Anyone here get offended, "outraged", throw shitfits over, or demand censorship of, male nudity?

[Warren DeMontague]

("Seen on DU™&quot

At all?

Ever?


...

?

?

Um, Not me.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/19/naked-mr-big-causes-a-stir-on-the-streets-of-vienna/#ixzz29rMP3Ko4



Apparently, "those men" who argue against censorship or believe consenting adults should be free to strip or screw in front of a camera, are reduced to blubbering jelly when confronted with pictures of naked men instead of women..

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/nude-male-pictures-covered-vienna-museum-article-1.1187899



And it seems that, when confronted with "objectification" of male bodies instead of women, all the male gaze eyeball oppressors, the phallonormative pesky patriarchy pecker people, all turn into hypocritical wailing infants, upon being oppressed by the unrealistic body expectations of a nude man, which we IMMEDIATELY DEMAND BE CENSORED RIGHT F****G NOW BECAUSE ONLY NAKED WOMENZ ARE ACCEPTABLE WARRRGGGGGHLLL and besides it's really not about free speech or the 1st amendment, we only claim to want to allow consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their sex lives so we can KEEP WOMEN DOWN DAMMIT!! YARRRRRRGGGGHHLLLBLLARRRRRRG





No, really. I read it here, it must be true.


ps. The only reason you don't get the full monty, is because of DU's rules- not mine.

[opiate69]

2. Lemme check my meter..

Nope... No problem with the male nudity...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. Yup, don't give a fuck....

If they think that I do....well, please proceed......

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. I'm all for it!!

[opiate69]

5. Also seen on DU...

Cheerleading, Stripping, Burlesque dancing, "naked baristas*", nude modeling, are equivalent to prostitution....





*I happen to live in the coffee capital of the US... The birthplace of the American espresso stand... Not once have I seen a "naked" barista stand. In fact, local obscenity ordinances across the country make the possibility of any such business pretty much zero. Interesting, though, that someone would consider a bikini or lingerie stand a "naked" stand.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. It must be tiring, to be consumed with outrage all the time.

[opiate69]

7. And yet...

They seem to have limitless energy for running around DU, seeking out the outrage du jour, and wagging their fingers at us all... Those naked baristas they found must make the super high octane shit!

[hifiguy]

31. It almost borders on data-mining DU,

doesn't it? Going well out of your way to look for things to use for the purpose of ginning up poutrage is really, really sad. If a trollish comment somehow crosses my path, I will alert on it. That happens maybe once a month, though more often in election season. Life is too damned short to waste it being pissed off about anything and everything.

[opiate69]

33. yep yep.. well said.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. I just got called to jury duty on that thread

And I voted to allow it to stand. At this point, nothing they say over there should be hidden. Let it all out in the air to rot.

[redqueen]

8. You can't be serious.

Do you honestly believe that everything is about you?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Um

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125512114#post5

[redqueen]

13. "Anyone here" != "men"

There are billions of men. Sometimes, when people use the word 'men', believe it or not, it isn't actually in reference to the handful who post in this group.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

15. Well, how about when you narrow it down....

....and start cluck clucking about "so-called liberal" men?

I guess that's not a shot at anyone in particular either.

[Major Nikon]

17. The other side of that coin is that opinions on HoF hardly represent all women

In fact, outside of those on radfem blogs that go on about the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, PIV=rape, and fans of Reisman/Schlessinger school of 'thought', I can't think of anyone.

Just sayin'

[redqueen]

18. And interestingly, we don't see copycat threads in other DU groups

posted by women having shitfits that someone is talking about them or what they like.

Funny huh? How some people in some groups can manage to differentiate between when people are talking about a group of people who are referenced in an article, and when people are referring to the people in said group?

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Oh, you mean like "Seen On DU"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=1412


Great idea. Thanks for that.

[redqueen]

23. LOL, I love how to you, we're all one person.

Thanks for thanking me for someone else's thread, which hasn't been updated in three months.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. You were talking about "groups", remember?

Clearly HoF set a precedence for that sort of thing, which makes all the subsequent complaining in places like meta about "copycat threads" all the more ludicrous.

But, then, different rules, right?

Speaking of which, since noonehereeversaysPIVcantbeconsensual-- why the linking to twisty in your sig? How come she doesn't get tossed under the bus for her, ah, "nuanced definition of consent"?

Shit, some people were basically accusing Jeff of being an apologist for child abuse, over one totally unrelated link to some guy who said some sick crap once several decades ago.. I'm sure you remember that!- even though, unlike Valerie Solanas, he never actually shot anyone:


[font size=1]Some of Valerie Solanas's "Historically Important Work"[/font]

So... if someone here had a link in their sig to a group or blog espousing anything one tenth as crazy as the shit "twisty" says, we'd never hear the end of it, would we.

[Major Nikon]

26. Kinda hard to address issues in a group that crushes all dissenting opinions by banning

Just sayin'

[hifiguy]

30. Ain't it the truth!

There's more ideological diversity in the North Korean Politburo.

