."Psychologists have found that when presented with descriptions of women taken from lads’ mags, and comments about women made by convicted rapists, most people who took part in the study could not distinguish the source of the quotes.".
Just sayin', it's still really awful and everything.
although I guess a large proportion of sex offenders could be Italian?
I'd like to see examples of extracts. What kind of rapist 'literature' are they quoting - interviews? With repentant or unrepentant rapists? And are they comparing extended passages or two word soundbites?
My aunt used to buy my 13 year old cousin Nuts every week, I guess to 'man him up'. He's now at university and a total chief, so I suppose it 'worked'.
The study used quotes from the four UK lad’s mags with the highest circulation: FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, published between January and March 2010. (Circulation data from www.abc.org.uk)
Quotes from convicted rapists from verbatim interview transcripts in the United States in the book: The Rapist Files: Interviews With Convicted Rapists by Sussman & Bordwell
the only thing that kind of annoys me is they used a US book to take the quotes from.
i hate lads' mags though.
Like cosmopolitan and more?
Also, slightly separately, magazines like Love it! and take a break and stuff?
love it and take a break are probably the best magazines of all time: http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luyrbnG41l1r4y4vyo1_500.jpg
They are cracking reads though.
They are a very pleasant, quite well to do middle-class family. I think he got to an age where he started getting into My Chemical Romance and wearing hoodies, and my aunt counterbalanced this by leaving a copy of Nuts in his room every Wednesday. Gerard Way or Lucy Pinder? Which are you going to choose?
-she could've got him a copy of Reign In Blood and a subscription to BurningAngel.com.
...give rapists magazine editors' jobs?
rather than saying sexist things in a cold, creepy, straight faced manner.
being deliberately outrageous for a lads mag would be featuring women who weren't white and/or thin and/or with long hair. or even featuring MEN.
anyway, the point is that rapists aren't 'saying things in a creepy straight-faced manner' they're repeating things that they've been taught throughout their lives by media such as lads mags to justify their criminality.
nuts/zoo/loaded = BIRDS, MOTORS, PHWOARRRR
bizarre = BIRDS WITH TATTOOS, METAL, GOOORRRRREEE
what about it?
I might fuck some of them tho...
When he tried to make excuses for the film Sucker Punch!
Loves me some silly piercings and ridiculous hair colours and shit like that.
Just to be clear are you insinuating lads mags are to blame?
The way violent movies/computer games are to blame for violent behaviour?
lads mags are part of and a result of a culture where there is a certain normalised attitude towards women. the language lads mags use (not only lads mags - womens magazines, representations of women in film, video games, adverts etc etc) sustains and reinforces this culture.
i think violence in movies and games is a different issue - the study i posted is showing a direct overlap between the language used by convicted rapists and the language used by magazines.
Most glamour models are fairly poor I think (based on some shit documentary I once saw about the subject...)
OBVIOUSLY, that doesn't necessarily imply that they therefore do it for the art and the chance to endorse the eloquence and truth of the picture captions
I just remember being surprised by it when I found out, makes the whole psychology of the phenomena even grimmer to contemplate.
But they are over the hill by 30. Those jobs don't exactly come with pension schemes.
I more mean: the second you pick up a magazine of airbrushed tits, aimed at men who are sad enough to need a wank mag in the first place, you know the mind set of both writer and reader is going to be one you'll hate.
It's not a surprise to know that people that detached from getting close to a real woman are a little rapey.
But it IS sad to think that the teenagers who just want to gawp a bit are getting led down that road.
The fact that a random sample of men couldn't tell the difference between statements from rapists and statements from lad's magazines does not imply that there is any logical connection between those statements or tell us anything useful about why men rape etc.
we already have plenty of research about 'why men rape'. what we don't have much of is research about the cultural reasons why men so often get away with rape, why victim-blaming is still so disgustingly common, why things like date-rape are minimized because they're committed by the kind of nice boys who would never attack anyone in an alleyway... etc etc. this isn't the kind of study that can tell us anything absolutely concrete (lads mags cause x number of rapes per year!) but it's still an interesting illustration of how some of those attitudes might become so normalized
I wouldn't say that any of the quotes given from the lad mags fit into the blame-the-victim category or endorse rape. Whereas the quotes given from the rapists definitely do endorse the victim-blaming and are noticeably much more sinister. So I don't think we can draw parallels between the two sources based on the quotes presented.
I thought one or two of the 'lads mags' ones weren't like. Preeeeeeeeeetty dodge.
for example, if they're from readers writing in, then that's just can you tell the difference between a rapist and a rapist.
before i'm accused of being jim davidson on steroids, i just want to point out i just think they need to be a bit more open about the context of the quotes, on which the whole basis of their study is founded on.
