I just felt that detail was worth clarifying because, again, going off of what I'd heard, it is one of the largest misconceptions regarding BDSM, and the people who I talked to seemed like they really would like it cleared up and explained when possible.

You seem knowledgeable on the subject. Much more so than I am. But I know there are people here who are less knowledgeable and I thought that information would be helpful for them.

I'm not sure if you are clarifying to me, or adding on to my own clarification for others. It can be difficult sometimes to see where a response to a specific person ends and where a more general statement begins in forums sometimes. But in either case, I appreciate the clarification.

I actually had hoped that it was understandable from my first post, but since you clarified it I figured it might be smart to do that as well. I also accidentally went on a slightly unplanned rant because it's 5AM and I always start ranting after midnight.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Well said, however I feel censorship can be also a personal/societal action either through coercion, diversion or manufactured complicity.

Chomsky wrote an excellent piece on the five filters of censorship it's worth a read.

Being a furry I'm trying to steer the project is a positive way for furies. But people are idiots when it comes to guilt by association. Several cases of women being raped at cons in the last few years doesn't help.

There are also several cases of rape in schools, churches, restaurants, hotels, motels, households, do you see where I am going with this? From what I understand you are just throwing furries under the bus just trying to make the "rape at cons" thing a point maker. Hate to break this to you but, rape can happen anywhere. And I assume this "guilt by association" is referring to people who want to make the point that the whole group is not bad. This is not guilt driven. It's the desire for the truth to be told and not shit talk.

I haven't taken a thing CCD's said seriously... Talking about objectifying woman and everything with that profile picture?... I mean, come on... I think they're trolling....

NotMeNotYou said:
If your issue is "the woman gives up control" then I can't help you in any way and BDSM will continue to be the devil for you, but if it's lack of consent that irks you then it's simply wrong to say that BDSM is bad, and in turn you shouldn't vilify it, as well as censor it, but you should focus on teaching people how to evaluate and give consent.

This is exactly my opinion. It's not so much the woman gives up control as women in all circumstances are expected to give up control (either impliedly or explicitly). Other consensual things like suicide are decisions that we try to prevent and even outlaw people talking about it.

NotMeNotYou said:
In the same vein, I do not understand how you can argue that viewing porn makes you objectify woman.

Some porn could have a negative effect. As I said before repeatedly exposing people to things desensitises and normalises them. Take of example regurgitors music video clip "polyester girl" that sparked outrage. Now it's mild compared to some of the shit out there now.

NotMeNotYou said:
The same goes for almost all other living people, they are able to differentiate fiction and fantasy from reality, they know things portrayed in porn and smut pictures aren't real, just as much as they know about advertising and are able to consciously override what their subconsciousness is telling them.

If this where the case then advertising wouldn't work. But it does very well and hard statistic says it does. You sound like a very smart person but regardless what you think, your subconscious effects most of your actions.

If what you say were true I wouldn't look up to woman who are better people than I, or admire their works, or like to have conversations with them because they have interesting views and a lot of interesting stuff to say; if you were correct I'd only be interested in boob pictures and getting to fuck them, and I can assure that isn't the case.

NotMeNotYou said:
TL;DR: Removing specific content because it "hurts woman" isn't going to solve anything, educating people is the way to go.

some people don't want to listen. Chocolate is bad for you but there are allot of people out there that have no health issues and eat it. People don't like what we say and get annoyed when we try to remove it from school canteens because it's delicious and addictive. We respect peoples choice to eat chocolate and advertise chocolate but since it has impacts on the grater public health we would like some sort of counter balance to it's effects.

purple.beastie said:
I believe they are saying that they are trying to put furries in a positive light in the documentary, but that other people working on the project view furries negatively because of guilt by association and the rapes at cons.

The videos will focus on how every facet of society is sexist> (sorry I couldn't help myself). One of the videos is on fandoms and heavily features furies simply because the porn is very prevalent within and because there have being a a few sexual assaults recently. I personally want the piece to be about how even the niche-st of groups have a rape problem in-line with the rest of society. The porn will get a critical mention but as the first episodes already are about sex and art and I think it is unnecessary to waste time with furry porn.

Edit: The porn is mentioned because an analysis of the tags of this site show rape, snuff, bdsm and forced tags occur at higher rates when a the female tag is present. "female solo snuff" shows up more entries than "male solo snuff" and even adjusting for the male:female ratio leaves females more raped and dead than there male counter parts. Yes I've also accounted for a few artists skewing the data.

CuteCoughDeath said:
This is exactly my opinion. It's not so much the woman gives up control as women in all circumstances are expected to give up control (either impliedly or explicitly). Other consensual things like suicide are decisions that we try to prevent and even outlaw people talking about it.

That doesn't make sense. Ever had a surgery? You give, for the duration of the surgery, control of your body to the surgery team because you're literally knocked out. Is this a bad thing that puts woman into a bad light because they give up control?
This is, in a lot of cases voluntary as well since a lot of non-medical surgeries are carried out, or surgeries that aren't necessarily required (laser therapy in the eyes for example, could be fixed with glasses instead).

