How should we interpret the boycott of the Playboy TV show?

[MatureDJ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/the-playboy-club-anti-porn-protest_n_887571.html

I just have to think that feminists are just men haters - either because they just don't like the idea that men have the better deal when it comes to sex (i.e., can pump & dump, be polygynous, for childbirth only have to endure ejaculation :yes:, sexual market value increases with age, etc.) even if they could get a man - or are just undesirable by any decent men.

 

[Strelok]

The sex and the city crew that talk about morality? ahaha

Reverse sexism, double standards, excessive consumerism and a parasytic life style surrounded from encouraged lieing.

Feminists are no different than a worker union that push workers to fire themself than fight for a better salary.

 

[zekko]

they just don't like the idea that men have the better deal when it comes to sex (i.e., can pump & dump, be polygynous, for childbirth only have to endure ejaculation :yes:, sexual market value increases with age, etc.) even if they could get a man.

What happened to all the guys who are constantly whining that women have the better deal? Which is it?

 

[Stagger Lee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/the-playboy-club-anti-porn-protest_n_887571.html

I just have to think that feminists are just men haters - either because they just don't like the idea that men have the better deal when it comes to sex (i.e., can pump & dump, be polygynous, for childbirth only have to endure ejaculation :yes:, sexual market value increases with age, etc.) even if they could get a man - or are just undesirable by any decent men.

But that presumes that feminist have justification when they do not. Men do not have a better deal than women by nature, leave alone by society, just a different deal with its own pros and cons. Feminist just want women to have their natural advantages plus more societal constructed advantages, meanwhile denying men any natural given equalizers or advantages.

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm not sure why I care who is boycotting PBC or why. Why should I care?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

All this is is one more attempt to enforce one more aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men's sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women's sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach.

What's interesting, and ironic, is that women's push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men's desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women's desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex's mating schemas are at odds.

In a male-centric sexual reality, most women simply cannot compete; in fact unlimited access to unlimited sexuality ensures they will be outstripped at some point by a sexual competitor. They certainly cannot effect their own sexual schema under these conditions, so the recourse is to use that same sexual agency to control the narrative and enforce their own sexual primacy as the correct one. His access, in fact his very exposure, to sexual competitors must be limited in order for her to select from the most, best, suitors. Limit the experience, limit the options, make her sexual schema the primary normative and enforce it with specifically defined moralism.

 

[samspade]

"What's shown in 'The Playboy Club' is not real--Playboy definitely damages people. It's pornography, it's sex trafficking and it exploits women."

Not to deny the existence of actual sex trafficking, but a woman freely accepting thousands of dollars to pose nude is not exactly human bondage. Or should Cindy Crawford and Elle Macphereson be freed and paid reparations?

 

[azanon]

I apparently was taken to a different link than everyone else.

The article I went to explained that it was "KSL, a Church of Latter-day Saints-owned Salt Lake City affiliate" refusing to air the show, and then went on to mention that Pink Cross, "a faith-based IRS approved 501(c)(3) public charity .... is participating in an online petition against the show. Also "Morality in Media" is an "interfaith organization", according to basic google research.

I agree, "faith-based" organizations are out of touch with reality, including being terrified with human sexuality. But can there be any baseline expectations from a mentality that uses faith to determine truth rather than reason and logic?

.....

As far as movies goes, we have the same problem with the MPAA. They are outright terrified by sexuality, but violence hardly ever bothers these people. Rambo can go kill 300 actual human being, but he still can't get an NC-17, but if one dares show a married couple having sex...... its unrated or NC-17.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I apparently was taken to a different link than everyone else.

The article I went to explained that it was "KSL, a Church of Latter-day Saints-owned Salt Lake City affiliate" refusing to air the show, and then went on to mention that Pink Cross, "a faith-based IRS approved 501(c)(3) public charity .... is participating in an online petition against the show. Also "Morality in Media" is an "interfaith organization", according to basic google research.

I agree, "faith-based" organizations are out of touch with reality, including being terrified with human sexuality. But can there be any baseline expectations from a mentality that uses faith to determine truth rather than reason and logic?

.....

As far as movies goes, we have the same problem with the MPAA. They are outright terrified by sexuality, but violence hardly ever bothers these people. Rambo can go kill 300 actual human being, but he still can't get an NC-17, but if one dares show a married couple having sex...... its unrated or NC-17.

I mostly agree with Rollo and think what he said still applies here. Modern churches and religion have become feminized and do the bidding of women. Sure, religion never supported promiscuity and therefore pornography but for a different reason in the past.

