RioluKid said:
That's basically what would happen if there wasn't any differentiation of products, services or media

That's not an equivalent argument though. "Toys and other things should not be marketed based on gender" is not the same as "There should be no distinction between anything, ever".

RioluKid said:
Because men and women are DIFFERENT how is that idea hard to understand??????

My argument is that a huge chunk of the difference comes from the different treatment of girls and boys.

RioluKid said:
Because men and women are DIFFERENT how is that idea hard to understand??????

I don't really want to be shoehorned into a group of women just because we share similar anatomy. I don't really get along with women, let alone share interests with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAQWTx5gGoY

ElctrcBoogalord said:
I know Mercedes from The Amazing Atheist

I wouldn't call him amazing.
Unless it's "Amazing" to celebrate rape and pedophilia

RioluKid said:
Because men and women are DIFFERENT how is that idea hard to understand??????

let me give it a try (though i doubt it'll work >.>).

cock + balls + no pussy/breasts = male
pussy + breasts + no cock/balls = female
cock + balls + breasts + no pussy = shemale (or as the japanese say, newhalf though i really have no idea where they got that from.)
cock + pussy + breasts = herm

those are the differences between male/female/intersex. it has nothing to do with nurture/upbringing/etc. they are all different, as i not the same. a child could understand this easily. (unless you're the type who is confused despite the plainly obvious anatomy nature gave you but i suppose that's where transvestite comes into play.)

Fenrick said:
I wouldn't call him amazing.
Unless it's "Amazing" to celebrate rape and pedophilia

that's news to me. since when has something like that ever happened on that youtube channel?

treos said:
that's news to me. since when has something like that ever happened on that youtube channel?

TJ threaten to rape a chick on redit. Also visit his ED page.

Fenrick said:
I wouldn't call him amazing.
Unless it's "Amazing" to celebrate rape and pedophilia

I'll agree that there are some things that I'm not on the same boat as him, but he can be entertaining.
And yes I know he shoved a banana up his ass.

CuteCoughDeath said:
TJ threaten to rape a chick on redit. Also visit his ED page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6ys-OklTOA
I'm going to guess you'll either not watch the video, or only watch a small fraction of it. But whatever.

treos said:
that minority isn't out for equal rights, it's for gender superiority. how can people not dislike/hate that?

Because there exists people that hear something and mull it over for a New York minute before agreeing with it; they don't take the time to do their research and get a proper scoop before coming to a conclusion.

ElctrcBoogalord said:

And yes I know he shoved a banana up his ass.

he did but that's not really a legitimate argument you can use against him.

Jade_Angel said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6ys-OklTOA
I'm going to guess you'll either not watch the video, or only watch a small fraction of it. But whatever.

truly an objective source

I tried to follow everything being said in this thread but I just ended up with a headache. May I ask what exactly is being discussed now?

I remember talking to TJ a while back and he essentially said that he doesn't care about any of the issues he talks about. He puts on a big show, but it's all acting. Acting up popular issues gets him views.

Haven't watched a single video of his since, and I intend to never watch one again. I don't have any interest in insincerity.

Clawdragons said:
I remember talking to TJ a while back and he essentially said that he doesn't care about any of the issues he talks about. He puts on a big show, but it's all acting. Acting up popular issues gets him views.

Haven't watched a single video of his since, and I intend to never watch one again. I don't have any interest in insincerity.

When was this, if I may ask?

ElctrcBoogalord said:
When was this, if I may ask?

I don't exactly remember how long ago it was. Somewhere around two years ago, to the best of my ability to determine. Though I'm not entirely sure why it matters when it occurred. From your perspective, you have no reason to believe it occurred at all beyond my word, so it just seems odd you'd question the "when" rather than anything else.

Fenrick said:
I wouldn't call him amazing.
Unless it's "Amazing" to celebrate rape and pedophilia

And how exactly does he do this?

CuteCoughDeath said:
TJ threaten to rape a chick on redit. Also visit his ED page.

And you took that seriously? Do you think cats are let out of literal bags? xD

Hiatuss said:
I tried to follow everything being said in this thread but I just ended up with a headache. May I ask what exactly is being discussed now?

Completely irrelevant shit, I can tell you that. This got derailed as fuck.

Clawdragons said:
I remember talking to TJ a while back and he essentially said that he doesn't care about any of the issues he talks about. He puts on a big show, but it's all acting. Acting up popular issues gets him views.

Haven't watched a single video of his since, and I intend to never watch one again. I don't have any interest in insincerity.

This is hard to believe with absolutely no evidence provided.

Clawdragons said:
I don't exactly remember how long ago it was. Somewhere around two years ago, to the best of my ability to determine. Though I'm not entirely sure why it matters when it occurred. From your perspective, you have no reason to believe it occurred at all beyond my word, so it just seems odd you'd question the "when" rather than anything else.

2 years is a pretty long time. Everything changes over time.

Eedez said:
As much of a weird, belligerent mess feminism has a reputation for being, I still find it funny how people refuse to use the word and use "egalitarian" instead like that actually means shit.

Yeah, Stalin and Mao were "egalitarians" too, you gonna have to find a new word now?

Egalitarians DO mean something. Stalin and Mao were egalitarians? How? Do you mean they CLAIMED to IDENTIFY as egalitarians or did you mean they were actually ADVOCATING equality? There's a gigantic difference.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
And how exactly does he do this?