Also, in what part of the planet do you live that talking about suicide is outlawed? You said you're part of a documentary sponsored by the Canadian government so I assume Canada, and Canada doesn't outlaw any talk about suicide but pushing people to commit suicide. There is a huge difference between the two, as there should be.
History has shown time and time again that outlawing something doesn't make it go away.
Paganism in Europe was outlawed and fully survived, alcohol in the US was outlawed and survived, racism is outlawed in Germany and it still survives.

And if it's something is hoped to happen then I am willing to bet any amount of money that the only thing that does happen is that the rate of suicides increases as suicide prevention Hotline is no longer allowed and that normal people won't be able to tell people to seek help out of fear of the law.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Some porn could have a negative effect. As I said before repeatedly exposing people to things desensitises and normalises them. Take of example regurgitors music video clip "polyester girl" that sparked outrage. Now it's mild compared to some of the shit out there now.

If this where the case then advertising wouldn't work. But it does very well and hard statistic says it does. You sound like a very smart person but regardless what you think, your subconscious effects most of your actions.

My subconscious mind tells me to treat all advertising as entertainment without effect. Nothing in my home that I bought was advertised in the media past being on display in a store. I see the advertising and still make my decisions based on either ingredient lists, putting the object under scrutiny while holding it in my hand, or marathoning it through benchmarks to see if it performs.
There a million ways to look at ads and then still go out of your way to come to an informed decision on whether or not it's worth your money.

The same goes for porn, most people know that those are people getting paid to have ridiculous sex in front of a rolling camera to please the viewers, nobody with half a brain is going to believe a woman want to be piledrived 24/7 or that they get nailed by every post man, pizza man, plumber, doctor, and what have you.
Again, this is like saying a book or TV series made you do something. If someone watches Breaking Bad and decides to cook meth prepare for that person's hilarious death because cooking meth is extremely dangerous.

CuteCoughDeath said:
some people don't want to listen. Chocolate is bad for you but there are allot of people out there that have no health issues and eat it. People don't like what we say and get annoyed when we try to remove it from school canteens because it's delicious and addictive. We respect peoples choice to eat chocolate and advertise chocolate but since it has impacts on the grater public health we would like some sort of counter balance to it's effects.

Education, education, education.
The dosage makes the poison, chocolate still releases a shit ton of endorphins when ingested which has very much beneficial effects on this person's mind which outweigh the ingested calories, up to a point. Even things like water in excess will kill or by making your blood so thin that your organs simply fail and shut down, causing the person suffer a slow death. Does that mean we should remove water from canteens?
Also, I assume you mean canteens past grade 4, I would understand removing it from canteens for young school boys and girls, but not in any canteen past grade 6 or 8.

In the same vein, teaching self defense is going to help a lot more. Most people can't rape after having a knee introduced violently into their groin, giving time to seek help or call the police.
Rapists aren't created by porn, because otherwise every male person in the first world would be a rapist, and that is not what happens, there are even studies underway to have a look at this and currently it looks like easy availability of porn decreases sexual assault. Which isn't that surprising as raping someone is a shit ton of work compared to rubbing one out in front of a screen, as well as arguably less illegal.

Again, education is key, both that woman are people and that maybe you shouldn't do to another person what you wouldn't like happening to yourself.

CuteCoughDeath said:
The videos will focus on how every facet of society is sexist> (sorry I couldn't help myself). One of the videos is on fandoms and heavily features furies simply because the porn is very prevalent within and because there have being a a few sexual assaults recently. I personally want the piece to be about how even the niche-st of groups have a rape problem in-line with the rest of society. The porn will get a critical mention but as the first episodes already are about sex and art and I think it is unnecessary to waste time with furry porn.

Edit: The porn is mentioned because an analysis of the tags of this site show rape, snuff, bdsm and forced tags occur at higher rates when a the female tag is present. "female solo snuff" shows up more entries than "male solo snuff" and even adjusting for the male:female ratio leaves females more raped and dead than there male counter parts. Yes I've also accounted for a few artists skewing the data.

Male_domination and female_domination are also interesting things.

However, the really interesting question is why does everything you argue have to have the undertone that sexual woman are bad? How would view sexual pleasure for a woman to be okay?
Apparently playfully giving up control (while still being in full control over everything that happens) is bad for you.

savageorange said:
Nope, as confused as CCD's stance is, it is not about censorship (yet?). Censorship is the domain of government action. Moderation of e621 is private action, the government is generally not relevant barring things like CP being uploaded.

I think e6 should remove all images that show women:
- in a submissive position
- being used for the pleasure of a man
- being degraded
- being used only in a picture because "they look good"
- depicting unrealistic sexulized traits

Censorship is censorship regardless of who's doing it.

In response to the rape, forced, snuff, and bdsm tag claim. Allow me to analyze this claim. I'm throwing in some other related terms as well.

A baseline (units: pages of images matching criteria, unless otherwise specified):

Male: 2110
Female: 2535
F/F: 114
M/F: 575
M/M: 424

First, Rape and Forced.

Male Rape: 47
Female Rape: 43
F/F Rape: 2
M/F Rape: 24
M/M Rape: 14

Male Forced: 65
Female Forced: 54
F/F Forced: 3
M/F Forced: 30
M/M Forced: 21

Now, for Snuff and Death:

Male Snuff: 218 images
Female Snuff: 192 images
F/F Snuff: 7 images
M/F Snuff: 38 images
M/M Snuff: 43 images

Male Death: 1233 (0.36% of Male images)
Female Death: 1331 (0.33% of Female images)
F/F Death: 31 images
M/F Death: 122 images
M/M Death: 83 images

Tags related to BDSM:

Male BDSM: 85
Female BDSM: 81
F/F BDSM: 8
M/F BDSM: 24
M/M BDSM: 26

Male Bondage: 75
Female Bondage: 70
F/F Bondage: 6
M/F Bondage: 21
M/M Bondage: 23

Male Submissive: 7
Female Submissive: 4
Male Dominant: 26
Female Dominant: 23
Male Masochism: 46 images
Female Masochism: 42 images
Male Sadism: 39 images (.012% of Male images)
Female Sadism: 54 images (.013% of Female images)

So, to address the claim that these tags occur more frequently when there is a female present.

Only two tags related to those terms returned more images containing females than images containing male. Of those two, one still contained proportionally more males.

Your claim that these tags are more likely when a female is present is factually inaccurate.

Clawdragons said:
It seems like you're suggesting that's a negative, and if so, I'm genuinely curious why that's a bad thing to you. It seems to be that a "woman [or man] offering themselves to [the] viewer" is ideally how sexual relations should generally go. "Yes, I want to have sex with you" seems to me to be a much better attitude than "I don't want to have sex with you", combined with "Too bad".

In fact, I can't really think of anything more desirable in sexual relations than enthusiastic participation and consent. Especially from women, in some ways, because of the historical rejection of women's sex drives.

Edit: Also, I've sort of realized that my posts since the first have been a bit skewed. I think I made my position fairly clear there, but after all the time I've spent challenging only one side of the viewpoints in this topic and ignoring much of the crazy stuff said on the other side... I'm going to try to address that imbalance a bit.

Good so far

I honestly don't understand how you can think feminism is not needed, in some sense or another. There are some pretty clear imbalances between the sexes, and there are issues which affect men, issues which affect women, and issues which affect both.

You realize feminism is only advocacy of female rights, right? Not male rights. For instance, take a look at the violence against women act. Go ahead, I'll wait right here. Notice how it only works for WOMEN. Notice it well.

As an example, there are campaigns still being waged in America to remove women's access to abortion. That is, to me, pretty major, and, I think, needs to be addressed. Do you have a problem with that issue being addressed? Do you have a problem with similar issues being addressed (for example, access to birth control)? Do you have a problem with perceptual issues being addressed? For instance, I've heard people express surprise at the idea that getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her should be considered rape. Or the idea that husbands can rape their wives. Do you have a problem with these issues being addressed as a group, as some of them may have common themes?

If you stab a man whilst drunk, does that mean you couldn't consent to his murder? Were you somehow forced to violently kill him? No, you're charged as a murderer, and you take responsibility. So, why should sex be any different? Unless you're so drunk that you can't give consent (this is a legal limit, you can't just say after one or two drinks it's rape, look up the limit) or you're passed out, it's not rape. Yes, you may regret it. Yes, you may be embarassed or ashamed. But that is not equal to rape. I'm actually a rape victim, and I find shit like this incredibly offensive. Unless you can not give consent (unable to communicate, unable to function, etc) or do not give consent, it is NOT rape.

Aside from that, freedom to petition the government and freedom of speech allows that. You wanna make it so they can't do that? By doing that, other things would also have to be censored. And by "other", I mean "all".

I don't see any problem with addressing these issues, personally. Again, they seem pretty significant. And I don't see why it should be a problem to address them as a group, because they do have some common themes.

Here's the thing: that's feminism. That is what many people mean when they identify as feminists. Not all, sure. There are some radical feminists who take things, in my opinion, way too far. But the same can be said of any group. And to say that "no, we don't need anyone dedicated to addressing these important issues" seems ridiculous to me, and I just don't understand that mentality.

How many feminists do you see that aren't radical, normally, that get lots of attention? I can only think of one, Christina Summers. How many radicals do you hear about daily? Many. Anita, Lacy, etc. How many non-radical feminists do you see trying to oppose those rads? I've seen none but Summers. Summers is way less famous than Anita or Lacy Green.

Oh but no, you're right, the non-radicals, even though I never hear a single word from their mouths unless I encounter one randomly as I debate a radical feminists, those are the REAL feminists, they're the ones who are vocal, definitely not THE PEOPLE TRYING TO CENSOR US AND WINNING. Nope. No way José, you're totally right.

Sheesh.

Clawdragons said:
Now I think you're the one confusing intent and content.

I've talked to people who've drawn porn. I've written and drawn porn. No one I've ever talked to has ever suggested that their purpose was objectifying women. Almost exclusively, the intent is to create something for people to enjoy.

