[008]
74.215.214.104
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
@SeptimusHeap
My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I thought that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I\\\'ve said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don\\\'t have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won\\\'t bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
@SeptimusHeap
My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I thought that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I\\\'ve said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don\\\'t have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won\\\'t bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
@SeptimusHeap
My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I though that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I\\\'ve said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don\\\'t have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won\\\'t bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
@SeptimusHeap
My apologies for bringing this into the discussion, though I though that such things were allowed, because the place is called the Discussion Thread. Anywho, as I\\\'ve said before, my own issues with Feminism only seems to boil down to the parts of sex and sexuality, but other than that, I would find myself agreeing with them. However, because I don\\\'t have an issue with feminism as a whole, I won\\\'t bring it into the other forum, though if anyone still wishes to speak to me, I would much prefer it in personal messaging.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of argument many times before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual clothing without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; the truth is that no fictional character ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and has already been found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; let\\\'s be honest, no fictional ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and had found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; let\\\'s be honest, no fictional ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\'s \
to:
I\\\'ve seen this kind of case many times, before, and I still don\\\'t agree with it, and even find it problematic in its own right. Going by the sexy outfit analogy that\\\'s used above, many would like to argue that it\\\'s \\\"putting sexuality where it doesn\\\'t belong\\\" except the problem with this argument is that it fundamentally ignores and even downright dismisses the fact that human sexuality has evolved a lot beyond things like procreation, and had found and projected sexual attraction in areas that wouldn\\\'t normally be sexual. All of these paraphilias and fetishes didn\\\'t appear out of thin air from a different dimension and invaded the minds of humans; they came from within us as we evolved as a species. I\\\'m not arguing that it\\\'s fine to always have it be used in everything, whether it makes sense or not, but at the same time, I don\\\'t agree with it being restricted to one place and one place only either. The sexy outfit in adventuring/fighting is one such paraphilia(one that I admit to having), and I can offer and give in-universe reasons and justifications why such things are in it, but again, out of universe is always the big thing that comes into question; let\\\'s be honest, no fictional ever truly owns anything, because everything they had has been placed into them by the creator, and feminists have done the same thing regardless of reasons. These things always exist for the audience in someway, and when it comes to sexuality, however feminists and non-feminists use it, it still at the end used for audience appeal.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
The argument about using the sexuality thing for characters is problematic as well because also ignores a part about real-life people, who do do things that are otherwise sexual without the person themselves being sexual. To say that whenever a woman dresses sexually because she is being sexual, regardless of where it is s at, is falling into the same kind arguing that problematic people use to justify harassing women in the first place. Real life people do dress in sexual ways without actually being sexual in behavior, so I don\\\'t see why it can\\\'t be the same for fictional women, because otherwise it\\\'s turning into a case of trying to keep sex and sexuality hidden again instead of being out in the open without having to fear judgement, which is something I don\\\'t agree with. Is it oversaturized? Yes, I would agree it is, but I would still defend against it having to be shoved back and locked up in the bedroom again.
@ BoredAndBored: It would be nice to not make broad generalizations of feminism, but the problem is that it doesn\\\'t stop feminism from making the same kind of broad generalizations and monolithic assumptions about things, as well as taking things at face value instead of looking at the reasoning behind it as well. It\\\'s even a problem amongst some of the sex-positive feminism, who still put restrictions on people that can still be harmful. The part you wrote about me whether I\\\'m interested in feminism or not, is making the assumption that I don\\\'t know anything about feminism, which actually I have looked and read up on a lot of it, and I would actually agree with most of the stuff is said, but when it still comes to sex and sexuality(which is where I\\\'m trying to keep a hold of and empower myself in what I like in, while also desiring not to be judged by others for it), is where my disagreements with them happen. Just because I have an interest in it doesn\\\'t mean that I have to be agree with everything they say, and it doesn\\\'t mean that I can\\\'t still find things problematic in what they say too.
