Ishtara Rothschild Posted September 6, 2011 Author Share Posted September 6, 2011 Deltango Vale wrote: Is there any champagne left in the kitchen? Perhaps some cashews? Sorry, but we drank all the booze and Storm got into the cashew jar But perhaps I can interest you in a slice of this dead horse that we've been tenderizing for about a week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Cashews? I am still reading this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacy Nightfire Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 "ETA: Next time I'm about to call someone attractive, I'll make sure to check their pulse first" And yet: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/13/137029208/heart-with-no-beat-offers-hope-of-new-lease-on-life Dick Cheney, still technically alive I'm assuming, has no pulse. I'm guessing you might ban him from your beach, if only to protect his health. He's a mature man. Hottie? Or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 this is what happens when you skim... dick cheney (despite clams of his heartlessness) does have a pulse, as the device he has assists and not replaces his heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacy Nightfire Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Dang that New York Times! Bamboozelled again: "Former Vice President Dick Cheney is recuperating from surgery to implant the kind of mechanical pump now being given to a small but growing number of people with heart failure so severe that they would most likely die within a few months without it. The pumps are partial artificial hearts known as ventricular assist devices, and they come in various models. Mr. Cheney’s kind is about the size of a D battery and leaves most recipients without a pulse because it pushes blood continuously instead of mimicking the heart’s own pulsatile beat. Most such pulse-less patients feel nothing unusual. But they are urged to wear bracelets or other identifications to alert emergency room doctors as to why they have no pulse....." For anyone who wishes to read more carefully then me: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20docs.html?pagewanted=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Ishtara: I'm not sure if I have the time to reply to all your points in great detail. Carole: That’s a shame. Especially since all my points emerged from answering all your points. It’s particularly disappointing that you didn’t have time to answer so many of my questions. Ishtara: I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few things. Carole: If you say so. Ishtara: Such as the simple fact that nature is sexist, that one cannot talk about evolutionary biology and psychological gender differences without being politically incorrect -- which says more about political correctness than about the natural sciences, imho -- and that the way in which we like to rationalize and intellectualize our basic urges does nothing at all to help explain them. Carole: I thought we were going to agree to disagree about stuff? If Nature is “sexist”, how do you explain this? Maybe because evolutionary biology, unlike socio-politics, is truly free from male-chauvinist attitudes? “It has been known for the past 10 years, or so, that the male determining chromosome, the Y chromosome, is shrinking. Making many male scientists nervous, the Y chromosome has been steadily decreasing in gene numbers, as well. The female and dominate chromosome, X, has almost 1,000 genes, while the shrinking Y chromosome is holding onto a mere 80 genes. It has brought the question to many scientists minds, will the Y chromosome eventually disappear, ending the male gender? It had been looking as though the male chromosome was slowing shrinking into oblivion, as the genetically inferior of the two chromosomes…” (Examiner.com and in a gazillion articles all over the web) Despite that, I’m convinced there were neither sexists nor feminists back in Bedrock (no pseudo-moral double standards either), just two genders, with pretty hard existences, happy just to have a modus vivendi. The sexism thingy comes into play when men try to use their own interpretations of caveman-style attitudes to justify claims to extra rights and innate superiority, using evolutionary history as an excuse. Nobody has to go out and tussle with sabre-tooth tigers to bring home the dinner, so its maybe time to set aside that justification for certain behaviours. We all have basic urges – evolved man and woman try to filter those urges through their brain. Ishtara: The genders are nothing alike, no matter how much we want them to be equal.Women are still subconsciously selecting for high-status providers (and, at the same time, for hunky macho types as the perfect sires, often behind the providers' back). Men simply chase tail at every opportunity (those pigs), and that tail had better look young and pretty. That's not a derogative view, it's not judgemental, it just is. Carole: Want them to be equal??? You see, non-sexists believe they are equal. You starting to get the proper definition of “sexist” now? What you describe above is both genders chasing healthy mates. Sounded pretty equalising to me… The bit about the tail having to be young and pretty reminded me of a point I’d already made – you can chase all you like, but if the gal you’re into isn’t into you, she just ain’t going to stop running. Ishtara: PS: When I speak of a selection for certain traits, I'm referring to sexual selection in a strictly biological sense. This doesn't mean that any gender gets to select their perfect mates while the other gender has no say in the matter, although it can play out in this way depending on the socio-cultural environment. People will evaluate their chances and settle for less if need be, and those at the bottom of the desirability barrel don't get to select at all. I just wanted to clarify this point because you seemed to have problems with this term. As I said, biology and related sciences are inevitably sexist and