You can argue that the way in which that is done is by objectifying females (I disagree, but that's not the point). But to argue that the intention is to objectify females... I think if you really believe that then you've never actually bothered to understand pornography from either the maker or consumer's perspective. If anyone is confusing intent and content here, it's you, with that claim.

The various people in this topic who are saying "feminism isn't needed in today's society"

Treos, there's no need to be nasty.

Also, I may not agree with castration in real life, but in drawing and fantasy I think people have the right to enjoy whatever they want. I think it is wrong to criticize anyone for the sort of porn they enjoy as long as it's not actually harming anyone. Whether that be cub porn, genital mutilation, torture/death, degradation/humiliation, or whatever else.

Call her a hypocrite, if you think she's being a hypocrite. But don't directly criticize whatever it is she happens to be into. I think that's not a good attitude. And again, don't be nasty.

No idea is free from any sort of criticism, ever.

Clawdragons said:
stuff

nice research

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
Various things

I don't think you actually addressed a single one of the points I tried to make in any of my messages. It seems your standard is to make entirely irrelevant points addressed at arguments I never made. Example:

Aside from that, freedom to petition the government and freedom of speech allows that. You wanna make it so they can't do that? By doing that, other things would also have to be censored. And by "other", I mean "all".

At no point did I bring up the issue of censorship. I am not for censorship. I never suggested that anyone be censored.

Between this, and your misrepresentation of my position when we were discussing TJ, makes me think that you are not actually interested in understanding my point of view. You seem determined to twist and misrepresent it. I have no interest in a conversation like that. Ergo, I have no interest in a conversation with you, at least on this topic.

treos said:
nice research

Thanks. I appreciate that. Hopefully it won't just be brushed aside by CCD.

Clawdragons said:
Thanks. I appreciate that. Hopefully it won't just be brushed aside by CCD.

I don't mean to be "that guy" but they probably will...

Hiatuss said:
I don't mean to be "that guy" but they probably will...

Yeah, I know. But I can still hope for things that I think are very unlikely.

Honestly I expect a response similar to "but what I meant was that women are more likely to be the victim in such pictures". To which my response will be "that's not what you said", and then to reference Potholer54's description of a "Monkton Maneuver".

Though I guess now if things go the way I expect, I've already responded and thus will not need to bother.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
If you stab a man whilst drunk, does that mean you couldn't consent to his murder? Were you somehow forced to violently kill him? No, you're charged as a murderer, and you take responsibility. So, why should sex be any different? Unless you're so drunk that you can't give consent (this is a legal limit, you can't just say after one or two drinks it's rape, look up the limit) or you're passed out, it's not rape. Yes, you may regret it. Yes, you may be embarassed or ashamed. But that is not equal to rape. I'm actually a rape victim, and I find shit like this incredibly offensive. Unless you can not give consent (unable to communicate, unable to function, etc) or do not give consent, it is NOT rape.

Edit: A woman actually just recently got sentenced to 3 years in prison because she claimed 2 guys had raped her after she regretted it. She almost ruined their lives because she regretted fucking them...

ippiki_ookami said:
I think e6 should remove all images that show women:
- in a submissive position
- being used for the pleasure of a man
- being degraded
- being used only in a picture because "they look good"
- depicting unrealistic sexulized traits

Censorship is censorship regardless of who's doing it.

Meh, maybe the definition of censorship has changed. I still think that calling any kind of moderation -- bad, good, moralistic or otherwise -- of a private website 'censorship' is really just a bad joke. The only reasonable exception is if you're huge enough to have a large impact on society -- Facebook, Google, etc.

Jade_Angel said:
Edit: A woman actually just recently got sentenced to 3 years in prison because she claimed 2 guys had raped her after she regretted it. She almost ruined their lives because she regretted fucking them...

a woman getting jail time for a false rape accusation? and it's in a news article no less? huzzah!

that's an uncommon sight as usually it'd be the men who got punished. wrongly punished that is.

edit: W...T...F?! i have to fill out a survey JUST to read a news article?! are you seriously kidding me? dude, please link to a site where i can read the article in question minus the bs.

edit2: wait, nevermind, saved you the trouble. here

edit3: saw this in the sidebar of that first article (pardon my off-topic...). a case of shit and run lol

"Censorship" is actually technically accurate here, but due to the connotations it holds it's more just a really poor choice of words than anything.

The statistics I've found for "unfounded" rape accusations tends to put the figure at around 8%, which is around the same level as false accusations with regards to child abuse and lower than the rate for stalking.

Keep in mind that "unfounded" is different from "false". Unfounded includes both false reports and reports with insufficient evidence to determine a crime.

It is difficult to find statistics on actual false reports, but the value I've seen a few times is about 2%.

So when I hear people go on about false rape accusations, it bothers me. People treat it like an epidemic. I'm not saying it's not a problem, to some extent, but it's not a problem of the magnitude that people seem to act like it is. And these same people never seem to bring up the fact that a false report of child abuse can ruin your life as well, despite that being a problem of about equal (or greater) magnitude.

The thing is, rape can also ruin someone's life. And for every false accusation that can ruin a person's life, there's about 50 actual occurrences of rape. Fifty lives potentially ruined by rape compared to one life potentially ruined by a false accusation. One of these issues is of greater magnitude, and it's not the false accusation issue.

