Silver tears> the male sex drive is stronger therefore likely to be more intimidating. Also men are more aroused by visual stimuli than women are so there is a demand for that sort of thing.
What's wrong with talking about rape? It is like talking about murder--both are bad, both exist in this screwed up world, but people are more willing to talk about murder or domestic violence than they are rape. Perhaps it is only me, but I find discussing sexual things not uncomfortable (especially over the Internet), particularly after going through Biology, Human Biology, and learning about the sexual response cycle in AP Psychology.
Oh, and the whole Viagra-rape thing...I was under the impression that Viagra didn't work that way. I'd say more, but that would probably be a violation of the "PG-13" guidelines.
Originally posted by yerssotyerss knows the timing 😛
heard that it takes an hour before it works... that's typicly women then... planning everything in great detail 😂
Originally posted by FeceManbut I'm curious 🙁
Oh, and the whole Viagra-rape thing...I was under the impression that Viagra didn't work that way. I'd say more, but that would probably be a violation of the "PG-13" guidelines.
Originally posted by yerssot
I'm sorry Line but I heavily disagree with you.About the first part, there are plenty of statues in ancient greece that depict nude and semi-nude males, so you can say that men has been an object for males/females eyes too. But in the middle ages that idea changed due to war; plague; etc. and artists focused back on females, preferably fat ones to express their hope for a better time. So it's more of a history/culture thing then just simply seeing someone as an object. (that is what I understand from your post, please correct me if I'm mistaken?)
secondly... there ARE female rapists, you are very wrong about this. A simply google-search brought this article up from BBC News (UK):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1319211.stm
There is even a book available by Moira Lines called "Victim of a female rapist".
This of course doesn't take away that it's a "men's job" sort of speak but that it's not only by men either.
the day you stop disagreeing, I'll be very disappointed in you, yerss 😉
yes, men have been objects in that sense and still are. the difference is that, as you point out yourself, these sculptures were intended for the male eye. you mention the female eye, but I doubt that, since most greek sculptures are nude. women weren't allowed to watch sports because the participants were naked, so I doubt they were expected to watch the sculptures too. this is pure speculation though, and I expect you to be better informed on this matter than me.
another difference is that the sculptures were made by men for men. they were usually placed in an active position to show strength and speed, where women, who are depicted by men, are usually seen as passive. there's a big difference whether the object is a fantasy made by a person of the opposite sex, or whether it's an object idolizing the traits of the 'ruling majority'.
I agree that it has a lot to do with history and culture and when I said that woman as an object had always existed I was a bit too fast. I meant that women as an object for the male eye has existed since the beginning of patriarchal society. before this society there existed pictures and sculptures of women as active individuals with a function in society that didn't have to do with them just being pleasant to the eye; goddesses, priestesses, etc. but when men became the rulers they were given the 'right' to depict women. they became the artists, painters, writers. women were degraded to passive objects for the male, artistic eye, as well as the male eye of the audience. when a male depict a male, he depicts an equal. that's not the case when he depicts a woman.
rape is forcing another person to have sex. whether this is possible for a woman is highly debated. I don't really think it is. viagra was mentioned on this thread, and maybe this drug has proven a way out for wanna be female rapists. I don't know to be honest. what I do know is that women don't have a dick. that it's ultimately the male who's in control of his own dick and that the woman, should she want to rape him, must sort of 'persuade him' in order to do so. it gets very complicated and very tricky and since rape is a matter of control and anger, I doubt the long process a female rapist must go through in order to force herself upon a man isn't ultimately what she wants.
lets pray that day will never come 😉
I'm sure that I did not intend to say that they were solely for the male eye, I'm sure that at given time periods some females that walked past them enjoyed looking at them too. After all, women enjoy art, no?
(Evy can feel free to correct me on this one) but my understanding was that the women weren't supposed to participate in the Olympics because it was bad. The whole naked idea of yours is false since in 776 BC at the first games, the nude-rule wasn't there yet and a female won a discipline; THAT caused the rule.
and if I'm not mistaken, one got coached by his mom and sis, but don't hold me to that ...
Well, this is all rather vague in my memory (except for the naked-rule since our professor made some jokes about it which I still remember) but then again, if someone knows it better, it's evy 🙂
I'm not sure that I follow you on which sculptures you mean here... If you look at the sculptures in ancient Greek, you have at the very start of it, called the Archaic period, the art-flow pre-classic which featured what we call the Kouros and the Korei, male and female standing passively. The only "action" in the sculptures came later in more the Hellenistical periods with pieces as the Hermes. But my knowledge on those sculptures is rather limited. I believe you might be referring to The Discus Thrower, which happens to be male for the fact that the sculptor wanted to show perfect lines and movement. The most easiest thing for him to do was to create someone who did sports, which would be male. He had no other choice since there were no females allowed to do this.
That is a difference of interpretation, you say he picked a guy to show it, I say he showed it and had to pick a guy...
Are you sure that women might be more than just a doll before patriarchal society? at the very earliest, archaeologists found sculptures of goddesses (and none were male) with big hips, big breasts and a huge butt (the fertility goddesses). Depending on their own religious believes and IF it were indeed fertility goddesses you are either right or wrong about it. It might be that this could be the very first porno graphical images that mankind made. (or so described in a book I read)
I'm also not very knowledgeable about Chinese history, but I do know that the first warrior ever recorded was female, she had an army of 30 000 men (which is bigger then the army of my country btw) and was feared throughout the country and worshipped by the poor as their savior. It also depends on the time period, closer to home, you had Jean D'Arc, mocked by the English, praised by the poor French, doubted at first by the Dauphin. There are pictures of her where she is an equal and is shown commanding the army and others where she is mocked at. Everything has two sides here... but yes, in general terms speaking you are correct... but then again, I have something against general terms 😉
I'm sorry, Line, but why is it to you debatable if a woman can force someone to have sex with her? (if I started the Viagra thing, I know I posted about it, it was intended as a joke btw)
y'know, if you have to get a shot in your arm, the doctor or nurse taps on your vein there, to make it pop right? well, why not do the same with the male genital? (I lack the experience to stand by this of course) but I mean, it's not because you think it's debatable that it doesn't exist as it clearly does, only problem is the lack of records being kept by this.
Originally posted by Line
the day you stop disagreeing, I'll be very disappointed in you, yerss 😉yes, men have been objects in that sense and still are. the difference is that, as you point out yourself, these sculptures were intended for the male eye. you mention the female eye, but I doubt that, since most greek sculptures are nude. women weren't allowed to watch sports because the participants were naked, so I doubt they were expected to watch the sculptures too. this is pure speculation though, and I expect you to be better informed on this matter than me.
another difference is that the sculptures were made by men for men. they were usually placed in an active position to show strength and speed, where women, who are depicted by men, are usually seen as passive. there's a big difference whether the object is a fantasy made by a person of the opposite sex, or whether it's an object idolizing the traits of the 'ruling majority'.
I agree that it has a lot to do with history and culture and when I said that woman as an object had always existed I was a bit too fast. I meant that women as an object for the male eye has existed since the beginning of patriarchal society. before this society there existed pictures and sculptures of women as active individuals with a function in society that didn't have to do with them just being pleasant to the eye; goddesses, priestesses, etc. but when men became the rulers they were given the 'right' to depict women. they became the artists, painters, writers. women were degraded to passive objects for the male, artistic eye, as well as the male eye of the audience. when a male depict a male, he depicts an equal. that's not the case when he depicts a woman.rape is forcing another person to have sex. whether this is possible for a woman is highly debated. I don't really think it is. Viagra was mentioned on this thread, and maybe this drug has proven a way out for wanna be female rapists. I don't know to be honest. what I do know is that women don't have a dick. that it's ultimately the male who's in control of his own dick and that the woman, should she want to rape him, must sort of 'persuade him' in order to do so. it gets very complicated and very tricky and since rape is a matter of control and anger, I doubt the long process a female rapist must go through in order to force herself upon a man isn't ultimately what she wants.
Originally posted by yerssot
lets pray that day will never come 😉I'm sure that I did not intend to say that they were solely for the male eye, I'm sure that at given time periods some females that walked past them enjoyed looking at them too. After all, women enjoy art, no?
(Evy can feel free to correct me on this one) but my understanding was that the women weren't supposed to participate in the Olympics because it was bad. The whole naked idea of yours is false since in 776 BC at the first games, the nude-rule wasn't there yet and a female won a discipline; THAT caused the rule.
and if I'm not mistaken, one got coached by his mom and sis, but don't hold me to that ...
