Gratuitous images of violence against women.

[redqueen]

Poll question: Gratuitous images of violence against women.

Do you think the gratuitous use of images of violence against women is a good thing or a bad thing?

IMO it's unquestionably bad. However on a thread about a certain (IMO very offensive) ad on DU, it appears many people have absolutely no problem with gratuitous images of violence against women... so I thought I'd post a poll.

[Better Today]

1. I have Adblock so I don't see the ads. What is the ad for? Is it related at all

to its image? I guess I'm just confused as to how an image as you describe can be gratuitous.

[redqueen]

5. It's an for a movie about the torture of detainees.

There are several images used to advertise it, but the one that offends at least a few people here is of a crying, gagged woman's face.

[Better Today]

27. If it's for a movie exposing the horrors of detainee torture, it isn't gratuitous, imo.

[redqueen]

29. We'll agree to disagree, then. (nt)

[Better Today]

36. Please explain how it is gratuitous if it is related to the ad and the topic of the movie?

[redqueen]

39. Most detainees are not women... why use a crying, gagged woman as the ad? (nt)

[Better Today]

45. Because some are, and an image of a woman would create more outrage, as evidenced here.

Somehow people see men being tortured and think, well they were soldiers or at arms at some time against the prevailing group that is torturing, therefore even though it is outrageous, most will rationalize a certain amount of it. When one sees a woman, one thinks "what the hell did she do to deserve that?!?" and the outrage is more clear cut.

[redqueen]

47. Yes, that's the shock value ... creating more outrage.

Some people consider that a worthwhile tactic... I don't, though. It is effective... but IMO it repels as many people as it attracts.

[Better Today]

49. Adequate outrage that wouldn't be experienced by men being tortured.

Unfortunate but true. The outrage should be intense regarding detainee torture. Anything that can be done to maintain the intensity of that outrage is fine.

[seabeyond]

51. delete

again

[Better Today]

52. after two deletes in one thread, I'm now really curious as to your opinion.

[seabeyond]

117. i had to get more info. now that i have, i want more info. i want to know if graphic only women

being tortured. a person, i am assuming he has a part in the movie wont answer, which concerns me even more and convinces me i dont want to watch a film if the sole intent is brutalizing women cause it draws an audience.

[redqueen]

56. Do you honestly believe that movie will convert people?

That people who didn't care overly much about torture before will suddenly see the light because an actress is treated in a brutal, sexual way?

[Better Today]

70. I don't know, but I'm not going to short someone for trying just because it

offends my delicate senses.

[redqueen]

98. "delicate senses"... very telling. (nt)

[Dr. Strange]

94. Here's a link to the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcl-uofCzRc

Having watched it, it looks to me like it's using a young woman's cleavage to sell the video.

[seabeyond]

95. using a young woman's cleavage to sell the video. ..... exactly what they are doing

as they self rightiously lecture on the evils of torture while using her tits to titilliate. now i wonder if it is indicative of the rest of the film and if it isnt just one big shit on women to entertain a bunch of sick fucks.

[dustbunnie]

128. That is bad... Blair Witch bad! n/t

[Matariki]

105. That ad looks like it's for an S\M porn movie.

Negative effect - makes me not want to see the movie. Actually I don't want to see any movie with footage of people being tortured, non-consensually.

[Romulox]

23. It must be because of your donor status; I have adblock but I still see it...nt

[Better Today]

26. Nope I've never seen ads for longer than it takes me to adblock

the originating source. Perhaps you aren't using it to it's advantage.

On the other hand, I am forever thankful to the kind person who bought my star for me.

[Romulox]

31. Understood. But it's not blocked automatically/by default. nt

[TeeYiYi]

28. Right click on the image...

...and choose "Adblock Plus: Block image..." from the menu.

TYY

[Romulox]

30. Sorry for the confusion. I know how to manually block it, but by default, it isn't blocked... nt

[Better Today]

34. It can be after you do the right click thing if you choose properly.

Otherwise I agree that Firefox does allow you the opportunity to block what you want without blocking what you don't. I guess if you get one of their related block services this may not be true, I don't use those, I'm a control freak.