Jade_Angel said:
Edit: A woman actually just recently got sentenced to 3 years in prison because she claimed 2 guys had raped her after she regretted it. She almost ruined their lives because she regretted fucking them...

What? Justice in the legal system? I must do a dance of joy!
OT: reporting any crime falsely is a punishable offense so.... she got what she deserved for lying and nearly ruining two people's lives.

Clawdragons said:
Your claim that these tags are more likely when a female is present is factually inaccurate.

I said that (well actually not that, i included solo for a reason) because I didn't want to have to go in to my methodology.... Two models where used tally of images weighted by the amount of artists making those images to determine how common these images are. This prevents one artist from inflating the tally count.

The second was to determine the popularity. a score and faves tally was created for each tag set this was weighted against both the artists fav/score and the gender fave/score to remove bias created by a popular artist and by viewers sexual preference. The stats where run both with orientation removed and present to see if fem/fem and male/male skewed any data (it only did for male/male, I'm having trouble compensating for this as removing it). The main weakness is that score is cumulative (+5 + -3 = +2) this doesn’t properly show approval vs disapproval. To account for this the ratio of negative scored pics vs positive score pics was used to recreate the approve vs disapprove. The ratio is a function against the with f(x) = fave mapped 73 to 0 and inverted below (because statistically that's a non linearity point... I don''t know the technical definition)

http://dropcanvas.com/prg4e edit: you looking at the combined gender vs dominance tags with orientation removed. Males being dominated get slightly more faves but fem getting dominated get way more score on average. Outliers have not being removed

I've spent way to much time cooking data. If anyone else has some factors that could contribute to the gender divide feel free to message them to me I'll add them in.

I'm too tired. I'm sorry to everyone who has made good points and never got responses. You all deserve responses esp. if you disagree with me. But i'm tired and we could do this all day. I've also being asked to stop talking about the project till we get all the grant.

Next we'll be banned from getting turned on because it "offends women".

aurel said:
I have no clue how to read the data =D

Anyway, moar notes.
1.What sample size we are talking about? (Not as posts on the INTERNET (of all places) could prove anything to begin with.) A single artist could poison the data, just by being badass and drawing a lot better than everyone else (especially the flash peeps).
Not to mention guys like this <_<

Nope, compensated for that and even told you. The results for method two where weighted by the average faves/score of the artists. For example if a picture get a high score but it is drawn by and artist with a hight\ average score then the score used in the tally will be significantly less because the artist produces quality works.

aurel said:
2. Males get more faves, but fem get more score. This could be explained, by noting that females are harder to draw, those who draw female posts would take more time, and be more skilled overall. Better quality earns more uppies :p

Faves tend to indicate people really like it as score is almost always higher than faves. This indicates a neich market

aurel said:
3. "to remove bias created by a popular artist and by viewers sexual preference." ...? ....uhm... how could one possibly remove bias on sexual preference?

statistically you can. average up all score from "male", average up all scores from "male bdsm", subtract one from the other. This gives you an adjustment factor used because some people like the picture because it contains a male rather then bdsm.

aurel said:
4. ponies in the data, makes the data invalid =D

Glue factory in the statistics. And I don't see a proplem with five.

CuteCoughDeath said:
The second was to determine the popularity. a score and faves tally was created for each tag set this was weighted against both the artists fav/score and the gender fave/score to remove bias created by a popular artist and by viewers sexual preference. The stats where run both with orientation removed and present to see if fem/fem and male/male skewed any data (it only did for male/male, I'm having trouble compensating for this as removing it). The main weakness is that score is cumulative (+5 + -3 = +2) this doesn’t properly show approval vs disapproval. To account for this the ratio of negative scored pics vs positive score pics was used to recreate the approve vs disapprove. The ratio is a function against the with f(x) = fave mapped 73 to 0 and inverted below (because statistically that's a non linearity point... I don''t know the technical definition)

Neither favs nor score is a good measure if you want to do serious statistics, in fact they are a pretty bad measurement as they say next to nothing about what aspect is measured, only that someone in some undeterminable way liked it, or even hated it but still wants to save it. Remember that you also have bias when people vote/fave, i.e. a post with a high score/fav is more likely to get an even higher fav/score regardless of artist popularity.

Doing statistics regarding gender issues on a porn site, especially one that deals with magical creatures, in often highly exaggerated situations can't be worth much if you ask me. The parts of it applicable to real life situations is probably minuscule and all you will probably be able to say in the end is that there might be some trends, but you don't know how that applies to reality. Of course you can compare with reality and see that the trends match, but then you still have only that. You can't say that fantasy is influencing on reality, for that you will need a much more comprehensive and describing dataset.

You talk about viewers sexual preference? How would you determine that? You don't even know the gender/sex of the people watching... The only thing you can determine is what kind of porn they might like to look at, e.g. a female watching guys have sex doesn't mean she would be considered homosexual, or heterosexual, it says nothing about what she wants to do to in a sexual situation.