Well, this is all rather vague in my memory (except for the naked-rule since our professor made some jokes about it which I still remember) but then again, if someone knows it better, it's evy 🙂I'm not sure that I follow you on which sculptures you mean here... If you look at the sculptures in ancient Greek, you have at the very start of it, called the Archaic period, the art-flow pre-classic which featured what we call the Kouros and the Korei, male and female standing passively. The only "action" in the sculptures came later in more the Hellenistical periods with pieces as the Hermes. But my knowledge on those sculptures is rather limited. I believe you might be referring to The Discus Thrower, which happens to be male for the fact that the sculptor wanted to show perfect lines and movement. The most easiest thing for him to do was to create someone who did sports, which would be male. He had no other choice since there were no females allowed to do this.
That is a difference of interpretation, you say he picked a guy to show it, I say he showed it and had to pick a guy...Are you sure that women might be more than just a doll before patriarchal society? at the very earliest, archaeologists found sculptures of goddesses (and none were male) with big hips, big breasts and a huge butt (the fertility goddesses). Depending on their own religious believes and IF it were indeed fertility goddesses you are either right or wrong about it. It might be that this could be the very first porno graphical images that mankind made. (or so described in a book I read)
I'm also not very knowledgeable about Chinese history, but I do know that the first warrior ever recorded was female, she had an army of 30 000 men (which is bigger then the army of my country btw) and was feared throughout the country and worshipped by the poor as their savior. It also depends on the time period, closer to home, you had Jean D'Arc, mocked by the English, praised by the poor French, doubted at first by the Dauphin. There are pictures of her where she is an equal and is shown commanding the army and others where she is mocked at. Everything has two sides here... but yes, in general terms speaking you are correct... but then again, I have something against general terms 😉
I'm sorry, Line, but why is it to you debatable if a woman can force someone to have sex with her? (if I started the Viagra thing, I know I posted about it, it was intended as a joke btw)
y'know, if you have to get a shot in your arm, the doctor or nurse taps on your vein there, to make it pop right? well, why not do the same with the male genital? (I lack the experience to stand by this of course) but I mean, it's not because you think it's debatable that it doesn't exist as it clearly does, only problem is the lack of records being kept by this.
if the prayers are directed at you, we'll be quite sure they're heard 😉
(sorry. someone just unplugged the computer when I was half way through my reply, so please bare with me - I'm a bit riled 😒 )
not at all. as a matter of fact, you were stating just the opposite. I was the one questioning whether they were indeed intended for the female eye, since women weren't allowed to watch the sports events with all the lovely, naked men (even though this nude-rule didn't exist right from the beginning, it was still, if I understand your post correctly, made to avoid women participating in, and watching the sports events, which indicates a norm that women weren't allowed to behold the wonderful, male nude. whether this was true with regards to the sculptures, I don't know. and yes, women like arts, but in a patriarchal society, and this is what I'm getting at with all this, men are the one's providing the art, that is, the art is their interpretation of everything, including gender. to a man in a patriarchal society, women symbolizes 'otherness'. she's defined by 'everything that is not male', and since what is regarded male in such a society has to do with physical strength and speed, activity, the ability to take action and be in control, the woman must necessarily be the exact opposite: passive, inactive. this is where she's forced into the part of the inactive object in relation to the active male subject. arh, heck, I need to burst this ... ehm ... what's the word ... this : ) bursted.
with all of this I'm not intending to say that men are not made to be objects. the sculptures I had in mind in my previous post were those you call hellenistic ( I'd forgotten that word completely and now welcome it back. thanks 😉 ) the ones depicting men from greek mythology as well as men doing sports. these are examples of men as objects to other men's gaze. they're male fantasies of the male body, the patriarchal ideal, as well as the female sculptures represent the ideal woman in a patriarchal view.
