What ya' think of Lady Gaga in meat?

[nismaratwork]

I really don't care if she lip synchs or not... I like product as released in album/studio form, and couldn't care less about anything else. Her authenticity is not an issue for me either; she could be authentic as hell and have a limited shelf-life in the industry, or an utter fraud and last forever. In the end I just think her music is fun for a while (Poker Face, Just Dance, Paparazzi, Telephone), but it gets old after a while. I don't see her formula being one which lasts, because in the end it takes enormous creativity and musical talent to keep a product fresh. MOST can't do it, and she'd need to prove herself to be the exception, so I default to: "she'll be gone in 5 years or so".

Unless you're insanely gifted, keeping pace with public demand and not disappointing them is nearly impossible. Her image is only relevant if people are listening to her music after all.

Vertices: What message? Any message of hers is part of selling a product, just like David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust. It's about some fun music... the rest is what people choose to make of it. As for what she says in an interview, who cares? If she's got a brain she has to pretend to be doing something other than imageering, but that's all it ever is in pop... that's part of what makes it pop. I also have to ask, how does being sexually aggressive degrade women, when the aggressor is a woman? This isn't "Get Low", she's just throwing around sexual imagery and innuendo because it sells.

 

[jackmell]

haha think you like the video! I like poker face and just dance - more catchy!

Yeah, I was listening to "Monster" just now. I like that one too.

 

[jackmell]

The fame monster makes great gym music(!)

As an aside, am I the only person to find some her lyrics a bit eye brow raising (eg. 'I'll get him hard show him what I got' or 'I want to take a ride on your disco stick').

I get her message that people should be proud to be different but it just seems to me a lot of what she does/says degrades women (the image in the OP being a case in point).

You got it. It's not so much the disco stick I have a problem with. Rather it's the "don't think too much" part I got an issue with.

 

[nismaratwork]

You got it. It's not so much the disco stick I have a problem with. Rather it's the "don't think too much" part that I got an issue with. That's a whole new thread.

It may well be a genuine reflection of her underdeveloped ethos... who knows. The issue really is that any woman would listen to that and take it to heart, much as any man would take the urging to "smack a **** with you dick" to heart. If you have so little respect for yourself and others that the lyrics of popular music sways you... yer doomed. I don't blame the circus for performing dangerous stunts, because it's a show... it's a carnival. I don't blame pop stars and rappers for their lyrics espousing or describing degrading practices for essentially the same reason. "Don't do this at home kids"...

 

[turbo]

Now you're just trying to go after her. Nearly every pop singer will have an accompanying back track to help fill the sound.

I'm not going after her. My very first exposure to her was when my wife turned on Oprah after jumping on her elliptical trainer while the performance was going on. She asked "Who is this?" and I said something like "Just another pop-tart lip-synching and dancing." It was obvious at the time, and true.

"Back track" is just a polite way of explaining that the performers cannot possibly dance and jump all around the place while reproducing the performances on their CDs, so they lip-synch. I haven't bought a single ZZTop CD since they threw the Black Crowes off their tour for revealing that "that little band from Texas" was "playing" over pre-taped tracks during their concerts. The dishonesty has been going on for a very long time (think 1960's TV shows) but then it was explained away as a commercial necessity because TV shows had tightly-scheduled commercial breaks. Clapton left the Yardbirds over this kind of dishonesty.

I don't care one little bit if people like Gaga's studio work, and want to buy CDs or digital downloads. That's fine, and a fair representation of her team's work. I think people should know that shelling out big bucks for live performances (if you really care about the music) is counter-productive. You will get mimed performances over previously-recorded tracks.

I am pretty heavily immersed in the live performance scene, and set a lot of store by it. One of the strengths of old rock and blues and jazz (played live) is that the genres lend themselves to lots of improvisation, so you get what you get. As Larry Coryell said, "That didn't come out like we intended, but that's jazz" or something to that effect. The statement is from his Fairyland LP. A killer jazz effort.

 

[GeorginaS]

My understanding of her is that she views herself as a performance artist and that everything she does in public she considers part of her art (music, acting, costuming, clothing design, etc). I dislike her music in general (not a fan of pop music in general), but I envy the way she takes her art to the extreme. I know it is not new, but to go all out and commit in that way is quite brave in my opinion.

