Scream with Maryam Namazie and Aliaa Magda Elmahdy to protest sexism and hypocrisy: the Nude Photo Revolutionary Calendar is here! It’s a powerful piece of work. No pandering, no attempt to titillate, just women honestly baring themselves to make a point and show their power. And also to make a statement against patriarchal religions.
One warning, though: on the site, when you click on the link, it did not bring up a site to purchase the calendar — it downloaded it instantly and it popped up in my pdf viewer, right here at work. If you think that kind of thing would get you in trouble, wait until you get home. Also, there’s a separate paypal button so you can donate even without downloading: it’s under $20 American, and proceeds go to benefit women’s rights.
This is very distasteful and counterproductive, get naked to show power?? Get real people…
@ #1—I think the idea behind it is that so many religions are terrified of the female form. It is also a direct response to a woman in Egypt who got in some trouble for a nude picture. I think the idea of doing something like this is okay, and a powerful message that women’s bodies are not something to be covered head to toe.
I have a bad feeling I know where this thread is going to go.
Oh wait, datasolution is already on the road.
If you find the sight of the human body distasteful, that’s your problem, not anyone else’s. That you don’t understand how this shows power hardly surprises me.
Get screwed, asshat.
Oh datasolution. I feel sorry for you. There is nothing distasteful about the human form; that you should find it so reveals more about you than being naked ever could.
Downloading this sort of thing at home would get me in trouble. I don’t think I could get away with “But honey, it’s for a good cause.” ;)
Oh, look. The same tired, boring crap from datasolution.
Get a new hobby, asshole.
datasolutions:
When others attempt to use their power to keep you from getting naked, it’s a perfect way to show power.
I’m not sure what you mean by either “distasteful” or counterproductive. A show of strength through solidarity is generally productive. As for distasteful, the entire thing is very tastefully done. Beautiful, even.
I suspect, though, that you’re merely being a contrarian asshole to demonstrate your superiority to the rest of us sheeple.
They did get real people. That’s what makes this whole thing wonderful.
Waiting for the first one to complain about their bodies not being perfect….
I love these pictures – real women, real bodies… Strongly reminded me what growing up going to nude beaches in the summer did for me. (Apart from not having to deal with icky wet bathing suits stuck to your skin or trying to change without someone seeing you.) And no – there was never anything sexual about it.
It helped to get a realistic view of the many, many shapes and sizes people came in without even being aware of it – extremely helpful in putting things in perspective when hitting puberty and in developing a great sense of your physical self as well as a confidence which eliminates one of most people’s concerns when starting to explore your own sexuality.
People need to see more of these! In addition to the message these women are sending, it might also give people a sense of the reality of human form, which is nothing like what the media these days are trying to portray as standard.
Wow. Beautifully done.
datasolution wrote:
Spare us your faux outrage. You don’t give a shit about distastefulness or counterproductivity. You’re just against anything that empowers women, being the rape-denying male supremacist lackwit that you are.
Can I make an appeal here? Before the mudslinging starts? If you feel strongly about this issue, can you PLEASE put some effort into explaining WHY you feel strongly about it. That is so much better than calling the other guy an asshole and it might help those of us who are less certain to make up our minds. Thank you.
Many thanks again, Maryam for the opportunity to participate in such a superb calendar, and to the people involved in putting this together!
Here is a link to my blog post about my participation in the calendar, with full interview: http://emilyhasbooks.com/press-release-nudephotorevolutionary
It is my hope that this calendar will reach out to those who most need to hear our message, and that other viewers will find this to be an artistic and powerful display, and will unite with us in support of free expression and civil liberties.
I agree with tommccann..I am a woman and I don’t understand how this is empowering. I would like to hear why people feel that it is. I am also an American who, aside from school dress codes, has never felt that I was being controlled or oppressed by clothing requirements. Perhaps if I had to be covered from head to toe or face beating/rape/death I would feel differently. Is this simply solidarity or is there another point?
datasolution doesn’t like it? well, if that’s not a sign that they did something right, I don’t know what is (kinda like how Teh Ebil Feminism scared Heddle away) :-)
I note that datasolution went right ahead and clicked, despite the warning. There’s a parable about walking down a street and falling in a hole. By the fifth time, you have no right to complain about falling in the hole when you walk down that street. datasolution, why would you choose to walk down that street? I bet you otherwise are a vapid fapper when you’re not scolding others. Plank. Eye.
trillian:
Have you followed the link and read the announcement? From the link:
Here is the start of the story.
This is a great big world. Everything that happens is not just about America.
But even here in America, we live in a culture that willingly and forcefully uses slut-shaming as a political and social tactic. We live in a culture in which sex is almost taboo.
Did you follow the link and read the announcement? That answers all of your questions.
Not just feminism, but teh evils of teh PEEE SEEEEEE.
I like it!
nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks :
This is a great big world. Everything that happens is not just about America. But even here in America, we live in a culture that willingly and forcefully uses slut-shaming as a political and social tactic. We live in a culture in which sex is almost taboo.
WOW! Way to parse my statement. I know it’s a “great big world” which is why I stated my nationality, all of our world views are impacted by where we live. And thanks for the condescension by the way.
We do live in a culture where sexuality is treated as taboo/immoral/offensive but what we face is nothing like what the women of the Middle East have to endure. But that is not my point.
If these women are merely standing in solidarity, ok great! More power to them. But I still don’t understand how taking my clothes off (as an American woman) is going to empower me. Women here can make a lot of money for taking their clothes off. I understand Aliaa’s statement, as an oppressed Egyptian woman, I don’t understand why other women are following suit. This isn’t a new phenomenon; women have been doing this as a political statement for a long time. I want to be clear that I am not offended by their actions, I don’t disapprove, I just don’t understand them. I don’t see how it gets us anywhere in the fight for equality. I’m not looking for a lecture; I’m looking for opinions on why these actions help the cause.
trillian @20 –
Um, have you tried breast feeding in public? Remember when the USA Women’s Soccer Team player pulled up her shirt and exposed her *gasp* sports bra? How many female underwear models do you think would be elected to Congress? We already have a male one as a Senator…
There is a double standard when it comes to clothing and covering up for men and women in America. Not nearly as pronounced as in other cultures, as you said, but it’s definitely there. It is a stand for solidarity from women from all over, not just the US, but from several other countries, as well as encouragement to do more.
On a personal level, I found the pictures very tasteful, for whatever that’s worth. Though, I think it would have been even better if there was a bit more sexuality to it. I understand that the point is that just the form of the nude woman’s body causes apoplexy to the Islamists, but isn’t their whole thing a rejection of female sexuality entirely?
trillian, to sum it into but one word: defiance.
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know what, if anything, he means by “distasteful” or “counterproductive”.
Well, datasolution? Can you put it into words beyond “but… but… teh nekkid”?
PZ wondered why the link downloaded the whole calendar without first asking for money. Well, gee, the reason is simple: if they were charging money for the privilege of looking at their naked bodies, that would completely undermine the political and cultural position they are taking.
And for trillian, who politely asks, “Why is showing yourself naked empowering?”, I would answer (only for myself–I’m sure the participants have their own answers) ” I am my body; and anyone, any tradition, any law which mandates that some part or other of my body is, in and of itself, bad or evil, disempowers and oppresses me. By taking off my clothes in the face of such disopprobrium, I am taking away those powers and claiming them for myself.”
It’s a bit wordy, but I hope you get the idea. YOU, trillian, are not required to take off your clothes with us, but it’s not for you to place any requirement, including that of “understanding” on us when we take off our clothes.
And, yes, I am a man, but I’ve been a nudist for decades, and it’s a very healthy thing to be.
@trillian
I don’t get it either. I’d be a lot more impressed with it as a statement of solidarity if there were naked men (of all ages and sizes) too. I’m also not offended, but I don’t see how it’s “empowering” either. (And, yes, I read the post.)
Sweet. There was a purchase button at the bottom. I’m going to put it up at work. I’ve decided after 32 years I haven’t pissed off enough bigoted, sexist, phony idealistic, datasolution, assholes. So well see if the new job realizes they hired a person.
My dad on nudity: “If they haven’t seen a human body, it’s about time they did.”
Well, to be honest I didn’t examine the full picture, I just got a glimpse of it when I clicked the link and it was enough to repel me.
But what about a picture of women in various work stations traditionally reserved for men, like at universities, construction yards, heavy machinery, military, politics etc.
Wouldn’t that be a better concept?
Instead what you have here is a vulgar display of meat. Do you really think meat should be the focus?
How is that in any way sensible? You’ve completely got off the rails here..
@susan because society is waaaaay to focused on controlling the female image. Diversity of form faaaaar more accepted in males.
Well. That about says it all, eh?
@datasolution You see vulgar meat? The pics Med students post on twitter when their drunk or bored is ‘vulgar meat’. This is just the human body. Arguably the most advanced evolved physical system in the universe. Take some biology and get some bloody perspective.
“no attempt to titillate”
Not failing to do it, despite the lack of intention, ooh.
[meta]
datasolution:
Not surprising you echo a Ramadan sermon by Muslim cleric Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly:
(Later, facing community backlash, he “clarified” his stance regarding rape: Hilaly later claimed that he had intended to suggest that “if a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame…but a man should be able to control himself.”
(My emphasis))
shorter datasolution: female bodies are vulgar, repellent meat.
it’s also obvious that datasolution hasn’t realized yet that brain is a kind of meat, too. mind-body dualism FTL
(however: I still want those MRI scans of David M’s brain. don’t think I’ve forgotten!)
The only vulgar display on this thread is the posts by dataseptictank. Talk about a vulgar display of stupidity, misogyny, and the delusion that we are at all interested in its drivel. We aren’t. The sooner it learns that fact, and stops posting, the smarter it will appear.
brraaanzzz
LOL, brain is meat, but mind isn’t!
Here I was hoping someone would objectify them so I could yell at them, but the thread went the other way. Why can’t people mind their own damn business if someone wants to be in a naked picture? That’s sort of what kicked off the calendar in the first place.
way to miss the joke, honeybunch
Truly Revolutionary.
Thank you.
datasolution:
(Stupid troll is stupid and trolls)
—
The religious troll is just trying to derail the topic:
I’m impressed that Mallorie Nasrallah is in there. Just goes to show, people are a very mixed bag.
If your mind is not a result of meat (and electricity), is it your soul?
I’m not surprised. libertarian(-ish) folks are only stupid on positive freedoms, not necessarily on negative freedoms.
Those women are much braver than I.
#9:
Well, reverse “lookism” not the right route to go down either.
Women are real, period. If you have a fit, traditionally “perfect” body, you’re a real woman. If you don’t, you’re a real woman. You can make an argument for less “real” if there’s loads of silicone involved, but us “real” men hate that kind of thing anyway. :-)
“Well, to be honest I didn’t examine the full picture, I just got a glimpse of it when I clicked the link and it was enough to repel me.” So said datasolution.
Yep, and you only read Playboy for the articles.
trillian – “But I still don’t understand how taking my clothes off (as an American woman) is going to empower me.”
Datasolution: “Well, to be honest I didn’t examine the full picture, I just got a glimpse of it when I clicked the link and it was enough to repel me. … Instead what you have here is a vulgar display of meat. Do you really think meat should be the focus?”
Does that answer your question, trillian? The naked female body is so repellent, so vulgar, that datasolution just can’t bear to look at it. Women should be ashamed of their nakedness because as merely “meat” they must keep their bodies covered to disguise how disgusting they are. Or alternatively they can reject both that view of their bodies and the idea that the value of their bodies is determined by men.
trillian
John Morales was spot on with “Defiance”. I will add “Overton window”.
This is defiance against the imposition of “modesty”. The extreme of modest clothing is the burka, which I see as more or less pretending you don’t exist. Think about modesty, and how women are socialised to be either modest or outcast. Modesty and visibility are at odds with each other, and so it is difficult to be both modest and take a full share in society.
Men are not socialised to be modest. Requirements that women be modest are also requirements that women stay at the back of the bus, as it were. Breaking those rules is a way of challenging the status quo.
The empowerment is a collectively social thing, not so much individual empowerment.
@trillian and everyone else who is asking “why” the women in the calendar are getting naked:
In response to your question, I’ll ask another one: why does there need to be a deep and profound reason for these women getting naked for a cause? Even if there was no particular reason for the nudity (and I think it’s clear that there is, but other people have addressed that, so I won’t), so what? People do all kinds of random acts in support of various causes, acts that there isn’t a profound reason behind. There’s no particular reason that people buy yellow ribbons to display support for our troops or walk in relays for cancer, and no one runs around asking for some kind of deep and profound reason. Why does no one do this? Because no one considers buying yellow ribbons or walking in marathons to be shameful, dirty, and vulgar. But being seen naked? Now THAT needs some kind of reason, excuse, and explanation because being nude is seen as all those things and more.
In essence, if you want the answer to your question, consider why you felt the need to ask it.
Some people seem so obsessed with the appearance of skin and miss the point of the absence of clothing.
trillian:
You’re welcome! I reserve that for people who ask questions that are answered in the links.
nigelTheBold:
*sigh*
I apologize. This was uncalled-for. I guess I was just put off by the wording of your original post, where you were asking how it empowered you. I don’t think that’s how you meant it, but that’s how I originally read it. It seemed you didn’t see how this empowers you, so you couldn’t see how it might empower other people.
I know you called out your nationality as a means of exposing potential privilege. In my original reading of your post, it seemed you were ignoring pretty much everything outlined in the linked announcement. But I realize that, if you have not been following this story, you might not have the same context as others here.
Anyway, I retract my snotty condescension. It was not deserved. I’m also sorry I was snottily condescending.
[meta]
Lyra, damn good point!
—
nigelTheBold, that was well-done.
The women in the calendar are beautiful. The human form is itself beautiful, and those with the strength to be seen without clothes are doubly so.
Those who think people should remain covered: you are part of the problem (that would be you datasolution….). You are the reason that these women feel the need to publish this calendar.
@Martin, in my view they are “real women” because they are photographs of real women – thin, plump, old, young, pretty, plain, all real. By contrast, virtually all images of women that you see day to day on magazine covers and billboards are not of real women. The models are real, but by the time they are airbrushed and photoshopped to pseudo-perfection, the images aren’t real any more.
