Katy Perry and Elmo

[msj]

Ok, Rush Limbaugh. Feminazi is a hateful term used to shut down any debate about female equality in our society. Look up feminist in the dictionary sometime.

This is quite funny since I have an undergraduate degree where one of my majors was history and some of the courses I took were "women's history."

Which is just code for really boring history. Taking the courses did not assist in getting laid compared to, say, philosophy.

I'm using the term loosely - but in my case I'm using it to refer to someone who uses feminism as his reference but is so ideologically bent about it that the "ism" goes beyond simply being about feminism and is more closely aligned with authoritarian principles embraced by other "isms" such as evangelical Christianity (which, I think, is called "nuttinessism"), fundamental Judaism (which I think is called "kosher nuttinessism"), fundamental Islam (called "Islamism") and crazy Protestants called Puritanism.

You seem bent out of shape at least as far as those kooks (on this issue, anyway).

[cybercoma]

Ummmm. You said she was "selling sex" because she was wearing a dress that doesn't hide her breasts and curves - while Sharkman said he wasn't of the opinion that she was selling sex.

So try to figure out why one of you is entirely wrong .... while the other is someone I agree with.

There is a very particular type of breasts and curves that are sold to the public, but it's pointless in even discussing it with you because you refuse to acknowledge all of the research that I've shown you.

[msj]

There is a very particular type of breasts and curves that are sold to the public, but it's pointless in even discussing it with you because you refuse to acknowledge all of the research that I've shown you.

Pointing out one article that discusses anal sex is hardly providing much research.

Even then it is quite a stretch (pardon the pun) to go from KP on SS to anal sex.

[cybercoma]

Pointing out one article that discusses anal sex is hardly providing much research.

Even then it is quite a stretch (pardon the pun) to go from KP on SS to anal sex.

That's not the research I'm talking about. In fact that was hardly research. I'm talking about the mountains of research that I've pointed out to her about society devaluing women as people and placing all of their worth in a beauty ideal that less than 2% of the population actually meets. I'm talking about the research that I've showed her about the objectification of women as sexual objects to be commodified.

[Hydraboss]

I'm quite fine with consenting adults choosing to have whatever kind of sex suits them. However, if you read the article, the argument is that there is a growing trend of women being pressured into engaging in anal sex against their wishes. This has caused a rise in health problems like female anal fissures. Not only this, but the culture surrounding anal sex is about men deriving pleasure from women's pain during intercourse. While there are healthy ways to engage in heterosexual anal intercourse, forcing someone to do it against their wishes, being so rough that you tear the anus, and taking pleasure in hurting women are all troubling developments that are becoming increasingly common, according to the article.

So you're against gay men having sex, are you? I thought you were so accepting... Or is it only okay IF they are gay? Straight men are "hurting" women?

Because there are no

men deriving pleasure from men's pain during intercourse. While there are healthy ways to engage in homosexual anal intercourse, forcing someone to do it against their wishes, being so rough that you tear the anus, and taking pleasure in hurting men are all troubling developments that are becoming increasingly common...

And ya, I don't mind her music. My daughter listens to it and it beats the crap out of some of her other choices.

[cybercoma]

If you're going to criticize the arguments of the article, you should probably actually read the article.

[jefferiah]

Looked purty tame to me.

[Guest American Woman]

There is a very particular type of breasts and curves that are sold to the public, but it's pointless in even discussing it with you because you refuse to acknowledge all of the research that I've shown you.

I'm acknowledging YOUR comments. You are the one saying a woman who is dressed the way Perry is is "selling sex." That's YOU saying that. That's your absurd claim. And it is a dangerous mindset. There is nothing wrong with the way Perry is dressed - and to suggest she is "selling sex" for being dressed that way is a pretty scary concept in my mind and a terrible message to send to girls/women - a concept that YOU are perpetuating.

Katy Perry is wearing a dress that shows her body; doesn't hide her curves. That idea that a woman who wears such a dress is "selling sex" is preposterous.

As long as there are people like you making such claims, perpetuating such ideas, expecting women to hide their curves lest they be accused of "selling sex," the problems you say exists in "society" will persist. You aren't calling for the mindset to change, you expect the women to change to avoid the mindset.

Edited December 25, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

There you have it, AW! CC would've wanted Katy to wear a burha!

Maybe Elmo too, I dunno...

Maybe Elmo too

[cybercoma]

If you think I'm saying Katy Perry should hide her curves, you've mistaken everything that I've said in this thread. Katy Perry is a product, marketed by record labels. A preschoolers' show is not the venue for that marketing. Her music and her image are all calculated to sell sex, even though she's a decent singer. I'm objecting to her, as a product, being placed in a show designed to educate preschoolers.

[msj]

That's not the research I'm talking about. In fact that was hardly research. I'm talking about the mountains of research that I've pointed out to her about society devaluing women as people and placing all of their worth in a beauty ideal that less than 2% of the population actually meets. I'm talking about the research that I've showed her about the objectification of women as sexual objects to be commodified.

