Chat Thread: Chopsticks and teacups

[Ainwyn]

patch99329

You know, there are no words for how much I hate people eating loudly with their mouths open.
Its a massive pet hate.

My dad is making the most disgustingly loud noise as he eats his pizza. stare

I can't stand it when my fiancee does it, but she has the worst allergies in the world and can't actually breathe through her nose most of the time, so I can't really yell at her for it. It still drives me nuts though.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ainwyn

What? I was prepared to ask my east Asian religion prof tomorrow, but I suck at remembering to do things like that.

It's used as an offering within a fire ritual.

Recursive Paradox

What do you mean by "sign up"?

How about we keep it simple for this case?
Sign a contractual obligation to be photographed in a specific way and have the image distributed?

Quote:

For me, the operative problem with commercials for products like Axe is that they are very general objectifications, tossed into a culture in which the non consensual objectification of women is fairly normalized. If, for instance, the culture of America and Canada possessed more of a consent based model of sex as a widespread thing (instead of the "women's bodies are a commodity" model), a commercial like this would be just fine, because one would simply assume that the hypothetical girl in the commercial was consenting already.

But the assumption tends to go like this, "..."

As in, the idea of consent doesn't come up at all. The thought process is, "mmmmm hot, wanna wash her" in a lot of cases and then if someone brings up consent, it's an afterthought: "...oh ...yeah, she's totally consenting." That strikes me as a dangerous mindset overall. Because as I know myself (being one with an objectification fetish both applied to me and applied to others) one of the key ways to do objectification right (without hurting someone) is to keep consent as the base case. Safe words, careful checking of boundaries, making sure all involved know what's up and what to do if problems arise.

Same applies to my sadism (I, unfortunately, do not seem to be masochistic about anything other than spicy food and posting in the ED forum XD). Sadism in a good context has consent as a baseline. If sadism was extended into commercial form without a consent based model in place, you would have a bunch of commercials in which a girl is in a position to be hit and the same assumption related to consent of "...", which would be problematic.

What makes me sad is that there's no commercials for girl's scents that have a guy objectified. A few of my good guy friends like objectification and a few of my good girl friends like to dish it out. They get no love from the media. crying And I can guarantee you, if I end up spontaneously being bi or pan at some point, I will want to spank a guy I'm into. Hard (but only as hard as he wants it). XD

So, basically, the issue isn't the ad itself, but the generalizations about how people think about the ad, and in making those generalizations, it assumes understandings about the basic attitude others (especially men, since there was no issued raised about you or I) that suggests that because a section of the population has a problem with the ad- that they determine how everyone reacts to objectification.

I think a lot of the consent issue is taken care of on an unconscious level. Maybe we should encourage more of a discussion about it- but that isn't to say it doesn't cross people's minds- or that somehow being an afterthought in specific contexts makes it any less valuable.

Calixti

Well said. The biggest issue with the Axe adverts is the complete lack of consent

Can you demonstrate this? Show me the model who has filed suit for her image being used against her will.
This isn't some girl who went to a party and woke up to find her image plastered over the internet. This is a professional who signed a contract.

Why would you imply this isn't consensual?

Quote:

The advert in question could have been tongue-in-cheek and consent-based--say it were a video ad, and the woman were shown intentionally getting herself dirty, writing 'wash me' on herself, and waiting in the shower for her boyfriend with a cheeky smile on her face. That wouldn't immediately raise my hackles the way this one did; the woman, though objectified, would have been an active, consenting participant, rather than dehumanized and assumed to be an object by others.

So you're in a position to tell us that our fetishes with willing participants are bad. confused  

[TeaDidikai]

I added some new songs to my playlist.  

[Calixti]

TeaDidikai

Why would you imply this isn't consensual?

Poorly phrased, I think. I'm not saying that the woman who made the ad wasn't consenting--I'm saying the woman, as portrayed in the ad, can't be consenting because she's a dehumanised object. She cannot consent because she has no agency. She's portrayed as a passive thing to be acted upon, rather than a woman actively choosing and consenting to such objectification.

Quote:

Quote:

The advert in question could have been tongue-in-cheek and consent-based--say it were a video ad, and the woman were shown intentionally getting herself dirty, writing 'wash me' on herself, and waiting in the shower for her boyfriend with a cheeky smile on her face. That wouldn't immediately raise my hackles the way this one did; the woman, though objectified, would have been an active, consenting participant, rather than dehumanized and assumed to be an object by others.

So you're in a position to tell us that our fetishes with willing participants are bad. confused

Where did I say that? I didn't say anyone's fetish is bad; I said this advert is bad because it contributes to an overall culture of objectification and misogyny. That doesn't mean people who have a fetish for objectification are bad--I even gave an example for how such a thing could have been portrayed in an advert with the woman as a willing participant. neutral  

[Aino Ailill]

I went to Bible Study today. It was interesting and I am looking forward to going again. We went over the latter part of King David's life. A few comments were made disparaging the polygamy David partook in. I made a comment which led into a discussion on whether it is feasible without the subjugation of one party and such. It was neat. We didn't extend the discussion too long, unfortunately.  

[TeaDidikai]

Calixti

Poorly phrased, I think. I'm not saying that the woman who made the ad wasn't consenting--I'm saying the woman, as portrayed in the ad, can't be consenting because she's a dehumanised object. She cannot consent because she has no agency. She's portrayed as a passive thing to be acted upon, rather than a woman actively choosing and consenting to such objectification.

Which is a choice she made.

The problem I am having with the position is that it skips the actual consent in favor of pretending there is no consent in order to be offended.

It reminds me of some of the verbal attacks I witnessed on another forum of a woman who indulged in power exchange fetish that simulated forced participation. She and her partner were demonized because even though consent was established before the session, the focus of the session was a lack of consent.

By suggesting the thoughts and fantasy are devoid of consent, they actually deny the ability the woman had to shape her own life and position in the fantasy.

Quote:

Where did I say that? I didn't say anyone's fetish is bad; I said this advert is bad because it contributes to an overall culture of objectification and misogyny.

But in some cases, objectification is the fetish.

Quote:

That doesn't mean people who have a fetish for objectification are bad--I even gave an example for how such a thing could have been portrayed in an advert with the woman as a willing participant. neutral

But you also exclude the possibility that the consent leading up to the image was a means by which she actively consented to her own portrayal.

If it doesn't float your boat, that's fine.
But I think you do an injustice to her, those who participate with her, and others like them when you force her into a role for your own ends.
She signed up to be objectified sexually and she got paid for it.
I don't know if she signed up to be used by you.  

[maenad nuri]

Perhaps, if you guys are going to pick apart the blog entry, you should do so on the blog itself. Thank you.  

[Ellisari]

DX Eating candy doesn't generally help a toothache, I've found.

Owie.

>< Time to see the dentist... that tooth has given me so many problems, I'll prolly need a root canal. Ow.  

[Sivirs]

Tea, I'm more than a little behind here, but I can ask my (Hindu) fiancee tomorrow for you about the havan samagri if you still need it. He may not know, since he's more in the "I do this religious rite because my mom told me to do this every Tuesday, I have no idea why" school of religious practice than the introspective "know the reasons behind the traditions" school, but it won't hurt to ask.  

[Ainwyn]

My fiancee's name change hearing is tomorrow morning! I'm incredibly excited about it, because this will hopefully mean that she'll get a much better chance at getting a job. She just has to wake up crazy early and not get lost... which is asking a lot of her, really.

Then on Thursday, my grandfather starts chemo, which isn't quite so happy, and has me pretty terrified, in all honesty. He has mesothelioma, so basically the chemo will just be extending his life a little longer. It's already spread from his lungs to his ribs in a couple of months.  

[TeaDidikai]

Sivirs

Tea, I'm more than a little behind here, but I can ask my (Hindu) fiancee tomorrow for you about the havan samagri if you still need it. He may not know, since he's more in the "I do this religious rite because my mom told me to do this every Tuesday, I have no idea why" school of religious practice than the introspective "know the reasons behind the traditions" school, but it won't hurt to ask.

Naw. I got it sorted out. But thanks Hun.  

[Ainwyn]

*HAPPY HAPPY SNOOPY DANCE!!!!*  

[Recursive Paradox]

maenad nuri

Perhaps, if you guys are going to pick apart the blog entry, you should do so on the blog itself. Thank you.

Sorry! I'll remember that for next time. sweatdrop  

[Wrath of Ezekiel]

Sivirs

Tea, I'm more than a little behind here, but I can ask my (Hindu) fiancee tomorrow for you about the havan samagri if you still need it. He may not know, since he's more in the "I do this religious rite because my mom told me to do this every Tuesday, I have no idea why" school of religious practice than the introspective "know the reasons behind the traditions" school, but it won't hurt to ask.

Ah see, this is how I kind of am. I'm good at more stories and concepts, and less at actual rites. sweatdrop I kind of knew what a havan was, it was just I hadn't heard it referred as have havan samagri.

I love sitting in the group areas of the library. There's a group of girls drinking coffee and talking about stuff from Roman emperors to how there technically is no year "0" between 1 BCE and 1 CE. rofl  

[Cranium Squirrel]

Oh Gaia, will you never cease to amuse?

An elk running a thrift store. Hehehe!