Like this.

The Amazing "It's okay to say all Catholics are child molesters while I unashamedly admit to dating an underaged girl at age 23" Atheist

a worthy champion of both justice and neckbeards

Gamergate is what happened when the reactionary rejects of 4chan teamed up to be the personal army of an abuser and attack women who make and write about video games with a molecule-thin veneer of being a consumer movement for "free speech" and "ethics in video game journalism". These are their stories.

Because Rational Wiki is so totally not biased and totally trustworthy...

Eedez said:
Calling yourself "egalitarian" means jack shit as almost every ideology likes to claim its "egalitarian" anyway.

Yeah. People here are too caught up in what feminism literally means instead of focusing on real actions.

At the end of the day it should not matter what title people adopt for themselves. I do not care if someone refers to theirself as a feminist, egalitarian, or any other word, all I care about is the actions (or inactions) they choose to take. Titles will mean different things to different people, case in point being this thread, but actions tend to be much better understood among people. Focus on that instead.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
This is hard to believe with absolutely no evidence provided.

2 years is a pretty long time. Everything changes over time.

First of all, yes, I recognize that you shouldn't believe me without proof. I said as much in one of the posts you quoted. Your attitude here bothers me. You say the same thing I said, but, it seems, with an air of superiority.

Anyway, I never deleted the private message off of Youtube. But on the other hand, I stopped essentially all interaction on Youtube except watching videos after they did the forced Google+ integration. If you can tell me a way to access my old private messages, I can get you a screenshot of the message.

However, I don't see why I should bother if you are going to just dismiss it as "he said it two years ago so it doesn't even matter anyway". Because here's the thing. To me it doesn't matter how long ago this was said, because at that moment he proved to me he was insincere. What evidence could you provide to suggest he's become sincere since that point? To throw your own words back at you, why should I believe in his conversion to sincerity in the light of absolutely no evidence?

So I guess here's a simple deal. First, explain how I can access my old private messages, to start out, and then explain what concession(s) you'll make if I come through.

Clawdragons said:
So I guess here's a simple deal. First, explain how I can access my old private messages, to start out, and then explain what concession(s) you'll make if I come through.

Your channel, click on Video Manager, community, then you can check messages.

Jade_Angel said:
Your channel, click on Video Manager, community, then you can check messages.

If that's the only way, then, it's pointless. It doesn't contain any private messages from before the Google+ integration.

Clawdragons said:
If that's the only way, then, it's pointless. It doesn't contain any private messages from before the Google+ integration.

It doesn't? Didn't know that. I only had spam messages from channels asking me to check them out...

Jade_Angel said:
It doesn't? Didn't know that. I only had spam messages from channels asking me to check them out...

Unfortunately it seems that it does not.

So at this point I can only provide my recollection of the private message, which isn't worth much. I can still do my best to give context on the message, and I can relate as accurately what was said as I'm able, if anyone's curious, but I also recognize that that won't be particularly compelling for anyone either. I guess if someone asks I will still though.

Fenrick said:
Like this.

The Amazing "It's okay to say all Catholics are child molesters while I unashamedly admit to dating an underaged girl at age 23" Atheist

a worthy champion of both justice and neckbeards

Isn't he like 30 or 40 something years old?

Eedez said:
So for you its important as long as they explicitly refer to themselves as egalitarian, and not even what they advocated?

You do realize that politics in general is full of empty words at any rate? Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi, anarchist, dictatorship, democracy - every one of these have differing "genuine" meanings, let alone how they're used as buzzwords and/or smear words half the time

TL;DR
Calling yourself "egalitarian" means jack shit as almost every ideology likes to claim its "egalitarian" anyway.

You can claim anything, but you have to conform to the definition of said thing in order to actually BE it. And you got it wrong, it doesn't matter what they claim they are, only what they're advocating.

Fenrick said:
Yeah. People here are too caught up in what feminism literally means instead of focusing on real actions.

Look up the definition. You won't see the words "equal" and "rights" next to each other anywhere. Both the definitions and the actions are confirming.

Clawdragons said:
First of all, yes, I recognize that you shouldn't believe me without proof. I said as much in one of the posts you quoted. Your attitude here bothers me. You say the same thing I said, but, it seems, with an air of superiority.

Anyway, I never deleted the private message off of Youtube. But on the other hand, I stopped essentially all interaction on Youtube except watching videos after they did the forced Google+ integration. If you can tell me a way to access my old private messages, I can get you a screenshot of the message.

However, I don't see why I should bother if you are going to just dismiss it as "he said it two years ago so it doesn't even matter anyway". Because here's the thing. To me it doesn't matter how long ago this was said, because at that moment he proved to me he was insincere. What evidence could you provide to suggest he's become sincere since that point? To throw your own words back at you, why should I believe in his conversion to sincerity in the light of absolutely no evidence?

So I guess here's a simple deal. First, explain how I can access my old private messages, to start out, and then explain what concession(s) you'll make if I come through.

Are you saying there's absolutely a 0% chance he changed over the course of two years?

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Are you saying there's absolutely a 0% chance he changed over the course of two years?

How did you even get that from my message? Of course I'm not saying that.