[TeeYiYi]

40. Donor status doesn't apply. I had to manually block the image. ...nt

TYY

[Romulox]

42. Makes sense, given the widespread reaction. Thanks for the info. nt

[David__77]

2. If it's "gratuitous," then isn't it bad by definition?

Your question would make more sense to me if you said "Do you think the use of images of violence against women, except under (fill in examples) circumstances, is a good thing or a bad thing?"

[redqueen]

8. One would think...

but most people seem to just love gratuitous images of of objectified, hypersexualized women... so who knows.

[David__77]

11. Aren't those two things?

On the one hand, you have violence against women, and on the other, you have sexualized women. The first is a problem, of course. With the latter, it breaks down into two parts. When you say "sexualized," as opposed to "sexual," it implies the objectification - the women is the subject and not a master of her surroundings. Images portraying women with an assertive sexuality I think can be positive and good.

[redqueen]

15. Images of women with an assertive sexuality

which are used despite a complete lack of anything to do with the context of whatever... or despite any common sense... are gratuitous... assertive nature or not.

[David__77]

66. Hmm...

So you oppose all pornography? I used to, but do not any more. Of course, we're all probably referring to specific image(s) of which I am not aware.

[redqueen]

68. I'm not sure.

I used to be fine with pornography... but not so much any more after considering how the industry is run.

However, in the context of this thread... objectification would seem to be impossible in pornography because the whole point is to show hypersexualized images of both sexes.

[David__77]

71. I know many porn workers.

They seem ok with what they do, but that's it. They like the money and attention, but seem unhappy in their intimate relations. I've had to make decisions about if I was ok with my significant other being involved in that industry as well, and I am not ok with it really...

[gratuitous]

80. Man, I'm really taking a beating on this thread

'Sokay, I got broad shoulders.

[blindpig]

133. I know the feeling....n/t

[Kalyke]

3. I can't understand why anyone would think images of violence

against any living creature would be a good thing.

I don't want to see women harmed, nor men, nor children, nor animals.

:shrug:

I rec'ed this for you, queen.

[Gman2]

7. There are GOOD reasons for gratuitous violence. NYAHH, NYAHH, Nyahhh!

[Caliman73]

12. I think that it oversimplifies the argument to put it in terms of "good and bad"

The pictures of victims of the holocaust or of the massacre at My Lai raised awareness of the horrors of war and of atrocities which focused opinion towards an end that may be positive. Pictures with simulate brutality for the purpose of titillation, or to dehumanize, or for prurient interests are aimed at sales and nothing else.

They may be the same pictures, and they may depict horrible things, but their purpose does play into their ultimate perception.

[redqueen]

17. Gratuitous - not called for in the circumstances.

Using that definition, I thought there was fairly little wiggle room involved.

One can disagree whether something is or is not gratuitous... certainly. But whether gratuitous things are good or bad seemed pretty cut and dry to me.

[Caliman73]

22. I agree, but I was not answering your OP.

I agree the images of violence and sex used for gratuitous or prurient interests are never positive. The person in the sub thread extended your idea to any pictures of violence against humans or animals. I was merely responding to that particular post.

[redqueen]

32. I see...

sorry about that.

[ZombieHorde]

73. I think the word "awesome" would be better than the word "good."

Not all of the imagery is awesome, but most of it is, consider movies such as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Dawn of the Dead.

[Brickbat]

4. I hate the argument that because it happens in real life, the image of it happening in a

fictionalized sense is OK. If it's happening in real life, and that's scary and horrible, then let's look at that image. There's no reason for a bait-and-switch with a titillating horror-movie-like photo to get you to click and then see it being used as an "example" of detainee torture.

It's the opposite reason that I won't watch slasher or extreme horror movies. That shit happens in real life; I don't need to degrade myself by watching representations of it and calling it entertainment.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Is it something a woman was forced to do?

