aluminiumtrioxid

One would have to be pretty dense to think that women in the illegal sex trade industry wouldn't be the victims of rape and violence. I don't think anyone is denying that. Especially since a lot of those women are straight up slaves. Well, problem is, the study also takes legal sex trade into account, and boy, it does not paint a pretty picture. Then again, sample selection seems to be somewhat... off. "In Canada, we interviewed 100 women prostituting in or near Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, one of the most economically destitute regions in North America." "The German women were from a drop-in shelter for drug addicted women." I mean, when you make a concerted effort to focus on the ****tiest microenvironments even in otherwise nice countries, it's not very surprising that the results are quite shocking.

You can't really save someone who actively rejects your attempts to do so Also, "liberation from the chains of class" is something I'm not entirely sold on. I lived in a communist state, it's really no fun. And a third concern of mine is that as a guy, I really, really, really have no place telling women how to do feminism right, or that their personal, lived experience is inherently inferior to my ideas of how things should be done. Thank you for these links, I'll look into them.

It's curious that those who "choose" to do the job seem to almost entirely come from people with the fewest choices. "Almost entirely" seems to be an exaggeration to me. Mind, I don't visit strip clubs, so I have no horse in this race, but I was socialized to view the "poor oppressed sex workers need to be rescued from themselves" narrative with suspicion, because carceral feminism has a long-standing tradition of denying the agency of lower-status women. (And the stuff I've read by strippers, sex workers and porn actresses has led me to believe that the majority actually prefers that line of work. I also seem to vaguely recall a few studies in the matter showing that the long-standing myths of drug abuse and having been abused as a child being way more prevalent among them are exactly that, myths.) Shameful in the wider societal sense, or in a personal morality sense? Humor me please and answer me in both senses. Wider societal sense: probably not, otherwise we wouldn't have it ****ing everywhere (because society in general is very good at disincentivizing acts it deems shameful). Personal morality sense: "shameful" is not a good word. But first, a digression: by "objectifying", I mean a very specific thing. To objectify is to dehumanize. You take a human being and reduce them to a collection body parts, devoid of meaning, aside from the titillation value. Boob armor is a good example. It goes against common sense and practicality; verisimilitude, the wearer's well-being and intelligence are all secondary concerns to the consumer's titillation. I find this to be an exceedingly immature and slightly sociopathic attitude. Morally questionable, but not inherently shameful.

Based on the (very) limited anecdotical evidence at my disposal, this doesn't seem to be an industry standard, though.

Second point isn't really holding well with the first and third. Isn't 'objectifying' a bad thing, as you lot always espouse ? Opinions vary. I find verisimilitude-breaking objectification vaguely tasteless, but have no personal problem with it where it makes sense. Anita Sarkeesian would obviously disagree with me. There is no unifying feminist hivemind.

Shameful in the wider societal sense, or in a personal morality sense?

...It's not really an assumption when the industry standard seems to be "every female character needs to be sexualized". Usually actively pushed by (needless to say, male) producers and execs, even when it makes zero sense. Fully agreed. Which is why there is no inherent moral condemnation of the subject matter on my part. I'd lump "doesn't actively hate the job and thinks the money is way good enough" with "enjoys it". I mean, my point was more like "she's not a Victim of the Patriarchy Who Has To Be Rescued From The Awful, Awful Fate of Being a Stripper", but a person who made a choice knowing the benefits and the drawbacks of the job. Agency is the difference between "sexy" and "objectifying".

Don't laugh, it's real!

I never said that. Actually, never even alluded to it in any way, shape or form. What was that earlier comment about mental gymnastics? If the difference is not shame, then what is the difference? ...People having the agency to decide whether they enjoy being an object of desire versus objects of desire existing for the sole reason of being exactly that, and nothing more?

I don't even... Doing it for yourself is when it's done in your bedroom alone. And even then (provided heterosexuality) it is an act inseparable from the desires and preferences of men, it is an act of presenting yourself in a way that is sexually appealing to the other gender. Being an object of desire is where the fun in it is. Yeah, object. The profession of stripper exist because there is a demand for it. It may be fun for some. But it doesn't exist because it's fun. It's purpose and function is the sexual gratification of others. Men or women. Nothing wrong there. Being a stripper is a FICTION. Get it? That's why they dress up to be CHARACTERS. Like a sexy nurse, cop, or Tarzan, whatever. I don't know what is so hard to understand about the fact that in one case, there is a person having agency under the persona, whereas in the other one, it's a literal object-in-the-dictionary-sense existing purely for gratification? Since reading comprehension seems to be a problem in a segment of the community, I also feel the need to note that I included no moral condemnation of the existence of these objects, just pointed out that there's a difference between the two.

