This message was self-deleted by its author

[Warren DeMontague]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Warren DeMontague) on Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:29 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[caseymoz]

1. Notice that they see her in underwear . . .

When she's clearly not in underwear? They also say she must be a tranny. This is similar to what goes on when the antis see a pornographic picture. They'll see terror in the pornstar's eyes. They'll say that there's someone holding a gun off screen, and so on. It's always biased toward making the image, or the circumstances where it was taken, worse.

That's why I think there's something else going on here besides simple ideological disagreement or principled objection. When the expressed perceptions radically differ from the image shown, always toward something more licentiousness, that's when I begin to question whether their midbrains aren't pulling some tricks on their unconscious. I begin to doubt whether they can even be rational about it, feminism or not.

I also think they're just another generation of censorious prudes with a different terminology. Same goals. Same justifications for the goals. Different vocabulary.

[loli phabay]

9. there seems to be a lot of transphonia and hatred amongst some of the more strident feminists

Probuably due to the sexual attractiveness aspect. A lot of trans are exceptionally attractive and knew it and hype it and i think a lot of less attractive women resent the fact that they are literally blown out the water and end up hating what they see as competition.

[caseymoz]

10. Don't know if it's the principal reason.

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:59 AM - Edit history (1)

She's not a trans. (Excuse me for previous usage. I never knew until recently that "trannie" is insulting. I thought it utterly accepted.) One poster lays that innuendo. I've never noticed trans as being greatly attractive, though I'll admit there may be cases that I can't tell the difference, without the obvious.

Jealousy can be a component, but I really think there's something else driving it. What I would call "sexual nausea."

[4th law of robotics]

2. On the one hand you have millions of years of evolution

that tell us to notice how each other looks and think about sex a lot. It is ingrained in our genes and our culture (get rid of our culture and start over blank and the same basic principles would emerge again spontaneously).

On the other hand you have feminists claiming we really aren't interested in looking at each other or sex that it's entirely forced upon us.

Well best of luck rad-fems, overturning all that evolution. It's going to be an uphill battle.

[loli phabay]

7. maybe its just that pic but she looks nuts and i mean scarey nuts

In a kind of bride of a brian may frankenstein way.

[Bonobo]

4. Quite right. Look at this monkey/ape "objectification"!

I can't believe how these monkeys and apes objectify women when they are in estrus. They reduce their women to their genital swelling!

[4th law of robotics]

5. Dat ass

/I mean it's all those magazines and ads and movies that condition apes to be at all interested in the physical characteristics of other apes. "Naturally" they only care about each other's personality. Sex is the furthest thing from their minds.

[loli phabay]

8. easy on the eyes sells. fact of life

Now would you buy something advertised by this lady before the lady shown below. Definetly yes unless it was cereal killer supplies.

[4th law of robotics]

11. People are only interested in sexy members of the opposite sex because of patriarchal conditioning

no human being is naturally interested in sex (particularly PIV which is abhorrent and devastating to women).

Just look at chimps. So like humans but free from the grips of the patriarchy. They aren't interested in sex. They don't fornicate for any reason other than procreation. And they certainly don't care for elaborate sexual displays from their females.

Nope. Humans are the only primates that seem to be interested in sex. And also the only ones in the gripe of the dread Patriarchy. Coincidence?

[sxyliberal]

12. Please delete

Mind deleting this thread as this is my photo? Thanks!

[sxyliberal]

16. Yes, it's me.

It is actually me. I'm suffering grief about my photo appearing on google images by my husband. I'm currently doing an internship in DC and trying to get all traces of me off from the interwebs. Hope you can understand, and thanks for coming to my defense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Welcome to DU. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. The wordpress blog in the link is published as "private" i.e. it's a dead link.

When I go to a trade show, I'm not impressed at vendors who hire bathing-suit booth babes to move the product.

Frankly, that feeling doesn't go away when the product being sold is philosophy and ideology.

Hey, I'm human and I'm sure subliminal signals attract me to a variety of products and messages, but those signals should be more sophisticated than "Read my blog... because boobs!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. I see what you're saying.

I agree it's prudent to verify that it's really the owner of the site before reacting.

And I also understand the blogger's point in the context of progressive puritans and conservative juvenile jackassery.