The "Godfather" had a scene with a tit, therefore it should be rated X

That's basically what Hillary, Jack Thompson and others are saying.

The M rating for video games is equivalent to an R rating. That's it. An AO is X.

i think i missed it

...to Michael.

I better rent it quick.

and gets married to that woman (I forgot the name).

I'd rather have warnings for violence than for a breast-flash.

Don;t want to get your thread locked. I'm sure you folks can figure it out.



:evilgrin:

Good one!

True, but F9/11 had what I'd call "Bad Bush".

n/t

Uh-oh, in telling you not to say "dick", I said "dick"!

Shit, I said it again! Twice. And shit, now I said shit!

Fuck.

I guess I'm a real dick.

I don't believe Clinton, et al. were referring to a simple breast-flash in their complaint, but rather the fully interactive simulated sexual intercourse "feature" that was uncovered in the game.

Also, you're assuming that the videgame ratings board knew about said feature when they gave it the M rating.


That said, however, I still think that the brouhaha over the sex in GTA is rather silly considering that the ultra-violent/racist nature of the game was considered just fine for minors to indulge in.

Mark Morford's column this week hit the nail on the head for me:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/07/22/notes072205.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford

-snip

Suddenly that downloadable patch you installed last night kicks in and there's, like, a lame and badly animated sex scene, right there, right between the graphic bloody part where you bazooka'd the police helicopter and the part where the gang-banger gets his lame ass beaten with a large handgun, and suddenly you're like, what the hell? Who stuck this lame badly animated sex in here? Where'd my soul-numbing ultraviolent racism go? I am outraged.

-snip

"of sufficient quality to numb your teenage soul to the point where you become so callous and lost and malicious you're ready to join the Young Republicans." :evilgrin:

How dare they show a boob? I'll stick to severed horse heads anyday, thank you.

It was actually a real horse head, not a prop or other camera trick.

or a horse's ass?

No, really. Thank You.

But my personal opinion is, it's about half past ready to shuffle off to the great thread beyond.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Here's your sig line:

"There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and the week and small contenue to be down-troddden by the mighty and powerful." HHDL

Where does sexism fit into that list? Or does it? Bit of a blind spot? If you see sexism in the context of that list "..social injustice, inequality, oppression..." why be part of the problem, instead of part of the solution?

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism -
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause -
4. Supremacy of the Military -
5. Rampant Sexism -
6. Controlled Mass Media -
7. Obsession with National Security -
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
9. Corporate Power is Protected -
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
14. Fraudulent Elections


Here's another quote:
"If they pulled their heads out of their asses, they could see past their balls."

:hi:

any 2 were any better than any other 2.. or whatever.

I just got the impression the 'Censors'..whoever they be, were even more "enCensored" because of the Remarkable Artistic Quality of the scene.


I dont see your point, I am 57 years old, an artist, X-biologist..I have always been altruistic, i was in the Peace Corps in 73, 2 two year tours in VISTA... as the emergency services coordinator for the North Olympic Peninsula, and Youth Councilor/Juvenile Advocate/Parole Officer; I taught meditation in Juvenile Prison and as a Federal Employee i made sure the Juveniles Civil Rights were not violated, i represented them in court/prison/jails, schools, etc. I counseled and tried to help the parents deal with their problems with the juveniles. most of the problems were diet and health problems actually. I presently teach meditation in a local AA group.. I have bought my share of bus tickets to distant women's shelters to get them out of bad situations..

I have a 'guy' moment and am suddenly am suddenly a sexist Fascist

they are just breasts to me, not a issue...I do have cable, i have seen them before...

i dont qualify myself by the actions or attitudes, or crusades of others, i am too tired and in too much pain all the time to bother...

i guess it is time to retire and just go hang out in the lounge,

As opposed to the vastly superior pectoral regions of the sexy younger men that I'd much prefer to look at and run my hands all over....

Oopsie! Was that mean? Sorry, I just thought that some man boobs are better than other man boobs. You know, cuz they're just man boobs, no issue. Gosh, I sure hope that didn't hurt your feelings or anything. I was just having a little "gal" moment.

:hi:

Next you'll be saying that Brad Pitt is "hot", and I will be forced to try to get the thread locked.

:rofl:


Who knew they were such babies?

In the context of a thread that starts off with a flippant "tit" title and says pretty much nothing at all.

I appreciate that you are a real person and not reduced to a single posted comment-- that's why I asked you a real question to maybe open some eyes here.

It is amazing how BENT OUT OF SHAPE guys here get, how pouty and childish-- "I'm going away and won't play with you anymore." And NEVER answer the questions.

Or overreact and miss the point on purpose like those downthread. Crying "censorship" is bullshit. I asked about consistency. About your interpretation of the Counterpunch quote you chose for a sig line. I was curious how sexism fit into that. Still didn't get an answer.

I did not accuse any one of anything.

Here's why the flippant shit matters:

Because it enables, grooms and supports the more serious shit we are dealing with.

yet, as you say, you didn't accuse anyone of anything.

Nevertheless, you infer "sexism" from a comment of appreciation for physical attractiveness. Again, apparently no one is ever supposed to be physically attracted to anyone, or supposed to express admiration based upon physical appearance, lest they be sexist, and a fascist to boot. You ask for answers to your questions, but you insist on defining the terms of the debate, beforehand. This is exactly what pro-lifers do. It is not universally accepted that ALL appreciation for physical appearance or ALL expressions of sexual attraction constitute "sexism" any more than it is universally accepted that a fertilized egg is a "baby".

I think what you neglect to point out, or notice, through your listing of the characteristics of fascist societies is that they are generally, to the one, repressive and uptight about sex. Nudity. Porn, even. Control in terms of how people do and don't get their jollies is generally an obsession for these governments. And lots of people find advocacy of censorship just as onerous when it comes from the Andrea Dworkin crowd as when it comes from the Phylis Schlafly crowd.