I doubt an ad used a model that didn't agree to what they are doing. Now snuff is a different thing imo. Also not to the same extent, but you do see violence against men as well. Honestly not trying to flame I just don't see the big deal over an add.

[redqueen]

10. No I'm sure she was a paid actress, however...

IMO that doesn't negate the gratuitousness of the image selected for the ad.

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. I don't see the ads so I don't really know what is being discussed,

but if it is truly offensive I would think the mods or skinner could deal with it. :shrug: Nothing in a ad shocks me on the internet anymore though.

[redqueen]

20. Indeed...

it's like a family-sized bucket of filth, as a guy once said.

[Romulox]

9. I find them offensive. #1 offender that I regularly see is "Family Guy"

The show has frequent depictions of relatively graphic murder and abuse of women.

And by the very structure of the show, the violence is almost always gratuitous--i.e. in no way related to the main plot.

[leftstreet]

14. Offensive

And very irritating

People have become NUMB to images of violence against women. Had the ad-makers used an image of a tortured child, DU would have imploded.

[Kceres]

16. Yes. And furthermore, I am against using images of people to advertise products.

Any person: woman, child, man. So there.

[redqueen]

19. I'm against advertising altogether.

So there.

[tekisui]

18. I certainly don't like them.

I usually ignore the ads, but I adblocked these.

[polly7]

21. It's as offensive as it gets. I know women aren't a minority

anymore, but what other group would be shown being abused and anyone think it alright? jmo of course.

[leftstreet]

25. Excellent point

Seniors? Disabled? Children?

People would shit themselves.

[Chulanowa]

41. This thread is a good example of WHY they use women in the ads for movies like this

Do you think there would be an equivalent thread if the ad in question were using a gagged and pleading male? Likely not. I could be wrong, but I'd expect several threads joking about it, if anything.

Portraying a woman or a child in that situation results in visceral response. You're supposed to be revolted and put off by it, because the goal is to make you react. It's the chauvinist mentality that still exists that says women are vulnerable and innocent need extra-special care that leads to this sort of imagery - and the response to it.

[redqueen]

44. No, the response is also from women who have been brutalized...

or people who are sensitive to the brutalization of women.

Maybe that means that I and others who are offended hypersensitive...

[Chulanowa]

50. I just got done watching the video...

I can definitely understand if you didn't, so I'll try to explain it.

We atart with the cameraman creeping down into the basement to check on "his" captive. he paws at her a bit, zooms the camera onto her chest. And then we cue to congressional hearings about the detainment and treatment of US captives in the "War on terror". After that we see a few more images of this woman, more lines from the hearings and from Bush.

You're supposed to be repulsed by the treatment of the woman. This is not a glorification of her captor and abuser, it's an indictment. The film asks, if you are repulsed by the treatment of her - who you know to be an actor, of course - just think about the real people - women, men, children - who are really in the same or worse situation, with your tax dollars paying for it?

I'll honestly say it's not something I'd send to my mom to watch. Made my guts curl up a little tighter than usual. But I understand what it's aiming for. And far from you being "hypersensitive," you are having exactly the intended (and appropriate) reaction.

[redqueen]

57. I don't think the movie will cause anyone to change their minds about anything.

Other than perhaps the respectability of the outfit who produced/published it.

[seabeyond]

75. bullshit. not zoom on tits a bet. was the focus. and was sick. i saw two clips

both clips the perversion to female. the one you mention was all about getting the fuckin tits out there as you hear her fear, adn his sick perverted voice.

this is what women are fuckin sick and tired of being "entertained" with all the god damn time

and really wishing i didnt put the effort into seeing what everyone was talking about

so god damn tired of this shit

feed fest

[grahamhgreen]

87. Thank you. Please send the actual film to a teabagger fro Christmas. The Torturer Movie (.com)

[redqueen]

99. Yep, they can get off on it and pass it around...

and enjoy the idea of torture even more thoroughly.

Brilliant plan.

[seabeyond]

102. this is all i am seeing. bunch of sick males booyahing over the rape of women.....isnt that fun. nt

[redqueen]

104. Oh, but it's for a Good Reason(TM).

Shortsightedness and acceptance of the status quo... that's all this is.

[seabeyond]

109. what gets me people saying, to abuse female draws the attention, as if that makes it ok

i mean, what the fuck is wrong with people

[redqueen]

110. They grew up in this culture...

they see it as no big deal.

[Chulanowa]

126. And where, exactly, are you seeing this?

[seabeyond]

129. the clip is like from a guy movie, violence again women sexualized for a turn on

it looks like a movie made by a bunch of men. see how awful, the sexual humiliation of women, really, look at those tits, paw at those tits, hear her crying as we jack off to the tits

what i see is a bunch of men watching it, getting off on it, then saying how horrible torture is

in that clip, does the black out stay, or when watching the movie are we seeing it all.... pulling down the bra, sickening perverted male voice as he is sexually humiliating the female, her cries and fear

we all getting turned on yet

it is sick

[Chulanowa]

131. Who's turned on?

As far as I can tell, even the people who disagree with the OP's take on it agree that the video is repulsive. As a guy myself, I can't say I feel any particular thrill. Unless you count "I want to bludgeon that guy with a bag of hammers" to be thrilling.

[seabeyond]

132. and this is why all the recent guy movies uses this shit. and tha is why the sexual humiliation of

female is so hot in porn.

[Chulanowa]

134. Again, who is turned on?

And what exactly is a "guy movie"?

[polly7]

91. Thanks Chulanowa

Mine was a gut reaction. Good point you've made ..... but, many will only see what they choose to and unfortunately for some it won't be anything educational. jmo.

[redqueen]

100. How many pro-choice people are "educated" by pictures of aborted fetuses? (nt)

[polly7]

116. delete

[Better Today]

54. Yep, that's what I've been trying to "say," you've said it better.

[seabeyond]

76. the dehumanizing and objectifying and perversion to woman is ALWAYS the way to fuckin get

the message out because it works.

dehumanizing a woman to sell product works, so shut the fuck up.

dehumanizing a woman to stop people eating meat works, so shut the fuck up

getting people opposed to torture by using a woman to do sick fuck shit to works, so shut the fuck up

[Downtown Hound]

24. I'll tell you my honest opinion on it

I honestly don't notice it much anymore. I've been staring at pages featuring that ad with the gagged woman for days, and it barely even registered. I'm not really sure what that says, except that I think we as a culture have become greatly desensitized to such images. Or maybe just I have.

[redqueen]

35. I noticed it every time... but I didn't bother to say anything.

Because I figured it was just me being overly sensitive. Again.

By the ubiquitousness of these images, society tells us these images are fine, and so if we have a problem with them, it must be us. If not for that other thread about it, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

[gleaner]

33. I have a problem with them ...

It is hard for me, because I don't believe in censorship, but on the other hand when I see a pictures of violence against women in commercials, or publications or contexts other than such images need to be shown. I feel like I am being told that it is OK to be violent toward women. That somehow it is not only acceptable, but even rather clever and that women are inferior beings who somehow deserve whatever we get.

[PVnRT]

37. Adblock in Firefox is a wonderful thing

[smalll]

43. Another one of these. Oh yeah, "no problem" -- if you don't want to see images...

of violence against women, you "just have to download 'Firefox' on to your computer and activate "Adblock"... Make sure your CPU is set to 100.36b joules per kilobyte, and don't forget to toggle off pop-ups while burining a disk to your D: drive using C++++ with dingbats. Then reboot." :eyes:

Not EVERYONE here is an IT geek.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

48. That is exactly how I read your comment.

Glad to know I wasn't off the mark.

[Better Today]

53. Just so you know, you don't have to be a geek to have Firefox or use it successfully.

It's really quite easy. It is a CPU hog though. So if you have an older puter, it could be a drain on resources.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

55. If you haven't mastered Google and Right-click/Save, you shouldn't use a computer.

[redqueen]

58. deleted

*sigh*

[Starbucks Anarchist]

59. I was addressing his assumption that it was a highly technical process.

I'm assuming you thought I was speaking about the broader issue of those types of pictures.

