I don't believe people like this exist.
It's "interesting" to hear people's views on how sex/sexuality/heterosexuality/homosexuality/men/women/etc. are connected though..
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3fnu7_bill-oreilly-lesbian-cutest-couple_news
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
2007-12-11
2007-08-09
The right and necessity to objectify
They might be oh so realistic, but I wouldn't miss the sexist remarks on women if they were removed. I love black comedy, especially of the high school kind. I love exaggeration and parody – to a certain extend. Both Mean Girls and the incredible TV show Popular do it, for example. And I love the extreme relationships between all the girls. I love the backstabbing, the bitching and the popularity wars – between the girls. I love everything but the obsession with looking supersexy for the guys.
What I especially don't love is the guys, and the constant commenting on the girls. Why do even female writers feel the need to add small sexist remarks the whole fucking time in TV shows? The She's a hottie-type of comments. The constant looks, them turning their heads, forgetting about everything but the oh so sexy girl for a few seconds. The turning men into fucking hormone monsters. Do all males on TV have to be testosterone OD-ing? How is it possible that that's accepted, and even the norm?
Sure, most TV-show chicks are oversexed, stereotypically perfect babes. Who wouldn't look? Right? No. Wrong. Female characters on film and TV have to be prettygirls. Prettygirls are supposed to be on TV for everyone to look at, sureness. That's not today's topic. That does also not make objectifying them a necessity. It does not make it funny, "normal" or alright.
It does not bother me – anymore cause hello product of oversexed pop culture society – that the super clever and brainy Veronica Mars is cute as a button. She has to be, it's TV. What bothers me is that every male character on the show who lays an eye on her – no matter how nice, cool, smart they are – look like they're getting an erection right there and then. Is that necessary?
Again. Girls on TV are generally pretty, those are "the rules", and that's a subject for another rant, one that I'll never write. But that does not make objectification funny, and what is both scary and frustrating to me is that we almost expect it. In our own lives we shudder and walk faster when we – once in a lifetime unless you look like those TV show girls – get those comments. But on TV we expect it 'cause they are the prettygirls. They are the babes. They are there to be looked at, and they deserve the objectification.
Sure. Do turn all male characters into animals who crave sex with everything they lay eyes on with a pair of boobs. And you wonder why I prefer shows and movies with only female characters? The idea of men – that both men and women have – that they can't control their thoughts and actions 'cause of their dick, is demeaning and insane. Hormones and prettygirls do not give men the right to be assholes.
TV shows are not usually feminist, and quite often sexist. But this is absurd. This is not entertaining or okay. So please please please, tell me, are the constant sexist remarks a necessity?
What I especially don't love is the guys, and the constant commenting on the girls. Why do even female writers feel the need to add small sexist remarks the whole fucking time in TV shows? The She's a hottie-type of comments. The constant looks, them turning their heads, forgetting about everything but the oh so sexy girl for a few seconds. The turning men into fucking hormone monsters. Do all males on TV have to be testosterone OD-ing? How is it possible that that's accepted, and even the norm?
Sure, most TV-show chicks are oversexed, stereotypically perfect babes. Who wouldn't look? Right? No. Wrong. Female characters on film and TV have to be prettygirls. Prettygirls are supposed to be on TV for everyone to look at, sureness. That's not today's topic. That does also not make objectifying them a necessity. It does not make it funny, "normal" or alright.
It does not bother me – anymore cause hello product of oversexed pop culture society – that the super clever and brainy Veronica Mars is cute as a button. She has to be, it's TV. What bothers me is that every male character on the show who lays an eye on her – no matter how nice, cool, smart they are – look like they're getting an erection right there and then. Is that necessary?
Again. Girls on TV are generally pretty, those are "the rules", and that's a subject for another rant, one that I'll never write. But that does not make objectification funny, and what is both scary and frustrating to me is that we almost expect it. In our own lives we shudder and walk faster when we – once in a lifetime unless you look like those TV show girls – get those comments. But on TV we expect it 'cause they are the prettygirls. They are the babes. They are there to be looked at, and they deserve the objectification.
Sure. Do turn all male characters into animals who crave sex with everything they lay eyes on with a pair of boobs. And you wonder why I prefer shows and movies with only female characters? The idea of men – that both men and women have – that they can't control their thoughts and actions 'cause of their dick, is demeaning and insane. Hormones and prettygirls do not give men the right to be assholes.
TV shows are not usually feminist, and quite often sexist. But this is absurd. This is not entertaining or okay. So please please please, tell me, are the constant sexist remarks a necessity?