So who is pouty and childish, much less saying they're not going to play any more? I'm right here. I'd much rather talk about the DSM, Abu Ghraib, or Karl Rove, but if someone insists on having a debate about why it's evil to enjoy looking at naked breasts, I'm game.

And you say the "flippant shit matters because it enables, grooms and supports the more serious shit we have to deal with".. How, exactly? How does an expression of appreciation for a naked boob "enable, groom or support" anything? Want to answer that one, specifically? I've been told, here, that pictures of naked people are DIRECTLY responsible for the war in Iraq; that somehow, for example, Larry Flynt (who opposes Bush, the GOP, AND the war) is more responsible for the kids coming home in body bags than Pat Robertson is.

People try to float this crap all the time, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a giant pantload.

Discussion Forum Rules

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else.

Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.
....
Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

The Green Party has included the respect concept in their Principles and Platform-- identifying the relevance of eliminating gender bigotry to reach our larger goals. Perhaps the Democrats need to consider something similar. Especially since all the hot button Repug wedge issues hinge on the cementing the balance of power and rigid roles of gender.

"I'd much rather talk about the DSM, Abu Ghraib, or Karl Rove, but if someone insists on having a debate about why it's evil to enjoy looking at naked breasts, I'm game."

It would be most welcome to visit DU and have discussions without being regularly gobsmacked with crude, sexist shite. The disruption is a pain in the ass. And your misrepresentations indicate that you are not "game" --you are playing a game.

There are many people here, not only women, not only non-sexists, who prefer following the above Rules and who "exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view."

"People try to float this crap all the time, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a giant pantload."

The real load is your accusatory attitude and your need to load other DU posters' comments on to the words of one individual.

:kick:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4176954

"Read the damn post, answer the damn question or shut the fuck up."

Oh, yeah, but the problem is MY tone.

You are the one demanding answers, and demanding them in the context of your definitions. You responded to a single line post by inferring the poster supported bigotry and fascism, because he referred to a scene in the Godfather as containing "an exceptionally fine set".

And if you think someone here has violated the rules, by all means, hit the alert button.

I wasn't talking to you

:bye:

That post doesn't make any sense in, like, at least two different ways.

Don't worry, I won't interfere any further in the important work you're doing here.

So you're an accountant. I was close.




(Hey, you were the guy who's axe is tired!) :boring:

Now, THAT'S funny.

Yeah. I'm also bald.

First let us look at the original comment that started this whole mess:

X .....only because it was... such an "Exceptionally Fine set".

Then after much bickering, you kindly remind us all of "the rules"

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

So, I have to assume that you find someone making a comment about an actress' breasts bigoted or grossly insensitive toward women. Even though the comment was not inherently derogatory.

But of course, "the rules" don't apply to you:

Here's another quote:
"If they pulled their heads out of their asses, they could see past their balls."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4175339

All right Peevish and Smutheads, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CENSORSHIP. Read the damn post, answer the damn question or shut the fuck up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4176954

Cap'n Crotch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4179145

Okay boys, listen up, here's how it is
<snip>
Ya know what we complain about? Slurs, insults, disrespect, hostility-- all of which are considered "normal" and "acceptable" and we should "get over it." All of which, btw, is especially fucked up because it violates DU Rules and happens frequently, perpetrated by individuals who "don't agree" with the Rules or "just don't get what the big deal is."

You guys complain if someone doesn't agree with you automatically-- you feel threatened and challenged, esPECially if it's by women. Maybe that's part of your Big Daddy conditioning that you could reveal and discuss, let your hair down in the Women's Rights & Issues forum.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=229&topic_id=2806

Are they all afraid of their daddies? Holding everyone up to this standard, this model of topdogness, of scrotumhood. Do they ever feel that THEY measure up?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=2500&mesg_id=2502

Many here at DU don't feel we need to be smacked in the eyeballs by language that is prohibited by the Rules (based on respect).

It downgrades the thread and DU. It breaks DU Rules. It alienates people and segregates the discussions. It creates the impression that people are ignorant and don't know how to discuss without being crude (clearly you have more to offer than that-- and I missed the opportunity to read it).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=2500&mesg_id=2559

So why in gawdz name do some DUers think "balls" are the answer?

Oh-- I get it. It's like the brain telling the brain that its the smartest organ in the body.

Well, how do we communicate effectively with the teste-impaired?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=2500&mesg_id=2541

...and the classic "poor me" sexist called on their shit feels victimized
and makes it a complete reversal.
Don't they know "missing the point on purpose" is part of the m.o. in the man-ual?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=2500&mesg_id=2994

----------------------------------------------
I really could go on and on with this. Those are YOUR comments from just a couple of recent active threads.

Back to the rules - we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Try it sometime.

I don't see it as a war.
I asked a question.
Some guys get their knickers in a twist about it.
Yeah, what's up with that "miss the point on purpose" thing?

And why have you been PMing me and having a cordial exchange of ideas-- and than publicly try to... whatever the hell it is you're trying to do.

I ask the questions I do (did) because I respect DUers enough to be able to answer them. (That included you). The defensiveness is always a surprise, as is the "poor me" response.

The Rules back us up, not consistently. Now that I have resorted to humor, the poor men are the sourpusses.

BTW it doesn't seem consistent for a porn monger to be dispensing advice about "common decency."

Nice try.

And for the record which you have now enhanced so ably:

Those who cling to their right to gender bigotry undermine the goals of DU and the Democratic Party.

That's why it matters.

about who has "their knickers in a twist" and is being a "sourpuss"

Also who is allowed to use "humor" and who is not.

The fact is that relatively benign comments are met with hate and vitriol by you and a few others - your first reply to the post in question implies that the poster is a fascist - all the while lecturing your fellow DU'ers on R-E-S-P-E-C-T. If you can't see just a little hypocrisy in that - then I'm talking to a brick wall.

BTW it doesn't seem consistent for a porn monger to be dispensing advice about "common decency."

