The Problem of Female Body Image

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 4/3/2006, 6:49 pm

Just because you're desensitized doesn't mean something's ok.

If I punch enough babies in front of you, you'll probably get used to it. Should I continue doing it, and should you start doing the same? No.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 4/3/2006, 7:04 pm

i find it incredibly offensive that you punch babies.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 4/3/2006, 7:07 pm

I find it offensive that you find that offensive.

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 4/3/2006, 7:10 pm

Good job avoiding the analogy. :duncan:

And, yes, punching babies is wrong. I'll seek treatment for this horrible habit immediately.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 4/3/2006, 7:11 pm

dear god help me! It's the noise that makes me punch babies!

nikki4982 · Post by **nikki4982** » 4/3/2006, 7:14 pm

Ahh, Dane.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 4/3/2006, 7:31 pm

She's right.

Your skin may be tougher about some things that others find foul but that doesn't mean that those things aren't foul.

The point I think about all this that needs to be made is that it is not the words "no fat chicks" that are offensive but the idea that people should be held in lower regard than others based on thier body weight.

That idea is offensive, that idea is foul and it is that idea that has no place in a rational society.

However starvingeyes is not a proponent of that type of thinking. He was cracking wise and probably, despite all his denials, trolling a little bit. I think that in the end everybody could be well served by lightening up just a little.

crustine · Post by **crustine** » 4/3/2006, 7:36 pm

starvingeyes wrote:well pardon me then, as i stated it was my belief that the NFC joke didn't really offend anybody anymore considering it's wide use in pop culture. i certainly wasn't trying to upset anybody. geez.

but, uh, i'm not attracted to short girls, is that a problem? fat ones don't generally turn me on either, but you know that's just the way i was made. sorry if my sexual preferences offend you somehow but you know, i gotta say that's your problem and not mine.

if i were you, i'd think about THAT for a second. being offended by the sexual preferences of other people is generally frowned on in society (we call the biggest offending group "homophobes").

I think you really missed the point here. I was not talking about sexual preferences, you are using that to hide behind. I was talking about the fact that you refer to woman as commodities. We are humans with personalities not just an appearance. At some point in your life you will move past appearances and see there are qualities that are far more important.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 4/3/2006, 7:44 pm

mosaik wrote:She's right.

Your skin may be tougher about some things that others find foul but that doesn't mean that those things aren't foul.

The point I think about all this that needs to be made is that it is not the words "no fat chicks" that are offensive but the idea that people should be held in lower regard than others based on thier body weight.

That idea is offensive, that idea is foul and it is that idea that has no place in a rational society.

However starvingeyes is not a proponent of that type of thinking. He was cracking wise and probably, despite all his denials, trolling a little bit. I think that in the end everybody could be well served by lightening up just a little.

I agree, but I think the main reason for the reaction you've seen here is the other posts he's made recently. The way we read something on a text-based message board depends largely on our impressions of that poster. He hasn't exactly made a good impression lately (whether he intended to be offensive earlier or not), so it's not at all surprising and not entirely unjustified to assume that this comment fell into the same context as his earlier posts.

Like you said, this one (no fat chicks) was most likely a lighthearted reference, and obviously a Family Guy reference. However, given his other posts, it does seem like he's posting these things with the intention of getting a reaction out of people. That is my only beef with this comment. Though this may not have been his intention, it certainly seems that way given his recent attitude.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 4/3/2006, 7:46 pm

crustine wrote:I think you really missed the point here. I was not talking about sexual preferences, you are using that to hide behind. I was talking about the fact that you refer to woman as commodities. We are humans with personalities not just an appearance. At some point in your life you will move past appearances and see there are qualities that are far more important.

actually i didn't. you are literally pulling this stuff out of thin air. i used physical attributes to describe women, such as "tall" or "fat.". describing women by their physical attributes is an incredibly common practice. are you telling me that if i ask my friend "what did she look like?" and he replies "she was tall and fat" that he is referring to her as a commoditity? if so, have you NEVER described any person by their physical attributes?