[snooper2]

38. Welcome to the mens group!

It's like when my friends wife comes out to join us in a game of poker


What do you do for a living by the way? (just breaking the ice )

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I have that reaction alot, like regarding the outrage over the Sailor kiss photo.

And the grudging, sad admission that prosecuting that guy for assault, while a worthwhile project, was probably impossible. (Check the old peoples' homes!!!!111!!)

I *am* glad that you have, apparently, acknowledged that consensual PIV sex is possible, "nuanced definitions of consent" notwithstanding. It's worth noting that you're still linking in your sig to "twisty", who does NOT believe that consensual PIV sex is possible.

You realize that if anyone in this group had those sorts of comparable links, we'd never hear the end of it.

[4th law of robotics]

12. If anyone in this group

linked to sites with a tenth as much open hatred for women as Twisty has for men they'd be banned instantly and then that would be used against this entire group forever.

[4th law of robotics]

16. I imagine a 17ft nude woman

with her legs spread in a public place would also draw a lot of criticisms. Even in europe. So I'm not sure what the double standard is. People weren't complaining about there being a nude art exhibit featuring men. They were upset that there were genitals on display in public.

How often do you see actual pictures of vaginas several feet wide posted in public places that do not draw any controversy? You got away with claiming it was a double standard because there is no dissent in the HoF but don't think that will fly elsewhere.

Also this quote: it isnt a tough one. mens ego cannot handle the constant nudity and rape of their gender. they will not allow it. they do not have to deal with it. it isnt done.


Is just bonkers.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Not me. I guess I'm more European than the Europeans.

Although a 50ft woman would be even cooler.

[4th law of robotics]

28. I wouldn't complain either

but if you posted 3 ft vaginas in any major city I *would* anticipate that someone would notice.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. There was that appearance on the Eisenhower Expressway

Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I suppose people see what they want to see.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. This picture is not logically possible, of course.

That traffic would TOTALLY be stopped.

[4th law of robotics]

11. Nope

No offense here.

Weird how we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about male objectification.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. The first one's hair is hideous!

Other than that, I totally dig male nudity!

On a more serious note, it does objectify men on some levels. It also places near impossible standards on how an "ideal" man should appear. If we searched all of DU, we might find a HANDFUL of men who even looked like these dudes. There have been studies, and they are becoming more common, about disordered eating among men, as well as body image issues. It has spilled over from the gay/bisexual male community into the heterosexual community.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. You know, for my age, I think I look pretty good.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. I am holding up well at 43, but I do have a number of issues with my looks.

Don't get me wrong, I don't scare children unintentionally or have to sneak up on a mirror, but thinning hair, no longer thin, and a few other quirks sometimes really upset me.

All in all, at 43, I am not too bad off though.

[Upton]

27. Of course not...

why would I be offended by nudity, male or female? There are way too many prudes around here and in the country. Radfems, fundies, whatever..their goal is the same. They're all hiding behind something or some stated belief, as they seek to dictate to others on how to live their lives. You would think some of these folks would have better things to do.

[hifiguy]

29. No outrage here. None whatsoever.

Exactly why is this something that would cause outrage?

[4th law of robotics]

35. Pretty much anything is guaranteed to generate outrage

Any statement/picture/video/etc, no matter how seemingly benign, will offend someone, somewhere.

The trick is to filter out that basal level of outrage so we can determine is something is generating real outrage.

Some people aren't so good at this. Which is why you get posts about the horrible outrage this has spawned (as the basis for their later tangent) when in reality they're talking about a handful of people who likely would have been offended if they'd posted giant pictures of flowers or puppies.

[snooper2]

36. As long as it's not Romney, you ever check out just his arm hair?

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I saw him in the mom jeans, that was about as casual as I was able to handle. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

39. There was another shitfit around I missed? Just as well...

since I discovered I'm pretty good at stirring 'em up.

[MrSlayer]

40. It's not really what I'm interested in seeing but I don't want it banned.

It has its place in pop culture and art.

[Denninmi]

41. Doesn't bother me in art or in real life.

I see plenty of real life male nudity in the locker room of the health club I recently joined. So what, we've all got the same anatomy, I think it's healthy not to be so uptight about this stuff.

Years ago, I lived in college dorms with community bathrooms. It wasn't the male nudity that bothered me there, it was the puke on the floors on many Saturday mornings. Michigan State is a pretty notorious party school. And the janitorial staff left a lot to be desired.

[Macoy51]

42. Yes, I am offended

Personally, Yes, I am offended by male nudity. Unless the guy is fatter and has a smaller package then me, then it is ok. But that would cut out 99.97% of all male nudes




Macoy

[Springslips]

43. This quote make no sense

Apparently, "those men" who argue against censorship or believe consenting adults should be free to strip or screw in front of a camera, are reduced to blubbering jelly when confronted with pictures of naked men instead of women..

Ahhhh, there are naked men in porn flicks too.

And no I have no problem with it.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. there are?

HEAVENS!