Admittedly, there were idiots who thought such depictions of women were accurate 10 or 15 years ago, but it didn't seem to be nearly as ubiquitous as it is now. And 15 years ago, people weren't calling size-2 women "fat cows" and being agreed with. There are too many of them for it to just be an army of trolls.They did, assuming the they is the same group I think you're talking about. Well, groups, one being the group that uses women to amuse themselves and the other being the group that couldn't keep a woman's attention if they attached a neon sign to themselves. I say this having known plenty of them growing up.
Well, I'm not sure if it's about the increased "sexifyiing" of women, but Women Logic (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/women-logic) is a particularly irritating meme filled with a crapton of strawman arguements and stereotypes.I hate bigoted memes so much. They're stupid, unrelatable, and never, ever funny.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
Also, there's the Rule 63 gallery on KYM. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rule-63/photos) Just look at all that overtly sexual stuff. I mean, I love porn/erotica, but I'm pretty damned sure that gallery's goal isn't to be erotic.
I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ! They can't even do a Rule 63 pic of Bob Ross (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/132152-rule-63) without stripping her down to a bra and panties! Hm...maybe that's a bikini. Not that it really matters.
Anyone else on here a fan of Escher Girls?
Anyone else on here a fan of Escher Girls?
That immediately came to mind when I saw the thread title.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
That too.Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
If a guy is being nice only because he wants a date or sex, then he's not a nice.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
If a guy is being nice only because he wants a date or sex, then he's not a nice.
I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ! They can't even do a Rule 63 pic of Bob Ross (http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/132152-rule-63) without stripping her down to a bra and panties! Hm...maybe that's a bikini. Not that it really matters.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
If a guy is being nice only because he wants a date or sex, then he's not a nice.
I've always thought of it "Friends first, then maybe a date."
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
If a guy is being nice only because he wants a date or sex, then he's not a nice.
I've always thought of it "Friends first, then maybe a date."
The general rule is the longer you put off any sort of romantic interest being known, the more likely the answer is will be no. There's a point in which a friendship is worth more then the potential of ruining it, these people are the kind of people you can trust. Only recently has it become a negative to people and generally called the "friendzone". You're best chances are with people you meet out somewhere or only have a passing association with.(click to show/hide)
I find it fucking retarded. I'm gay, and there's lots of guys who I'm "just friends" with, and I'm perfectly happy with that.Yeah I know what you mean. I'm straight and most of my friends are women. I never thought anything of it either.
In terms of the book cover, while I get the exposure of her breasts and whatnot, part of it could simply be the fact that the illustrator probably never read the book.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.I've noticed this among disgruntled MRAs. They tend to bleat about how they are such "nice guys" to women, yet women only want to date "thugs" and "bad boys". Then they go on to spout garbage that's more misogynist than anything a "bad boy" could ever conceive of, while feeling entitled to sex for treating women like, I dunno, actual people. Reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talked about people who brag about "doing shit they're supposed to do".
If a guy is being nice only because he wants a date or sex, then he's not a nice.
I've always thought of it "Friends first, then maybe a date."
The general rule is the longer you put off any sort of romantic interest being known, the more likely the answer is will be no. There's a point in which a friendship is worth more then the potential of ruining it, these people are the kind of people you can trust. Only recently has it become a negative to people and generally called the "friendzone". You're best chances are with people you meet out somewhere or only have a passing association with.(click to show/hide)
Heh. I think it's because I grew up autistic, but I have hardly any want to 'date' anyone that I have a passing association with. I have to understand that I could enjoy hanging around a person before I'd have any interest for a deeper commitment.
I may be reading too much into it, but on the other hand, teenagers today are saying things that disturb me about the role of women in society. (Yes, I know, I'm becoming an old crank at 27.) There is this expectation by teenage boys nowadays that ALL young women must have a 24" waist, that ALL young women must have a perfect face with no blemishes, that ALL young women must look exactly like Photoshopped pictures in magazines and porn. Admittedly, there were idiots who thought such depictions of women were accurate 10 or 15 years ago, but it didn't seem to be nearly as ubiquitous as it is now. And 15 years ago, people weren't calling size-2 women "fat cows" and being agreed with. There are too many of them for it to just be an army of trolls.
