Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For instance, he's lost count how many houses he owns.
But it doesn't matter how many houses he owns, giovanni - he was a prisoner of war! He didn't have a house then! He didn't even have a kitchen table!
I'm not sure if I was more disgusted hearing McCain pull out that excuse, or watching Jay Leno laugh it off and move on.
Or do you think people are watching that speech and thinking 'wow, she managed to brush her hair'?
I can almost guarantee that some TV channel somewhere in America devoted at least five minutes to analysing what she wore.
-
Oh, with the Tan ACT conversion, I've talked to him and can assure readers here that his sentiments are sincere. He genuinely believes that ACT will protect workers rights, the environment, ethical foreign policy, and reduce crime.
I'm not awfully surprised. The jump from hard left to hard right is in many ways much smaller than that from the centre to either side.
-
I spent most of the closing ceremony trying to guess which fireworks shots were pre-rendered. And being amused at just how silly Boris Johnson looked waving the Olympic flag.
All the candid shots of the athletes coming into the stadium were awesome, though; you got the sense that there was going to be one rockin' party back at the Village once the ceremony was done.
-
Oh, that's kind of interesting: is power in a sexual context a zero sum game? I'll be mulling that.
That is really interesting: in saying that women can have power sexually, are we buying into a stereotype of men being led by their dicks? (The way I phrased that is definitely buying into heteronormativity.) I don't think power in a sexual context does have to be zero-sum, any more than any client/provider interaction has to be (one is providing something the other one wants), but I think perhaps that given the history of exploitation of sex workers, there's an eagerness to frame the power dynamic as tipping the other way?
Something to ponder, anyhow.
-
Also, there was an Australian study last year that concluded that while men went to a (perhaps) surprising extent for porn featuring natural women with bumps and flaws, women who looked at porn went for the airbrushed glossy idealised style. I thought that was interesting.
There's definitely some interesting aspects in how women's appearances are primarily policed by other women; most of the time, when I make an effort to dress up, I'm not doing it for men. (Mind you, I never really had the opportunity to want to.) I'm doing it because of the effect it will have on other women. Percieved "sluttiness" ties into this, too; it's often women who are the quickest to denigrate other women as "sluts". I think it's all part of patriarchy being a societal system, not Teh Menz, and about the interactions between power and powerlessness and the rewards the powerless get for being percieved to help police the system. But it's all kinda complicated in ways that do not make for simple judgements, which is why it gets ignored.
Perhaps also because a discussion of women-on-women policing of sexuality would involve leaving aside the male gaze, which people are often reluctant to do (after all, it's the default.)
I just don't know. I understand and appreciate that women these days can find power in sex. Absolutely. But then I see all these young women in skimpy clothes, being overtly sexual, and I wonder. I know they think they have control of their sexual power, but I wonder if they understand how much they are giving away.
It's definitely a tough one. I totally agree with you in some ways; it really frustrates me when I see "girl power" being sold by powerful older men to young women, when what that means is that giving men what they want is seen as "empowering". I don't know how it's empowering if you're doing it solely on their terms, at their behest.
But at the same time, I can appreciate that it is possible for women to use their sexuality in an empowering way. I think, perhaps, as long as this debate is solely framed in terms of what _women_ are doing with their bodies - because female bodies are seen as public property - there's going to be an element of oppression here. I think when we can discuss what young people (or people in general) are choosing to do with their bodies, including selling sex and porn, and it's not seen exclusively as a female-offering, male-consumer/employer exercise - then we'll be getting to somewhere where we can tease out the fine details.
I just have not a clue as to how we get from here to there, at least not in mainstream culture.
-
And I wanna know how come Lucy turns lesbian and Russell gets her address...
Coffee is a universal currency.
-
From Oxford University Press Political Dictionary "Female pornography is seen by feminists as a mode of oppression and exercise of power by the stronger sex. The woman's body is sexualized and various parts of her anatomy are used to provide pleasure to the male gaze. Pornography entails sexual exploitation and male violence."
The issue is strongly debated in the feminist community, to say the least. It is entirely wrong to say that the feminist position is anti-porn. It is probably correct to say that the majority of feminists are anti- the porn industry (of which Crow is an excellent representative), but that's not quite the same thing.
-
Shit, that is enlightening Sacha. And kinda freaky.
It gives me the peverse desire to get call off my engagement and become a lesbian. Just because.
What about the vast vast majority of 'porn users' who have never and will never commit sexual violence? And I'm certain there'll be a case of someone who went out and raped someone after watching Shortland Street, or Fair Go - that is not causation.
I think you can make a good case that a lot of modern porn reflects and encourages a thread of sexualised violence against women that is present in mainstream areas of society as well (see pretty much all crime dramas). I don't think that simply saying "porn causes violence" is going to solve the problem (any more than banning Grand Theft Auto is going to stop school shootings.)
-
Grow up, please.
....naaaaaah.
-
No, Craig. The city council is completely justified in attempting to block pornography. If you do not think a porn producer organising porn stars to ride topless down the main street in Auckland is pornography then you're ... well .. you're just lost.
You know it when you see it, huh? Alternatively: if a porn star goes to a topless beach, is that also pornography? I'm sensing a failure of differentiation between the activity and the performer here.
Tell us .. even if the banning of this parade was unfair in some way .. what would we lose if it were banned?
The knowledge that if we stay within the boundaries of the law we do not have to fear arbitrary action against us by authority because they think we're "morally wrong"?