My point is simple. At that point he convinced me that he as insincere. In order to think he's changed from insincerity to sincerity, I would need to be provided with some evidence. That sort of evidence is difficult to provide, for reasons which are a bit difficult to articulate simply, but hopefully should be obvious.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Look up the definition. You won't see the words "equal" and "rights" next to each other anywhere. Both the definitions and the actions are confirming.

What people on the internet always fail to understand is that just because you support one group doesn't mean you oppose everything else. The real world is not so binary.

People who call themselves feminists are not of one mind.

I find feminism as a blight upon the world, I have respect for the suffrage movement and women who work to make it in this world. Feminism is just a group of moody upset women and men who don't want to put effort into their own lives to achieve.

When a woman is over weight and doesn't take care of a her self there is the feminist answer and the real woman answer.

Feminist : It's men's fault for having standards and personal tastes. MISOGYNY!

Rational woman : I'm either going to accept myself or hit the gym.

These women don't make an effort to understand men and their suffering, it's not easy being a man but as a man you are expected to hold a degree of standards to even attract a female. Feminism takes all the standards from women and forces extra standards on men. We are already second class citizen, we don't need the extra suffering heaped upon us by feminism.

Men have taken a push back in some countries just check out Japan population problem in relation to it's heavy handed female bias and male oppression. The Herbivore men have said screw it and just given up anything to do with government and females. In the west the MGTOW movement is in a similar vein and now this is the lowest population getting married in american history.

MonsterFiction said: [words]

Wow, why don't you tell us what your really think? You knida' being insulting to all women. Feminism is the primary propagator of mens rights. Men were essentially obligated to work for the family. Now with women striving for higher paid jobs men can finally have this burden lifted.
I'm interested, what role do you think omen have in society. Looking though your favourites, most pictures are (solo) women offering themselves up to men/viewer.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Looking though your favourites, most pictures are (solo) women offering themselves up to men/viewer.

It seems like you're suggesting that's a negative, and if so, I'm genuinely curious why that's a bad thing to you. It seems to be that a "woman [or man] offering themselves to [the] viewer" is ideally how sexual relations should generally go. "Yes, I want to have sex with you" seems to me to be a much better attitude than "I don't want to have sex with you", combined with "Too bad".

In fact, I can't really think of anything more desirable in sexual relations than enthusiastic participation and consent. Especially from women, in some ways, because of the historical rejection of women's sex drives.

Edit: Also, I've sort of realized that my posts since the first have been a bit skewed. I think I made my position fairly clear there, but after all the time I've spent challenging only one side of the viewpoints in this topic and ignoring much of the crazy stuff said on the other side... I'm going to try to address that imbalance a bit.

I honestly don't understand how you can think feminism is not needed, in some sense or another. There are some pretty clear imbalances between the sexes, and there are issues which affect men, issues which affect women, and issues which affect both.

As an example, there are campaigns still being waged in America to remove women's access to abortion. That is, to me, pretty major, and, I think, needs to be addressed. Do you have a problem with that issue being addressed? Do you have a problem with similar issues being addressed (for example, access to birth control)? Do you have a problem with perceptual issues being addressed? For instance, I've heard people express surprise at the idea that getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her should be considered rape. Or the idea that husbands can rape their wives. Do you have a problem with these issues being addressed as a group, as some of them may have common themes?

I don't see any problem with addressing these issues, personally. Again, they seem pretty significant. And I don't see why it should be a problem to address them as a group, because they do have some common themes.

Here's the thing: that's feminism. That is what many people mean when they identify as feminists. Not all, sure. There are some radical feminists who take things, in my opinion, way too far. But the same can be said of any group. And to say that "no, we don't need anyone dedicated to addressing these important issues" seems ridiculous to me, and I just don't understand that mentality.

Clawdragons said:

Here's the thing: that's feminism. That is what many people mean when they identify as feminists. Not all, sure. There are some radical feminists who take things, in my opinion, way too far. But the same can be said of any group. And to say that "no, we don't need anyone dedicated to addressing these important issues" seems ridiculous to me, and I just don't understand that mentality.

The issue, I believe, with this is that the negative side is always the point of focus over the positive. How many "good" feminism videos do you see on youtube to the "bad". When initially hearing something bad about any group, the common response is to believe that entire group is bad. Even if the majority is actually bad that does not mean the WHOLE is and I think many people forget about that. When people say that "[group name] should not exist" they are usually guided by the negative evidence behind it without taking a passing glance on what usually in majority is positive. This "False Feminism" or however you want to say it is why I believe needs to be non existent. The "Pure" form of it is what I would support if only I could find more and more examples of it instead of the crap that shoots in popularity so quickly.

Hiatuss said:
The issue, I believe, with this is that the negative side is always the point of focus over the positive. How many "good" feminism videos do you see on youtube to the "bad". When initially hearing something bad about any group, the common response is to believe that entire group is bad. Even if the majority is actually bad that does not mean the WHOLE is and I think many people forget about that. When people say that "[group name] should not exist" they are usually guided by the negative evidence behind it without taking a passing glance on what usually in majority is positive. This "False Feminism" or however you want to say it is why I believe needs to be non existent. The "Pure" form of it is what I would support if only I could find more and more examples of it instead of the crap that shoots in popularity so quickly.