There was a T-shirt slogan a while back that said “There are 3 billion women in the world who do not look like supermodels, and only 8 who do.” Wrong. There are actually zero who do. Not even the supermodels themselves look like their images.
But that’s the photography and image manipulation that isn’t real, not the women. The phrase used here was “real women,” not “real image of women,” implying that the perceived problem lies with the women and not the image.
I think they are beautiful. Real women, not provocatively posed, not “meat”.
I find it interesting that in America it is okay to assume very sexual poses in very titillating clothing and that is okay. But by golly, show a nipple and you get in trouble.
Martin Wagner:
It’s also the intent, I think. In presenting these too-good-to-be-true (by someone’s metrics, at least) as “real,” they are not only presenting an unrealistic measurement of beauty, but also intentionally presenting the unrealistic images as totally realistic representation of women.
It’s like McDonald’s. They have these commercials where they show these fantastic, wonderful-looking (to some people, anyway) images of burgers. You get your order, though, and the burgers have only a passing resemblance to the burgers in the commercials.
At least, that’s how I see it.
Not to compare photos of nude people to fast food. Except I just did.
Soylent green, anyone?
Lyra,
Perfect.
data solution,
With your comments you allow men blinded by their privlege to stop and realize what feminists are about. Such a shit head, but still somewhat useful.
As soon as I read the title piece, I saw the reaction coming down main street with a police escort. I didn’t think it would pop off right at the very first post to the thread.
PZ should have probably appended the post, as he sometimes does, to ward off the reactionary idiots that think they are referencing the typical ‘girly’ calendars sold in the calendar shops (that oddly disappear right after the winter holidays). This calendar is an act of solidarity with Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, and tens of, or probably hundreds of millions of women who are objectified, subjugated, treated like chattel (or worse) by a society sickened by the inherent misogyny of most of the world’s major religions.
There was no intention of sexual provocation, no objectifying. It is a very tastefully done nude calendar. The last photo of Maja Wolna should instantly hit home that a woman’s nude body isn’t something to sell automotive parts or tickets to sporting events. The whole calendar should also hit home that these were acts of voluntary protest.
I completely understand how the calendar’s goal can be misconstrued. Almost every calendar featuring nude, semi-nude or bathing-suit clad women is created solely for titillation and/or selling something. Some people’s minds will automatically correlate this one as being no different simply because they have been mentally trained to see every nude woman as a sexually objectified product. It is indicative of the problem that the religious and commercial patriarchal systems have created. This calendar is not a symptom, it’s the solution. But to far too many people, they will need the context of Aliaa’s story to separate the beauty from the lurid. This is the print version of the European topless beach that will allow people to understand that breasts aren’t sex toys, but simply a part of a woman’s body.
Anyone not understanding the nuance and power displayed by these visual acts of protest needs to severely re-examine their ideas of what sexuality vs. art and freedom are really about. The burkas and veils are off, no tools or racing teams are being promoted, and NO ONE is expected to take a step backwards.
Oh, and full kudos to Sonya J.F. Barnett for excellent layout and design work. The calendar is exactly the kind of visual statement that a project like this one needed. Well, VERY WELL done!
Mankind has been exploiting female nakedness in one way or another for several thousand years (that we know of).
So how is more female nakedness empowering?
Other than the brazen fact that men like seeing naked women,
there’s nothing provocative here y’all.
This could hardly be viewed as something new and bold. A calender? How unoriginal of you to select such a mundane vehicle by which to make an important statement.
Not to say that the ladies didn’t do a sincere, quality job of being naked to the world.
I know that the mission purpose is not overtly sexual and I’m not complaining. But you girls are naked, and I am a man. There is no way I can separate the primeval sexual impulse from your nude forms.
So maybe you think I’m a cave dwelling neanderthal. I can live with it.
How about do next year’s shoot at the Louvre’ or outside Independence Hall.
hepburn1:
Because the patriarchy says “mustn’t do it!”, then they go do it.
(Shows they’re not cowed)
Because the patriarchy says “it’s shameful!”, but they do it anyway.
(Shows they’re not ashamed)
—
[OT]
But, if they’re clothed, you can?
I think you’ve been acculturated, and can’t break free of that, never mind acknowledge it. Nothing primeval about it.
(Live with it)
Exploiting female nakedness means determining whose nakedness gets shown, and why. Young females whose bodies excite men, displayed for the benefit and profit of a few–that’s exploitation.
Can you not see that “female nakedness” does not equal “pictures in Playboy”? The women in this calendar are not models whose images have been photoshopped in order to sell a product or make money for a publisher of a jerk-off mag.
I’m pretty sure you haven’t even looked at the images in this calendar.
Know how I know? ‘Cause images like these aren’t geared particularly toward men. They’re ordinary women. The sort who are usually invisible when people think “Naked ladies!!!11!”
there’s nothing provocative here y’all
Sorry, hit “Submit” too soon (oh, the irony).
I disagree. The sight of older women’s bodies, non “beautiful” women’s bodies, is quite provocative, I think.
Woman (and men–I’d love to see another calendar like this, featuring men) choosing to be naked for their own reasons, not simply to pander to a marketplace that fetishizes young women’s bodies’, is provocative.
bodies, not bodies’.
We in the US are not generally beaten or raped or killed for the crime of not being covered head to toe. We are encouraged to display our bodies for men’s titillation.
But when we are raped, it suddenly matters what we were wearing. Our society does sanction violence against us for being insufficiently covered; it’s just way less overt about it. And our bodies, the sight of our bodies – the sight of us, for those of us who aren’t still steeped in mind-body dualism – is treated as inherently sexual, inherently sexually provocative, including by the naysayers here. We are “vulgar meat,” we are responsible for hepburn1’s uncontrollable primeval sexual impulses, if we dare to exist while uncovered.
So yeah. We’re lucky, we’re privileged, but we’re not free yet.
No one is asking you to. I certainly cannot, and yes, I see all the women in the calendar as sexually desireable. What is more important though is that you see the women not only as sexually appealling, but as people with thoughts, hopes, dreams and the right to be themselves without some stupid stone age mullah or preacher telling them what to do.
One of the problems arising from the use of sexual oppression by the religious nutjobs is that people lose sight of the fact that you can be a free thinker, and empathic, and still be sexual.
So enjoy looking at the women’s beautiful form, enjoy the sexual arousal you may feel from it, but don’t forget that these women are strong, free, and prepared to defy. Never forget that they are humans with rights, no less than yourself.
@Stacy
I would too, I’d also like to be in it, but I dare say there would be plenty in the line ahead of me with more qualifications.
John Morales says:
Nope, clothed or unclothed….
To clarify:
No one is asking you to repress your sexuality. No one gives you the right to take.
No such thing as uncontrollable
If it is genuinely uncontrollable in a medical sense, got seek medical help
Hell, that was bad! teach me to hit submit instead of Preview by mistake! :-/
Toss the salad please!
political nakedness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukobours#In_British_Columbia
2nd go: (me@69)
@hepburn1
No one is demanding you don’t have a sexual response. Equally, that doesn’t give you the right to “uncontrolled” expression of that sexual response. (If you have a medical compulsion, then I suggest seeking medical attention.)
If you have an impulse to do something, doesn’t mean you have to actually do it.
Hopefully that was truer to the definition of the verb to clarify….
