/lit/ - Literature

>>7040569
We're not here to do your arguing for you.

>>7040569
>whereas men are not required to be lookers to have success in life

This is true though.
An ugly woman is almost useless, but an ugly man can become rich/famous/interesting and make up for his lacking looks.

>>7040575
you wouldn't help a /b/rother, sir? Are you a man, sir? You are not a man.
>>7040580
>rich/famous/interesting
like Barbara Streisand?

>>7040569
>I have a wager with a feminist here. She said that in books, films and paintings you get many more boobs and vaginas than cocks which is why women are reduced to a sexual object to be gazed at whereas men are not required to be lookers to have success in life
the entertainment industry has been pushing the CUNNILINGUS for a solid decade now with the focus on the female pleasure with reducing men to dildos [dildos are pushed equally].

and besides >>7040569
>get many more boobs and vaginas than cocks which is why women are reduced to a sexual object to be gazed

this means that what she wants is more cocks in films, just like there are cunts everywhere , with thus the same effect

she is the typical feminist : hypocritical plus hysterical

The Song of Songs is only holy to people who believe it was writtes as a metaphore to David's love to god - anyone who can look at it objectively and see how it's about sex is probably not judaistic.

My real problem with her argument though is how she ignores the fact human rights have been a concept for a very short period in history so far, and women rights even more. Most art to this day was made in a world where females weren't participating in the arts, but mostly raising kids. If it's how sex is expressed in art then, there is bound to be more female worship/sexualisation than there are males ones - for at least a couple more decades.

If we narrow down the dicsussion to contemporary arts and media only, I think it's pretty safe to say becoming a creator as a female is very possible. If meduims like film or literature are still dominated by men (only true for film, btw) - it's because women simply don't show interest in them.

Another interesting fact is that female authors don't tend to sexualize men as much, because (shocks!) female sexuality might work different.

>>7040610
>tfw no affectionate farm animal to cuddle with

>>7040609
Yeah but no one wants to fuck Barbara Streisand.

>>7040623
>If it's how sex is expressed in art then, there is bound to be more female worship/sexualisation than there are males ones - for at least a couple more decades.
>
>If we narrow down the dicsussion to contemporary arts and media only, I think it's pretty safe to say becoming a creator as a female is very possible
and yet, they do the same crap as the men

see the female flock revolving around Apathow [girls and bridesmaid] where once more the girls want sex and admit it: Women are explicitly no longer in the habit to compromise on their desire of sex.

Men become commodities for women to feel alive, likely through sex.

or they do the lesbian arty entertainment which remains Porn trying do have an added value.

it's true that there are more nude women in art than men but it's a huge stretch to say that's why women are reduced to sexual objects

what did your friend think of the film "300"? too many boobs?

>>7040635
Even if it was the case it would only show that women are not quite as "oversexualized" as men.

>the implication that text and media have not been spun into inherently sexual forms for the purpose of profiting from the sexual revolution, an era brought about largely by women
If women did not want to be evaluated sexually why did they fight for freedom of sexual expression?

>>7040569
there's a reason so many blacks get shot trying to fight the cops or run from them. They know if they go to jail they gone get raped. That's why even though they know the cops like shooting blacks, they still run or fight.

>>7040676
Male power fantasy :^)

>>7040580
Except that there's a bigger wage gap between tall men and short men than there is between men and women.

Reminder that the sexual liberation was nothing but a response, in the view of the liberators, of a harsh prudishness from the previous generation.

women have always been free in their sex lives, managing more or less to be fucked by whomever they wanted, at least in their social classes.


since then, the social classes and mores of the classes have been destroyed, expect of course, the more that says ''enjoy yourself''

women being inherently hedonist, their lives revolves around sex. they fail to go beyond basic hedonism they lack the capacity of efficiency [the betas à la Green will claim that it is because the betas will help the females] but they lack the efficiency because they are hedonistic: they want the maximum of pleasure with the minimum of effort or risk: as soon as they are on the verge to leave unconsciously the hedonist life, they go rright back at it.

>>7040569
You could probably argue that women are more explicitly sexually exciting, having evolved features which are constantly sexually exciting to keep their male mates around, therefore there is more to write about. Breasts are always sex-related, chests are not. Obviously the (current) male horror of homosexuality doesn't help. Not many women will get uncomfortable if you describe a tit, except possibly on an intellectual level, nor a dick, but I imagine whilst most men wouldn't mind the former they might easily feel a physical or unconscious revulsion from the latter.

You could also talk about how penises are reduced to an empirical value, thus the imaginary sex-value of a man is more readily quantified and frequently is (this applies to other areas of male sexualising), whereas women tend to have a rather more flattering portrait of their entire body, which generally reflects in some way on their personality, or at least sexuality.
Sex inherent in all relations and cultural attitudes and so on and so on.

>>7041596
>Breasts are always sex-related
That view sadly isn't tennable in educated circles. Physiological reductionism isn't either.

>>7041657
Pysiological reductionism shouldn't be a whole argument, but there is no purpose to breasts other than to be attractive. That is not to say that they will immediately inflame all men's desire and he couldn't stop himself from raping her, but rather that they're up there with nice hair and a pretty face, which women tend towards.

>>7040569
Female sexuality has the potential to be very powerful, but contemporary feminism has for some reason decided to largely deny this. She would do well to remember that women are warmongers as much as men (white feather society) and use sex and shame to maintain patriarchal systems that protect them from "male" difficulties. Thinking men are fascinated by the way women wield their sex as a weapon and a gift. It sounds like your friend is either threatened by someone unmasking this, even though it's been talked about for millenia, or is so committed to valuing male power and sexuality over female that she can't see this. As someone else has mentioned, female anatomy is also appealing to both men and women (college lesbianism isn't just rebellion), while male genitalia is seen as sorta ugly by both.

>>7040609
>/b/rother

Please leave

reading threads like these humbles me.

ya boy stupid af

It is all biology, m8.

The female body is the one that gets penetrated, thus inherently the passive. The woman has to be selective, sexuality and the consequential maternity are an essential part of the female identity. It is no wonder that the contstant race for exclusive access to pussy among the penetrators resulted in the patriarchy. It makes sense that the active individual sets the direction in which out society is headed, not the passive one.
Because the patriarchy is real, it persists today as it did thousands of years ago - feminsts are in the right. But they don't understand that the male opression is not of malicious intent, but rather biologicaly motivated. Objectification is a result of passivity; opression is the fastest and most reliable way for the man to ensure his access to the woman - the social constalation of today couldn't possibly end up any other way.
From the beginnig of time women are aware of the sway of the womb, their passivity and male acitvity. Centuries of Pornocratic rule are undeniable prove. The gynocentric nature of the Song of Songs is not an objectification of women, it's a tribute to female sexuality, to the origin of the world. Objectification did not happen until recent times, and it is not used to to humiliate the woman, but to manipulate the man.

>>7042327
>he isn't in to prostate stimulation

>>7042354
i tried but it didnt work
whats your secret

>>7040609
not /b/rothers here
get out