You're not wrong. Ultimately the (commonly accepted) meaning of feminism will be based on whatever message is being put out there most strongly in the name of feminism. I'm not completely sure that the strongest message is being put out there by people who care more about feeling morally right than being morally right, but I think it is. People who previously might have identified as 'feminist' now won't, because their understanding of feminism is 'particular flavour of political wank'.

I don't think this is likely to change, because the world is getting more and more complex; people just won't take the time to look into all these things. Most likely their judgements will become even more cursory than they already are. Whoever shouts loudest in the name of X will represent what X is.

savageorange said:
Whoever shouts loudest in the name of X will represent what X is.

huh, reminds me of what you see on news channels like CNN, depending on the time of day (which show is on). bitching, whining, and whoever is loudest being heard the most with everyone else basically being told to shut up.

Clawdragons said:
It seems like you're suggesting that's a negative, and if so, I'm genuinely curious why that's a bad thing to you. It seems to be that a "woman [or man] offering themselves to [the] viewer" is ideally how sexual relations should generally go. "Yes, I want to have sex with you" seems to me to be a much better attitude than "I don't want to have sex with you", combined with "Too bad".

In fact, I can't really think of anything more desirable in sexual relations than enthusiastic participation and consent. Especially from women, in some ways, because of the historical rejection of women's sex drives.

I think your muddling up the content of the picture with the intention of the picture. An example is war photography. The content is horrific and objectionable however it's purpose is to document and inform. Similarly the content of many of the favourites was a "willing female" and the purpose is objectification (ie to use her as a tool).

Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

Clawdragons said:
I honestly don't understand how you can think feminism is not needed...

Who it this for?

CuteCoughDeath said:
I think your muddling up the content of the picture with the intention of the picture. An example is war photography. The content is horrific and objectionable however it's purpose is to document and inform. Similarly the content of many of the favourites was a "willing female" and the purpose is objectification (ie to use her as a tool).

Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

That sounds like the same line of thinking people use when they blame murder on video games

Fenrick said:
That sounds like the same line of thinking people use when they blame murder on video games

i see it as the opposite. People who blame video games can't see that they are games and they purely see the content.

:( you're one to talk about someones faved pics, CuteCoughDeath.

especially since the 4 you have faved are focused on male genital mutilation and/or neutering.

there is nothing good about that. you sicken me. >:(

treos said:
:( you're one to talk about someones faved pics, CuteCoughDeath.

especially since the 4 you have faved are focused on male genital mutilation and/or neutering.

there is nothing good about that. you sicken me. >:(

Wow, you're right.

Now, if it were four out of a thousand, that would be one thing... but the fact that those are her only favorites says something.

Can't wait to see how that gets rationalized. How is porn of male genital mutilation okay if porn of females being submissive is objectionable?

This has got to be a fucking joke.

CuteCoughDeath said:
i see it as the opposite. People who blame video games can't see that they are games and they purely see the content.

And some people can't see that it's just porn...

CuteCoughDeath said:
I think your muddling up the content of the picture with the intention of the picture. An example is war photography. The content is horrific and objectionable however it's purpose is to document and inform. Similarly the content of many of the favourites was a "willing female" and the purpose is objectification (ie to use her as a tool).

Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

Now I think you're the one confusing intent and content.

I've talked to people who've drawn porn. I've written and drawn porn. No one I've ever talked to has ever suggested that their purpose was objectifying women. Almost exclusively, the intent is to create something for people to enjoy.

You can argue that the way in which that is done is by objectifying females (I disagree, but that's not the point). But to argue that the intention is to objectify females... I think if you really believe that then you've never actually bothered to understand pornography from either the maker or consumer's perspective. If anyone is confusing intent and content here, it's you, with that claim.

Who it this for?

The various people in this topic who are saying "feminism isn't needed in today's society"

treos said:
:( you're one to talk about someones faved pics, CuteCoughDeath.

especially since the 4 you have faved are focused on male genital mutilation and/or neutering.

there is nothing good about that. you sicken me. >:(

Treos, there's no need to be nasty.

Also, I may not agree with castration in real life, but in drawing and fantasy I think people have the right to enjoy whatever they want. I think it is wrong to criticize anyone for the sort of porn they enjoy as long as it's not actually harming anyone. Whether that be cub porn, genital mutilation, torture/death, degradation/humiliation, or whatever else.

Call her a hypocrite, if you think she's being a hypocrite. But don't directly criticize whatever it is she happens to be into. I think that's not a good attitude. And again, don't be nasty.

Fenrick said:
How is porn of male genital mutilation okay if porn of females being submissive is objectionable?

This has got to be a fucking joke.
And some people can't see that it's just porn...

I'm not viewing it as porn. They simply made me lol so i favoured them. They have nothing to do with my libido or how I view males. Hows that for rationalisation?

CuteCoughDeath said:
I'm not viewing it as porn. They simply made me lol so i favoured them. They have nothing to do with my libido or how I view males. Hows that for rationalisation?

That makes things worse, actually, to me. I think finding the idea of other people in pain funny is more objectionable than finding it sexy.

Clawdragons said:
That makes things worse, actually, to me. I think finding the idea of other people in pain funny is more objectionable than finding it sexy.

I have to disagree. Sex is much more of a biological reward than laughter is.

