The Wednesday Babe 27/05/2015

[Captain Thorrek]

I thought we were talking strictly about sexes. Does "babe" or "dude" mean anything outside the US as a racial remark? For us it means men and women. Just would like to know since I came across an innocent word here in the States means something nasty in the UK.

[narg]

I thought we were talking strictly about sexes. Does "babe" or "dude" mean anything outside the US as a racial remark? For us it means men and women. Just would like to know since I came across an innocent word here in the States means something nasty in the UK.

 

Sorry for being unclear. My point was just that it's not ok to post offending stuff anywhere. So we (by which I mean Zephyre) just have to decide whether posting pictures of half-naked women is offending or not. If it's offending then no, you can't post that anywhere, a separate section doesn't help.

[dode]

Why ban it or move it? To what end? What is this attempted censorship trying to achieve? If Zeph says no then it's a no, otherwise it's just PC for the sake of it.

[dode]

So we (by which I mean Zephyre) just have to decide whether posting pictures of half-naked women is offending or not.

Zeph can only know if it is offending if someone actually says they are offended by it, not when people start saying other people might be offended by it. Anyone who is genuinely offended is encouraged to PM any/all greensuits to ensure the matter is dealt with.

[narg]

Well the general point is to make role models evolve. I'd rather my daughter became a rocket scientist or a chess grandmaster than wait for prince charming and became a housewife. How would you like to live in a world where all men were depicted as slaves, and how would that impact your expectations in life.

 

I guess the issue with Blood Bowl is the unconscious impact the depiction of women could have; whether on the pitch or in the dug-outs. But the caveat here is that a spoof is not supposed to be respectful. So, whatever, if a guy here around has a PhD in ethics, maybe he could enlighten us.

[Dee Von Doom]

Im going to pipe up.....

 

I don't like the thread and would be happier if we didn't have it.,,,, but I can happily choose not to click on it if needs be however.

 

D

[Pidpad]

No need to worry about that DVD, jbecks got the stamina for this for 3 weeks tops. Then it's forgotten about for several years. That's the cycle.

[Rymdkejsaren]

I much prefer awareness to censorship, which should also answer Dode's question as to what I am trying to achieve here. I have not called for the closing of this thread and I do not find it offensive on its own. I would much rather see that we could agree that when women are repeatedly presented as objects of desire and beauty it has a negative impact on how we see them as a whole (because they are more than just those things).

 

I am not saying it is wrong to desire women or to find them beautiful. But I do believe that when that is all but the only way women are depicted within a community, we are reinforcing a belief that pleasing us with their physical appearance is their only purpose.

[Ethelred]

I guess it'll be obvious from my team name and the players contained within but I really don't like these threads of semi naked ladies.

Because I've got 2 daughters, because I think it's all a bit teenage boy who has never seen a pair of boobs before (kinda like the Sun's Page 3 British people).

Because I think having such pages and threads demean the OCC as a whole.

But what I do like is that there are more posts arguing about it than posts of women!

[Moncap]

I would much rather see that we could agree that when women are repeatedly presented as objects of desire and beauty it has a negative impact on how we see them as a whole (because they are more than just those things).

Does it have have a negative effect on how you see women as a whole?

Doesn't for me, so I'll have to disagree.

Or does this 'we' refer to other people who you are worried about?

Has anyone actually been offended yet? I haven't read all the thread, as it's picked up a lot of steam lately.

[narg]

Does it have have a negative effect on how you see women as a whole?

Doesn't for me, so I'll have to disagree.

 

The issue is that what you see around you creates an unconscious benchmark for your expectations.

 

Like the 8-year old kid who grows up in a bad neighbourhood and then when the teacher at school asks him what he wants to do when he's big, replies that he'll go to jail (that's an actual true story, the teacher is the wife from one of my colleagues).

[dode]

I guess the issue with Blood Bowl is the unconscious impact the depiction of women could have; whether on the pitch or in the dug-outs. But the caveat here is that a spoof is not supposed to be respectful.