Concerning this photo - I think the obvious interpretation is that posing, scantily clad, on the front of a magazine is presenting oneself as "meat," and then draping herself in meat is an acknowledgment and statement about being viewed only as meat. Just the obvious guess.

We have a very-close-to-winner here. Apparently she envisions herself as making some sort of statement with most visual choices she makes and some lyrical choices. She was on Ellen shortly after the MVAs wearing her "meat dress" and explained that both were tied to the reason that she had discharged gay military personnel accompany her to the awards ceremony. She claims that she's entirely opposed to denial of rights, and wanted to protest "don't ask, don't tell" by way of her escort. And topped that off with both the the meat magazine cover and meat dress as a way of saying, and I quote:

“Well, it’s certainly no disrespect to anyone that’s vegan or vegetarian….I, as you know, am the most judgment-free human being on Earth. However, it has many interpretations — but for me this evening it’s that if we don’t stand up for what we believe in, if we don’t fight for our rights, pretty soon we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones. AND, [holds up Japanese Vogue, on the cover of which Gaga appeared in a (real) meat bikini], I am not a piece of meat.”

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/09/13/ellen-grills-lady-gaga-about-vmas-meat-dress/"

So, well, she gets people talking. Her visual message is a little obscure to sort out just looking at it on its own without context. But there it is. I don't think its intent was sexual.

From her piano performance videos, it appears she has some talent. That sort of performing isn't making people world famous these days. Dance music, outrageous videos, scantily clad women gyrating about, that's what's selling in popular music these days. So I guess performers make the decision to live in virtual obscurity or do something to make themselves at least blend in if not stand out entirely. She does that.

I abhor her name. I refuse to say it out loud. I understand that she named herself after the Queen song, but I aesthetically, I can't deal with the noise my mouth has to make to say it. It bugs me. But her? She's doing what ambitious performers have been doing for a whole bunch of years now, distinguishing themselves from everyone else so they stand out. She's got great costume designers, and video directors, and publicity people who keep her name front and centre constantly. I can't say that I could identify her singing if I heard it, but, even though I've tried really hard not to, I still know "who" she is.

As a contrast, apparently Kate Perry is a "wildly popular" singer these days too. I had no clue that she sang until I read about it in something associated withe VMA show last night.

All this too shall pass. Lady Gaga is just another person outdoing everyone else to make people talk so that they shine front and centre. So, good for her. It's difficult to top so much of what's come before her.

 

[vertices]

I also have to ask, how does being sexually aggressive degrade women, when the aggressor is a woman? This isn't "Get Low", she's just throwing around sexual imagery and innuendo because it sells.

Well, take female porn 'actresses' - who you'd also consider "sexually aggressive" - they partake in a disgraceful industry, which is basically about the humiliation and degradation of women.

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, take female porn 'actresses' - who you'd also consider "sexually aggressive" - they partake in a disgraceful industry, which is basically about the humiliation and degradation of women.

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

You have issues with women and sex.

 

[DaveC426913]

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

The balance between art and pornography is subjective.

Perhaps she is depicting herself as meat. That could be a message. But what is the message? It may be commentary. Would you denigrate every song, poem and piece of written that uses similar reverse psychology? '...If ah want to push you around well I will I will...' Matchbox 20.

I'm not saying there's any value to the message, just that it is disingenuous to unilaterally declare it to be pornography.

 

[GeorginaS]

The balance between art and pornography is subjective.

Perhaps she is depicting herself as meat. That could be a message. But what is the message? It may be commentary. Would you denigrate every song, poem and piece of written that uses similar reverse psychology? '...If ah want to push you around well I will I will...' Matchbox 20.

I'm not saying there's any value to the message, just that it is disingenuous to unilaterally declare it to be pornography.

At the risk of being repetitive, this is from the horses' mouth what all of the meat-business is about.

“Well, it’s certainly no disrespect to anyone that’s vegan or vegetarian….I, as you know, am the most judgment-free human being on Earth. However, it has many interpretations — but for me this evening it’s that if we don’t stand up for what we believe in, if we don’t fight for our rights, pretty soon we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones. AND, [holds up Japanese Vogue, on the cover of which Gaga appeared in a (real) meat bikini], I am not a piece of meat.”

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/09/13/ellen-grills-lady-gaga-about-vmas-meat-dress/"

 

[jackmell]

Well, take female porn 'actresses' - who you'd also consider "sexually aggressive" - they partake in a disgraceful industry, which is basically about the humiliation and degradation of women.