A lot of the lads mag quotes read as if they were part of the actual magazine, rather than letters. Though I guess it'll tell you more about that when the study has been publised, I assumed that the quotes would've been taken from articles.
Even if they were readers letters, they'd be published because they were inkeeping with the general idea and tone of the magazine, surely?
it weakens the study if the words they're comparing against are not those of the people responsible for writing the magazine. true, they chose to publish the letters in the magazine, but the letters section of a magazine is considered an "open forum" where extreme views are usually allowed to be printed as 'one side of the argument'. i've read pretty horrible letters in women's mags too...
even if you argue they publish the letters to cater to their audience, that points the finger at the audience, not the magazine.
<<well, WOMEN'S magazines say stuff too!>> - your point being what exactly? women's magazines aren't part of this study, this debate or anything. the only time they've been mentioned in this thread is when i said i didn't like them, in response to a question which was derailing the point anyway.
re: the audience - surely the audience of a magazine are the audience because they like the magazine and its content? do you read and write in to magazines that don't appeal to you?
why are you trying to undermine a study that's had actual research put into it, rather than debating the results of the study itself with unresearched and unfounded arguments?
i was just pointing out that all trashy magazines print stupid offensive letters, regardless of how sexist or offensive the magazine actually is.
re the audience: you're making the mistake that the magazine forms the opinions and attitudes of the reader, which is rarely the case. magazines like nuts and FHM don't exist because they invented misogyny, it's just a market they've cornered.
re your final sentence. yeah you're right i shouldn't question the study i should just accept it as accurate and move on. come on.
the fact that all magazines print stuff like that (debatable) is irrelevant as this study isn't about all magazines, is it? it's about a very specific kind of magazine.
do you really think media doesn't inform people's opinions about stuff? bit silly.
you could question the study if anything you were saying had any research or informed opinion behind it rather than your sketchy opinion based on you skim reading an article summarising the findings of the study, which incidentally hasn't even been published yet, so all it's actually possible to debate and/or question is... the findings of the study. which you haven't done.
second point: no, i didn't say that. but in this case i think it's fair to say that misogynistic lad culture existed well before nuts came along.
i didn't skim read it? i read the article and the questions in the second link. you know it makes you look pretty unreasonable and silly when you say unfounded things like that to "discredit" me.
you keep saying things like "sketchy opinions" and "unfounded and unresearched arguments" when i haven't actually made any outlandish claims, i just happen to fundamentally disagree with these types of studies that only scratch at the surface of cultural problems.
you get so petulant when anybody questions an issue relating to feminism, if they don't completely agree that the problem is as bad as you believe it is, they're idiots.
and that lad's mags are a part of, if not the origin of, that cultural problem, right? good, we're all agreed.
you don't agree there's a cultural problem regarding peoples attitudes to rape and rape victims?
everybody with a decent IQ knows that lad mags are sexist and generally awful
i'm not sure what point i'm making here, it just reads like crispinalexander is ready to accept that lads mags are awful and misogynist.. but that doesn't lead to rape culture. which seems a bit mad to me.
second point: nobody is saying otherwise - lads mags are a result of and a contributor to general sexism and misogyny in society. i actually said this before which is why it seems as if you've been skim reading and picking and choosing what to reply to.
you have made outlandish claims, because you haven't provided any citations or links or anything other than your own opinion.
i don't think the study is trying to solve 'cultural problems', it's trying to highlight an issue for people who may not realise or have thought about it before (ie YOU).
what do you know about feminism? you seem to get petulant when someone who knows more and has more experience with something continually disproves your points and tells you that you have bad reading comprehension skills.
ok wishpig, ok.
i haven't thought about this issue before? ok well that thought can go back up your ass from where it came.
don't claim to be a feminism expert, and i haven't made any points that would even begin to imply that i think i am. you know just because you say you've been "disproving my points" doesn't actually make it true.
all you've done is nit pick a study that you haven't even read because it hasn't been published yet.
i didn't say you were a feminism expert, i asked you a question. you could answer it, or you could do what you always do in these threads, which is derail and get defensive. it seems to be that you side with whatever the opposite of what i, or tiramisu or anyone else says just to be contrary as you don't actually post anything of any substance.
incidentally, now we're discussing you and not the issue at hand, so well done, i guess you won! good for you.
you got defensive at my perfectly reasonable skepticism. grow up.
yeah, i'd assume that they'd have thought about that when they were doing the study, though i know just as much about that as you do. but i think the general message, as you said is that lads mags ARE horribly sexist and awful and that means that they do help to wider legitimise really horrible ideas about women and sex, which does further discrimintation and mistreatment of rape victims/rape culture.