And what if all people using e621 are females? (I know this is not the case). How would that influence your results? You have no information about gender distribution of the viewers. In a study about genders, that's critical data.

There are probably a lot more issues that could be adressed with such an investigation... I just feel like there are too many holes in the story for it to be reliable... But, good luck.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Faves tend to indicate people really like it as score is almost always higher than faves. This indicates a neich market.

I think you meant the opposite of this.

I used order:random to test, and the scores and associated favorite counts (and for fun, the number of comments) were as such:

(score) | (favorites) | (comments)

2 | 11 | 0
3 | 15 | 0
8 | 98 | 9
37 | 102 | 4
11 | 35 | 0
2 | 31 | 9
2 | 21 | 2
14 | 19 | 3
38 | 162 | 1
8 | 18 | 0
20 | 48 | 0

A small sample size, to be sure, but at least it's random. And, we see a trend of about four times as many favorites as likes.

In fact only one image on the entire first page of random results:

post #666624

Had a score greater than or equal to favorite count.

Not to mention that both are not good ways to judge the popularity of an image. You, by your own admission, proof that favorites don't necessarily indicate sexual interest.

Clawdragons said:
In fact only one image on the entire first page of random results:

post #666624

Had a score greater than or equal to favorite count.

And I just faved and downvoted it to skew the results in your favor.

no but seriously you're right

Clawdragons said:
In fact only one image on the entire first page of random results:

post #666624

Had a score greater than or equal to favorite count.

Not to mention that both are not good ways to judge the popularity of an image. You, by your own admission, proof that favorites don't necessarily indicate sexual interest.

another thing to consider is that some users simply download instead of hitting the fave button as i do thoughin my case that's mostly explicit pics. >.>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcfQBIAvAHA

Clawdragons said:
I don't think you actually addressed a single one of the points I tried to make in any of my messages. It seems your standard is to make entirely irrelevant points addressed at arguments I never made. Example:

At no point did I bring up the issue of censorship. I am not for censorship. I never suggested that anyone be censored.

Between this, and your misrepresentation of my position when we were discussing TJ, makes me think that you are not actually interested in understanding my point of view. You seem determined to twist and misrepresent it. I have no interest in a conversation like that. Ergo, I have no interest in a conversation with you, at least on this topic.

Thanks. I appreciate that. Hopefully it won't just be brushed aside by CCD.

I made an assumption that you wanted to silence the people campaigning against abortion rights. While I agree that a women should be free to abort, they have the freedom of speech and to petition the government. I apologize for not making that clear, and more so if that was not your intentional message.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
I made an assumption that you wanted to silence the people campaigning against abortion rights. While I agree that a women should be free to abort, they have the freedom of speech and to petition the government. I apologize for not making that clear, and more so if that was not your intentional message.

Fair enough. Your apology seems genuine. Clearly there was a misunderstanding there, and I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding and for jumping down your throat.

My point on abortion wasn't that anyone should be silenced, but simply that there are issues which should be addressed. Those speaking out against abortion rights should be met by those speaking out in favor of them. Misinformation shouldn't be countered by censorship, but it should be countered. Ideally by good information. I think we can agree on that.

Clawdragons said:
Fair enough. Your apology seems genuine. Clearly there was a misunderstanding there, and I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding and for jumping down your throat.

My point on abortion wasn't that anyone should be silenced, but simply that there are issues which should be addressed. Those speaking out against abortion rights should be met by those speaking out in favor of them. Misinformation shouldn't be countered by censorship, but it should be countered. Ideally by good information. I think we can agree on that.

Quite so.

CuteCoughDeath said:

Faves tend to indicate people really like it as score is almost always higher than faves. This indicates a neich market

Note that the correlation between favs and score can be kind of skewed if there was ever a repost. Favs will get transferred from the duplicate post but we don't currently have a way to transfer score.

I didn't know about Feminism and modern SJW culture until Anita Sarkesian
She made a bunch of rant videos online about how video games are sexist which can be debunked like a creationist video.
I mean you sometimes can reason around everything she said with ease or know in the back of your head that the logic just doesn't fly.
Here is this asswipe telling me that I am a sexist pig for playing video games.
Anita was my first introduction to feminism and general SJW culture.

Then there was the attack on Atheism with "Atheism Plus"
Similar tactic as with gaming - they infiltrate a culture and try to split it and destroy it inside out.
I am an atheist - I have utmost respect for Dawkins, Harris, and YouTube atheists like thunderf00t
thunderf00t for example now makes videos targeting feminism in the same light as creationism

Alright these are minor things. If feminism bans games - I can survive. If feminism destroys atheism - I can lie about being Christian. No biggie.