Clawdragons said:
That makes things worse, actually, to me. I think finding the idea of other people in pain funny is more objectionable than finding it sexy.

agreed

gonna try and forget i saw those pics now. theres nothing funny about genital mutilation of any kind.

CuteCoughDeath said:
I'm not viewing it as porn. They simply made me lol so i favoured them. They have nothing to do with my libido or how I view males. Hows that for rationalisation?

Well the thing is If go on skype right now and and say I find this video of a women getting her head blown off funny that's fucked up as all shit. But we can watch Scorpion Fatality every male in the roster and have a hearty laugh.
But I think the point they are trying to make is you are judging someone on what they favorited. This is inaccurate because we favorite things for different reasons. Some actually just favorite for tagging purposes or other reason not related to them actually having an interest for it.
My point is this is a poor way to prove a point and if this actually were a good method to prove one you should be considered a sadistic man hating freak, but thats not the case and I don't judge because who DOESN'T have a kink or two (or 50).

CuteCoughDeath said:
Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

Never go full troll bro.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

Holy shit, seriously? Are you for real?

Nobody's that fucking stupid. Of course not every female ever consents. That'd be even more stupid. Newsflash coming in: Not everyone depends on FICTIONAL images to tell them what's realistic

I mean, really -- do you assume all men have some sort of mental difficulty? That prevents them from knowing the differences between reality and FICTION??

At first I thought you were being reasonable, but well, whaddya know(?)

CuteCoughDeath said:
Also the "consenting females" only make this all the worst as there is no choice of the subject to not-consent. You are essentially locking your brain into a world where every female consents.

I'm sure people also lock their brain into a world where anthropomorphic animals really exist because they draw and/or view art where they are depicted. After all, there is no choice of the subject to not be an anthropomorphic animal.

Oh, wait. It's a drawn image.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
Nobody's that fucking stupid. Of course not every female ever consents. That'd be even more stupid. Newsflash coming in: Not everyone depends on FICTIONAL images to tell them what's realistic

You are correct, consciously no one is that stupid.. however subconsciously - yes everyone’s brain is that stupid. That is why people are aroused by pornography. Everyone realises that that image doesn't really = a viable mate but you reptilian brain does think it is.

Ratte said:
I'm sure people also lock their brain into a world where anthropomorphic animals really exist because they draw and/or view art where they are depicted. After all, there is no choice of the subject to not be an anthropomorphic animal.

Oh, wait. It's a drawn image.

oh wait yes this this actually does happen. I'm not talking about full blown hallucinations of bipedal animals. I'm talking about people very incorrectly anthropomorphising animals. Examples are:
- doggy vests: no they don't need cloths due to that huge fucking fur coat
- people assigning human personalities to their reptiles
- people referring to doggy licks as kisses: it's a sign of submission
and the list goes on. The only difference is that these delusions aren't harmful to us. The delusion that women are sex tools; is.

sorry i know it is against e621 rules
I am involved in making a documentary coming up late next year (yet untitled) reviewing sexism in the furry community. It has a chapter strictly dedicated to porn. Statistically tags like BDSM, rape, snuff etc are much much more likely to occur when a female is present....

I would recommend everyone watch it when it comes out.

CuteCoughDeath said:
You are correct, consciously no one is that stupid.. however subconsciously - yes everyone’s brain is that stupid. That is why people are aroused by pornography. Everyone realises that that image doesn't really = a viable mate but you reptilian brain does think it is.

oh wait yes this this actually does happen. I'm not talking about full blown hallucinations of bipedal animals. I'm talking about people very incorrectly anthropomorphising animals. Examples are:
- doggy vests: no they don't need cloths due to that huge fucking fur coat
- people assigning human personalities to their reptiles
- people referring to doggy licks as kisses: it's a sign of submission
and the list goes on. The only difference is that these delusions aren't harmful to us. The delusion that women are sex tools; is.

sorry i know it is against e621 rules
I am involved in making a documentary coming up late next year (yet untitled) reviewing sexism in the furry community. It has a chapter strictly dedicated to porn. Statistically tags like BDSM, rape, snuff etc are much much more likely to occur when a female is present....

I would recommend everyone watch it when it comes out.

OK so how many people who AREN'T considered absolute scum do you know that do what you listed about the animals to women? I mean where I live if you talk to a woman without any respect at all EVERYONE, especially the men, would gladly introduce your face to the ground. It's not some common passively accepted thing like dressing up your dog.
And a note about that is the one person I know who does dress up her dog does not identify herself as a furry and probably hasn't even seen anything beyond what you find in commercials. The viewing of Furry Art does not trigger that sort of behavior. And women aren't wild animals so how can you even compare the two in turns of how they will be treated?
And what you are referring to as the stupid side of the brain is the instinctive desire to breed which causes arousal which is triggered by varying reactions of the senses.
ANY person who believes another human being is to be used in an abusive way without willing consent of said victim is rejected.
And no I am just talking about 1st world. I know there's a lot of shit going on elsewhere but from what I understand most just want to keep the issue on home turf.

Hiatuss said:
OK so how many people who AREN'T considered absolute scum do you know that do what you listed about the animals to women?

Everyone. Our perceptions of the other gender are mostly constructed though culture or advertising.

Hiatuss said:
I mean where I live if you talk to a woman without any respect at all EVERYONE, especially the men, would gladly introduce your face to the ground.