I point out the stupidity of the one link that you do provide and then you conveniently talk about the "mountains of research" that you, for some reason, have not linked to but, instead, felt it necessary to link to some research that you're "[not] talking about. In fact that was hardly research."

And you wonder why you are laughed at?

Seriously?

[Wild Bill]

If you think I'm saying Katy Perry should hide her curves, you've mistaken everything that I've said in this thread. Katy Perry is a product, marketed by record labels. A preschoolers' show is not the venue for that marketing. Her music and her image are all calculated to sell sex, even though she's a decent singer. I'm objecting to her, as a product, being placed in a show designed to educate preschoolers.

Again I disagree, CC. Katy IS a pop music "product", that's true. However, I would submit that ALL pop music is aimed at the pre-schooler market!

She's not selling sex! You have to be adult to appreciate her sexual appeal! Katy Perry sells lunch boxes, and back packs for school books with her picture as an alternative to one of a Smurf!

As your brain matures so do your tastes. By the time a kid's hormones kick in they no longer are an advertising target.

Perhaps if you put aside your Walter Ostanek CD's you might notice these things...

Edited December 26, 2011 by Wild Bill

[cybercoma]

I point out the stupidity of the one link that you do provide and then you conveniently talk about the "mountains of research" that you, for some reason, have not linked to but, instead, felt it necessary to link to some research that you're "[not] talking about. In fact that was hardly research."

And you wonder why you are laughed at?

Seriously?

I wasn't responding to you, was I? I was talking to American Woman and referring to a discussion that I've already had with American Woman in the veil thread.

So you just keep sitting in the corner laughing at things you don't understand and conversations that you're not a part of. Seriously.

[cybercoma]

Again I disagree, CC. Katy IS a pop music "product", that's true. However, I would submit that ALL pop music is aimed at the pre-schooler market!

She's not selling sex! You have to be adult to appreciate her sexual appeal! Katy Perry sells lunch boxes, and back packs for school books with her picture as an alternative to one of a Smurf!

As your brain matures so do your tastes. By the time a kid's hormones kick in they no longer are an advertising target.

Perhaps if you put aside your Walter Ostanek CD's you might notice these things...

The gender binary... so obvious a 4 year old gets it.

[msj]

I wasn't responding to you, was I? I was talking to American Woman and referring to a discussion that I've already had with American Woman in the veil thread.

So you just keep sitting in the corner laughing at things you don't understand and conversations that you're not a part of. Seriously.

Nice.

So your argument consists of a discussion in another thread for which you refuse to provide a link too?

Once again, you expect to be taken seriously?

[cybercoma]

I told her I've already provided her with mountains of evidence. You chimed in with your ridiculous attempt at flaming and I told you that I'm referring to the discussion AW and I had in the veil thread. You still need a link to the veil thread? If you can't click on "federal politics" and find the 600 page thread about Muslim women wearing veils, you're helpless. And quite frankly, I'm not interested in rehashing all of those arguments again here.

[msj]

I told her I've already provided her with mountains of evidence. You chimed in with your ridiculous attempt at flaming and I told you that I'm referring to the discussion AW and I had in the veil thread. You still need a link to the veil thread? If you can't click on "federal politics" and find the 600 page thread about Muslim women wearing veils, you're helpless. And quite frankly, I'm not interested in rehashing all of those arguments again here.

So now I'm expected to keep track of all of the threads that you and AW post to?

Calm down, take a look at your posts over the past couple of days, and stop wondering why I'm not taking you seriously anymore.

No, seriously, you've lost it.

[cybercoma]

Oh, sorry. I apologize for giving you the impression that I care whether you take me seriously or not.

[DogOnPorch]

Hey kids, it's time for that nasty Katy Huds Perry to sell herself again. The shame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5JD_zGi8U

Edited December 26, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[jefferiah]

To me, in the Elmo video, Katy Perry, while obviously quite attractive, comes across kinda deliberately dorky. She is not too cool to be a silly to entertain kids. I like that.

[Wild Bill]

I just find that the sight of an attractive and curvy woman is both a delight and a comfort!

If CC wins out it would be a bleak and cheerless world. He reminds me of some churches that don't believe in having sex while standing up, for fear it might lead to dancing.

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited December 26, 2011 by jefferiah

[msj]

Oh, sorry. I apologize for giving you the impression that I care whether you take me seriously or not.

It's one thing to agree to disagree with a person and it's another thing to be a complete a-hole.

[cybercoma]

I just find that the sight of an attractive and curvy woman is both a delight and a comfort!

If CC wins out it would be a bleak and cheerless world. He reminds me of some churches that don't believe in having sex while standing up, for fear it might lead to dancing.

I guess that would be the case if the only television available was Sesame Street, eh?

[cybercoma]

It's one thing to agree to disagree with a person and it's another thing to be a complete a-hole.

I was thinking the same thing with all of your insults.