I'm not an Islamic Fundamentalist, so I don't get offended by comics.
"Be like a postage stamp. Stick to one thing until you get there." -- Josh Billings.
Add me on MySpace!
thats not what im saying,
its implying that lesbians are fakes pretty much and then when some rich guy comes along we are bisexual all of the sudden.
dont you think?
I am too cynic. Said that, yeah, anyone goes bisexual if the right cheque-book comes along.
" . . . The sun does not shine upon this fair earth to meet frowning eyes, depend upon it." Charles Dickens
Hmm, well...I thought it was funny, but I'm not easily offended.
Hah. I thought it was funny. I don't think it's a statement about all lesbians, just about the fake-lesbians who are actually bisexuals or whatever whatever. Yeah, not coherent, I know... but yeah.
Megan: "Cheers are supposed to be simple, make people feel good."
Graham: "Cheers make girls do stupid cartwheels. Orgasms make people feel good."
-But I'm a Cheerleader
Haha I thought it was funny. I don't think they're really implying lesbians are fake, just making social commentary on how girls in general might be: willing to go where the money is.
but i also don't find it particularly hilarious.
in this world, there are a lot of chicks who fuck guys for money. sometimes they marry a guy with a good job so they can have the "lifestyle" [house/car/jewelry/clothes/carribean-vacations]... and sometimes they are just flat-out whores who get payed to fuck.
a lot of women use their sexuality to get things. it's called "tricking". and it's perfectly fine. feminism means advocating for women's power to CHOOSE- to choose how to live our lives and how to utilize our bodies, and that includes the power to choose who we are going to fuck.
g-d bless america!
While all feminists would agree that women have a right to chose who they have sex with, I don't think many feminists would feel that women using their sexuality as currency is a fulfillment of feminist ideals.
Because in that set up the men still have the power to bestow money, holidays, houses and cars; the men have the actual power, economic and political, women have a limited and secondary power to exploit male sexuality. It makes male sexuality the loophole for women in a patriachal system, rather than challenging the system itself.
And just two of the things very, very dangerous about that is that it one, it patholigises male sexuality to a weakness that women can parasitically use for their own purposes, but also of course, it reduces female sexuality to a bargaining tool. So it denies that women have sexual needs or desire- just financial/ social aspirations- (or at least it suggests they're unimportant) and also gives the message that female sexuality, and women themselves in a way, are a commodity.
And since women are apparently a homogenous group (as proven by the people on here who think there's such a thing as a seperate womens' history), if some women do it and become high profile, then every women is suspect. A career is what you get when you can't get a [rich] husband, girls.
There is no difference between sex for money and sex for houses/ cars/ clothes and holidays. Of course someone might buy jewelry as a sign of love and affection, but to stay with someone because they give you jewelry makes you a prostitute. The only difference between a street walker and a trophy wife is the intensity of the need.
But actually I don't think many girls do think like this. I mean, do they? I think it's largely a myth- this strange ruthlessly mercantile approach to sex and sexuality, although applying to some women, isn't normal.
And men can't really want to buy their wives and girlfriends, can they? I mean, it sounds so stupid but men are people too, they still want love and respect even if they also want sex, and it's not like love and sex are mutually exclusive. And if 'love' sounds too fluffy clouds and puppy dogs, at very least almost all men I know want to at least be liked by their sexual partners.
One of my best friends was once in a long term relationship with a guy she couldn't stand in return for concert tickets. He bought her things because he wanted to see her and booked things in advance so she wouldn't leave him. It was desperate and needy (he was pathetic) and she was so distainful of him. It was heartbreaking.
Of course, money, stability and power can all be factors in attraction, but unless there's actually attraction then it's just prostitution.
"I mean, it sounds so stupid but men are people too"
As in, it goes without saying that men are people. As in they are complex humans.
But, in hundreds of films/ adverts/ tv programs/ magazines you get men presented as either heartless/ infantile/ incompetant/ sex obsessed to the point of idiocy/ emotionally constipated (take you pick as appropriate).
Conventional wisdom on men seems to be they're 'only after one thing', they need to be trapped into commitment and they're incapable of understanding or expressing emotion, if they feel emotions at all (other than maybe anger or extreme grief).
And how can men not find that insulting? It is insulting. The way it get's insulting for me to watch endless makeovers change girls' lives. Not because it isn't true at all, but because it's so selectively true that it's like a fairground image of the way real life men behave and act. Sort of recognisable, but cheap and totally disorted.
I mean, it's only pop culture but it's our culture.
Interestingly, this article here makes a similar point to yours. Stereotyping is wrong in pretty much all contexts. I remember my first "sex ed" book telling me why girls made friends: because they wanted to go shopping, gossip and spend time together. Boys made friends for team sports. I didn't find it that strange at the age of 10, but as a 17 year old feminist I look back and think "WHAT?" I'm just reminded of that with your comments.
Anyhow, the article's quite good. :)
Ha, I think I've read that already. Life as a semi-employed shut in means I spend much to much time reading the F Word blog and looking for updates at feministing. See my youth in tatters. But bless earnest politicised undergraduates, hopefully next year I'll be one of them.
I don't even mind stereotyping. I think stereotyping is a fairly sensible evolutionary mechanism, we catagorise to make sense of the world. Whether or not the world actually makes any sense is another matter.
It's just the stereotypes about men and women need to be reconsidered, or at least the explaination for the stereotypes need to be looked at.
I have had several male friends who talk to me about their emotions, because teenage boys fall badly in love and get their hearts all broken. And I'm the gay best friend, so I occupy neutral territory and get to hear about it all. I'm not a boy who they need to impress, I'm not a girl who they want to impress- I'm like a mother. Often teenage boys are much more vulnerable to the slings and arrows of the world because no-one takes pity on them. Even the most abjectly unpopular girls at school would at least have someone take pity on them. Sports teams don't tend to do that.
it's pretty offensive. It just adds to the stereotypes of bisexuals being a conglomeration of fakes.
No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless; there is too much work to do.--Dorothy Day
i didnt mean it was offensive to me, i ment that it could be taken offensivly, dont you think?
obviously i was right because the person above me clearly stated that they were offended.
im a lesbian and i know that it doesnt work that way whatso ever but i was thinking from everyone's point of view and figured it could be offensive.
Anything can be taken as offensive to someone. I guess I'm just unclear why we'd want to share things that might offend us? Sort of like linking to anti-gay stuff on other websites and stuff...
Whereas, I never see much in the way of people posting positive things with the same frequency. I hope it's an oversight, since I think there are always more positive things than negative things out there, assuming you look in the right places.