Now you are making assumptions about me. I sell toys too - 90% of which are made for WOMEN - and bought by them too. Outside of Valentines day, most of the toys are either bought by women or couples shopping together. You would probably be surprised by the number of mothers and (adult) daughters that come browse the store together - which is something that always makes me feel good about my store.

Those who cling to their right to gender bigotry undermine the goals of DU and the Democratic Party.

Perhaps we need to define what is and isn't gender bigotry. That's where most of our disagreement lies. We may never come to terms with that issue, but I think it could be a productive discussion.

OM, I hope that we can continue to discuss via PM's. I concede that my last post was harsh, but I stand by my words.

Until then, peace,
mongo

edit for terrible spelling...

or just cranky about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=319&topic_id=147&mesg_id=147

What have we learned today?

1. Getting pissed off is a way to lay blame and avoid questions/discussion

2. Presenting a common list of 14 Signs of Fascism (one being Rampant Sexism) as CONTEXT is too much of a stretch for poor widdle boys because

3. They don't see the big picture and get offended becuz IT'S ALL ABOUT THEM. (Maybe if they pulled their heads out of their asses they could see past their balls) :rofl: Oh come on, isn't that a little bit funny?


:bounce::bounce:

"OM, I hope that we can continue to discuss via PM's."

I PMd you that my mind was open becuz I had not seen you be a total jerk. Then....

"I concede that my last post was harsh, but I stand by my words."

Actually, I stand by my words
and this
is
my
last post.

:hi:

Glad you asked.

To use your label, as a porn monger, I am hated by both elements of the right and left.

I get why the right wants to put me out of business, they are a bunch of theocratic fascists.

But the left, the subset of feminists who feel threatened by my business - I don't understand all that well.

I know most of you don't want to censor me. But you (speaking collectively) would be perfectly happy if the right did the dirty work for you.

I monitor most all of DU for references to porn, but that is well known too. Here in the FG, a person that I had not come into contact with for many weeks takes an indirect jab at me http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=3028&mesg_id=3032

But such is the blind hatred of mongo by the few on DU.

I try to counter mis characterizations such as "all porn is made by sex slaves", and "you can buy films of actual rapes at your local adult store", that sort of thing. Even the oft repeated "most porn is degrading to women" - when if you looked at the largest and most successful adult companies you would find that is not true.

Unless of course, you think that any mention or portrayal of a woman as a sexual being is degrading - which is the impression that I am getting from the crusade to wipe out any mention of women in a sexual context on DU. It seems you feel you will not achieve equality until sex is obliterated - good luck with that.

What have we learned?

1. No matter the context, any mention of women as sexual beings must be obliterated. In order to achieve equality, men MUST be censored.

2. When looking down our noses at "guy talk", we must be as nasty as possible and make derogatory, sexist comments. That doesn't make us hypocrites in the least bit.

3. We keep trying to get the sliver out of our brother's eye, but the log in our own makes it really hard.

4. We know the big picture and have to explain it to the hapless males, even though most of us have such big issues in our past, we can't see how that affects our own narrow world view

5. We want it both ways. We scream for equality, but you men have to be careful what you say to us, because we are soft like a flower.

And I hope that the vast majority of feminists on this board know that I am NOT speaking to/for them. It is only the small minority, like you OM, that has been on this quest to censor any mention of any woman in any sexual context, regardless of tone, intent or frame.

My last post too.

before your re-edit attack post. You continue to miss the point on purpose and misrepresent what I, and others, have said. After blowing me off publicly, you PMd me to continue a discussion you have effectively ended.

"Unless of course, you think that any mention or portrayal of a woman as a sexual being is degrading - which is the impression that I am getting from the crusade to wipe out any mention of women in a sexual context on DU. It seems you feel you will not achieve equality until sex is obliterated - good luck with that."

You have no interest in real discussion. I have no interest in your antagonism. You can take credit for proving the pointlessness of trying to discuss this openly.

Bye Mongo.

No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.

That's what we're dealing with here.

:evilgrin:

strawman arguments.

Tired and lame ones, too. Just a few:

Nevertheless, you infer "sexism" from a comment of appreciation for physical attractiveness.

Uh, nooooo. She called sexism on a sexist comment. No one here needs to reduce women or any woman to her body parts. No one here needs to do any male bonding over women's (naked or partially so) bodies.

p

Oh, please. This isn't about MORALITY, it's about BIGOTRY and SEXISM and MISOGYNY. Don't try to confalte the two, they're quite different, and you look merely foolish trying to make that argument.

And you say the "flippant shit matters because it enables, grooms and supports the more serious shit we have to deal with".. How, exactly? How does an expression of appreciation for a naked boob "enable, groom or support" anything? Want to answer that one, specifically?

I'll answer that one specifically, tho briefly since it's my bedtime.

You can appreciate naked breasts all you want, but NOT as group sport, NOT as male entitlement as in somehow having the right to oogle and, um, "appreciate" the entire universe of naked breasts. No. That ends. It's objectifying, dehumanizing, and it absolutely DOES contribute to the disrespect (at the least, misogyny at the worst) that keeps women down and even ends some women's lives.

DO YOU GET THAT: WOMEN'S LIVES ARE AT RISK because of the sexism and misogyny in THIS culture. YOU don't get to hang onto your male privilege and add to it. If you consider yourself a progressive or liberal or anything other than a sexist pig, then if you can't bring yourself to give a damn about WORKING for equality for women and other oppressed groups, the least you can do is refrain from contributing to our problems.

As for documentation, here's some. There have been studies showing that where and when homophobia rears its ugly head (anti-gay legislation is being discussed, anti-gay campaigns by hate groups or Xtians, etc.), the incidence of gay bashing increasing noticeably. It defies common sense to imagine that things like job discrimination all the way down to violence against women follows some other rule of human behavior: if it's okay to objectify women, call them names, etc., it's sure as hell going to be okay in some people's minds to do worse. The sad thing is that it won't even necessarily be a conscious decision or self-conversation but rather just automatic.