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

She is a sex object as are all women. Common' dawg, I should even have to be tellin' you that. Now we can be politically correct in here, take the high-road and all, and deceive ourselves about what this really is, or consider the underlying and still quite influential biology which controls it. Pretty simple really: survival and reproductive success. That's what she wants even though she may not realize that now, but women in general for their offspring, and he wants her. So she seduces him with her sex appeal and her strength, her youth, health, and beauty. Men are taken by that, as they are with their hunter-instincts to survive. She represents the sexual component to his desire in his quest for reproductive success, and the meat draping upon her sensuous body, his survival instincts.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, take female porn 'actresses' - who you'd also consider "sexually aggressive" - they partake in a disgraceful industry, which is basically about the humiliation and degradation of women.

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

Yeah... Cyrus has the main point here, but I'm going to add to this:

Porn stars and strippers can sell whatever line they want about the reasons for doing what they do, but psychology and various surveys and studies make it pretty clear that they're birds with broken wings. The degrading aspect of that line of work enters (no pun) when you have some drug addicted chippie humping a pole for tips. I'm sure there must be SOME stripper or porn star trying to get through college, but most have a history of abuse, neglect, or other trauma.

The same cannot be said for pop stars, although some do have such a history. Personally, I think the desire for fame is a bit mad, but it's a personal decision even if it also seems that the need for validation through acclaim is also motivated by more than always meets the eye.

All of that having been said, the only degradation involved in fame, politics, porn, or saaay... banking... is personal. Women as a whole are degraded and treated poorly without any help from pornography, so pinning that as some cultural failing is absurd. Would you rather be a women living in a country where you have no rights, your genitals will be maimed as a young teen, but oh joy... porn gets you executed? Yeah, I didn't think so.

As for Lady Gaga somehow making herself a sex object... yeah... she does it at a level that's no more extreme than men and women do in bathing suits, and she does it for TONS of money and fame she's been seeking. I'd say what she does isn't degrading, especially compared to being saaaay... a member of congress. The meat-suit is a publicity stunt, or a personal statement, or both. No pimp or dealer or tortured past stuffed (ha!) her into a meat-suit... she chose that to stir up a little news, and it worked! I'm not offended or shocked, but even I wanted to see what it looked like, and people like yourself who are outraged are an even bigger boon to her.

Personally, and this may just be me, I don't really see Lady Gaga as particularly attractive... she's more of a weird-fashion object than a sex object, and all of that is secondary to her music. If you doubt me, then find a pretty hooker, dress her in a meat costume, and see how that goes in terms of selling records. Oh, and what Cyrus said... you have real issues with women!

 

[nismaratwork]

She is a sex object as are all women. Common' dawg, I should even have to be tellin' you that. Now we can be politically correct in here, take the high-road and all, and deceive ourselves about what this really is, or consider the underlying and still quite influential biology which controls it. Pretty simple really: survival and reproductive success. That's what she wants even though she may not realize that now, but women in general for their offspring, and he wants her. So she seduces him with her sex appeal and her strength, her youth, health, and beauty. Men are taken by that, as they are with their hunter-instincts to survive. She represents the sexual component to his desire in his quest for reproductive success, and the meat draping upon her sensuous body, his survival instincts.

All women are sex objects?... OK...

What about Margaret Thatcher? Susan Boyle? Star Jones? Yes? No?

How about: all men lust after some women, and in their minds they think of some women as only objects of desire. The reverse is certainly true as well, but putting that aside, do you understand the difference between being lusted after and being nothing, but a sex-object?

 

[rootX]

Well, take female porn 'actresses' - who you'd also consider "sexually aggressive" - they partake in a disgraceful industry, which is basically about the humiliation and degradation of women.

LG by wearing 'meat' depicts herself a sex object (ie. meat), not a human being. This isn't 'art' - it's just vile pornography.

Nonsense.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nonsense.

Or you could just say that... I prefer the multi-paragraph approach. :rofl:

Still... well said, and no less true for being brief.

 

[rootX]

Porn stars and strippers can sell whatever line they want about the reasons for doing what they do, but psychology and various surveys and studies make it pretty clear that they're birds with broken wings. The degrading aspect of that line of work enters (no pun) when you have some drug addicted chippie humping a pole for tips. I'm sure there must be SOME stripper or porn star trying to get through college, but most have a history of abuse, neglect, or other trauma.