The ladies can bare all or some or none as they please, as an act of artistic creation or revolutionary feminism or just ’cause they feel like it. But I think I’ll pass on this one. I don’t see viewing the proceedings as a culturally revolutionary act, at lest not one with much, or in fact any, potential for being effective. Gotta pick not only your fights but your tactics. The fight is one worth fighting. The tactic chosen… well, as I said, I’m going to pass on this one.
Pleasant as it was to see a baker’s dozen pictures of beautiful women, the real thrills were to be found in the accompanying quotations.
Some noisemonger above whined that it was a vulgar display of meat. Fuck your craven plaint to powder, and piss on it. Meat is a prime component of so much that is beautiful. A tiger in stride, a zebra, the human body. Your face is meat. Should that be covered up? Well fancy that, lots of wizened little troglobites insist that women do exactly this! Newsflash: the mons pubis is no more vulgar or disgusting than the face. They’re not vulgar or disgusting at all, regardless of visibility, and neither is any other part of the body.
There are people who think the exposed female form is disgusting and shameful, and their views still carry far too much weight throughout the world. That calendar is a visual refutation, clearly showing just how fucking wrong they are.
Yep, your porn is really not porn, naked women do not “titillate” straight men, and you truly are superior to everybody else. You are always perfectly correct about everything, even when you contradict yourself.
You know what? I thought you were interesting a few years ago. I guess that demonstrates the malleability of youth. You’re nearly as full of shit as the people you rail against.
I think that came out wrong. To clarify: Nudity will always cause a response, especially titillation; we are hard wired to respond to a naked human that we find attractive.
In contrast, I never thought you were interesting.
You know who else never thought you were interesting?
Probably everyone here.
Too bad.
pcb28:
Clearly, you’ve never been to a nudist beach or associated with naturists.
You imagine our genotype care about clothing? :)
(Take out the ‘naked’ from your claim, and you’ll be a lot closer to the reality)
Do you really think that thinking somebody attractive is not a response?
Does our genotype care about clothing? No, our DNA doesn’t care, but the person that it builds and the society that they live in do. Do you ever find anybody of any sex attractive?
pcb28
There are millions (10^6) of people living on this planet (as opposed to the one from which you hail) who see other people naked ALL the time and do not find it the least bit titillating.
Your pathetically limited personal experience is NOT universal.
Cassandra whatever, I’ve never posted here before, so how would you know? Should I toe the party line to gain your interest? Or should I not care at all what some fucking syncophant thinks? I know what your answer is.
I think that you should take a step back and learn what groupthink is. I’m an atheist, but I find the bullshit here to be just that, bullshit.
You know what would be just great? If trivial idiots were self-aware enough not to bring trivially obvious points into threads on Pharyngula as though they were arguments while sneering about how uninteresting everything is.
My point. Nobody here gives a fuck about you or what you think, and I’m baffled as to why you’d think we would.
So you’re saying that nobody ever finds anybody attractive? I didn’t say that they walked around with a raging erection, I said that people find other people attractive. You seem to be the one (desperately) responding to naked people (like everybody else) but thinking that you are above such base responses as attraction. Note: attraction does NOT=erection. Grow up.
Funny Cassandra, I’m here and I don’t give a fuck what you think.
You’re making shit up at random now, I see.
Sadly, that’s not even a response, let alone an interesting one.
What a sad chewtoy :(
syncophant
*snorfle*
I responded to muddled, bullshit thinking on the part of PZ. Nothing more, nothing less. He said check out this calender of naked people, it’s not porn! They were empowered!
What is or isn’t porn is highly subjective. What if I posted a calendar of anal sex with females and said that it is not porn because the women in question felt empowered because they enjoy it? That calender would be empowering wouldn’t it? Of course not, that doesn’t fit your view of sexuality and is objectification. Women shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.
Then chew away dipshit. You are as interesting as a wet fart. Have you anything original to say? I thought not. For a reverb unit, you’re awfully cheap.
Dudes who think that female nakedness=automatic arousal really need to spend some time in a nudist colony, or on a nude beach, or working as an aide to aged and disabled people who need help with showering and toileting. They’d get over it pretty soon.
It’s amazing how much this “primeval sexual impulse” has to do with acculturation. There are entire tribal groups who used to wear no clothes at all until white colonisation. And amazingly the blokes didn’t seem to have these “primeval sexual impulses” towards their mothers, aunts, daughters etc despite the women’s nudity.
We do exist independently of your desire for titillation, amazing as that might seem. And this is why the calendar is still as revolutionary an act as campaigning for birth control and going on “slut walks”.
I never said that female nudity=arousal, you did. I said that the threshold for arousal varies. You fucking perverts.
No, you came in and sneered about how you used to find PZ interesting but now, alas, your Very Important Very Special interest has been diminished. What I’m telling you is that you’re just not all that important or special. Nobody cares that you’re disappointed in PZ. Sad. Deflating. But true. You know what else? Your attempts at argumentation are pathetic. You’re actually less interesting now than you were before you started posting. See, you were at ground level then – now, you’re digging. Now you’ve come to tell us that the definition of “porn” is subjective, which is possibly the most boring piece of trivially obvious shit of all time while simultaneously being irrelevant because you are the first person in this entire thread to mention porn.
Nope, you’re entirely wrong. You want to take one small statement that I made about me thinking that Paul is full of himself and shit lately to be my entire point. Try again.
Five of your six sentences were on the subject of your very special feelings. The first was just a bit of flaccid sarcasm. No substance whatsoever.
Wait, that’s the way to OM (haha) status isn’t it? Miss the point, shriek as loudly as possible, and pretend to be superior. Gotcha. Will do.
So I had one sentence of substance? I guess that puts me one ahead of you doesn’t it?
It’s genuinely depressing that you think you made one.
Go away, mosquito. You’re not worth the trouble of swatting.
At least I made you take notice, not to mention offense, you merely made me puke. I realize that you think you are just the brightest little star that has ever shined, but I find you to be an insipid little twit that can spout nothing but insults while ignoring what was actually said.
pcb28
Did you read this comment or are you too busy obsessing about Cipher?
make that “offense, while you…”
pcb28, I’ve been trying to decipher your point, but I think Turing had less trouble with the Enigma codes.
Sure, those pictures might titillate someone who’s sexually attracted to women. But that’s not their aim. If they were intended to titillate, they’d be quite different. In color, for starters.
Fancy that, eh: nudity setting out to make a point that has nothing to do with turning you on. Or me, or anyone. Can you grok that? Well, can ya?
Despite all your yap about porn, erections, arousal and attraction, there’s no chance that you’ll show us the slightest trace of intellectual tumescence.
Seriously?
Is that what you meant to say?
Again with the overestimating your importance. It’s really pretty pathetic. Bless your heart.
You know you don’t have any effect on anyone here at all, right? You realize I don’t actually give a fraction of a fuck about you. I’m bored here, procrastinating; you’re just the sad little ball of fluff I’m batting around til I fall asleep. You’ve got nothing to say, you’re just here to sneer, state the obvious, and stagger off declaring victory.
I responded to you. To repost: “So you’re saying that nobody ever finds anybody attractive? I didn’t say that they walked around with a raging erection, I said that people find other people attractive. You seem to be the one (desperately) responding to naked people (like everybody else) by thinking that you are above such base responses as attraction. Note: attraction does NOT=erection. Grow up.”
