Femen - Collected Articles

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on January 21, 2012 at 9:36

Come to think of it, exactly those arguments (a) to (c) can often be applied to my example 2, so where all 3 conditions are also true for rape scenes, they could be censored as well.

What do you think Indo?  Do you agree with censoring those types of scene or not?  Its all very well highlighting problems, but we have to talk about concrete measures the state can take, (as well as attempting to educate and uplift people).

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 21, 2012 at 11:42

This discussion is making very slow progress  

1. Pornography has not been defined (other than by me with it's literal definition as "the writings of a whore"). With the age of the internet, there are actually websites that contain lots of user-generated, self-uploaded "pornography".  No-one made these people take these videos nor submit them to these websites.  They receive no financial recompense for them.  I'm sure they would resent being called "whores" by Indo (especially since they missed out on payment).  Indo might find it obscene - that's her choice.  To claim that they are all psychologically-damaged or evil is to my mind arrogant.  Those who don't obscure their faces might be unwise.  If they such imagery is to my taste I don't find it obscene; if it is not to my taste I find it disgusting/comical.

2. Indo has not established what it means "to look like a whore".  I guess I'm fortunate to lived in lots of muslim areas, where there coincidentally were also lots of prostitutes.  I've NEVER seen a prostitute look like the women in the Femen pictures (in fact, not even in the windows of the red light district of Amsterdam, Utrecht, or the Hague).  Indeed, not 1 mile from my current home is an area with many prostitutes -- they look like any other woman.  Furthermore, there are muslim stalls on my local market that sell both burkas and "sexy" underwear (e.g. crotchless).  That leads me to conclude that beneath their burkas, some muslim women are dressing (or are dressed) "as whores".  Looks to me like there must be plenty of whoredom within marriage. Meanwhile, all the prostitutes I've encountered look like they are on their way to the supermarket (they actually have to shout out "are you looking for business" - if they were "dressed as whores" then they would not need to regale passers-by like coster-mongers).

3. No link has been established between the rise in child abuse and the sight of people having sex.  If there was such a link, then there would have been massive child abuse throughout history (when people were far less prudish, and often did not go off somewhere to hide to have sex).  Anthropologists should be able to point to lots of "primitive" societies, where because people see other's naked and/or having sex, there is astronomical child abuse.  Is it true that the majority of societies where people do not hide their nakedness nor sexual acts are also societies where there is massive child abuse?  Surely such child abuse would have provided strong reasons for imposing christianity on these "primitive" and naked people?

4. Indo tries to persuade not by rationality or evidence, but by claiming that "she" as a woman sees things differently from "all us" men.  But the feminists in Femen are also women, and clearly by their actions they do not accept the viewpoint of someone like Indo.  Therefore, argument by appeal to gender difference has no value. 

Nevertheless, I think that this discussion is taking place is testament to the power of Femen. 

Permalink Reply by Antony on January 21, 2012 at 11:58

Joe - you've hit the nail on the head there. In fact, child abuse seems to occur more in societies & religions where sexuality is covered up and regarded as dirty, such as the Catholic Church in Ireland...and of course in Islamic communities.

Also, IndoEuropean seems to claim that all sex-work is forced, whilst obviously some of it is in the case of the muslim & yardie pimping gangs plaguing the UK right now, for some women it can be a lucrative chosen career choice where they can operate as their own bosses.

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 21, 2012 at 13:59

in the case of modern gay men, male prostitutes are treated like top football players: they get paid a fortune, and are treated like stars. Like footballers, one has to hope they have plans in place for their retirement in their 30s or 40s.

Antony said:

Joe - you've hit the nail on the head there. In fact, child abuse seems to occur more in societies & religions where sexuality is covered up and regarded as dirty, such as the Catholic Church in Ireland...and of course in Islamic communities.

Also, IndoEuropean seems to claim that all sex-work is forced, whilst obviously some of it is in the case of the muslim & yardie pimping gangs plaguing the UK right now, for some women it can be a lucrative chosen career choice where they can operate as their own bosses.

