Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
well, now that i think about it.
1- I don't feel sorry for anyone. Certainly not that cunt particularly.
|
!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
2- If you think about it a bit there's something slightly disturbing about wanking to a woman who's singing about female identification, opression or etc.?
|
as a non-native english speaker, it's hard for me to understand lyrics, i hear most english lyrics as "music" rather than words. that's why i inserted #3. i don't have an idea what the fuck anyone is singing about in english most of the time without looking at the printed lyrics.
i do find kim's voice sexy though. lyrics aside, i can totally understand the arousal.
and a question: you said before that attraction is not objectification, so i'll extrapolate that arousal is not a crime, yes?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
I don't think that's what she meant, really if that's all he could say that he was pretty much saying he was ignoring everything she had to say and disregarding the whole thing because women ONLY exist to be sexy?
|
nowhere in your account did i read that he said she was only good for wanking, but i'm sure you know things about "that cunt" that we don't know-- however, from that account alone i'm not ready to lynch him.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
I mean he said nothing else about the whole thing, as if that's really all there is to say about her, and worse, as if I'm supposed to take that as a compliment (sort of like: i really like women making music, i get boners).
|
i thought he had been talking about the politics of the lyrics etc...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
Point is, why could he go on and on about other people's songs and the meaning behind the lyrics and all that crap and when it comes to her that is ALL he would say? I think that says something.
|
oooooooooh! ok..., that's clear now. but ONLY NOW. so you're saying he's all into the politics of the lyrics etc and then when it comes to kim it's only good for jerking off? well yeah, that's a bit... dumb.
so how come you got involved with such an asshole? just curious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
That's why I said "I should have known".
I meant "I should have known that liking SY does not mean at all that you are concerned about that aspect the songs".
|
well yeah, generalizations are always problematic.
full disclaimer: i do get boners sometimes from women making music. (i'm sure nik will be here soon to reprimand me). really, i do. i don't listen to them just to get boners, but i get them on occasion, with certain kinds of singing, mostly. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, but then again i don't think the only sole purpose of women in music is to give me boners. the purpose of women making music is, obviously, to make music.
from the little i know, i'll say this however: women get aroused from men and women making music too. i've seen enough panties thrown onstage and heard enough desperate "i loooove youuuuuuu"s to know. (i wasn't the one onstage, by the way, but i've seen plenty). there is plenty of music that turns women on, and i would presume that they use it to create a mood for their own pleasure.
anyway, back to the boyfriend, etc-- whether the guy was a douche or not, seems to me like you're presenting the issues in black and white-- it's either "all politics and enlightenment" or "all pig all the time". is there room in your conceptual arsenal for someone to get the politics
and get horny? or do you think those two are mutually exclusive? and is masturbation (only) a tool of opression and objectification, or do you see it as having any kind of positive dimension?