another **** page.

[Alceste]

If making fun of people further perpetuates unfair stigmas and disriminatory actions, you are as guilty as those who ****-shame, just in another arena.

It doesn't. Making fun of people isn't for the purpose of denigration, humiliation, shame or character assassination. These words are adequate descriptions of the behavior they represent. Making fun of people is the foundation of all comedy. Making fun of ourselves, making fun of others, making fun of our family, our culture, our religion, etc. We should not take ourselves too seriously. Comedy reminds us of this.

**** shaming is NOTHING but the mean-spirited denigration of the sexual self-expression of an entire gender, for the SOLE PURPOSE of humilating women into pretending we are non-sexual beings - the "gatekeepers" of sex, the objects of the sexual desires of others rather than people who feel sexual desire themselves, etc. It doesn't remind us not to take ourselves to seriously, it reminds us to take ourselves EXTREMELY seriously, and worry every minute of every day that somebody might catch us with our tits out, opening the door to a tirade of sexual harassment and character assassination.

What's "fun" or "funny" about that? Nothing.

It's okay to have an opinion about someone's character. It's okay to express your opinion as long as you're not infringing upon that person's rights.

It's not okay to post photos of people without their authorization. I view this as an infringement of someone's rights.

Show me where I've been inconsistent, Alceste.

I told you that I didn't go through HUNDREDS of pictures like you did. I don't really think that you and I are in disagreeance.

I'm extrapolating the proportions on the rest of the site based on what I see on the first page. Lots of photos - almost all of them are just women at festivals who aren't wearing all that much. Big deal. I don't see what's "slutty" or "sexual" about wearing not very much in the summer time, even if you pose for a photo. Maybe it's because I live on the west coast. there are people in swimsuits everywhere. I can see them out my window.

In fact, the only reason I went back for a closer look at the photos is your own insistence that the site is full of women who are "flipping their tops up" and "showing off their genitals" and who submitted the pictures to the site themselves - using the first photo and a comment by a completely different woman as your evidence.

 

[DallasApple]

People of walmart is exactly the kind of page this post is talking about.

It is NOT the same thing to me.I have no doubt there are some questionable comments on that page.But the entire page was not dedicated and targeting at ONE group of human beings by their gender or race or by their sexual orientation etc. ."People who go to wal-mart" is not part of a persons vital statistics.Attacking a persons sexuality is hardly on the same level for me anyway as making fun of a person you saw at wal-mart who had a fake tail hanging out of their pants or who locked their dog in the car and had the police called on them.

Speaking of Wal-mart..I went there one time and I had lit a cig with a match before I got there and threw the match out the window.(I know WRONG) anyway I did my shopping and came back out and there was a small crowd around my car.The drivers side door was open and a man and a woman said is this your car and I said yes.And they said well it was on fire.Luckily I had left the doors unlocked and luckily that couple had bottled water and took the care to extinquish the fire.I was SOOOOOO embarrassed.And thankful.We talked for a minute and it ended up being quite humorous .

I have NO issue if some one said "dumb *** move lady".Making fun of that is on a different level than if I was on a nude beach and someone took it upon themselves to call me a filthy stinking whore that has no brain and I probably have aides.

 

[Sunstone]

It doesn't. Making fun of people isn't for the purpose of denigration, humiliation, shame or character assassination. These words are adequate descriptions of the behavior they represent. Making fun of people is the foundation of all comedy. Making fun of ourselves, making fun of others, making fun of our family, our culture, our religion, etc. We should not take ourselves too seriously. Comedy reminds us of this.

**** shaming is NOTHING but the mean-spirited denigration of the sexual self-expression of an entire gender, for the SOLE PURPOSE of humilating women into pretending we are non-sexual beings - the "gatekeepers" of sex, the objects of the sexual desires of others rather than people who feel sexual desire themselves, etc. It doesn't remind us not to take ourselves to seriously, it reminds us to take ourselves EXTREMELY seriously, and worry every minute of every day that somebody might catch us with our tits out, opening the door to a tirade of sexual harassment and character assassination.

What's "fun" or "funny" about that? Nothing.

^This.


It seems to me that calling someone a "****" is most often done to manipulate and control them and/or others.

 

[DallasApple]

In fact, the only reason I went back for a closer look at the photos is your own insistence that the site is full of women who are "flipping their tops up"

The one woman who was referred to as smelling like a fish had on shorts and I think her nipples were covered with pasties.She may have even been wearing a bikini top.still.Thats enough to know she must need to take a bath specifically to clean her vagina.

 

[DallasApple]

**** shaming is NOTHING but the mean-spirited denigration of the sexual self-expression of an entire gender, for the SOLE PURPOSE of humilating women into pretending we are non-sexual beings - the "gatekeepers" of sex, the objects of the sexual desires of others rather than people who feel sexual desire themselves, etc. It doesn't remind us not to take ourselves to seriously, it reminds us to take ourselves EXTREMELY seriously, and worry every minute of every day that somebody might catch us with our tits out, opening the door to a tirade of sexual harassment and character assassination.

What's "fun" or "funny" about that? Nothing.

Exactly..its not "humorous".

 

[Alceste]

The one woman who was referred to as smelling like a fish had on shorts and I think her nipples were covered with pasties.She may have even been wearing a bikini top.still.Thats enough to know she must need to take a bath specifically to clean her vagina.

There was a "he probably smells fish" one where a woman in shorts and a t-shirt was sitting on a guy's shoulders. SHORTS AND A T-SHIRT.

Granted, there are a lot of women wearing pasties on that site, but so what? If that's what the kids are wearing these days, get over it. Men have been running around shirtless for decades with * gasp * THEIR NIPPLES TOTALLY EXPOSED! And I'm not complaining. Go for it! I like looking at naked manly torsos. Especially ripped ones, especially on young men. Especially young firemen. But I don't think the fact young firemen are willing to whip their shirts off and let me look at their naked manly torsos says ANYTHING ABOUT THEM except that they're awfully nice to look at. It tells me nothing about how many women they've slept with, whether they have any diseases, or how their genitals smell. And it says nothing about whether they "respect themselves", whatever that means. Most of those hot firemen calendars are fundraisers - that says they've got heart, IMO.

You know what, I've been looking at teenagers in pasties and bikini tops too long. Let's have a topless fireman appreciation break. For sanity.

Moderator cut: image removed​

Silly fireman! That's not a clitoris!!

(kidding)

Spoiler: lots of naked fireman bums.

There, wasn't that nice?

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

It seems the Webpage is still up - and since the conception of this thread, I can safely assume that thousands of people have complained (most likely world-wide).

Yet, FB has not taken this page down.

Why not?

Is this something that we should gloss over? It seems we are concentrating too much on the pictures instead of: how in the world is this webpage still existing if it is causing such contestation, especially here on RF?

What does FB know that we do not? If the webpage is, in fact, full of FB violations (according to the majority of us here) and possible illegal uploading of stolen photographs - why in the world is that webpage still up?

Are we wrong about something? Does FB know something about the webpage that we don't know? Why was it taken down in the past only to be brought back up again after FB received a complaint that they shouldn't have taken down the page (even though it was basically full of "sl#t shaming")?

Why would a large corporation like FB give this webpage a second chance? The only reason it exists is because FB let the webpage-creator upload it again after shutting it down in the past. Why the shutting it off and then posting it back up again?

Are we in the dark with something here?

M.V.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the first time I head the word "****" I was in middle school, and someone was talking about the half dozen or so girls who had decided that year to wear slacks, rather than the traditional skirts and dresses.

There never has seemed to me much basis for calling someone a "****" beyond personal taste.

 

[DallasApple]

Showing off genitals, flipping up their shirts, showing all their girl parts, etc...

There weren't a lot but there was one with a totally nude girl with her legs spread.People were complaining it had been censored with black squares.Someone in the comments posted a link to the uncensored photo.That's the one that I got one comment removed.

 

[DallasApple]

There was a "he probably smells fish" one where a woman in shorts and a t-shirt was sitting on a guy's shoulders. SHORTS AND A T-SHIRT.

Granted, there are a lot of women wearing pasties on that site, but so what? If that's what the kids are wearing these days, get over it. Men have been running around shirtless for decades with * gasp * THEIR NIPPLES TOTALLY EXPOSED! And I'm not complaining. Go for it! I like looking at naked manly torsos. Especially ripped ones, especially on young men. Especially young firemen. But I don't think the fact young firemen are willing to whip their shirts off and let me look at their naked manly torsos says ANYTHING ABOUT THEM except that they're awfully nice to look at. It tells me nothing about how many women they've slept with, whether they have any diseases, or how their genitals smell. And it says nothing about whether they "respect themselves", whatever that means. Most of those hot firemen calendars are fundraisers - that says they've got heart, IMO.

You know what, I've been looking at teenagers in pasties and bikini tops too long. Let's have a topless fireman appreciation break. For sanity.

Moderator cut: image removed​

Silly fireman! That's not a clitoris!!

(kidding)

Spoiler: lots of naked fireman bums.

There, wasn't that nice?

LOL!! Yes very nice.And what did NOT come to mind was which one of those guys likes to take it up the butt...how smelly their balls probably are..how many dozens of women they screwed that day...who has genital warts..and how lacking in intelligence they are.

 

[Sunstone]

I like looking at naked manly torsos. Especially ripped ones, especially on young men. Especially young firemen. But I don't think the fact young firemen are willing to whip their shirts off and let me look at their naked manly torsos says ANYTHING ABOUT THEM except that they're awfully nice to look at. It tells me nothing about how many women they've slept with, whether they have any diseases, or how their genitals smell. And it says nothing about whether they "respect themselves", whatever that means.

Well, truth be told, Alceste, I'm of the opinion that so called "sluts" ought by law to have medals pinned on them by the appropriate civic authorities in recognition of their public spirited service in giving us old guys something to look at.

 

[Alceste]

Namaste,

It seems the Webpage is still up - and since the conception of this thread, I can safely assume that thousands of people have complained (most likely world-wide).

Yet, FB has not taken this page down.

Why not?

Is this something that we should gloss over? It seems we are concentrating too much on the pictures instead of: how in the world is this webpage still existing if it is causing such contestation, especially here on RF?

What does FB know that we do not? If the webpage is, in fact, full of FB violations (according to the majority of us here) and possible illegal uploading of stolen photographs - why in the world is that webpage still up?

Are we wrong about something? Does FB know something about the webpage that we don't know? Why was it taken down in the past only to be brought back up again after FB received a complaint that they shouldn't have taken down the page (even though it was basically full of "sl#t shaming")?

Why would a large corporation like FB give this webpage a second chance? The only reason it exists is because FB let the webpage-creator upload it again after shutting it down in the past. Why the shutting it off and then posting it back up again?

Are we in the dark with something here?

M.V.

No. Facebook's corporate culture is one that does not believe we have any right to privacy, whatsoever. It isn't against Facebook rules to steal people's photos and repost them to your ****-shaming page.

Their corporate culture is also one that is led by a guy who is barely past being a teenager himself, and created HIS OWN ****-shaming, objectifying, misogynist website in college. Watch the film - Social Network - his first web project was something about STEALING PHOTOS of all the women in his college and reposting them to a site where guys could rate the women as ****able or not from one to ten.

IOW, Zuckerberg's first popular website was basically EXACTLY THE SAME as Festival Sluts. Steal photos of women without their permission and sexually objectify them.

What does Facebook know that we don't know? It knows that sexually objectifying young women gets traffic. Lots of traffic. Lots of eyeballs for those paid ads. The same can't be said for breastfeeding or mastectomy survivors. Hence banning all bare chested pictures of women EXCEPT the ones where women are sexually objectified and denigrated.

 

[Alceste]

Well, truth be told, Alceste, I'm of the opinion that so called "sluts" ought by law to have medals pinned on them by the appropriate civic authorities in recognition of their public spirited service in giving us old guys something to look at.

Which is exactly why you are the proud custodian of a picture of my tits.

* hugs *

Now where will I stick that medal...

 

[DallasApple]

Right they aren't going to take down a page that got 50,000 "likes" in a year.

 

[Alceste]

Right they are going to take down a page that got 50,000 "likes" in a year.

No doubt they are also a paying customer. You don't get that kind of expansion without paying for it.

 

[Poeticus]

No. Facebook's corporate culture is one that does not believe we have any right to privacy, whatsoever. It isn't against Facebook rules to steal people's photos and repost them to your ****-shaming page.

Their corporate culture is also one that is led by a guy who is barely past being a teenager himself, and created HIS OWN ****-shaming, objectifying, misogynist website in college. Watch the film - Social Network - his first web project was something about STEALING PHOTOS of all the women in his college and reposting them to a site where guys could rate the women as ****able or not from one to ten.

IOW, Zuckerberg's first popular website was basically EXACTLY THE SAME as Festival Sluts. Steal photos of women without their permission and sexually objectify them.

What does Facebook know that we don't know? It knows that sexually objectifying young women gets traffic. Lots of traffic. Lots of eyeballs for those paid ads. The same can't be said for breastfeeding or mastectomy survivors. Hence banning all bare chested pictures of women EXCEPT the ones where women are sexually objectified and denigrated.

Is there anything that can be done to having the webpage get terminated completely and finally?

Also, is FB at fault for this, in your opinion?

 

[Sunstone]

Which is exactly why you are the proud custodian of a picture of my tits.

Ah yes, that made my evening -- probably, my whole week, if truth be told!

 

[Alceste]

Is there anything that can be done to having the webpage get terminated completely and finally?

Also, is FB at fault for this, in your opinion?

Yes, Facebook is completely in the wrong for outlawing pictures of breastfeeding mothers and mastectomy survivors while happily promoting and protecting highly sexualized pictures of attractive women with their boobs out. The captain of the ship is emotionally about 13 years old. Pictures of partially naked women who he doesn't consider sexually attractive gross him out, so he finds them obscene. That's my guess as to what is at the root of the double standard.

To rectify this corporate culture, they need consistent rules. Either all topless pictures are banned, or all topless pictures are permitted. To ONLY permit highly sexualized topless pictures while banning non-sexualized topless pictures indicates that Facebook nurtures an openly misogynist corporate culture.

 

[Poeticus]

To rectify this corporate culture, they need consistent rules. Either all topless pictures are banned, or all topless pictures are permitted. To ONLY permit highly sexualized topless pictures while banning non-sexualized topless pictures indicates that Facebook nurtures an openly misogynist corporate culture.

Do you think you could take this to court?

 

[Alceste]

Do you think you could take this to court?

Why would I do that? I don't even live in the US, where Facebook is based.