• 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!

Weird Things Liberals Do

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
This one takes the cake.

Artist Films Herself Having Sex With A Stranger In 'Unsimulated' Commentary On Rape

“Central to this work is also the idea that rape is more than an unwanted sexual act, that it is the foundation for the entire institution of the patriarchy, and hence it is the crucial battleground for dismantling male power,” Hewson further explains in the statement. “If rape is the ultimate weapon of male-domination, then anything outside of being permanently impacted by the experience, undermines male weaponry. To choose to put yourself in this situation, to show (even symbolically) a woman enduring the scene in ‘Untitled (are you ok bob?),’ is conceptually challenging because it threatens our assumption that man’s power is insurmountable. And in the ideology of patriarchy that is the deepest offense possible.”

These people have issues.
 
Nothing new there. The Columbia University mattress girl filmed a porno for more or less the same reason even after it was proved that she wasn't raped.
 
Yes, they do.
How do you know they're "liberals"?

If I had to be money, I would bet she was liberal. But artists, in general, are odd birds, regardless of political affiliation.
 
Just looked up some of her work. Her "live" art and photography isn't my taste but her paintings, while bizarre, are very good. Sophia Hewson
 
If I had to be money, I would bet she was liberal. But artists, in general, are odd birds, regardless of political affiliation.

Yes, they do tend to be at that.
And if you had to be money, at least you'd still have the freedom of speech.
 
If you want to compare strange behavior of liberals vs. conservatives just keep in mind that I have a bunch of cults and religions to choose from and a whoooole lot of rednecks.
 
If you want to compare strange behavior of liberals vs. conservatives just keep in mind that I have a bunch of cults and religions to choose from and a whoooole lot of rednecks.

One word confirms that: Trump.
 
You ever hear conservatives talk about "the patriarchy" in that garbled way?

Plenty of other things conservatives talk about in a "garbled way".
 
All sorts of stuff is art, if you know how to look. In this case, I'm not sure why this is "weird." People have sex with strangers rather often. People sometimes have sex for reasons other than arousal or attraction. One acknowledged purpose of art is to hold up a mirror to the ordinary and reveal something extraordinary about it. If you find yourself rather uncomfortable looking at the images, or watching the film (which, as I understand it, can only be viewed in the gallery), that would seem to be the point; the question is why this should even be remarkable in the first place--as it certainly is, as plenty of people are remarking about it. The title of the piece acknowledges that she is using the stranger as much as he was using her.
 
All sorts of stuff is art, if you know how to look. In this case, I'm not sure why this is "weird." People have sex with strangers rather often. People sometimes have sex for reasons other than arousal or attraction. One acknowledged purpose of art is to hold up a mirror to the ordinary and reveal something extraordinary about it. If you find yourself rather uncomfortable looking at the images, or watching the film (which, as I understand it, can only be viewed in the gallery), that would seem to be the point; the question is why this should even be remarkable in the first place--as it certainly is, as plenty of people are remarking about it. The title of the piece acknowledges that she is using the stranger as much as he was using her.

Did you read the quote? Get back at the "Patriarchy" by ****ing them....

That's liberal logic at it's best.

I do wish I was single though. It sure appears to be a good time for that. Lots of sex; no commitments. I wonder if she'd **** 50 year old guys for...you know, revenge on the patriarchy?
 
Did you read the quote? Get back at the "Patriarchy" by ****ing them....

That's liberal logic at it's best.

I do wish I was single though. It sure appears to be a good time for that. Lots of sex; no commitments. I wonder if she'd **** 50 year old guys for...you know, revenge on the patriarchy?

Sounds more like Trumpeteer logic to me.

But, then the Trumpeteers are liberals. They just don't know it.
 
Sounds more like Trumpeteer logic to me.

But, then the Trumpeteers are liberals. They just don't know it.

I don't know what the Trumpeteers are exactly. I just call them nuts.
 
calamity said:
Did you read the quote? Get back at the "Patriarchy" by ****ing them....

That's liberal logic at it's best.

I do wish I was single though. It sure appears to be a good time for that. Lots of sex; no commitments. I wonder if she'd **** 50 year old guys for...you know, revenge on the patriarchy?

Yes, I read it. I also understand it (which is not to say I agree--I partially do and partially do not). I'm not so sure you understand it.

You seem to think that an act of sex--that is, an act of penetration of this woman's vagina--is the most important feature of the film. That's clearly not the case. The gallery, perhaps on behalf of the artist, is making a few claims:

1. A patriarchal power structure exists, and it dominates women.

2. Its ultimate expression is rape.

3. By being forced to confront the image of a woman having sex with a stranger, the viewer is forced to confront something approaching (though clearly not identical with) the moment of rape.

I would put it to you that if your view is this was a stupid project because, hey, some lucky dude got to have sex with this woman, while at the same time the woman is to be denigrated for having sex and filming it while looking into the camera (or perhaps merely for being stupid), then maybe there is a point lurking in there somewhere about patriarchal political structures and their relationship to male sexuality that should be confronted.
 
Yes, I read it. I also understand it (which is not to say I agree--I partially do and partially do not). I'm not so sure you understand it.

You seem to think that an act of sex--that is, an act of penetration of this woman's vagina--is the most important feature of the film. That's clearly not the case. The gallery, perhaps on behalf of the artist, is making a few claims:

1. A patriarchal power structure exists, and it dominates women.

2. Its ultimate expression is rape.

3. By being forced to confront the image of a woman having sex with a stranger, the viewer is forced to confront something approaching (though clearly not identical with) the moment of rape.

I would put it to you that if your view is this was a stupid project because, hey, some lucky dude got to have sex with this woman, while at the same time the woman is to be denigrated for having sex and filming it while looking into the camera (or perhaps merely for being stupid), then maybe there is a point lurking in there somewhere about patriarchal political structures and their relationship to male sexuality that should be confronted.

I believe more women should **** strangers to "confront" the patriarchy. Hell yeah!
 
calamity said:
I believe more women should **** strangers to "confront" the patriarchy. Hell yeah!

I wonder if you also believe it is wise, or morally acceptable, to intentionally misuse or misconstrue someone's words? I did not say anything about confronting the patriarchy. I said something about confronting a point. Your use of quotes, and the overall context of your reply, suggests you have intentionally ignored my meaning to twist things around. Your responses generally also seem to be making this artist's point (or at least the one the gallery attributes to her).
 
I wonder if you also believe it is wise, or morally acceptable, to intentionally misuse or misconstrue someone's words? I did not say anything about confronting the patriarchy. I said something about confronting a point. Your use of quotes, and the overall context of your reply, suggests you have intentionally ignored my meaning to twist things around. Your responses generally also seem to be making this artist's point (or at least the one the gallery attributes to her).

She mentioned patriarchy a couple times in her leftist femi-rant. You brought up confronting while defending it.

A + B = C
 
calamity said:
She mentioned patriarchy a couple times in her leftist femi-rant. You brought up confronting while defending it.

Nope. Wrong on both. The gallery brought up patriarchy. I brought up confronting something else--not the patriarchy, but something alleged to be part of its foundation. Nor was I necessarily defending it in toto, as I clearly said. I was merely pointing out that she seems to have a point, which, again, you seem to be making for her.

calamity said:
A + B = C

That's just downright silly. By the same logic, I could take any two words in your posts and string something out of them, and call it substantive reply. What you're doing is labeling and dismissing, rather than engaging and confronting.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Wrong on both. The gallery brought up patriarchy. I brought up confronting something else.



That's just downright silly.

My mistake. I thought the artist said that.
 
I wonder if you also believe it is wise, or morally acceptable, to intentionally misuse or misconstrue someone's words? I did not say anything about confronting the patriarchy. I said something about confronting a point. Your use of quotes, and the overall context of your reply, suggests you have intentionally ignored my meaning to twist things around. Your responses generally also seem to be making this artist's point (or at least the one the gallery attributes to her).

Wait... calamity LYING about something that someone said? The horror.

We need a sarcasm smilie.
 

Are all liberals answerable for what an individual liberal does? What about conservatives?


What about.....centrists?

If I change my lean to "centrist", will I finally be only held to account for the things I say and do? That would be nice. Because it sure is strange to open a thread and seeing myself being compared to a ultra-feminist nutter, simply because I consider myself on the liberal side of things.
 
Back
Top Bottom