|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.39.16.143
Never realized how appealing they are!
Follow Ups:
Your full name must be Jayne or Jaycee then.
I try to be respectful to others, but I don't trust self-righteous types since they tend to be truly perverse deep down inside.
I used to have a pair of those speakers, and liked them very much.
Now I'm wondering if domineering male plunderers forced that woman to pose for that picture. She looks happy enough, but one never knows.
a woman.
Now, if it WAS a woman, does that make it less smutty, us males less objectifying, less offensive to some?
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound?
If a racy picture is on the internet and no man is there to see it is it still sexist?
And besides, everyone "objectifies" physical things be they plants, people, cats, cars, buildings, etc... You cannot sense or experience nature without objectifying it somehow.The social problems discussed so far have little or nothing to do with "objectification" in and of itself. The problems start when we objectify in an incomplete and/or dispassionate manner.
In other words, as *men* we don't always objectify women (or flowers, or trees, etc...) as WELL as we might do, and that is where the shame lies.
Edits: 08/31/16 08/31/16
Also called the formula of humanity, is the rule that I try my best to live by. It states "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Exploitation, such as slavery, obviously violates this imperative. I know what exploitation means, and I find it to be a more useful moral term than objectification, because exploitation is more public, whereas objectification happens in the mind, if I understand the word correctly. Also, when one sees exploitation, one has a moral duty to stop it. Not so with objectification.
Yes, and while the opportunities to exploit are always present I'd wager that the sensitively objectified woman will be much less likely to suffer from exploitation than the clumsily objectified woman.Problems and solutions begin and end in the eye of the beholder.
"The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But when your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness." - Matthew 6:22
Edits: 08/31/16 08/31/16 08/31/16
:)
Only bad visual art has the power to make things look obscene. It alone has the power to make women and other living things seem like *mere objects*.Eyes don't simply absorb and take things in. They also project and give things back.
And cameras are especially unwieldy tools for the artist. Taking a photograph of a person is an especially good way to HIDE the truth about his/her identity. The best in visual "realism" has always come from artists who have mastered the use of paints and brushes, clay and stone.
Sermon over.
Edits: 09/01/16 09/01/16 09/01/16
insult and insinuation. Are you going to discuss the problem, that you posted an image which objectifies women, or simply sling slurs?
Imagine the disgust of the women to the sexist post you put up, then you declare yourself a "normal male," as if the community here should accept it as part of normal activities here. How many women do you think that would drive away from this site?
It appears as though the moderators care more about the sensationalism of this exchange than actually protecting women from such abuse. Lip service is given to wanting more women in audio, but this kind of disdain shows up consistently.
I don't expect you to get it, or to receive any respect from you. You have proven you don't respect women, but see them as potential objects to exploit for your own enjoyment - otherwise, why would you post a pic of some semi-nude stranger for the entertainment of the community? You owe the women who in the community an apology.
I expect the moderators to act. The fact that they haven't (unless for some reason they have been detained from acting) reinforces in my mind that they don't really care about the feelings of women in the industry or hobby.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
There is nothing and I mean nothing that will make women become audio enthusiasts. My wife simply rolls her eyes. All the other wives roll them as well.
In fact, if could harness the energy spent by women all over the world in this eye rolling at our manly pursuits like audio and small block Chevy restoration (notice I mention only the motor. No car in sight), model trains and Star Wars memorabilia, I'm sure the world's energy problems would be solved.
I will now pause for you to point out one or two statistically insignificant examples of women in audio as if that made any difference.... Done? Ok. By the way you forgot the woman in charge of ressurecting the Technics brand.
Nyah. Nyah.
I know many women who enjoy live music-events, but don't care to immerse themselves in the pleasures of home hi-fi. It's a mystery, like where did I lose the keys to the lawn mower?
What speakers? There were speakers in that picture?
mean that now they are going to accept light pornography at Audio Asylum?