Those problems occur due to the public attitude towards this industry which leaves women in the hands of pimps. Industry itself is no worse/unethical than any other industry IMO.

There are several articles about like following but I could not find one I was looking for (Europe attempts in making this industry healthy and free from pimps):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7735908.stm

In my country while prostitution is legal; however, due to restrictions on open advertisements there are some serious concerns about the women in this industry.

 

[nismaratwork]

Those problems occur due to the public attitude towards this industry which leaves women in the hands of pimps. Industry itself is no worse/unethical than any other industry IMO.

There are several articles about like following but I could not find one I was looking for (Europe attempts in making this industry healthy and free from pimps):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7735908.stm

In my country while prostitution is legal; however, due to restrictions on open advertisements there are some serious concerns about the women in this industry.

Maybe... certainly the industry as a whole is no worse than having kids work in sweat-shops to make cheap shoes...

That said, prostitution is a bit different from stripping or porn, in that when criminalized you do tend to get an extreme marginal element that's abused by pimps, and drug dealers, as you say. Regulation of the sex industry does seem to minimize that abuse, but male or female, it seems that prostitution, stripping, and porn goes hand in hand with a history of trauma, sexual abuse, neglect, and other negative factors. The industry doesn't create the problem, or even make it worse necessarily, but for my personal tastes, I don't like going to a strip joint; the two times I have I just cataloged the personality disorders, PTSD, and other issues these girls had. If you can read body language and facial expressions well, it's almost physically painful to see, and often the same goes for porn.

HOWEVER... that is all PERSONAL degradation, and not degradation initiated by porn or stripping or prostitution; the problems begin with drugs, abuse, etc. None of it should be construed as Vertices has; that it's degrading to all women. Men are the majority of pedophiles and murderers, but that is still a personal issue for each criminal, not some kind of insult against the gender. Some things just ARE, and unless we achieve some social utoptia, the best we can hope is that more countries follow your country's lead and attempt to ameliorate the pain as much as possible.

 

[vertices]

nismaratwork:

I shouldn't have to tell you why porn is degrading to women - its obvious. When you have a situation where a man (or a group of men) 'enter' a woman's most personal and private space, for other men to ogle and drool at, this is clearly an example of degradation. The fact porn stars make tonnes of money doesn't make it any less degrading.

You may not find that image of LG attractive, but the I'm sure the first thought that comes to mind for many is, "wouldn't I like some of that meat!".

 

[jackmell]

You may not find that image of LG attractive, but the I'm sure the first thought that comes to mind for many is, "wouldn't I like some of that meat!".

. . . and the second, and the third . . . raw, sensuous, and Darwinian. I mean, it's like two birds with one stone: sex, AND a full belly. That's pretty much what men want and we need to want that if hominids are to continue. It's all a matter of biology as I see it.

I'd take a taste. Nothing trashy like removing a piece from her private parts but well, lil' piece from her stomach, lil' bit from her . . . . thigh. Yum, kobe.

 

[nismaratwork]

nismaratwork:

I shouldn't have to tell you why porn is degrading to women - its obvious. When you have a situation where a man (or a group of men) 'enter' a woman's most personal and private space, for other men to ogle and drool at, this is clearly an example of degradation. The fact porn stars make tonnes of money doesn't make it any less degrading.

You may not find that image of LG attractive, but the I'm sure the first thought that comes to mind for many is, "wouldn't I like some of that meat!".

You have DEEP issues man, really really deep issues. The first thought was, "Wow, way to get a really really nasty food-borne illness", followed by the less erudite, "YECH!". Then there was a riff on the theme, "why?!", followed by, "Meh, who cares *flips channel*".

I think the first thought for most others would be, "GROSS", and if at some point they made a sexual connection I would question what turns them on. You could wrap Catherine Zeta Jones (whom I do find deeply attractive) in the same suit, and I'd be so deeply turned off it would hurt.

To address your first point, DAMN you have serious issue with women. "most personal and private space"... do you mean her genitals or her secure server? You're building your disgust on a series of assumptions, which begin with the notion that sex is degrading when witnessed. As I've said, what makes it potentially degrading is that the women in question are rarely doing what they do for reasons anyone would construe as healthy or "free". If you construct the image of a woman who simply chooses the pornographic profession with no history of abuse etc... then it's her choice. In the most literal sense, nothing is taken from women through porn, but if men come to see women as objects as a result, there is a LITERAL degradation of their capacity to live in the world and perceive others.