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 21, 2012 at 17:10

dearest Alan, appearently since the end of World War 1, pleas ref. to "Narcisssm" by A. Lowen, we are more and more used to ethicless, in other words voids of ethical content, images, and to the (ab)use of them.

Now, ths is vanity, which, in other words, means void, and notably in the negative  sense of the word: it s not a fertile, lightful/enlightened void, but an obscure, lightless, unferitle one. It is Darkness, the (un)fruit of ignorance (for  our Hindu correspondend, t is pure Tamo guna).

No (good) Culture and Civilzation can be based on such purposes, no Culture and Civilization is possible (up)on them: the spitting in the mouth is simply useless, ethicless (if not wretched), and it is unacceptable both from the male to the female, and from a female to a man.

Why should one spit in another's mouth, please? Isn't it simple Darkness, Ignorance, Ugliness and lack of Civilization? And there even is people (?) watching a them (these images)? Please, don't tell me that there even is people (?) paying to watch them?

It anyway consist on an abuse against human Dignity, and it violates human Rights/Duties.

"She wanted this" or "he wanted this" doesn't reduce at all the Insanity of the thing: and I see no ground to allow Insanity cherfully spreading, as if it were normal and even ... sane. Day after day, movie after movie, image after image, this is the society we (adults!) are building for ... our kids.

Is that Perversion (psychopathological situation) that we want for them, for them to live in? I warmly hope not! At least, me I want it not, and better, I REFUSE THAT.

Rather, I would agree to publically approach the matter about Perversion: why one (a male and/or a female) is psychologically twisted? There is no use in spitting in another's mouth, unless he/she's disidratated and the other wants to help him/her: obviously, this is/was not the case [in movie nr. (1)].

[As Joe can see, I am not following Salafi Ideology: mine would be very simple and plain common sense, seasoned with a bit of scientific objectivity or objective science.]

I think that discussing about matters must not only be allowed, but encouraged: therefore I would not censor political issues and discussions about them,

 

while I would ban the passive uncritical absorbtion of images, scenes and even teaching, "filled" of "void" Darkness (and/or Ignorance), which correspond to pure brainwashing/-pollution (which, of course, IS NOT free of - bad/worste - consequences).

In this sense/case, I would censor propaganda and criticless INDOCTRINATION, and notably, I would censor censorship by those, who do not allow the FREE USE OF critical Thinking and Freedom of Thinking and of Speech. Totalitarianisms, as we know, forbid Criticism to the system, and we can find them within religious mouvements, poltical parties, sects, families, mafias, (anyone is free to add other systems).

Thank you for the lovely day and have a lovely evening this evening, dear(est) Alan. Kindest regards to everyone. 

Alan Lake said:

Hi Indo, 

thanks for your replies, and sorry for harassing you :-))

So, do you and I agree that example video (1) above should be censored?  The grounds would be that:

(a) it serves no political purpose or has any artistic value

(b) it involves the abuse of an actual person (the porn actress)

(c) it promotes and encourages the performance of an abusive act on another human being, which is a bad practice for society to encourage.  If we can decide that smoking is bad for society, surely we can decide that spitting in a woman's mouth is bad for society.

Please note that clause (a) is what protects us political activists from being censored by these kinds of measures.  Spitting in a woman's mouth has no political message at all, therefore does not need to receive protection as free speech.  But here on 4F, even if our messages do 'offend' some people, those messages should receive protection under free speech, because they have a political purpose.

Western society has gone thru an 'experiment' in the effective unwinding of all censorship laws (with the internet especially). Well, we've now seen some of the effects of that, and its time for us all to examine where we've ended up, and start thinking about it this topic a bit more deeply.

Have a lovely day today, Indo.

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 21, 2012 at 17:42

Dearest Joe:

1. I said not that these women are whores, please read my comments again. I said that they dress(ed) like whores/prostitutes, and I do reaffirm that.