Really? I couldn’t care less about you handwaving. You are aware that that is all you are doing, right?
Yes, you do give a fuck about me which is proven by your inability to fuck off and realize that you’re a bit stupid.
No, I’m not here to sneer. Why would you say that? Project much?
In this thread, PZ didn’t say anything about porn one way or another. Yet you claimed:
Unless you can point to something he said on Twitter or elsewhere, it’s not a matter of subjectivity — you were simply lying about what he said.
He didn’t say that either. What he did say is rather different:
You might be more interesting if you would stick to the facts. Then again, probably not.
I was merely responding to his prior posts about porn; no, I am not going to take the time to give you the links. We’ll MLA style and make you find it for yourself. After all, everything is online now.
Shorter me: “I find you to be an insipid little twit that can spout nothing but insults while ignoring what was actually said.”
OK. This just getting wierd.
Shorter you: “I have nothing to say and find out of context quotes to be clever.”
No seriously pcb, do you actually believe women should not be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, or have I misconstrued?
Quote mining, nice. Are you sure that you are not fundy evangelicals?
I feel like part of what makes this one so pathetically insipid (banning offense, by the way!) is that his responses to things show absolutely no evidence of his actually having read those things. It’s pretty much ongoing.
and my #109 was in response to pcb28’s #104
Well, you see, I’ve read many of them. And I’m quite sure that none of them included a statement like
I remember his first post about this topic, too. While it was inaccurate, it also did not mention porn.
So I must conclude that you are lying.
[PSA]
I realize, catnip, that you didn’t recognize a sarcastic closing sentence. You get a pass for lack of reading comprehension.
[meta]
As for the troll, as is typical of its kind, it forgets that everyone can read what it wrote.
—
@76: we are hard wired to respond to a naked human that we find attractive.
@91: I never said that female nudity=arousal, you did.
@104: I said that people find other people attractive.
We only depict naked women that socially weak assholes will not, I repeat, WILL NOT find interesting in any way. These pics are for empowerment purposes only. You should not find the women depicted herein attractive. If you do find them attractive, fuck you, you sir or madam, are a pervert.
10 Irony cannot be conveyed in text-only.
20 GOTO 10
Your full comment quoted from comment 88. How is that quote mining? I asked if I’d misconstrued you, or if you actually believe that last sentence. I ask because it was not immediately clear if that was your view, or if there was some rhetorical style that I’d missed.
John, you’re not very bright are you? I’m making fun of you. I’m making fun of your attitude toward porn. As in “It’s not porn if I’m cool with it, it’s empowering!” You desperately want to tell women what is proper don’t you.
Yes catnip, that’s called snark.
Oh the strawmanity.
[meta]
pcb28, we all know you’re trolling.
(Keep it up, it will speed your bannination)
That was the point all along catnip. PZ decries porn in one post (once again, it’s the internet, find it yourself) yet champions another version of porn because he’s cool with it.
Well you get a fail for writing eloquence. Given your expressed views, you can’t expect people to hear your sarcasm.
What expressed views? The views put forth in jest that idiots believed despite the tone, or my honest views that were ignored because being an asshole with limited reading comprehension is lionized here?
What I find interesting is that he appears to actually believe that last sentence follows from what precedes it.
It’s fairly common to believe that some behavior is not empowering, yet people should be allowed to do it.
When speaking with the apparently liberal-minded critic of whatever, it is safe to assume they take this stance.
And you still haven’t categorically ruled the statement as not being your world view. So perhaps you could make it clear, or shall we write you off as an MRA?
Different people have different peccadilloes. You, for example, are betraying a liking for ongoing bukkake sessions.
But the idea that there’s a way you’re permitted to respond to the pictures is a complete fabrication. No one has seriously said that you’re not allowed to have any form of arousal response. Betcha can’t find a quote that proves otherwise.
And if you were being sarcastic, well, like the time before, you’re doing it wrong!
Honestly, the stupid burns brightly here. Nobody bothers to pause and think…that involves effort. However, insults and misunderstanding require nothing more than blind hostility.
Your expressed view that the calendar is porn, for one
No pandering, no attempt to titillate, just women honestly baring themselves to make a point and show their power.
Yep, there’s the quote. “It’s not porn, I swear! Because porn objectifies women.” /bullshit pandering
Well, if you left, then our average intelligence on this site will increase. And the stupid will stop burning. At least for us. You’ll still be you.
And you’re saying that’s not the case? The actual quote, not your mis-paraphrasing, I mean.
How am I stupid? You haven’t said a single thing of substance. Maybe if you bothered to address the point, spelled out above for the slow, you would have room for insults. As it stands, you appear to be blindly flailing.
Catnip, you really are slow aren’t you? The first half of #134 were the words of PZ himself. Fuck, you’re stupid.
Yes, that’s the part catnip referred to as the actual quote, about which was asked, “you’re saying that’s not the case?”
And the second half is your mis-paraphrasing.
It’s a festival of irony!
That’s called projection pcb,
Perhaps if you made a coherent point we could address it. I’ve tried to get you to clarify your view on a number of occasions, just so I don’t address the wrong point, and your response was to insult me. You can’t be too surprised that I gave one back to you. Are you really that thin skinned?
So once again, are you saying that you think women should not be allowed to do as they wish?
Are you saying that the calendar is porn?
Simple questions, yes or no answers acceptable. Expand further if you feel it is necessary.
I have THOUGHT and I CONCLUDE that pcb28 is a meathead.
(from Archie, “Dead from the neck up.”)
Mind you, I’m merely standing up for the women! Don’t you know that I feel that any depiction of women in the buff is wrong because that is objectifying women! By the way, check out these naked women, they had a choice, as all women do, but I approve of this choice only!!
You really don’t understand what I’m saying do you? It’s PZ approved objectification.
Thank you for the clarification. Now we’re getting somewhere.
So naked women=porn, right? You’re being sarcastic in your mis-paraphrasing again, right?
What do you do when you need to take a leak? Do you avoid looking at your penis? I just wonder, because porn often has penises in it too. Or do you get a boner?
Strange, I found it pretty easy.
Obvious troll is obvious…do not feed the trolls, etc.
After PZ deep-sixes this clown school dropout, and his remarks are redacted, there will be nothing but a one-sided argument. Meanwhile, the purpose of the calendar project falls victim to trolling. Ms. Namazie (or Miss November for the tossers that still think that’s the purpose of the calendar) makes an important point, this is a fundraising project to assist women with issues of rights and freedoms because of misfortune of location/religious persecution and whatever else isn’t remotely kosher in any year starting with two-thousand-something. She also points out, for those who don’t find the calendar project their exact cup of tea, that they can JUST FUCKING MAKE A DONATION WITHOUT GETTING A CALENDAR!!!
This scenario perfectly fits the definition of not being able to please all of the people all of the time. For some people this was a fine and fitting tribute to the bravery of Aliaa Elmahdy. For some it’s not how they perceive the correct direction for a women’s rights organization. Fine. Some people are happy and some are not. One project that doesn’t fit into everyone’s happy brain-space does not undo the necessity of funding a charity aimed at protecting the rights of women, whether they want to be nude or not, whether they like the idea or not, or even if they are remotely fucking aware of the project. The money is doing the right thing, you don’t have to order anything, but a donation is worth the now more than several thousand words-per-picture in the calendar people have spent trying to gain air-superiority over an idea that doesn’t really have one.
