


Michelle Monaghan



Moderator: Community Team






riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Drew Barrymore is a hottie, that's for sure. The other one is okay, but not in the same league.nietzsche wrote:Drew BArrymore
Michelle Monaghan
You re like... Losing dude.nietzsche wrote:are you serious???
aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh
put on your glasses please

Have either of these two been in a series of pornographic films that I'm not familiar with? If not, then how exactly do you justify this claim?nietzsche wrote:Lol, they objectify themselves first.
You tell me, you're the one who said "are you serious???" when someone disagreed with you.What is wrong with having an opinion on who's prettier?
What does porn have to do with anything here? You assimilate judging a woman's attractiveness with porn or objectification. The pictures he s posted emphasize on the face. There is nothing sexual there. Your brain analyzes a few hundred of faces per day judging their atractivity. Are these people all victims of objectification?Metsfanmax wrote:Have either of these two been in a series of pornographic films that I'm not familiar with? If not, then how exactly do you justify this claim?nietzsche wrote:Lol, they objectify themselves first.
You tell me, you're the one who said "are you serious???" when someone disagreed with you.What is wrong with having an opinion on who's prettier?

nietzsche's statement proved my point. What actresses like Drew Barrymore do is act. They play a character in a film. They aren't selling their bodies or their faces, they're selling their portrayal. But all nietzsche wants to do here is judge their appearance. So he's objectifying real people doing a particular job into people whose only relevant dimension for this thread is how attractive their bodies or faces are. That would be context-appropriate (though not necessarily morally appropriate) only if these folks were known for participating in beauty contests and these were photos from said beauty contests. That is not what this is.betiko wrote:What does porn have to do with anything here? You assimilate judging a woman's attractiveness with porn or objectification.Metsfanmax wrote:Have either of these two been in a series of pornographic films that I'm not familiar with? If not, then how exactly do you justify this claim?nietzsche wrote:Lol, they objectify themselves first.
You tell me, you're the one who said "are you serious???" when someone disagreed with you.What is wrong with having an opinion on who's prettier?
I don't know what y'all do in France, but to most normal people the face is a major component when judging sexual attractiveness. And if you don't think that's the intent of this thread, then how do you explain Dukasaur's comment?The pictures he s posted emphasize on the face. There is nothing sexual there.
No.Your brain analyzes a few hundred of faces per day judging their atractivity. Are these people all victims of objectification?

I am smart enough, which is why you should be paying attention instead of just assuming I'm repeating feminist mantras. There are some claims made by some feminists about objectification that I don't agree with (like, I think it's ok for women to make porn and be prostitutes if that is what they want to do), and some that I do. It is important to see things in a context-specific manner. And in this case, I am disgusted because I doubt that Drew Barrymore wants to be compared to other actresses on a metric that has nothing to do with her acting skill.betiko wrote:Seriously dude..
Don t take word per word what ultra feminists might say. I m sure you re smart enough to make a mental scale on things.
And yet where are those threads? The internet is filled with threads that only ask this question about women. (Even in this forum, when is the last time you saw a thread like that?) That contributes to a culture where the physical appearance of women is assumed to be more important than that of men, even if it operates only at a subconscious level.If there is a thread made by girls asking if tom cruise or shia la boeuf is hotter.. Would i give a shit and feel objectified? The answer, is obviously no.

Did you even read the poll title?betiko wrote: This is not a thread to judge their rack. This is about two motion picture actresses.
You got me there. He used the "P" word. It's totally unacceptable!Metsfanmax wrote:Did you even read the poll title?betiko wrote: This is not a thread to judge their rack. This is about two motion picture actresses.

Because objectification = porn?Metsfanmax wrote:Have either of these two been in a series of pornographic films that I'm not familiar with?nietzsche wrote:Lol, they objectify themselves first.
This forum is, like, 99.9% male. Why would you expect there to be threads full of guys creaming over Benedict Cumberbatch?Metsfanmax wrote:And yet where are those threads? The internet is filled with threads that only ask this question about women. (Even in this forum, when is the last time you saw a thread like that?) That contributes to a culture where the physical appearance of women is assumed to be more important than that of men, even if it operates only at a subconscious level.betiko wrote:If there is a thread made by girls asking if tom cruise or shia la boeuf is hotter.. Would i give a shit and feel objectified? The answer, is obviously no.
Not saying you're wrong, if it applied to real actors. I'm sure, though, that you're aware as well as I that many of these "actors" are only in the biz because they've got looks while their acting leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't consider Barrymore to be a very good actor.Metsfanmax wrote:nietzsche's statement proved my point. What actresses like Drew Barrymore do is act. They play a character in a film. They aren't selling their bodies or their faces, they're selling their portrayal. But all nietzsche wants to do here is judge their appearance. So he's objectifying real people doing a particular job into people whose only relevant dimension for this thread is how attractive their bodies or faces are. That would be context-appropriate (though not necessarily morally appropriate) only if these folks were known for participating in beauty contests and these were photos from said beauty contests. That is not what this is.betiko wrote:What does porn have to do with anything here? You assimilate judging a woman's attractiveness with porn or objectification.Metsfanmax wrote:Have either of these two been in a series of pornographic films that I'm not familiar with? If not, then how exactly do you justify this claim?nietzsche wrote:Lol, they objectify themselves first.
You tell me, you're the one who said "are you serious???" when someone disagreed with you.What is wrong with having an opinion on who's prettier?
I don't know what y'all do in France, but to most normal people the face is a major component when judging sexual attractiveness. And if you don't think that's the intent of this thread, then how do you explain Dukasaur's comment?The pictures he s posted emphasize on the face. There is nothing sexual there.
No.Your brain analyzes a few hundred of faces per day judging their atractivity. Are these people all victims of objectification?
What I expect is irrelevant. The point I was making there is that there are a number of threads devoted to comparing the sexual attractiveness of women in this forum, and that helps spread the meme that we should care more about women's looks than other, more important factors. If you're all so interested in comparing women, go make a thread about the presidential chances of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.mrswdk wrote:This forum is, like, 99.9% male. Why would you expect there to be threads full of guys creaming over Benedict Cumberbatch?Metsfanmax wrote:And yet where are those threads? The internet is filled with threads that only ask this question about women. (Even in this forum, when is the last time you saw a thread like that?) That contributes to a culture where the physical appearance of women is assumed to be more important than that of men, even if it operates only at a subconscious level.betiko wrote:If there is a thread made by girls asking if tom cruise or shia la boeuf is hotter.. Would i give a shit and feel objectified? The answer, is obviously no.
So instead of agreeing that maybe sexually objectifying people is bad, you go and find more examples of sexual objectification. Wonderful.And just to address Mets' grousing that he is unable to find much objectification () of men on the internet, here are some web pages dedicated to just that:
http://tubecrush.net/
https://www.pinterest.com/jjsilver/super-hot-men/
http://godlyguys.tumblr.com/
http://a-hot-men-1.tumblr.com/
http://www.towleroad.com/hot_men/
To the extent that this is true, it's only because Hollywood is giving people what they want. And that desire is what I am criticizing.TG wrote:Not saying you're wrong, if it applied to real actors. I'm sure, though, that you're aware as well as I that many of these "actors" are only in the biz because they've got looks while their acting leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't consider Barrymore to be a very good actor.