another **** page.

[DallasApple]

The problem is that not everyone construed the tone of the page to be **** shaming.

Rarely is there a 100% consensus about anything .And?

 

[Father Heathen]

No "festival ****" is only a venue for photo ops to get nude pictures of women to degrade them.Your kidding your self if you don't think every woman is vulnerable to this kind of "**** shaming' and degrading commentary whether she wears the title "festival" **** or not .Especially if she is attractive and or enjoys being flirtatious.Throw in some cleavage and she might as well call herself a festival **** and like these women be just begging for it.

Um, nope. Not unless you think every woman ever has photos of themselves deliberately exposing their naughty bits to the camera in a public setting, like this example: https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/1011851_196908517148990_326250020_n.png
You don't honestly think this represents every woman everywhere, do you?

 

[Alceste]

YOU may not pick fun at people in photos for the purpose of humilitation, shame or character assassination, but, if you press forward on the email, you're contributing to the same hypocritical bull **** that you oppose for women.

OK, but I don't. I don't find derogatory, bigoted, misogynist or otherwise cruel attempts at humour funny. Nobody sends me that kind of stuff, but if they did they'd get an earful.

People of Walmart is called PEOPLE of Walmart. The pictures are funny because PEOPLE are funny. There is a huge spectrum of appearance, gender, race, etc and all kinds of different behavior in those photos. The comments are not advocating a one-dimensional perception of the photo subject. If a guy brings his pet goat to Walmart, the comments are "Why is that goat wearing a hat?" and "I'm not sure I want a goat hanging around my grocery item". NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the character, hygeine, sexual or medical history of the guy with the goat. Nothing disparaging. It's just funny that he brought a goat to Walmart. I mean, ISN'T IT? You don't find this picture at all curious or amusing?

Because someone else might have FULL intention of humiliating, shaming or assassinating one's character based upon their weight, style of dress, sex, etc.

Practice what you freaking preach. Is it not possible that some of the ********** on the Facebook page are not commenting for the PURPOSE of entertaining each other and NOT for the purpose of degrading women?

I AM practicing what I preach. I disapprove of all denigrating remarks and presumptions based solely on a person's appearance, and of course (like everyone) I disapprove of all attempts at "humour" that aren't funny. Bantering about how many cocks a girl has managed to choke down today and how fishy-smelling and diseased her vagina is not funny. Therefore I disapprove.

This, this is at least a sincere attempt at humour relating to female promiscuity. I can't say it's super-funny to me, but I respect the effort and don't consider it to be denigrating and judgmental.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj90kseKolw

I don't disagree with you. But, again you are generalizing. You have no idea what THEIR intentions were when posing for the photographs. How do you know that some of these women don't self identify as sluts and didn't intend to be sexual in those photographs.

How do you know that the photographs weren't originally intended for trash-type websites?

You don't know. Neither do I.

The difference, I think, is that where you have assumed, I have deduced. My belief that there is no original content on that page is directly based on the site admin's own comments. First, the comment saying "let's get some original content on this site!" begging for women to send in pictures of themselves with fan cards (followed by no pictures matching this description). Second, the comment saying anybody who thinks women are posting pictures of themselves on that page is an idiot.

Meanwhile, for many, many pages, you were repeatedly asserting - like half a dozen times! - that women were sending pictures of themselves to that website. I can only assume that this was based on nothing but your own low personal opinion of women who would go to a festival in pasties or a bikini top, since there is NO EVIDENCE that this is the case on that website, and MUCH EVIDENCE to the contrary.

So, true, neither of us "know" where the admin stole the pictures from, but at least I've made a good faith effort to figure it out, based on the available evidence. You've just decided out of the blue it must be attention seeking women who send in pictures of themselves for the specific purpose of being verbally harassed, disparaged, denigrated and sexually humiliated.

 

[DallasApple]

The pictures are funny because PEOPLE are funny. There is a huge spectrum of appearance, gender, race, etc and all kinds of different behavior in those photos.