[redqueen]

60. No...

I was just thinking of novices who get computers... and who miss previous instructions... and see comments like how they're stupid or shouldn't have a computer or whatever. I'm just being overly sensitive I'm sure. I'm sure I could operate adblock so I know I deserve to own a computer.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

62. But the poster doesn't seem to be a novice.

If he's posted 1,000+ messages on an internet board (not novice-like behavior), then it's clear he should know rudimentary things like Right-click/save. Instead, he copped an attitude against his pet peeve of the week in an effort to avoid simple measures.

[redqueen]

63. As I said...

I was thinking of others who see such comments... not necessarily the person those comments were directed towards.

[Art_from_Ark]

78. That was hilarious

"Make sure your CPU is set to 100.36b joules per kilobyte, and don't forget to toggle off pop-ups while burining a disk to your D: drive using C++++ with dingbats. Then reboot." :rofl:

[seabeyond]

38. self delete. nt

[The Straight Story]

61. What do you think the impact of such images are? (nt)

[redqueen]

65. Desensitization, of course.

As a few people have already said, graphic images of violence against women are fairly commonplace, and considered acceptable. I suppose at least in this context, they have an arguably 'good' reason to stoop to using shock tactics to get clickthroughs... in examples like the one given above, Family Guy... not so much.

[The Straight Story]

69. Well then I would ask

(not to you directly, speaking in general here) if folks who feel that way also feel that words against groups of people (islamic, jewish, christian, gays, etc) have the same impact (words or images I suppose)?

IE - if we take negative images/events/stereotypes/encounters with a group/religion/race/whatever and then put that out there on a regular basis (like, say, religions kill people and are the source of all our problems) does that not promote hate and desensitization (in so far as it leads others to think such attacks on others is acceptable and a good thing)?

[reflection]

64. If the poll question said

"gratuitous use of images of violence against *people*" I would have answered the poll, and answered it 'bad thing'.

Gratuitous use of images of violence against anyone is a bad thing. It's not justifiable for either sex.

I left the poll alone in order not to skew the results.

[Odin2005]

67. Get the AdBlocker app for FireFox!

[ZombieHorde]

72. I voted "I have no problem with them."

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is awesome.

[varelse]

74. I find gratuitous use of images of violence against ANYONE offensive

The victim doesn't have to be a woman - or even a member of the human species.

[ZombieHorde]

77. Even in action movies? Zombie movies? nt

[varelse]

79. I'm too much of a wuss to actually watch the scary parts

I have to be dead drunk to even stay in the room through those :scared:

If rape or torture are depicted, I have found that it is best for me to walk away - I cannot sit and watch it, even knowing it is "only a movie".

[Canuckistanian]

81. The problem is with the word "gratuitous"

"Gratuitous" implies that there is no moral, intellectual or logical reason for showing something. That it's done for sensational reasons ONLY.

From what I've heard about the ad, it DOES have a moral purpose.

Now, the only thing to reconcile is the ETHICAL reasons for using such an extreme image. Is it done for purely didactic purposes? Is it done to entice the ethical audience to watch the whole presentation?

Or has SOME sensationalism been allowed to remain in order to attract attention?

[seabeyond]

82. click on the ad and watch the clip and plenty of 'gratuitous" in the film piece.

sick fucks for entertainment

[pipi_k]

83. No third option...

I personally find them a bit disturbing

BUT


I don't feel it's my place to ask, demand, beg, or otherwise request that a site owned by someone other than myself delete them.


There are lots of things I'm disturbed by, and it's not my business to be running around trying to censor what others might want to see just because I don't like it.

[LostInAnomie]

84. If this is in reference to that ad...

... wouldn't we have to actually see the movie to know if it is gratuitous?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

85. Violence is NEVER good unless it's in protecting yourself against aggression.

[Toucano]

86. I dislike gratuitous images of violence against ALL PEOPLE. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

88. There is no gratuitous violence in the film... or the ad. Torture is abhorrent whether it is

a psycho or a government doing the torture.