as for the audience thing you could go into ridiculously convoluted arguments about IS THE AUDIENCE LIKE THE BECAUSE OF THE MAGAZINE/IS THE AUDIENCE -MORE- LIKE THE COS OF THE MAGAZINE/IS THE MAGAZINE CATERING TO AN AUDIENCE THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE blahblahblha etc. and i dunno, but you cant really say that the letters section is a different thing completely than the magazine. it's still going to portray the same ideas and tbh, in my experience, most of the lads mags letters pages are pretty much the same as the usual content. but yeah, i'd assume at least most of the quotes were from the magazine itself, rather than the letters.
What do I win?
I thought some of the lad magazine quotes were dodgy but did not endorse rape, whereas the rapist quotes were clearly quite sinister. The idea that they're indistinguishable is completely bogus.
To illustrate why the methodology of this study is bogus, imagine a similar study that could be carried out. In this study, random men are presented with sixteen quotes about sex. This time half of the quotes are by women and half are by men. The study group are unable to tell the difference. Does this then tell us anything insightful about the quotes and how they relate to sex? No, all it shows is that it is difficult to provide accurate information about the author of a quote when the quote is provided in a decontextualised and unattributed form.
which did you get wrong?
"This is a perfect, horrible example of how the rape culture works: Mainstream straight men's magazines normalize the narratives of the rape culture using language indistinguishable from that of actual rapists, which not only communicates to sexual predators that their predation is normal (functioning the same way as rape jokes), but inures the rest of the male population to the horror of sexual violence and encourages sympathy with predators rather than victims, thus creating a culture disinclined to believe victims and hold predators accountable.
Frequently, people who object to the notion of the rape culture misunderstand that critics of the pieces of the rape culture, like objectifying lads' mags which undermine the concept of consent, are arguing: "Lads' mags cause men to rape."
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the misogynist content of straight lads' mags normalizes the attitudes and narratives that rapists use to justify raping women — and that as long as men who aren't rapists share those attitudes, they are much less likely to convict rapists, because to do so feels like indicting themselves."
but they help them justify raping people?
pretty tenuous difference there.
everybody with a decent IQ knows that lad mags are sexist and generally awful. this study is nothing but a half baked idea, poorly executed and with no strong message. if you want to do a serious study on the correlation between misogyny in magazines and actual rape, you're gonna have to take it a bit more seriously than "here's some quotes from one single source, and some quotes from one other source which we haven't cited properly and cherry picked out even though they may not be fully representative of the source in question - can you tell the difference??"
more to the point, taking time to figure out where lads mags stand in this situation is basically like trying to work out if grand theft auto makes people steal cars - why waste your time? the problem goes much deeper than that.
it's more a striking illustration of an issue that definitely deserves much more thorough investigation. the point, however, is not to establish the "correlation between misogyny in magazines and actual rape" which has been made clear a whole bunch of times, especially in the quote i posted. the point is to make people a bit more acutely aware of the fact that rape isn't taken as seriously as it should be, and that there are VERY CLEAR CULTURAL REASONS FOR THIS, and that misogynist culture shouldn't just be brushed off as bit of a laugh and totally harmless
but the study doesn't, statistically speaking, give any credence to that argument. Like I said, you'd need to look at the attitudes of lad mag readers in combination with other possible factors in order to make those kind of assertions
i'm sorry i didn't realise
i'm sorry but there's no evidence that lag mags contribute to men committing rape. it's very convenient to believe that there is, but that's just too simplistic.
if the point is to make people aware that rape isn't taken seriously enough, this was a terrible way to go about it.
the point IS NOT to suggest that lad's mags contribute to men committing rape. nobody is saying that there is evidence for any such thing. for like the millionth time.
where rape is really under-reported and under-convicted and where victim-blaming is really common. if you're gonna argue, please argue with the argument that's being made
i meant it's been made clear that nobody thinks there IS a correlation. not that it's been made clear that there is one. i guess that's what confused you
and i did read your point, how was my point that "this is a terrible way to highlight that issue" not on topic? if they want to highlight lax attitudes towards rape, it's downright silly and tacky to bring that problem to the table under the sensationalist guise of "omg look at this copy of nuts"
what would you suggest is an effective method of highlighting attitudes towards rape?
but just sayin', every time anyone tries to 'highlight lax attitudes towards rape' by any method, the response is invariably the same: what sensationalist bullshit!!! OBVIOUSLY everyone in their right mind thinks rape is TERRIBLE and rapists are MONSTERS but rapists will rape no matter what you say so stop trying to make us think about our attitudes!
you got any proof that this is the general attitude is to every study is that? you're basing the reaction to studies on what the average forum user will say, which is ridiculous. these issues are tackled and debated intellectually at a university level frequently (though not in this case, IN MY OPINION)
if you really want the public attitude to change, and to refer to your original question of what would i suggest, i would suggest thoughtful, well researched newspaper articles. but of course most newspapers aren't interested in being thoughtful and well researched when being sensational sells more papers. the same is true of studies like the one being discussed - if they published a non sensational study we probably wouldn't be talking about it now.