2007-07-20
Viagra, my love
"[Viagra] doesn’t make men into good lovers. For many women, it has merely highlighted the incompetence of their lovers. More crucially, it has laid bare a female secret that many men never knew. Penetrative sex does not necessarily give women the best orgasms – and, depending on which study you read, anything from a third to 52% of women never have orgasms in this way."
How is it possible that it is 2007, and people have presumably had sex since like forever – don't ask me why – and they are only now starting to [officially] realise what women like when it comes to sex. Not to mention that they do, and that it isn't actually depending on a penis. (How many friends haven't asked me if I – being a lesbian – don't feel like there is something missing? "No, my friend", I tell them, "you just haven't realised yet that there is just something in the way.")
"We are realising there are important differences in sexual arousal and responsiveness between men and women, and considerable variation between individual women – more than there is in men – in their sexual responsiveness."
"The sexual-dysfunction industry [says that] there must be something wrong with the clitorises of these women. A recent paper in the US Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology described an earnest effort to investigate “pudendal nerve integrity” after discovering 48.2% of its sample had “desire disorder, arousal, orgasmic or pain disorders”. Not great if you are selling a drug that gives men urgent erections."
Only yesterday I was listening to the news on the radio, and there was a new report that many young women experience pain when having sex (I'm assuming they're talking about penetration here, but I obviously couldn't ask them – them being on the radio and all). Now, they think it might be their birth control pills 'causing it. Considering how many problems related to sex are connected to those pills – loss of sexual appetite (gotta love that phrase), pain, not being able to orgasm, hey the list goes on – you'd really think they'd come up with something better, no? Apparently not – it is still the birth control recommended to young women. But pain? Hello. This girl was talking about how it hurt every time for years and years – and no one asked her if she ever considered not having penetrative sex. (Sweetie, you know, he doesn't have to put it there if you don't like it.)
"Katherine Angel, a Cambridge philosopher researching cultural attitudes to sexual problems, thinks [most women are uninterested in penetrative sex], whatever their age. “Women are being told they must have a male attitude to sex. It is becoming procedural and technical, and if you are not having lots of penetrative sex and reaching a climax, you are dysfunctional. The majority of women fail to reach orgasm during penetrative sex, which must mean the majority of women have a disease. The drive to narrow the definition of what sex is about is very worrying.”"
Source: Link
(All quotes are from this article, but I didn't quote even a third of it, read on though, it's interesting.)
How is it possible that it is 2007, and people have presumably had sex since like forever – don't ask me why – and they are only now starting to [officially] realise what women like when it comes to sex. Not to mention that they do, and that it isn't actually depending on a penis. (How many friends haven't asked me if I – being a lesbian – don't feel like there is something missing? "No, my friend", I tell them, "you just haven't realised yet that there is just something in the way.")
"We are realising there are important differences in sexual arousal and responsiveness between men and women, and considerable variation between individual women – more than there is in men – in their sexual responsiveness."
"The sexual-dysfunction industry [says that] there must be something wrong with the clitorises of these women. A recent paper in the US Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology described an earnest effort to investigate “pudendal nerve integrity” after discovering 48.2% of its sample had “desire disorder, arousal, orgasmic or pain disorders”. Not great if you are selling a drug that gives men urgent erections."
Only yesterday I was listening to the news on the radio, and there was a new report that many young women experience pain when having sex (I'm assuming they're talking about penetration here, but I obviously couldn't ask them – them being on the radio and all). Now, they think it might be their birth control pills 'causing it. Considering how many problems related to sex are connected to those pills – loss of sexual appetite (gotta love that phrase), pain, not being able to orgasm, hey the list goes on – you'd really think they'd come up with something better, no? Apparently not – it is still the birth control recommended to young women. But pain? Hello. This girl was talking about how it hurt every time for years and years – and no one asked her if she ever considered not having penetrative sex. (Sweetie, you know, he doesn't have to put it there if you don't like it.)
"Katherine Angel, a Cambridge philosopher researching cultural attitudes to sexual problems, thinks [most women are uninterested in penetrative sex], whatever their age. “Women are being told they must have a male attitude to sex. It is becoming procedural and technical, and if you are not having lots of penetrative sex and reaching a climax, you are dysfunctional. The majority of women fail to reach orgasm during penetrative sex, which must mean the majority of women have a disease. The drive to narrow the definition of what sex is about is very worrying.”"
Source: Link
(All quotes are from this article, but I didn't quote even a third of it, read on though, it's interesting.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)