Like I said before, I'm done with this thread.

For thought police, you sure have a crappy response time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Amongst the lessons in all these skirmishes (the soft, creamy vulnerability beneath the hard macho candy coating) is this:

That person's blog is chockablock full of foul, crude, rude, macho language. The links are to an impressive array of progressive political organizations.

Some depend on that mode of expression, not interested in crafting a considered way to communicate (same old same old bully boy stuff) or (DU) "taking the time to express your ideas carefully."

Still begs the question of where sexism fits into the list of progressive values, highfalutin concepts and linked sites. Mebbe the answer is "It don't! You gotta problem with that?"

doilies to our chests or playing language cop.

If you don't like reading "foul, crude, rude, macho language"

(because, clearly, the only reason anyone would ever swear- particularly in the context of talking about the Bush Administration- would be as part of a sinister plot to oppress women via use of the f-word... which, by the way, you were the first one to drag out in this thread.)

Yeah, so, if you don't like reading that kind of thing, I suggest you install some net nanny software to protect your delicate eyes.

I don't think YOUR "blog is bad." It's your blog, your expression, your style. When you come over to a discussion board with clear Rules and Goals, does your style modify at all?

As a blogger with all those links to progressive organizations, you were in a position to answer my initial question about consistency.

I commented on the aggressive mode of your blog, which is your prerogative. I am not convinced that antagonism does anything but play into the purposes of the forces we are ALL up against.

This is why sexism matters and does need to be challenged, not accepted:

We don't want the disruptions and distractions of disrespect that divides DU and limits the discussion, hobbles the solution-building.

We are skeptical of the community that persists in ignoring the relevance of sexism to the broader issues and insults those who bring it up, interject it or challenge its presence on DU.

But I'll continue writing my blog in whichever "mode" I feel comfortable, thank you very much.

If & when you decide to write a blog, feel free to submit it for peer review or consensus approval. That's your right.

And I can't help but be amused at the attacks on my "aggressive mode" coming from someone whose contributions to "solution-building" in this thread have included gems like "Read the damn post, answer the damn question or shut the fuck up."

No, I suspect the problem you have isn't my "tone" (where, here, have I called anyone names or spoken "aggresively"?), I suspect the REAL problem is that I don't accept 100% of your premises- like the idea that a poster commenting appreciatively about a scene in a movie including a naked breast "enables fascism", or constitutes "sexism" and "objectification".

for a split second reading my words without defensiveness or actually answering the original question. All that you seem interested in is your own ego. It causes you to misinterpret and misrepresent what is being said.

Once again I asked questions which you suffer from as accusations. I redundantly gave more-power-to-ya to run your blog as your little blog desires.

And thank you for bringing up my middle-of-the-night, had-enough-of-these-silly-boys indulgence in some of the same style flippant obnoxious "humorous" crap that we are expected to overlook..................................................................

Good night. Good luck. Good bye.

THIS guy will probably make your head 'splode.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com

Compared to him, I'm a kid with crayons looking up at the Sistine chapel.

and men MUST be censored for you to achieve equality.

DO YOU GET THAT: WOMEN'S LIVES ARE AT RISK because of the sexism and misogyny in THIS culture.

Yes, eliminating all traces of the word tit on DU will save millions of women's lives. :sarcasm:

Too bad you don't worry about the real problems facing our country today.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

"If they pulled their heads out of their asses, they could see past their balls."

:hi:

I can only assume that you would consider me to be part of this "radical sexism brigade" but whether or not you do, you just personally attacked a whole lot of women.

How on earth are women who stand up for their rights and point out sexism a disgrace to DU? What I find a disgrace to DU are all of the men who are shoving their heretofore hidden sexism in our faces at such a critical time in our fight to maintain our rights.

is coming from a "brigade" all right, just not the one he thinks.

It's quite disgraceful and very un-progressive to objectify women, talking about "tits" and "fine sets" (on a 16 year old girl,no less!), but when we point that out we are doing this community a disservice? Only in America, I guess... :eyes:

...since no one else on this board has any problem "assuming" anything about anyone.

We're sick of being attacked for normal, healthy behavior, such as commenting on the beauty of an actresses breasts. Since these flamewars seem to erupt again and again, fueled by the same people, it's only natural to assume there is something organized behind the scenes. But since I don't know anything for certain, and since it's against the rules, I'm not naming names.

or telling a story about breasts. So tell us, is there something organized behind the scenes? Because it certainly is not ALL men that say these comments again and again and again. It is the same ones over and over again.

The world over bows to the will of men. Men are allowed to talk about breasts and objectify women in everyday life. Why must that crap be tracked onto a PROGRESSIVE website.

...and I've also observed that any thread that even becomes slightly lewd or salacious is quickly locked. Perhaps you can point out some examples of this "weekly occurrence". Otherwise I'm calling BS.

And yes, DU has great mods who lock the threads quickly. The MODS lock the threads. The same ol' men show up and expand them before they are locked.

...because I spend a lot of time in the Lounge and I've never seen a semi-nude picture of a woman there, either. I'm still calling BS and you have yet to prove me wrong.

Wouldn't it be funny though if you could convince women here to be so defensive as to bother to search for threads that are extremely easy to find and chock-full of semi-nude pics of women... just for YOUR amusement?

BS.

Goodbye. :hi:

Goodbye. :hi:

Being against Bush and for our constitutional rights doesn't give you a pass to act any way you want on women's issues. You can be one of the best activists in the world and still be a total misogynist. You can be a good guy sometimes and a bastard at others...see Bill Maher.

...and I laugh and mock issues that don't need to be taken seriously, like a bunch of men discussing boobies. I'm sort of pragmatic in that regard.

Who appointed you the arbitrator of how I or anyone else should treat women?

you are sexist for doing so.