I know it makes a lot of sense, but you cannot say that this backs up your hypothesis about normalization AT ALL. The study merely points out similarities in the two texts: not that there is a link between them.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, is it not the case that the tail wags the dog a little bit here? Ie the audience of a lad's mag demands this kind of content rather than vice versa. That would be the more interesting survey - to analyse the responses of the average 'lad mag reader' alongside various other parts of their socioeconomic status and values etc.
(sorry, I really do agree with what you say, but studying statistics at the moment, so I am always cautious about what can and can't be said based on a study)
and again, i don't necessarily think that this study is telling us anything new or statistically significant. but i reckon this kind of thing serves a purpose more as a striking illustration of how indidious that kind of culture is, which might make some people reconsider the idea that casual misogyny is all just harmless boys will be boys fun
radical stuff, i know
like most consumer markets, the supply and demand chain here isn't gonna be simple cause-and-effect, it's likely more of a feedback loop. i'm sure you wouldn't assume that most consumer products exist because of spontaneous demand - the demand is created and sustained by all sorts of cultural means
what does identify mean in this case? they agreed with that statement, or they believed it was the rapist's words?
they had to rate the statements in terms of how much they agreed with them, and the rapists statements tended to score better, ESPECIALLY when they were (falsely) informed that the quote was from a lad's mag. the study itself hasn't actually been published yet, so there will probably be much more detailed info than in the reporting
this is true. the articles linked to could be over simplifying the study, but i'm doubtful - especially seeing as the study does say they only used one source for the rapist's quotes.
i don't expect there are many sources for rapist quotes. the source was a compilation of various interviews with rapists, not just one guy
someONE therefore compiled those quotes. doesn't mean it's an accurate sample of rapist's attitudes.
why does it need to be an accurate sample of rapist's attitudes? are you saying they should have included some rapists who are totes respectful towards women? and how could they possibly have gotten any quotes without SOMEONE compiling them? random selection from every sentence every rapist has ever said?
well you know it needs to be an accurate sample because that's generally what good studies are based on. can't believe i had to type that out.
yeah ok i'm definitely saying they should include some positive rapist opinions that's definitely what i'm saying, and yeah sure how about every single quote by a convicted rapist.
no. just an accurate, varied sample. i didn't even say the source in question wasn't an accurate sample, but generally it's a good idea to cite a series of credible sources instead of one published book of rape quotes.
a book full of direct, transcripted interviews with actual, convicted rapists (plural) is not credible enough?
i didn't say the book wasn't "credible"
learn to read or stfu
you said it wasn't credible enough
learn to read and stfu
from the beginning i've been advocating the need for variety, which is what serious studies use to...y'know, be serious.
if you can't understand that very simple concept we can't continue this any further.
can you explain a bit more? do you mean that they should have done their own interviews with a bigger variety of rapists? how big a variety? how would they have chosen which rapists and which questions to ask them? this is not a study trying to quantify the trends in rapist's attitudes. if it was, your point would make sense. it's a study of the attitudes of lad's mag readers (so it would make a lot more sense to question whether THOSE quotes are reasonably representative of the material that generally appears in lad's mags). and either way, when studying something as slippery as 'attitudes', it's literally impossible to get absolutely neutral and randomized samples. it's not like a chemistry experiment.
when it's not that complicated. the increase of sources increases the reliability of the subject at hand, that's a basic fundamental concept.
for this example, they've cited one book as the source for the rapists quotes. how do you know that this book wasn't compiled with the most confrontational, offensive quotes simply because they're more interesting? i'm not saying the quotes should be "i had eggs for breakfast" but a seemingly innocent quote on the subject of women may have a deeper psychological meaning to somebody who actually understands the mindset of a sexual offender on a deep level.
so that's where "varied samples" comes in, because if you have another collection of quotes compiled by, let's say, a professor of anthropology - and those quotes sustain the general tone and pattern of those published in the book, then that automatically adds more weight to the evidence that these are accurate representations of the mind of rapist.