2. I agree that there are whores who dress modestly (!), but I anyway know that there are several who dress like the girls of Femen, therefore I repeat point 1.; by the way, I see no ground for hoping around in the red disctrict of Amsterdam. By the way, did you ever heard about Loverboys? Here the link about an Association who helps girls/females: http://www.stoploverboys.nu/en/ . It might interest you, and Femens, very much, since these Loverboys are often of Nordafrican/Middle Eastern origin [which means NOT that every Nordafrican and/or Middle Eastern person is such a criminal.] It's anyway undenyable that clients are of every ethnic background, very unfortunately (...), since the (ab)use of females/girls/women seem to be very much accepted and practiced.

3. Who says that no link has been tied between adults having sex before children and wretched sexuality, pedophilia included, sexual abuses of any kind included, have no consquences? Either the scientists you follow are blind, or are they in denial, or they simply have some personal interest in not exposing problems.

In the cultures based on accepted nudity, either nudity is lived in a very natural way, which means not copulating before (or even with) children, or young children (girls) are sexually (ab)used [ see the problem of Fistulas, here an article about: http://www.thestar.com/article/205988 ]. 

That so called bigot Middle Eastern Religions did not solve the problem of minors' abuse but rather, contributed to make it worst, this is certainly a fact, an evidence: now, since we got to admit it, why not admit even the previous part of the (same) problem, which is, copulating before (or even with) a child, IS within the causes that drive to sexual abuses (of minors)? I hope your Femens would not disagree with me, and if they would, well, I would call them: blind.

4. I said that I am a woman, in order to make you understand, that I certainly understand Femens BETTER than you will ever do, undependantly of the fact that you appearently agree with them more than I do. That my point of view is, for you, unacceptable and to be thrown in the dustbin, while Femens ah yes, they are true women [recently I've been told by one, a male, that whores/prostitutes are the only true women on Earth], and they know about Feminism, (not the same to be said for me), well this is your problem, Femens' one (if it is), and your children's one. Not mine, that of people like "Ni putes ni soumises", and of my child(ren).

Thank you for reading and have a lightful/loveful/beautiful evening. 

Joe said:

This discussion is making very slow progress  

1. Pornography has not been defined (other than by me with it's literal definition as "the writings of a whore"). With the age of the internet, there are actually websites that contain lots of user-generated, self-uploaded "pornography".  No-one made these people take these videos nor submit them to these websites.  They receive no financial recompense for them.  I'm sure they would resent being called "whores" by Indo (especially since they missed out on payment).  Indo might find it obscene - that's her choice.  To claim that they are all psychologically-damaged or evil is to my mind arrogant.  Those who don't obscure their faces might be unwise.  If they such imagery is to my taste I don't find it obscene; if it is not to my taste I find it disgusting/comical.

2. Indo has not established what it means "to look like a whore".  I guess I'm fortunate to lived in lots of muslim areas, where there coincidentally were also lots of prostitutes.  I've NEVER seen a prostitute look like the women in the Femen pictures (in fact, not even in the windows of the red light district of Amsterdam, Utrecht, or the Hague).  Indeed, not 1 mile from my current home is an area with many prostitutes -- they look like any other woman.  Furthermore, there are muslim stalls on my local market that sell both burkas and "sexy" underwear (e.g. crotchless).  That leads me to conclude that beneath their burkas, some muslim women are dressing (or are dressed) "as whores".  Looks to me like there must be plenty of whoredom within marriage. Meanwhile, all the prostitutes I've encountered look like they are on their way to the supermarket (they actually have to shout out "are you looking for business" - if they were "dressed as whores" then they would not need to regale passers-by like coster-mongers).

3. No link has been established between the rise in child abuse and the sight of people having sex.  If there was such a link, then there would have been massive child abuse throughout history (when people were far less prudish, and often did not go off somewhere to hide to have sex).  Anthropologists should be able to point to lots of "primitive" societies, where because people see other's naked and/or having sex, there is astronomical child abuse.  Is it true that the majority of societies where people do not hide their nakedness nor sexual acts are also societies where there is massive child abuse?  Surely such child abuse would have provided strong reasons for imposing christianity on these "primitive" and naked people?

