Forty Two wrote:Feminists? Because they say it objectifies women (but not men), and forces women into gender norms, etc.

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Feminists? Because they say it objectifies women (but not men), and forces women into gender norms, etc.

Do feminists actually say it doesn't objectify men?

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Feminists? Because they say it objectifies women (but not men), and forces women into gender norms, etc.

Do feminists actually say it doesn't objectify men?

Yes, indeed. It's the same logic used to say that women can't be sexist against men, because women are the marginalized and men are the privileged. Same logic for objectification -- it's all wrapped up in the patriarchy and power/privilege dynamic.

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Feminists? Because they say it objectifies women (but not men), and forces women into gender norms, etc.

Do feminists actually say it doesn't objectify men?

Yes, indeed. It's the same logic used to say that women can't be sexist against men, because women are the marginalized and men are the privileged. Same logic for objectification -- it's all wrapped up in the patriarchy and power/privilege dynamic.

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote: (...) just trolling (...)

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:Feminists? Because they say it objectifies women (but not men), and forces women into gender norms, etc.

Do feminists actually say it doesn't objectify men?

Yes, indeed. It's the same logic used to say that women can't be sexist against men, because women are the marginalized and men are the privileged. Same logic for objectification -- it's all wrapped up in the patriarchy and power/privilege dynamic.

So that's really what you think is going on here? Promoting non-traditional/non-objectifying images of women = deny men are objectified or subjected to gender norms.

purplerat wrote:

Or are you just trolling for something to fit you preconceived notions and the best you could come up with was a 5+ year old thread which has nothing to do with what you are rambling on about? It would seem that if this is the best you can do then you really are grasping at straws.

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

ya, it's called 'dad bod' and is actually a thing now. Maybe in 2010 you would have had a point but you're a bit late to the boat.

Alan B wrote:Jesus! Those blokes! Why the stupid fucking poses? Clenched fists, arms akimbo...

Emmeline wrote:

purplerat wrote: (...) just trolling (...)

Forty Two wrote:
No, many feminists just say outright that women do not sexually objectify men, and it's usually for the some iteration of the reason I expresed. It's a power dynamic and as a group, women do not sexually objectify men.

Forty Two wrote:
No, I just searched the message board for an already existing thread that would sort of be on topic, to avoid creating a new thread.

What are you so pissed off about? What do you think I've said that is so bad?

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
No, many feminists just say outright that women do not sexually objectify men, and it's usually for the some iteration of the reason I expresed. It's a power dynamic and as a group, women do not sexually objectify men.

What does that have to do with this thread?

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
No, I just searched the message board for an already existing thread that would sort of be on topic, to avoid creating a new thread.

What are you so pissed off about? What do you think I've said that is so bad?

Except you're not even 'sort of' on topic. That it's the best you could find nor could you come up with a relevant current subject speaks to the validity of your position. Or maybe you actually think anytime a female complains it's just some man hating feminist looking to shit on men.

Forty Two wrote:
It just illustrates why "curvy" people tend not to be in lingerie ads. Hot bods, female or male, look better in undergarments.

It's not that sexist norms are keeping "curvy WOMEN" out of underwear ads. It's that overweight people don't look as good in underwear, generally speaking.

Forty Two wrote:quit your bitching

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
No, many feminists just say outright that women do not sexually objectify men, and it's usually for the some iteration of the reason I expresed. It's a power dynamic and as a group, women do not sexually objectify men.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Nothing. I was answering a direct question posed to me, which you snipped out.

Forty Two wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
No, I just searched the message board for an already existing thread that would sort of be on topic, to avoid creating a new thread.

What are you so pissed off about? What do you think I've said that is so bad?

Except you're not even 'sort of' on topic. That it's the best you could find nor could you come up with a relevant current subject speaks to the validity of your position. Or maybe you actually think anytime a female complains it's just some man hating feminist looking to shit on men.

Sure, the thread is about curvy women not allowed in lingerie ads. My post related to why curvy women might not generally be in lingerie ads. That's on topic.

What do you mean it "speaks to the validity of my position?" What do you think my position is?

No, I don't think that anytime a woman complains it's a man hating feminist looking to shit on men. Feminists do complain a lot, though.

But, anything I've posted is not on topic, invite a moderator to split the posts of the thread, and quit your bitching.

Forty Two wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

purplerat wrote: (...) just trolling (...)

why would what I posted elicit some sort of emotional reaction? I mean, trolling means to purposefully seek to get a rise out of people. What did I post that is so upsetting?

Emmeline wrote: it's all too obviously bullshit trolling.