Now I feel left out. T_T

I never said that. Actually, never even alluded to it in any way, shape or form. What was that earlier comment about mental gymnastics?

Obviously, women who find other women attractive don't exist outside of porn. Well this is new meta in mental gymnastics so to sum it up: strippers in games are mysoginic because they are here to appeal man real world strippers are strippers because they enjoy it and other women enjoy it but it doesnt have anything to do with man No, this is just you failing at reading comprehension. ...is what I'd say if I wanted to be a complete ****. But since being a complete **** doesn't really appeal to me, I just gently point out that making a good faith attempt at understanding what the other side is saying is generally considered to be productive when your goal is actual exchange of ideas.

Obviously, women who find other women attractive don't exist outside of porn.

...Fictional strippers entirely brought into existence by men, to increase a game's appeal for men is somewhat different from real life, living, breathing, flesh-and-blood people choosing to do that job because - Heavens forbid! - they enjoy it.

Would sound a lot more inspiring and believable if it would be talked about not only by random internet people, but my actual-flesh-and-blood real-life friends and acquaintances, who largely haven't even heard about the whole thing, much less care about it in any way, shape or form. You might be overestimating the impact it has, mate.

If I were to take this quote out of context, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell which Bioware game we're talking about

...Because I'm apparently a dirty foreigner who encountered the word in a review of a book whose prose he found to be **** and assumed without checking that it simply means "it's poorly written". My great shame is now revealed. (No, really, I never realized this word doesn't mean what I thought it means. I apologize for the confusion.)

I've read Eco, numerous 19th century (and older) authors, even Gravity's Rainbow, a book generally considered to be "one of the longest, most difficult, most ambitious" novels of the last century, without running into the same problem. I'd hazard the guess it's not a vocabulary issue. Side note: people generally don't appreciate being condescended to.

Nice. And here I thought **** like this only flies in Eastern Europe

I read the first three books and that was pretty much exactly my reaction, so it probably isn't the translation's fault. Oh thank god it's not just me. Credit where credit is due, though: "mining the veins of dead gods" as the source of all magic is pretty much the coolest idea (or, at the very least, one of the coolest) I ever encountered re:fantasy spellslinging.

[citation needed] So they're hemorrhaging money through their anus, but they can still spend on frivolous bull**** like this? "Liberal bias in the media" is a pet peeve of the charming lady whose talk you linked to. Or so I've heard.

Really though, in order for this setup to apply, you'd need someone who is actually willing to pay the absurd amounts of money required to pull off a successful astroturf campaign. Would that be the ebul libruls, or what?

...Feminists are secretly funded by Big Pharma?

The Malazan book of the Fallen. To each their own. I'd rank it amongst the best books I've read. It's certainly the best fantasy series I've read within the past decade. It isn't for everyone certainly; nothing is. It's a bit deeper, more complex, and at times subtle than most everything else of any genre out there. It took me longer to read that first book (Gardens of the Moon) than any other fictional work I've read since I was a kid, as I had to constantly reference what was going on, on previous pages (this wasn't a bad thing). ie: The plot is very complex, and figuring out what is going on doesn't happen until a long way through the book on a level I've not seen elsewhere; I read the first half of that book at least three times before finishing it, and more than any other series I've read I found myself referencing the earlier books as I read the later ones. To me, the prose is way too stilted, the characterisation way too shallow, and the sheer amount of Existential Risk Arms Race is more comical than threatening. Again, possibly the translation's fault, and it had some seriously cool ideas. If only my local library had copies of the original, I'd totally give it a second chance (people are saying the writing gets better in later books). Oh, right, Leiber's Lankhmar series. It was definitely a huge influence on Lynch's Locke Lamorra series, so you should give it a shot. Also, if we're doing the first-person narrative with assassin protagonist thingie, Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy should be mentioned. It's nowhere near Game of Thrones, but it's readable.