Post: #26

I got 1 minute in and turned it off. Why do 'empowered' women think endless sarcasm and snark is some higher form of enlightened comedy? Sarcasm is OK now and again, but to be around someone who is constantly being sarcastic is extremely annoying.

A few women posted this on FB this morning. As expected beta orbiters jumped in with their thoughts. Unfortuately, the girl who posted it is actually lovely; Attractive and not a slut whatsoever. However, she moved to America 4 years ago so perhaps she's different now. I'm assuming these chaps commenting are also American:



This is 'Jesse':



If you go to a site where the video was posted and read the comments section, this is the second highest rated, with 0 negative arrows:



Have you seen what he's saying? He is of the opinion that this is some kind of intellectually excellent piece of work to challenge and and provoke debate.

Quote:That fact they've used it in a humorous, catchy and ultimately amusing way that is appealing to modern society was extremely smart

Post: #27

Huffington Post article:

'Defined Lines' Is The Robin Thicke 'Blurred Lines' Parody That Trumps All Others

Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" may have been unofficially declared one of the songs of the summer, but we're happy to end the season with this amazing parody of the decidedly sexist hit.

In response to the criticism surrounding "Blurred Lines," an Auckland University student group, the Law Revue Girls, created "Defined Lines." The parody reverses the original video's gender roles in an attempt to "define those supposedly 'blurred lines'" and declares: "What you see on TV / Doesn't speak equality / It's straight up misogyny." We could not love it more.

"The message really is just that we think that women should be treated equally, and as part of that, we're trying to address the culture of objectifying women in music videos," Olivia Lubbock, one of the women featured in the video, told the AAP.

The Independent reported that "Defined Lines" was removed from YouTube briefly on Monday after being flagged for "inappropriate" sexual content, but has since been restored. Lubbock called the video's removal a "massive double standard," since the models in Thicke's original video are arguably far more sexualized.

"It's just funny that the response has been so negative when you flip it around and objectify males," Lubbock told the AAP.

We're glad YouTube put "Defined Lines" back up. This is one music video the masses should see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03...ostpopular

Most of the comments are equally retarded.

Post: #28

What these feminists fail to see time and time again is that the women in music videos WANT to be objectified. Why? Because they're models! Of course, most female decisions are unacceptable to modern feminists, thus meaning that their hollow ideology needs to be resigned to the dustbin.

Post: #29

Quote:Lubbock called the video's removal a "massive double standard," since the models in Thicke's original video are arguably far more sexualized.

Idiot. The issue is how easy it is to abuse a mostly-automated takedown system that relies on end-user policing.

Post: #30

Regarding protecting women's feelings (this time, in the workplace and related to appearance), Listen to this (9:02-10:13). Interesting.

http://www.thebroadexperience.com/listen...image.html

Post: #31

(09-05-2013 04:40 AM)Teedub Wrote:  What these feminists fail to see time and time again is that the women in music videos WANT to be objectified. Why? Because they're models! Of course, most female decisions are unacceptable to modern feminists, thus meaning that their hollow ideology needs to be resigned to the dustbin.

"What these feminists fail to see time and time again is that the women in music videos WANT to be objectified. Why? Because they're models!"

Yes, but take that a step further. As my ex once said, "ALL women want to be objectified and the ones that say they don't are liars or ugly."

I think most of the reason so many older women are on anti-depressants today are that men stopped objectifying them and they're in a depression because they feel "invisible." You're either sexy or invisible to men. There's no middle ground. If we like your "for your mind" we're either purposely ignoring your looks or you don't have any looks, but they're the subtext either way.

Post: #32

(09-05-2013 04:40 AM)Teedub Wrote:  What these feminists fail to see time and time again is that the women in music videos WANT to be objectified. Why? Because they're models!

If there a far greater validation of a woman's beauty than being able to be objectified? Why aren't they allowed to find personal fulfilment and empowerment from their beauty in the same way feminists can from their wage slave careers and cats?

Once again, #solidarityisforunattractivewomen

Post: #33

There was a few mentions of the film Magic Mike and how men didn't complain about it. That's right, even the ugliest beta gimps on planet earth did not form Tumblr pages to rant about it. Shows you the differences between ugly men and ugly women, or at least how one group is encouraged to embrace victimhood.

Post: #34

(09-05-2013 03:27 PM)Teedub Wrote:  There was a few mentions of the film Magic Mike and how men didn't complain about it. That's right, even the ugliest beta gimps on planet earth did not form Tumblr pages to rant about it. Shows you the differences between ugly men and ugly women, or at least how one group is encouraged to embrace victimhood.

Exactly.

I'm FUCKING SICK of this shit.

What Feminists and their wimpy barely-male supporters keep failing to point out is men have been sexually-objectified by the media for the majority of my life.

In Australia, Women's Magazine Cleo started having nude male cheesecake centerfolds in the 1970's. It was sold unrestricted. Male strippers also became a thing with the Chippendales in the 70's. The Diet Coke Commericals of the mid-eighties were famous for their ripped male models, so much so, that they've recently brought back a campaign to pay homage to it. Since more women buy products than men, the majority of ads either feature objectified men or 'dumb' men.

Even in the early 90's, every female friend or girlfriend I met had male cheesecake posters or calender in her room. I knew a girl who was obsessed with Hugo Boss ads, (impossibly handsome men in suits).

The late 80's and 90's started objectifying rugby league and AFL players with sexy commercials and photoshoots. I was friend with a sports photographer in the early 90's, and I asked why every shot of rugby players seemed to involve water, and he responded "Women associate water and wetness with sex. The shots of them pouring water on themselves or in the pool are to sell them as sex symbols to women."

Every male movie and television star seems more likely to be objectified than a woman, and you can tell when they're being set up for the female and gay gaze because they've waxed off every trace of body hair. Even in 'Blurred Lines', the tits aren't lingered on the way a male's body is in a mainstream show aimed at women and gays, like 'True Blood'.

So when a weak 'parody' like this comes along, which basically amounts to "Ha! Ha! We're objectifying men! How does it feel guys?", I just have to wonder about the pathetic intelligence behind the 'statement'. Male objectification has been the cultural norm for a good forty years or more, yet they act like it's they're still blazing a trail through the wilderness.