If you're dumb enough to see women as objects rather than people then you've probably missed the fact that BB is a spoof, and so is it's depiction of women in a fantasy setting. Anyone with a modicum of emotional intelligence would rather have a partner they get mental as well as physical stimulation from, but the fact is that both types of stimulation exist. I guess I'm basically saying that threads like this change nothing.

I would much rather see that we could agree that when women are repeatedly presented as objects of desire and beauty it has a negative impact on how we see them as a whole (because they are more than just those things).

Women most certainly are more than that. That doesn't change the fact that some are physically very desirable - the same holds true for men. My wife was lusting after Chris Pratt when we went to see Jurassic World a few weeks back, but I did not find that demeaning at all, and apparently neither does he. In fact, he argues that the ability to find people from both sexes desirable from a purely physical standpoint is a push towards equality, and I would agree (interview in the Guardian some weeks back - feel free to Google it as I'm posting from a tablet and some stuff is hard to do). People find other people physically attractive: that's life.

[dode]

The issue is that what you see around you creates an unconscious benchmark for your expectations.

How does that hamper your ability to see women as people? And who are you to decide what evironment is "right" for us to have the "right" set of expectations?

[bjj hero]

The issue is that what you see around you creates an unconscious benchmark for your expectations.

 

Like the 8-year old kid who grows up in a bad neighbourhood and then when the teacher at school asks him what he wants to do when he's big, replies that he'll go to jail (that's an actual true story, the teacher is the wife from one of my colleagues).

But that didnt answer what Moncap asked...

[Rymdkejsaren]

narg: It has been established by an abundance of scientific studies that the sexualisation of both men and women in media has far-reaching negative impacts. It builds unrealistic body images and the unreachable standards cause psychological problems in both men and women. When women are repeatedly sexualised in media (which is much more common, but it occurs for both sexes), men, and young boys moreso, are more likely to objectify women which in turn has been shown to exacerbate or increase violence against women. When you dehumanize someone, it is easier to treat them poorly.

 

These are psychological mechanisms which we do not consciously control. So yes, it affects me and it affects you. Being aware of these mechanisms allows us to mitigate these effects, and of course we are less impressionable than young boys. But anyone who says that they are in complete control of their minds and can cherry-pick what impressions to be affected by does not begin understand the complexity of the human subconscious.

[Rymdkejsaren]

I would much rather see that we could agree that when women are repeatedly presented as objects of desire and beauty it has a negative impact on how we see them as a whole (because they are more than just those things).

 

 

Women most certainly are more than that. That doesn't change the fact that some are physically very desirable - the same holds true for men. My wife was lusting after Chris Pratt when we went to see Jurassic World a few weeks back, but I did not find that demeaning at all, and apparently neither does he. In fact, he argues that the ability to find people from both sexes desirable from a purely physical standpoint is a push towards equality, and I would agree (interview in the Guardian some weeks back - feel free to Google it as I'm posting from a tablet and some stuff is hard to do). People find other people physically attractive: that's life.

 

Did you read the next part of that same post? Because I said something very similar right after the bit you chose to quote. Finding women attractive is not the problem, it is presenting them in a context where that is made to be their only important quality.

[dode]

Yes, I did. It is not the same as the point I made at all. Or did you only read the last sentence of my post?

[Moncap]

I would double check these abundant scientific studies.

They may warn you of the effects of spending 100s or 1000s of hours playing a game where one of the main objectives is to hurt or kill the opposition, while scantily clad cheerleaders dance around on the sideline.

Obviously nothing compared to the effect of looking at an image of a scantily clad girl that someone may or may not have posted on the forums, for 2 seconds a week, but it all adds up.

Complex things these human subconscious'.

[Rymdkejsaren]

It truly is. The biggest study made on violence in video games suggested that prolonged exposure indeed decreases empathy and increases aggressive thoughts and angry behaviour, but other studies have later suggested that only those with a predisposition for aggressive behaviour are likely to be affected.