Please be outraged - very outraged.

Please get the actual film (http://thetorturer.com), show it to tea-baggers and torture ambivalents, and get them to be outraged as well; until we outlaw rendition and prosecute for torture. This film changes hearts and minds.

DON'T LET TORTURE BE OUR GIFT TO OUR CHILDREN.




John Yoo's actual answers to John Conyers in a public hearing:

Q: “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”

Yoo: ”No treaty.”

Q: “Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.”

Yoo: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”



Is Yoo not as sick as any psychopath?



gratuitous (http://definr.com/gratuitous)

adj 1: without cause; "a gratuitous insult"
2: costing nothing; "complimentary tickets" costless, free, gratis(p)]
3: unnecessary and unwarranted; "a strikers' tent camp...was
burned with needless loss of life"

[seabeyond]

89. clip i saw was. is there anything else in the movie but the perverse abuse of female?

i saw two clips. they were both on female. leads one to believe the only way they are showing the torture is thru sexually abusing and intiminating a female. is that thru out the movie?

[grahamhgreen]

90. The film details the torture policies of the Bush administration in a way that

penetrates through to a sick American society that is desensitized to torture not only through its TV and film (like '24' and "Saw' and "Hostel"), but also through the lack of prosecuting those who have tortured with impunity.

When those at the top of our society govern through torture, the entire society becomes infiltrated with a deep sickness that can be unpleasant to watch as we root it out.


It is fine to be motivated to take an offensive ad down, but we are trying to motivate a popular movement in our country to remove an inhuman policy completely, including rendition and torture in all its forms, and bring criminals to justice.

The ad has been voluntarily removed.

However, those who have tortured innocent people with our tax dollars remain unrepentant and un-investigated.

The shocking image is used to bring attention to our film, "The Torturer". Similar to a PETA ad. It received twice as many clicks as our other ads, even with the warning to not watch it.


Yes, torture is horrible, ugly, and ongoing.

Thank you for helping to put an end to this practice by our country.

When you remember the image of the bound woman, remember this is really happening to someone, somewhere, today, with our tax dollars.

Don't let torture be our gift to our children.

Please check out the film so you can understand the depth of what is occurring, or give it to a tea-bagger or torture justifier for Christmas, so that they, too, can understand.



ENDORSEMENTS:



· “Shocking, compelling… intense...”

Thom Hartmann, Air America Radio

· “You’ve got to see this film!”

Mike Malloy, Mike Malloy Radio, Sirius/XM, KTLK, Etc…

· “A riveting film… great performances...”

James Seale – Director, “Throttle” and “Juncture”

· “Excellent”

Laurie Walters, Ironweed Films

· “I can't get it out of my mind. It really stays with you. It was incredible. By far the best film (at the AFM 2008).”

Charlie Fagin – American Film Market, Projectionist

· “Extremely Powerful!”

Ban Bessie, Producer “Executive Action” (Burt Lancaster, Will Geer)

· “Extremely powerful!”

Michael Haas, CEO, Political Film Society, Stanley Awards

· “An important film”

Linda Zises, WBAI, New York

· “About time.”

An Army Wife



LINKS:

Official Trailer: http://bit.ly/TorturerTrailer


Also Available:

AMAZON: http://bit.ly/Amazon2
BARNES & NOBLE: http://bit.ly/TorturerBarnesNoble
NETFLIX: http://bit.ly/TorturerNetflix
BLOCKBUSTER: http://bit.ly/TorturerBlockbuster
BEST BUY: http://bit.ly/TorturerBestBuy
TARGET: http://bit.ly/TorturerTarget
BORDERS: http://bit.ly/TorturerBorders
WALMART: (no I am not giving a link to this crap store!)