If pornography exploited anyone, and I'm not saying it does, it would be men not women. A lot of men are paying for and watching pornography when they'd rather be having and acting out sex irl with a sexy female. Women being paid to be promiscuous as is the case with porno is facilitating female hypergamy. Old time religion opposed female hypergamy and promiscuity with the goal that every man would have a least his own woman. If you go to any church nowadays, the values held align with feminist values and the views of sexuality align with women's views.

 

[samspade]

I plan on watching the Playboy Club - for the dialogue.

 

[thedude4242]

the girls who boycott all this stuff are jealous women who are not good looking and envy these women deep down.

 

[azanon]

I mostly agree with Rollo and think what he said still applies here. Modern churches and religion have become feminized and do the bidding of women. Sure, religion never supported promiscuity and therefore pornography but for a different reason in the past.

You just think you mostly agree with Rollo. But if I'm not mistaken, Rollo has stated here before that he is religious, so I am going to presume that he disagrees with you at least to some extent because he wouldn't support an organization which stands for something that he opposes so vehemently (feminism).

I'm not saying feminism isn't a problem, it just wasn't a topic of that article. * shrug * Faith-based opposition of Playboy TV was.

Old time religion opposed female hypergamy and promiscuity with the goal that every man would have a least his own woman. If you go to any church nowadays, the values held align with feminist values and the views of sexuality align with women's views.

Where it concerns me, you're speaking to the choir. Feminism is a problem, but we need to find an article to link to bring it into the discussion.

 

[Jeffst1980]

This discussion is pretty silly. The boycott comes from religious groups, not feminists. Feminists are at odds with most religious groups because of their socially conservative beliefs. What feminist would support a group that believes that men are meant to be authority figures, as defined by the Bible? The Salt Lake city affiliate that refused to air it was boycotted by MORMONS- probably the most anti-feminist church one could ever conceive.

I have plenty of faults with feminism, but blaming them for EVERYTHING is just sloppy. Come on, guys.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Feminists are at odds with most religious groups because of their socially conservative beliefs. What feminist would support a group that believes that men are meant to be authority figures, as defined by the Bible? The Salt Lake city affiliate that refused to air it was boycotted by MORMONS- probably the most anti-feminist church one could ever conceive.

I used to think this, but time and experience have taught me otherwise. It makes sense; feminism, overt 3rd wave feminism, is antithetical to what we think most conservative, traditional religious women would embrace. In fact, if you asked a random 100 women from any evangelical franchise religion if they'd describe themselves as "feminists" you'd get a resounding chorus of "no" to "hell no!"

Feminism, as a label, has the stink of a liberalism that they've been taught to construe as appalling and against their 'moral code'. The term, in this expression, is equatable with pro-abortion, anti-christian, loose, loose morals, etc. etc. However, ask any of them whether they believe in an "equal work for equal pay" ethic, or whether they ought to be discounted from making political decisions (voting or running for office) by virtue of them being women and you'll see how non-feminist they really are. Tell them traditional mores forbid them from ministry, give them guidelines for modesty, ridicule effeminate church-men, and you'll see how ingrained feminist thought really is.

Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism - they're not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of "feminist" by virtue of their religion.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I used to think this, but time and experience have taught me otherwise. It makes sense; feminism, overt 3rd wave feminism, is antithetical to what we think most conservative, traditional religious women would embrace. In fact, if you asked a random 100 women from any evangelical franchise religion if they'd describe themselves as "feminists" you'd get a resounding chorus of "no" to "hell no!"

Yes, if you asked a feminist if she was religious or if you asked a religious girl if she was feminist the answer in either case most often would be no. Yet they would both likely be opposed to pornography and agree on a whole lot of other similar issue. The surprising thing would be the motivation would be the same. They are both feminist regardless of how they identify themself.

Feminism, as a label, has the stink of a liberalism that they've been taught to construe as appalling and against their 'moral code'. The term, in this expression, is equatable with pro-abortion, anti-christian, loose, loose morals, etc. etc. However, ask any of them whether they believe in an "equal work for equal pay" ethic, or whether they ought to be discounted from making political decisions (voting or running for office) by virtue of them being women and you'll see how non-feminist they really are. Tell them traditional mores forbid them from ministry, give them guidelines for modesty, ridicule effeminate church-men, and you'll see how ingrained feminist thought really is.

There really is no difference because the old time values and moral code have been replaced with a modern feminized version to attract the mainstream female. If the females come so will the males. So it's all about appealing to female primacy. Similarly, the beta-ization of males and empowering females is very strong in most mainstream churches.

Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism - they're not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of "feminist" by virtue of their religion.