i said i was attracted to tall girls. well actually i said tall chix is hot. this is referring to girls as commoditites? stating which physical attributes i find attractive? rob? help me out here.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 4/3/2006, 7:49 pm

Yeah, I actually agree with your last point (a shocker, I know). :nod:

crustine · Post by **crustine** » 4/3/2006, 7:54 pm

I will concede on Robs point that typed text is hard to decipher. It didn't strike me as you mearly talking about phsycal attributes of women. After all this thread is about the stuggles that women have with body image. This unfortunately is shaped and perpetuated by socitey that seems obsessed with appearances.

perhaps you could tell me how saying nfc allowed or tall chicks are hot contibuted to the general enlightenment that was the original purpose of this thread.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 4/3/2006, 7:56 pm

It's pretty clear that he was not trying to contribute to the original purpose of this thread, but by the time he got here it had already transformed into spam

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 4/3/2006, 7:57 pm

starvingeyes wrote:this marks the first time a moderator has ever defended me from attacks on this board, is this true or false rob?

also, is it true or false that i have been attacked on this board dozens of times before? including once by a member of your own mod team?

come on man some of this has got to be getting through. i'll happily lay down the sword here if you think you can take a step back and look at this from an unbiased perspective. i really do believe in your ability to impress me, so come on big guy do it again here.

I attacked you once! Remember? Ages and ages ago, like maybe a year or so ago, over that thread where you were talking about your clothes.

Ahh good times. You're right though, I never got in trouble. I think once you make yourself a profile for being a trouble maker, people can let loose on you and it doesn't matter as much because it's counted as retribution instead of just being a dick?

Having said that, you basically do make yourself fair game based on what you say. You can say whatever, it doesn't bother me, but n00bs don't know what you're like in terms of what you say seriously/non seriously, and also Robs right, based on text, you don't sound that great.

Olp_waited · Post by **Olp_waited** » 4/3/2006, 8:03 pm

wow, look at what I have started :lol:

crustine · Post by **crustine** » 4/3/2006, 8:05 pm

tall chicks are hot. i don't even look at girls that are shorter than 5'7" and if they try to talk to me, i kill them.

anyways my only problem with female body images is when the chicks have clothes on in the picture. what's that about?

that was the question right

I had to go back and see what was offensive to me. If they talk to me I kill them...that combined with the fact that he talked about hitting his gf kinda made me sick. It had nothing to do with being a n00b and Mosaik you seem to be articulate and not reactionary as your bro.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 4/3/2006, 8:06 pm

well, the tall chicks was in response to a girl saying some guy had burned here cause she was tall. so i guess i was trying to make her feel better about any body issue she may have by telling her that i think chicks who are 5'10" are smoking hot.

that was in fact, my second to most recent post in this thread at the time of the NFC posting. it was a compliment to another forum member. so i guess that kind of shits on the "all his recent posts were offensive" argument, doesn't it? at the time of the image posting i had made like, 9 posts since i came back. 4 or 5 were connected to the same post (i hit my chick etc.), 1 was about how tall girls are hot and the others were political.

so really, about 50% of my unique thoughts had been offensive, or as i like to call it, outside taboo.

geez there's that grudge again. won't go away.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 4/3/2006, 8:07 pm

ok.

well i'm sorry for saying that i kill short girls, although i should think that by the fact that i am sitting here and not in prison that i was joking there. however, i suppose if it offended you i was in the wrong and for that i am sorry. didn't mean to hurt any feelings, like i've said before.

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 4/3/2006, 8:08 pm

P.s. Chris :sugar:

. I didn't feel bad but thanks!
Also... I think sometimes y'all are taking stuff a BIT TOO LITERALLY. He obviously wasn't going to kill a short girl?

crustine · Post by **crustine** » 4/3/2006, 8:10 pm

hello ...if they talk to me i kill them. After that you are right I had made a judgement about you. And yes it coloured all that you said after that. Had you even hinted that you were joking it would have been dismissed.