More patriarchy. So these women are treated like children? They need men to defend and speak for them?

Hiatuss said:
And a note about that is the one person I know who does dress up her dog does not identify herself as a furry and probably hasn't even seen anything beyond what you find in commercials.

I don't understand where you are going with this. I'm not saying furies cause crazy cat ladies. I was giving an example to Ratte of how everything causes a perceptual change. Anthropomorphism is systemic within society and has caused us to imagine animals as humans.

Hiatuss said:
And what you are referring to as the stupid side of the brain is the instinctive desire to breed which causes arousal which is triggered by varying reactions of the senses.

So you agree with me. You don't control the subconscious. Yet we keep showing it images that show women as tools.

Hiatuss said:
ANY person who believes another human being is to be used in an abusive way without willing consent of said victim is rejected.

Like 99% of the clothes out their made by slaves? Oh wait, no! People accept that and turn a blind eye. Allong with the other million ways people (in the developed world) abuse each other, abuse is sometimes the norm and accepted by society.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Everyone. Our perceptions of the other gender are mostly constructed though culture or advertising.

More patriarchy. So these women are treated like children? They need men to defend and speak for them?

I don't understand where you are going with this. I'm not saying furies cause crazy cat ladies. I was giving an example to Ratte of how everything causes a perceptual change. Anthropomorphism is systemic within society and has caused us to imagine animals as humans.

So you agree with me. You don't control the subconscious. Yet we keep showing it images that show women as tools.

Like 99% of the clothes out their made by slaves? Oh wait, no! People accept that and turn a blind eye. Allong with the other million ways people (in the developed world) abuse each other, abuse is sometimes the norm and accepted by society.

1) You are correct so you know anyone who was actually raised with sense knows not to treat women like objects and through this we have a society that rightfully does not tolerate abusive behavior.

2)I am saying when a woman says no and the douche still hears yes, It MIGHT be nice having some help. I mean do you swear a guy out for holding the door for you? This is just being polite.

3) While Anthropomorphism may be somewhat common in society these days, it's about as threatening as a meme going viral. And you CANNOT translate this into People will one day view women as objects. That would be setting the clock in reverse you know when women DIDN'T have the right to vote, be employed, be accepted for wanting a single life, etc. Last I checked all that shit is encouraged.

4)I'd like to point out there is a substantial amount of MALE smut here as well. The WOMEN aren't being tools. The DRAWINGS, if anything has to be a tool, are. And before you try to say that they are being used with marketing, SO ARE THE MEN. Haven't you noticed ANY commercial featuring a male is usually a fit toned attractive one? Why? Because that's how human nature works. You want what is appealing to you. Guys and Women alike.

5)Abuse is accepted? How so? Do you have any news reports or articles or recent events proving this? I have not seen or heard any account where a someone beating their spouse out of the cause of self defense has been encouraged or tolerated. I have seen parents get kicked out of public recreation centers for slapping their children in the face. Abuse is NOT an accepted part of society.

CuteCoughDeath said:
I'm not talking about full blown hallucinations of bipedal animals.

Except I was. Don't ignore my actual intention just because you don't like it.

Hiatuss said:
2)I am saying when a woman says no and the douche still hears yes, It MIGHT be nice having some help. I mean do you swear a guy out for holding the door for you? This is just being polite.

Can't you see? The world would be a better place if we never stood up for anyone, or did anyone favors. After all, you don't want to offend them by making them appear as helpless victims.

CuteCoughDeath said:

oh wait yes this this actually does happen. I'm not talking about full blown hallucinations of bipedal animals. I'm talking about people very incorrectly anthropomorphising animals. Examples are:
- doggy vests: no they don't need cloths due to that huge fucking fur coat
- people assigning human personalities to their reptiles
- people referring to doggy licks as kisses: it's a sign of submission
and the list goes on. The only difference is that these delusions aren't harmful to us. The delusion that women are sex tools; is.

Have you seen the "huge fucking fur coat" on a Chihuahua or a wiener dog or something like that? People own these breeds in climates that easily reach -20°C or less during winter months. You either have very short walks with the dog or give them a vest so you can have a normal / slightly longer walk.
There are also other reasons why it'd be good to give additional insulation to a dog, be it an illness (recent or current), or missing fur.

CuteCoughDeath said:
sorry i know it is against e621 rules
I am involved in making a documentary coming up late next year (yet untitled) reviewing sexism in the furry community.

It's only advertising, and thus against the rules, if you plan on making money off of it.

CuteCoughDeath said:
It has a chapter strictly dedicated to porn. Statistically tags like BDSM, rape, snuff etc are much much more likely to occur when a female is present....

Why is BDSM lumped into rape and snuff? You do realize that BDSM is pretty much gender neutral and requires full consent at all times? There are male doms and subs, and there are female doms and subs, and neither of the subs (whether female or male) are pressured into these submissive roles in real life.

There are also a lot of female artists drawing BDSM themed pictures with female characters in the submissive roles, do you want to tell them they shouldn't draw these images because it paints a bad picture of woman?

ok...i think i'm about finished with this thread aside from being an observer.

as for that documentary...eh, might watch it for a laugh or 2 (i'm sure i'd get that much from it if nothing else), or if it appears on youtube or somewhere similar then i shall await the oncoming shitstorm as i'm sure it'd get get a nice reception. >.>

not trying to offend with that last part but i've seen enough stuff like that cause a big stir over there and even if the documentary itself wasn't posted to youtube (might happen in time) there'd still be plenty of video responses. that much is inevitable.

