Oh good god, I can't get those images out of my head!!!
any citations would be on an anecdotal level, when the show first came out and Seven joined the cast, women I know would make comments like "She has a body on her!!!", (obviously)
or "That's just not fair", or even "She's hot"...
these were mature, adult women who understood that some people are just born like that, and some people win the genetic Olympics. Nothing wrong with admiring that it's how humans have been for millennia, and always will be. .
So in other words, you’re just pulling this out of your ass. Thanks for the clarification.
Well, more or less. "There are always alternatives" turned into the more romantic and less pragmatic "There are always possibilities."
no more than the misogyny drivel
no more than the misogyny drivel
Hey, you’re the one with all the objectifying comments. But you already knew that.
Anyway, Star Trek V couldn’t be saved. So think we’re done here.
for me at least it's hard to find the positive aspects of V. I've watched it a few times, or tried to, but it just never grabs me, I can watch 2,4,6 and First Contact and still enjoy them repeatedly, even ST3 was ok in comparison...
Appreciating beautiful women in skin tight outfits is not objectifying, especially when those women have far more depth than just their appearance, which is one aspect of their persona
What I like about Seven is her depth, humor and resiliency, for example, the fact that those things are encapsulated in a very nice package, so to speak, is an added bonus.
it's no different that Chris Hemsworth being naked or shirtless in just about every Thor movie, it's eye candy for the ladies, and I say "Enjoy, this is for you ladies!" Or Dwayne Johnson's biceps bursting through his shirts in whatever movie he might be in, Henry Cavill's Skin tight Superman uniform..etc...very objectifying indeed!
Anyway, Star Trek V doesn't need saving. So think we're done here.
Well, that's technically correct. It doesn't need saving because it's a 37 year old movie in which nothing can be done to it to make it any better than the absolute piece of crap it is.
Anyway, they could never make me hate you, Star Trek V!
I love the representatives on the planet, I love the busted Enterprise, the thematic sense of being forgotten, busted and abandoned. I love camping. Only a bit of the Sybok stuff is off, the brother thing just feels so out of no where and too small-world minded.
I love the representatives on the planet, I love the busted Enterprise, the thematic sense of being forgotten, busted and abandoned. I love camping. Only a bit of the Sybok stuff is off, the brother thing just feels so out of no where and too small-world minded.
Because it's misogyny, regardless of response. No male characters were dressed like that in the same show, including male Vulcans.
Objectifying is objectifying and a bullshit excuse for people just wanting sex
Fuck that shit with Star trek and it's supposedly "humans evolved" sensibilities. There is nothing good there for the characters or the story.
I don't understand why you two can't just focus on the fact the way he spoke about Uhura was pretty disrespectful in his first post on the matter without needless posturing on ""misogyny"" and ""objectification""? All characters are objects, being weirdly anti-horny doesn't make you morally superior to someone. Misogyny isn't some fun word you morally accuse someone of because you don't want to engage with them.
Satriani's comparing it to the modern increase of it happening for the benefit of women is actually the most mature. The biggest problem was the lack of consideration of the female audience, and that's why the only good and feminist Star Trek is TOS! Cute 60's outfits and shirtless scenes!
half-joking... maybe... maybe not...And back on topic, Star Trek V! I imagine the effects were probably disappointing at the time, but I am only charmed by them now.
Because the disrespect sadly ran through multiple aspects of Trek, Star Trek V being one example but not the last.
Sorry, I object to objectification of people regardless. Saying that as long as all members of the audience are suitably titillated is not an argument I find persuasive. It's reducing humans to a collection of parts.
The one I found distracting was the shuttle crash. That was really weird that there was no other crash procedure.
The rest I found ok, especially the end.
Well I sure hope you've never EVER felt sexual desire because
Being weirdly anti-horny doesn't make you morally superior, it makes you kinda sad. There is no absolution to be achieved by pronouncing that you have never objectified a character. There is no reward in this mortal world for not being horny.
Using misogyny and objectification as some fun words you throw around to accuse people of a moral crime when they are being normal and talking about how they like sexually attractive characters on TV only dilutes the words.
There's no moral talk here. I'm stating my opinion and view on objectification. Treat people as people not objects is my stance and has been for a long time. So, that was a lot of words to completely ignore my actual stance on not objectifying people.
Why are you using a quote box? That's briefly stating what Kant wrote.
And isn't Kant arguing that sex is morally dangerous unless constrained by reciprocal commitment, i.e. marriage?
Anyway, like most matters, philosophers disagree on this topic. Martha Nussbaum argues that treating a person as an object (sexual intimacy) is not inherently wrong if they are still viewed and treated as a whole human being with autonomy.
Moral, adjective:
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.
2. expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
See these comments:
I don't know how to tell you that you attempting to insinuate others are engaging in misogyny and objectification is 'moral talk'. You are concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior. You are expressing a conception of right behavior.
Accusing someone of objectification and of misogyny (regardless of response, as you said) is an inherently moral accusation against them. You are attempting to associate them and their opinions with a socially immoral thing. Are misogyny and objectification just like, fun words to throw around?
At least own it, man.
Quoting Wikipedia, I thought I put that in there... And honestly any discussion of the depths of objectification theory is only proving my point that bringing up words like objectification and misogyny in order to morally talk down to someone talking about how shows having sexual appeal is good and normal is needless posturing.
And off-topic.
Probably, but as an apparent objectifier, how can I judge?
In honor of which! Was it not all worth it... just for this...
In honor of which! Was it not all worth it... just for this...
Similar threads
- Poll