I agree that he had to pick a guy to show agility and strength. the greeks were at that time fascinated by the male body, because it made it possible to depict these abilities. but this also suggests a norm concerning men as active and strong. women weren't allowed to do sports, therefore they couldn't develop muscular bodies. again: the male norms, the male eye, decided what the genders were to look like.
concerning the dolls: adult play things or religious remedies, who knows? maybe there isn't even such a big difference after all. look at the paintings in some of our churches from the middle ages; they're quite pornographic.
anyways, my point with these small sculptures (and paintings for that matter), should they be more than butt, breast and vagina, was that they suggest women as being active and having a certain status in society. this means that they're not just objects, but part of the 'subjects' having created these objects. therefore it is not only the male eye that has created them, but the female too.
but look at these female warriors; are they real women? or male fantasies? look at kill bill for example. a butt kicking woman, who, wearing lovely, tight fitted clothes, swings a sword (freud would have been so happy) at everything, as well as spanks little boys over her knee and in the end is 'castrated', made 'not dangerous' and handed over to the role as mummy. she's, in short, a very male fantasy. I believe that jean d'arch to some extend fulfills the same role as a dangerous fantasy, made undangerous (and thus feminine) in the end. I believe that is one of the reasons, her story's been so successful; beautiful, feminine, dangerous. definitely a male fantasy. definitely an object for the male fantasy (and with the film, to the male eye too).
to sum it up: this thread's about women in modern films, wearing next to nothing. women being young and beautiful, whereas men are allowed to be old and ugly. it doesn't matter, course their sex appeal lies in their ability to be the active 'subject'. the woman, on the other hand, is still not regarded entirely as a subject. she's still not judged on her abilities. beauty is still a must for her, simply because she's still regarded as a an object.
but you don't know a way to make the penis 'pop', do you? still, you say that men being raped by women isn't impossible and that it's only because it's not been sufficiently reported that so little attention is drawn to it? if I understood this correctly, then we're basically on the same, debatable side. I'm not gonna dispute that it can happen. I just don't think it's very likely, and I just don't think it's very attractive to a woman to do so. as I said; rape is about gaining power over some other being, about anger and loads and loads of aggression and frustration. the process of first having to 'awaken' the penis's just not what I think a thoroughly aggressive and angry woman would want to go through. this said, I'm not denying that it might happen. I honestly just don't know how.
Originally posted by Line
but look at these female warriors; are they real women? or male fantasies? look at kill bill for example. a butt kicking woman, who, wearing lovely, tight fitted clothes, swings a sword (freud would have been so happy) at everything, as well as spanks little boys over her knee and in the end is 'castrated', made 'not dangerous' and handed over to the role as mummy. she's, in short, a very male fantasy. I believe that jean d'arch to some extend fulfills the same role as a dangerous fantasy, made undangerous (and thus feminine) in the end. I believe that is one of the reasons, her story's been so successful; beautiful, feminine, dangerous. definitely a male fantasy. definitely an object for the male fantasy (and with the film, to the male eye too).
to sum it up: this thread's about women in modern films, wearing next to nothing. women being young and beautiful, whereas men are allowed to be old and ugly. it doesn't matter, course their sex appeal lies in their ability to be the active 'subject'. the woman, on the other hand, is still not regarded entirely as a subject. she's still not judged on her abilities. beauty is still a must for her, simply because she's still regarded as a an object.
I want to address this because I like some points Line made here. I think that there is a need to separate two things here. One is the impression of a female who is very Amazonean and the woman that is heroic (a heroine). Now, as a guy I do agree that the bride (Kill Bill) is indeed the product of a Fantasy. But the fact is that the characters weren't all created by a male (Tarantino) but were the product of a female (Uma Thurman). The Amazonean IMO isn't heroic but rather more brutish and somewhat clumsy. Unlike the counterpart of a heroine who is more honorable and more appealing.
From a male perspective I see the character of the bride as bipolar personfication of a female that is commonly refer in Fairy tales. Observe that the female in fairy tales is illustrated always as princess or dansels in distress waiting for the male to come to the rescue (trust me I'm not trying to be shallow here) in a way it represents the female to be weak. That's not the case with fantasies like Kill Bill. The story illustrates that female do have a violent side in them. Which is perfectly fine, everyone has a violent side to them. In certain fairy tales there is a huge injustice towards the females. But unfortunally that injustice has been ignore with movies like Cinderella or Snow White. The fantasy in those stories is always taken as a good thing. Which in my view is totally wrong. I've always have dislike the idea of a parent calling her daughter a "princess" or as a "sweet flower" women are much more than that. For me a man and a women can be equally violent and there really is no double standard when it comes to violence.
I knew it! I'm a god! hail me, praise me, love me! 😄
Where do you get that women weren't allowed to see sports? I'm not sure if they were or weren't so I rather want to get some certainty before going further in this. My idea would be that they were, but that's just an assumption.