NotMeNotYou said:
Have you seen the "huge fucking fur coat" on a Chihuahua or a wiener dog or something like that? People own these breeds in climates that easily reach -20°C or less during winter months. You either have very short walks with the dog or give them a vest so you can have a normal / slightly longer walk.
There are also other reasons why it'd be good to give additional insulation to a dog, be it an illness (recent or current), or missing fur.

You know what i mean... you completely understand That i am talking about but for some reason you choose to argue an exception...

Anyway this is getting wayyyyy off topic.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's only advertising, and thus against the rules, if you plan on making money off of it.

Nope. It's gonna be released on youtube and daily-motion. The project has already been funded by the Canadian government.

NotMeNotYou said:
Why is BDSM lumped into rape and snuff? You do realize that BDSM is pretty much gender neutral and requires full consent at all times? There are male doms and subs, and there are female doms and subs, and neither of the subs (whether female or male) are pressured into these submissive roles in real life.

Because BDSM is about power-play.

NotMeNotYou said:
There are also a lot of female artists drawing BDSM themed pictures with female characters in the submissive roles, do you want to tell them they shouldn't draw these images because it paints a bad picture of woman?

Yes I do. They probably don't know that they are hurting all women by drawing those. However it's ultimately their choice.

Unfortunately I'm not going to respond to everyone because of the amount time required. Also people are getting off track.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Nope. It's gonna be released on youtube and daily-motion. The project has already been funded by the Canadian government.

oh goody, gonna be loads of fun seeing the reactions. :)

Censoring artistic expression so a few peoples' feelings don't get hurt. What could go wrong.

treos said:
oh goody, gonna be loads of fun seeing the reactions. :)

Yeah it won't end well for at least one person I can think of.

ippiki_ookami said:
Censoring artistic expression so a few peoples' feelings don't get hurt. What could go wrong.

Nope, as confused as CCD's stance is, it is not about censorship (yet?). Censorship is the domain of government action. Moderation of e621 is private action, the government is generally not relevant barring things like CP being uploaded.

savageorange said:
Censorship is the domain of government action. Moderation of e621 is private action, the government is generally not relevant barring things like CP being uploaded.

Well said, however I feel censorship can be also a personal/societal action either through coercion, diversion or manufactured complicity.

Chomsky wrote an excellent piece on the five filters of censorship it's worth a read.

treos said:
oh goody, gonna be loads of fun seeing the reactions. :)

Being a furry I'm trying to steer the project is a positive way for furies. But people are idiots when it comes to guilt by association. Several cases of women being raped at cons in the last few years doesn't help.

CuteCoughDeath said:
You know what i mean... you completely understand That i am talking about but for some reason you choose to argue an exception...

That is my point, though. This isn't an "exception" this is part of the very valid norm. Which brings me to the next point...

CuteCoughDeath said:
Because BDSM is about power-play.

Yes I do. They probably don't know that they are hurting all women by drawing those. However it's ultimately their choice.

BDSM is about consensual power-play, regardless of gender or circumstances. Everything that happens in a BDSM setting is based on whatever the participants have agreed upon and it only happens and progresses as long as all parties consent to it. If the submissive feels this is going to far, or is no longer comfortable the entire thing shuts down faster than a nuclear reactor outside of operational parameters.
If it doesn't stop when the sub (or any other participant) signals to stop then it's rape (or sexual assault), and not BDSM.

So yes, I don't understand how you'd try to argue that it depicts woman in a bad way, because even if they are in the sub position they have full control over everything that happens.
This can look different to someone who isn't familiar with standards and procedures of the scene, but missing education in those parts shouldn't be a reason to vilify something a lot of people enjoy.

If your issue is "the woman gives up control" then I can't help you in any way and BDSM will continue to be the devil for you, but if it's lack of consent that irks you then it's simply wrong to say that BDSM is bad, and in turn you shouldn't vilify it, as well as censor it, but you should focus on teaching people how to evaluate and give consent.

In the same vein, I do not understand how you can argue that viewing porn makes you objectify woman. I objectify the porn because it's a play done by people. They are porn actors in a porn, they are people outside of porn. Most people don't go up to George R. R. Martin and call him a psychopath for writing A Game of Thrones, and nobody is going up to Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson and calls him a murderer for killing Pedro Pascal's character on screen.

The same goes for almost all other living people, they are able to differentiate fiction and fantasy from reality, they know things portrayed in porn and smut pictures aren't real, just as much as they know about advertising and are able to consciously override what their subconsciousness is telling them.
And while there are some people that can't differentiate between fiction and reality, be it due to mental health problems or lack of education, removing fiction isn't going to solve the problem.
If you want to fight the problem you should move towards educating people and giving medical assistance to people with health problems and the issue will actually be able to solve itself.

