the result is like. This is in spite
>of the biological imperatives...
Though, actually, I remember being told about menstration by my
classmates in about 5th grade. And my parents were about as
isolationist as you can get without sending the kid off to boarding
school.
>The question I ask is: if you could change this, what kind of
>changes would you make?
Clearly censoring sex isn't the answer; that's what got us here in
the first place!
I'd like to see little kids' honest questions met with equally
honest answers about what the opposite (or same if you lean that
way) sex is like, so that they aren't filled with shit and then
disappointed later on when all that misinformation has NOTHING to
do with reality.
That's awfully abstract, though. As to how to get it across
concretely, if I knew that, I wouldn't be so frustrated.
Well, at this stage I think there's more to be gained by concentrating
on figuring out what the ideal is like than there is trying to figure
out how to get that ideal implemented. [Not that I'm a believer in
utopias -- more that it's hard to paint a picture without a decent
model.]
>You missed a couple bets -- when children are young, they're
>allowed to play with each other freely. As they grow older, they
>get segregated, for one reason or another. If you're of a
>conservative bent, you might wish for "the way things were".
How many kids' parents in this country do you think wouldn't freak
out if they found their kid playing doctor in the garage with the
neighbor's kid? Kids are NOT allowed to deal with sex freely.
Playing dodge-ball is not the same as screwing a thirteen year old.
Yeah, good point. But even playing dodge-ball is better than nothing.
>And there's the aspect where some older women have learned to
>avoid a variety of things. Be careful about smiling at someone,
>because you might give him ideas, that kind of thing. Or maybe
>it's less voluntary than this -- but it's always easier to
>converse with someone who's willing to talk to you than one who's
>not, regardless of that person's age or sex.
Especially if the conversation is sure not to verge into the areas
of himself that the man would rather avoid.
Hmm... perhaps you have some idea of what these areas are? I know I
have problems talking about some kinds of ideas. Some of these
problems could be classified as areas of myself that I avoid.
>Anyways, I hope that this cuts closer to the original subject.
>[And, maybe I should go see Cool World -- but not tonight.]
What IS the original subject, by your definition?
Well, it's not Janis Maria Cortese vs. Cool World, like I originally
thought. It's more along the lines of trying to gain some relief from
stereotypes and misconceptions [sorry, bad pun] of sex and love.
Actually, this is a real tough question: I don't know the answer. No,
seriously, when I try and pinpoint the subject that I've been talking
about, my mind seems to shut down [this is a *bad* sign -- it means
I'm on the verge of turning into a jerk]. I mean, I can deal with the
subject being about sex and love. And, maybe, I can deal with it
being about how men and women are victimized. And, somewhat less
likely, I can deal with the subject being how I might have some
personal responsibility in the matter.
But what the subject seems to be really about is pinpointing what
these ideas are.
?
--
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell <rock...@socrates.umd.edu>
Ryan Alexander (BMEC)
>This has minimally to do with the current discussion about damaging
>fantasies, BUT . . .
>
>I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position lately, but
>not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
>has posted to support my position publicly.
Thas' cool. Your position, which you yourself admitted was
intenationally inflammatory, was extreme, loaded with some valid points
admittedly, but your idea of delivery could be likened to giving flu
vaccinations with a turkey baster.
>
>What, do you want me to do all the dirty work about defending this view
>while I get private pats on the back and NO PUBLIC support?
On this wondedrful campus we have an organization called the PSO.
It is the job of the PSO to loudly and, in some cases, violently, protest
basically anything.
Were it not for the Brave Souls(tm), we, the ignorant heads-up-our-
asses mainstream mindwashed pitiful not-with-it-in-the-least might spend
the entire rest of our lives not percieveing the incredible cruelty that
occours against carrots in our kitchens everyday.
Thank the Gods.
Janis, part of the problem is that in many cases there is no such thing
as 'sufficent' support. The whole cliche' 'either your part of the soloution
or your part fo the problem' is mainly used by people who cannot find other
methods to get you to agree with them.
I am glad that you have recieved support for your points, I consider
the points that you made after your inital bullshit rant to be quite valid,
and agreed with quite a few of them. However, I'm not about to place myself
in front of Gods and Artifical Political Designator, and say "yes, she
is absolutely right, yup yup yup yup, I'm a complete shit, yupyupyup."
If you do what you do, only to get support from the net, then you are
far more messed up than I thought. I do *many* things to help this problem,
but I do them on a personal basis (and no I'm *not* going to give examples,
I don't have to prove myself to anyone out there.). I don't do them so that
people will think better of me, I got tired of the Anti-Hero image a long time
ago. I do them because I *believe* in them. You seem to believe in your
position very strongly as well, that's good. But crying to the winds that you
are not fully appreciated in your own time is one of the most pitiful things
I've ever seen. And, If-I-may-say-so, is something that I've seen a lot from
people with far less important things to say than you.
>
>I don't need to be an underground success.
>If you don't want to help support my position publicly, keep the private
>pats on the back to yourself.
>
>Appreciative of the support, but peeved nonetheless,
>Janis
>
>
Don't try to pull this guilt trip crap. Especially since the people
you offend are the ones who agree with you, and the ones who don't couldn't
care less.
|RNA (DNA's bad-ass sidekick) / "Decency?! I am a pirate!
|Internet: rna@ epx.cis.umn.edu/ I don't _do_ 'decency'!"
| / - Don Carnage
Peggy Brown
>[Aside: I feel like posting tonight.]
>
>Janis Maria Cortese:
> You can't cure a lifetime of put-downs with one "I think you're
> pretty."
>
>How about a hundred?
>
> have model's faces on them. "This is what you should look like."
> The next time a commercial for a product that has "only xxx
> calories" comes on, notice whether the company shows a man or a
> woman eating it, and keep stats.
The magazine/model/body-image thing I can deal with. I think
there has been a lot of over-reaction about this and a lot of
blaming men for something that women also do to men - AND WOMEN
DO TO THEMSELVES. The female is the sex symbol for *BOTH* sexes.
Women often dress to kill, etc... as much (or more) for the
effect it has on other females as for the effect on men. Its a
female power trip of some type. I don't understand it, but don't
blame it all on the men.
Putdowns. OK, I can relate to this. This is another story.
Twice in my life complete male strangers, out of the blue have
said to me "I'd like to f**k your face."
I've had the usual variety of hoots and hollers too, and all were
putdowns - like I was a slut or something.
I talked to my brother about this. He said that twice women did
something like this to him. Once a carload of girls drove by and
hooted and hollered at him, but it was all very complimentary and
he enjoyed it and laughed about it. Another time 2 girls walking
behind him said "bow-wow-wow puppy chow" in a very flirtatious
way. (He thinks they liked his butt.)
Noone has ever said "bow-wow-wow puppy chow" to me. All I get is
"I'd like to f**k your face, etc...
If the attention was kinder maybe I could deal with it. What I do
not like is the putdown. When men do this to women its usually a
putdown. When women do this to men, which is much more rare, its
usually complimentary.
Your mileage may vary, and I don't know what this thread is doing
in alt.pagan anyway.
- Peggy -
Janis Maria Cortese
>[Aside: I feel like posting tonight.]
>
>Janis Maria Cortese:
> You can't cure a lifetime of put-downs with one "I think you're
> pretty."
>
>How about a hundred?
>
>No, let me rephrase that.. how can I cure a lifetime of put-downs?
>And don't forget to factor in that when you do something for someone,
>they come to rely on you for that. How can I help to put someone in a
>position where she can heal herself?
Hon, if I knew that I'd be a psychologist. I DON'T KNOW how we can cure
it, I only recognize that a problem exists.
>I know part of the answer is to just let her live her own life. And
>another part is to offer support. But what about the other side? I
>really dislike having to be a scape goat, or a punching bag,
>particularly since to be effective in this role I have to lose, in the
>end -- and that's a very lonely road, and not one that I'm convinced
>is worthwhile.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that you lose in the end,
but again, I just don't know what can be done. That is a large source
of my own frustration with the problem, which has by now communicated
itself to you peepuhl.
> Next time you go to the supermarket, look at how many magazines
> have model's faces on them. "This is what you should look like."
> The next time a commercial for a product that has "only xxx
> calories" comes on, notice whether the company shows a man or a
> woman eating it, and keep stats.
>
>I used to share a house with a lady who had been a model when she was
>younger. According to her, the ideal model was one whose face and
>body had no distinction -- this allows the makeup artist to give her
>any of a variety of faces. [Indeed, she showed me a portfolio of her
>work, and I was astonished by the variety of people she appeared to
>be.]
This is actually quite interesting . . .
>The thing she was unhappy about, though, was that advertisers
>generally ignored what she thought were the best pictures of herself,
>and they ignored what the photographers thought were the most artistic
>pieces -- instead they picked the ones that showed their products to
>the best advantage.
Certainly the ones that showed off their products wouldn't have UGLY
pictures of her in them. I think what they want is some linear
combination of the model's face and their product. A customer looks at
the picture first off because of the model, and then goes on to read the
blurb about the product.
>Now, assuming that I keep stats on advertising, what should I do with
>the results?
It's good to have them to convince yourself that this is a real
phenomenon and not just one little thing being blown out of proportion.
> >But.. but... I've seen enough of this that I know that if anyone
> >had the "silhouette that appears on a trucker's mud flap", that
> >she could be very dissatisfied with her body, and could claim that
> >her self image was something that men or society had forced on
> >her. And maybe she would have a point.
>
> It's either that or say that women are just genetically prone to
> lack of self-confidence and a good body image, and that's just
> preposterous. (I'm waiting for the follow-up to THAT.)
>
>You mean women aren't genetically prone to a good body image?
>
>ho ho...
pht-th-th-th-th-th-th! (Someone told me I could imitate a raspberry
over the net like that . . . )
>Ahem. You really want my thoughts about this mechanism? [It ain't
>all that pretty.]
>
>Men, for one reason or another are agressive. If you're a woman, you
>can count on *some* guy hitting on you, sooner or later. [And, if no
>one actually does so... it's just that much worse, because you know
>that other women are getting hit on.]
>
>Now, oddly enough, this gives men a sort of passive power -- by the
>simple act of not being aggressive, a man comments on a woman's image
>-- usually her appearance, sometimes her personality. Women who are
>opressed are, I think, reacting to these absences of warmth.
Dunno. This sounds too much like, "Oh, all those feminists are all the
ugly women, and they're just jealous . . . " blah blah blah. You've
heard it before. I'm not accusing you of that -- you seem quite
reasonable and understanding -- but please understand that this sounds
uncomfortably close to that, or else I'm crossing wires here.
>In some
>very bad cases, it's what a man does that's a problem [e.g. rapists],
>but more often it's what a man doesn't do.
I disagree (BIG surprise). I don't know how many men or women
understand that there is more than one way of telling a woman that you
like the way she looks. Guys that hang out of the truck window to shout
stuff at me and guys who say, "You look really nice today" are just not
doing the same thing. I didn't mind at all when a man who worked with
me at a bank said, "What nice pretty big eyes!" I did mind when a truck
full of frat boys srats hollering at me or lays rubber coming to a dead
halt in the street so I can use the crosswalk (curiously, this happens
only when I wear a teeny-tiny spandex dress, never when I have on a
t-shirt and sweats, as does the chivalrous holding open of doors. I
guess courtly manners are oinly for women who look good).
When a man notices me in a way I think is polite and friendly, I enjoy
it. When a man notices me in a way I find offensive and degrading, I
don't. It isn't a case of do-or-don't-do, it's what's done in the end
that matters.
>And, I suppose, it's logical that men are aggressive more then women
>-- after all, it's the women that gets pregnant, bears the children,
>etc. But can you see how twisted this is? The big reason men have
>such an oppresive power of women is that women are not at peace with
>themselves. [society in general, no one in particular.]
And nor are the men who are not like this. They are laughed at and
called sissy and fag and other things calculated to make an insecure guy
squirm. (The fact that fag is an insult is an entirely different thing
worthy of outraged anger as well.)
> Every boy know what a penis is; I was a teenager before I even knew
> that a clitoris existed. Keep in mind that, again, I had gotten
> supposed education in school about female anatomy. I mentioned
> this to my mom one time, and she said, "WHAT!?!?!?" She had
> assumed that the booklets were more enlightened than in her day,
> and was rudely awakened when I informed her that they weren't.
>
>Then again, there isn't a "one and only one sort of beautiful
>clitoris, where any woman who doesn't measure up is ugly." At least,
>I hope not.
