The Official TnA Thread

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that is not always true, there are of course socio-economic or worse violent ways in which women are pressured to do so.

But that was not my initial point at all. I granted the assumption that all original work was done with consent. My gripe is with the societal standards and whether we should hold ourselves to different moral codes than what this thread implies.

No women here have done anything not consensual. Its on you to prove that they have not consented in order for you to base your opinion on .

Originally posted by Bardock42
I reject your premise that one has to have an academic or educational background in a subject to discuss it with knowledge.

What I said was that you can't expect people to take you seriously when all your arguments stem from your opinions, especially when you don't have any relevant credential merits.

Originally posted by Bardock42
When I talk about sexism and misogyny I do not talk about a one line dictionary definition of sexism, but a sociological concept.

Or more accurately, what certain feminists tried to twist the definitions of sexism and misogyny into to fit their agenda. Even allowing less "extreme" definitions, like a mere prejudice against women, or a hatred for women not falling into certain gender roles the individual might have set up... would not apply to this thread.

You are however treating women unfairly, due to the constant and ubiquitous objectification of women in society. To arrive at the conclusion that a thread about men would be equal you have to tune out a massive amount of real life difference in how men and women are treated (that is easy to do, but it is still a mistake).

So what you're saying is that acknowledging features that might make a woman attractive is in itself misogynistic because they happen to face more objectification than men? Sorry, but that shit's not flying with me.

In most or all of the pictures in this thread the women consented to distribution of the pictures or videos they appeared in with the express purpose of making a buck out of flaunting their body. Their mindset has been accounted for and is in line with the train of thought that these pictures being posted is fine.

This thread is a product of the devaluing of women as human beings, as such I view it as misogynist. It most definitely treats women (and even more so, particular body parts of women) as objects of sexual gratification, that is the whole premise. Whether or not we have to discuss a line, it would be so far crossed by this thread that it is silly. "Lets look at the butt cheeks of women, disregarding their personhood, to get off sexually...I can't tell for sure, but I think it's in an objectification grey zone"

You're telling people that they can't use the pictures and videos these women chose to make in the purpose the women intended them to be used (For admiration of an attractive woman). You are implicitly asserting that these women should not have done so by demonizing the right straight men or gay women have to admire these pictures. If there is anyone who is disregarding the personhood of these women Bardock, it's you. 👆

"Objects of sexual gratification"? Or does it just acknowledge the aesthetic quality of the female form? Is finding the female form appealing on its own merits misogynistic Bardock? Answer this question.

Originally posted by Astner
That's not what I said.

What I said was that you can't expect people to take you seriously when all your arguments stem from your opinions, especially when you don't have any relevant credential merits.

I feel like everyone is taking me seriously enough to reply to my points. If they are not convincing, so be it, I do think they would likely sway some people, however.

At any rate, the same can be said for all of you, just because you argue for the status quo and I argue for a different POV does not make one opinion inherently bettter than the other.

All the women here are whores. Thats what they are Bardock, lets not paint them as NUNs of the Church. They like showing off their bodies and they do it well. Scarlet has admitted shes a whore who sleeps around! All these girls in the thread are whores, this is what whores do! If someone see there gf in one of the pics, guess what! Ur dating a whore!😂

Glad you posted Supra.

Now you see Bardock, this thread is not misogynistic. It can just attract misogynistic people, as seen above. Is that the point you were trying to make?

Edit: Who the **** is Scarlet?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like everyone is taking me seriously enough to reply to my points.

Scarlett Johansen one of the admitted sluts of Hollywood posted in the thread. She likes being like that.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
I don't find this sexy! (lie) I was just pointing out how this is completely okay to show without scrutiny whilst some people are judged for liking to look at boobs.

Plus NemeBro hates me.

No I don't.

Johansen?

+ ffs supra

Edit: not ****ing strong enough:

Jesus mother****ing Christ on a cracker, we're over here arguing that this thread is far from misogynistic and then you chime over here flinging your feces like the primate you are

Originally posted by maxivitopowe
Johansen?

+ ffs supra

Did you post a picture of her or gif. Yea she likes being objectified. Thats her whole image.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Surely you can see how the portrayal of Chris Hemsworth up there

Also just caught this.

The portrayal of Chris Hemsworth up there? You mean the scene where it lingers lovingly on his bare, buff, vaguely sweaty torso with the sun glistening off of it? Which had a woman explicitly objectifying him?

You might claim that Thor is meant to be a character the male audience is supposed to identify with, but for this section of the movie Thor is viewed through a human lens to emphasize his unusual Asgardian behavior. We were meant to identify with the women who were admiring a hot bod. 👆

Originally posted by NemeBro
Or more accurately, what certain feminists tried to twist the definitions of sexism and misogyny into to fit their agenda. Even allowing less "extreme" definitions, like a mere prejudice against women, or a hatred for women not falling into certain gender roles the individual might have set up... would not apply to this thread.

While we disagree on the definition, the question would be, now that you know my definition is the more broad one that you allege "certain feminists tried to twist", would you agree with my point under my definitions? If so, we have no disagreement, if not, then we can continue the discussion on that basis. I have no interest in discussing a semantic argument of "but that doesn't fit my 3 word definition I found on Merriam-Webster".

Originally posted by NemeBro
So what you're saying is that acknowledging features that might make a woman attractive is in itself misogynistic because they happen to face more objectification than men? Sorry, but that shit's not flying with me.

Acknowledging things you find attractive and sharing and posting such things on a public forum are completely different actions, with completely different consequences.