Also, point: There is a difference between saying "I find, so and so attractive...blah blah blah" and "she has got a set on her!" One is appreciating beauty the other is objectifying a woman...she is now only a body part.

Just as someone may say "You have a nice pair of eyes" or "She has beautiful hair". Those might be more tasteful, but I would never say them under professional or formal circumstances to a woman. Now that I'm engaged I would never say those things to any woman except my fiance, under any circumstance. I've had a lot of women direct comments like that to me under professional circumstances or at work, and I've shrugged them off.

Believe it or not, but men don't just see disembodied pairs of floating boobies every time we look at a woman. But I'm sure it's convenient for you to assume that.

Or "Hair" magazine.

..and any other magazine that features a stereotypical model gazing out from the cover at you while you're waiting in line at the supermarket. I haven't seen one yet that features a crosseyed model.

And Maxim ALWAYS features women in very skimpy clothing, usually with a focus on the breasts.

Are they aimed at lesbians? Or are they simply there as an educational example for women? As an example of a stereotypical body type that all women should strive for, regardless of their own health and body type?

I haven't read "Juggs"-type magazines in many years, not since I was younger, but I seem to remember the models in those magazines appearing to be much healthier physically than the models in "Vogue" or "Maxim".

Which is pretty easy to figure out because of articles like "best jeans for your shape" and "sexy haircuts for summer".


Here's a nutty thought: Just looking at somebody of the same sex who is attractive doesn't make you gay.

And you are correct. They are the stereotypical body type women are expected to follow no matter what. They are "educational tools" for women to model themselves after.

I don't find men admiring the breasts of a woman to be harmful. I do find harmful a culture that forces a stereotypical image of women down both men and women's throats, causing men to treat women as trophies and women to treat themselves as disposable works of art.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if men were allowed to admire and develop a healthy interest (or under your definition, "objectification") in women who are of a healthy weight and of different shapes and sizes, then some of the unhealthy objectification in our culture would lessen. That's an issue I find important, but what the hell do I think - I'm a MAN! And I'm talking about boobies! Burn me at the stake!

:rofl:

Yes, I've heard they keep copies of Vogue at sperm banks and fertility clinics for men to... uh... you know.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I hope you're also finished insulting women.

Can you answer that one, sport? Or, would you rather just wave :hi:?
Getting a little too hot for you, is it?

and sex threads for a laugh...

...including that one. Maybe I joined DU after that rule took effect. It still doesn't mean it's happening now on a weekly basis.

Again, point out an example of a semi-nude pic being posted in the Lounge.

How shall I do that?

Therefore, you are personally attacking DUers. Everyone KNOWS who you are referring to in such a hateful manner. Therefore you ARE breaking the rules.

...so you being selective about who is breaking what rule means nothing. Let the mods sort it out, if they want to.

What absolute bullshit. You have NEVER seen a semi-nude pic of a woman...

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

You said you had never seen a semi-nude pic on DU. That carries a lot of assumptions, one being that you must never go to the lounge, but then you refuted that one by saying you do hang out there.

So, saying you have never seen a semi-nude pic on DU is to me like someone (who reads DU) saying they have never heard of an innocent person dying in Iraq. It's purposely misleading because you want to back up your very weak argument.

It's very nearly impossible to believe that ANYONE here as long as you have been here has NEVER seen a semi-nude pic of a woman on DU. For me it is utterly impossible to believe. Your post was bullshit to me.

And you don't see the problem?

Why don't you go and tell the gay community they are "a disgrace to DU, gays, and progressives as a whole" when THEY voice their concerns?

Or go to the African American Issues group and tell them that "playing the race card "is a disgrace to DU, blacks and progressives as a whole".

Or how about the race and diversity room in general? Have you hit the Hispanic community yet with your insightful ways?

I have a pretty good grasp of feminism, myself. I thought it had a lot more to do with empowering women and promoting equality than bashing good men for talking about boobies in a flippant way.

But hey, you're the expert, right? :eyes:

And yes, since feminism is by women and for women, women define it, not men. Crazy thought, that men aren't at the center of something.

...stopped at the doorstep of your clubhouse.

The true victim on this thread was "sam sarrha". Go back and read some earlier posts and you'll see why so many of us became angered at how he was treated for making an innocent and light-hearted comment.

labeled a sexist because of it. I don't stop David Duke from spouting off his hatred against minorities...but I also have the right to label him a racist.

Oh yes, an innocent and light hearted comment. More of the same "understanding".

You and your group of cheerleaders fail to recognize that you, all men, are trying to tell women what they can and cannot be offended by.

...of another DUer is something entirely different. Which is exactly what happened earlier in this thread.

No, you can say anything you want. But don't be surprised if you are labeled a sexist because of it. I don't stop David Duke from spouting off his hatred against minorities...but I also have the right to label him a racist.

So you want to label me a "sexist" and compare me to David Duke? That's the beauty of free speech. You can think any way you want of me, and I can do the same to you. I know what I believe and the work I've done to better society, so your opinion of me is about as important to me as the gum stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Goodbye! :hi:

:rofl:

you are a visual rapist, guilty of phallic oppression--- and must be duly re-educated.

essentially that exact sentiment..

You had me going there for a second, too. :)

You said "going."

Heh heh.





All right Peevish and Smutheads, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT CENSORSHIP. Read the damn post, answer the damn question or shut the fuck up.

No. One. Said. Anything. About. Censorship.

Please read the post. Please comprehend. Please don't "fuck off."

Pretty please.

I never even commented on this whole thing. I was commenting on what impeachdubya was saying, not what the OP said.

Get a fucking grip.

So, what do I do, here- stomp my foot and get pissed off? Accuse her of bigotry and fascism? Complain?

I'm not sure how to go about this.

Why are you directing your comments at me when I didn't even respond to the OP's statement?

:eyes:

Like it's really hard for you to look at all the images of naked or nearly-naked women that saturate the landscape. Yep, around every corner lurks a squad of PC feminazi police who pounce on you any time you glance at a Playboy. Uh huh, yeah right. :eyes:

It must be so hard to be a red-blooded man in these Puritanical times. :nopity:

...driven to the point of sexual frenzy at the site of women's breasts in magazines and in the movies.

:freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::freak::eyes:

To say something critical about them and those roving mobs are instantly neutered and emasculated. :eyes:

I just see a bunch of men disgusted by blatant hypocrisy.

Did I? I don't think so. And what I see are a few posters who are trying to remind people, albeit imperfectly, that a woman is more than "tits" or "a nice pair". Have you noticed how many posts in this thread reduce women to their body parts?

...that admire the bodies of women to "sexist pigs"?

And what I see are a few posters who are trying to remind people, albeit imperfectly, that a woman is more than "tits" or "a nice pair".

Point out one male poster here who has said women aren't "more" than "tits" or "a nice pair".

You're more than ready to show those words down our throats, so give me an example. Just one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh well, since you get to define the rules, here we go:

It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out.

Calling me a hypocrite on DU? It's charming and cute how you don't think the rules apply to you.

I've been reading this thread trying to be sensitive, trying to appreciate where sexism plays a part in OPs comments.

It doesn't. At all. And your suggestion that it "reduces women to their body parts" is ridiculous.

Let me explain something: many men find the female form attractive. Women, in general, have larger breasts than men. These are facts. Still with me? Good.

How does saying a woman has attractive breasts or calling them "tits" for that matter imply she has nothing else going for her? How does it "reduce" her to that one physical characteristic? It doesn't (and in truth your feeling that it does is far more sexist than the comment). If you feel it does, it's your own interpretation and your own baggage. Don't try to pawn it off on others. :eyes:

at least one would have noticed that my initial question was about consistency with purported values-- I did not accuse anyone of being a fascist or hypocrite. I raised a question that went ignored, except to excite a hysterical, victimized, super-sensitive reaction that exemplifies the cliches typically thrown at women. The following is addressed to the general posters here, YSML, not directly to you.

There is a range of sexist comments and attitudes on DU, as you ALL know. Sure, you can make fun of the apparent triviality of picking on "tit" and "nice set." (and miss the point on purpose). And obviously, you can associate every "feminist" with all the others, and all the horror stories and cliches aided and abetted by the "feminazi" mindset of Limbaugh the Hut.

The sort of comments you expect us to overlook (lest you accuse us of "CENSORSHIP') send the message that "we're all guys here and if you don't like it fuck off." There are a lot of men and women at DU who don't like the crudeness, but don't call you on it either. Many DU men assume that they are talking to men-- and then change their posts when they realize they are talking to women. Why is "default" set to "Male"? Is DU a locker room or a meeting room?

The 14 Points of Fascism was placed for context-- evidently I should have preambled it somehow.... how you guys turned it into an accusation of being a fascist is too twisted for me to get. Touchy! Can you broaden your view to include how sexism serves the purposes of those forces you are combatting. Will you consider that sexism in all its forms feeds their power? (But NOOOoooooO-- Mongoo turns it into a kneejerk joke).

The thread I started to document the various eye-jabbings we receive on DU was not intended as the "witch hunt" that some are insinuating. (If you read the thread it explains). Those who "just don't see what the problem is" can visit and see a collection of posts that may seem "no big deal" individually, but collectively resonating against each other gives the open-minded-semi-clueless a better feel for how it looks to us as a continuous presence on DU. (If you still don't get it, visit the AA Issues Group and witness their experience of racism on DU and the reluctant resignation to another form of bigotry that props up The Powers That Be).

When DUers are Newbies we are referred to the Rules and Goals and the Alert button-- encouraged to believe they mean something. Again, why is it outrageous to expect behavior consistent with purported standards and priorities? At the least why not "exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view"?

Well, one reason is ability as much as attitude. There are people who can't express themselves without being crude and don't want to try for the sake of shared goals. So be it. (btw, I resorted to some crude humorous taste-your-own-medicine table-turning this weekend that is not my style, but as a last resort in these circular arguments.....)

I don't thing ImpeachW's blog is "bad." That's how he chooses to express himself. Then he comes to DU and wants to continue-- why shift? I would venture to say he may want to reconsider the persistent aggressive tone because the number of comments to his blog posts is 0.

And there's a clue: Aggression. Bullying. Anger. Violence. No Pink Tutus. Not Enough Balls. Is there a point where the boys concerned about the Bullies in the White House consider that more bullying and aggression isn't the answer? Yeah, anger is motivating-- it can lead to movement and it can lead to violence. It can shut down communication. (Please don't kneejerk to "feminists are "angry" women"-- if you have read this far, please keep the crack in your mind open a bit longer).

The Green Party has included the respect concept in their Principles and Platform-- identifying the relevance of eliminating gender bigotry to reach our larger goals. Perhaps the Democrats need to consider something similar. Especially since all the hot button Repug wedge issues hinge on cementing the balance of power and rigid roles of gender.

This is the crux of the biscuit. This is why sexism matters and does need to be challenged, not accepted:

We don't want the disruptions and distractions of disrespect that divides DU and limits the discussion, hobbles the solution-building.

We are skeptical of the community that persists in ignoring the relevance of sexism to the broader issues and insults those who bring it up, interject it or challenge its presence on DU.

THE WHOLE GAME OF REPUBLICAN WEDGE ISSUES IS ABOUT RIGID GENDER ROLES AND KEEPING THE STATUS QUO-- INCLUDING TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ON RECENT DECADES' SOCIAL PROGRESS. Is this news to you? Is this what you choose to support?

Motivation of The Powers That Be for attacks on:
Gay Marriage: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
Women's Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
Reproductive Privacy Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
All of the Above: divide and conquer-- disrupt and distract the opposition

I have enough confidence and respect for DU to ask these questions and raise these issues. I actually am curious about how men who sig line or blog with grand statements of concern for various progressive issues stop short of connecting the dots to women's rights. If the answer is "fuck off," that's a real discussion killer.