 

But fantasy violence and pictures of real women, made up, dressed up and photoshopped for our viewing pleasure are quite different things. And if it was just the two seconds a week I agree that it would be unlikely to have any large-scale effect. But the stereotype of women as objects of beauty pervades throughout mainstream media, whether it be games, books, TV, films or advertising.

 

Trying to connect the two subjects by speaking about them as if these separate studies were conducted by the very same group of conspiring scientists does not do much for your case. And any study published in respected science journals would already have undergone meticulous peer-review, and as such would not require a layman to "double-check" them.

[Pidpad]

Look here now, the thread was created in May, no new posts of the same nature have been made since.

Clearly jbecks laziness/awakening outdoes any of what you're saying :P

[dode]

the stereotype of women as objects of beauty pervades throughout mainstream media, whether it be games, books, TV, films or advertising.

You see it as a stereotype of an object of beauty, I see it as a lure used by advertisers to get me to part with my money. Sex sells (because the vast majority of us want it), and sex sells better if the partner is desirable. It just happens that visual desirability is very easy to get onto a screen, so it is used. I'm not saying it's a good thing by any means, but that is what it is. To suggest that this be equivalent to the occasional picture of a (usually) physically attractive woman makes little sense.

[Rymdkejsaren]

You see it as a stereotype of an object of beauty, I see it as a lure used by advertisers to get me to part with my money.

 

Why can't it be both?

 

To suggest that this be equivalent to the occasional picture of a (usually) physically attractive woman makes little sense.

 

That is not really what I am suggesting. I am trying to explain my point of view based on the effects of the same phenomenon on a much larger scale.

[dode]

Why must it be both? I don't see it as a stereotype because my experience of real women is very different (and almost invariably better) than that two-dimensional image. I therefore don't see it as demeaning to the group "women" because it does not represent the group "women". It's simply not real.

How is the scaling up relevant when the effects are only seen when the scaling up happens?

[Gobas]

Oh, I missed loads of interesting topic.

 

Couple of thoughts from my small point of view.

 

- I understand that objectification of women is problem. But IMO photo of more art than porno is just a photo. Yes, putting almost naked woman in advertising of bricks or cars is insulting for women. But the same I can say about not normal guys in almost all advertising of men clothes/ cosmetics/ underwear.

I say no to pornography in OCC (if someone wants to watch it in private I don't care).  This particular photo is IMO more art than porno.

 

And Yes I am totaly ok with "Thursday Hunk" topic. If anyone wants to do one (and if we will have Wednesday Babe I can post Hunks, I don't have any problem with that).

 

I know that for some ppl any photo with more or less naked woman is objectification of women. No its not. There is thousands of photos, art, paintings of naked womans and its not objectification. Its just photo or painting.

 

The same way I could say that David is objectification of Men.

 

Its funny when ppl are saying Barbie is bad image for girls (and I can agree with some of this) and they say nothing about He-Man and his image of men...

 

- and yes English is not my primary language, before someone reads from my post something I do not write please ask.

[Moncap]

It truly is. The biggest study made on violence in video games suggested that prolonged exposure indeed decreases empathy and increases aggressive thoughts and angry behaviour, but other studies have later suggested that only those with a predisposition for aggressive behaviour are likely to be affected.

This should serve as a reminder that these studies disagree, are not always right, and are generally at best, suggestions.

You've clearly disregarded the first one or you wouldn't be playing bloodbowl. If another one comes out saying actually, they do decrease empathy and increase aggressive thoughts for everyone, will you stop?

If you believe any of them enough to think that when women are repeatedly presented as objects of desire and beauty it has a negative impact on how everyone sees them as a whole, then fair enough.

I however disagree. I think a weekly thread on the OCC board with pictures of scantily clad women which I may or may not see, will have no impact on how I see women. And I don't believe it will have an impact on the OCCers I have had the pleasure of meeting in real life. And I'm guessing it will have very little impact on anyone, apart from sparking big 20 page discussions occasionally.

If you're fighting the bigger fight, and I do agree there is one to be fought, then good luck, and have fun. I just find it amusing that it is fought in the forum of such a violent video game.