Some of the biggest feminist I ever met were regular church goers and religious back when I use to hang out with these types of girls. This is from personal experience and not theory. They pick and choose parts of traditional morality that benefits female primacy and reject all the parts that don't. Isn't that exactly what any good feminist does?

 

[samspade]

Feminism, as a label, has the stink of a liberalism that they've been taught to construe as appalling and against their 'moral code'. The term, in this expression, is equatable with pro-abortion, anti-christian, loose, loose morals, etc. etc. However, ask any of them whether they believe in an "equal work for equal pay" ethic, or whether they ought to be discounted from making political decisions (voting or running for office) by virtue of them being women and you'll see how non-feminist they really are. Tell them traditional mores forbid them from ministry, give them guidelines for modesty, ridicule effeminate church-men, and you'll see how ingrained feminist thought really is.

Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism - they're not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of "feminist" by virtue of their religion.

You're failing to see (or make, I think) a big distinction here. The right to vote and earn money are not at odds with most conservative Christian "values" or morals. Perhaps that's because mores have evolved with the march of time and what society deems near-universally acceptable. But abortion can still be objected to on right-to-life grounds and nearly half the country will agree with you. Promiscuity can be objected to religiously based on the sacrament of marriage, or the sanctity of the family and raising a kid within one. I don't subscribe to these things, but that's where the debate lies. Maybe voting and employment rights are an extension of this since they grant political power to women. But you could make the same argument for American blacks - many of whom are in some respects socially or religiously conservative. (See: the gay marriage issue.) Ask any black man if we should bring back Jim Crow voting laws and see how conservative he is.

And you can also say that modern feminists exploit some aspects of religion/traditional morality/puritanism that suit them while avoiding the "bible thumper" label...the anti-pornography crusade being a prime example.

Or, you can allow that most people can think through a single issue and form an opinion on his or her own. (Though probably 1 in 4 actually can't.)

 

[Jeffst1980]

I used to think this, but time and experience have taught me otherwise. It makes sense; feminism, overt 3rd wave feminism, is antithetical to what we think most conservative, traditional religious women would embrace. In fact, if you asked a random 100 women from any evangelical franchise religion if they'd describe themselves as "feminists" you'd get a resounding chorus of "no" to "hell no!"

Feminism, as a label, has the stink of a liberalism that they've been taught to construe as appalling and against their 'moral code'. The term, in this expression, is equatable with pro-abortion, anti-christian, loose, loose morals, etc. etc. However, ask any of them whether they believe in an "equal work for equal pay" ethic, or whether they ought to be discounted from making political decisions (voting or running for office) by virtue of them being women and you'll see how non-feminist they really are. Tell them traditional mores forbid them from ministry, give them guidelines for modesty, ridicule effeminate church-men, and you'll see how ingrained feminist thought really is.

Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism - they're not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of "feminist" by virtue of their religion.

I will agree that all women (and men), religious or not, are influenced by feminism, as it has been the prevailing force of social change over the last fifty year.

However, it's a pretty big jump to say that the impetus behind a religious boycott of a Playboy-themed tv show is feminism, rather than the legacy of American Puritanism. Would they allow this tv show to be broadcast in the 50's?

 

[samspade]

Speaking of feminists exploiting puritanism...

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/17/the-growing-demand-for-prostitution.html

“We had big, big trouble finding nonusers,” Farley says. “We finally had to settle on a definition of non-sex-buyers as men who have not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, have not purchased a lap dance, have not used pornography more than one time in the last month, and have not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.”

Did they try the local cemetery?

Funny that when women deride prostitution, they never suggest making it legal and safe - thereby allowing women to engage in the business independently. Feminists are all for "strong, independent women," unless those women are selling sex - because it upsets the status quo they've worked so hard to maintain.

Thus you have feminists using puritanical arguments (men who use porn/hookers = morally reprehensible) to push their agenda. The sexual revolution, like all revolutions, has settled into a new status quo of its own.

 

[wait_out]

Lets be honest, when it comes to fighting sex trafficking and rape its both men and women together whether they are investigating or kicking in doors to prosecute arrests. Gender barriers now are slim to nonexistent and feminism has become about empowerment through victimization. Selling sex between consenting adults, safely, does not advance that.

Good article tho

 

[MatureDJ]

What's interesting, and ironic, is that women's push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men's desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women's desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex's mating schemas are at odds.

It sounds like what you are saying is ironic is that women's hypergamy - in which women refuse to mate with lesser men - causes those lesser men to have a deficiency of sex, thereby making sexuality via pornography more desired in the marketplace, and therefore more available, such that even the higher males - whom the women want to only have sexual expression in the context of a monogamous relationship with them - have the availability to that same pornography, making those women less important to the higher males.