politically incorrect, because that's what nature is. Carole: Humans instinctively look for signs of health and fertility in potential mates. These signs are what we translate into what we now commonly refer to as human “attractiveness”. Both these things you know. Why is it so hard for you to accept that for the benefit of the species, both genders would have been “programmed” to choose the best available? Don’t you think that the cave-gals will have selected sturdy young males with which to start a family rather than the lecherous older dude, showing signs of aging, ill health and lessening strength, winking at them from the far side of the fire? In other words, I remain convinced that the natural reproductive urge (biological conditioning?) prompts us to select mates from the group of the opposite sex which most closely matches our own health and fertility signals and hence of similar age and “attractiveness”. I know I always have. Anyway, I have just discovered that we shouldn’t have been speaking of Neolithic at all (though I’m off the hook, cuz I called it “Bedrock”). If we want to examine how the earliest social organisations of Man might have influenced gender behaviour, it seems we should be looking at the beginning of the Palaeolithic era, since that appears to be the first one the human time-line, before the Neolithic age, and which according to Mr Google, was a period of social equality and had no gender divisions of duties: men and women were both committed to searching for food. Interesting, huh? Seems that as far as providing for the family is concerned, we’ve come full circle and are back to our natural state of equal rights and responsibilities. Ishtara: At the risk of lowering myself even further in your opinion, I wasn't speaking of a hypothetical brothel. Prostitution is legal in Germany, and I know from experience that it has nothing in common with the ugly preconceptions of people who live in countries where this ancient trade has been needlessly criminalized. Everything turns ugly when prohibited and driven into back alleys. Think of the historical alcohol prohibition in the USA, or Dutch coffee shops versus illegal drug trade and drug-related gang wars. Carole: The exploitation of women is ugly to my mind, no matter whether accompanied or not by collateral criminal activities. The fact that you make a parallel between women, alcohol and drugs as “goods” of some sort is precisely what I find disquieting. You need to read up on your statistics, though. The Netherlands, with its massive numbers of “imported” sex workers is now having huge issues with organised crime and has been attempting to reduce the red light district in Amsterdam to bring the situation under control again. The Netherlands appears as one of the top destinations for human trafficking, by the way. It has also seen an increase in child prostitution over the last few years. Ya gotta love Google! Ishtara: No woman (or man, for that matter; there are many callboys in Germany, so there is no need to make this about gender) is forced to prostitute herself in a country where people can easily apply for welfare or unemployment benefits. Both procuration and human trafficking are, of course, highly illegal around here. Brothels are merely places that rent rooms to working women (and men) and provide a meeting area as well as security (bouncers) for a small fee. Nobody is forced to work there against their will. Carole: Well, you mentioned that you were interested in certain aspects of psychology. You might find one of the many studies available of the psychological profiles of prostitutes fascinating reading. There has been found to be an extraordinary high incidence of disturbances such as schizophrenia, histories of “disorganised” childhoods and adolescence and a background which includes being victims of sexual abuse. It gets very hard to discuss free will and choice if you include such factors in the discussion. Of course, you can also just ignore them. I put it to you that neither you nor I would ever be able to know for certain who was there of their own free-will and who was being forced by present or past events. Also, Ishtara, it’s naïve to talk about social security benefits as an option when the people most likely to be forced wouldn’t be legal immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Ishtara: The women who work in these establishments, or run their own business from home, are typically women who choose to earn considerable amounts of money and retire at age 40 rather than slave away in a badly paid office job until they hit 65. There are also many students, similar to college-age strippers in the USA. Student loans are easily available and nobody needs a job in order to finance their academic studies, but a job as a sex worker gives students a chance to live in a nice apartment and drive a decent car long before they start to pursue their real career. Carole: You’re telling me that if your sister, cousin, daughter or son (let’s not make it about gender) came to you and told you that they’d got accepted to Brainyfolks University but grumbled a bit about having to take on a student loan, you’d suggest prostitution as an option to avoid running up debts? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that for a moment. Your profile of the typical sex-worker doesn’t match any I came across when reading up on the subject. NGO reports claim that about 85% of sex-workers in Germany are not German. If they’re in the game simply because they really enjoy it (your theory, further down), I’m perplexed by the fact that apparently it’s mostly poor foreign women who are in it for the kicks. Ishtara: Unlike a minimum wage hairdresser or pedicurist, sex workers can pick and choose their customers (no, I haven't been turned down as of yet ), and it's self-understood that there are regular health checks and that safe sex is a must. I can imagine much worse jobs, such as cleaning toilets, and the payment for those jobs are peanuts in comparison. In the end, it's a job like any other occupation in the service industry, only that it pays exceptionally well for comparatively little time and effort. Carole: I cannot imagine a worse job. I’d rather clean a million toilets. It is absolutely not a job like any other – and the “regular” health checks are an unconvincing drop in the ocean of reassurance. Ishtara: And is it really so hard to imagine that some women work in this area because they simply enjoy sex? Carole: Yes. You’re promoting the exclusion of avatars which are not attractive from sex sims, because not conducive to a sexual mood, right? Therefore you’re claiming that simply having to look upon a digital representation of an unattractive human being is a turn-off no person should be subjected to. If just looking at an ugly avatar is a turn-off, pray tell what do you truly think one would feel when having to actually have flesh-on-flesh intimate relations with someone you find unattractive? Where does the enjoyment you speak about come in?? If they chose to have encounters only with people they found truly attractive, I’m assuming those fantastic earnings you mentioned before would not be pouring down on them. Let’s say it’s safe to assume that most times they manage to put up with it. Some will be utterly revolted inside. Who knows, maybe one in 100, or 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 really, really loves it. How would you know though? I assume many are very good at faking it. Ishtara: There are even sex workers who have chosen to work with physically or mentally disabled people, such as Nina de Vries. She thinks that this is her calling, and how could anyone argue with that? Ms. de Vries undoubtedly does more good than Catholic missionaries. I find it quite unfair to push these people into the same corner as drug-addicted hookers in countries that criminalize prostitution. Carole: Say what? This whole thread started with you trying to rationalise your discomfort over an avatar with a pixel colostomy bag in your sex sim. Now you’re expressing admiration over someone whom you compare to missionaries because she works with disabled people? Well done, Nina! Just keep the uglies away from my sex sim in SL! Ishtara: Prostitution in Germany is a matter of choice, and it's all but ugly and filthy. It is also worth noting in this context that Germany has a very low number of sex crimes. According to UN statistics, there were 29 cases of rape per 100,000 in the USA in 2009, 23 cases in the UK, and only 9 cases in Germany. I haven't looked into depression and suicide statistics yet, but I bet that there are also less people (especially less men) who commit suicide in Germany. Sex and physical intimacy are important human needs that have all kinds of health benefits. Denying physically unattractive or badly socialized people an active sex life could be deemed a form of discrimination, which perfectly fits the topic Carole: You’re aware that for a prostitute to press charges of rape would be such a harrowing and hopeless task that most (all?) of them don’t bother? So we can safely assume that those statistics don’t include rape when a prostitute is the victim. If rape crimes have gone down since legalising prostitution, what does that tell us about the sort of clients sex-workers are having to deal with? I’m guessing that sort of man isn’t the kind who hires women just to feel less lonely. Sadly (for you), I have to inform you that I did take the time to check statistics. Suicide among German males is higher (per 100,000 people) than in Italy, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands, Thailand. Nice mix of legalised and non-legalised prostitution countries for you, though I should point out that in Europe, the Netherlands has a higher rate of male suicides than Italy, Spain and Greece. If you really want to be in happy-man-land, then you should head for Kuwait, where the rate is only 2.5 x 100,000 – but where even looking at a woman in an inappropriate way could get you into trouble. Deeming the denial of a sexual life to unattractive and socially inept men discrimination does fit the topic perfectly because you want to discriminate against physically unattractive men and women and people with signs of disabilities…. Ishtara: You are the one who brought up religious depictions of torture scenes as an example, probably because you thought that I could hardly disagree with you and call something offensive that is supposed to be "holy". I commented on your example. That's how forum discussions work. Carole: No, I brought up some of the most frequently used themes of the Great Masters and the ones, consequently, most easily spotted at a gallery which houses the highest levels of art. The Great Masters operated in a period of our history in which religious themes were considered the most appropriate for art and were the most lucrative because often commissioned by the Church. I could have suggested other less than pretty, non-Catholic, but very common-place subjects, such as the Rape of the Sabines, the deaths, natural and otherwise, of various famous personages, wars, battles and Rembrandt’s famous “Anatomy Lesson”. Consider them brought up. Thank you for your explanation as to how forums work, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloise Baily Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 /me kicks Ishy and Carole up the arse because I want to read about what's ugly dammit and I quite simply can't be arsed to read through it all to find out when I need to start scrolling through this shouty stuff. Jeebuz, can I haz valium nao? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Ishtara: Of course these avatars are controlled by legal adults. I'm not trying to protect anybody when I ban a child avatar (and I'm extremely lenient with my definition. I'd never complain about an adolescent, 14+ looking av). The only thing that I'm protecting is the sexualized atmosphere of my sim, as well as the mood and enjoyment of other visitors. Someone with the appearance of a pre-pubescent child tends to disturb people in an adult establishment (not to mention that this violates the ToS). Carole: I thought that any avatar which looks to be a minor wasn’t permitted to be in proximity of sexual activity? Isn’t one of 14, 15 still a minor? You find an adult woman inappropriate because she’s whatever age you consider to be “past it”, yet one who looks 14 standing by while sexual “stuff” is going on is appropriate??? Ishtara: Yes, I'm indeed able to find an avatar sexually attractive, or a cartoon figure for that matter. I might be gender-confused, but I'm still a guy. Which means that I'll find two stylized lines on a piece of paper sexually attractive if they happen to form a female hourglass shape. There is very little that doesn't excite a typical man on some level Nonetheless, I don't find all of my visitors appealing, and I can't deny the fact that I'm mainly attracted to female avatars despite my being bisexual. There are very few men that I find appealing beyond the contents of their underpants (such as Pierce Brosnan and Eric Bana, to name a few). Carrot-shaped, pinheaded Conans are a huge turn-off for me too. So are newbies in ugly freebie skins. But that is not what this is about. Carole: No, it isn’t. I asked if everybody you found unattractive got asked to leave your sim – club and shop. I also asked what was the cut-off age for men and women to be allowed into your sim. Ishtara: I have the feeling that you're deliberately misunderstanding my intent. I'm not trying to enforce my own subjective standard of beauty by banning everyone who I personally find unattractive. Carole: So….who does and doesn’t get asked to leave? Ishtara: I'm not discriminating against older looking avatars. I wouldn't kick out Sean Connery or Bea Arthur, both of which still have sex appeal in my opinion. Let me remind you of the way in which you described your avatar (….) The mental image evoked by these lines (my description of Carole) tells me that you went out of your way to... well, probably not to make Carole controversial and disgusting, but you definitely are trying to make a point and evoke a certain reaction, which happens to be the goal of most artists. But the point that you are making with your av is at odds with the things that people have come to expect from sex locations, especially sex locations in a world where we can change our appearances at will. Carole: Bea Arthur is sexy?? If you say so… You’re aware she probably had veins, moles, saggy bits, etc., etc., like anyone – male or female – at her age? I went out of my way to make Carole realistic. In a hyper-perfected world, I found it more interesting to resist the temptation to improve and to go in completely the opposite direction, by making an avatar which was older and less attractive than me (that wasn’t a vanity moment, just stating an objective fact – Carole is worse, not better than me). That doesn’t make me an artist. She’s just an avie pieced together by buying bits here and there. I’m still finding difficulty in understanding your attempts to rationalise something which you simply don’t like. An elf and a 14 year old kid are appropriate and are to be expected in a sex sim, but an adult human woman isn’t? A Bea Arthur avatar would be welcome, Carole wouldn’t? I’m not deliberately trying to misunderstand you (I genuinely don’t follow your logic). If you don’t like women who are past it, amputees, wheelchair users – just chuck them out and have done with it. It’s your sim – you can do as you please. I think you just want to be told that you’re somehow morally right not to let them stay. Ishtara: You are not trying to be physically attractive, nor are you trying to be accepted for who you are in RL (at least I don't think so). I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're trying to do, other than showing your artistic skills and looking to strike up conversations with people who share your sense of humor and can appreciate a very unique avatar. I'm fine with that, but a sex sim is not really the right place to reenact scenes from Little Britain. Carole: I already pointed out before that it seems to me that not only do you want to keep certain categories of avatars out of your sim, but you keep underlining the fact that an older woman avatar shouldn’t be on a sex sim at all. Whoever the sim belongs to. Unless she’s a Bea Arthur lookalike, of course… Ishtara: In a sex location, you would look as misplaced as a dinosaur avatar or the otherwise gorgeous Johnny Depp in his Mad Hatter or Edward Scissorhands getup Carole: Yep, because elves in sex clubs look really well-placed… Why are you using the conditional? I have told you several times that Carole has been to sex sims all over the grid and I can’t think of a single occasion when she was asked to leave. Ishtara: That is my entire point in this thread. Your hurt feelings over my comments, after you yourself descrived how you deliberately rendered Carole anything but attractive, remind me of furries or child avatars who complain about being banned from themed clubs and RP sims. They haven't been discriminated against, they merely weren't dressed for the occasion. Carole: Forgive me if I say so but I get the impression that the entire point of your thread is to find moral support for your decision to chuck out some guy with a colostomy bag or some such, because burdened by the moral dilemma of putting of your business interests over the interests of categories of people whose rights to sexual expression you were defending a short time ago - wondering if the poor schmuck with the colostomy bag is just some poor soul trying to come to terms with the prospect of having to pass the rest of his life with the ruddy accessory thanks to bowel cancer. My feelings are not hurt. I don’t have bowel cancer. Nor am I an old lady. Nor am I ugly. However, if I had had bowel cancer, was an old lady or was ugly, I’d object to it being implied that I didn’t have the right to sexual