my overall point is: if you're not willing to take a study seriously enough to allow for these basic rules, it's not much of a study in the first place. nevermind the fact that it isn't sheddding light on anything we don't already know. and i disagree that it's "raising awareness to rape attitudes" but that's just a matter of opinion.
as far as i'm aware, they're not trying to establish that there is an empirically quanitifiable equivalence between the attitudes of rapists-in-general and the attitudes of lads-mags-in-general. the whole point seems, rather, to establish that some of the most creepy/offensive things that rapists say to justify themselves are actually not seen as outrageous or offensive within the context of lad-mag culture. that's all. to that end, it would be a bit pointless to also include more innocuous quotes from rapists, because it's not surprising or relevant that some people will agree with something innocent-sounding a rapist once said. the offensiveness of the quotes is the *point*. some social science studies try to reliably prove a set of empirical assertions about how the world is. but some others are more just for saying 'hmm here's a interesting phenomenon/correlation that we found which might be worth investigating further'
but yeah imma shut up now, this is so fucking dumb
in that it's obviously not going to be a detailed study and that its whole point is to illustrate how rapists words can be found with an eerily similar tone in men's magazines.
how useful is that? everybody except the readers know that these magazines are basically toilet paper. look, when we really break it down, i think that comparing quotes like that is a really superficial and pointless exercise that doesn't really begin to address the real problems. you apparently disagree, so that's that.
i'd personally like to see them use quotes from rapists about what they had for their breakfast and quotes from lads mags about topman v necked t shirts.
SEE GUYS THERE'S NO CORRELATION
it almost seems like you were implying i'm a rapist, but that couldn't possibly be true, could it?
you're a joke
remind me never to interact with you again
does anyone actually understand the proper definition of this word?
that the most passionate and vocal advocates for feminism on these boards also happen to be among the least coherent and least willing to have a proper actual debate about things.
sucks because this is a thread that could have actually led to some thoughtful discussion. as it is it's just been attempts at such a discussion, followed by blind rage and flagrantly childish retorts in response to anything that DARE question the unequivocal validity of the study.
'i don't necessarily disagree that this study isn't amazingly informative in itself'
'and again, i don't necessarily think that this study is telling us anything new or statistically significant'
lemonbrickcombo, btw, managed to question the validity of the study in a reasonable and non-inflammatory way, while still engaging with the point it was trying to make instead of just brushing it off as nonsense! it's not difficult.
you know i wasn't being aggressive, you and wishpig just take every open opportunity to jump down the throat of anyone who doesn't fully align with your opinions.
although in fairness you are about 100x more agreeable than wishpig.
nobody is saying the study is great because nobody has read the study and the reports that people ave posted of the study aren't complete (obviously) and aren't all amazing themselves. people have been more argumentitive in discussion relating to the themes/stuff related to the study i.e. rape culture. y'know, it's pretty infuriating when someone implies that that doesn't exist/isn't bad when you know it does cos it affects you and it sometimes makes it hard to have a COLD DETACHED DISCUSSION. i think i'm rambling here.
but the mistake wishpig and tiramisu have made is that i'm dismissing the importance of the issue.
when in reality i'm just pointing out that this is yet another worthless "omg look at what the media are doing to us" study. yes yes we haven't read the actual study yet, but i'll eat my own arms if it turns out to be more substantial than the article implies.
nobody has sad it's a class study. nobody has claimed that you're wrong for not thinking it's a class study. people have been trying to talk about the issues it raises, that's it.
2. i realise nobody said it was an AMAZING STUDY, yet when i start to question the validity of a study of this nature the defensive reaction is overwhelming.
3. the issues it supposedly raises: highlighting a culture where a certain attitude towards women can and does become dangerous. who has been trying to discuss that? from what i can see most of the arguments have been wishmasu trying to "discredit" or "out me" as a closet misogynist/possible sex offender. although i came close a few times with tiramisu on the actual topic at hand.
^ if it was genuinely about that, why didn't one of them reply to my original statements with "no, i think it is an important way to study this issue because..." instead of turning it into a pissing match?
he just also made sure to qualify that the points about normalization etc were important ones to pursue, even if this particular study doesn't really give evidence for them
i'm not sure how we're supposed to have a thoughtful discussion about the topic when everyone is nitpicking over the details of a study that NONE OF US HAVE EVEN READ. that's why i keep trying to focus on the issue that the study raises rather than the thing itself
fucking hell this is all so banal. AM OOT.
dunno what you're on about tbh
YOU MISOGYNIST BASTARD
but it's wishpig, as always. she gets extremely rude and snippy, fast.
clearly i wasn't being "snippy" (misogynist language alert!), i was being directly confrontational - not sure why THAT'S the thing you're most upset about in this whole thread. diddums.
