Why a student newspaper printed pictures of vaginas on the front cover - General

[QUOTE=DeEz;43857799]because, despite the fact that we are living in the 21st century, people are still big babies when it comes to genitalia[/QUOTE] Saying, "Oh my god we're living in x century, why is it still like this?" is like saying "Oh my god we're living in the 14th century why aren't we passed the Crusades yet?" People are big babies about genitalia because they've become symbols of intimacy and "private places". People who complain about how others get uncomfortable at the sight of it are the ones who are big babies, especially when they start saying "omg how could anyone get offended over something you're not" ironically in their same spew of rhetoric whenever someone questions why people dislike a racist/sexist/homophobic joke. Don't like people getting offended about a region of the body with immense intimate value popping up out of the blue? You don't have any right to complain about a fried chicken and watermelon joke. You don't have any right to complain about a gay joke.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43857875]Saying, "Oh my god we're living in x century, why is it still like this?" is like saying "Oh my god we're living in the 14th century why aren't we passed the Crusades yet?" People are big babies about genitalia because they've become symbols of intimacy and "private places". People who complain about how others get uncomfortable at the sight of it are the ones who are big babies, especially when they start saying "omg how could anyone get offended over something you're not" ironically in their same spew of rhetoric whenever someone questions why people dislike a racist/sexist/homophobic joke. Don't like people getting offended about a region of the body with immense intimate value popping up out of the blue? You don't have any right to complain about a fried chicken and watermelon joke. You don't have any right to complain about a gay joke.[/QUOTE] lmao did you really just compare this to racism

[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;43855659]stupid feminists. no one gives a shit if you have a vagina.[/QUOTE] You really missed the point it seems. They want people to be comfortable with their bodies, there's nothing stupid about that. I really don't understand the problem with this - the printed version was even largely censored. That almost says more about how vaginas are viewed than what they did in the first place.

[QUOTE=Appellation;43855645]Just one?[/QUOTE] Nobody else realize why this might be important?

[QUOTE=whatthe;43857749]Some of you need to see this, before you go mindlessly calling these people over-dramatic. video[/QUOTE] Another poorly thought-out classification system in Australia is causing unintended consequences. Color me unsurprised.

[QUOTE=DeEz;43858063]lmao did you really just compare this to racism[/QUOTE] What's offensive and what isn't is in the eye of the beholder, so yeah. People have their reasons for getting offended over racism, people have their reasons for getting offended over gratuitous nudity getting tossed at their faces. Don't try and say they aren't comparable, or that somehow it's okay to get offended over one thing but not another, when the exact line of rhetoric that you'll see in the threads about the blackface costumes or the school that served watermelon for Black History Month is: "Just because you aren't offended about something doesn't mean others aren't, our reasons for getting offended are valid." People get offended because they're being subject to something that is highly uncomfortable or "striking" to them. People get uncomfortable around and stricken by, y'know, body parts that are inherently linked to intimacy, insecurities, social standings, sensitivity, and whatnot. You can't have it both ways. You either accept that it's normal to be offended over sensitive imagery (extreme violence sets people off, too, and we can understand why; it is linked with heavy emotion), or you accept that it's okay to be as rude as you want. If we are only allowed to get offended by something demeaning, then you are a "big baby" for getting mad over something like this: [QUOTE=ViralHatred;40114735]Well that's 20 mins down the road from me. Looks like I need to get new turf. :quagmire: [highlight](User was banned for this post (""Hilarious" joke about child sex abuse" - SteveUK))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Or maybe someone taking a dump in public. Or someone being a total raunchy dickweed towards others.

[QUOTE=usa;43855619]its funny because they put a penis on the cover a few years ago and nobody gave a shit[/QUOTE] Conservative cultures are secretly gay.