There’s a right thing to do, secondary to the calendar. Whether you wish to do that right thing because of, or in spite of the calendar, is up to you. If you decide to do nothing, that’s your choice to, but at least find another charity for women and contribute to it. Almost every large city has a women’s shelter. Give money to it. However, be reminded that much of the reason there are women’s shelters is exactly what this calendar project was intended to make people aware of; that women are treated as inferiors, stripped of rights and abused in so many places, even those we think of as home.
To be concise as possible while removing all sarcasm: PZ has railed against porn, repeatedly. Yet he says to check out these pics of naked girls.
The horrible assumption made here is that the women who appear in porn are incapable of making their own decisions while those in the calendar are completely awesome for doing the same thing. huge part of the internet is porn. How the fuck are the naked women in one format more capable of rational decision making than any other woman that decides to be photographed nude?
Where the hell did most of my post go? What is missing is “Play boy is porn, Hustler is porn, Penthouse is porn, a(huge part of…)
I’m not trolling, I’m asking how this calendar is not porn. If you want to support troubled women make a donation to your local women’s shelter. Don’t buy a calendar of nude pics. If it takes a pile of nudes to get you to donate you aren’t as altruistic as you think you are.
Thanks pcb. You’re wrong. These women are in control and making an important point.
In addition, nudity is not porn. Women forced into sex work without choice, that is what PZ is against (I’m making assumption here, based on what I’ve read of his views) and what I’m against.
Now you can return to your hole.
pcb28
I think you are lying.
You cannot have read all of the thread and still not understand.
If you don’t recognize the difference between art nudes* and pr0n, you aren’t half as clever as you think you are. Perhaps we should just tear down all the nude Renaissance paintings because there were boobies in them.
I’m asking this seriously: Are you twelve?
*especially photos taken under the context of the calendar introduction.
I’m not convinced that you understand all of what you’re saying.
Not in the ways that you suggest, though. See, I noted your problem already back at #129. Let me try to explain it to you again.
You have no evidence of this assumption being made, though. A person can criticize X while understanding that people who do X are making their own decisions.
Should I give other examples of X? Might that help you understand?
But you might also like to go read Greta Christina’s blog post on why she won’t do porn again & PZ’s link to it.
Prove it. You’re full of shit. Every single one of you. You think that you are clever because you can skirt an issue. You’re not. You are nothing more than cowards desperately clinging to the accepted groupothink. What you are saying is that women are in porn only because they are forced to be be, nudes are not porn, and only your view is right because the thought that you may be contradicting yourself must be bullshit. Well developed thoughts, really.
Well, while there is some disagreement about what constitutes porn, it’s not absolutely subjective. Collins’ World English Dictionary defines it as “writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement”.
I don’t think it’s terribly important whether or not this calendar constitutes porn, but since you really seem to be confused, I hope the dictionary can be of some use to you.
Okay, again, I don’t see anyone here saying this. I don’t believe PZ has ever said this. Indeed, I believe the post mentioned by catnip at #154 is sufficient to contradict your claim.
Pharyngulites being accused of skirting an issue! There’s an interesting thought.
Go right ahead and cling to your belief. After all, you are right because everybody else here thinks the same about this.
By the way, I’m not confused at all. I think it you who is confused. If nude photos were not titillating, why is there such a huge market for them?
So the occupants of a nudist beach or naturist resort are putting on an ongoing live porn display?
Sounds like your mind’s caught in an oubliette made of your own prudery.
Pharyngulites skirting an issue? Yes. That’s kind of your thing. Ignore what is said and shriek. That’ll teach ’em, yeah, that’s the ticket.
Groupthink: what everyone else is engaging in when you are the only one without a clue.
You claim to be an atheist, but I see you still clinging to a life-preserver crafted by whatever religion you once were. Seriously? You question ‘nudes are not porn?’ I really do think you are an adolescent since you can’t tell the difference.
And the relevance of whether or not a woman chooses to do pornography or not is incongruous to the issue. Everyone has heard of The Suicide Girls. They have made a choice. Some of their work is artsy, some is hardcore, but they still made that choice themselves. But you are equating a calendar of female nudes done for a fundraising project with pornography, and that is where you are the one full of bullshit.
Recognize it, or don’t. You proved yourself a liar early on, now you are making false equivalencies…you’re a troll, an idiot, or twelve, or some combination of those three.
You’re definitely confused, then. See again the definition I provided. I’ll bold the most relevant word: “writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement”.
And there is a similar word in PZ’s post: “no attempt to titillate”.
If you think for a while about this, you may come to understand that a nude photo may indeed be titillating even while it was not designed to be so. Furthermore, you may notice that PZ did not stipulate that you would not find any of these photos titillating. You might. You’re even allowed to.
See above dipshit. To be honest, I don’t know why I am bothering to respond to the dipshittiest dipshittery that any dipshit has ever dipshat upon the face of the earth.
Nude photos can be titillating. Nude photos aren’t always titillating. They are often confronting, but that doesn’t constitute porn.
No one is clinging to belief here, except maybe you. Projection again? Think we all agree? Go and read some of the earlier posts.
Even if you find them titillating, that doesn’t make them wrong, or porn. It just means you find them titillating. No shame in that. I do too. Some people find beating their penis with a spoon titillating. That doesn’t make spoons into porn.
@catnip: Unless you make a calendar of spoons gazing seductively at you in lingerie on red velvet carpets.
So nudes are what one perceives them to be. You finally got it.
I didn’t say that I find nudes (as a general term) titillating. I said that nudes are porn to some, just as photos of men shaving is porn to others. You would do well if you dropped the hero worship and thought for yourself.
Uri Geller’s a spoon-sensualist. He gives them extra curves.
But of course, if it were porn they would have to be forced into appearing. Fucking stupid.
Except that’s the first time you’ve acknowledged that point. If that was your point all along, then fail again on eloquence and clear expression. Hopefully you’ll do better in your high school entrance exam.
If you’re going to move the goalposts of defining what porn is based on, as Agent Smith put it, your prudery, then yes, for you it is porn. Congratulations. Now we can place the computer you are posting from as being set in the Trinity Broadcast Network headquarters, sometime around March, 1956.
@McCthulhu
Phwooor! I’d buy that!
Okay? I think this is a stretch, but I’m willing to assume anything for the sake of argument.
Problem: in addition to saying something like this back at #88, you also insinuated that someone(s) here, PZ at minimum, believe that “Women shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.”
You repeated this notion at least once, at #147. The problem is you don’t have evidence to support your claims.
This is one of the (many) reasons why some people here think you’re a liar.
Oh, at least three times, then, including #169.
Confused.
Yep, I’m a terrible writer. I do hope I do well on my high school entrance exam (Damn me and my 4.0 GPA in ye olde university). I do hope you do well on your verbal SATs, you’ve pretty much failed here at reading comprehension. One isn’t required to spell everything out for the reader, people write with the expectation that the reader isn’t a moron.
@catnip: Sporn.
Forced into appearing doesn’t make porn. See my comment #154
Porn is not necessarily evil or bad.
Nude is not necessarily porn.