Never heard about any misogynistic undertones. (Genuinely curious, not trollin'.)
(or to emasculate men) who appear, to the speaker, to be uptight or passive aggressive. it's really condescending to call someone 'snippy' - implying that what they're angry or upset about is not really important or it's insignificant in some way. as soon as you google image search the word you get a demotivational poster of hillary clinton. hmm...
by not engaging in a good debate, and derailing anyone who questions it. which is a shame, as there were potentially some good points in here.
also, how can i derail my own thread? pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing by focusing on my tone and not engaging with the topic at hand.
truly jaw-dropping. the arguments above are so incoherent and hung up on semantics it's almost parody.
because I never see anyone buying them and it's such a wierd and defunct media these days. Yet despite that they seem like a fixture of student lads' houses; a crumpled copy shoved down the side of every mungy settee. Occasionally you'll see someone pick it up on a hangover Sunday, flip through it dispiritedly, and then throw it away. I suppose it's just to have a couple of pretty pictures and easy to understand sentences within close reach. But paying for it? Fuck me. If I wanted kneejerk misogynism, tits, complete contempt for the audience and funny pictures, 4chan and reddit give it to me for free.
When they started out they were a pretty even balance of tits, cars, sport, and photos of horrific accidents. They were massively successful, but then the marketers got on board and did surveys where they gave people a list of things in the magazine - tits, cars, sport, accidents - and ask them to tick the one they'd like to see more of.
So now the magazines are mostly tit, and the demographic who mostly used to buy them is now too embarrassed to leave it lying around on the coffee table, potentially in front of a girlfriend. And the circulation drops, so they respond by putting more tits in (as their surveys tell them to). And it gets into a sort of vicious cycle of tits.
sums up this thread
I INCLUDE MYSELF IN THAT CYCLE BEFORE YOU CASTRATE ME
the idea that - because you think lucy pinder looks good with no clothes on - this allies you in some way with rapists or with misogyny (NB : this means HATRED OF WOMEN if you haven't looked it up) is really, really reductive and retarded. i would say that the the majority of people who read nuts and zoo recognise rape as an abominable act. i would also say that the 'short skirt' thing is less about 'defending rape' and more about apportioning blame for rape (it's still an idiotic shameful stance, but it's an important distinction)
'kneejerk misogyism'? seriously get a grip.
and I never even implied that. Also you seem to be confusing casual misogyny with "thinks rape is ok".
but that phrase summed it up.
magazines like nuts and zoo are more than anything else an outlet for sexual frustration, and as much as the wishpigs of this world may like to think otherwise, if anything they probably reduce the chances that the average reader is going to turn into a sex offender.
if you believe there's a lot of them out there one missed wank away from being a sex offender.
is arguing that the likes of Nuts and Zoo lead directly to rape (or maybe Wishpig did say that, I'm sure as hell not wading through that clusterfuck up there), that a bloke reads a sentence like "she'd get it, though you'd probably have to pin her down first" and says "that sounds like a jolly good idea, might go out and try that now".
The argument is whether lads mags contribute to a culture where rape and rape-y language is normalised, made to seem like an inconsequential thing. Whether or not this actually leads to rape is a very grey area, but one thing for sure is that it makes actual rape victims' lives more difficult. I can give an example. You play video games, don't you manbearpig? If you've played online FPSs at all you'll know that "rape" is a word used pretty much incessantly to mean "dominate"- "We raped that team hard." "That sniper is raping us." If I were one kind of rape victim that use of language wouldn't bother me at all- if I were another, it would make trying to have fun with that form of entertainment more or less impossible.
On the other side of the coin, you can argue that just because you say a word a lot of course doesn't make you likely to actually put it into action- it's like the false dichotomy that killing people in video games makes you likely to do it in real life. Except within this context the term "rape" is actually realler than what you are actually doing in the video game- it's what the real people you are playing with are actively describing what they are doing to you.
Still, no real harm done, right? I don't know if you go on video game web forums- I don't recommend it- but you would be amazed at the level of women hatred you will find on most. Girls are incapable of playing video games properly, any that do are attention whores, SlutWalks is an awful business and some of the blame for rape should quite rightly be apportioned to the victim, particularly as falsely accused rape is so prevalent. This often isn't a vocal minority, it's a majority opinion. You have a culture where if a rape victim lodges a complaint about a Penny Arcade cartoon which involves the word "rape", it causes an internet clusterfuck which ultimately results in the woman in question getting death threats. Why is it like this? Because they are frustrated young males who are often deprived of social contact, have no real understanding of what actual rape is like, and are bombarded by a culture in which rape is a phrase to bandy around casually.