The nude-rule was made to avoid women participating, but I do not understand why you think that would also automatically mean they weren't allowed to watch it. Quite weird rule if there are dozens of statues that feature naked men...
Now you're making the assumption that all the statues were made by males, that's a very general statement and even history can't give a conclusive answer cause there can always be a female that goes by unrecorded, so saying that cause it's a patriarchal society automatically means that the creators are males is a bit too hasty.
(then there is a part I don't follow... but you go right over to a conclusion so I'll start there again)
well, what else can they show in those statues besides their gods and men doing sports? A guy saying a poem? A woman behind the kitchen sink? At that time there isn't much they can make besides those... do you have any ideas to what they can make?
I don't follow what you mean there... even up till now in ads we go on about the perfect male body (i.e. mine 😉) and the perfect female body (i.e. Adriana Lima). They are there to make us longue for a better body and to feel better about others cause we have the looks.
Does this all automatically mean that it's all in the male's eye? On what do you base yourself to say it? Even now females have other females as idols and examples, what is stopping the idea that that also happened in ancient Greece? We can't know for sure of course, but why not?
I think you generalise again here... the women weren't allowed to participate in the Olympic games, that doesn't mean they were bound and gagged at home when the husband left the home and weren't allowed to move more than umtheen meters per day. It DOES mean however, that they would never get that one top spot that would ensure fame for them: the games. And it is because that they don't get that high that they are also not interesting enough to depict in sculptures. If you wanted to get somewhere, want to get fame, there was only one thing: win the games.
Here you can see that double standard then though, that to get on the sculptures you have to be famous/perfect... and for perfect it is sport related, ... famous too... and both are male.
I'm sorry, but the last time I checked the paintings in my church, they were about the crucification of christ, ... can you show me examples? do you mean pieta's? cause normally in the middle ages they were strictly religious and besides a breast here and there, it would be pretty much covered up 😖
yeah, early societies had the woman as the leader since they were the one giving birth and thus creating life. That changed when societies clashed and had to fight for territory, where the female would be inadequate as leader and warrior (with exceptions of course) so the male took over and thus the female was brought back from very high on the ladder to very low because now war was important.
I can assure you that there is no tempering with the proof that there were female warriors. They are written down in official notulas, and knowing male pride it is a great insult that their enemy they can't beat is female and they DIDN'T change it when they had the chance, meaning those we know have to be the truth.
I am strictly referring to history here, Line, not Kill Bill... unfortunately I can't much comment on it since I haven't seen the movie(s). From your description there I can indeed agree with the idea that it's purely a male fantasy... could have been a male in the role but then it wasn't that fun I take. So yes, but that's modern society, there is a difference between the present and the past.
I really don't understand why you think Jean D'Arc is a male fantasy! If you are lead by the movie featuring Milla Jovovich (sp, the one with the mighty blue eyes), I suggest you read a good (historical) biography about Jean, so that you know "the truth" about her life. And when you read it, you'll see there is nothing "male fantasy" about it because it's the simple truth: a farmer girl became a general but got betrayed.
Can you expand on this further in your next post, cause I'm at a lost here...
It's a bit tricky if we go from ancient Greece over modern movies to historical female figures so, forgive me if I'm mixing things up here. But it is that I'm not always sure where one point ends and another starts 😖
But things are changing in the modern movie... you have people as Bloom (shivers), Pitt, Depp, DiCaprio, Law, Farrell, ... coming up and they are considered to some as an object too cause of their figure.
Females, more and more, get their wages pulled up to that of males (isn't Julie Andrews the highest payed in hollywood now?), they get more leading roles (Kill Bill is of course debatable) and get more respect. Hollywood is still a men's world but luckily changes.
It's not cause I lack the knowledge about how a rape by a female goes that I'm wrong!
But yes, I do say it isn't impossible for a female to rape someone, ther ARE reports but since it's mostly a "male business", there is very little info to find on this. I'm not saying it IS likely that a woman does it. From the X million females in your country, how many are rapists? not much, so it's also very unlikely that you meet one or that it's likely to happen... except when one goes on a rampage of course.
How do you mean it's not very attractive to a woman to do so? You think a rapist gives a damn about what others thing of him/her? they just go along with their business and that's it.
But as you say at the end: you don't have an idea how, me neither... I don't know how a rape exactly happens (from the psychological level) and such but making the male genital erect isn't really that difficult... as Gundark once said: "teenage boys hump everything in sight" (mind you, this is grossly taken out of context, the original post was about dating I think)...