WEBSITE: http://thetorturer.com

DEMAND IT!: http://bit.ly/TorturerDemandit

HOST A SCREENING! http://thetorturer.bravenewtheaters.com/host

[seabeyond]

92. you didnt answer my question. on the two clips that i saw it was only the perverse abuse of female.

is this how you are getting you message out that torture is disgustly bad, thru the graphically sexual abuse of female. are we see the graphically abuse of male in your clips too.

if the purpose is to horrify it by using a woman in a sexualized manner, intellectually you are repulsing the person to reject torture while intentionally using means turning them on thru the violence.

is it only about female torture?

[seabeyond]

93. then to compare to peta using females to get message out along with violent torture to women to get

your message out, what the fuck are women.... solely here for yawls abuse to get your fuckin message out? just fuckin rape a woman to show the world how nasty rape is. women will willingly oblige you males to get your message out for our safety

[grahamhgreen]

118. There is much, much more. It is a detailed analysis of what you have been paying to do to people.

[seabeyond]

120. again, i ask for the third time. is the graphic torture only of women along with sexual humiliation

simple question.

men were raped and sexually humiliated way more than women in those two prisons. for males to watch the rape and sexual humiliation of men will be a 100x's more effective in opposing torture. sexual humiliation and rape of women is entertainment in the u.s.

so i ask

again

for the third time.....

is there sexual humiliation and rape of male at the least.... equal to that of women.

simple question

[grahamhgreen]

122. I can't answer that without spoiling the movies plot points, sorry. But it's not what you think it

is, I promise.

[seabeyond]

123. you cant tell me if it is all about humiliating, sexually assaulting female thru out movie. emphasis

on female degradation.

a promise, not what you think, just watch and see, isnt going to cut it.

this... truly.... makes me sick. using women every fuckin way in the sickest and most degrading way to get your message out.

and then another thread of yours.... porn and prostitution, why arent they the same.

what reason would i believe

all you have to say is the degradation to females is just in the only two clips that i saw...

[grahamhgreen]

124. Yes, I promise you it is NOT

"all about humiliating, sexually assaulting female thru out movie"

Now, can you answer me - should Obama prosecute for torture crimes that may have been committed under the Bush administration?

Is it OK for Obama to render people to secret prisons?

[seabeyond]

125. yes. go after bush. fuck, clinton was doing it in secret, go after him.

and no, it is not ok.

ever

and to use it on film... what was that exclusive focus on her tits continuously as she cried in fear. wtf was that shit. that wasn't showing torture. that was showing the perversion of the film maker for entertainment for men. there was absolutley no consideration to females in that making. was all the male fantasy in movie making. it wasnt necessary. it was wanted

[redqueen]

107. That's an opinion I do not share. Using tits and gagged women to argue against torture? Absurd...

it's gratuitous (IMO)... used for shock value only... and it's idiotic.

How many pro-choice people were converted to the anti-choice side by seeing pictures of aborted fetuses? Not too many.

[grahamhgreen]

119. Are you outraged at the actual torture of women by your government that is ongoing,

or just having to see it depicted in an advertisement?

Do you feel that someone who answers the way John Yoo does below should be investigated, or do you feel Obama should look forward and not backward?


John Yoo's actual answers to John Conyers in a public hearing:

Q: “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”

Yoo: ”No treaty.”

Q: “Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.”

Yoo: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”



And how do you feel we can get the justice department to investigate the torture of children, and women?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. I think gratuitous images of violence against women are a good thing

in comparison to gratuitous whiny calls for censorship.

[redqueen]

97. Look up the definitions of "gratuitous" and "censorship". (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. OK.

Gratuitous- being without apparent reason, cause, or justification

Check.

Censorship- the act or practice of censoring

Censor- 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

Check.

[redqueen]

103. So despite the fact that the ad (and another thread about it) inspired this thread...

you still think it's somehow "gratuitous"... really.

And despite the fact that I didn't say anything about supressing anything... you consider that censorship.

Well... guess we'll have to just leave it at that, then.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. Yup.

"And despite the fact that I didn't say anything about supressing anything... you consider that censorship."

You participated a thread yesterday advocating exactly that.

[redqueen]

108. You have participated in threads saying all kinds of things...

am I to take it you agree with everything said in those threads?

Fucksakes... are you drinking?

[aikoaiko]

111. Much more context is needed to judge whether an image is a good thing or bad thing.

[redqueen]

112. I thought the word "gratuitous" would be enough context.

We can disagree about whether the image was gratuitously used for the movie (the ad for which inspired the thread which inspired this one)... but as to whether using images like that gratutiously in general is bad or not, I thought it would be fairly cut and dry.

[aikoaiko]

113. Nope, not enough. Being unwarranted or unnecessary doesn't necessitate something being good or bad

[redqueen]

114. Thanks for sharing your opinion on this. (nt)

[Nikki Stone1]

115. K & R, Redqueen!

:thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

121. Of course reasonable people object.

But that won't matter on DU.

[comtec]

127. Objection causes discussion

which is the POINT of DU I thought?
I have been traveling and working/training the last 3 weeks, so I know nothing about whats going on.
And somehow I think I like it better that way.

I saw the cliff notes on the president's speech and..um... yeah.

Look the film makers decided this was the best way to get attention and it's worked.

The only problem is the people who are yelling and screaming may never actually WATCH the damned thing, only objecting to a few choice bits here n there.

From the cliff notes someone up thread posted it sounds like a very interesting point the filmers are trying to make. However it could have been done w/o such voluptuous person it sounds like.

Also on another point made up-thread, would anyone have cared, seriously, if it was a man?

There is too much open misogyny and misandry on this board lately for a decent discussion of this film, or at least the point it's trying to make, which is sad.

In the end, we're all paying for this to happen and be done...in ALL of our names =[

[seabeyond]

130. sexual violence against women is entertainment. a norm. stick a fluorescent tube

up a males ass.... that will get the mens attention.

the only reason using a woman to sexually humiliate is it will be the same ole enticement for men to watch. while women sit appalled.

[comtec]

136. I apologize if I offended you somehow seabeyond

You are the last person on this board I would ever want to offend.
But I am genuinely surprised by your posts.

I was only making the point that because we are discussing this, that the attempt was successful.
be the method revolting, or not, we are in fact discussing this. (and yes I agree with your points)

or at least one aspect of all this. But I'm afraid we're missing the point entirely.
When you tell a story, depending on the point you want to get across, you choose your antagonist accordingly.

I have never seen you make such vicious posts before.
I'm not trying to defend the images, I'm only trying to make a sanguine point about telling a story, and the sad reality that no one would care if it was a man. You could do whatever you want to him, and it would not garner a fraction of the reaction this is getting.

As you yourself have pointed out, men are even more vicious to other men they perceive as weak, because of the pro-macho culture we live in.

[seabeyond]

137. no offense. merely a statement. you post was fine, i was taking it further. they went the lazy way

as so many do now a days. instead of making the torture so we could see it for what it is, they sexualized it cause it is the custom/culture to do with all things today when i comes to females. to stick the cameras on her tits, and then to paw it was to play out their male fantasy, .... while telling themselves this will get the attention. a film producer could have done this without sexualizing it. but the sexualizing is so common place they resorted to it just out of habit

it would be nice if they could at the least be called on it and think twice.

the only reason this is getting attention is because it is offensive to women and the women are saying something

the reason peta does what they do is cause it is offensive to women and the women say something

not only is the sexualizing violence of women so common that it is used without thought, ... using women in a degrading or offensive way to get outrage is also common place

as a woman, i ask, at what point do we quit using women in degrading, humiliating or objectifying way for others causes.

the truth? the truth is if you had the movie of the male being sexually humiliated, NO ONE would be able or willing to watch the movie

that should be a clue in to male, how female feels.

and again comtec.... we are discussing. no anomosity, no offense and harsh, probably. but it is a harsh subject and my language generally goes with the subject at hand.

[ismnotwasm]

135. So far, 18 fucking votes FOR "no problem"?

Oh my fucking God. Thinking about the PETA thread, you think those same sick fucks would vote for gratuitous violence against dogs and cats being no problem? I'd bet a million dollars they wouldn't.