Unless you count the most beautiful as the most sensitive -- yow!
> >And, you can't really blame an adolescent male's ignorant
> >misconceptions on a lack of curiosity...
>
> When that curiosity is satisfied by pornies and trucker's mudflaps,
> I can get pissed about it, though. Why else do you think so much
> ignorance exists?
>
>Oh, maybe rapist types blaming their victims. Maybe parents believing
>lines about how children who understand sex are being victimized.
>Maybe children, in their eagerness to imitate their parents, picking
>up their parents' weaknesses and inhibitions. Maybe because people
>think that talking about sex is the same as engaging in sex.
And how engaging in sex is filthy and evil. Excuse me while I engage in
furious projectile vomiting . . .
>I can only answer for myself -- do you think that in your case it's
>pornies and mudflaps?
Dunno what you mean by my case. I many men's cases (and women's) they
only discover sex when it is most artificial, degrading, and on display
for mostly men.
> You can see tons of mags and TV/movie examples of fake
> cartoon-female impersonator women, and NOT ONE about honest truths
> of sexuality. We're too busy drooling over the cartoon to even
> CONSIDER the reality. The cartoon is a smokescreen, keeping us
> from investigating what's really there.
>
>Hmm... which honest truths? How would you depict them?
Honest truths about how you can get pregnant, or get som,eone pregnant,
so we wouldn't have so many teenage pregnant girls who thought they
couldn't get preg if they did it standing up, or if they douched, or if
they used Saran Wrap (my SO told me about this one, and I almost fell of
my chair I was so shocked), or if they took a bath afterward.
Honest truths about the mechanism of orgasm, so you wouldn't have so
many men also ignorant of the clitoris and its role (or thinking that
there is such a thing as a vaginal orgasm, and I'm not talking about the
mysterious G-spot here), or so you wouldn't have so many jokes like the
one Leo Smith posted: "What the best way to bring a woman to orgasm?
Ans. Who cares?" Gee, I'm laughing. Real hard.
> >I dunno, maybe the movie was totally embarassing to watch. Maybe
> >the characters were two-dimensional and cartoon-like. Maybe the
> >plot was weak and contrived. But, I can't help but think that the
> >problem is not that this was a sexually oriented cartoon, but that
> >the problem is the sexual nihlism which exists outside of the
> >cartoon.
>
> And the two of them are anything but unrelated.
>
>Actually, I went and saw the movie. Spoiler: it's a joke. No, I mean
>really. It's not much of a pinnochio story, more of a pandora's box
>story, lampooning people who can't live in the real world [heros and
>comic book artists, gamblers and ... but that would be telling].
>
>You're right, the movie does play on sterotyped images of sex. If you
>watch the heros instead of the villians, however, you'll see a bit
>more. [Holly Would is NOT a sympathetic character.]
What I meant was that saying that it's not the movie but the nihilism is
like saying it's not Huslter, its the nihilism. One CAUSES and
ENCOURAGES the other. You can't separate them.
Of course she's not sympathetic. The femme fatale who has a sexual
history and ruins men is the oldest plot device in the book. Watch an
old version of any King Arthur movie -- Morgan is a vamp, and of course
she's a totally bitchy villainess. Guinevere is always some cute little
virginal thang, and she's always the good girl. Sexually active women
OF ANY STRIPE are always whores, and therefore dangerous.
I know, someone's going to pick on the always here. Okay, you might be
able to find examples otherwise, but not in the mainstream.
> > But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you forgot
> > about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't even HAVE
> > clitorises!!
>
>Actually, in this case, ... aw, never mind.
I'm curious now. DId she slam some male 'noid really hard for doing
just this? If so, see above. And remember what I said before about men
being afraid that some woman somewhere is going to laugh at their sexual
capacities.
> >I take it this is a sore point. [I'm not trying to be snide, I'm
> >just trying to be observant.] I'm a little bemused by that last
> >paragraph -- is the problem too much emphasis on sex or not
> >enough? Both?
>
> Too much emphasis on sex from only one point of view. Feminine
> concepts of sexiality are ignored -- there's far too little
> emphasis on that. Masculine concepts of sex (or what are called
> predominantly masculine, at least) are blown wa-a-a-ay out of
> proportion, until we only get one side of the question. THAT'S
> what the sore point is. Sex is seen from the eyes of only the men
> -- and not even REAL men! The point-of-view of the men is just as
> much a cartoon fantasy as the women it sees.
>
>So, what is the woman's point of view on sex? How would you like it
>expressed? You're right -- the cartoon was a fantasy, and something
>of a lampoon [but not all of it, not by a long shot]. But you'll get
>farther presenting your views if you present them.
Certainly, sex being penetration is not from a female perspective.
Certainly, foreplay being a big time-waster (and even the name
FOREplay, as if it precedes the real thing) is not from a female
perspective. Seeing as how foreplay usually involves (in some manner)
stimulating the clitoris, it can for women be the focal point of the
whole thing. Hell, even the word penetration! It could just as easily
be called envelopement, and in some cultures it used to be. The slang
words we have -- screw, prick, fuck, etc. -- are all things that MEN do.
You never use "eat" or "take in" to describe it, which is what women do.
I mean, there has to be a reason why hookers are a booming industry and
gigolos are relatively rare by comparison. There has to be a reason why
there are tons of pornies for men, and only a few for women -- Playgirl
is the only one that comes to mind, and in comparison to things like
Hustler and Rope Burn, it is quite tame.
Again, I mention the "joke" that Leo Smith (I think) posted: Q. What is
the best way to get a womna to orgasm? A. Who cares? He said that this
is posted frequently, and NEVER flamed. Certainly, this is not from a
woman's perspective! I once watched a very irritating tape of Richard
Pryor stand-up (which I thought would be funny, but I was very
surprised) with a room full of men -- my brother and some of his
friends. One of his jokes was about "Macho Man" and involved his
discussing having sex with a woman, and telling her it was really great,
to which she replied, "Well *I* didn't come." His punch line? "I don't
care. I got mine, you get yours, bitch." There wasn't ONE MAN in that
room (including my brother, which pised me off no end) that didn't laugh
uproariously at that "joke." Surely, this is NOT the feminine
perspective on sex!
There are whole books devoted to this subject to be found in any
feminist-leaning bookstore. I'll post other things as I find them, but
it's best if you read the things.
>At least, that's my opinion.
>
> >I mean, earlier in the article there's this complaint about how
> >men are not interested in women's bodies, but that they're
> >interested in their fantasy images of women's bodies. Addressing
> >the element of truth in this: about the time a guy hits puberty,
> >he's going to be aware that girls his age have been getting
> >changes in their bodies.
>
> Oh, really? How many little boys do YOU know of that understand
> the mechanism of menstruation?
>
>That's not a visible change. Which is why I said:
Okay, then how many boys do you know of who really know what a breast is
for? I've read stuff from anthropologists who have said that women
developed breasts to attract men, and these were well-known people!
Famous, brand-name "scientists"! Evidently, the corresponding increase
in the size of the human baby at birth had no bearing on the increase in
size of the thing that fed it.
Another "joke" I've heard, which isn't really a joke, but more of a
slang expression is, "as useless as tits on a warthog." Again,
evidently, this expression is used by those who are unaware that tits on
a warthog are used to feed baby warthogs.
> >And, if he's being raised by "good parents", he's not going to
> >have a clue, for years, what the result is like. This is in spite
> >of the biological imperatives...
>
>Though, actually, I remember being told about menstration by my
>classmates in about 5th grade. And my parents were about as
>isolationist as you can get without sending the kid off to boarding
>school.
I'm impressed; how much were you told? (I'm serious about this . . . )
> >The question I ask is: if you could change this, what kind of
> >changes would you make?
>
> Clearly censoring sex isn't the answer; that's what got us here in
> the first place!
>
> I'd like to see little kids' honest questions met with equally
> honest answers about what the opposite (or same if you lean that
> way) sex is like, so that they aren't filled with shit and then
> disappointed later on when all that misinformation has NOTHING to
> do with reality.
>
> That's awfully abstract, though. As to how to get it across
> concretely, if I knew that, I wouldn't be so frustrated.
>
>Well, at this stage I think there's more to be gained by concentrating
>on figuring out what the ideal is like than there is trying to figure
>out how to get that ideal implemented. [Not that I'm a believer in
>utopias -- more that it's hard to paint a picture without a decent
>model.]
100% agreement from this quarter.
> >You missed a couple bets -- when children are young, they're
> >allowed to play with each other freely. As they grow older, they
> >get segregated, for one reason or another. If you're of a
> >conservative bent, you might wish for "the way things were".
>
> How many kids' parents in this country do you think wouldn't freak
> out if they found their kid playing doctor in the garage with the
> neighbor's kid? Kids are NOT allowed to deal with sex freely.
> Playing dodge-ball is not the same as screwing a thirteen year old.
>
>Yeah, good point. But even playing dodge-ball is better than nothing.
I don't follow you here.
> >And there's the aspect where some older women have learned to
> >avoid a variety of things. Be careful about smiling at someone,
> >because you might give him ideas, that kind of thing. Or maybe
> >it's less voluntary than this -- but it's always easier to
> >converse with someone who's willing to talk to you than one who's
> >not, regardless of that person's age or sex.
>
> Especially if the conversation is sure not to verge into the areas
> of himself that the man would rather avoid.
>
>Hmm... perhaps you have some idea of what these areas are? I know I
>have problems talking about some kinds of ideas. Some of these
>problems could be classified as areas of myself that I avoid.
Anything about tenderness, or the kind of sharing of the self that comes
with a deep relationship with a peer.
> >Anyways, I hope that this cuts closer to the original subject.
> >[And, maybe I should go see Cool World -- but not tonight.]
>
> What IS the original subject, by your definition?
>
>Well, it's not Janis Maria Cortese vs. Cool World, like I originally
>thought. It's more along the lines of trying to gain some relief from
>stereotypes and misconceptions [sorry, bad pun] of sex and love.
Part of it was (for me) to find out what it was that bugged me so much.
I think that I've found it -- I've said it in several posts. We feed
little kids' questions about the opposite sex with garbage that has
nothing to do with reality (fantasies are fine as long as you have your
feet on a solid foundation to start with). Little boys grow up to be
cruelly disappointed men when they find out that the "information" about
sex they gained while growing up is worthless. Little girls grow up to
be insecure with themselves and their bodies by constantly having to
live up to a sexual ideal that has nothing to do with their own
anatomies (this one hits boys hard, too). We are feeding our kids'
questions about sex Twinkies, and wondering why they get sexual
indigestion.
>Actually, this is a real tough question: I don't know the answer. No,
>seriously, when I try and pinpoint the subject that I've been talking
>about, my mind seems to shut down [this is a *bad* sign -- it means
>I'm on the verge of turning into a jerk]. I mean, I can deal with the
Oh, bullshit, Raul. You're not a jerk.
>subject being about sex and love. And, maybe, I can deal with it
>being about how men and women are victimized. And, somewhat less
>likely, I can deal with the subject being how I might have some
>personal responsibility in the matter.
>
>But what the subject seems to be really about is pinpointing what
>these ideas are.
>
>?
>
Meaning, I suppose, what ideas should we propagate? This is a good
question. I think that in the absebce of anything else, it would be
nice to just back off and let our kids screw each other from day one,
providing we also teach them how to stay healthy and UNpregnant (until
they're ready) while doing it -- i.e. let them forge a new path on their
own. But, I can already see how enthusiastically THIS would go over in
the good ole US of A. Not.
Blessings,
Janis
D. 'krikket' Krick
writes:
>In article <krikke...@meltdown.chi.il.us>
>kri...@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick) writes:
>>The image society projects is that of the cartoon woman. Personally I feel
>>that the women are just as guilty of that as the men. God knows how many
>>females I've told (many of whom I was dating at the time) *NOT* to diet or
>>what-have-you to look better.
>Just remember that we have a system of oppression in place. Men are the
>oppressors, women are the oppressed. How many women film producers do you
>know of? Can you really say that women are as guilty as men?
Can't say that I've kept track of ANY film producers. (Well, ONE and ONLY one name comes to mind, and that's David Lynch, but I think we'll all agree he's not typical!)
The point I was trying to get across is that 1/3 of the society is guilty of creating a stereotype. 1/3 is guilty of beleiving the stereotype to be REALITY, and 1/3 is caught in the middle... And as a clarification of my previous comments, since upon re-reading them I see they do not match up completely to my intent, I refuse to break it down to "Men vs. Women" (Or "Black Vs. White", or "Jew Vs. German", or...) Ya see when you start thinking of people as segregated groups, you're helping form the stereo
type rather than breaking it down! (Side comment, this is one reasons why Quotas tend not to work as they should.)
>>All cartoons are characterized in the way society looks at 'em.
>
>By society you mean the mainstream right? By society you mean men right? >White middle class men? Did you ever think that those who are not White >middle class men might view things a little bit differently? When was the >last time you saw a "positive" woman role model in film? Or were they just >objects to be possesed? Objects to fulfill some fantasy?
By society, I was refering to the Americian society taken as a WHOLE. Of course different neighborhoods with different values will take the stereotpyes differently.
Also, I wish to point out that by calling for specific examples, you are trying to argue generallities and stereotypes by specifics. And THAT doesn't hold water!
>>I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because -
>>well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes,
>>we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar
>>things that women look for in men...
>
>Actually, by the rules of the system, women look for older, more knowledgable
>men. As the saying goes, men age gracefully, women do not. Do you have any
>idea where those concepts might come from. Young women are more "attractive" >or "sexy" and older men are more "attractive" or "sexy". What purpose could
>that concept serve?
Admittantly not much of a concept. And it's not one that I buy either. Once again, take a look at the porn industry. (I'm looking at both the aspect that caters to men, and the aspect that caters to women.) As a general rule, the people who sell sex, sell people with tight asses, hard cocks, firm breasts, youth, etc.
>Men are valued if they are bright and wity, women are
>valued by the youthfullness of their bodies. Ask yourself, "why do I say
>this?"
I DON'T say this. What you are looking at is a double standard perpetuated by magaines like "TV Guide". But their results (if I remember corectly) are tallied by the viewers of TV. And those results will reflect the demographics of those who watch TV and read "TV Guide". And now I'd like to point out that those demographics do NOT reflect the true demographics of the USA as a whole.
>Is physical attractiveness all you look for in a relationship?
As I've said many times before, NO! Attractiveness is a side consideration. In the example that I was using (My youthful Ex, that "whipperschnapper" (This from the "old fart") - Yes we jokes about the age difference! And she made me promise (jokingly) that I wouldn't go after any pre-schoolers... To which I agreed while laughing heartily.) I was using it as an example of how a youthful person *CAN* be found highly attractive for *MUCH*MORE*THAN*HER*LOOKS*.
>Do you prefer women who are less brainy?
You obviously did NOT read what I wrote origionally. At least not in depth if these questions are honest ones... Hell no, I would much prefer to date someone who can challange my intellect!
>Do you ever find young women to be too pointy, not well rounded? Why?
"young women to be too pointy, not well rounded"? Huh? I don't get what you are driving at here. Please elucidate.
>Is it really your desire, or is it something that has been implanted in you?
What I am posting are honest answers about my desires to help blow away the stereotyping and show the other side to all of this.
>Who am I, where did I come from and where am I going. Why do I do the things >I do?
Do you want me to answer this, or are you asking this of yourself? As for who I am, where I am going, and why I do what I do... Well, I don't have complete answers for all of that. And I probably never will. I can list off the goals in my life, and try to explain what makes me me, but this is getting more than a bit off-topic!
>>And don't take this message as a comment that I think you're attacking me.
>>I'm just comming to the defence of all men...
>
>Why so defensive?
I'm not trying to be defensive. I think you're the only one who is actively accusing me of doing so. I'm merely trying to provide another side to this topic. That above half-assed remark (Yes, I admit it) was made in reference to Janis's half-assed remark. The one without the other loosed it's touch of irony.
>Should us men fear something about women?
Not that I'm aware of... Why, should we? (Grin)
>What do they want from us?
Ooooohhh.... The ominous "THEY" again. What are you driving at anyways??? I think I may be missing something. I can't answer for anyone else, but I know that what *I'M* looking for is FRIENDSHIP! (Well, I admittantly am also looking for that "One Special Person" as well :) )
>Do you think there is any room for improvement on the part of men?
Yowch! This is beggining to sound more and more like a "I hate men" message! There is always room for improvement on anyones/everyones part. No one is perfect!!!
>Is there any reason for men to change or change the system?
Yeeesh... This is something that has to be played by a blow-by-blow situation. Many many many men would like to see the sexes truly equalized. Along with the races, etc all. But I can't explain away similiar segreagating actions by such females as Tipper Gore (with the help of the PMRC...) But once again, we're getting off topic.
>If we let women have what they want, will we have to give something up?
Well now. Let's take a look at this objectively. Are there disadvantages to to women with the way society treats women? Yes. Look at the pay scales to start off with. Are there advantages to women with the way society treats them now? Yes. Take a look at the (dying out) chilvery.
No matter where you go, change will ALWAYS bring advantages and disadvantages. The question is, do you want the change enough to live with the side effects of the equilization? For I would like to see both sexes truly equal. but what I see many feminists looking for is all of the advantages with none of the disadvantages. (I'll avoid case-by-case blows, unless requested.)
Krikket ! kri...@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick ! Team Star Charter Member ! Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers> ! Wheaton, Il 60187
'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat' -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
D. 'krikket' Krick
writes:
I'm quoting the following paragraph for later reference...
>> My old boyfriend-creature used to say, "Gee, I wish you're tits were
>> bigger." He used his hands to describe to me -- ON MY OWN BODY -- what
>> the proper proportions would be. My friend mentioned below got the same
>> treatment, except he said, "Gee, I wish they stuck out more." My friend
>> back home (I'm trying not to use names) was told that they hung down too
>> much. My close friend here was told they were too small for her height.
>> That's FOUR WOMEN known ONLY BY ME. We're batting pretty good, huh?
And onto the regular messge responces...
>> Strip joints and hookers and pornis mags and movies displaying the
>> female body are a huge industry, while the Chippendales are one tiny
>> little example of the "now that we're liberated, let's act like men"
>> attitude that some women have, in a spirit of revenge. Besides, the
>> Chippendale's club CLOSED, last I heard from lack of business, while the
>> porn industry that splays women out is still humming along nicely.
>> Sorry, you can't say, "Oh, women are just as objectifying as men," and
>> use that as an excuse to say that men can then do what they want to us.
>> If you think that (most) men know the difference between fantasy and
>> know enough to not compare us to their ideals, you're smoking something.
I hate to dissapoint you here Janis, but the porn business is used by men and women alike. I will not apologize for buying pictures of naked females. Call me silly, but I happen to like the look of females without their clothing! (And a side-note, it was an ex-girlfriend of mine who got me into reading porn!)
>Well Janis how many women have the ideal body and how many women end up
>in long term relationships? (Your not allowed to smoke in the computer labs)
>If men were only interested in the ideal body then I think that we would
>see a lot less relationships happening.
Uh, what does smoking in the computer room have to do with the price of tea in China???
Now we go back to that paragraph I quoted at the beggining of this message.
And I point out that about HALF of the females that I've dated have made comments about dick size. A bunch of females that I have as freinds will say, and argue the point, that it's not the length, but the width that matters. Another group of females that I know will argue the reverse.
And I know of one person who, right now, is going through inner turmoil because she is dating one person, but it's her ex-boyfriend that has the "big dick".
>I think that you picked me up wrong in this point here Janis, I did not
>expect you to drop a guy because he has a small dick, the point was that
>if you found some one who had the perfect personality to match your own,
>or had the same outlook in life as your self etc , or you just loved the
>guy then it would not matter about the size of his dick. Well its just
>the same with guys, if they fall for a woman then the body thing becomes
>secondary.
And the way a person looks SHOULD be secondary to the personallity...
D. 'krikket' Krick
In article <2A65EDE...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Maria Cortese) writes:
>This is in response to krikket's post:
>And after a lifetime of negative conditioning and being told that her
>body is not the ideal one, after a lifetimne of seeing fantasy image
>women thrown in her face, she's suddenly supposed to just perk right up
>and come out from under all that bullshit because you tell her, "I think
>you're pretty." Oh, okay.
>Any psychologist who works with abused kids of battered wives who tried
>to overturn YEARS AND YEARS of being told that the patient was worthless
>and ugly by just saying, "No, you're not" and then throwing up their
>hands would be out of a job VERY soon. Women are told FROM DAY ONE that
>their bodies aren't good enough as they were made (and neither are their
>faces, else why buy all that damned warpaint?), and just because you
>say, "Oh, you look fine to me" they're supposed to just get better? Do
>you have a magic wand?
I don't carry a magic wand, but I am trying to point out that often people will beleive what they want to beleive. And many people want to beleive the worst in themselves. What is needed in those cases is a bit more edcuation about how stereotyping works, and a bit more responsibility on the parents part to edcuate the kids in the first place!
>The abused child has been shit on and told that they're worthless from
>the outset. Are they, as you put it, "guilty" just because they've done
>what human beings are best at -- learned from their environment and
>internalized the lessons taken in from childhood? You have a strange
>definition of guilt.
Guilt is something that someone takes upon themselves. It cannot be placed upon externally. Perhaps I used a bad choice of words, but... Alas, it happens.
>I WOULD though, just once, love to see women knock off subscribing to
>the damned stereotype. I must admit that when a woman shaves her leg
>hair off because she's learned that leg hair is "unfeminine," she is
>propagating the falsehood that leg hair is unfeminine by pretending she
>doesn't have any. But again, is there BLAME or GUILT (your word) to be
>assessed here?
There is only blame or guilt if it is accepted. I guess that I did not choose the best of words. Oh well. But I too would LOVE to see the sytereotypes shattered! I am *NOT* defending them! I am merely defending the right to have cartoon characterizations and lampooning!!!
>Again, just because YOU or your friends (people tend to hang around with
>similar types) don't doesn't mean that the stereotype and societal
>pressure doesn't exist. Try visiting your neighborhood Fraternity Row
>and ask the denizens that question again. There are MANY MORE of that
>type, in my experience, than otherwise. It took me 25 YEARS before I
>had a really nice boyfriend. 25 YEARS. I met NO ONE as an undergrad
>who I thought was open-minded and free enough of the bullshit that I'd
>want to go with. THIS PROBLEM EXISTS, and just saying, "Well, *I*'m not
>that way," doesn't solve it. You overcome obstacles and clear away
>barriers by UNDERSTANDING THEM, and ACKNOWLEDGING THEM, not pretending
>they aren't there.
Ahhh.... I do NOT say that the stereotyping pressure doesn't exist. I disagree with it quite stongly! There is a FAR difference between defending the freedom of speech, and defending opression!!! And as you were quick to point out, the cases I presented were NOT typical, and were not intended to be taken as such. but then again, your case isn't typical either!
>One woman who wrote me to agree mentioned that she had heard that women
>had had RIBS REMOVED to fit into ball gowns in previous centuries. Even
>nowdays, we cover up our faces with paint. Look at any movie poster
>that has close-ups of men and women's faces (Batmen Returns and Silence
>of the Lambs spring to mind). The man's face looks normal, lines and
>all. THe woman's face has been smoothed ARTIFICIALLY until it looks
>like porcelain or marble -- certainly not SKIN.
>
>Nowhere will you find such glaring and constant examples for men that
>their bodies aren't good enough and that they have to push, shove, or
>cram them into unnatural and frequently unhealthy shapes.
Ahhh... I don't think that someone should do this, but I will defend their right to do so! Just as I will defend the right for people to talk about stereotypes, while I strongly disagree with the stereotypes themselves.
Please don't get my motives confused!
>Think about these, too. You can also mention the Rambo and Chuck Norris
>movies, and the Terminator stuff, too. While there are women who watch
>them, what is the typical audience, of them as much as the Space Carnage
>Saturday morning cartoons? Little boys and men. We cram fantasy images
>down little boys throats about themselves, and we cram fantasy images of
>women down EVERYONE'S throat. WE ARE DAMAGING OUR LITTLE BOYS' SENSE OF
>SECURITY IN THEMSELVES AND SENSE OF APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THE OPPOSITE
>SEX REALLY IS, and we are DAMAGING LITTLE GIRLS' SENSE OF SELF-
>CONFIDENCE BY CONSTANTLY TELLING THEM THAT "REAL" WOMEN LOOK LIKE NO
>IDEAL THEY CAN EVER HOPE TO ACHIEVE.
Damn streight. I don't think this is the best thing to do, but I will defend the creation of said stereotyping. But I also put responsibility on the parents of the children to talk with them, so they realise that stereotyping is just that!
>>And a word in my defence,
>
>I though you were speaking in defense of all males. At any rate, your
>actions seem above reproach in this case.
In that particular case, I was speaking specifically about myself, because there are many people who think that any who is 21 who would date someone that is 15 should be instantly sent to jail...
>You mention several times, "Well *I* don't like big breasts (as if it
>matters) and tell about an incident (for which you have my sympathy)
>about attempting to help a kid with a shitty home situation -- but you
>present it as if it's some sort of balm, saying, "You're wrong -- that's
>not why ALL MEN like little girls!"
Well, I AM saying that NOT ALL men who like youthful females like them for the reasons you are implying. I know there are exceptions, such as mine, and that they are a LOT more common than most people realize. Why? Because society has such a STRONG viewpoint against it, most people won't be open onthe subject, for fear of jail-terms. And yes, I am putting myself at risk for saying what I am. For I could still be arrested for "Contrinuting to the deliquency of a minor"...
>A fellow I know very well lost his virginity when he was 17 with a 14
>year old girl he knew in high school. He mentioned this one time to
>friends here in the physics department. The response? "FOURTEEN?!?!
>Way to go!" I suppose that guy was touched by the first guy's
>altruistic assumption of the role of father figure and benevolent
>protector to a poor helpless little damsel in distress.
Then in that case you are dealing with assholes. I just personally beleive that by looking at the stereotypes perpertuated by the "jocks" and what-have-you, without taking the rest of the stereotyping into account, you are missing out on the big picture.
But it is a picture that needs changing.
>You mention a VERY atypical situation (I'm not saying it doesn't happen,
>but if you claim that men who get turned on by little kids are doing so
>out of a sense of benevolent assistance, you're dreaming), and then say
>that you're defending all men. You are defending yourself, and you
>don't even need to.
I am defending myself and others who don't wish to come forward. As I said, in that one case, Jail is not a pretty sight. And you are not taking into account the full stereotypes sold simply to sell sex! Those images differ greately from what you are talking about. (Or maybe not so greately in many cases)
D. 'krikket' Krick
In article <2A65BBB...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Maria Cortese) writes:
>We're saying the same thing -- but I don't think guilt is the right word
>for women. More like the women who are like that have been so
>browbeaten that they've unfortunately internalized what THEY'VE BEEN
>TOLD ALL THEIR LIVES. Do you blame battered child for thinking they're
>scum? Do you say to that kid who's grown up with the shittiest possible
>self-image, "You believe it, so you're to blame for your problems."?
>Of course not! When women subscribe to the bullshit lines, I get pissed
>at them, sure. But, can I blame them? It's the message they've
>received from the time they were little girls, from the word go.
No I do NOT blame the battered child for having a lot self-esteem of his/herself. But the way to help the child isn't to go off half-cocked and yell at her until she get's a better self-image. There is such a thing as TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CHILD IN A FRIENDLY MANNER!
And I'll go so far as to say that this is NOT restricted to children, but applies to adults as well. Nor is it restricted to abuse victims. It also applies to ANYONE WHO HAS ANY PROBLEM! Yelling at the problem won't make it go away. And yelling at the person WITH the problem, without saying anything but "CHANGE YOU IDIOT" *WILL* make the problem worse!
>And I've heard several men so far say, "Well she doesn't believe me when
>I tell her she's pretty, so it's her fault" as if youi can cure a
>lifetime of negative body images with one "I think you're pretty." If a
>psychologist who worked on abused children thought they could cure a kid
>of the constant trampling their self-image took over YEARS of being told
>they were dirt by simply saying, "Oh, no you're not" that shrink
>wouldn't be in business for long. Women have been so inundated by
>negative images of what is out body reality from day one; it will take
>long, hard, patient work BY BOTH SEXES to blast us out. And that
>includesw not answering little boys' natural curiosity about little
>girls with the false and misleading, stereotypical crap that litters our
>culture.
Ahhh... But what about those people who are told REPEATEDLY that they ARE good looking, by 95% of the people they know..?
(In my case, I've generally been told that I look good. I am willing to agree with that, even though I may disagree on some specific points (IE: my legs). A couple people have told me that I should be a model. THAT is a thought I laugh at, because I don't have the build for it, nor do I want that kind of build. I'm perfectly happy being too thin to show up on the "small" frame for my hieight. (Right now, I'm using the job application for the Florida State Police Dept. as the specific example.) But wh
at I'm driving at here is that some people (both men and women) decide to listen to the minority rather than the majority. No matter what the minority is saying.)
>I've said it again, LITTLE KIDS ARE CURIOUS ABOUT THE OPPOSITE SEX. Do
>we fill that questioning void with meaningful information about the
>opposite sex? Do we tell them what the opposite (or same if you're
>gay/les) sex is REALLY like so we enable our kids to meet their
>sexuality head-on and in a responsible manner? Nope. We throw shit
>like this at them.
Hmmm... I guess I'm a lucky exception here, living in the Bible Capitol of America (Wheaton, Il - More churches per square mile than anywhere else in the US, plus the home of Wheaton College (where you get kicked out for DANCING) and the home of the Billy Grahm Center.)) I got a very good sex edcuation through the public schools. The teachers even went so far as to tell how another teacher got fired for allowing a guest speaker to give away condoms and sponges due to internal politics. (Mind you, I lat
er worked for the school system and got fired because I listened and talked to the students about their problems - and always answered them HONESTLY...)
>Sorry. You must know some extraordinary men. Go around and ask that
>question again to the "people" living on Fraternity Row in any nearby
>college or university. And, those types are -- I'm sorry to say -- more
>numers than the good and open-eyed men who appreciate what women really
>are. Else why did it take me so long to find the man I have now?
Sorry, but as several of my friends here on alt.pagan can attest to, I don't know ANYONE who lives of "Fraternity Row" (except for 1 relative of mine), and as a general rule try to avoid that kind of mindless stereotyping crowd. And am VERY successful at it. I simply go to othre neighborhoods. (IE: Instead of hanging around college campuses, I'll go to the North Side of Chicago, where the gays, lesbians, punks, etc, are all accepted as a matter of cource.)
As to why it took you so long to find your man, I don't know. I'm still looking for a female that I can be with... (Not at the moment, as I am still dealing with my Ex, and the emotions, etc all.)
>Y are permitted to have WHATEVER taste you want; you are not ththe
>totality of men in this world, and I am not attacking your preferences.
>From the experience I've had, and just about ALL of my female friends
>(read my other posts; I don't want to mention names) have have been told
>that we were unsatisfying for whatever reason. Your tastes are not in
>question.
Agreed. MY tastes are not in question. I was simply trying to show that there are men out there who disagree with those stereotypes. I'd like to also refer you to that pornography you loathe so. A good portion of the models DO have small-to-medium sized breasts. There aren't too many that have LARGE breasts, unless you start looking at magazines like "Juggs", or...
>IT's nothing to get angry about? Think about it -- who watches the
>muscle-man Sat. morning cartoons? Little boys. Who watches the fantasy
>sex-kitten shit like this? Men. We are feeding our little boys garbage
>when it comes to sexuality!!
Ahhh. But I ask you again, is it wrong to play the characterization and lampooning game? If accurate information is given by parents (GASP! The parents of the children have some responsibility??? Whatta concept!) then the child won't be harmed. Take a look at the old Bugs Bunny Cartoons that are being showed on TV. Now compare them to the origional prints that you can buy. Notice how much has been edited due to violence? Yes there was one incident where a child tried to do what those cartoon charac
ters were doing, but the parents never bothered to explain that real-life ISN'T LIKE THE CARTOONS!
>I'll say it again:
>
>In the 1890's, we had our waists cinched in so much so that we couldn't
>even stand UP without nearly passing out.
>
>In the 1920's, we had to flatten down our breasts so the flapper beads
>would hang straight.
>
>In the 1950's, it was bleach time, antime for the trucker's mudflap
>thang.
>
>In the 1960's, we had to be twigs.
>
>Nowdays, we have the magic of silicone to further the false image, and
>we have to be built like Arnoldita Schwartzenegger to boot.
>
>Aside from the brief bit with goofy face hair, there has not been ONE
>similar incident when men have had to put up with this much pushing and
>shoving of their bodies. Look at the front cover of TV Guide. TV's
>newest "Turn-Ons" have been chosen (how I can't imagine). Guess who?
>They are Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short, middle-aged bald
>guy and some silicone special. When will you ever find a short, grey-
>headed middle-aged WOMAN chosen as a major "TV Turn-On?"
I don't know HOW those TV-Turn Ons come about. Personally I don't care. As a primarily streight heterosexual with some bi-sexual feelings, I don't find EITHER Patrick Stewart OR Cindy Crawford too much of a "Turn-On". Once again I refer you back to the porn read by women. Notice how well the man is built. Just as much, if not more so than the woman....
>>And how many cartoon men have penises?
>
>Look in the latest issue of Heavy Metal and ask that question again.
Another magazine I avoid on general principal. But to quote (offhand, not word for word) the creator of the film "Cool World" (as it was posted on rec.arts.sf.misc, I beleive) "My cartoons are real people. They are not the cardboard cut-outs. Nowhere else will you see a cartoon guy excape from the police by pissing in the cops face. Nor do I want my women to be singing "Heigh-ho" while getting their brains fucked out." And I can refer you to a bunch of other cartoons where men have penisis and women
have clits. But the stereotypical cartoon characters have neither.
>>I'm willing to lay odds that youthfull femals look attractive because - >>well, they look attractive. Tight ass, firm breats, etc. etc. etc. Yes, >>we're getting back to stereotyping, but I know that there are similiar >>things that women look for in men...
>
>This is meaningless. We like them because we like them. Great
>reasoning. As to what women look for in men, go back and reread what I
>wrote about TV Guide.
I'm not a psych, and can't come up with any in-depth reason for what I find attractive in a person's BODY. (Note, unless I'm mistaken it's the body we're talking about at this juncture, not the personality, and am working from that angle) But I still hold that I enjoy to look at the firm breasts, tight ass, smooth skin, etc... That are more common in younger females than older ones. But this has NOTHING to do with who I actually date in real-life! (So I already have the markings of a "Dirty old man"...
(Chuckle))
>I appreciate your situation with your ex, but surely you're not trying
>to say that men who go after 16 year old prostitutes are doing it to
>shelter them from a poor home life. I'm just not able to see the men
>who fantasize about 15-year old twins as altruistic father figures just
>trying to help out a child in need. Again, yr situation is NOT TYPICAL.
>Sorry.
I hate to disspoint you, but when I was dating her openly, a large percentage of the people I know (Offhand I'd say about half) would come forth with some comment along the lines "KRIKKET!!! Isn't she a little young??? Then again, I really can't say anything because I was in that kind of situation too...")
It's more typical than anyone realizes. Which is one of the many reasons why I tend to disregard age factors.
And I wasn't dating her to "help out a child in need". I was dating her because I was looking for a mate in my life. She wanted to date me, I found her attractive, and our minds matched as well. Therefore we dated.
>Again, you need not defend them. By citing your atypical tastes, you
>are not coming to the defense of all men but yourself. I am angry
>because we are destroying the sexuality of our children by filling them
>up with shit like this.
Sorry, but I'm one of "THEM" in this case. (Who exactly is the god-almighty "THEY" anyways???)
I agree with you on many points, and I also disagree with you on others. In short, I don't see any harm in having fun lampooning and making characterizations out of "men" and "women". But I do see harm when the society decides to emulate the characterizations. I just don't think the answer is to get rid of them. Edcuate people! Don't censor material!
D. 'krikket' Krick
No, but it is a two way street! Much of what you seem to be attributing to men and men alone, also goes for women!
(BTW: As a side comment to somehting you said in an earlier message, about the use of face paint being limited to females... I know that I would use it, if I could get away with it. As it stands, because I am a man, and the job that I do, and other assorted things like that, I CAN'T. Just an example.)
D. 'krikket' Krick
Don't worry about it. While there was much duplicates (Which I tried to edit out) you also said a lot of different things to help fuel the conversation...
Also, in looking at you last message, I think we do agree on a few points. Namely that the stereoptying should go. I just disagree that the characterization and lampooning has to go ou tthe door as well.
D. 'krikket' Krick
In article <2A65EED...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis
Janis,
At least you are getting private support!
(Also, I think we agree on a lot of points here, but are approaching the issue from different viewpoints, and disagree on how it should be handled.)
Should be interesting to see how things work out.
Just a word from the FRIENDLY (opposition?) :)
Ian Fraser
> Oh, bullshit! It goes the other way, too -- ask me how many times I've
> been turned down for a date, 'cause I didn't have the right clothes, or car,
> or wasn't tall enough, or didn't make enough money ... all by the women
> you so adroitly defend as being downtrodden. Women do plenty of trodding
> themselves. It works both ways, not just one.
> --
Absolutly!
If I had a dollar for every time I've had a female riend tell me that
she's sure that there is "someone out there for me", because I'm such a
wonderful guy, and say it in a tone that makes it crystal lear that she
wouldn't date me on a bet... I'd be (to coin a phrase :)) sunning my butt
in Fiji right now.
Most women I know describe me as caring, compassionate, sensitive, and
all those good things. But I don't fit the image of male "good looks"
that society peddles, so I'm at home with my computer on a Friday night.
* Just wanted to share that.* :)
Ian Fraser idfr...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton Remote Systems: Celebrating 10 years of service to Northern Alberta
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
and focus on things not yet very much said.
Janis Maria Cortese:
I don't understand what you mean when you say that you lose in the
end, ...
Hmm.. think of it as the beauty and the beast story, but where the
"beauty" has to self destruct to "save the beast". Not a very
constructive course of action, in my opinion, but one with a chilling
sort of fascination.
>Now, oddly enough, this gives men a sort of passive power -- by
>the simple act of not being aggressive, a man comments on a
>woman's image -- usually her appearance, sometimes her
>personality. Women who are opressed are, I think, reacting to
>these absences of warmth.
Dunno. This sounds too much like, "Oh, all those feminists are all
the ugly women, and they're just jealous . . . " blah blah blah.
You've heard it before. I'm not accusing you of that -- you seem
quite reasonable and understanding -- but please understand that
this sounds uncomfortably close to that, or else I'm crossing wires
here.
What does appearance of the lady have to do with this? What I was
trying to say was more along the line of: women get "hit on" by men
far more than men get "hit on" by women. [Why?] There are going to
be spiritual consequences to this, for both sides.
I'm using the phrase "hit on" to mean any sort of "hi, let's be
friends, come with me" action. If this is done well enough, well..
both parties acquire a new friend. If done poorly the result is more
the opposite of friendship [that's some of your oppression right
there].
That men are cast as oppressors has to do with this tendency towards
being the initiators of action just as it has to do with the fact some
[a large number] of these actions go sour. I don't think that there's
any statistical tendency for men to be any less [or more] good-hearted
than women. I do think that, for whatever reason, men tend to reach
out more [which I don't see as necessarily a bad thing -- except to
the degree that the person behind the actions is messed up].
Now, there's probably a female converse to "reaching out" and
"initiating conversation" where ladies have a greater tendancy to
engage in the activity than men. I'm just not in a good position to
recognize what this is.
Also, I recognize that in a long-term relationship these sorts of
roles [reaches-out/is-reached] can change or even reverse.
>In some very bad cases, it's what a man does that's a problem
>[e.g. rapists], but more often it's what a man doesn't do.
I disagree (BIG surprise). I don't know how many men or women
understand that there is more than one way of telling a woman that
you like the way she looks. Guys that hang out of the truck window
to shout stuff at me and guys who say, "You look really nice today"
are just not doing the same thing.
Ok, you've a point. My point [such as it was] was that if you had
stellar god-like poise, the whole incident could roll off you like
water off a duck. I'll leave it to you to decide if this is possible
for you, and either how or why not.
When a man notices me in a way I think is polite and friendly, I
enjoy it. When a man notices me in a way I find offensive and
degrading, I don't. It isn't a case of do-or-don't-do, it's what's
done in the end that matters.
Yes.
But if I might be cruel for a bit: it's up to you, what happens in the
end. No, I don't mean the "beauty and the beast" trick. I mean, you
get to pick who you're around, how you relate to them, what's
important to you, and what you ignore.
I'm not saying you can make everything happen the way you want it, but
if you're willing to take a step back and look at the bigger picture,
you can often see a way of making things come out better. But, I
recognize that it's cruel to push this on to someone who's not ready
to deal with it.
Why am I saying this, when you've probably heard this, or a variation
on it, many times before? Why do guys say things like this, so much?
Why do guys not understand how much it hurts a girl to hear it said
that "it's up to her"? Because, wierd as it may seem, they take
comfort in the idea. Not the idea that the girl is responsible [well,
some people get this backwards, I'm sure], but the idea that he is
responsible for how his relationships work out.
Underneath all this talk of blame there is a rather subtle truth: that
many people feel happier knowing they can do something about their own
situation. Maybe a lampoon would fit, here...
Damsel in Distress, crying: "Oh... he was so horrible."
Knight in Shining Armor: "Here, my sword, shield and armor."
DD: "ARGH... NO... NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!"
KSA: "Huh? What did I do?"
That's the guy's side. The girl's version would probably run more
like:
Girl: "Ick. What a jerk."
Guy: "If I slap you around enough, maybe you'll get used to it."
Girl: "Like I really need this. Bug off."
Guy: [fumes]
[Disclaimer: This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events
portrayed are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or
incidents is purely coincidental.]
>I can only answer for myself -- do you think that in your case
>it's pornies and mudflaps?
Dunno what you mean by my case. In many men's cases (and women's)
they only discover sex when it is most artificial, degrading, and
on display for mostly men.
I meant to ask about the nature of the oppression you've experienced.
How much of it would have been from pornies and mudflaps? [My first
reaction would be to think that if either of these bothered you that
someone had personally gone out of his way and shoved down your throat
how you didn't measure up to these symbols.]
Honest truths about the mechanism of orgasm, so you wouldn't have
so many men also ignorant of the clitoris and its role (or thinking
that there is such a thing as a vaginal orgasm, and I'm not talking
about the mysterious G-spot here), or so you wouldn't have so many
jokes like the one Leo Smith posted: "What the best way to bring a
woman to orgasm? Ans. Who cares?" Gee, I'm laughing. Real hard.
Hmm.. and I thought the humor of that one was that you have to reject
it. It just doesn't make sense. I suppose the reason some people
find it unfunny is because it's too real. And, of course, there's
always some who will get it backwards, and laugh at it because it's
"so right".
Jokes are tough to deal with, if you can't see them as unreal. There
are two directions you can go.. towards making them more real [kill
the joker], or towards making them less real [crack some jokes of your
own]. Plus the usual run-away/place-the-blame/cry/let-it-die
sorts of sequences.
>You're right, the movie does play on sterotyped images of sex. If
>you watch the heros instead of the villians, however, you'll see a
>bit more. [Holli Would is NOT a sympathetic character.]
What I meant was that saying that it's not the movie but the
nihilism is like saying it's not Huslter, its the nihilism. One
CAUSES and ENCOURAGES the other. You can't separate them.
*blink*
Um... I'm not sure how much Hustler encourages nihilism. As it
happens, there is that about the magazine which I find distasteful..
disgusting, even. But I'd also say that by its existence it's
encouraging a sort of tolerance and awareness. And, maybe, that's
what's frightening -- to think that other people will tolerate what it
presents.
But I see Hustler as far less destructive than the well-intentioned
people who would see it burned. There really are people who would
punish, or kill, others who read Hustler, "because that would save
them even greater torment in Hell." There is enough of this
unreasoning "I'm hurting you for your own good" in me to know some of
the lure of this [see above, re: responsibility and blame]. But I
know, at least intellectually, that the real harm I cause is where I'm
not paying attention to what I'm doing.
I hope I'm making sense? [Even if you don't agree with me, I'd like
to be understood on this point. It's an important one for me.]
Of course she's not sympathetic. The femme fatale who has a sexual
history and ruins men is the oldest plot device in the book. Watch
an old version of any King Arthur movie -- Morgan is a vamp, and of
course she's a totally bitchy villainess. Guinevere is always some
cute little virginal thang, and she's always the good girl.
Sexually active women OF ANY STRIPE are always whores, and
therefore dangerous.
Actually, speaking of Cruel... er.. Cool World, Holli Would is *not* a
whore, she's a crime lord. There is another lady who is introduced as
a whore [but is actually a waitress] who is a heroine.
I know, someone's going to pick on the always here. Okay, you
might be able to find examples otherwise, but not in the
mainstream.
heh. :-)
> > But, then, I guess cartoon women don't tell you that you
> > forgot about the clitoris again, huh? Hell, they don't
> > even HAVE clitorises!!
>
>Actually, in this case, ... aw, never mind.
I'm curious now. DId she slam some male 'noid really hard for
doing just this? If so, see above. And remember what I said
before about men being afraid that some woman somewhere is going to
laugh at their sexual capacities.
Well, the movie wasn't explicit enough to really know what kind of
sexual stimulation she got. She did gripe about how cartoons
[doodles] can't really feel it when they're touched. But the thing
is: she _did_ exactly what she wanted, in the "big sex scene"... And
she got exactly what she wanted out of it. [Well, almost, but the
"almost" part isn't apparent for some time.]
Incidentally, the cartoonist [Jack Deebs] is portrayed as a complete
patsy and a hero... Someone who wants to be thought well of, so much,
that he will do almost anything to please. Which makes the "and they
lived happily ever after" ending just that much more ironic.
Certainly, sex being penetration is not from a female perspective.
Certainly, foreplay being a big time-waster (and even the name
FOREplay, as if it precedes the real thing) is not from a female
perspective. Seeing as how foreplay usually involves (in some
manner) stimulating the clitoris, it can for women be the focal
point of the whole thing. Hell, even the word penetration! It
could just as easily be called envelopement, and in some cultures
it used to be. The slang words we have -- screw, prick, fuck, etc.
-- are all things that MEN do. You never use "eat" or "take in" to
describe it, which is what women do.
Hmm...
There are whole books devoted to this subject to be found in any
feminist-leaning bookstore. I'll post other things as I find them,
but it's best if you read the things.
Books are your friends. :-) [Said in an inclusive tone of voice.]
Okay, then how many boys do you know of who really know what a
breast is for?
Hmm... it's never really occurred to me that there were any boys who
didn't. One of the things my parents did right was explain what all
the plumbing was for while teaching me to talk. Later on, when they
knew I could understand them, they were much more close-mouthed and
unwilling to talk with me about any of these kinds of things. But
it's been with me, for as long as I can remember, what the breasts are
for, and how a girl has separate openings for peeing and reproduction,
while a guy has one, which is dual purpose.
I've read stuff from anthropologists who have said that women
developed breasts to attract men, and these were well-known people!
Famous, brand-name "scientists"! Evidently, the corresponding
increase in the size of the human baby at birth had no bearing on
the increase in size of the thing that fed it.
Hmm.. I thought that the size of the milk glands had little to do with
the size of the breasts? Anyways, it always gets akward when talking
about the "purpose" of a particular part of the body. You can talk
about what it does, but it seems like there's always more than one
purpose.
Another "joke" I've heard, which isn't really a joke, but more of a
slang expression is, "as useless as tits on a warthog." Again,
evidently, this expression is used by those who are unaware that
tits on a warthog are used to feed baby warthogs.
Yeah, this one struck me as strange too. But, then, there's a lot of
common expressions that I don't get. [I often have to have things
spelled out for me that other people consider to be obvious.]
>Though, actually, I remember being told about menstration by my
>classmates in about 5th grade. And my parents were about as
>isolationist as you can get without sending the kid off to
>boarding school.
I'm impressed; how much were you told? (I'm serious about this . .
. )
Just how gross it was to see his sister's tampons in the toilet. I
did know from somewhere [my parents?] that girls ovulate monthly, and
that menstration was the egg going away since it hadn't gotten
fertilized. I was never told about any of the more subjective
aspects. [I never heard anything about cramps, for instance, till
years and years later.]
> Kids are NOT allowed to deal with sex freely. Playing
> dodge-ball is not the same as screwing a thirteen year old.
>
>Yeah, good point. But even playing dodge-ball is better than
>nothing.
I don't follow you here.
Playing dodgeball together is more positive than being segregated so
that boys only play dodgeball with boys, while girls only play
dodgeball with girls. [Aside: I *hated* dodgeball -- so I usually
would try and tag the ball so I could go sit on the sidelines.
Talking with other people, there, was more fun.]
> >Or maybe it's less voluntary than this -- but it's always
> >easier to converse with someone who's willing to talk to you
> >than one who's not, regardless of that person's age or sex.
>
> Especially if the conversation is sure not to verge into the areas
> of himself that the man would rather avoid.
>
>Hmm... perhaps you have some idea of what these areas are?
Anything about tenderness, or the kind of sharing of the self that
comes with a deep relationship with a peer.
Again hmm.. yeah, you're right. But what is tenderness? I mean, is
it anything more than being receptive to ideas and emotions? [Call it
alertness?]
To be fair [really: to be defensive], ladies have problems with this
kind of thing, too. Not as much though, I guess. Hmm... Maybe this
is that converse of the "reaching out/hitting on" thing I talked about
earlier?
Little boys grow up to be cruelly disappointed men when they find
out that the "information" about sex they gained while growing up
is worthless. Little girls grow up to be insecure with themselves
and their bodies by constantly having to live up to a sexual ideal
that has nothing to do with their own anatomies (this one hits boys
hard, too). We are feeding our kids' questions about sex Twinkies,
and wondering why they get sexual indigestion.
Yet again, hmm.. I don't know if you're agreeing with me or
disagreeing with me on this tendency for guys to be more outreaching
and girls to be more receptive, but your distinction between little
boys and little girls seems to have that distinction built in. And,
I'm not trying to say this is wrong.. I'm just trying to say that
I've noticed it.
Yeah, I'll say that I've been disappointed by the way things worked
out when I tried to "do what girls expected of me." Looking at my
failures [ruined friendships] and successes [closer friendships] since
then, I'd say that what I learned is that girls really do like it when
you're [I'm] receptive to their thoughts, ideas and emotions.
It sounds to me [this "girls have the self-confidence beaten out of
them" thing] like girls are positioning themselves too far on the
other side of this dichotomy.
Of course, none of this is any good if we try to make friends with
someone who doesn't have the time, the interest, or the inclination to
be friendly.
>Actually, this is a real tough question: I don't know the answer. No,
>seriously, when I try and pinpoint the subject that I've been talking
>about, my mind seems to shut down [this is a *bad* sign -- it means
>I'm on the verge of turning into a jerk].
Oh, bullshit, Raul. You're not a jerk.
Ok, not right now, I'm not. I'm far from perfect, however, and I have
been a jerk in the past [honest, I can give references]. I'm fairly
confident that I've dealt with the personal problems which might have
made me start spewing off knee-jerk reactions, on this topic. Which
is not to say I wasn't close to going into reaction mode, instead of
paying attention.
>But what the subject seems to be really about is pinpointing what
>these ideas are.
Meaning, I suppose, what ideas should we propagate? This is a good
question. I think that in the absence of anything else, it would
be nice to just back off and let our kids screw each other from day
one, providing we also teach them how to stay healthy and
UNpregnant (until they're ready) while doing it -- i.e. let them
forge a new path on their own. But, I can already see how
enthusiastically THIS would go over in the good ole US of A. Not.
If you're right [that sex without baby-risk would be good for kids
growing up into adults], then I would expect that there is some kind
of objective evidence which could back up the idea. Making such
evidence publically known would be a good first step towards bringing
such activity inside the moral code of the future.
I have a hunch, though, that there's more to this than just the
mechanics of age and sex. [People of any age can have their "hearts
broken" or can be "wiped out by lonliness", with our without sex. But
sex always makes these more important, for some reason.]
Blessings,
Janis
Blessings [Merry Meet, and cycle],
Raul
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell
Your mileage may vary, and I don't know what this thread is doing
in alt.pagan anyway.
Oh, lots of things: sitting there, taking up bandwidth, holding the
weave together, mystifying the mystified, boring the bored, and maybe
touching on some important consequences of a spiritual and earthy
existence.
But then, my mileage does vary...
Ciaran Benson
I suppose that with the terrible way the >suggestion< conversation's
been going, I should probably just crawl into a hole for a few decades.
None-the-less ...
I used to think that the steriotypes that we receive as kids and through
our lives were "programming" that we could ignore.
Believing this, I used to get really down on my partner whenever she would
speak or act passively. You know the kind of speach;
"Is that the salt?" looking a the saltshaker on my side of the table.
"Yes, it is. Do you want it?"
"No, I was just ... um ... are you using it?"
"No, I'm not. Do you want some salt."
"No, that's ok."
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!!!
My MOTHER used to do that. I can't STAND my partner doing that !
Of course, I knew what she wanted.
I perfectly understood what she was asking for and what she wanted and
instead I did just exactly the thing that would guarantee us getting
disfunctional.
Why? What was going on in my head that my lifemate could ask something so
simple and so easy and yet I would ignore her request and dive into an
argument about processing -- talk about talking -- badger her into being
assertive about SALT.
Of all the petty, meaningless, trivial things to get disfunctional about!
I guess I haven't been able to "just let go" of my programming either.
I still haven't been able to.
The best we've been able to do, after a lot of work on it and even some
professional help, is to just recognise when we're starting to get hung
up on "role-playing", where she's doing what she's been "programmed" to
do and I'm doing what I've been "programmed" to do.
Now when that happens we just stop it. We drop the conversation. We
cut each other some slack.
I pass the salt. She says "thank you".
It's given us a lot more time to talk about and do things that we'd rather
do together than sift through each other's psyches and old tapes.
So many of the things you've posted seem to me to be right on the mark, and
remind me of the work that I and my partner are going through still.
It unfortunately does not seem that any length of time is enough to undo
the damage that's already been done to us. All we're focusing on now is
making sure that we accept that damage in each other, and try to keep from
letting any more damage be done.
Empowering each other and being strong partners is really difficult when
we've been taught for so long that we're NOT SUPPOSED to get along, or be
strong individuals in a relationship, or live happily ever after.
It seems, Janis, like it's a journey instead of a goal.
Maybe if we can keep ourselves from damaging the next generation.
As Arthur said; "It is a dream of mine".
Blessed Be, Janis -- keep up the great writing.
Ciaran Benson.
Janis Maria Cortese
>Dear Janis;
>
> I guess I haven't been able to "just let go" of my programming either.
That makes you a humna being -- we all have habitual ways of behaving.
There is no shame in picking up tics and habits. I also have been
programmed in various ways. I'm human, too. It would just be nice if
we could program our kids in better ways than we do . . .
> I still haven't been able to.
As long as you work toward what you think is a better program, as all of
us should. I remember hearing a quote: It's not where you stand as much
as in what direction you are moving.
> The best we've been able to do, after a lot of work on it and even some
>professional help, is to just recognise when we're starting to get hung
>up on "role-playing", where she's doing what she's been "programmed" to
>do and I'm doing what I've been "programmed" to do.
It is easy as hell to get caught up in the dance -- it's almost
ritualistic. She says something, and she knows how you're going to
react. You then says something almost pre-planned, and you know how
she's going to react. I would guess it can almost be reassuring.
> So many of the things you've posted seem to me to be right on the mark, and
>remind me of the work that I and my partner are going through still.
I'm happy to hear someone saying something charitable about my opinions,
and my bringing the subject up in the first place. So many on the net
are just busily chewing in the bones of my first post, saying, "What a
feminist. She complained about something, and didn't do all the
research necessary to present an entirely banalced, perfectly reasoned
thesis." As if I can't just blow off steam and bring up a subject to be
discussed. (I had no idea that I was almost morally wrong to bitch
about something that irritated me without spending pages putting
soothing salve on everybody who's ever been wronged in the history of
the planet. What a discovery! Evidently, those who complain about my
being angry and not licking their wounds immediately haven't read my
numerous later posts where I acknlwoedge everything they brought up.)
> It unfortunately does not seem that any length of time is enough to undo
>the damage that's already been done to us. All we're focusing on now is
>making sure that we accept that damage in each other, and try to keep from
>letting any more damage be done.
I agree, even if I'm not happy about it. We do have to do something
about ourselves AS WE ARE, though. After all, who else is going to be
raising the next generation of kids? Bible-quoting isn't my forte, but
with the beans in our eyes, we won't even be able to clear the motes out
of our kids'.
> It seems, Janis, like it's a journey instead of a goal.
You can, though, consider a journey as composed of individual
footprints, each a small goal in itself.
> Maybe if we can keep ourselves from damaging the next generation.
Again, though, how can we unless we get our houses in some semblance of
order (or at least clean them up a bit)? This has me very worried. I
understand that we can't always re-program each other, but we're going
to have a hell of a time not programming our kids the same way if we
can't supersede our own programming. Kids learn by example, and if they
see us acting one way and saying soemthing else, they'll know
something's up. We're going to have to admit to our kids that their
parents aren't supermen/women, and that we have problems, too.
Unfortunately, too many people like having their kids look up to them
like gods, and won't admit weak points to them.
> Blessed Be, Janis -- keep up the great writing.
No prob! I write as I do not because I'm a feminist, but because I
inherited my dad's earthy vocabulary, and my mom's tendecy to express
herself honestly. What a combo!
> Ciaran Benson.
Hon, how do you pronounce your name? It looks almost like it could be
said like "sharon."
Blessings,
Janis
Ian Fraser
> In article <2A65EED...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>
> cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> >I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position lately, but
> >not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
> >has posted to support my position publicly.
non-supportive of your original position. Nothing could be furthher from
the truth! I agree whole-heartedly with your position on the
acceptability of these stereotypes, and condemn them myself. I am,
however, NOT in agreement with the "this is anoter example of how mmen
abuse us" school of feminisim. I think that "ths is another of the many
games the media runs on us to manipulate or buying habits" would be a lot
more accurate.
(an aside: please excuse the numerous typos; my keyboard has a mind of
it's own :), and I have to use the supplied online editor here. (It makes
EDLIN look like Microsoft Word!))
Please, Janis, continue to rage against this crap, but PLEASE put the
blame where it belongs!
Bright Blessings to you and yours.
G. Wolfe Woodbury
>I recently saw the cover of the new TV Guide. It had "TV's New
>Turn-Ons" on it -- Patrick Stewart and Cindy Crawford. A short bald old
>guy (with admittedly a REALLY great voice) and a silicone special.
>Don't EVER expect to see a grey-haired woman called a "TV Turn-On." Not
>in THIS lifetime.
By Whom? I have seen a TV Guide article that attributed the success of
"Golden Girls" to the "sexy seniority" of Bea Arthur and the "little
grey/silver-haired mamma".
Personally, Bea Arthur *is* one of the few females that I would even
condsider as a "turn on."
Wolfe
--
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe ...duke!wolves!wolfe <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wol...@cs.duke.edu wo...@cds.duke.edu
Above all, we celebrate. Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
Frank Perricone
JM> I've been getting very supportive e-mail about my position
JM> lately, but
JM> not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm
JM> wrong)
JM> has posted to support my position publicly.
::sigh:: I can't get Usenet through Internet like the rest of you, so in order
to get it at all, I had to set up my BBS as a FidoNet system and then get Usenet
through a FidoNet gate. As a consequence my posts take a few days to get to you
guys. But Janis, FWIW, I posted in support and total agreement with you
immediately on reading your post.
Ciaran Benson
Thank you for asking how to pronounce my name. A few people have asked, so I
guess posting this publicly isn't completely out of order ... I will, by the way, try
to advance the thread alittle too.
I pronounce my name; "Key - are - on", but really fast so from the "r" to the
"n" there's just a skip. Kind of like the Mandarin Chinese "r" (hun how, ke?).
It's Gaelic, although I have no such blood in me or in my family at all. I've run
into a couple of people who have the same name, and noticed that one of the
people in "Clannad" also is named Ciaran, but some people spell it with a "K"
and most pronounce it differently. As you suggested, "Sharon" is an appropriate
pronounciation.
I usually go by "Ci" (Key), however, as people sometimes pronounce it "carrion",
or just stumble with it until I become "hey, you".
My middle name is "Amiel", from my Grandfather, who had it spelled "Emeil" in
all of his official documents (birth certificate, etc.) until he got to Ellis Isle and
the authorities decided that Emeil was too "girlie" -- so they changed it. More
reclaiming ... always reclaiming. I had thought of having my name changed to
restore the original spelling, and possibly even start using it as my first name, but
finally whimped out and gave up.
I played with the idea of naming my first child Emeil, regardless of gender,
but my life-style has eliminated THAT possibility.
The nicest definition I've found for it is "Twilight".
Regarding the thread, I really liked what you said about considering each step along
the journey as a goal. My partner and I have been trying so hard to deal with each
"now" -- fixing the barn, shoring up the house, repairing the car, paying the vet, that
its gotten easy to lose sight of how far we have travelled. Kind of like canoing for
days until you're so tired you think of each stroke, each paddle, as enough to
strive for. You forget to enjoy the beauty you've become a part of -- the scenery
which you're not just watching, but participating in.
Dispite that, it's still important to treat each moment with each person as squarely
as possible. Listening's not just standing in front of someone when they're talking,
it requires involvement and commitment to doing what's right for me, right now,
at this moment without drawing in all of the garbage the advertisers are trying
to get us to swallow.
The little bit of advertising I took in college was very scarry -- not only is it
important to find an "image" that will sell a product, it's important to encourage
that image -- to promote it so that MORE people will accept it. Once you've
spent the millions to develop an image that promotes your particular product, it's
no problem to spend hundreds of thousands more to promote the image that
promotes the product. The more unattainable and desirable the image, the more
of the *product that makes the image* will be required to acheive the image.
Again, *gack!*
As for re-programming each other, I agree. Working on our problems means
being able to first accept that a problem exists. Lots of times its hard to get over
that first step. Once you've done that, you have to be able to accept criticism of
your actions and not resent your partner (mate, SO, whatever), for pointing out
things you can't see (I know I keep saying "you" when I should probably be saying
"me", but that's passivity for you -- "I" don't have a problem, "people" do -- "one"
must overcome "one's" resistance to accepting fault in "one's self" ... gack!)
Sounds like your parents did a very good job. I guess now it's our turn, huh?
Blessed be, Ciaran.
Astrid Mustard
>fantasies, BUT . . .
>
>not one person (I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)
>has posted to support my position publicly.
Janis,
I wish I had saved my e-mail to you from when you originally posted
it, but I agree with you completely. But then, I have never liked
fitting into people's images (it gets me into trouble, but I can't
help it) so I am happy with my real-live-woman's body.
Unfortunately, it's hard to find clothes that are made for
functioning in normal everyday life, since most women's clothes seem
to be made only for standing still - but that's ok, I'll survive.
But changes (like Janis has been suggesting) take generations, not
days. Those of us who agree with her, can start now to enlighten
others of our opinions, and if they agree they can pass it on. But
it would be worse for whatever cause one has to present it in a
negative light because word passes much quicker when it's negative
and such a thing would be self defeating. I mention this because
people have noted that things don't change fast enough, or that such
ideas are kind of hopeless because society at large is well molded
into what it has become. It may be hopeless for some of us as
individuals, but what we do today affects our children and their
children, etc., and our culture & our world.
So, Janis - although I didn't agree with you about the Arnold & Jean
Claud Van Damm (Damn) thing (you said those movies were for men &
that women didn't like them) - I agree with you on this and many
other things. You have my support.
Astrid
Astrid Mustard
>: makeover on the woman's shoulders -- she must make herself over to
>: please him, and she must make him over to please herself. Bet you
>: didn't know you were expected to be such a wondrous alchemist, ladies of
>: the net!
>
>Oh, bullshit! It goes the other way, too -- ask me how many times I've
>been turned down for a date, 'cause I didn't have the right clothes, or car,
>or wasn't tall enough, or didn't make enough money ... all by the women
>you so adroitly defend as being downtrodden. Women do plenty of trodding
>themselves. It works both ways, not just one.
>--
Ain't that the truth. So it's a human problem. Well, let's
everyone (who cares/agrees) do our part and not perpetuate the myth
of some ideal that is not our own.
Astrid
f00...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
feel that BOTH men and women have been hurt by patriarchal
influences. Women are treated like objects (and worse) and men
are made to feel that they should treat women that way. For
any of this to get better we ALL have to look at society and
decide on a course of action that will be of benifit to ALL of
us.
Blessed Be,
Ronda
Sally Bowley
>I don't suppose this REALLY belongs here, but then neither did my rant
>about the medical industry either. This has just gotten me pissed, and
>I thought that this was a decent forum to bitch about it, and it might
>start some fruitful and thoughtful discussion.
hi janice, i'll join you on your bitch!
(stuff about cool world and boob size deleted for bandwidth)
>And, now we have a MOVIE -- another movie -- that capitalizes on this!
>Yay!! This, ladies, is what we're supposed to look like! Get naked and
>stand in front of a mirror -- you think THAT'S a woman's body?!? Hah!
>Think again, sweetheart!
i know what you mean and i agree with you completely. we're constantly
abused by billboard and newspaper/mag advertizing, tv commercials etc
telling us what women *ought* to look like; no wonder there's so many
of us suffering from food-related dis-eases or surgery related
catastrophes pouring into the medical system (which itself, is
dominated by men). my question has always been "ought to look like for
*whom*?" not ourselves, that's for sure - seems to me that women
weren't as obsessed with looking "better" for men before patriarchy
destroyed women's self image. or more recently, before tv, movies, the
media's intervention - before the "improvement" of women's bodies
became a money-making business.
>Okay -- sorry. I guess I should add the mandatory disclaimer that I'm
>talking about men in general and AM NOT ACCUSING ANYONE IN PARTICULAR,
>that I'm ranting about societal values more than any single man or group
>of men. Again, I don't know if this rant is appropriate here, BUT you
>people seem open-minded enough to allow me to blow off some steam, and
>to wring some meaningful discussion out of this.
i don't know if what i have to add will be meaningful to the group -
it's meaningful to me tho, and that's all that matters ;-). and i
think this is very important in this kind of discussion. in my 35
years in this body, i've fallen into the trap of trying to change to
please others - i've run the gamut of "my boobs are too small, my legs
are too short, my hair's too straight so i'll perm it, my eyes are
boring so i'll wear coloured contacts" etc etc. al this to try and
look more like the media idea of what woman should look like in order
to be attractive (presumably to men - when did you last see an ad for
a perfume that had another woman presenting the female wearer witha
bunch of flowers.........). a pet peeve of mine is the ad for
"feminine" deodorant - women of the nineties, for gawd's sake don't
let your natural body odours be smelled by anyone who happens to be
down that way ... cover it up by smelling like a bunch of flowers.
what a load of crap.
we're constantly being told that what we *are* as women is not good
enough - the ads suggest that if you douche, use your feminine spray,
stick on a scented pad, then you'll be acceptable to the outside
world. (altho how using a vinegar and water douche will bring this
about, i don't know - seems to me you'd smell more like a fish and
chip shop.... ;-)).
i think things are changing tho - for it seems that for as many of the
above ads, we're also seeing as many horror stories from women who
bought them hook line and sinker. and the more of us that begin to
reclaim ourselves in all of our goddess-given natural beauty and
reject the messages that movies such as "cool world" spew out, the
fewer of us will be hurt. we have to come to a place where we are
proud of our bodies just the way we are, in all of our female-ness.
this isn't easy in the face of the assault upon us every day, but we
*can* do it. we *need* to do it to get back our self esteem and to be
beings of consequence again. i was at a women's sweat lodge a couple
of weekends ago - the first i'd attended. there was about 15 women
present - all ages, all sizes. it was the most wonderful feeling to be
able to be naked with these women and feel safe, unjudged and accepted
just as you were. cellulite didn't matter. stretch marks and boobs
succumbing to gravity because of age and childbirth were seen as
powerful reminders of maturity and giving of life. my little boobs
were every bit as beautiful as those i would have envied a while ago.
there was no ego, there was just woman, in all of her beauty and
strength. and a lot of the reason i felt this way, was because there
were no men present to make me wonder about my body and how it looked.
we - i - have a long way to go still; we have to eradicate hundreds
of years of damage done by the patriarchal system. and just incase
some of you automatically assume i'm a rabid feminist/lesbian/manhater
(and some of my best friends fall into all of the above, thank
goodness ;-)), my husband would be the first one to agree with me.
sally
>Pardon,
>Janis
>
>
Peter Corless
of the "DD cup" woman...
What about the Venus de Willandorff (sp?) and all of the other giant-breasted
Mother Goddess images of the Neolithic? Giant breasts are the symbol of
motherhood and plenty. For men, buff bodies and big penises have been
idolized from the beginning of time. Greeks painted them on their pottery,
Celts raised standing stones to represent them (and dolmens to represent their
feminine counterpart!)
Sexual ideals and stereotypes have been around as long as there have been
SEXES! Even animals try to rut with the best mate, based on plummage, size of
horns, build and quality of mating call... why shouldn't humans?!?
Please... THINK about the origins of these stereotypes! Are they bad? Are
they good? Is is all for the best natural selection, or have we evolved past
such primitive needs...All of this is YOUR interpretation. You can be as
militant or as moderate as you like, but let's put some thought into the
discussion before we add our acid.
..For my own part, I think that having distinctly masculine and feminine
ideals of beauty and sexuality are good*. However, the modern media
interpretations of having china-doll soft women and 4-wheel-drive tough men
are a little extreme, and tend to divide the population along extreme lines.
Personally, I don't necessarily believe that our ideals should or must be at
the 100% extremes. I'd prefer Harrison Ford over Arnold Schwarzenegger, or
Meg Ryan over Kim Basinger.
* I'll leave this whole discussion for another time. It's probably been
argued more than any other philosophical issue in the world, and I want
to log out and head home!
Phil Stephens
talk.religion.newage, but haven't bothered to post in a while, so you
might not recognize my name. Then again, my reading has been a bit
sporadic, with stuff spooling off disk before I get to it, so in some
ways I may be almost as out of touch here as one might assume...
***
Now, not to flame JMC or defend the men whose laughter she found
offensive, but I think I have a slightly different perspective on what
was really happening:
From article <2A67508...@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, by cor...@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese):
>
> Again, I mention the "joke" that Leo Smith (I think) posted: Q. What is
> the best way to get a womna to orgasm? A. Who cares? He said that this
> is posted frequently, and NEVER flamed. Certainly, this is not from a
> woman's perspective! I once watched a very irritating tape of Richard
> Pryor stand-up (which I thought would be funny, but I was very
> surprised) with a room full of men -- my brother and some of his
> friends. One of his jokes was about "Macho Man" and involved his
> discussing having sex with a woman, and telling her it was really great,
> to which she replied, "Well *I* didn't come." His punch line? "I don't
> care. I got mine, you get yours, bitch." There wasn't ONE MAN in that
> room (including my brother, which pised me off no end) that didn't laugh
> uproariously at that "joke." Surely, this is NOT the feminine
> perspective on sex!
Well, first of all, laughing at something doesn't always mean agreeing
with it (although sometimes it does, especially political stuff). Even
if one is saying "true, true" as one laughs, it may be along the line
of "Yeah, us guys really ARE like that sometimes, or wish we good be
and get away with it". That is, laughter is almost always about
releasing tension. It's about things we fear, like pain, humiliation,
and death. Why do you think so much humor is about sex? Often with
situations that would be humiliating; like pratfall humor, it is deep
in human nature to laugh in relief that it is happening to some
fictional character rather than to ourselves.
Pardon the lecture, but it is background to my real point: men are
under a lot of pressure to be gentlemen about sex, and that creates
tension, and that in turn creates fertile ground for humor. Not
neccessarily polite humor; the pressure not to be crude is what makes
extremely crude humor funny (for *some*, of course!) I suspect that if
men really didn't care about womens orgasms *at all* they wouldn't find
the joke funny *at all*. Or if they really did care genuinely and were
under no pressure because they had no problem with it. But if they
either really care and feel inadequate, or if they only care because
they feel pressured by women, the joke *may* be funny because it is
talking to their pain/anxiety.
I want to again emphasize that I am not *defending* anyone. Just
offering another reality-tunnel (to use RA Wilson's meme) to explore.
Could be a bit more useful than the one I seem to see in your words,
implying (to me; tell me if I'm wrong) that laughter indicates agreement.
Then again, laughter *can* mean derision (as in the nasty little
propaganda films in which both Nazi's and our Allies poked fun at each
other during WWII in order to help demonize "the enemy" and make them
easier to kill without compunction). Perhaps that is more what you
were percieving. Still, in the case discussed here I think it is the
tension behind *resisting* the urge to insult women that builds up the
"static charge" that sexist jokes trigger into laughter. Yet again I
point out that I'm neither defending nor decrying these jokes, just
pointing out a way to look at what they really mean: That there is a
lot of tension around sex. ("No shit, Sherlock". Yeah, yeah, I
know...)
Phil
PS In general, I feel that stuff about sex is pretty likely to be
appropriate to alt.pagan, as Sex (on many levels) is integral to both
ancient and modern Paganism, and because most Neopagans (in my direct
and indirect experience) are feminist *in the sense of* supporting
gender equality (which I think is very generous of women, as they are
obviously superior in a number of ways, but I think everyone can be
more comfortable if we pretend men are equal ... 8-) )
Lynne Radzykewycz
> I am surprised to hear all of the pagans around here missing the origin
> of the "DD cup" woman...
>
> What about the Venus de Willandorff (sp?) and all of the other giant-breasted
> Mother Goddess images of the Neolithic? Giant breasts are the symbol of
> motherhood and plenty.
These ample breasted goddess images also have ample hips, stomachs and
thighs.
The current ideal of beauty for women call for ample breasts with a
small waist, flat stomachs, slender (but definite!) hips, and skinny legs.
This ideal is a distortion of female body shape. Almost all women with
ample breasts have ample everything else too.
> Please... THINK about the origins of these stereotypes! Are they bad? Are
> they good? Is is all for the best natural selection, or have we evolved past
> such primitive needs...All of this is YOUR interpretation. You can be as
> militant or as moderate as you like, but let's put some thought into the
> discussion before we add our acid.
The "DD cup" women being complained about here in alt.pagan is the
stereotyped image presented above, not the goddess image. If the "DD cup"
cartoon character in the Cool World movie had been goddess shaped (ample
everywhere), this whole thread wouldn't have started.
> ..For my own part, I think that having distinctly masculine and feminine
> ideals of beauty and sexuality are good*. However, the modern media
Given that the current "female ideal" is such a distortion of natural shape,
I find it harmful to myself and other women I know.
Rather than go into "I know a women who...", I'll use myself as an example.
I have a hard time accepting my body as beautiful. It sure doesn't fit
any of the images of women I see that are called beautiful by our society.
My figure is 36-29-40, and I'm still trying to lose weight to be happy
with myself. Even though I try to tell myself that I don't have to
have 36-24-36 (oops, nowdays I think that it's 38-24-35) measurements to
have a beautiful body, I have real trouble in accepting it.
I would prefer to see a society where all different shapes of women were
admired for their natural qualities: slender women with small breasts
admired for their sleekness, ample women with large breasts admired
for their fullness, and us average sized ones admired because of
our minds :-) (just kidding - admired because we're "just right").
Thank goodness for supportive S.O.'s, huh Janis?
Lynne
-----------
ly...@hpnst.mayfield.hp.com
Mary K. Kuhner
valuptuous, 'overweight' Goddess-image of a woman in transparent orange
gauze, taking obvious delight in her body. I think she gave a little
gift of healing to practically every woman who saw her. I know she did
to me.
Storm/Mary K. Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Tim Radzykewycz
> > ..For my own part, I think that having distinctly masculine and feminine
> > ideals of beauty and sexuality are good*. However, the modern media
Ly...@hpnst.mayfield.hp.com (Lynne Radzykewycz) responded:
> Given that the current "female ideal" is such a distortion of natural shape,
> I find it harmful to myself and other women I know.
> Rather than go into "I know a women who...", I'll use myself as an example.
> I have a hard time accepting my body as beautiful. It sure doesn't fit
> any of the images of women I see that are called beautiful by our society.
> My figure is 36-29-40, and I'm still trying to lose weight to be happy
> with myself. Even though I try to tell myself that I don't have to
> have 36-24-36 (oops, nowdays I think that it's 38-24-35) measurements to
> have a beautiful body, I have real trouble in accepting it.
The "female ideal" *IS* a distortion of natural shape, and it is
harmful to many/most of the women I know reasonably well. My
sweetie is one of them. I neither know, nor really care, who
causes it, but it's here and it'll be here for a long time.
BUT *I* DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO IT! AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THE
NEAR *UNIVERSAL* ASSUMPTION THAT SINCE I'M A MAN I WANT THOSE
WIERDLY-SHAPED "FEMALE IDEAL" BODIES!
(Sorry about that, but every once in a while, I need to yell
about that. I hope I didn't offend anyone too badly! -- if I
just called you "wierd" please take it as "unusual" and please
try to remove any negative connotations that are there.)
My poor sweetie is really good about keeping a balance about her
weight. She manages to stay at a weight which is on the lighter
side of what I like, but that she feels reasonably good about
(though she does have some dis-satisfaction about not having the
"ideal body"). I hope that I help her feel better about what
she weighs, but after years and years of social pressure and
conditioning, it seems to be simply impossible to reject the
damned "female ideal" picture.
Well, *I* think she's beautiful, just the way she is.
She's also a belly dancer, and she gets her share of praise from
the audiences, but it doesn't really help her to reject the
"female ideal." She's trying to -- you should know that from the
fact that she posted, but it's so deeply ingrained, that it's
hard to reject it.
Well, belly dancing is a strange thing, though: many of the
arabic crowd like really sauftig women, so heavier women *are*
appreciated, but the american/european crowds are equally
important to restaurants and such, so thin women are still
usually preferred. My sweetie is in the position where she's
(just barely) the right size for either type of audience, so she
doesn't get catcalls from the americans the way some of the
heavy dancers do, but she doesn't get as much appreciation from
either audience as she deserves!
Even though Lynne gets appreciation from her audiences, there's
still the undercurrents of the "ideal body" in belly dancing.
In some cases, it comes out as "She's got big boobs, so she can
dance here." This was blatant enough at one of the restaurants
that it became a running joke among our dancer friends.
(Holding cupped hands waaaay out in front of the chest and
saying "She's a gooood dancer." I wish I could convey the tone
better. Sigh!)
> I would prefer to see a society where all different shapes of women were
> admired for their natural qualities: slender women with small breasts
> admired for their sleekness, ample women with large breasts admired
> for their fullness, and us average sized ones admired because of
> our minds :-) (just kidding - admired because we're "just right").
Well, Lynne is not only "just right" in terms of bust size (and
hip size, and waist size, and thigh size, and ..... yum!), but
she's also got one of the most wonderful minds I know of!
This *is* the heart of the matter, though. People are different
-- they have different body shapes and different social
backgrounds and different types of hair and so on. Trying to
force people onto one ideal, no matter *what* that ideal is,
will have nasty results. Most women don't have the 38-24-35
body that society seems to treasure so much, and saying "This is
ideal" is harmful to that majority who don't. It would also be
harmful if the ideal were exactly the "average" size for women
today! What*ever* the "ideal" is, there will be some people who
don't fit that particular mold, and telling them that they are
ugly because of it is wrong!
And don't try to avoid blame by saying you never said they were
ugly. They get the message, in spite of what you say with
words. If you come up with that argument, you simply don't
understand what's happening, either to them or to yourself.
How many of you men out there have held yourself up to some
ideal, (ANY ideal) only to realize that, no matter *how* hard
you try and no matter *what* you do, you can never get there?
And you can only get sort-of close if you really work and
struggle continuously and really hard. And after all that work,
you only get *sort-of* close! *THAT*'s what this damned "female
ideal" image does to people!
> Thank goodness for supportive S.O.'s, huh Janis?
Blush!
Bear Blessings!
------------------------------------------------------------
| An it harm none,
-- radzy | do as ye will.
|
Tim Omelan Radzykewycz | "Just pray for a
The Incredible Radical Cabbage | tough hide and a
| tender heart."
ra...@cogsci.berkeley.edu | -- Ruth Graham
|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
> > / hpcc01:alt.pagan / pcor...@cisco.com (Peter Corless) / 8:05 pm Jul 21,
> > I am surprised to hear all of the pagans around here missing the origin
> > of the "DD cup" woman...
> >
> > What about the Venus de Willandorff (sp?) and all of the other giant-breast
> > Mother Goddess images of the Neolithic? Giant breasts are the symbol of
> > motherhood and plenty.
>
> These ample breasted goddess images also have ample hips, stomachs and
> thighs.
>
> The current ideal of beauty for women call for ample breasts with a
> small waist, flat stomachs, slender (but definite!) hips, and skinny legs.
> This ideal is a distortion of female body shape. Almost all women with
> ample breasts have ample everything else too.
>
yup. i was going to comment on this myself, but for some reason i didn't. i
have 36 G cup breasts, and i look JUST LIKE the venus of willendorf (well, a
little thinner, but anyway). i had big breasts even when i weighed 124 lbs.,
but most people do NOT have the overactive breast tissue generators that run in
my family, luckily for them (they're damned heavy). expecting wimmin to have
gargantuatits and wasp waists is ridiculous.
> > Please... THINK about the origins of these stereotypes! Are they bad? Are
> > they good? Is is all for the best natural selection, or have we evolved pas
> > such primitive needs...All of this is YOUR interpretation. You can be as
> > militant or as moderate as you like, but let's put some thought into the
> > discussion before we add our acid.
>
> The "DD cup" women being complained about here in alt.pagan is the
> stereotyped image presented above, not the goddess image. If the "DD cup"
> cartoon character in the Cool World movie had been goddess shaped (ample
> everywhere), this whole thread wouldn't have started.
>
right again. especially since the movie woudl have bombed. B( there are no
goddesses in period shaped like the comic book ideal. astarte in her breast
presenting position has fairly sizeable breasts, but she has pretty sizeable
hips too...
>
> > ..For my own part, I think that having distinctly masculine and feminine
> > ideals of beauty and sexuality are good*. However, the modern media
>
> Given that the current "female ideal" is such a distortion of natural shape,
> I find it harmful to myself and other women I know.
>
> Rather than go into "I know a women who...", I'll use myself as an example.
> I have a hard time accepting my body as beautiful. It sure doesn't fit
> any of the images of women I see that are called beautiful by our society.
> My figure is 36-29-40, and I'm still trying to lose weight to be happy
> with myself. Even though I try to tell myself that I don't have to
> have 36-24-36 (oops, nowdays I think that it's 38-24-35) measurements to
> have a beautiful body, I have real trouble in accepting it.
well, if it's any help, that fits MY standards of nice measurements. but it
won't. i know that from experience. all that stuff abotu what you are
supposed to look like is just so engrained. i'm vaguely active in the fat
rights movement, and i still am AMAZED when thin wimmin find me attractive...
it doesn't really matter what i say, in some cases, cos sometimes i ddon't
believe it myself...
>
> I would prefer to see a society where all different shapes of women were
> admired for their natural qualities: slender women with small breasts
> admired for their sleekness, ample women with large breasts admired
> for their fullness, and us average sized ones admired because of
> our minds :-) (just kidding - admired because we're "just right").
>
that's about how i see it... you just described my sentiments about breasts to
a T... but then, i think the lesbian community doesn't get as wierd about that
sort of thing... we err in the other direction, from what i've noticed -
wimmin are supposed to look athletic and be muscled, at least slightly, and
trim, with not too much in the way of breast development... it's because the
androgynous look is still quite fashionable, i think...
*raises cup* here's to hooters, whatever size they may be! wear them with
pride! B)
-ailsa
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ailsa%ailant...@wang.com ________
"If it has tires or testicles, Silence \ / Action
you're going to have trouble = \ / =
with it." Death \ / Life
-Ohio state Senator Linda Furney \/
...FLAME
>> I find it harmful to myself and other women I know.
>>
>> Rather than go into "I know a women who...", I'll use myself as an example.
>> I have a hard time accepting my body as beautiful. It sure doesn't fit
>> any of the images of women I see that are called beautiful by our society.
>> My figure is 36-29-40, and I'm still trying to lose weight to be happy
>> with myself. Even though I try to tell myself that I don't have to
>> have 36-24-36 (oops, nowdays I think that it's 38-24-35) measurements to
>> have a beautiful body, I have real trouble in accepting it.
just read in today's paper that they did a survey of weights of women who've
won miss america, been centerfolds in playboy, etc... turns out that they're
*all* 13-19 % underweight (i'm quoting figures from the newspaper, here).
one of the most telltale symptoms of anorexia nervosa is bodyweight more than
15 % under the ideal weight for height, bone structure etc. so what women are
being told is that "a majority of these 'ideals' of our society may be
classified as having one of the major symptoms of an eating disorder." (the
study wwas done by american university researchers, the weight standard defined
by the american psychiatric association, if anyone cares...)
...flame
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
...flame ...many waters cannot quench love...
lilorenzin@davidson lilor...@apollo.davidson.edu