Nail on the head.

 

[Alceste]

9 min is a bit too long and his accent is a bit too obnoxious. Perhaps you could give the gist of it? What difference between what is being explained? Obesity and homosexuality? How is that relevant to this thread?

He explains the difference between acknowledging the basic scientific fact that people gain weight because they eat more calories than they burn and "having a go at fat people". He's not saying that fat people are gross, or unhygeinic, or bad people, or generalizing that if someone is fat they must be "jolly", etc. He's ONLY saying that if you're fat, it's probably because you eat too much. End of story.

And hey, it's true. When we're overweight, it's because we eat too much and exercise too little. There's literally no other way to get fat. I don't know ONE SINGLE OVERWEIGHT PERSON, including myself and my husband, who has not gained weight as a direct result of eating too much and exercising too little. Likewise, I don't know ONE SINGLE PERSON who was overweight and attained a healthy weight who didn't do it by exercising more and eating less. It is not a complicated problem. At all.

In the context of these pictures and this page, it's the equivalent of saying "If we can see your tits, it's probably because you've taken your top off". Just a basic factual observation. All the other stuff about promiscuity, STDs hygeine, etc. is unacceptable, and unacceptable generalizations about the character and hygeine of the women in the photos is the entire purpose of the site.

 

[DallasApple]

Oh and the guy with the goat is funny! LOL>>>and I would approach him and ask permission to pet the little goat.And I may take a photo .(if he permitted) ..Its not just funny its "interesting" ..My husband came home one time and told me he saw this man (yes at wal-mart) who was very tall...and was completely blue.(his skin was blue).He said it was hard not to look and it wasn't just him...I concluded he most likely had drank too much of that liquid silver..Colloidal Silver to be exact...I didn't then conclude he must be a filthy pervert who wants to have sex in smurfsville with lots of blue dicks and he loves to drink blue sperm..

 

[Alceste]

Oh and the guy with the goat is funny! LOL>>>and I would approach him and ask permission to pet the little goat.And I may take a photo .(if he permitted) ..Its not just funny its "interesting" ..My husband came home one time and told me he saw this man (yes at wal-mart) who was very tall...and was completely blue.(his skin was blue).He said it was hard not to look and it wasn't just him...I concluded he most likely had drank too much of that liquid silver..Colloidal Silver to be exact...I didn't then conclude he must be a filthy pervert who wants to have sex in smurfsville with lots of blue dicks and he loves to drink blue sperm..

Exactly - I could start a page called "People of the West Coast" if only I'd taken a photo of the guy I saw yesterday. He was a young hippy riding his bike down the side of the highway and playing a guitar. Literally. Like, at the same time. Riding hands free and noodling away on his guitar, rolling along without a care in the world.

I thought it was hilarious - like "That guy, right there, sums up the spirit of this Island". I only wish I'd stopped for a picture.

Did I assume he's got crabs and smokes too much pot, that he's on welfare, that he smells bad, etc? Nope, I just thought it was really funny that he was playing his guitar and riding his bike down the road. That's it.

 

[DallasApple]

Exactly - I could start a page called "People of the West Coast" if only I'd taken a photo of the guy I saw yesterday. He was a young hippy riding his bike down the side of the highway and playing a guitar. Literally. Like, at the same time. Riding hands free and noodling away on his guitar, rolling along without a care in the world.

I thought it was hilarious - like "That guy, right there, sums up the spirit of this Island". I only wish I'd stopped for a picture.

Did I assume he's got crabs and smokes too much pot, that he's on welfare, that he smells bad, etc? Nope, I just thought it was really funny that he was playing his guitar and riding his bike down the road. That's it.

People are interesting..Me??? I would have said ..OH my God that guy is gonna get KILLED!! LOL!!! I would have been "worried" for him .But still found him interesting.People have "depth" is what is fascinating to us.

The thing with the "festival sluts" those women are "reduced" to no "depth" of course other than how "deep" she can take in a ****.It noted in fact they have no brain..

I would not think the guy with the goat must giving it oral sex.Even if he had his shirt off I wouldn't think that.

 

[Alceste]

People are interesting..Me??? I would have said ..OH my God that guy is gonna get KILLED!! LOL!!! I would have been "worried" for him .But still found him interesting.People have "depth" is what is fascinating to us.

The thing with the "festival sluts" those women are "reduced" to no "depth" of course other than how "deep" she can take in a ****.It noted in fact they have no brain..

I would not think the guy with the goat must giving it oral sex.Even if he had his shirt off I wouldn't think that.

Exactly - you totally nailed it. Celebrating and poking fun at the diversity and richness of human character is not at all the same thing as taking a whole category of people and reducing them down to a single dimension or aspect of their personality.

Might some of those women be sexually adventurous? Sure! But are they NOTHING BUT somewhere for men to stick a dick? No, they're fully dimensional PEOPLE with feelings, aspirations, relationships, etc. They're our own daughters, sisters, mothers and friends. Like the oddballs at Walmart. You wonder about their story when you look at the Walmart pictures. On the **** page, you are supposed to go "Ew, what a skanky slutty hoe! Quick - somebody screw it! That's all it's good for! Better hold your nose and go to the doctor after!" etc.

 

[DallasApple]

Its hard not to "judge a book by its cover"..But back in the day when I was selling PC's..(clones actually)...others would RUN when a disabled person came in ..or someone who "looked" I don't know poor or 'shady"/...I remember this one man..he was big..unshaven ..scraggly hair..yep ...overalls with dirt on them..he breathed really heavy....I went to see if I could help him..(the others were snickering)...I worked overtime helping him..at the end of the 2 hours he plopped out about 6,000 in cash to buy the products he had come in to discuss..(and I was on commission ...)...Said he would be coming back for more .

 

[freethinker44]

I probably have aides.

Jared's Aides - Video Clips - South Park Studios

 

[freethinker44]

People of Walmart is called PEOPLE of Walmart. The pictures are funny because PEOPLE are funny. There is a huge spectrum of appearance, gender, race, etc and all kinds of different behavior in those photos. The comments are not advocating a one-dimensional perception of the photo subject. If a guy brings his pet goat to Walmart, the comments are "Why is that goat wearing a hat?" and "I'm not sure I want a goat hanging around my grocery item". NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the character, hygeine, sexual or medical history of the guy with the goat. Nothing disparaging. It's just funny that he brought a goat to Walmart. I mean, ISN'T IT? You don't find this picture at all curious or amusing?

But then there are pictures like this.

And there are a lot of pictures like this on there. Much more than cute, whimsical pictures like the man holding the goat. And the comments for this one are:

just sick and wrong. Looks like a pink elephant
what a pathetic loser
What a disgusting PIG!!! 20lbs of **** in a 5lb bag!!!
I just puked a little!
&&i bet you she thinks she looks hella good too, thats discusting as hell

But you're right, saying "Nice tits" is way worse than this.

 

[dawny0826]

But then there are pictures like this.

And there are a lot of pictures like this on there. Much more than cute, whimsical pictures like the man holding the goat. And the comments for this one are:



But you're right, saying "Nice tits" is way worse than this.

Exactly. These "People of Walmart" pics negatively depict a plethora of stereotypes. But, of course, commenting on a girl's tits, which SHE FLASHED FOR A CAMERA is far more demeaning. (eye roll)

 

[Poeticus]

Exactly. These "People of Walmart" pics negatively depict a plethora of stereotypes. But, of course, commenting on a girl's tits, which SHE FLASHED FOR A CAMERA is far more demeaning.

Dawny, you and I both have to understand that the socio-political backgrounds of many on RF differ quite heavily from our point of views (oh, and by the way - you and I are very similar in our way of thinking; I have been reading your posts [just check your User CP]). Does that mean that their point of views are correct or more right? No. Does that mean that we are correct? No. We are of different spectrums, compared to them. What is right to us is incorrect to them. For example, in our opinion, that picture of a female without underwear (one posted by Heathen or Freethinker ?) posing her posterior for the camera looks as if she definitely posed for the camera, while the male to her right looks as if he is conversing with someone else - but we can be 90% sure he knows that the picture is being taken. If this picture is being taken, we can also be quite sure that it was being taken with the female's permission. Also, if such a picture was being taken, we can be quite sure that all the parties knew what was going to happen with that picture: it was most likely going to end up on the internet. It is safe for us to then conclude that ..... that picture made it to the internet with the female's permission. This is something that can be safely implied.

But, what does this mean? This only means that out of the hundreds of other pictures that may have been uploaded without consent, only a few look like as if they were uploaded with permission.

But, keep in mind that the thread has now gone from trying to get the webpage closed (as per the OP) to sex-positive feminism.

Also, while I agree with many of the things you say, I can't help but notice that your painful struggle at offering wonderful arguments is falling on deaf ears because the people you are replying to already have their minds made up.

I think the best thing for you and I to do would be to discuss individual pictures that are clearly being uploaded with the female's permission (even though they are outnumbered by those that are uploaded without permission). And, we should be able to discuss what entails uploading such types of pictures with permission: more ****-shaming.

Just my two cents, folks. I don't mean to argue. Just a thought I believed I should have expressed and I did. Carry on with your conversation.

EDIT: Dawny, this was the photo I was talking about, it was uploaded by Father Heathen: https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/1011851_196908517148990_326250020_n.png.

 

[Alceste]

But then there are pictures like this.

And there are a lot of pictures like this on there. Much more than cute, whimsical pictures like the man holding the goat. And the comments for this one are:



But you're right, saying "Nice tits" is way worse than this.

I don't approve of that kind of comment.

 

[Alceste]

Dawny, you and I both have to understand that the socio-political backgrounds of many on RF differ quite heavily from our point of views (oh, and by the way - you and I are very similar in our way of thinking; I have been reading your posts [just check your User CP]). Does that mean that their point of views are correct or more right? No. Does that mean that we are correct? No. We are of different spectrums, compared to them. What is right to us is incorrect to them. For example, in our opinion, that picture of a female without underwear (one posted by Heathen or Freethinker ?) posing her posterior for the camera looks as if she definitely posed for the camera, while the male to her right looks as if he is conversing with someone else - but we can be 90% sure he knows that the picture is being taken. If this picture is being taken, we can also be quite sure that it was being taken with the female's permission. Also, if such a picture was being taken, we can be quite sure that all the parties knew what was going to happen with that picture: it was most likely going to end up on the internet. It is safe for us to then conclude that ..... that picture made it to the internet with the female's permission. This is something that can be safely implied.

But, what does this mean? This only means that out of the hundreds of other pictures that may have been uploaded without consent, only a few look like as if they were uploaded with permission.

But, keep in mind that the thread has now gone from trying to get the webpage closed (as per the OP) to sex-positive feminism.

Also, while I agree with many of the things you say, I can't help but notice that your painful struggle at offering wonderful arguments is falling on deaf ears because the people you are replying to already have their minds made up.

I think the best thing for you and I to do would be to discuss individual pictures that are clearly being uploaded with the female's permission (even though they are outnumbered by those that are uploaded without permission). And, we should be able to discuss what entails uploading such types of pictures with permission: more ****-shaming.

Just my two cents, folks. I don't mean to argue. Just a thought I believed I should have expressed and I did. Carry on with your conversation.

EDIT: Dawny, this was the photo I was talking about, it was uploaded by Father Heathen: https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/1011851_196908517148990_326250020_n.png.

The internet is also full of guys mooning a camera, but they're not subjected to verbal harassment or presumptions about their sex life and personal hygiene. That's my point. The double standard is not acceptable, not equal, and unfair. I still maintain that the admin was speaking the truth when he said - twice - there are no actual women submitting pictures of themselves to that particular site.

As for such pictures ending up on the internet, agree with you that we should all be aware that at any time of the day night, we may be photographed and that picture may be shared on the internet. Ideally, though, this does not equate to ASKING for any specific type of attention.

 

[Poeticus]

The internet is also full of guys mooning a camera, but they're not subjected to verbal harassment or presumptions about their sex life and personal hygiene. That's my point. The double standard is not acceptable, not equal, and unfair.

Yes, I agree with the fact that there is a double standard. And, I believe almost all on this thread agree as well that there is a double standard going on in today's society.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, I agree with the fact that there is a double standard. And, I believe almost all on this thread agree as well that there is a double standard going on in today's society.

Yeah, that seems to be true. I think we're all in general agreement about how to fix it, too. Education, and letting people know it is not acceptable to make derogatory comments about others based on their appearance.

 

[dawny0826]

The internet is also full of guys mooning a camera, but they're not subjected to verbal harassment or presumptions about their sex life and personal hygiene. That's my point. The double standard is not acceptable, not equal, and unfair. I still maintain that the admin was speaking the truth when he said - twice - there are no actual women submitting pictures of themselves to that particular site.

As for such pictures ending up on the internet, agree with you that we should all be aware that at any time of the day night, we may be photographed and that picture may be shared on the internet. Ideally, though, this does not equate to ASKING for any specific type of attention.

I get your point. And support equality. I loathe the double standard as much as you do.

But, I see at times where women project a double standard, where it might not exist. I don't think that any of us can speak in the concrete when it comes to the photographs on the FestivalSluts FB page. We're making a lot of assumptions and forming our opinions around that which we're assuming.

My point has simply been that situational context should be considered before we slap labels on a situation.

I can't conclude that it's a ****-shaming web site, when the overall climate of the website seems to be quite approving of scantily clad girls. They're certainly being sexually objectified and this is more of the problem, in my opinion. Rhetorically, where did the damn photos come from? Did the women in the photos intend for their photos to be depicted on the internet and what was the context of the situation at the time that photo was snapped.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't approve of that kind of comment.

But, that's exactly what People at Walmart is about, as I explained.

Good fun at the expense of others - further perpetuating negative stereotyping, which includes women of all different demographics, cultures, sizes, etc.

The different is that a lot of these women in stereotypical "skanky" outfits are overweight and don't look as glam as the girls on the Festivalsluts facebook page. There are pages and pages of butt shots - people poking at "biscuts" hanging out of the bottoms of the shorts. And then there are photos of seeming transgender men, in cross-dress and people are picking fun.

There are a few photos that are relatively tame and aren't depicting a PERSON in a negative or stereotypical light.

This type of stuff does further fuel people's perceptions. If we're making fun of cross dressing men or women in bathing suits on this website, does that not make the fight for equality all the more difficult, particularly when there are women who want to be able to go topless, JUST LIKE MEN, without ridicule and scrutiny.

Funny Pictures at WalMart Inked Up

WHAT IS PEOPLEOFWALMART.COM?
You know that creature you spot every time you go shopping at certain chain department stores? That’s People of Walmart. It’s like spotting the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot except, since it’s Walmart, way more common. Take a picture of it then tell us about your creature and your spotting.

HOW DO I KNOW IF MY PICTURE IS APPROPRIATE?
If you think the person would be classified as “a Walmart shopper” then chances are good it works. Funny looking people, crazy outfits, the creepiest of the creepy, and the ugliest of the ugly will do. HOWEVER, we do not wish to poke fun at people who, through no fault of their own, are handicapped. Absolutely NO pictures of someone mentally or physically handicapped will be added to the Website.

WHAT SHOULD I INCLUDE IN MY CAPTION?
Keep it short, make it amusing. Don’t overdo it, just a brief explanation to help others understand the picture and laugh will suffice.

They get to deem as a website what is approrpriate and inapprorpiate as far as captions and photos are concerned.

In addition to the email, these pictures circulate on the web through email forwards and all over the place. It's the same type of concept.