(can't include your reply, Line, too much characters in the post)
yerssot:
don't get carried away, it was a highly theoretical sentence 😉
as I mentioned on msn, I think we're misunderstanding each other and talking past each other. I'll try to be more clear in this post, though it's getting more and more difficult.
On the sports matter: I was taught about the olympics in high school and was told that women weren't allowed to watch it because of all the naked men. but that's some time ago now and I may be wrong.
the 'naked' statues have probably been at display at sports arenas, political houses and other kinds of publical places where women weren't allowed to come. this is an assumption, though, not a historical fact I've been introduced to.
anyways: my point was actually just to demonstrate that the ancient greek society was patriarchal to the finger tips. that women weren't expected to participate in male activities, which were much more active than the ones expected of the women.
that leads me to the sex of the sculpturer: no, I don't have any proof that all of these were indeed men. considering the fact that ancient greece WERE very patriarchal does make it natural to assume this, though. women weren't allowed to participate in all the official stuff. they belonged entirely to the home-sphere. if they were to sculpt, they'd have to go out, get a job (and a very physical one at that). that would mean noone to look after the children, the house, the cooking (except maybe some slaves or servants.) she wouldn't, in other words, be capable of fulfilling the role of a woman. she'd have moved in on the role of a man, thus making her unfeminine and most likely unattractive as wife. then she may not get married at all, and this way loose her only way of fulfilling the expectations of her sex: she'd be childless, husbandless, and since the wife was the man's property, also loose quite some rights. besides this, I doubt that women were allowed to be trained as sculpturers at all. all in all, what I'm trying to get at: ancient greece was a patriarchal society, where specific things were expected from both genders. there might have been some female artists, I can't say there weren't for sure, but I doubt they were anything but the exception proving the rule.
was it the part about 'otherness' you didn't understand?
no, they couldn't (wouldn't) depict anything but these things, and that's my point exactly, and that's were the little female goddess statues/dolls we touched upon in the previous posts enter the picture. they were (most likely) products of a matriarchal society, were women were depicted as active subjects, not just passive objects. they had a function. women in ancient greece didn't have a function. at least not one that was accepted and appreciated as being important and valuable. neither were poets, as the written word in ancient greece was frowned upon. what was worshipped and accepted was the physical, active, strong male body. my point was, as stated above, that ancient greece was a patriarchal society favouring active men. when women were depicted, they were depicted as victims, passive or sexually dangerous and attractive: male fantasies.
our present day society is a patriarchal society. not as bad as in ancient greece, and it's slowly moving towards a more equal society, but it's nonetheless stil based on patriarchal norms and values. so yes, we do encounter lovely male bodies, such as yours ( thank god for your generosity 😉 ), but the naked, female body is the one we encounter the most. in this country, there's just been a gigantic, male roar, because some big posters featuring a naked male was hung all over town. in the end, the manufacturers had to take it down, course the men just couldn't handle being 'made into sexual objects'. strangely enough, noone mentioned the equally naked woman hanging on all the other posters, advertising for the same product. we've simply become used to the naked, female body. this body's become the 'property', so to say, of the street, the public forum. it no longer indicates a 'subject', but an object. therefore, it's not harmful, it's not dangerous, it doesn't attack any society standards, as does the naked male body.
this is one of my basis-es for saying that the female body's become the object for the male eye. also, if you see in which contexts the naked, female body appears, and how it's photographed/filmed/painted/etc., you'll see that most of the time it's made to be appealing to the male, heterosexual majority. yes, women find role models in these women, course that's the role models a patriarchal society provides them with. they learn to see themselves through the male eye. look at all the little girls wearing thongs and skimpy, little skirts. that's not themselves looking at their own bodies from a female perspective. that's themselves looking at their bodies from a male perspective.
I think I already answered the thing about the women in greek society above ( and yes, I do believe they were bound and gagged at home, but I don't know enough about ancient greek society to say so for sure.) if you don't think I've answered it thoroughly, beat me over the head with the questions again and I'll make another try.
if I get the time, I'll look for some pictures on the net for you. what I'm talking about are the rather gruelling pictures of the tortured in hell. there are some rather sadistic scenes, featuring witches having sex with demons. some of these were painted over though.
indeed. many societies used to be matriarchal. my points only apply to the patriarchal societies.