[QUOTE=Appellation;43858124]Nobody else realize why this might be important?[/QUOTE] The difference is: One is inherently inclusive, while the other would naturally be seen as either exclusive or mocking.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858168]Don't try and say they aren't comparable..[/QUOTE] they're not you are comparing racial (or sexual orientation) discrimination to people feeling uncomfortable over genitals because they're "gross" you can keep trying though but it doesn't work [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858168]People get offended because they're being subject to something that is highly uncomfortable or "striking" to them.[/QUOTE] yeah and people are uncomfortable around black people and homosexuals doesn't make it any less silly [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858168]You can't have it both ways. You either accept that it's normal to be offended over sensitive imagery (extreme violence sets people off, too, and we can understand why; it is linked with heavy emotion), or you accept that it's okay to be as rude as you want.[/QUOTE] sorry but reality isn't a binary system

I love how she showed an example of a penis being put on the cover of that very same student newspaper and it not being an issue and there are still people going "if there was a dick it'd be bad too!!!!"

[QUOTE=Paige;43858545]I love how she showed an example of [B]a penis[/B] being put on the cover of that very same student newspaper and it not being an issue and there are still people going "if there was a dick it'd be bad too!!!!"[/QUOTE]

Too bad black people and homosexuals haven't been inherently tied to a strong subset of emotions and senses in a large portion of societies and cultures for thirty thousand years. I never once said people were uncomfortable around it because it was "gross". You can keep denying it but it isn't "silly". Really, if it is "silly" to be offended over something, no matter how society at large views it or what their ingrained feelings about it are, then it is just as "silly" to be offended over discrimination. Both things perpetuate bullshit that can hurt people people on one level or another. Both things are only considered offensive because we don't like the effects they have on people. Reality isn't a binary system, but in this case you either choose or you're a hypocrite. Both things are valid reasons to get offended, and I've done enough to prove it. And, y'know, considering how reality isn't binary, I guess that means you can't exactly peg certain social standards as "silly" on a whim, can you? And, y'know, different societies have different social standards and yours isn't the best, so deal with it.

[QUOTE=whatthe;43857749]Some of you need to see this, before you go mindlessly calling these people over-dramatic.[/QUOTE] Yuck. Those vaginas are some of the most disgustingly-looking ones I have seen (though my first GF had the fugliest vagina in the history of vaginas). I can see why they would want a surgery. Nobody in their right mind would want to walk around knowing that they have such abominations between their legs.

[QUOTE=_ThatCat_;43858687]Yuck. Those vaginas are some of the most disgustingly-looking ones I have seen (though my first GF had the fugliest vagina in the history of vaginas). I can see why they would want a surgery. Nobody in their right mind would want to walk around knowing that they have such abominations between their legs.[/QUOTE] This was exactly the point of her putting them on the newspaper. Not every vagina is pornstar worthy.

[QUOTE=Paige;43858702]This was exactly the point of her putting them on the newspaper. Not every vagina is pornstar worthy.[/QUOTE] Exactly. That's why, in years to come, gay porn will prosper. Vaginas are holding the porn industry back.

[QUOTE=Paige;43858702]This was exactly the point of her putting them on the newspaper. Not every vagina is pornstar worthy.[/QUOTE] Are any vulvas good looking? I mean sure, they can smell, taste, feel great, but they're not the prettiest thing. Don't go hacking em up to try to make them look better, just keep them clean (if you want to go the extra mile, eat some pineapple). But there is a difference between showing a penis and multiple vulvas.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858628]Too bad black people and homosexuals haven't been inherently tied to a strong subset of emotions and senses in a large portion of societies and cultures for thirty thousand years. I never once said people were uncomfortable around it because it was "gross". You can keep denying it but it isn't "silly". Really, if it is "silly" to be offended over something, no matter how society at large views it or what their ingrained feelings about it are, then it is just as "silly" to be offended over discrimination. Both things perpetuate bullshit that can hurt people people on one level or another. Both things are only considered offensive because we don't like the effects they have on people. Reality isn't a binary system, but in this case you either choose or you're a hypocrite. Both things are valid reasons to get offended, and I've done enough to prove it.[/QUOTE] Jesus, this discussion is getting really nebulous - so let's break it down. Vaginas - an organ half of the world's population are born with. Why publish? Because people view them as gross and only appropriate in a sexual context. Seems like it's part of an effort to desexualize the female body. On to the point about being offended. People are offended by nudity because of sexual stigma and the age old DEAR GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN straw man. The same children parents allow to play Call of Duty and watch violent TV and movies. Children are thought to be traumatized by seeing naked bodies because most people seem to draw a direct line between (female) anatomy and sex. Which is totally inappropriate. Do I think it's a particularly appealing front page aesthetically? Not necessarily. Is it an important issue? Definitely.