Bad is when women are not genuinely able to make the choices they want. Whether it is the choice of clothes to wear, who they have sex with, or whether they are filmed/photographed for the titillation of others.
[humour] spoons are not just for hitting your penis with. They are also useful for eating soup… [/humour]
@McCthulhu
ROFLMAO
Then again, this is the internet. Herein stupidity and tribalism reign supreme. Misunderstanding is henceforth the new understanding. If one leaves a single syllable out of a sentence or fails to spell out a position in exhausting detail THEY ARE FOOLS!! It matters little that the accusers of foolishness have missed the point entirely, the have a focus point and shall prevail! From now on they shall wear the badge of the Order of Molly, proudly displaying it in forums in which nobody gives a fuck. Get over yourselves.
I guess you bat .400 as well. If you do turn in stellar university essays, I can only conclude that there’s been very little osmosis between there and here.
Yes, one isn’t required to spell everything out, as sensible assumptions can be made. But one should try to ensure that one’s conclusion flows logically from factual premises. You’re presenting nothing but a jumble of rants that don’t add up to anything.
[PSA]
PZ:
Maryam Namazie:
You also appear to think it is unimportant to support your claims that PZ or anyone else here believes “women who appear in porn are incapable of making their own decisions” or “women shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies.”
I find your lazy intellectual dishonesty to be unfortunate.
When you write, and nobody gets what you’re on about, there’s a good chance you can identify yourself as the communication fail.
When you write rubbish and are called out on it, there’s a good chance you should stop and rethink before you try to use the insult method as a defense. You just look like a troll.
Nah, it’s 5 a.m. and I’m a bit drunk. I’ve still made more sense than an idiot that bases his identity on a shitty movie from the late 1990’s.
What, exactly, have I left out? I made a simple statement that led to a swarm of failure and insults coming towards me. If you don’t fucking get what I said where the fuck do you get off calling me stupid without asking for clarification of what you have missed? If you missed something, or if I left something out, wouldn’t it be prudent to ask somebody what they are on about? Apparently not. The only option is to act like an idiot and hours later say that the person that you are harassing is an idiot because they didn’t draw you a picture when they weren’t asked to do so. You’re not as clever as you think you are.
I never said that women should not be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. You are just too fucking dense to understand what was written. If you were not there to herp the derp, then how would the derp ever be herped?
Go back and read my comments #102 and #111, and then tell me you’re seriously saying you weren’t asked for clarification. You were asked repeatedly for clarification & refused to clarify. Seriously, are you aware of how foolish you look?
Actually you did. Go back and read the comments, or go crawl back into your hole.
*** BANHAMMER, PLEASE!!! ***
pcb28, for what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you’re a liar.
Quite frankly, I don’t care.
Here’s my position on all that matters.
1. There is no evidence for a god, so why should I believe there is one?
2. Pregnancy is a medical issue. Being such it is nobody’s business except the woman’s about how to proceed with the treatment thereof.
3. One’s body is their own to do with as they please.
4. One’s opinion is their own until it infringes on the rights of others.
5. Sociology is a bullshit wannabe science.
6. I don’t give a fuck what you think about me, you mean nothing.
7. Marriage should be available to all. To restrict equal protection under the law is a denial of civil rights.
8. If you state one position publicly, expect to be called on it when you contradict it publicly.
#8
#8 was the reason for my first post.
To the topics you brought up earlier:
You cite no evidence showing that anyone here believes otherwise.
You cite no evidence showing that anyone here is contradicting a previously stated position.
And you have publicly stated one thing and just contradicted it.
Link in article going 404, calendar thread now dated 8th:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2012/03/08/nude-photo-revolutionary-calendar-is-here/
Okay dipshit, since you didn’t understand what I was saying with that post, I’ll spell it out since a list obviously isn’t clear enough for you: I d-o n-o-t w-a-n-t t-o a-r-g-u-e a-n-y-m-o-r-e, I d-o n-o-t c-a-r-e. I t-e-n-d t-o a-g-r-e-e w-i-t-h y-o-u e-v-e-n t-h-o-u-g-h y-o-u l-a-c-k t-h-e a-b-i-l-i-t-y t-o b-e a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g o-t-h-e-r t-h-a-n a-n o-b-d-u-r-a-t-e a-s-s-h-o-l-e.
Get it now?
How about we protest sexism and hypocrisy by putting out a male nude revolutionary calendar as well ? Contact me if you want to participate, or feel free to steal the idea and make it look like it was yours !
If you don’t want to do something, don’t. No one is forcing you to post.
Okay, but I care that you made up bullshit and haven’t retracted it. The bulk of my complaints are summed up at #173 and #174. I think you should strive for intellectual honesty, not merely a cessation of arguing.
and PZ was the one who contradicted himself. He’s railed on and on about porn before only to promote what could be called porn with this post. If you think it can’t be called porn, what about the playboy calendar? It tends to show no real nudity, yet is called porn, hence me calling out rule #8.
I haven’t been dishonest. You’re just an idiot and an asshole that is so assured of your righteousness that you intentionally miss the points that others make.
Once again dipshit, I never said that women should not be allowed to do what they want with their bodies. You misread a post to see what you wanted to see. The bigotry lies within yourself, not me.
I was making fun of the attitude that you want to attribute to me. Of course you wouldn’t understand that, the snark hit a bit too close to home, eh?
In your self acknowledge “little bit drunk” state, d’ya think your sentence structure, inability to use tags, and general obnoxious attitude, including an inability to back up your assertions with any evidence, might have made your claimed sarcasm lose some of its biting wit?
If you don’t want to argue any more, then it’s simple. Fuck off & none of us will follow you. We won’t be around, knocking on your door, demanding you continue. You see the choice is yours (no, that doesn’t make it not porn)
All you need do is log off.
But, as I pointed out already, when he’s criticized porn he’s made some specific criticisms, which may or may not apply to this calendar. It falls upon you to show that his specific criticisms would also apply to this. Otherwise all you’re saying is that here he’s neglected to criticize something he would normally neglect to criticize.
You’ve said that “photos of men shaving’ could be called porn, which dilutes your argument significantly.
There is a reason why people make the distinction which I’ve noted from the dictionary.
(PS: I don’t think anyone’s said that this calendar shows “no real nudity”.)
It’s not an inability to use tags, it’s a lack of interest. As for everything else, why do you ignore what I have posted just now? you’ve done the same twice now when I have called you on your bullshit. You think that you can get away with non sequitirs because of the space between your lies and dishonesty. You can’t. I won’t let you. You were wrong. You quote mined an obviously snarky comment that you keep bringing up in hope that I will forget that you are a fucking dishonest piece of shit. Fuck you.
I didn’t say that this calendar showed no real nudity, I said that the playboy calendar showed no real nudity, yet is called porn. You are the most dishonest sack of shit I’ve ever come across.
You have been dishonest. I’ve documented it. And if the following is directed at me,
then you aren’t reading what I’m saying.
I’m asking you for evidence that anyone here believes “one’s body is not their own to do with as they please”.
I’m asking you for evidence that anyone here believes “women who appear in porn are incapable of making their own decisions”.
I’m asking you for evidence that anyone here believes “women shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies”.
I’m asking you for evidence that anyone here believes “if it were porn they would have to be forced into appearing”.
You have claimed that someone here belives this stuff, but you have not given any evidence to support your claim.
That is dishonest.
I didn’t ignore, I’ve just addressed those points previously & others have answered your remaining rambling.
If you don’t care, why are you here?
I didn’t say that you did. In fact, I said: I don’t think anyone’s said that this calendar shows “no real nudity”.
You are included in anyone.
Indeed you did, which is why I pointed out that the dictionary may be a guide you could use to understand why people make this distinction.
(BTW, the Playboy calendar does show real nudity, as does this calendar. You appear to believe the distinction hinges upon this, which is why I pointed out that I don’t think anyone’s said that this calendar shows “no real nudity”.)
Search the archives (not just here, I think the thread in question is on sciblogs) you fucking dipshit. I am not required to spoonfeed you everything. You seem to have a memory that spans roughly 6 minutes, but only if it is what you have dishonestly said.
Too bad the calendars are already printed or they could have put that on the cover as a celebrity endorsement.
“I didn’t say that you did.” Then why mention it? Still trying desperately to score points that don’t exist?
Do you have a point or are you going to endlessly swirl around the toilet bowl that you call a mind?
No, you’d rather take words out of context, pretend that their was a discuss that never occurred, and based on imagination claim victory.
You’re pretty damned boring sweetheart.
pcb28 –> killfile for terminal insipidity, and lying and bullshitting while unable to acknowledge doing so.
Like I said, I’ve read quite a bit of what PZ’s said about porn. I have participated in some of those discussions, and several others here that he didn’t participate in. It happens that I have a pretty good memory for the written word (freakishly so, some here have said), and I just don’t remember anyone here ever making any of the claims in #208.
And there is reason to believe you are misunderstanding these matters. The post of PZ’s which catnip cited at #154 is evidence contra your claims.
It’s not simply a matter of you failing to meet the burden of proof, though that’s a problem in itself. With catnip’s citation, the preponderance of the evidence is now against you.
You’d get better sales having Richard Swingler (the guy who played the science teacher in E.T.) endorse it, at least people would know who he was.
As I already indicated, I mentioned it because you appeared to be misunderstanding people, such that you were thinking someone was making the distinction of “no real nudity” –> “not porn”, and “real nudity” –> “porn”.
Rather, I’ve just been trying to help you understand the arguments. I think it would be a positive thing if, at minimum, you could least come away from this discussion with the new understanding that “a person can criticize X while understanding that people who do X are making their own decisions.”
I’d be happy to remedy that if you’d point to an instance of such.
I’ve read that post, he essentially says that he knows her, she’s cool, she needed some money, so yeah, one in your favor.
I can’t remember the post that I’m thinking of off hand, it’s been a while ago. Oh well. I don’t care. Catnip didn’t provide a link, only a vague reference. Why should I do any more than that?
@Nerd of Redhead: How does this killfile work? I’d like to master the art of adding dipshits to mine.
I have, repeatedly. You’d remember that, what with your uncanny recall of text and amazingly gneiss (I hate puns) mind and all. See ya around. I’m sure you’ll have changed as much as the moon’s orbit by then, but I’ll be glad to see you anyway.
Is pcb28 still hoggling about hir contradictions.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/09/im-not-going-to-do-any-porn-either/
There you are. I was posting from the phone earlier & searching for the reference whilst actually conducting my life was not really practical
@’Tis: One hopes not. Being caught at lies, saying ‘I’m outtahere!’ and then blustering tediously onwards, and doing all that while admitting intoxication…yeah, that’s time well spent.
It’s really a shame the calendar models didn’t put Aspirin tablets between their knees and wear hoop skirts or burkas so everything could meet with these high standard expectations. Oddly enough, the same kind of standards being set by the patriarchy the calendar was trying to rally against. Oh, irony, thy name is pcb28.
NO, I really don’t.
There’s no scientific evidence that Neanderthals were that fucked up.
+++++
It is not surprising, but nevertheless depressing how many people play the “sure they have the right to do it, but it’s the wrong thing to do” card.
It hurts the movement.
Lie back and think of the lack of gods.
Can any of you please explain to me why a calendar of nude women in support of the struggle of women who are forced to wear bedsheets all day long and whose sexuality is supressed and stolen is not a good idea except for the fact that it pisses people off who think that women should be covered and have no right to express their own sexuality freely?
pcb28
Ah, cupcake, ever heard of the term “sex-positive”
But yeah, damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
we’re either prudes who want to oppress people for having sexual desires, or we’re just prostitutes.
See above. You really don’t understand the concept of choice, sex-positivism and empowerment, do you?
I’m pretty sure that people like Greta Christina (wonderfull, wonderfull picture) object to being called a girl.
And I see, you still don’t understand the difference between naked and porn. In your eyes, probably all family homes are full of child-pornography because most parents have naked pictures of their children.
You’re an idiot.
So, for you there’s only two options:
Women go naked for the sole benefit of men or they are ugly?
You are grossly missing the exact point of the whole thing:
Women going naked whether you like it or not.
You are completely welcome to find some of them attractive and some of them not. But it seems that you find it absolutely impossible that women might go naked and not give a fuck about whether you find them attractive or not.
Yes, apart from the fact that you are missing the point again, it really seems hard for you to grasp that people can have a differenciated opinion on complicated topics like porn or the sex industry.
Alethea
Wait, are you going to tell me I can take the trousers off the table legs?
catnip67
I’m starting to develop a brain-crush on you.
Catnip provided a reference which sufficiently specified the topic of the post, such that it could be differentiated from all the other thousands of Pharyngula posts ever. That’s not vague. You needn’t do more, but the problem is you haven’t even done that much.
Your singular such complaint to me was that I quoted you back at yourself: “I find you to be an insipid little twit that can spout nothing but insults while ignoring what was actually said.”
I shouldn’t apologize for honesty in this case. I did that because you were demonstrably not addressing what PZ actually said, and as you’ve now acknowledged — “so yeah, one in your favor” — there is some room for disagreement about meaning; thus it’s important to be specific about what’s actually been said, as compounding gut interpretations of uncited and half-remembered words is no help to anyone.
It’s a Greasemonkey script, install that first then see pharyngula DOT wikia DOT com/wiki/Greasemonkey (FTB doesn’t like wikia links). First bullet point is the script, which will add [kill][hide comment] next to each nym.
Amen. I tried to answer twice, and both posts with wikia links went into never never land.
@ Giliell
ROFL!
That reminds about a story by the journalist James Hider, that Al-Quaeda in Iraq was forcing farmers to put underwear on their (female) goats. I think they give away more than they think with that instruction.
@theophontes
What sort of underwear? Nice little g-string? Or are they a step away from making the goats wear burkas?
@Giliell
Thanks!
Quote from his blog (link):
Well shit, that’s a new problem.
See if we can page PZ to whitelist pharyngula.wikia.com
Thank you. I had hoped I didn’t have to install anything client-side, but since you apparently made quite an effort to answer me, I now feel compelled to do my part in helping myself. :p
Did the troll really cite his GPA as proof of his totes superior intellect?
pcb28:
I take it the university never tested you on comma splices.
Well, yeah, goats are total sluts. How can any red-blooded man be expected to resist their woolly, musky, sharp-toothed charms?