4. Indo tries to persuade not by rationality or evidence, but by claiming that "she" as a woman sees things differently from "all us" men.  But the feminists in Femen are also women, and clearly by their actions they do not accept the viewpoint of someone like Indo.  Therefore, argument by appeal to gender difference has no value. 

Nevertheless, I think that this discussion is taking place is testament to the power of Femen. 

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 21, 2012 at 17:53

 think we must educate people to think/reason (which, for istance, in Arabo islamicity is forbidden, as well as in other Religions and/or political Parties),

 

and we must educate them about the roots of Violence, and I would suggest two authors which might help in this philosophical work, Alexander Lowen and Alice Miller.

 

The Censorship will not be forced upon them: they will spontaneously censor them (these images) by themselves, in other words, they will neither producing them anymore, nor watching/absorbing them anymore.

 

 I think that intelligent people intelligently understand what's intelligent, or lightful, and what is not, or obscure,  what is useful and what is destructive, and they eventually go for the good and not for the poisonous.

 

Though people need to get informed, above all in these times of deceiving disinformation (taqyyia included), where people do not even realize anymore to be misinformed and ... simply tricked (this has often to do with Marketing strategies, applied by enterprises in order to "get the consumer", who appearently get fooled once, and even twice!

 

Marketing turn us into brainless sheeps, or makes so, that we become brainless sheeps. By the way, Marketing and Taqyyiers are very well aware of ... psychological ... principles: just they do not tell us that they know, in order to be ablo to exploit us - brainless sheeps? - better).

Good (and beautiful) bye!
Alan Lake said:

Come to think of it, exactly those arguments (a) to (c) can often be applied to my example 2, so where all 3 conditions are also true for rape scenes, they could be censored as well.

What do you think Indo?  Do you agree with censoring those types of scene or not?  Its all very well highlighting problems, but we have to talk about concrete measures the state can take, (as well as attempting to educate and uplift people).

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 21, 2012 at 18:00

I think not he did, n fact I certainly don't support bigots and/or Religions, which are political Parties, and their wretched opinon about Sexuality.

 I do support Psychology, and notably the findigs of very objective not indoctrinated scientists such as Lowen and Miller, and I am sure that people who want to spread the Truth and Reality would not deny the consistence of their researches.

I never saw a Culture/Civilization where people hope around nacked (see: Africa), where women dress like the Femens, not to mention that they hope around (half nacked) in context which has little (if nothing) to do with the Russia of Femens, and even with the whole West.

Child abuse, by the way, happens. Very much. And the more this gets denied, the more it happens.

Have a lightful and loveful evening.

Antony said:

Joe - you've hit the nail on the head there. In fact, child abuse seems to occur more in societies & religions where sexuality is covered up and regarded as dirty, such as the Catholic Church in Ireland...and of course in Islamic communities.

Also, IndoEuropean seems to claim that all sex-work is forced, whilst obviously some of it is in the case of the muslim & yardie pimping gangs plaguing the UK right now, for some women it can be a lucrative chosen career choice where they can operate as their own bosses.

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 21, 2012 at 18:08

I never supported the salary of people working in the show business, footballers included.

Let's arise the salary of more decent jobs, and maybe the previously mentoned business will decrease.

That hjras and trans are very well wished and pad, I guess this deserves to be discussed, don't you thnk?

Let's imagine that many women turn into hijras (dressing and behaving like men/males) or trans, and that many other women demand to go out with them, and having sex with them:

may I ask you what do you think (think) about that (phenomena), and what would you teach to your kids about the problem or matter?

Thank you and lightful/loveful/beautiful night.

Joe said:

in the case of modern gay men, male prostitutes are treated like top football players: they get paid a fortune, and are treated like stars. Like footballers, one has to hope they have plans in place for their retirement in their 30s or 40s.

Antony said:

Joe - you've hit the nail on the head there. In fact, child abuse seems to occur more in societies & religions where sexuality is covered up and regarded as dirty, such as the Catholic Church in Ireland...and of course in Islamic communities.

Also, IndoEuropean seems to claim that all sex-work is forced, whilst obviously some of it is in the case of the muslim & yardie pimping gangs plaguing the UK right now, for some women it can be a lucrative chosen career choice where they can operate as their own bosses.

Permalink Reply by Indoeuropean on January 22, 2012 at 8:30

Let's think a bit over it:

(1) where is the Ergonomics of the two of garments of pieces of clothes? (Can give my opinion about both: no where. The wheels and the full covering of the legs is both unhealthy for the back and for skin transpiration; the full covering forbids you to perfectly see around you, and the head covering makes you excessively sweat, and there is a problem with vitamine D absorbtion.)

(2) Is there maybe few contextes where they are suitable? (Can give my opinion about both: such boots are perfectly suitable for a Sado maso sexual session, while the full covering is suitable in sandy and very windy places, with a great amount of flies hoping around and landing on your body - face, arms, hair, ... -.)

(3) What's insane with them? (The need of Sado masochism comes from a unhealed wish to humiliate and/or be humiliated, and it is whether dignitous for the female and/or for the male, not to mention when these attitude - which can be sexually applied or in the very daily life - against children or weak(er) beings; the need of fully covering a body, for ideological purposes when there is not need to do it for climat's reasons (reasons), and notably when this covering harms both the health of the carrier and his/her ability to socialize with others, own children included - because they cannot see the facial expression of their father/mother -, is insane.)

(4) Why one who want to promote human Rights for (...), and Dignity for (...), should use and/or exploit such garments and/or use them? (No idea here: you should give me an answer, thank you).

Lightful, loveful and beautiful days and nights.  

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 22, 2012 at 11:56

Indo, you seem to be a highly censorious, highly judgemental individual.  I do wonder if you are in fact a form of salafist. You are happy to call people "perverts", you want to ban things, you are happy to classify people as "insane" because they want to things to each other of which you disapprove.  These things may be harmless or may not - but it is the freedom of these people to do these things.  It is NONE of your business. I really question why you are part of a website that is fundamentally about FREEDOM.

Indoeuropean said:

Why should one spit in another's mouth, please? Isn't it simple Darkness, Ignorance, Ugliness and lack of Civilization? And there even is people (?) watching a them (these images)? Please, don't tell me that there even is people (?) paying to watch them?

It anyway consist on an abuse against human Dignity, and it violates human Rights/Duties.

"She wanted this" or "he wanted this" doesn't reduce at all the Insanity of the thing: and I see no ground to allow Insanity cherfully spreading, as if it were normal and even ... sane. Day after day, movie after movie, image after image, this is the society we (adults!) are building for ... our kids.

Is that Perversion (psychopathological situation) that we want for them, for them to live in? I warmly hope not! At least, me I want it not, and better, I REFUSE THAT.

Rather, I would agree to publically approach the matter about Perversion: why one (a male and/or a female) is psychologically twisted? There is no use in spitting in another's mouth, unless he/she's disidratated and the other wants to help him/her: obviously, this is/was not the case [in movie nr. (1)].

[As Joe can see, I am not following Salafi Ideology: mine would be very simple and plain common sense, seasoned with a bit of scientific objectivity or objective science.]

I think that discussing about matters must not only be allowed, but encouraged: therefore I would not censor political issues and discussions about them,

while I would ban the passive uncritical absorbtion of images, scenes and even teaching, "filled" of "void" Darkness (and/or Ignorance), which correspond to pure brainwashing/-pollution (which, of course, IS NOT free of - bad/worste - consequences).

In this sense/case, I would censor propaganda and criticless INDOCTRINATION, and notably, I would censor censorship by those, who do not allow the FREE USE OF critical Thinking and Freedom of Thinking and of Speech. Totalitarianisms, as we know, forbid Criticism to the system, and we can find them within religious mouvements, poltical parties, sects, families, mafias, (anyone is free to add other systems).

Permalink Reply by Joe on January 22, 2012 at 12:01

This sounds like Orwell's 1984.  You are talking about brainwashing people into uniformity.  And then calling it "education".

Indoeuropean said:

 The Censorship will not be forced upon them: they will spontaneously censor them (these images) by themselves, in other words, they will neither producing them anymore, nor watching/absorbing them anymore.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page