Anyone who has wondered why there are not more women in audio need look no further than the sexist attitudes expressed here.
Please take your smut elsewhere. Thank you.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
https://youtu.be/C6cxNR9ML8k
I needed Crocodile Dundee reference.
And sorry if someone offended your 18th century style sensibilities but that's not smut. That's a tasteful picture of a beautiful woman.
The sentiment that the human body is anything but beautiful and that that picture, which celebrates beauty is somehow dirty, that, my friend, is smut.
...Really smutty
Ha-ha, I know I made somebody look.
And what makes it worse is that I went to Mexico City once and they said they make empanadas with "a tasty fungus that grows on corn" and I of course ate it. I am glad I hadn't seen it first or I may have had second thoughts. But I will admit it was incredibly delicious.
Don't want to offend the righteous.
The righteous wake up offended.
We are the ones that wake up with optimistic hope for a wonderful new day.
which is that I assert your posting such images on a website where the topic of the dearth of womens' involvement in audio is brought up regularly is part of the very cause of their absence?
I support a ministry which saves girls in Cambodia around the age of six and older from predators who abduct them, enslave them and then sell them for men's perverse interests. So, yeah, I'm a bit sensitive on this topic. Imo, posting a semi-nude woman's image on this site for men to ogle objectifies women.
If all you are willing to do is insult me, then I'm done talking to you.
However, if you wish to discuss the issue, then I will continue talking to you.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Doug;
You make some valid points, but if you think for one second that eliminating pics of scantily clad women will somehow drive the needle upward as it relates to women's involvement in high end audio your fooling yourself.
I see woman in various states of undress in my wife's magazines (Cosmopolitan, Elle) all the time -Some much more provocative than seen here. Sure doesn't seem to be hurting those publications any.
Audio alway has, and probably always will be a male driven hobby and the money spent on attracting women would cost more than it would make.
Some things are what they are. You don't see Winchester firearms or Edelbrock engine parts too worried about the female consumer anymore than the Oxygen network cares about what men think.
Some things are what they are.
Meat; It's the right thing to do. Romans 14:2
are innately less appealing to women, and anyone can see that. Thanks for your supporting comments.
Imo in an environment where thousands of women globally are tied in with the audio industry as owners, co-owners, wives of owners, workers at shops, and those working with audio publications - not to mention the potential converts to the High End to give a last gasp to the moribund male HiFi community - anyone with a brain would not want to give an opening to insult women. It becomes obvious that this site is a leech on the audio community.
There was even the appearance of a misinterpreted Bible quote employed as an attempt to buffer the lewdness toward women! I wasn't terribly impressed that over the years when someone defamed Christianity or misquoted the Bible I replied, yet even if I posted a factual reply or quoted Scripture in turn, then intentionally attempted to return the conversation back to audio, the entire thread would disappear quickly. Yet, if I hold back and do not reply, warped or inaccurate posts, slurs on religion, not to mention posting of a Bible passages, will be allowed to remain. It has become tiresome as a long time participant who has spent considerable time discussing ways to assist others in the hobby being consistently censored by the moderators imo in a highly discriminatory way. Another reviewer would quote the Bible an it would stay posted; mine were summarily removed. I'm tired of that kind of crap. I expect to be given a voice as others, and not be censored in what I believe is a discriminatory way.
The appearance now of more supporting posts in favor of objectification of women than opposed to it says it's time to move on. There are better sites to integrate into my activities than this. The quality of discourse here continues to plummet, and it has become of little benefit. As a reviewer I have decided I am not going to support it.
Blessings to you.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Doug;
God's blessings to you as well.
I agree with your point(s). To me it's more ridiculous than offensive that anyone would attempt to attract a potential midfi/hifi customer with scantily clad or completely naked women. Can you imagine some guy spending weeks reading reviews and finally narrowing his decision down to two amps of equal quality and price and then picking one over the other on account the model used in the ad copy had better curves - Beyond stupid!!
My main point in my previous post was that woman (magazines, cosmetics, clothing, pop culture) are just as guilty of objectifying women as men, though it still doesn't make it right.
I have lost count of the posts that I have had deleted because they were right of center, while the lefties are free to "express" themselves.
I hope you don't find my (Romans 14:2) signature too offensive as it's intended as a poke at the ridiculousness of militant vegitarians.
Meat; It's the right thing to do. Romans 14:2
correction: that was to be hug not hungThese are MODELS for ADS.
I think your complaint should be with the federal government.
Not that I don't have any complaints to file with the government myself!!
Edits: 08/31/16
More like a member of the family or a girlfriend of a dealer, probably.
Edits: 08/31/16
Opus 33 1/3
NO one wants to insult you.
But your tone is one that should be reserved for the slavers that do those terrible things you mention.
If you would like to be taken seriously then it behooves you to moderate your tone and imbue your comments with a little bit of respect for the others here. Your original post on the matter is both aggressive and disrespectful. If you can't see that, then all hope is lost.
No, sir, my tone would be quite different if directed to the slavers; I think they deserve the death penalty.
My apologies for offending you. I would like to discuss this; How do you think that images like you posted would elevate the esteem of women in the eyes of a mostly male community such as this? How would it build interest in participation?
Are women to simply accept that semi-nude photos will appear here? Do you think it would be fun for them to see such things when they are on a speaker forum and open up a post to see that? As if anyone with a daughter would be pleased to see that? The wife is supposed to just laugh about the husband going to a website where things like that are posted?
Dozens of times I have heard from the industry members and seen from participants in forums grousing about why we can't get women to participate in the hobby, in the discussions? Do you think that posts such as yours have no effect?
What I see in forums often is a general objectifying of women, yet when one shows up the men fall all over themselves in courtesy. It becomes pretty obvious to women that the community here doesn't really give a rip what women think. The women are supposed to accept that "guys will be guys" as if it will have no impact on their participation. I think that' is completely out of touch with women in general, and a significant reason why women don't stick around here.
I think the equivalent of what goes on here occasionally is if I were to try to learn cooking, and went to some cooking websites. If it were populated predominantly by women, which I think they are - can't say for sure - and occasionally semi-nude pics of men were posted, I would be offended and say later with that. I would go elsewhere because I don't need to be offended to learn. If the community here cares what women think about audio, then why do anything that can be construed as disdain?
The bottom line is this: I understand you feel there was nothing wrong with your post. Obviously, I disagree. If you do not wish to discuss what I see as an issue of insensitivity to women, according to my perspective, then cordially we are done discussing.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
women do not care about audio and they never will.
As far as objectification goes, next time you go through the line at the grocery store look at the covers of a few women's magazines. Lots of objects on display there. They have no problem being objectified if it's by the right guy. They just don't want to be objectified by some low-status loser.
It wasn't my post but I defend it as if it had been.
Reading your post, it's obvious we are never going to see eye to eye on the subject. The debate would go on and on like the ones that talk about cables making a difference. If you laid out our arguments in a single line they would never reach a conclusion.
As to the cooking forum, one, it would most likely be populated by men. Secondly, if it were a gaggle of women posting beefcake among the beef and the cake, I would take no more exception to that than I do to this. In fact, were I to be of beefed shape, rather than of jello, I would probably take a few of myself and post them.
So as you can see, aside from both enjoying a good sounding system, we will never see anything in the same light.
nt
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
She can leave the speakers there.
aa
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I liked the old 50s and 60s adds that had scantily clad ladies hanging on really cool audio gear.
hubba, hubba....
Yeah, Marantz did make some nice looking stuff.
What to talk about cosmic coincidence, I got a chat request yesterday over at AudioKarma about a Marantz. And the guy uses THAT picture as his avatar. What are the odds of that????
some GREAT ads for a while on their website, now gone.
Some good vintage shots at the link.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
...bet they sound better in the dark.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: