• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:517] Sexual Hypocrisy

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,910
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sexual Hypocrisy



Look up the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"

Then look at some of our pop cultural depictions of women

in movies and magazines

in commercial advertisements

on billboards, bus stop shelters, and the sides of buildings

and then tell me we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me why we must say we deplore the sexual objectification of women

and then tell me what's wrong with the sexual objectification of women



Pop Culture is Pornography

Pop Culture is Pornography Promoted and Approved by Sexual Hypocrisy

What do you think about that as a thesis?

​
 

Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.
 
soylentgreen said:
Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.
Click to expand...
And so you needed to quote the entire OP at post #2 just in order to demonstrate your misreading and misrepresentation of the OP?
Read better and think before you post.
And wipe that snide from your nose -- it's a turn-off.
 
Angel said:
Then look at some of our pop cultural depictions of women
Click to expand...
And men? Maybe less common, pervasive or obvious but it still happens.

Angel said:
and then tell me we deplore the sexual objectification of women
Click to expand...
Who is “we”? Some people object to sexual objectification but they’re not going to be the same people involved in producing it by definition. There can also be a range of opinions and perceptions involved. Some people will object to any sexual objectification at all while others only object when the only presentation of women is sexual and are only seeking a balance. There can also be a difference between a third party presenting a woman as a solely sexual object and a woman presenting herself as a sexual object in a specific time and place of her choosing.

Angel said:
Pop Culture is Pornography
Click to expand...
Only if you’re using a new definition of the word “pornography”. Pop culture includes some pornography but that doesn’t make it pornography in itself.

Angel said:
What do you think about that as a thesis?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is a thesis, I think it’s a largely disconnected rant in to the void. You’ve no focus on what the actual problem you percieve is, who is responsible and what practical changes you’re proposing.
 
soylentgreen said:
Oh! Look, a male has just managed to figure out women are sexually objectified.

And laughably he blames it on pop culture.

Like it hasn't been around since, well, forever.
Click to expand...

Why can't Angel just post a post?
 
HonestJoe said:
And men? Maybe less common, pervasive or obvious but it still happens.
Click to expand...
More grist for the mill then.

HonestJoe said:
Who is “we”?
Click to expand...
We the people of the United States.

The nuances of hypocrisy, yes.

HonestJoe said:
Only if you’re using a new definition of the word “pornography”. Pop culture includes some pornography but that doesn’t make it pornography in itself.
Click to expand...
Offensive sexual content.

HonestJoe said:
I don’t think it is a thesis, I think it’s a largely disconnected rant in to the void. You’ve no focus on what the actual problem you percieve is, who is responsible and what practical changes you’re proposing.
Click to expand...
And I don't think you looked up "hypocrisy." Your opinion, however, is noted.
 
This is the problem with Heteros. It's sex sex sex 24/7. It's all they frigging think about. There ARE other things to think about, but you'd never know it living in a Hetero society.
 
Angel said:
We the people of the United States.
Click to expand...
But you the people of the USA don’t all share a singular opinion on the topic (or any other topic). I’d suggest you probably have around 300 million different opinions in fact. I don’t see how you can unilaterally condemn the whole. And anyway, wouldn’t that blanket condemnation include yourself?

Angel said:
The nuances of hypocrisy, yes.
Click to expand...
The nuances are real and significant. If you’re not interested in discussing relevant details, what’s the point of discussing anything at all. And again, it’s only hypocrisy if someone is actively creating or supporting something at the same time as complaining about it. I challenge you to identify anyone who is actually doing that.

Angel said:
Offensive sexual content.
Click to expand...
That is not the definition of the word pornography. You may well find some or all pornography offensive but that doesn’t change the definition of the word.

Angel said:
And I don't think you looked up "hypocrisy." Your opinion, however, is noted.
Click to expand...
I’m not questioning your definition of the word, I’m questioning your overly generic and haphazard application of it, apparently to each and every American.
 
This is exactly the point:
it’s only hypocrisy if someone is actively creating or supporting something at the same time as complaining about it
Click to expand...
You go and gather your 300 million different opinions. I'm observing a culture as a whole. And the meaning of pornography I rely on is perfectly fine.
And finally, I'm not talking about "each and every American" -- I'm talking about American culture as a whole.
 
Sex sells. It always has. And we all know why. And it's not going to change. Let's deal with reality.

Men and women are not required to participate.

The Hale bop castration cult had a solution, if this all really bothers you.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Sex sells. It always has. And we all know why. And it's not going to change. Let's deal with reality.

Men and women are not required to participate.

The Hale bop castration cult had a solution, if this all really bothers you.
Click to expand...
Nothing "really bothers" me, truth be told, least of all American sexual hypocrisy. Which is the "reality" by the way.

And this non-participation clause of yours, just how does one not participate in one's cultural milieu?

The religious throwaway line, I take it, is de rigueur with your posts.
 
Angel said:
You go and gather your 300 million different opinions. I'm observing a culture as a whole.
Click to expand...
American culture as a whole doesn't "deplore the sexual objectification of women" though, that's exactly the issue you're highlighting in the first place. The individuals who do object to it are pushing to change American culture as a consequence. I don't see how "American culture as a whole" is being hypocritical and indeed, I'd suggest that any inconsistencies would demonstrate that trying to generalise an entire vast nation like this is fundamentally flawed. Is there even any singular "American culture"?

Angel said:
And the meaning of pornography I rely on is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...
It isn't "perfectly fine" to just make up new definitions of commonly used words, especially not to avoid justifying your personal opinions about something. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion of pornography, you're not entitled to redefine it on that basis.
 

Huh? Okay. I guess I poked you without trying. They figured out how to "not participate" in culture. Going off grid is a less extreme, non-religious way.

Some people are hypocrites. Some people treat others as nothing but objects. The are not the norm. Maybe the window into culture you have is more reflective of unhealthy folks, of maybe it's just that "what sells" bothers you. It's nature. Everyone objectifies to some degree - it's part of selection/filtering.

I'll note that Roger Ailes made Fox a leg show, and it sells.

What do you think of this?
The Large Bathers by Pierre Auguste Renoir | Oil Painting Reproduction
 
Last edited:
Just a quick question: what objectification of women is not sexual? I don't understand the qualification. All objectification of women is developmental failure and based in sex. All of it.
 
Women are beautiful.

Women are people.

These two facts are not mutually exclusive.

That goes for both sides. It's not complicated.
 
Love the Renoir.
I suspect you've got me or the OP wrong. Nothing wrong with sex. Something wrong with selling sex and condemning sex at the same time.
 
It's not a new definition.

And yes John Q Public deplores or says he deplores the sexual objectification of women and at the same time sexually objectifies and enjoys sexually objectifying women.
 
Angel said:
sexually objectifying women.
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of the non-sexual objectification of women? If not, drop the ignorant and inherently redundant qualification.
 
ecofarm said:
Do you have an example of the non-sexual objectification of women? If not, drop the ignorant and inherently redundant qualification.
Click to expand...
Funny. I was at this very moment looking to find your post again -- I'd been drawn by a quote notice to another thread, then one of my cats demanded attention.
I think you're right about objectification, but I don't think it's redundant or ignorant.
 
Angel said:
Funny. I was at this very moment looking to find your post again -- I'd been drawn by a quote notice to another thread, then one of my cats demanded attention.
I think you're right about objectification, but I don't think it's redundant or ignorant.
Click to expand...

The qualification is ignorant because it fails to recognize that all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is redundant because all objectification is sexual.

The qualification is both ignorant and redundant. There can be no debate.


We might also note that objectification is the fundamental of sociopathy and essence of rape.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
Love the Renoir.
I suspect you've got me or the OP wrong. Nothing wrong with sex. Something wrong with selling sex and condemning sex at the same time.
Click to expand...

Anyone who simultaneously sells something and condemns it is insane.

We have a confused culture for a lot of reasons, mostly I think because there are 330 million of us and we all see things a little differently. The point of the Renoir (we have that print, and 2 others by him) was that where and when that was painted, showing a nude female breast was not considered objectification by most. Here and now, we still have issues with it and default (many do) to a reaction of "that's dirty". There was a recent outrage by some mother that went viral about her sons having to deal with seeing girls in leggings at school. In the 40's there were Vargas in Look magazine.

Sorry if I misunderstood the OP.
 
No, the qualification is insightful, pointing out the nature of the dynamic.

No, the qualification emphasizes the aforementioned insight.

There can always be debate.

Yes, sexual objectification has a pathological pole.
 
Angel said:
No, the qualification is insightful, pointing out the nature of the dynamic.

No, the qualification emphasizes the aforementioned insight.

There can always be debate.

Yes, sexual objectification has a pathological pole.
Click to expand...

"Wet rain" is the same thing.

Your qualification is in error; it implies other forms of objectification. And, in that, apologizes. Don't apologize for objectification with flawed terminology.
 
ecofarm said:
"Wet rain" is the same thing.

Your qualification is in error; it implies other forms of objectification. And, in that, apologizes. Don't apologize for objectification with flawed terminology.
Click to expand...
No, the qualification -- it's not original to me btw -- is not in error at all. There are many other forms of objectification, and in this case it specifies the nature of objectification as concerns women.

It's not like "wet rain" but rather like "horse racing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…