expression. Puh-lease don’t go down that other well-worn sexist path too – implying that a woman can’t support an issue out of principle, but speaks out only in reaction to being hit where it hurts – her emotions. I’m fonder of rational debate than you could imagine and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this exchange, these topics and the fascinating reading up that it obliged me to do. Sorry it took so long to reply but I’ve only been able to dedicate snippets of time to answering you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloise Baily Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 /me steps out of the dust coughing. Where the hell did THAT come from! note to self: Look both ways before heading into a stampede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Eloise Baily wrote: /me kicks Ishy and Carole up the arse because I want to read about what's ugly dammit and I quite simply can't be arsed to read through it all to find out when I need to start scrolling through this shouty stuff. Jeebuz, can I haz valium nao? Shor t version - Ishtara thinks old women avatars (and middle-aged, I fear), the sick and unsightly shouldn't be on his sim (and I think maybe he thinks they shouldn't be on any sex sim at all). I disagree in principle though aware every sim owner has the right to choose. Jeez! That IS it - in three ruddy lines! Wot a waste of time!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Eloise Baily wrote: /me steps out of the dust coughing. Where the hell did THAT come from! note to self: Look both ways before heading into a stampede They were written on a Wurd document, innit? Wasn't no way I could have replied in one sitting (plus pc is being a bit of a slow stinker - i risk losing stuff because it freezes). That's why three big uns got dropped on you sudden like. (why am I talking common, like? Musta had enuff of talkin posh to Ishtara and trying to sound intelechewal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloise Baily Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Nuu Carole not at all. Ishtara is Spock-like in his analysis if things that he doen't get about the human condition, we all know that. We also know that the things he does get are not often what the rwest of us get. However.. ..I still think that Ish posts intriguing posts and I believe that they are when something inside him goes *ting* and are not posted for publicity purposes alone. Of course, there is a bit of that, but isn't that why any of us post? I get where you're coming from, and I want to slap Ishatara with a wet fish regularly, as long as I can just spin round and slap you too at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloise Baily Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Well next time will you wear wedges please? Can we spread that load a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Deltango Vale wrote: Arriving very late to this party (and therefore stone-cold sober), Whew, a good thing too. As too many intellectuals posting in one thread makes for a Great Wall of text...and you've been known to post....a lot of words..; ) *laughing* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Nacy Nightfire wrote: Dick Cheney, still technically alive I'm assuming, has no pulse. I'm guessing you might ban him from your beach, if only to protect his health. He's a mature man. Hottie? Or not? Hmm, I wasn't even sure what Dick Chaney looked like, so I had to Google pictures of him. Hmm, not bad looking for an older man. But, he sure grimaces a lot. Oh, and to the issue of whether Dick Chaney has a pulse...he does not. The type of heart/blood pump that has been installed into Chaney produces a continuous flow of blood, instead of an on/off pump method. So, he does not actually have a "pulse", as the pulse is a by-product of the on/off pump method used by the actual heart. Animal hearts are basically just pumps, and ours squeezes and releases, thus the "pulse". But, that is not really necessary in a replacement blood pump, so the modern heart replacement pumps have dispensed with the pulse method in favor of a continuous flow of blood. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/health/20docs.html http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=17523&channel=biomedicine§ion= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Nacy Nightfire wrote: Dick Cheney, still technically alive I'm assuming, has no pulse. I'm guessing you might ban him from your beach, if only to protect his health. He's a mature man. Hottie? Or not? Hmm, I wasn't even sure what Dick Chaney looked like, so I had to Google pictures of him. Hmm, not bad looking for an older man. But, he sure grimaces a lot. He grimaces a lot because of Dr. Chaney; the brilliant half of the relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Franizzi Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Eloise Baily wrote: Nuu Carole not at all. Ishtara is Spock-like in his analysis if things that he doen't get about the human condition, we all know that. We also know that the things he does get are not often what the rwest of us get. However.. ..I still think that Ish posts intriguing posts and I believe that they are when something inside him goes *ting* and are not posted for publicity purposes alone. Of course, there is a bit of that, but isn't that why any of us post? I get where you're coming from, and I want to slap Ishatara with a wet fish regularly, as long as I can just spin round and slap you too at the same time. Oh, I have a huge soft spot for Ishtara. Fine brain. A delight to get into a posting debate with. I don’t entirely agree with your Spockish analogy, though. (He won’t mind us discussing him in public, will he?) Don’t start with that game again! I keep telling you – I’m not in the wet fish slapping scene! PS I’m now an expert in the sex trade (after all the reading up had to do) – question is, can I make use of this mountain of newly acquired knowledge at the next dinner party I get invited to by dropping interesting facts and figures in as conversation starters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloise Baily Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 No you muppet. Have you not atteneded recent soirees? You have a workshop, where an expert comes in and teaches them and stuff while you quaff gin. No Carole, he won't. If he does, on the offchance, you started it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabid Cheetah Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 There's ugly, and then there's disgusting. Common sense differentiates the two. There are people in this game, myself included, who get a bit irritated when others tell them you MUST do this, you MUST do that, blah blah blah your avie isn't sculpted blah blah blah...who react by deliberately making ugly avatars. Add to that the "plastic people" culture of the RL spilling over into SL, with dance halls full of "pretty people" all uniformally dancing in time to a pose ball. Something HAD to be done. So, I for one went through a stage where I would go to places as the Mean Ol' Fat Lady. But I didn't do it to grief, just to subtly (or maybe NOT so subtly) display my disgruntledness with the attitudes I was encountering. Plus, I roleplayed it, too, and would talk about life in my trailer park while sadling up to the bar to order her favorite drink: Jack Daniels and Nyquil. Hands down, everyone I encountered enjoyed the lolz, and did not consider it griefing, including a fancy jazz club that had a dress code! I had, after all, come in my best t-shirt and short-shorts, and could shake my belly along with the rest of the crowd. I have a few male friends who won't play SL, due to the lack of (their words) "normal looking" male avatars available. Everybody either looks like a teenager or a beefed-up underwear model. This is an untapped market of the avatar business. So, no: Choosing an avatar appearence that disturbs others, slightly, would not be griefing. On the other hand, it all goes back to common sense; Choosing a disgusting avatar appearence that greatly disturbs others is a no-brainer vis-â-vis whether or not it's griefing -- with the caveat that it depends on context. A beautiful supermodel, naked, with a suggestive AO might be fine at the local SL dancehall. Same avatar, at an SL church holding a 9/11 memorial service? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacy Nightfire Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Dammmmit all! I thought I could catch up with this while eating my dessert and coffee! And you added so many pages!!! My synopsis: Ishy has a dress code on his sim and mature women, by being themselves, are in violation of the dress code. I wonder how many "busy brides" , those who spend many hours and thousands of dollars planning the perfect the event of their lifetime, omit folks from their guest list because they'd spoil the beautiful photo album. Like their heroic fireman uncle who was badly burned saving a child, or a cousin who was born with cerebral palsy, or a nephew with downs syndrome, or a soldier who had his arm blown off defending his country. Do we ever have a right to exclude others (of course we have the LEGAL right in many cases)? (And I don't include a robot or a pile of poo as "other". They don't represent themselves as humans, although that particular pile of poo might have been considered a "hottie" by his or her pile of friends. Please. Don't respond to this. I'm just disappointed I'm so behind here so I have to ramble on and these were my thoughts so far from my reading yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Void Singer Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 sorry missed the reply. other stories had him with a weak pulse... and it all depends on which placement a person has (RVAD are more likely to have some pulse) as well as how strong the remaining heart muscle is (such as in bridge recovery). never the less I can't find any current acticles stating otherwise for him, so, mea culpa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishtara Rothschild Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 Carole Franizzi wrote: Ishtara: I'm not sure if I have the time to reply to all your points in great detail. Carole: That’s a shame. Especially since all my points emerged from answering all your points. It’s particularly disappointing that you didn’t have time to answer so many of my questions. I thought it was pretty pointless to reply to the parts of your posts that showed a deliberate misunderstanding of my arguments (commonly known as a straw man). At least I think that the misinterpretation was deliberate. For example, I never once said that one gender is superior to the other. The genders are different, that's all. Biologically unequal in the true sense of the adjective, which has nothing whatsoever to do with legal and social equality. If men and women were biologically equal, men would be able to give birth and women would use urinals. I find it mind-boggling that one can no longer point out obvious gender differences, which are proven beyond doubt by the simply fact that there are two genders and not just one, without being called a sexist dog. When political correctness and feminism get in the way of the pursuit of truth and knowledge, it's time to cut it back a notch. After all, we still need biology teachers to educate school children about things like the inequality of the male and female reproductive systems. But more on that further down. Carole: I thought we were going to agree to disagree about stuff? If Nature is “sexist”, how do you explain this? Maybe because evolutionary biology, unlike socio-politics, is truly free from male-chauvinist attitudes? “It has been known for the past 10 years, or so, that the male determining chromosome, the Y chromosome, is shrinking. Making many male scientists nervous, the Y chromosome has been steadily decreasing in gene numbers, as well. The female and dominate chromosome, X, has almost 1,000 genes, while the shrinking Y chromosome is holding onto a mere 80 genes. It has brought the question to many scientists minds, will the Y chromosome eventually disappear, ending the male gender? It had been looking as though the male chromosome was slowing shrinking into oblivion, as the genetically inferior of the two chromosomes…” (Examiner.com and in a gazillion articles all over the web) Ah, the good old Steve Jones He's a popular science author who took the finding that the Y chromosome might vanish in a few million years and ran with it (to the nearest militant feminist trench as it seems). I is very interesting that your quoted article speaks of genetic inferiority, much unlike my posts. The fact that the genders have specialized on different tasks and that the Y chromosome doesn't need to encode much information does not make any gender superior, nor does gender-related research have anything to do with chauvinism. Needless to say that Prof. Jones' pop science is very much disputed (read: utter claptrap). Humans are not going to turn into a genderless or ambisexual species simply because the Y chromosome is not necessary to encode gender dimorphism. There are mammalian species without a Y chromosome (such as Ellobius lutescens, the transcaucasian mole vole, or Tokudaia osimensis, the Japanese spinous rat). These rodent species are still sexually dimorphic. Their females still have to put up with disgusting male pigs If genderless single-celled organisms or hermaphroditic slugs had a huge advantage over sexually dimorphic species, it would be them who'd walk around wearing clothes, using tools, and engaging in strange hobbies like space exploration. Aside from that, the simplicity of the Y chromosome doesn't mean that the female genome is incredibly more complex. The overall genetic difference between male and female humans is only about 2% (which is the same amount of difference that has been found between the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. I bet radical feminists could have great fun with that little fun fact too ) But these tiny genetic differences can cause drastic developmental differences, which are not only physiological but also neurological. If we like it or not, men and women don't function alike, nor do they think alike. Of course there are individuals with hormone levels that are closer to those of the opposite gender, which makes gender a somewhat fluid criterion, but the majority of humanity show very similar dimorphic key traits in both physiology and neurology (and thereby behavior). Which has, of course, nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. Or with chauvinism, for that matter. I have no idea how you keep reading that into my posts. Despite that, I’m convinced there were neither sexists nor feminists back in Bedrock (no pseudo-moral double standards either), just two genders, with pretty hard existences, happy just to have a modus vivendi. The sexism thingy comes into play when men try to use their own interpretations of caveman-style attitudes to justify claims to extra rights and innate superiority, using evolutionary history as an excuse. Nobody has to go out and tussle with sabre-tooth tigers to bring home the dinner, so its maybe time to set aside that justification for certain behaviours. We all have basic urges – evolved man and woman try to filter those urges through their brain. It has nothing to do with justifications either. Our evolutionary history has shaped our behavior, desires, urges, and even our reproductive interests and goals, which are very much at odds. These traits will undoubtedly be subject to further changes in the future, but evolution doesn't work that fast. We will have to come to terms with that. This does not suggest that men should be out hunting deer while women tend to the household. Again you're reading something into my posts that wasn't there. Gender-related biological and psychological research focuses on explanations for the things that we do if we are free to pursue our interests, which can only be the case in a society where all people are socially and legally equal (as it should be). In other words, neither gender gets to dictate how the other gender ought to behave. It was wrong when men did this to women, and it's equally wrong when the roles are reversed. Isn't acceptance of the other gender without trying to limit any individual what social gender equality is all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishtara Rothschild Posted September 8, 2011 Author Share Posted September 8, 2011 Carole Franizzi wrote: Want them to be equal??? You see, non-sexists believe they are equal. You starting to get the proper definition of “sexist” now? What you describe above is both genders chasing healthy mates. Sounded pretty equalising to me… The bit about the tail having to be young and pretty reminded me of a point I’d already made – you can chase all you like, but if the gal you’re into isn’t into you, she just ain’t going to stop running. We are using different definitions of equality. Equality is the likeness in quality, number, nature, or status. You are talking status, I'm talking nature. Without any nonsensical notions of genetic superiority, mind you. If that is sexist, my biology teacher was sexist too for suggesting that boys and girls have different parts between their legs. In this case, the biological difference / inequality between the genders is that women typically not only select for attractiveness and other indicators of good health, but also for a socially successful mate. With the additional distinction that women look for different traits in life partners (traditionally providers) and sires, and feel attracted to different types of men at different points of their menstrual cycle. And as I've already explained, sexual selection for a specific trait does not mean that any individual is going to get what s/he desires. People can and will settle for less, or go home empty-handed and cry into a pillow. That doesn't change what these individuals feel most attracted to. Anyway, I have just discovered that we shouldn’t have been speaking of Neolithic at all (though I’m off the hook, cuz I called it “Bedrock”). If we want to examine how the earliest social organisations of Man might have influenced gender behaviour, it seems we should be looking at the beginning of the Palaeolithic era, since that appears to be the first one the human time-line, before the Neolithic age, and which according to Mr Google, was a period of social equality and had no gender divisions of duties: men and women were both committed to searching for food. Interesting, huh? Seems that as far as providing for the family is concerned, we’ve come full circle and are back to our natural state of equal rights and responsibilities. And again we're talking about different things -- social organisation versus genetic makeup, and biological / behavioral differences versus division of labor and equal rights. You completely misunderstood where I was coming from. I'm not trying to dictate what human societies ought to look like. I merely explained how men and women behave when left to their own devices, without being forced into any kind of role. You probably subscribe to the idea that gender is nothing but a societal construct, but that is nonsense. We are free to create any kind of society that we can think up, and I agree that everybody should have the same freedom and opportunities in an ideal society. But we still want to behave in certain ways that are, to a large degree, determined by our DNA. Those are entirely different matters. (Btw, societal structures largely depended on the environmental conditions in the past. Different human populations lived in different climates and developed very different forms of social organisation; matriarchal and patriarchal structures, monogamy and polygamy, polygyny and polyandry. At the point where the earliest Homo sapiens lived in small family groups, these miniature societies were probably a lot more diverse than modern day societies. It's a strange idea that all paleolithic humans lived in one big culture). The exploitation of women is ugly to my mind, no matter whether accompanied or not by collateral criminal activities. The fact that you make a parallel between women, alcohol and drugs as “goods” of some sort is precisely what I find disquieting. I don't consider women to be a good, I consider sex to be a good (or rather a service) when a person of either gender offers it for money. I thought I had made it very clear that prositution is not only a female trade. What about women who hire callboys and male escorts? Do they exploit men? Unless people are forced into prositution, there is no exploitation imho. What I find disquieting is that some women are trying to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Men don't get to do that and neither do feminists. If a person wants to offer sexual services for money (or to work in the porn industry, which is another feminist pet peeve), s/he should have the right to do so. You cannot liberate people by limiting their choices and prohibiting consensual sex between adults. That does not compute. You need to read up on your statistics, though. The Netherlands, with its massive numbers of “imported” sex workers is now having huge issues with organised crime and has been attempting to reduce the red light district in Amsterdam to bring the situation under control again. The Netherlands appears as one of the top destinations for human trafficking, by the way. It has also seen an increase in child prostitution over the last few years. Ya gotta love Google! I can only judge the situation here in Germany. The women and men who legally work in German sex establishments freely chose their occupation. If any of them were illegal immigrants or victims of human trafficking, these establishments wouldn't last long. You can't condemn a legal, safe and regulated activity because of a somewhat similar illegal or inhumane activity. Think of the shoe industry. Some shoes are produced by unionized workers who earn a fair wage and have social security, whereas the production of other shoes involves something that is a lot more akin to slave labor (I'm comparing labor and not goods here, mind you). That is no reason to outlaw shoe manufacturing altogether. Well, you mentioned that you were interested in certain aspects of psychology. You might find one of the many studies available of the psychological profiles of prostitutes fascinating reading. There has been found to be an extraordinary high incidence of disturbances such as schizophrenia, histories of “disorganised” childhoods and adolescence and a background which includes being victims of sexual abuse. It gets very hard to discuss free will and choice if you include such factors in the discussion. Of course, you can also just ignore them. I put it to you that neither you nor I would ever be able to know for certain who was there of their own free-will and who was being forced by present or past events. Also, Ishtara, it’s naïve to talk about social security benefits as an option when the people most likely to be forced wouldn’t be legal immigrants. I doubt that any of these studies was conducted in Germany, or in any other country where prositution is both legalized and properly regulated. We also don't have many illegal immigrants around here. Besides, in countries where illegal immigration is a problem, you'll find that the immigrants work all kinds of crappy jobs under extreme conditions. I recently read an article about Mexican farm workers in the USA who were kept in containers on a minimal food supply like slaves. That is equally condemnable and criminal, but it doesn't reflect negatively on legal farm work under humane working conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudolphUkka Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 * ugli is a * fruit but too ugli is not a * pair. *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now