As much as none of us want to believe how bad it is, Eloriel is exactly correct:

"DO YOU GET THAT: WOMEN'S LIVES ARE AT RISK because of the sexism and misogyny in THIS culture. YOU don't get to hang onto your male privilege and add to it. If you consider yourself a progressive or liberal or anything other than a sexist pig, then if you can't bring yourself to give a damn about WORKING for equality for women and other oppressed groups, the least you can do is refrain from contributing to our problems.

"It defies common sense to imagine that things like job discrimination all the way down to violence against women follows some other rule of human behavior: if it's okay to objectify women, call them names, etc., it's sure as hell going to be okay in some people's minds to do worse. The sad thing is that it won't even necessarily be a conscious decision or self-conversation but rather just automatic."

It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out. We make you think about it. You make us the problem. You don't want to be bothered, you want to do what you always do with no one questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals. You don't want anyone pointing out (inadvertently) that you don't know how to express yourselves any differently and that you REFUSE OBSTINATELY TO TRY.

As perhaps you've heard from other Democrats, LANGUAGE MATTERS. Women's rights are human rights.

Now that ya'll get it, can we talk about something else now?

:bounce::bounce:

"I don't thing ImpeachW's blog is "bad." That's how he chooses to express himself. Then he comes to DU and wants to continue-- why shift? I would venture to say he may want to reconsider the persistent aggressive tone because the number of comments to his blog posts is 0.

Sniff! No comments! What a tragedy.


And there's a clue: Aggression. Bullying. Anger. Violence. No Pink Tutus. Not Enough Balls. Is there a point where the boys concerned about the Bullies in the White House consider that more bullying and aggression isn't the answer? Yeah, anger is motivating-- it can lead to movement and it can lead to violence. It can shut down communication."

I think it's astounding that, after you come blazing through this thread telling people to "shut the fuck up", and talking about "Maybe if they pulled their heads out of their asses they could see past their balls", and "too much of a stretch for poor widdle boys" you have the gall to sit and gripe about me "bringing in my aggressive tone" from my blog. Again, please show me where I have spoken "aggressively", like telling someone to- say- shut the fuck up? What constitutes, in your mind, aggression? Not agreeing with 100% of your premises?

And anyone who has ever known me knows I'm not a bully. The one consistent strain through my life has been standing up for the underdog; I just happen to believe free speech, in all it's myriad, potentially offensive glory, to be the underdog in this society right now. And if you can find anything I've ever written that advocates violence, against anyone, I'll give you... some kind of prize, I don't know what. But it doesn't matter, because you won't.

So, don't read my blog. It's not for children, it's not for the easily offended, and it's certainly not for people with delicate sensibilities who cringe at profanity. It's certainly not for my ego, to count how many people leave comments. I write it because that's how I'm feeling or what I care about on any given day, and that's how I choose to express those ideas. People can take it or leave it.

!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!:rofl:
!!!! !
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




:eyes: its
not
all
about
you




good night sweet dreams

But if you're going to accuse me of being a bully with an "aggressive tone" who somehow advocates violence, I think I have a right to suggest that people consider the source.

Read carefully

Lose the assumptions

Don't misintrepret

DON'T MISREPRESENT

Don't be a victim

Consider the source means you no harm

Sleep tight

Peace. Really.

One DUer, a man with an impressive progressive resume, made a lighthearted comment about an actress's breasts. You proceeded to jump all over him and accuse him of violating DU's principles based on your twisted idea of sexism and misogyny.

It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out. We make you think about it. You make us the problem. You don't want to be bothered, you want to do what you always do with no one questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals. You don't want anyone pointing out (inadvertently) that you don't know how to express yourselves any differently and that you REFUSE OBSTINATELY TO TRY.

While you go on and on about what you perceive to be some grand conspiracy against women and homosexuals every time men discuss boobs, a lot of male DUers are out doing real work to help improve our communities and make life better for everyone - women and homosexuals included. You don't know us, so "questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals" is beyond insulting. We don't appreciate being attacked by strangers who have no idea who we are or what we do and then expect us to roll over and take their abuse lying down.

For example, James Dobson's "Focus on the Family", Donald Wildmon's "American Family Assosciation", and the ever popular "Concerned Women for America"..

In fact, I would wager that, after Judge Roberts sails through his confirmation process, it will be considerably easier for the would-be censors to get rid of those pesky "naked or nearly naked women" that "saturate the landscape".

Of course, women won't have the right to choose, and many common birth control options may be criminalized, but I guess that's the price you have to pay when you let would-be control freaks who know what's best for everybody tell consenting adults what they can Read. Watch. Look at. Say.

As far as this board goes, there IS a small squad of extremely dedicated individuals whose number one priority seems to be rooting out "sexism" wherever it "rears it's ugly head" on DU. Now, if we're really talking about broad based slams against anyone based on race, orientation, OR gender, I am right at the front of the line in stepping up to condemn such things. (Interestingly enough, though, a couple weeks ago when a poster suggested- seriously- the wholesale slaughter of half of the human race based upon their gender, and the message remained up for several hours, the sexism language police was strangely silent)

This crowd does seem to spend an inordinate of time trying to censor speech they don't like, and define success amongst themselves in the number of posts they manage to get deleted or threads they manage to get locked.

However- and people keep saying this, but it doesn't want to get through- Not EVERYONE believes that any mention of physical appearance, or expression of (heterosexual, male to female) sexual appreciation constitutes "degradation" or "sexism". And for one, I don't think the biggest problems in this country, or on this board, even, are people who say "The Democratic Party Needs To Show More Balls", or "So and so is really Hot".

But the collective response to these things by this small group of individuals tends to lack even the slightest shred of perspective. The person who refers to the naked scene in the godfather as containing "a fine set" of breasts is on par with someone who advocates rape or spousal abuse. He even "crawled out from under the same rock as Karl Rove", somehow.