it would b much betah if everyone had a dick

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858628]Really, if it is "silly" to be offended over something, no matter how society at large views it or what their ingrained feelings about it are, then it is just as "silly" to be offended over discrimination.[/QUOTE] here you go with the binary thing again there are literally people out there whom are offended by races or what have you, but anyway here's an example for you in regards to being offended by things: one group is offended by black people, the other is offended by discrimination towards black people one group is dumb, the other not so much guess which one, 95% got it wrong

frankly we should butcher the minorities (=men) there r more women than men so everyone will be happy

[QUOTE=NOR_92;43858731]Jesus, this discussion is getting really nebulous - so let's break it down. Vaginas - an organ half of the world's population are born with. Why publish? Because people view them as gross and only appropriate in a sexual context. Seems like it's part of an effort to desexualize the female body. On to the point about being offended. People are offended by nudity because of sexual stigma and the age old DEAR GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN straw man. The same children parents allow to play Call of Duty and watch violent TV and movies. Children are thought to be traumatized by seeing naked bodies because most people seem to draw a direct line between (female) anatomy and sex. Which is totally inappropriate. Do I think it's a particularly appealing front page aesthetically? Not necessarily. Is it an important issue? Definitely.[/QUOTE] It is appropriate to draw a line between genital anatomy and sex, though. Like I said, ingrained in the conscious and subconscious since monogamy and romance became a thing. It is part of intimacy, which gives way to the term "private parts". Though people might be more accepting of male nudity, it doesn't mean they still aren't bothered by dicks at all. In a medical or academic context you should expect people to deal with it, if only out of necessity. They become desensitized through exposure, but that doesn't mean it isn't an unpleasant experience. Average people shouldn't be subject to it if it truly bothers them. This is less of an issue of "rejecting our bodies" than it is preventing people from flaunting them at the expense of others. People only want to be subject to intimacy on their own terms. The people who put those pictures on the magazine should have to contend with that, and think of something less intrusive to pursue their goals. Things like Call of Duty and Postal wouldn't fly in the western world sixty years ago. But then refusing to stone the thief in the fertile crescent wouldn't fly a thousand years ago. Violence and sexuality work differently and have changed in terms of standards throughout history, but both still manage to consistently cause huge hang ups in different cultures and to different individuals. They both represent huge clusters of emotions and sets of thought depending on the person, and more often than not, those clusters of emotions and thoughts are negative. What I'm trying to say is that basically anything that causes offense does so because of being linked to a sensitive set of emotions or thoughts. What those emotions or thoughts are varies from culture to culture, but sexuality and intimacy are very consistently regarded to as sensitive things. Similar to race. Similar to sexual orientation. It's all really the same thing, it's all subjective to different people and cultures, and it wasn't Victorian era puritanism which really ushered in a sensitivity to nudity and sex. You can't call reacting to a sensitive thing "childish" any more so than you can call reacting to another bit of emotional turmoil "childish". I've been up all night and I'm not good at being concise, so this is the best I can offer for now. It is less that they are brought up by their parents to believe something than they are brought up by society. And it is less that society is brought up by ideas created in vacuums than it is brought up based off of low-level subconscious dispositions and whims.

[QUOTE=-ZeeBo-;43856501]Penises are more accepted in society because it is easier to draw a cartoon dick than a pussy. Flawelss logic[/QUOTE] ({}) 8====D 8===})

[QUOTE=DeEz;43858753]here you go with the binary thing again there are literally people out there whom are offended by races or what have you, but anyway here's an example for you in regards to being offended by things: one group is offended by black people, the other is offended by discrimination towards black people one group is dumb, the other not so much guess which one, 95% got it wrong[/QUOTE] One group is offended by something which has no natural effect on someone's mental state. One group is offended by a hostile disposition manifested through nastiness. Either that, or neither group is dumb if we're going to assume that all effects of certain things on people only happen because of how "their parents brought them up". Here, try this. One group is offended that they aren't allowed to show images which induce heavy emotions (sexuality is a biological function, its ties with romance and intimacy are practically inherent because they've been so deeply ingrained through culture and society; there's no biotruthing here). One group is offended that the other group tried to force that imagery down their throat and forcefully induce unwanted feelings. Sexuality and genitalia are natural, same as the different races, but the level on which emotional responses towards each are generated differs. Intimacy, sexuality, and anatomy are more inherently connected than race and racism. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] Here, I made up a super concise justification for my views: People get upset by emotionally charged shit and nudity is basically inherently tied to emotionally charged shit so too bad. No one gets to call them babies and force more emotionally charged shit down their throats if they don't want it. No one gets to decide what upsets people based on how "valid" they think it is. And no, black people are not emotionally charged shit.

What? I've seen plenty of cartoon vaginas

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43859199]Either that, or neither group is dumb if we're going to assume that all effects of certain things on people only happen because of how "their parents brought them up".[/QUOTE] idk who said this but in that case their parents would've brought them up to be dumb, so it still applies [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43859199]Here, I made up a super concise justification for my views: People get upset by emotionally charged shit and nudity is basically inherently tied to emotionally charged shit so too bad.[B] No one gets to call them babies[/B] and force more emotionally charged shit down their throats if they don't want it. No one gets to decide what upsets people based on how "valid" they think it is. And no, black people are not emotionally charged shit.[/QUOTE] funny that you should say that [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43857875]People who complain about how others get uncomfortable at the sight of it [B]are the ones who are big babies[/B][/QUOTE] and yes, hatred towards other races is most definitely emotionally charged also you definitely were against this line of thinking: [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;43858168].. or that somehow it's okay to get offended over one thing but not another...[/QUOTE] does that mean you think people whom are offended by the mere existence of other races aren't a problem?

I don't get people like this. it's the most basic level of causing controversy, wall of genitals in your face. It's so primitive and has literally been done millions of times. What purpose does this serve other than establishing what we already know: genitals are fairly intimate for people and they generally feel uncomfortable having them around in regular non-intimate interactions. That is neither a bad thing nor something we as a culture need to change. Shoving a wall of cocks or vags into a persons face and going like 'I FEEL COMFORTABLE AND SECURE ABOUT MY GENITALS AND PHYSICAL GENDER AND IF THIS MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE IT DEMONSTRATES THAT YOU DON'T WANT ME TO FEEL THAT WAY' is juvenile and gives me the impression of an insecure person in need of a proper way of self-expression. I don't have a problem that people have dicks or vaginas. I am happy for them if they are happy with their junk but that doesn't mean I want it right into my face. I am also happy about people who are fond of their nice custom sports cars but they should be mature enough to realize that not everyone shares their enthusiasm and if you put pictures of your nice spots car on the cover of a student newspaper I'd call you a self-centered twat and ask you to put something else on there instead, something that is more related to the general interests of the average students newspaper reader. Unless the magazine is 'genitals illustrated - how I learned to love my junk' I don't see the point in trying to make a point by putting it there.

[QUOTE=J!NX;43859131]({}) 8====D 8===})[/QUOTE] 8M==D 8=M=D 8==MD 8=M=D 8M==D 8=M=D 8==MD 8=M=D 8M==D 8=M=D 8==MD~~~ sorry your drawings were too hot

[QUOTE=DeEz;43859967]idk who said this but in that case their parents would've brought them up to be dumb, so it still applies funny that you should say that and yes, hatred towards other races is most definitely emotionally charged also you definitely were against this line of thinking: does that mean you think people whom are offended by the mere existence of other races aren't a problem?[/QUOTE] i bet you would get a kick out of public sex being legal

[QUOTE=Wingz;43860663]i bet you would get a kick out of public sex being legal[/QUOTE] Like out in the open with people around? Or hidden away/in a secluded/empty place? 'Cause, who honestly let the law deter them in the second scenario?

[QUOTE=Wingz;43860663]i bet you would get a kick out of public sex being legal[/QUOTE] You Americans sure can't keep the concepts of intercourse and nudity apart, can you?