Here's some free advice; whenever you have to preface something with, "it's obvious", or "I shouldn't have to tell you": it isn't, and you should. That's a sign that your argument is based on preconceived notions that may not be shared, not logic.

Jackmell: Yeah, we get it, you're a caveman, but fortunately everyone else isn't.

 

[lisab]

Strange topic, strange thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Strange topic, strange thread.

Truly... you know, as a woman I'd like to hear your views on this one. I have my own, but I'm still a guy, which means that my view is somewhat less relevant given the gender which is most involved. Maybe Vertices is right and I have a lot of personal growth to attain?

 

[cristo]

Gaga claims that she doesn't lip-synch and never will.

It's pretty obvious that she isn't lip-synching there (if you listen to the 30 or so seconds before her dropping the mic, it's definitely live). As Greg says, most pop stars have backing track and, in essence, it's nothing more than having backing singers. Besides, the show is not only about the music, it's about the performance. Sure, if she was standing on the spot singing and needed a backing track then it would be pretty bad, but she's running around, jumping on things, dancing, and so it's pretty impossible to sing at the same time. Hence the backing track, and the need for having lines laid down on the backing track to fill in gaps.

I don't see what the issue is -- it's quite obvious that she has some talent!

 

[nismaratwork]

It's pretty obvious that she isn't lip-synching there (if you listen to the 30 or so seconds before her dropping the mic, it's definitely live). As Greg says, most pop stars have backing track and, in essence, it's nothing more than having backing singers. Besides, the show is not only about the music, it's about the performance. Sure, if she was standing on the spot singing and needed a backing track then it would be pretty bad, but she's running around, jumping on things, dancing, and so it's pretty impossible to sing at the same time. Hence the backing track, and the need for having lines laid down on the backing track to fill in gaps.

I don't see what the issue is -- it's quite obvious that she has some talent!

How DARE you drag this thread back to a reasonable and music-related topic?! :rofl:

Oh, and yeah, take Pink for instance... she has a great voice, but synchs sometimes when she's doing (literally) acrobatics. I don't see the problem.

 

[jackmell]

Jackmell: Yeah, we get it, you're a caveman, but fortunately everyone else isn't.

It's not (very) unusual to eat sushi off a young woman's body. She's in the middle of the table, naked, with sushi arranged attractively all over her body, not face and all the people sit around and help themselves. So, Gaga, table, lots of makeup though, sorry girl, sushi, and some nice cuts of kobe beef. I hear it's quite tasty raw.

 

[Cyrus]

It's not (very) unusual to eat sushi off a young woman's body. She's in the middle of the table, naked, with sushi arranged attractively all over her body, not face and all the people sit around and help themselves. So, Gaga, table, lots of makeup though, sorry girl, sushi, and some nice cuts of kobe beef. I hear it's quite tasty raw.

I was about to go to one of those things where you eat sushi off a naked woman last year, but I had a mid term exam for a graduate class...woe is me. But thanks for reminding me about this, I got to find out if/when they have one again!

 

[nismaratwork]

It's not (very) unusual to eat sushi off a young woman's body. She's in the middle of the table, naked, with sushi arranged attractively all over her body, not face and all the people sit around and help themselves. So, Gaga, table, lots of makeup though, sorry girl, sushi, and some nice cuts of kobe beef. I hear it's quite tasty raw.

Kobe beef is delicious raw, sliced VERY thin, and generally not at room temp being worn as a suit. I have to say, I'd rather take my sushi and naked women in that order, and not together as a unit. Have a nice meal, and then a date... the other is to me, just a bit creepy.

 

[DaveC426913]

I shouldn't have to tell you why porn is degrading to women - its obvious. When you have a situation where a man (or a group of men) 'enter' a woman's most personal and private space, for other men to ogle and drool at, this is clearly an example of degradation. The fact porn stars make tonnes of money doesn't make it any less degrading.

1] You have no business deciding for soemone else whether they are degrading themselves. That is their call and theirs alone.

2] The definiton of sexism is to group people by their gender and make generalizations about what that group thinks or does. ("Women are emotionally clingy." See?) To suggest that "all women are degraded" is to corral them into one group and generalize them. That's just as sexist as claimnig they're all clingy.

To avoid sexism (or any kind of ism), you must treat individuals as individuals. The only way to know how an individual feels is to must ask them.



That stripper on that stage can no more represent "all women" than I can represent "all white people" by writing a skinhead diatribe.

 

[vertices]

1] You have no business deciding for soemone else whether they are degrading themselves. That is their call and theirs alone.

2] The definiton of sexism is to group people by their gender and make generalizations about what that group thinks or does. ("Women are emotionally clingy." See?) To suggest that "all women are degraded" is to corral them into one group and generalize them. That's just as sexist as claimnig they're all clingy.

To avoid sexism (or any kind of ism), you must treat individuals as individuals. The only way to know how an individual feels is to must ask them.

Women (or people in general) should be free to do whatever they like as long their actions don't harm others (or themselves). But feminists would argue that a statistically signficant number of porn stars do go on to have serious mental health issues, and more significantly, their work reinforces ridiculous, socially constructed notions such as those espoused by jackmell (which basically serves as an egregious justification for rape).

 

[Proton Soup]

Now you're just trying to go after her. Nearly every pop singer will have an accompanying back track to help fill the sound. It's all about the performance. Take her for what she is. She's no Whitney or Mariah, but she has some talent.

she sings better than me, i'll give her that

 

[nucleargirl]

man! people really do get worked up about this!
ok here's what she said (just watched the Ellen show interviewng her) and it is like this:
people who don't fight for their rights are eventually only going to have as much rights as the meat on their bones. so she's trying to tell us we should stand up for what we believe in.
its probs to do with some gay people not being allowed in the army law that she's trying to get banned?

 

[Proton Soup]

even her "art" is boring.

but it serves the purpose. it gets her on Ellen to explain it, gets free publicity, and gets bank.

best of all, it plays well to teenyboppers, just like all the menstruation imagery.

 

[nismaratwork]

even her "art" is boring.

but it serves the purpose. it gets her on Ellen to explain it, gets free publicity, and gets bank.

best of all, it plays well to teenyboppers, just like all the menstruation imagery.

Naturally, she's her own product, and she has to sell it, and not only on Ellen; this has been on the news cycling over 24 hours. In the absence of a new album, what else is there, right? Her new thing was a very odd pair of... claw... shoes she wore: we're already on to the next "gaga".

DaveC: Well said, but Vertices seems a bit too convinced of his own moral rectitude to allow women to decide for themselves what is or is not degrading. Note that in his posts, he doesn't seem to find men having sex on camera degrading to all men, for the same reason that it is (to him) for women, or by representing men as "carnal beasts"... and pizza delivery men.

Vertices: In your own very PC way, you're pigeonholing women by making these broad statements about what degrades them or not. I also may not agree with Jackmell... in fact I'm pretty sure that I don't... but he seems to be making a dispassionate argument about human nature, not the "she was asking for it" argument. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me, but based on his other posts I'd be shocked if he were saying anything other than "men are horny, women use that to their advantage." I think that's still ignoring the male end of the same spectrum as well as the disadvantageous nature of that arrangement. That being said, it's far from saying that women are objects to be "taken".

YOU on the other hand, should recognize that there is a vast difference between feminism, and the simple desire that all people be treated fairly and with respect. Feminists, in the literal "radical feminist" sense no more speak for women than PETA currently speaks for animal rights supporters. I LOVE animals, but PETA is insane...

Personally, I was raised such that I find most pornography, all stripping and prostitution depressing, and not erotic. I think of the degradation of self that led the women and men involved (and buddy, you're ignoring gay male porn in addition to straight men in porn) to cross strong cultural norms and use their bodies as a means of currency. If you show me someone in that business who isn't, for lack of a better term, f***ed up, I'll be into that one person... haven't seen that person though.

You're focused on an image you believe is projected on an entire gender, rather than the plight of an individual. In essence, you're inventing victims where none exist, and ignoring the ones that DO exist; relish the irony.

 

[nismaratwork]

she sings better than me, i'll give her that

So you're not Susan Boyle then? I'm crushed sir!

 

[leroyjenkens]

Perhaps this will put things in more perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3aQRzAOy7Y

I wish I was powerful, influential and could captivate millions of people around the universe by doing that.