And, of course, whenever someone challenges even the slightest tenet of the group-think, they are immediately responsible for rape, murder, and all the evils of the world.

But I do understand that these folks have a tireless, largely thankless job. Hell, as a gesture of goodwill, I'll even make it easier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4188597&mesg_id=4188629

Gather your torches and pitchforks, gang, and go get him!!!

Who buy into the same tired assed slippery slope you do. Trust me, this argument has been used on me before.

Let's see if I remember how it goes...The slightest criticism expressed toward the God given right of men to have women constantly served up for their visual gratification and for them to comment on women's appearance at every conceivable opportunity is CENSORSHIP! Even if you never even suggest any such thing. Because legions of conservative fundamentalists monitor our private conversations and the Internet (esp. liberal discussion boards for some reason) for ammunition to use to ultimately take away every woman's right to choose!

Therefore, it is the duty of every woman to not only tolerate objectification. Nay, we are duty-bound to loooooove it! We must welcome it and even better, be willing to participate in it (It's "empowering!"). It's not even enough to try to ignore it because James Dobson or the Concerned Women for America might mistake your silence for disapproval and then, THE WHOLE JIG WILL BE UP!!

How's that impeachdubya? Am I doing OK? Am I holding up free speech good enough now? I mean, YOUR free speech, that is. My free speech is apparently too dangerous, huh?

and there are plenty of people who don't think that saying Apollonia's breasts in the godfather were "exceptionally fine" constitutes "objectification".

Beyond that, I'm not running around trying to stifle what people say here, unlike certain others.

It's not about anyone having a "God-Given" (who's that?) right to have women "served up for visual gratification". It's about how what other people do with THEIR bodies is none of YOUR business. No one is going to force YOU to be in a nude scene in a Godfather movie, or any other. But until you can prove to me that all women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, except for the ones who pose or appear nude, because they are somehow hyp-mo-tized into perpetuating the patriarchy, your argument that anyone is having anyone else "served up" is wholly bogus. And if it's not about censorship, what is it about?

Perspective? I think that went out the window when the guy who made the extremely innocuous- and I'm sorry, but that's all it was- comment about a naked breast in a Godfather movie was slammed as a "sexist pig" who was enabling fascism.

Like the 'How DARE you tell other women what to do with their bodies!' tactic that you're trying now. Don't even. Did I tell another woman what to do with her body? Nope not me. Never have. Did I also say anything along the lines of "I FORBID you (or anyone else) to look at naked women!"? Don't think so.

No, there's an expression of C-R-I-T-I-C-I-S-M of how guys objectify women. And once again, a guy who I'm guessing is very accustomed to being indulged in his desire to do that, freaks out and cries censorship. What. the. fuck. ever.

Look, no one is taking your nudie pictures away, mmkay? And if the day ever comes that they do, I can assure you that will probably be the least of our worries in this country. Cheers.

Is that what changing the subject, missing-the-point-on-purpose and misrepresenting others' statements is called?

I kept thinking there was some sense to be made, but it is only stubborn defensiveness and games.

That's the best some can do. The Big PIcture will await them.

You think it's me, I'm pretty sure it's you.

'Night.

n/t

16 years old at the time of the filming of The Godfather?

be nude, in a movie. At least that's my understanding of it.

I don't even remember the breasts, themselves, nor do I remember if I, personally, thought they looked "nice". But the last time I watched the movie in its entirety, I was probably 17, myself.... so if I did enjoy briefly sighting her breasts, I won't lose any sleep over it now.

Just curious.

Are you aware that sexism is bigotry?

If you were actually curious, you would not respond to questions with unfounded accusations.

with rantings about bigotry and fascism.

saying "nice tits"...don't want to be called a fascits.

If it's not me having sex ....it's pornographic.

It it's not two women or men having sex, or of a dominatrix beating the hell out of a guy, then it's pornographic because it's objectifying women in a way I don't like - i.e. men engaging in mutually-pleasurable acts with women.

:puke:

Could you not still buy it?

will not carry AO games. But maybe that's because there haven't been too many, and GTA will change that... :shrug:

Real family values. By the way has he been denied communion for being on the same side of social issues as John kerry?

I didn't even know he was Catholic.

That's my favorite show (once I learned how to tune out the language:)..)..

These do-gooders won't stop until everything is Romper Room:)

Discussion Forum Rules are based on Respect

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else.

Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

:bounce::bounce:

I never rent movies based on the "rating". If I want to watch a movie I just put it in the queue on NetFlix.

It matters not what the prudes do.

I do remember some pretty good movies rated X..."Midnight Cowboy" and "A Clockwork Orange.

Really horrible weren't they?

heehehe

...was referring to the mass hysteria, partly fueled by Hillary Clinton, over the "Hot Coffee" mod in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

The game includes cartoonish depictions of mass murder and destruction, but since angry parents and opportunistic politicians just discovered you can see cartoonish depictions of sex with a code you have to download off of the Internet, suddenly it's enemy #1 and has to be pulled off of store shelves.

That was before this thread devolved into absolute lunacy over Simonetta Stefanelli's young boobies being flashed in "The Godfather".

As Calo said, "In Sicily, women are more dangerous than shotguns." Apparently here in DU, mentioning women's boobies can be more dangerous than inviting Hugh Hefner to a NOW meeting.

Thanks for understanding my point. It's been frustrating. Hell, I'm not even a gamer, but I find this hysteria to be astounding.

I never expected this thread to get so many posts and I never imagined that it would become a flame war over sexism. I never knew the word "tit" is considered sexist or offensive by some. Hey, even if I had thought of it I couldn't fit the word breast in the title.

Thanks A Lot.

:crazy:

Only way to make up my mind.......

are two different things.

The context in which the 'tit' is seen or used makes the difference.

Personally I think the violence in the Godfather is what made it an 'M' rating.

This thread has run its course.



DU Moderator