Almost none of the lads who exist in that mindframe are ever likely to rape themselves- but they are part of a culture which jokes endlessly that women can't be trusted, that they are slaves to their emotions, that they lie, that they are attention seekers, that all they really want and need is a good porking, and eventually questions whether rape victims are partly to blame for what happened to them. This in turn makes the lives of often scarred for life people very, very difficult, and I think that's the real issue here.
that does sound pretty disturbing. christ.
that's clearly on a completely different level to nuts or zoo though. i haven't really flicked through the mags in a long time but i remember them being a lot more respectful of women than is being made out in this thread. it sexualises them, obviously, but not in a horrible dehumanising way
the study actually shows that real people found the real language used in lads' mags and the real language used by rapists hard to separate. this isn't conjecture.
where is the line between horrible, dehumanising sexualisation and non-horrible, non-dehumanising sexualisation?
may misrepresent a magazine?
there is a line. honestly, i sympathise with your argument in so many ways but if you think that sexualisation of women is something that's ever going to be 'abolished' for want of a better word, you're fighting a losing battle. do you envisage a future where men don't look at pictures of women with no clothes on? i know that's not what this thread is about but this is in response to your last point.
in that the quotes were taken directly from the magazines. the words were written in the magazines. they are from the magazines. unless the quotes were "i would never say this [quote]", i don't think there's a great deal to 'misrepresent'.
do you really think i'm saying BAN ALL PICTURES OF PEOPLE ANYWHERE IN CASE OF OBJECTIFICATION? it's an entirely different and very complex issue that i don't have the time or inclination to discuss with people (not you specifically) who are deliberately disregarding my point and willfully obfuscating an issue that i (and others on the site) have a personal interest in.
if i was 'reading' zoo and i read that bit about smashing on the park bench or whatever, it would strike me as unusually crass, considering the tone of the magazine in general. these researchers didn't just open up a copy of zoo and pick the first phrase that jumped out at them.
i don't really think you're saying that, but at times - like when you question whether there's such a thing as non-dehumanising sexualisation - you can see why people give you a hard time for being a bit in your views
that is defending rape. nobody is to blame for rape, apart from the rapist.
i think you're a little bit confused about how systemic, ingrained sexism and misogyny works. rapists and misogynists are not "other", not some separate subspecies that most people have nothing to do with. rapists generally aren't monsters like in films, they're normal people. it's obvious from the quotes that these particular rapists don't believe they've done anything wrong. this comes from a general, ingrained societal attitude that normalises their language and behaviour and helps them justify their actions to themselves. which i think is what the study is trying to highlight.
nobody wants to think of themselves as 'bad' in their life narrative so it's hard for people to confront the fact that they could be contributing to a culture that dismisses and hurts other people. it could be this, racism, homophobia etc. change can only occur by confronting these ingrained attitudes, not by saying 'well i, personally, would never do that so why are you attacking me'.
that 'nobody is to blame for rape, apart from the rapist' and the idea that 'general, ingrained societal attitude(s)' are responsible for sexual violence, as well as more general sexual discrimination? The two notions seem slightly at odds to me.
Not that I think rapists shouldn't be punished- of course they should be, the same way that anyone convicted of a crime should be. I just don't see how you can dole out complete indvidiual responsibility on one hand and then decry a patriarchal hegemony on the other.
."she was wearing a short skirt so we should "apportion" some of the blame onto her" attitude.
it's not as if every misogynist is also a rapist. the 'patriarchal hegemony' makes it easier for rapists to rape (and get away with it).
Well, I don't agree that those two ideas aren't slightly at odds (they aren't into total conflict with each other but I don't see that they sit comfortably side by side either) or really understand what your second paragraph relates to, but it's not a big deal- I agree with you more generally.
everyone is responsible for their actions (unless they're deemed insane or whatever), but it's easier for them to come to a certain conclusion within a supportive atmosphere.
it's pretty logically inconsistent with the rest of the penal system.
One day i'm gonna start a thread on this and it's gonna get like 300 replies and by the end of it everyone's gonna be like `ffs youre all such cunts why are you even arguing over this` and then i'm gonna take the moral high ground because i'll just copy danielkelly's posting style so no one can get angry with me.
If you're aiming to make people like you, there are other posters you should copy
In so far as that millions of men are exposed to this language and these social influences and do not and would not rape anyone whereas these men clearly have. I'd absolutely agree the language of lads' magazines is frequently highly unpleasant, objectifies women and contains far too many jokes based on blurring lines between consensual and non-consensual but most men read that and don't then commit sexual crimes against women. These men do and I don't think it's as simple as, as they themselves would like people to believe, they're normal men who made a bit of a misjudgement or misread the signs. They're people who derive pleasure from inflicting suffering on others and that's a big leap from something that most 'normal' people would do.
What I would agree on is that the language of lads' magazines might make them feel they're attitudes are more normal than they are and certainly provides them with a litany of excuses and justifications they can make to themselves and others and I'd agree with that much, and indeed that some of the attitudes they put forward and the culture they present is unhealthy but I don't believe that the language of lads' magazines turns 'normal' men into rapists but there is a question as to whether it it can make people who've got quite warped ideas think these are far more normal and prevalent than they really are. Which is something I don't know if there's been an effective study into.
they don't wear badges.
most women are raped by people they know and/or trust as friends, boyfriends and husbands. what's more normal than that?
again, it's not that the magazines are inciting rape or anything - it's that they contribute to an wider attitude that justifies and normalises degrading, dismissive language towards women.
are you a closet misogynist/ potential rapist?
but potential rapist - that's ridiculous. let's be real, if you rape another human it's because you have monumental anger and emotional management issues; issues that go way deeper than reading a few nuts mags which may or may not justify a culture that justifies rape.
in terms of sex games/fetishes etc, it's very tricky to decide where power-play ends and misogyny begins. things like facials, (hetero) anal sex, light bondage, hair pulling - all these things can simply be the thrill of submission and domination. they're 'thrilling' because you're adopting new or extreme interpretations of the roles you play in every day life, it's taboo and that's why it's exciting.
but, at some point it crosses a line. if a guy films a girl blowing him and then sends it to all his mates - that's not really about the consensual power-play anymore is it?
it's worth pointing out that the notion of dom/sub power exchange isn't necessarily in alignment with general cultural attitudes - it's just about the thrill of being either end of that spectrum. for example, business executives that go to a dominatrix once a week to be put into diapers and spoken to like a bitch - they're not doing that because they secretly hate men, it's just about the power release.
Why are people upset by this study? I don't get from it that there is some sort of link between reading low-brow lad magazines and raping women; I get that the same underlying cultural and social phenomena are contributing factors to the prevalence of those two very different things.
The study asks men which of the statements they identify with more but not how much they identify with them. Having seen the quotes, most of the quotes from lads' mags were much much worse than the quotes from the rapists. But whether people identified with both but identified a bit more with the rapists or whether people were a bit disgusted by both but were less disgusted by the quotes from the rapists is a very relevant question.
It's the difference between whether it means there's a load of feral men who utterly objectify women or it just means that lads' mags don't really represent the views of men at all.
The Lads' mags are trying to "shock" and push the envelope whilst the rapists are trying to normalise and justify their behaviour so it does make a huge difference how they come across. The problem with the rapists is you can only seen the words on the page and what they're trying to hide is likely to be the more chilling aspect.
but I'm not sure the purpose of the lanaguage is all that important- it's the effect that matters. 'Shocking' images and language do not retain their shock value over prolonged exposure. And tbh I'm not sure that lad mag content is designed to shock anyway. Who does it shock?
I guess I mean Lads' mags want to appear edgy and emulate what people perceive as 'lad talk' by saying the most extreme things about sex possible and are trying to make their relatively tame content seem as exciting and dangerous as possible whereas the rapists have done something really extreme and unpleasant and been castigated for it so are trying to explain their actions in terms that make themselves appear to be 'normal' men who've made a mistake so the magazines are more likely to choose language that seems fairly shocking and uncomfortable whereas the rapists are more likely to choose language that tries to hide those characteristics.
I guess it depends on what the point of the study is supposed to be. If it's that most men identify with rapists, I don't think that's the case. If it's that the language of men's magazines try to identify themselves with a certain type of male mindset that isn't very pleasant then certainly I'd agree that's true but I'm not sure how surprising it is. In a way I'd be more interested to know how much people who buy lads' magazines actually buy into the attitudes expressed in them as I wouldn't have thought that many did but might be depressingly wrong.
and everything to do with identifying with (either consciously or not, dunno) with what I guess you could call rape-scepticism. The vast majority of men do not rape anyone during the course of their life, but a worrying number of people (women included) exhibit unpleasant attitudes towards rape victims when pressed.
I don't see that the study is attempting to identify any direct cause and effect, rather just a broad correlation.
when people are attributing the opposite of what i said to me. is it deliberate or have you've LITERALLY not read what i wrote?
it's also nice to see you have no qualms about belittling disabled people too.
Richard Keys would you smash it desperate to be one of the lads types
I liked the classical music reviews at the back.
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild |