HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Pre-historic Goddess Figu...

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:21 PM

Pre-historic Goddess Figures: Ancient Objectification?

With no faces or individuality, primarily consisting of big breasts and buttocks, it is hard to see how the ancient sculptors were not "objectifying women". Even if they were for magical or ritual purpose, they are the very definition of "objectification" in a quite literal sense.



For that matter, as long as we are on the subject, the animal kingdom, in all cases, has evolved so that certain parts of the anatomy are attractive. Bright feathers or plumage, big horns, colorful stripes, and big red asses. When a chimp is attracted by the buttocks of a female chimp in estrus, is he "objectifying" her? Should he not consider her as an overall chimp rather than breaking her down into body parts?

10 replies, 3585 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pre-historic Goddess Figures: Ancient Objectification? (Original post)
Bonobo Nov 2012 OP
TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #1
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #5
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #7
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #10
Upton Nov 2012 #3
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #6
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #8
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #9
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #4

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:58 AM

1. Prehistoric? Find some depictions of Irish warrior queens, like...

Maeve and Baudicca, or Irish goddesses. They didn't kid around back then (and Maeve's descriptions of how she balled the guys she killed are, umm, interesting.)

Googling takes too long to get the old ones, btw-- you just get a lot pages of paintings of hot redheads. If you can find an accurate copy of the Book of Kells, check the borders.

And it's not just the ancient Irish-- a non-censored collection of Roman lares has them with amazing sexual organs. You didn't have household gods for the recipes.

(I did find a few pix of the more outlandish ones, particularly the Irish queens and goddesses, but I'm imagining the outcry if I link to them.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:09 AM

2. Men never liked to look at naked women, never got turned on by looking at naked women

never got turned on by images of naked women, until The Patriarchy™ re-programmed their brains and erotoxinified their spooky male gaze with extra-powerful heteronormative pornification evil optico-phallopression mojo.

So, no. No one experienced any sort of arousal while looking at another human being, ever.. until The Patriarchy™ fucked everything up!!!!

Honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:15 PM

5. Some won't recognize the satire

 

That is too close to what some honestly believe.

Remember: PIV is an unnatural construct of the Patriarchy as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:48 PM

7. It's central to the narrative.

A whole giant scaffolding of bullshit is hung on the assertion that there is something inherently oppressive and unnatural about men being sexually attracted to naked women on the basis of physical appearance.

It is the fuel which powers a constantly chugging outrage factory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:22 PM

10. The fun part is when they do the same thing

 

they accuse men of (like posting pictures of nearly nude male olympians and ogling their physical attributes). Then when they're called on it (before silencing the dissenter) they will backpedal so fast they really ought to be checked for doping.

"No no see when *we're* doing it it isn't objectification because the Patriarchy . . . something . . . historical oppression . . . just appreciating physical beauty which is different than when you filthy men do it . . . empowerment . . . something . . . Patriarchy . . . SHUT UP! (at this point you will have long been prevented from replying)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:19 AM

3. There was no objectification..

until Hugh Hefner, Playboy magazine, and all the trappings of modern day "pornification" came along to condition all of us evil men how to degrade women just by looking at them ("male gaze" and all)..All of this of course feeds right into and contributes to "rape culture".. Eventually leading to the radfem staple of porn=rape.

This rather dubious logic is brought to you by the usual suspects. And I read it right here at DU..so it must be true..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:18 PM

6. Nude photos fuels the rape culture

 

Which permeates our society and tells men that rape it's ok.

You must ignore the fact that pretty much all non rapists agree rape is wrong and that as porn became more common rape has been on the decline.

But then empirical evidence has always been the arch enemy of the radfem movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:56 PM

8. Here's how it plays out:

Assertion: Porn is related to rape! Porn fuels rape culture! Porn is making people rape, encouraging men to rape, etc!

Response: Okay, well, as porn has become increasingly available, the statistics of rape have actually gone down. How does that work?

Assertion: Those numbers are made up, by rape apologists.

Response: The USDOJ and FBI are rape apologists?

Assertion: Fine but the pornification of society HAS TO be making rape more acceptable.

Response: If that were the case, then the numbers would be going up, wouldn't they? Certainly not going DOWN.

Assertion: How can you say that porn keeps men from raping? Oh, men will rape if they don't get their porn, is that your argument??



See what happens there? By disproving with obvious evidence the assertion that "porn causes rape", somehow now one is saying that it is only porn which keeps people from raping.

Personally, I don't think porn and rape have anything to do with each other. But if porn was making rape "worse" or "more acceptable" or encouraging "rape culture", the oft-decried pornification of society ought to result in a statistical increase in rape, NOT the decrease which all statistical entities report and acknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:19 PM

9. I particularly enjoy the argument:

 

that if you argue rape is on the decline that means you're ok with the number of rapes there are.

So you can't point out (and certainly can't be happy with) the fact that there are fewer rapes this year than last without tacitly supporting rape in general.

Which makes zero sense (if you supported rape you'd rejoice when it becomes more common, not less).

Personally, I don't think porn and rape have anything to do with each other. But if porn was making rape "worse" or "more acceptable" or encouraging "rape culture", the oft-decried pornification of society ought to result in a statistical increase in rape, NOT the decrease which all statistical entities report and acknowledge.


I would tend to view the relationship as correlated but not causative. Free nations that respect individual rights and freedoms allow porn *and* don't tolerate sexual violence. Less free nations based around religious edicts rather than individual rights don't allow porn *and* are more tolerant of sexual violence.

So more porn isn't causing fewer rapes. They're both symptoms of the same thing: a free and open healthy society that functions, if not ideally, then at least better than the alternative. And vice-versa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:09 AM

4. Objectification examples may be found throughout recorded history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread