LOL *NSFW* *The new Demote thread*

Is there anything that can't be made better with the addition of boobage ?

 

It's Wonder Woman!

But there's something different... I can't put my finger on it...











Oh yeah, she's black, Wonder Woman was white.

 

In your case I would guess it is because all those demotes objectifies women and thereby also devalues them as human beings.

Just a hunch

 

I especially like the 4-pixel-image thing.

 

* * * Columbia * * * ​

* * Venezuela, Peru, Mexico, Jamaica * * ​

 

It's pretty tough to look at photos of people and not see some form of objectification - that's the hazard of the media, awfully two-dimensional.

But objectification shouldn't devalue. A photo is nothing but a snapshot in time and rarely tells you everything you need to know about a person. If the photos were of women as nurses/doctors/lawyers/teachers etc. would that mean those in the photo were of greater value? What if the women in bikinis were in fact nurses/doctors/lawyers/teachers?

Anyway, on with the demotes:

 

That's not how they are portrayed though, isn't it? They are not made out to be doctors and lawyers in bikinis; they are made out to be sexually available girls in bikinis. Because, like, they're wearing bikinis. And nothing says: "I am just waiting for a guy, any guy to indiscriminately **** me" like a bikini, right? Right?

 

But surely they wouldn't wear a bikini and pose as they have done in the images above if they didn'tq want to be seen in that way?

 

Don't take slutty photos of yourself if you don't want someone else seeing it and using it.

 

This leave less room for misinterpretation for you?



Seriously, I sometimes wonder which culture is more messed up...

 

Actually :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tive-eyes-forced-cover-resolution-passed.html

 

SOMEONE GET ME A ****ING SLINKY!!

 

I'm not sure who's doing the devaluing here - I was never aware that looking at pictures of girls in bikinis meant that those women, or any other women, were inferior. But are you insisting they are?

Touché

 

I am insisting that some of the demote pictures concerning them ("Buffet Variety" and "Jailbait") are depicting them as sex objects. Note the all-important meta-communication: it is not "Nice/hot/sexy girls", it is: "Buffet (omnomnomnom)" and "Jailbait". Things, not people.

 

I'm not saying it's alright to perv on pics of girls or guys. But its obvious that pics of girls/guys in skimpy revealing clothing and in sexual positions etc, are sexually attractive to the majority of the population.

Not sure what you're going on about... :S



Edit: just read your last post... If I understand correctly, would you find those demotes ok if they simply said "Sexy" instead of "Jailbait"?

 

Ok. I don't wish to be pedantic but i will just point out that Variety and Jailbait are words and not photos. I was talking about the pictures, you were talking about the language.

I thought there was a self-awareness to the art of demotes that removes the need for people to get offended i.e. the artist deliberately chooses a stereotype to achieve demotivation. I never considered demotes might be used to communicate in a serious manner where a sense of humour was not required.

 

Agreed, nearly all of the demotes stereotype people.

 

Basically. It is not demeaning to say a girl is hot or sexy. It is demeaning to say she is a thing for your gratification.

No, but they can be a tedious one.

This is just my personal opinion, but I really do not need to see more pics of scantily clad girls with text that basically goes: "Boobs! Hurr, hurr, hurr...". It's just not funny. It's not clever, it's not ironic scathing wit or a sharp, wry observation of the human condition. The whole Beavis and Butthead routine is tired.