And why do you have a problem with it? I answered the OP's question. "All the lesbianism" we see in the media is sexual objectification. Deal with it.
So you admit you made an error. You were commenting and answering the OP and not replying to my post. I get it now. Plus, the OP never stated that in the OP; unless you're claiming: Producing anything on screen is to objectify everything that is on screen.
I asked you a simple question and your inability to give a simple answer and deflect speaks volumes. You're the one who politicized the discussion.
Well, you did admit to making it political with "Yes,..."; And, at what 'volume? How high is it compared to other levels of volume? What the hell does that even mean, truly?
Are you the type of person who has to speak in essay format, so as not to include, while [also] not to exclude persons, places, things, and concepts so as to not offend or be perceived as offensive? [Or,] If someone doesn't speak in this manner, do you flick on some "activist" switch, for whatever topic?
Let me test you:
What is your favorite color?
But, we know you won't answer this question, it's silly anyway.
You simply have a chip on your shoulder.
Yes, this is your worldview described with simple logic:
2 + 2 = y
y = 4 (reasonable, logical answer);
But you can't handle that. You can't just bubble in C for y = 4 (on a scantron), you need to include and exclude numbers, so others won't perceive you're more favorable to 4 than all other numbers; thus:
"y is greater than 3, and not equal to and less than 3, and y is less than 5, but not equal to or greater than 5. Simply stating y = 4, objectifies all other numbers, not representing their true value. [As such], how can we state: "y = 4"?; there would be no 4 without a 2. Furthermore, the use of 'y' prioritizes men over women."
(This is your tilted worldview; unnecessary; emotional answer); and then for odd reasons:
You'll try to get [the] teacher fired because there was no room for you to write all this crap on a scantron, depriving you of (insert something).
[edit]
reply
share
OnanTheBarbarian (12068)
a year ago
I made no mistake. I was addressing you specifically. You said and I quote:
I think it's okay for pretty women to engage in romantic relationships with one another. Should be a social norm, if it hasn't already become.
So as long as the woman are "pretty", lesbianism is okay. You snidely want it to be "the norm" which would leave you ass out. So you want to watch? Any lesbian I know would kick you in the balls.
What pervy voyeuristic crap.
And what is "essay format"? I know how to write. And with this last post you should have been more succinct.
Let me test you:
What is your favorite color?
But, we know you won't answer this question, it's silly anyway.
Okay, I'll bite. I love blue-grey. Now what the hell does that have to do with anything?
You simply have a chip on your shoulder.
No, no chip. I just find it hilarious that you want all women to be lesbians so you can watch.
When women pretend to be lesbians for the benefit of straight males, it's just cringe.
reply
share
RoboReCop (3313)
a year ago
You did make a mistake, plenty of them:
First, you misread what the OP was talking about. Nothing was stated about "sexually objectifying" lesbians. Yes, the word "sexually" was used, but to explain the confusion of what many experience. Furthermore, the OP was talking about the OVERT nature of entertainment displaying "lesbianism" instead of, why can't girls just be friends?
Are you in agreement with the OP that there should be less "lesbianism" in media?
Then you take your misunderstandings of the OP, and apply it to an argument or idea that I have not expressed, and to then judge me based on not wanting to answer your politically motivated and loaded questions.
It's funny that you now harp on "pretty" and drop "sexually objectifying". Or are you claiming that using the word PRETTY is sexual and objectifying and that it is apparently very concerning to LGBT women?
[I am genuinely curious as to why you left out "Q" in your previous response]
Do you feel it best that the entertainment community should EXCLUDE lesbians deemed "pretty" on screen?
Or, is this some anti-hierarchical demonstration, performative activism, like "The pretty ones are at the top of the pyramid, so the rest of us have to tear them down"?
I guess I showed support for pretty lesbians, so I understand now why you're talking to me like this.
In your initial reply and throughout, you mispresent my post as if what I stated was a definitive, exclusionary proclamation... that "because I like 'pretty' lesbians", it must mean I also wish to exclude everyone else.
Oof. Rotted logic.
Thus, you had to flip that "activist" switch on. I must have caused such an affront because I used the word "pretty", and my post didn't attach a disclaimer proclaiming that "I also believe that all sexualities are just as equal, as well as their looks," to fulfill your vigor of inclusivity.
*Essay Format -- a single statement of why one favors [x], while also having to (forced to) elevate all others to the same level as the favored, resulting in the favored's value moot; meaningless; valueless, though very much inclusive. (your tilted worldview; unnecessary; emotional)
reply
share
RoboReCop (3313)
a year ago
It's also funny that you feel it's okay to say that your favorite color is "blue-grey", without providing such a disclaimer, listing all the reasons why all the other colors are just as valid and should be respected and represented, as light is a spectrum, and as such: so is color. Why didn't you do it?
You didn’t do it. You just wrote, “blue-grey”. You wrote: y = 4; or rather, "I like pretty lesbians".
Yet, you expect me to proclaim all other numbers are just as valid and should be represented when it comes to my initial statement (y = 4).
This is why I say trying to make this political is unnecessary.
You do have a chip on your should:
You’ve misread the OP and prejudged my intentions by creating your own made-up arguments about a revisionist version of my initial post while using exclusionary terms like “only”, “as long as”, and “all women to be lesbian” to fit said made-up, manufactured arguments in your head.
To whom and what are you actually talking to or about?
Do you even know?
You’re arguing with YOURSELF, and perhaps arguing with other people in your own life that I don’t know, and trying to project that all onto me, geez. Get a clue, my friend, I'm not your enemy.
You may have to quadruple down, to secure your nutcase frame of mind (not trying to sound harsh, just poking a little fun; prolly contributions from a lack of REM sleep).
When women pretend to be lesbians for the benefit of straight males, it's just cringe.
So you want to eliminate entertainment as a whole?
Just to give you a little hint: there are a lot more other things than casting a straight person to portray a gay person that is “pretend” in the TV and film industry.
PS: There is no need for a call to violence when someone is supporting lesbian representation in media. "Kick my balls", what an Oof thing to say.
reply
share