More recently I researched real world effects of SJW / Feminism,

0. The myth of male privilege. Such as having higher chance of suicide, death in war, being homeless, and loosing custody.
1. People believe the pay gap myth. Legislators make laws battling the fake pay gap myth.
2. Telling women that they should act like men and men should act like women. Ignoring basic biological gender differences. Shocking news - women should act feminine for the sake of their own mental health.
3. The myth that sexual assault, violence, harassment can only be done by men towards women. Call cops because your lover beat you up - you will be charged. Some people don't believe that women can sexualize men.
4. The myth that there is a sexual assault epidemic on collage campuses. Leading to consent classes putting down men by telling them they are evil.
5. Women being taught that they have the power - guy did not talk to you during a party? Well, you can just lie and say that he assaulted you. Want to ensure custody of the kids? Say your husband abused you.
6. The myth of need of diversity in the workplace. Employers are more than ever being put into a critical situation - hire qualified undiversified candidates for maximum efficiency or strive for diversity focusing on sex and race at the cost of productivity. Socially accepted discrimination against men.

IMO - fuck feminism.

Eleganta said:
2. Telling women that they should act like men and men should act like women. Ignoring basic biological gender differences. Shocking news - women should act feminine for the sake of their own mental health.

Eleganta said:
women should act feminine for the sake of their own mental health.

post #666665

What the fuck does that even mean? What if a woman doesn't have the desire to act like a woman? How is a woman supposed to act? Who decides what is feminine or masculine behavior anyway?
What happens if a man wants to have "feminine" behavior? Is that bad for their mental health as well?

I think feminism was a great thing in the fifties maybe, getting woman the right to work, to vote, to do what they want and all. But nowadays it seems like a fake struggle for power in a fictional world that just doesnt exist the way it is sometimes portrayed.

Im totally with Eleganta on this one. That puts it together quite nicely.

Why not give "modern humanism" a chance?

NotMeNotYou said:
post #666665

What the fuck does that even mean? What if a woman doesn't have the desire to act like a woman? How is a woman supposed to act? Who decides what is feminine or masculine behavior anyway?
What happens if a man wants to have "feminine" behavior? Is that bad for their mental health as well?

There are cognitive / behavioral differences between the sexes.
Male and females are given different evolutionary roles.
Like sex - for women sex is more of an emotional thing - men not so much.
Feminism asks women to reject this - from dating to physical capability.

That's probably gender identify disorder.

Eleganta said:
There are cognitive / behavioral differences between the sexes.
Male and females are given different evolutionary roles.
Like sex - for women sex is more of an emotional thing - men not so much.
Feminism asks women to reject this - from dating to physical capability.

That's probably gender identify disorder.

How much of that stuff is biological vs cultural remains an open question. Any attempt to claim 'men are more X, women are more Y' has to answer this conclusively. So far, this has only been achieved in the area of gross physical facts (eg. ease of muscle gain).

Eleganta said:
5. Women being taught that they have the power - guy did not talk to you during a party? Well, you can just lie and say that he assaulted you. Want to ensure custody of the kids? Say your husband abused you.

this is annoying to see in news articles as the female in question typically gets off without any punishment at all.

though you do sometimes see things like this. in that case the correct person did get punished in the end.

Eleganta said:
There are cognitive / behavioral differences between the sexes.
Male and females are given different evolutionary roles.
Like sex - for women sex is more of an emotional thing - men not so much.
Feminism asks women to reject this - from dating to physical capability.

That's probably gender identify disorder.

Well good.

People should reproduce less anyway

treos said:
this is annoying to see in news articles as the female in question typically gets off without any punishment at all.

Do you happen to have any numbers or statistics on that by chance? Hopefully so, if you're making the claim about what is typical. Point being, if you do, I'd be interested in seeing them.

how are you guys STILL talking about this. I didn't expect this topic to last 2 days let alone a month

Cynosure said:
how are you guys STILL talking about this. I didn't expect this topic to last 2 days let alone a month

this topic even hit ROM hacking though not too badly (actually, it was more like the news article concerning the hack getting derailed into this topic). plus the topic of feminism got sprinkled across 3-4 other threads over there but overall, nothing major and no threads as big as this one here.

Cynosure said:
how are you guys STILL talking about this. I didn't expect this topic to last 2 days let alone a month

I did stop for seven days until someone revived it

EDIT: Woo, page 10!

TheHuskyK9 said:
I did stop for seven days until someone revived it

I'll be honest, I wish it had stayed stopped. I think whatever benefit this topic offered, we've gotten it, and it's not going to really go anywhere but downhill from here.

That said, despite the road being a bit bumpy, we've made it this far without the entire topic devolving, which is way, way better than you usually see on these sorts of threads elsewhere.

I'm a feminist, I have been for a very long time, though I'm not sure if I count in this discussion as I do not live in America- but I feel like in the USA, Feminism is very much a dirty word. Even if people believe in equal rights for all genders, sexualities, races, disabled people, etc. if you ask them, "are you a feminist?" they would be like "Oh god, no!" because it's become a dirty word and has been since the late 60s.

But I believe, feminism is very important, as true feminism is about equality (or equity) for all genders (including transgender and non-binary), all sexualities, disabled people, people of colour, etc.
And there very much is not equality in most countries.

egging said:
I'm a feminist, I have been for a very long time, though I'm not sure if I count in this discussion as I do not live in America- but I feel like in the USA, Feminism is very much a dirty word. Even if people believe in equal rights for all genders, sexualities, races, disabled people, etc. if you ask them, "are you a feminist?" they would be like "Oh god, no!" because it's become a dirty word and has been since the late 60s.

But I believe, feminism is very important, as true feminism is about equality (or equity) for all genders (including transgender and non-binary), all sexualities, disabled people, people of colour, etc.
And there very much is not equality in most countries.

i think you're confusing feminism with egalitarianism.

feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

treos said:
i think you're confusing feminism with egalitarianism.

feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ahh, no no, in modern social justice circles the term feminism has become synonymous with the idea of intersectional feminism, feminism which also tackles racism, transgender issues, and sexuality. Whilst feminism did begin as a movement about women, it's now about everyone pretty much; like most movements it has evolved to tackle the issues of the time- whilst women sometimes have equal pay to men for example, black and latino and asian individuals in America often earn much, much less than their white counterparts, and this is an issue intersectional feminism is trying to tackle, and most often feminism in general.

Though feminism is split off right now between "TERFS", intersectional feminsts, etc. lots of different ideals of how feminism should be handled, but currently the general consensus in feminist circles, social justice circles, University circles, women and social studies circles, etc. is that feminism is now a movement aimed at promoting equality and equity for other people in society, not just women.

I study this at University, and written a ton of essays on it xD;

feminism and egalitarianism are 2 different things. feminism is about women's rights, MRA is about men's rights (iirc), and egalitarianism is about equality for all people.

then theres the radical feminists (yes, i remembered the word radical this time >.>) who stir up drama, trouble, and i guess are more for female superiority or something. of course no one really likes them much in general from what i've seen.

egging said:
stuff

and while i have no idea what this guy is going on about it sounds to me like hes trying to say feminism is similar to egalitarianism now which i'm pretty sure it isn't. the radical part of feminism isn't anyway.

PROTIP: Do not, ever, try to define an organization/ movement. definitions should be saved for concepts that do not change based on "feelings" and "emotions" because a group is usually defined (in a fluid manor) by what the most outspoken, most popular, and the leaders say and do, which can take a complete 180 degree turn from the intended orientation, as the neo feminists are proving daily.

FurryMcFuzzball said:
PROTIP: Do not, ever, try to define an organization/ movement. definitions should be saved for concepts that do not change based on "feelings" and "emotions" because a group is usually defined (in a fluid manor) by what the most outspoken, most popular, and the leaders say and do, which can take a complete 180 degree turn from the intended orientation, as the neo feminists are proving daily.

i can certainly think of a few words to define modern, 3rdwave, feminism and SJWs but i don't want to risk another neutral record or worse so i shall keep said words to myself. none of said words are friendly, thus the silence.

besides, people like Sargon of Akkad explains these things far better than i can.

as true feminism is about equality (or equity) for all genders (including transgender and non-binary), all sexualities, disabled people, people of colour, etc.

Truer words have never being said. Similarly "white pride" is about celebrating white culture, heritage, history and the achievements of the white races....

*sees this thread after months while checking forums*

Urge to rant...RISING

Clawdragons said:
I've heard people express surprise at the idea that getting a woman drunk in order to have sex with her should be considered rape.

If I drink a ton and then get in a car, drive home, and crash and kill a mother with her 4 children, should being drunk take away my responsibility then too?

egging said:
Ahh, no no, in modern social justice circles the term feminism has become synonymous with the idea of intersectional feminism, feminism which also tackles racism, transgender issues, and sexuality. Whilst feminism did begin as a movement about women, it's now about everyone pretty much; like most movements it has evolved to tackle the issues of the time- whilst women sometimes have equal pay to men for example, black and latino and asian individuals in America often earn much, much less than their white counterparts, and this is an issue intersectional feminism is trying to tackle, and most often feminism in general.

Though feminism is split off right now between "TERFS", intersectional feminsts, etc. lots of different ideals of how feminism should be handled, but currently the general consensus in feminist circles, social justice circles, University circles, women and social studies circles, etc. is that feminism is now a movement aimed at promoting equality and equity for other people in society, not just women.

I study this at University, and written a ton of essays on it xD;

And? Like a scientist, you have to prove your worth in your field to use your authority effectively. I've never heard of you and no offense, probably never will, and I can pretty much flat out deny what you're saying with ease. Feminism, both by the definition and from what i've seen in the movement so far, is total and utter bullcrap. It promotes women's rights, and nothing more. Egalitarianism all the way brah. True equality.

AKBAR_THE_CORNCOB said:
If I drink a ton and then get in a car, drive home, and crash and kill a mother with her 4 children, should being drunk take away my responsibility then too?

Honestly I don't see how the question has anything at all to do with what I said.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I said, and thought I was making a different point than I was? That's the only thing I can think of.

Clawdragons said:
Honestly I don't see how the question has anything at all to do with what I said.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I said, and thought I was making a different point than I was? That's the only thing I can think of.

Basically, when you agree to have sex you're giving consent. It doesn't matter if you're drunk. You still have responsibility. Just like if I get drunk and kill people in a car accident, I still keep my responsibility. Being drunk does not excuse one from consequences of their actions.

Yeah, this topic has been beaten into the ground 6 months ago, there is no need to have this come back now.