Originally posted by NemeBro
In most or all of the pictures in this thread the women consented to distribution of the pictures or videos they appeared in with the express purpose of making a buck out of flaunting their body. Their mindset has been accounted for and is in line with the train of thought that these pictures being posted is fine.

I find your faith in these reposts being true to the copyright on the pictures/gifs/videos ridiculous. However I never cared to discuss the illegal reproduction of the media in this thread, that was a misinterpretation of my point by your side.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're telling people that they can't use the pictures and videos these women chose to make in the purpose the women intended them to be used (For admiration of an attractive woman). You are implicitly asserting that these women should not have done so by demonizing the right straight men or gay women have to admire these pictures. If there is anyone who is disregarding the personhood of these women Bardock, it's you. 👆

Part of treating women as people is understanding that you can disagree with their actions. I disagree with your opinions here, yet I still view you as a person. They can do what they want, and like I said I lay the bulk of the blame of this on the cultural norms and the market place that makes these things a viable business, not the people trying to make some money out of it.

Originally posted by NemeBro
"Objects of sexual gratification"? Or does it just acknowledge the aesthetic quality of the female form? Is finding the female form appealing on its own merits misogynistic Bardock? Answer this question.

Again you are comparing two completely different things. But to answer your three questions. Yes. No. No.

Originally posted by maxivitopowe
Johansen?

+ ffs supra

Edit: not ****ing strong enough:

Jesus mother****ing Christ on a cracker, we're over here arguing that this thread is far from misogynistic and then you come over here flinging your feces like the primate you are

Originally posted by NemeBro
Glad you posted Supra.

Now you see Bardock, this thread is not misogynistic. It can just attract misogynistic people, as seen above. Is that the point you were trying to make?

Edit: Who the **** is Scarlet?

It's part of the point I'm trying to make. I think this thread was made due to misogyny. I think it attracts misogynist people. And I think it furthers the acceptance of misogyny, albeit in a small way, since it won't have much influence on anything.

Some peoples balls need to drop I think.

Originally posted by Bardock42
While we disagree on the definition, the question would be, now that you know my definition is the more broad one that you allege "certain feminists tried to twist", would you agree with my point under my definitions? If so, we have no disagreement, if not, then we can continue the discussion on that basis. I have no interest in discussing a semantic argument of "but that doesn't fit my 3 word definition I found on Merriam-Webster".

Acknowledging things you find attractive and sharing and posting such things on a public forum are completely different actions, with completely different consequences.

I find your faith in these reposts being true to the copyright on the pictures/gifs/videos ridiculous. However I never cared to discuss the illegal reproduction of the media in this thread, that was a misinterpretation of my point by your side.

Part of treating women as people is understanding that you can disagree with their actions. I disagree with your opinions here, yet I still view you as a person. They can do what they want, and like I said I lay the bulk of the blame of this on the cultural norms and the market place that makes these things a viable business, not the people trying to make some money out of it.

Again you are comparing two completely different things. But to answer your three questions. Yes. No. No.

When sometime twists a definition to their own purpose, purposely stretching the meaning of the word then no. That isn't the definition

So a thread on the all around swellness of the fairer sex is out?
Also weren't you the one telling me

Originally posted by Bardock42
you have no authority to stop anyone from posting here, in particular in a discussion regarding the validity of this thread.

Now your basically just taking a bunch of fluff (not shit, cos that actually has substance)

Well done you basically just told everyone who enjoyed thread, that they all treat women like objects.
You know just the other I found myself thinking about my Mum, my aunt, my grandmother, my sisters, my female cousins and my female friends as a collective "it" /s

Bah

Originally posted by Bardock42
While we disagree on the definition, the question would be, now that you know my definition is the more broad one that you allege "certain feminists tried to twist", would you agree with my point under my definitions? If so, we have no disagreement, if not, then we can continue the discussion on that basis. I have no interest in discussing a semantic argument of "but that doesn't fit my 3 word definition I found on Merriam-Webster".

You still haven't actually given your definition. You just said it was a "sociological concept". Given that among feminists and non-feminists what qualifies as "misogyny" can wildly differ you're going to need to define it a bit better than that. 👆

Acknowledging things you find attractive and sharing and posting such things on a public forum are completely different actions, with completely different consequences.

So it's fine but only if you do it in solitude? A sort of "don't ask don't tell" deal? That's preposterous. There is nothing inherently wrong with sharing photos of women you find attractive online. 👇

What are the consequences?

I find your faith in these reposts being true to the copyright on the pictures/gifs/videos ridiculous. However I never cared to discuss the illegal reproduction of the media in this thread, that was a misinterpretation of my point by your side.

I find your assumption that I gave a dick or was talking about the copyrights of the photographs assumptive. I'm saying that those women knew many people would see and admire those photos or videos before they were made and chose to do so anyway. Whether the reposts are true to the copyrights or not is irrelevant to the act of admiration itself, which is a statement I think you will agree with. I just happen to see nothing wrong with said admiration. 👆

Part of treating women as people is understanding that you can disagree with their actions.

Glad we can agree on this much at least. 👆

I disagree with your opinions here, yet I still view you as a person.

Did you just call me a woman!?

They can do what they want, and like I said I lay the bulk of the blame of this on the cultural norms and the market place that makes these things a viable business, not the people trying to make some money out of it.

What exactly is inherently morally reprehensible about modeling (Or in the case of some of these photos, pornography I expect)?

Again you are comparing two completely different things. But to answer your three questions. Yes. No. No.

Explain to me how they are different my son. Explain to me how focusing on a woman's breasts or ass is inherently different than focusing on her lips, eyes, hair, or, I don't know, feet.

Originally posted by Astner