I'm not disputing that there have been female warriors. actually, I'm quite certain there have been.
I jumped to kill bill without explaining why, which wasn't very clever of me. what I meant was: yes, most tales about female warriors have been told and retold and retold and rewritten, to fit the present day society they're told in. yes, I do believe that the present day image of jean d'arch is a very male fantasy. she's no longer seen as merely a historical woman, but as a legend, a myth. myths only live as long as they're relevant to present day society. yes, I can find the hard, naked facts on jean d'arch and her life in a history book and that's all good and fine. but jean d'arch, as she lives out side the history books, is a myth, a tale, a story, told by men. how we view her was expressed very well in the film ( I'm afraid I didn't watch it, so I can't go into details.) the pictures I saw of milla in this role, fitted the idea of a dangerous, phallic woman. beautiful, with open mouth, very feminine, and still very masculine. a fantasy. this is where kill bill enters the picture: both present day idea of jean d'arch and the present day heroine, black mamba, are male fantasies. the only difference is that jean d'arch actually existed.
yes, hollywoods's changing. as the patriarchal structures of society starts changing, women ( and homosexuals for that matter) get to make demands too. and what they want (or think they want. this may just be a taking over of the male ideas of sex. and then it may not, I don't know) is more good looking, sexy, naked men. so hollywood, because women now have the money and the time to go to the cinema, needs to cope with this.
still. even though good looking men are starting to pop up everywhere, there are still different ideas of when men and women are sexy. men don't HAVE to be good looking to be sexy. you'll find loads of elderly, ugly men, who are playng the main character in a film and still being surrounded by gorgeous women, simply because men are still judged on their actions and capabilities. they are active subjects. women, on the other hand, MUST be beautiful, no matter how active they are. they are, therefore, more 'objectified' because their appearance comes before their actions.
no, and if that was how I articulated myself, I'm sorry. what I meant was that because you do not know how it should be done, but still think it could happen, we're basically on the same side.
you misunderstood my use od the word 'attractive'. what I meant by it was that it's just not very desirable for a woman in the sense that, as I've stated before, a rape is about controlling and getting rid of frustrations and anger. an angry woman would not want to go through a long process of 'persuading' the penis. she'd act in rage. men can rape when in rage. women can't, cause they're dependable on the man to have an erection. he's not very likely to have this with a raging woman scratching his face and stabbing him. that's what I meant by it.
Originally posted by WindDancer
I want to address this because I like some points Line made here. I think that there is a need to separate two things here. One is the impression of a female who is very Amazonean and the woman that is heroic (a heroine). Now, as a guy I do agree that the bride (Kill Bill) is indeed the product of a Fantasy. But the fact is that the characters weren't all created by a male (Tarantino) but were the product of a female (Uma Thurman). The Amazonean IMO isn't heroic but rather more brutish and somewhat clumsy. Unlike the counterpart of a heroine who is more honorable and more appealing.From a male perspective I see the character of the bride as bipolar personfication of a female that is commonly refer in Fairy tales. Observe that the female in fairy tales is illustrated always as princess or dansels in distress waiting for the male to come to the rescue (trust me I'm not trying to be shallow here) in a way it represents the female to be weak. That's not the case with fantasies like Kill Bill. The story illustrates that female do have a violent side in them. Which is perfectly fine, everyone has a violent side to them. In certain fairy tales there is a huge injustice towards the females. But unfortunally that injustice has been ignore with movies like Cinderella or Snow White. The fantasy in those stories is always taken as a good thing. Which in my view is totally wrong. I've always have dislike the idea of a parent calling her daughter a "princess" or as a "sweet flower" women are much more than that. For me a man and a women can be equally violent and there really is no double standard when it comes to violence.
hello, winddancer! and welcome to the thread of the long posts 😉
my head's still buzzing from the long reply to yerssot, but you're touching on a subject I find quite interesting, so I'll try and write a reply more or less decipherable to human eyes:
concerning kill bill: I could have chosen a better film as an example, simply because it's so self conscious and completely aware that it's just that: a film. this is what create the, at times, ironical distance to the characters we feel when watching it. the bride is a mixture of many types of characters; samurai fighter, kung fu fighter, female victim, femme fatale, helpless woman, etc, etc, and I have no doubts tarantino intended this and were very very aware of these different ways of viewing a female heroine when creating the film. no doubts thurman were too. in that sense, this film both makes fun of and uses the different weaknesses and strengths of the female heroine and therefore also makes fun of and uses the weaknesses and streangths of the phallic female of the male fantasy.