And just for the last word, I say all of the above as someone who has hosted porn at 14 on his school's network, had contact to porn long before that and is now working in the adult industry (while also obviously being an admin here), I do not treat woman as objects, I treat them as people. If what you say were true I wouldn't look up to woman who are better people than I, or admire their works, or like to have conversations with them because they have interesting views and a lot of interesting stuff to say; if you were correct I'd only be interested in boob pictures and getting to fuck them, and I can assure that isn't the case.
Before you go "but subconsciously you're..." then I can assure you that I am full and well aware of what my brain is doing, I treat every person as a person until said person gives me a reason to stop treating them with respect.

TL;DR: Removing specific content because it "hurts woman" isn't going to solve anything, educating people is the way to go.

It depends. I mean this shit with nitpicking every little fucking detail, like if a man happens to be working a front desk at a business it's suddenly "mysoginist". FUCK THAT! So what! Maybe he's there on his own merits first!
But should women have the same rights? Yes.
Does that mean, like I said, nitpicking? No. I swear these folks play the numbers game.

(whenever NMNY makes a good counterargument)

post #589310

CuteCoughDeath said:
I am appalled at the amount of content on this site that degrades women and portrays them as sex objects.

I think e6 should remove all images that show women:
- in a submissive position
- being used for the pleasure of a man
- being degraded
- being used only in a picture because "they look good"
- depicting unrealistic sexulized traits

If your a misogynist douchbag and come back with "we'll I can find images that analogue these features with using men". Then you clearly don't understand that men hold the power, therefore men; by definition cannot be exploited.

REally? That'd be deleting ALL the straight porn. And no, that won't happen so keep dreamin'.
So what? Now we have to draw all female characters doing a high end office job and not having any sex whatsoever? You're a fucking lunatic if you really think that's gonna go over at all with this site. You are just fucking nuts. Yeah, I'm an asshole. I'm a douchebag. At least I'm honest too. I don't fucking care. Maybe I sexually like women! Oooohhh so evil right? So evil that a male dare be attracted to a female? Go fuck yourself.

TruckNutz said:
REally? That'd be deleting ALL the straight porn. And no, that won't happen so keep dreamin'.
So what? Now we have to draw all female characters doing a high end office job and not having any sex whatsoever? You're a fucking lunatic if you really think that's gonna go over at all with this site. You are just fucking nuts. Yeah, I'm an asshole. I'm a douchebag. At least I'm honest too. I don't fucking care. Maybe I sexually like women! Oooohhh so evil right? So evil that a male dare be attracted to a female? Go fuck yourself.

This kind of post : "<quotes reactive bullshit> posts reactive bullshit in response to reactive bullshit" is why I hate political threads.

Yes, the quoted post demonstrates a huge disconnect from reality, particularly in the idea 'men can't be exploited because they have the power'. Obviously in reality everything and everyone can be exploited, because nothing and nobody is invincible, we all have weak points.

But either you think the person can be reasoned with, and you present a reasoned argument, or you think they aren't and you just tell them to fuck off without presenting any reason at all. Trying to do both at once generally just results in frothing impotently.

TruckNutz said:
-snip-

Congratulations, you made me give you a record while on my phone.

Stay civil in this thread.

NotMeNotYou said:
So yes, I don't understand how you'd try to argue that it depicts woman in a bad way, because even if they are in the sub position they have full control over everything that happens.

[...]

If your issue is "the woman gives up control" then I can't help you in any way and BDSM will continue to be the devil for you, but if it's lack of consent that irks you then it's simply wrong to say that BDSM is bad, and in turn you shouldn't vilify it, as well as censor it, but you should focus on teaching people how to evaluate and give consent.

Disclaimer: I am talking completely about what I've heard from others on this subject. I know very little about BDSM myself.

Now, a rather interesting thing I've heard is that as far as BDSM goes, it is actually the sub who has the most control in a healthy BDSM relationship. The sub explains what they are comfortable with and what the dom can and cannot do to them. The sub is only subjected to those things they've agreed to, and they have the absolute right to halt things at any given time. It is a bit anti-intuitive, but it does make some sense.

So I would say it's not such a matter of "even if the woman is the sub", but rather, "especially if the woman is the sub".

Again, BDSM isn't something I know a whole lot about. I've just talked to a few people who are into it and I'm relating one of the interesting points they made.

Clawdragons said:
Disclaimer: I am talking completely about what I've heard from others on this subject. I know very little about BDSM myself.

Now, a rather interesting thing I've heard is that as far as BDSM goes, it is actually the sub who has the most control in a healthy BDSM relationship. The sub explains what they are comfortable with and what the dom can and cannot do to them. The sub is only subjected to those things they've agreed to, and they have the absolute right to halt things at any given time. It is a bit anti-intuitive, but it does make some sense.

So I would say it's not such a matter of "even if the woman is the sub", but rather, "especially if the woman is the sub".

I used "even" because the gender has no bearing on how consent is treated in BDSM, the (male or female) submissive says stop, it stops and there are no exceptions to this.

But yes, the submissive outlines to the dominant one what they are comfortable with and the dominant then does these things to the submissive. It gets a tiny bit more complex once you bring into play what the dominant likes but everything is agreed upon by all parties involved and everybody respects the wishes, desires, and limits of all other involved parties.
BDSM is like a hardcore trustful for more than a couple hours, if so desired, this stuff about consent at all times and communication prior and after is incredibly important to the entire scene and everything around it, which is why people who are into it get agitated when someone tries to tell them what they are doing hurts another person.
It does not, ever.