These crazy ideas have to be coming from somewhere. You don't just wake up one morning and say, "hey, I think I'll treat people this way instead of that way." The way you are treated, and the way you see other people treating each other, and the way people are depicted on the covers of books and magazines, affect the way you treat other people as a teenager and an adult.
Meanwhile, back a couple hundred years ago the guys all loved the big girls.Some of us still do, or at the very least realize that within reason, who they are is more important that what they look like. I only put the within reason caveat because I will freely admit that physical attraction does play a role. I wouldn't trade my little chubette of 20 years for the world and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't trade her pudgy old husband either. We all get old and ugly, if love is going to endure, you need something more than aesthetics.
Relevant to the discussion of "nice" guys (http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com/).
I think the issue is that "Nice guy" doesn't have a nice, firm definition and thus people think they can take the label and use it to improve their reputation with the opposite sex without actually meaning anything at all.Protip for these people: "Nice" is not synonymous with "socially awkward". You also cannot call yourself "nice" and then in the next breath call women "sluts" and "bitches".
Relating to the book covers:
I don't see much of a problem with the pose of the character in the 3rd one (any more than with the first), but her expression & lack of Navajo features are a bit annoying. As is the open jacket, considering she's in a place that's similar in climate to Northern Siberia (or colder).
Now, as for the character's body type on the 3rd cover... yes, she is normally more full-figured. It's likely that the artist took too much of a liberty with the body type (or used a stock model, which happens often). I agree that the overall image suffers for it.
As for the comments about the 3rd cover's woman looking "skeletal": No. The model used might have had that body type.
While I am one of the first to be up in arms about curvy & full-figured women being insulted because of their body types, I also cannot stand it when people insult slender & thin women for the same.
I'm not saying you're doing it, TheL, but I've been seeing it too often lately & it's hypocritical. Maybe I'll post something about it in F&B.
...Sorry, rant/hijack over.
Relating to the book covers:
I don't see much of a problem with the pose of the character in the 3rd one (any more than with the first), but her expression & lack of Navajo features are a bit annoying. As is the open jacket, considering she's in a place that's similar in climate to Northern Siberia (or colder).
Now, as for the character's body type on the 3rd cover... yes, she is normally more full-figured. It's likely that the artist took too much of a liberty with the body type (or used a stock model, which happens often). I agree that the overall image suffers for it.
As for the comments about the 3rd cover's woman looking "skeletal": No. The model used might have had that body type.
While I am one of the first to be up in arms about curvy & full-figured women being insulted because of their body types, I also cannot stand it when people insult slender & thin women for the same.
I'm not saying you're doing it, TheL, but I've been seeing it too often lately & it's hypocritical. Maybe I'll post something about it in F&B.
...Sorry, rant/hijack over.
I'm not saying "I don't think Yana should be skinny." I am saying, "This picture makes it look like the person's bones are literally showing." That is what I mean by skeletal. I am totally fine with skinny people.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.
Also, I hate it when men(and sometimes women) complain about women complaining. Or about how "all women care about in a guy is money, a nice car, and a big d*ck". That has nothing to do with gender! There are men who leave their awesome girlfriend because her breasts weren't big enough, or she gained weight. Douche-baggery knows no genders.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.
Also, I hate it when men(and sometimes women) complain about women complaining. Or about how "all women care about in a guy is money, a nice car, and a big d*ck". That has nothing to do with gender! There are men who leave their awesome girlfriend because her breasts weren't big enough, or she gained weight. Douche-baggery knows no genders.
I dunno, I use the term "friendzone" in a joking manner when referring to girls who I'm friends with. Never really intended it to be a sexist term or not.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.
Also, I hate it when men(and sometimes women) complain about women complaining. Or about how "all women care about in a guy is money, a nice car, and a big d*ck". That has nothing to do with gender! There are men who leave their awesome girlfriend because her breasts weren't big enough, or she gained weight. Douche-baggery knows no genders.
I dunno, I use the term "friendzone" in a joking manner when referring to girls who I'm friends with. Never really intended it to be a sexist term or not.
I don't know what you mean.
Another meme is friendzoning. Being nice to girl doesn't mean she's obligated to go out with you or have sex with you. That's a really sad thing to think. Honestly if a guy expected me to have sex with simply because he's nice to be, he's treating me worse than a prostitute. When prostitutes get paid, money is money, they aren't pretending to pay you just for sex.
Also, I hate it when men(and sometimes women) complain about women complaining. Or about how "all women care about in a guy is money, a nice car, and a big d*ck". That has nothing to do with gender! There are men who leave their awesome girlfriend because her breasts weren't big enough, or she gained weight. Douche-baggery knows no genders.
I dunno, I use the term "friendzone" in a joking manner when referring to girls who I'm friends with. Never really intended it to be a sexist term or not.
I don't know what you mean.
What I mean is that I use the term "friendzone" when talking about girls who I'm good friends with to the point that getting into a relationship would be awkward for us. I don't use it with the "that bitch" connotation other guys use it in.
Re, "Nice Guys:" Altruism does not work that way.
Also, "increasing popularity?" ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "male gaze" been popular pretty much since the dawn of humanity, most notably in more patriarchal societies? This isn't some new phenomenon, and its prevalence isn't something new, either. The thing is, we're more aware of it, nowadays. We've got the internet, and its accessibility is bordering on universal. The generations alive today (and those of tomorrow) have access to a broader, deeper range of information than at any other point in human history. This allows us to really see just how wide-spread certain ideas are, to understand the true scope of that which is our nature as a species.
Its not the popularity that's increased, but our ability to see it on a global scale. The same thing applies to, say, the prevalence of crimes, or the levels of depravity to which certain religious organizations can reach. We see more, we hear more, but not necessarily because there is more, we've just got better access to it, now.
Re, "Nice Guys:" Altruism does not work that way.
Also, "increasing popularity?" ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "male gaze" been popular pretty much since the dawn of humanity, most notably in more patriarchal societies? This isn't some new phenomenon, and its prevalence isn't something new, either. The thing is, we're more aware of it, nowadays. We've got the internet, and its accessibility is bordering on universal. The generations alive today (and those of tomorrow) have access to a broader, deeper range of information than at any other point in human history. This allows us to really see just how wide-spread certain ideas are, to understand the true scope of that which is our nature as a species.
Its not the popularity that's increased, but our ability to see it on a global scale. The same thing applies to, say, the prevalence of crimes, or the levels of depravity to which certain religious organizations can reach. We see more, we hear more, but not necessarily because there is more, we've just got better access to it, now.
Dude, compare Barbie to Monster High. Both are marketed at the same people: elementary-age girls. Both are made by Mattel. One has been in continuous production, in more or less its present form, for about 50 years now; the other is completely brand-new.
Barbie has D-cup breasts, yes, but she has a straight back. She is standing erect like a normal human being. The only things that you can really complain about are her feet (which are designed that way so she can fit into the high-heeled shoes properly--jointed ankles on dolls tend not to work out so well) and her skinny waist (which has been improved over the years to be not nearly as anorexic).
You can't tell it as much when they're in the package, but the Monster High girls have badly bent spines. They may only have the equivalent of a B-cup, but they're thrusting it out about as far as Barbie's chest, and it looks really weird from the side. What is obvious is how much more exaggerated everything is: the heads are proportionally much larger and cartoonish, sure, but their torsos and limbs are scary-thin and elongated like Bratz. Monster High dolls and Bratz dolls can wear the same clothing, because they're both nightmarishly thin; Barbies can't squeeze into the clothes of either doll line.
Speaking of Bratz, look at the makeup. Both of those Mattel dolls are wearing heavy makeup, but the faces still look like pretty high-school girls with reasonable proportions (again, Monster High exaggerates the size of the eyes a bit, because it's more cartoonish). But Bratz has HUGE, pouty red lips--a typical indicator of female sexuality. It's been exaggerated to the point that it doesn't even look cute anymore; it's just ugly and creepy-looking, and vaguely reminiscent of racist minstrel shows. The Bratz line only sells at all anymore through sheer inertia; the line was popular when it debuted in 2000 and has slumped since.
This sort of broken-spine, huge-lipped foolishness literally did not exist in the dolls that were marketed to me when I was a little girl. It is being marketed to little girls now. And it is transparently used to accentuate curves and other sexual features while simultaneously making a figure that is stick-thin to a degree not possible in a human being.
Re, "Nice Guys:" Altruism does not work that way.
Also, "increasing popularity?" ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "male gaze" been popular pretty much since the dawn of humanity, most notably in more patriarchal societies? This isn't some new phenomenon, and its prevalence isn't something new, either. The thing is, we're more aware of it, nowadays. We've got the internet, and its accessibility is bordering on universal. The generations alive today (and those of tomorrow) have access to a broader, deeper range of information than at any other point in human history. This allows us to really see just how wide-spread certain ideas are, to understand the true scope of that which is our nature as a species.
Its not the popularity that's increased, but our ability to see it on a global scale. The same thing applies to, say, the prevalence of crimes, or the levels of depravity to which certain religious organizations can reach. We see more, we hear more, but not necessarily because there is more, we've just got better access to it, now.
Dude, compare Barbie to Monster High. Both are marketed at the same people: elementary-age girls. Both are made by Mattel. One has been in continuous production, in more or less its present form, for about 50 years now; the other is completely brand-new.
Barbie has D-cup breasts, yes, but she has a straight back. She is standing erect like a normal human being. The only things that you can really complain about are her feet (which are designed that way so she can fit into the high-heeled shoes properly--jointed ankles on dolls tend not to work out so well) and her skinny waist (which has been improved over the years to be not nearly as anorexic).
You can't tell it as much when they're in the package, but the Monster High girls have badly bent spines. They may only have the equivalent of a B-cup, but they're thrusting it out about as far as Barbie's chest, and it looks really weird from the side. What is obvious is how much more exaggerated everything is: the heads are proportionally much larger and cartoonish, sure, but their torsos and limbs are scary-thin and elongated like Bratz. Monster High dolls and Bratz dolls can wear the same clothing, because they're both nightmarishly thin; Barbies can't squeeze into the clothes of either doll line.
Speaking of Bratz, look at the makeup. Both of those Mattel dolls are wearing heavy makeup, but the faces still look like pretty high-school girls with reasonable proportions (again, Monster High exaggerates the size of the eyes a bit, because it's more cartoonish). But Bratz has HUGE, pouty red lips--a typical indicator of female sexuality. It's been exaggerated to the point that it doesn't even look cute anymore; it's just ugly and creepy-looking, and vaguely reminiscent of racist minstrel shows. The Bratz line only sells at all anymore through sheer inertia; the line was popular when it debuted in 2000 and has slumped since.
This sort of broken-spine, huge-lipped foolishness literally did not exist in the dolls that were marketed to me when I was a little girl. It is being marketed to little girls now. And it is transparently used to accentuate curves and other sexual features while simultaneously making a figure that is stick-thin to a degree not possible in a human being.
I hated the barbie dolls my parents got me. I remember I sacrificed a few of them to the Beanie Baby's god.
Ohhh. I must have misunderstood through the haze of body-type hate that I've been seeing all over the internet lately. I should remember that most FSTDTers are better than that.Relating to the book covers:
I don't see much of a problem with the pose of the character in the 3rd one (any more than with the first), but her expression & lack of Navajo features are a bit annoying. As is the open jacket, considering she's in a place that's similar in climate to Northern Siberia (or colder).
Now, as for the character's body type on the 3rd cover... yes, she is normally more full-figured. It's likely that the artist took too much of a liberty with the body type (or used a stock model, which happens often). I agree that the overall image suffers for it.
As for the comments about the 3rd cover's woman looking "skeletal": No. The model used might have had that body type.
While I am one of the first to be up in arms about curvy & full-figured women being insulted because of their body types, I also cannot stand it when people insult slender & thin women for the same.
I'm not saying you're doing it, TheL, but I've been seeing it too often lately & it's hypocritical. Maybe I'll post something about it in F&B.
...Sorry, rant/hijack over.
I'm not saying "I don't think Yana should be skinny." I am saying, "This picture makes it look like the person's bones are literally showing." That is what I mean by skeletal. I am totally fine with skinny people.