still I chose this as an example, simply because I still think the bride, in spite of the ironical distance, embodies a male fantasy. you write that she's not purely the creation of tarantiono. I'm not into the 'making off the movie', so I'll just take your word for it. but as I stated somewhere in my reply to yerssot, the male fantasy doesn't have to be carried out by a male. it's a fantasy that survives in the very structures of society and is therefore accepted and adapted by women too. that thurman had a part of creating the bride doesn't therefore necessarily stand as a guarantee that the male fantasy is held back and mixed with a female one.
when it comes to your definition of amazon women and heroines, do you then base it on films? in that case I'm not quite sure whether I agree; I think you'll find plenty of clumsy, aggressive women, who are none the less seen as being honorable and the fighters for a good cause.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you wrote on the fairy tales and the fantasies. is it that kill bill's the expression of a male fantasy originating from another male fantasy of the helpless woman?
I agree that both genders have a violent side to them, but I don't think that they're equally violent. men are physically bigger and stronger than women. they're also the ones you most often see getting into fights. in the jails you're more likely to find men having done violent crimes than women. the statistics will show that far more men than women commit murder.
this may all be because of the expectations from society; men are strong and aggressive, women are caring and kind. it has no doubt played a part in the shaping of the way we act. still, men are build to fight each other, women aren't. I do think, though I have no scientific journals to back me up on this, that violence is a male way of communication and a more natural part of men than women. this is what makes female heriones so damn fascinating; they move in on what's typically thought of as the man's domain.
Originally posted by Line
hello, winddancer! and welcome to the thread of the long posts 😉
my head's still buzzing from the long reply to yerssot, but you're touching on a subject I find quite interesting, so I'll try and write a reply more or less decipherable to human eyes:
Hello, Line! I'm glad you took the time to read and reply. 🙂
Originally posted by Line
still I chose this as an example, simply because I still think the bride, in spite of the ironical distance, embodies a male fantasy. you write that she's not purely the creation of tarantiono. I'm not into the 'making off the movie', so I'll just take your word for it. but as I stated somewhere in my reply to yerssot, the male fantasy doesn't have to be carried out by a male. it's a fantasy that survives in the very structures of society and is therefore accepted and adapted by women too. that thurman had a part of creating the bride doesn't therefore necessarily stand as a guarantee that the male fantasy is held back and mixed with a female one.
Originally posted by Line
when it comes to your definition of amazon women and heroines, do you then base it on films? in that case I'm not quite sure whether I agree; I think you'll find plenty of clumsy, aggressive women, who are none the less seen as being honorable and the fighters for a good cause.
Yes, let me explain. The term amazonean women is use here to illustrated women that were involved in wars in ancient times. Whether they existed or not they must have been as brutish and bulkie as the males. After all were are talking about people that would engage in barbaric confrotations that didn't held any respect for either gender. For them whether the warrior was male of female it didn't matter. What matter was the opponent carried a sword to kill.
Originally posted by Line
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you wrote on the fairy tales and the fantasies. is it that kill bill's the expression of a male fantasy originating from another male fantasy of the helpless woman?
Originally posted by Line
I agree that both genders have a violent side to them, but I don't think that they're equally violent. men are physically bigger and stronger than women. they're also the ones you most often see getting into fights. in the jails you're more likely to find men having done violent crimes than women. the statistics will show that far more men than women commit murder.
this may all be because of the expectations from society; men are strong and aggressive, women are caring and kind. it has no doubt played a part in the shaping of the way we act. still, men are build to fight each other, women aren't. I do think, though I have no scientific journals to back me up on this, that violence is a male way of communication and a more natural part of men than women. this is what makes female heriones so damn fascinating; they move in on what's typically thought of as the man's domain.
I tend to think that females are far more violent than males. Why? Because women despite the fact that they are smaller than males, a women can take more pain than a male. In no way I want to be sexist, but in my view women can be as violent as man and even more agressive than a man. I base my judgement on certain things I've observe in bootleg videos of fight clubs. The males in those videos are not as vicious in a fight as the females fighting each other. I know is kinda shallow, but when women fight each other they could be extremely vicious.