Best Quicktime Movie. Ever. [Archive]

ScottDodson

Oct 14, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by pepeleuepe
wow...if only I could download it... :)

I was thinking the same thing so I tried something.....

I right clicked on the link...saved link to disk, which gave me a quicktime video that streams from the web. In Quicktime Pro I just took that stream (after it completely loaded) and exported it full non compressed settings....and viola, my own personal copy of the video of the working chicks!!!

Also what I did was took a note from another thread in the forum (This one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41621)). I'm using the program Desktop Movie Player X...put the vid on mute...and it makes a DAMN NICE BACKGROUND!!!!

AAAHHHH, I love this world

idea_hamster

Oct 14, 2003, 10:07 PM

You could use Site Sucker (http://www.sitesucker.us/)....

Step 1: Paste URL into Site Sucker and press return.
Step 2: Smuggly consider how easy that was.

It's actually quite a neat program -- quite helpful in many circumstances. Doesn't always get everything, but still, pretty good overall.

MrMacMan

Oct 14, 2003, 10:53 PM

Err or you can right click and open in quicktime them save it (QuickTime Pro Baby!)

BTW, this is old...

I remember this being in Community Disc.

It is still a nice video.

the song by itself gets repetitive and old.

ScottDodson

Oct 14, 2003, 11:35 PM

Doh...LOL, oh so many ways, and I had to pick the longest and stupidest.....sometimes I wonder about myself :rolleyes:

I DON'T CARE....STILL GOT THE VID!!! :D

Vector

Oct 14, 2003, 11:47 PM

i dont know what to say.

I had no trouble downloading and saving it. just drag the movie to the desktop, double click on the movie clipping file, click save as in quicktime pro and then select self contained. You must keep the original window open in your browser or it will not work.

Powertools and girls, this thread has definitly lived up to its title.

Powerbook G5

Oct 14, 2003, 11:49 PM

That's just a little disturbing...

shadowfax

Oct 14, 2003, 11:58 PM

i was expecting something funny... bah. there was nothing rewarding about that movie at all. it wasn't particularly well-synchronized, the women weren't idealized to any particularly interesting end, it wasn't remotely funny... it felt like the whole point was to make something risqué, and i detest meaningless sexuality. sorry, no stars to that "best quicktime movie ever."

FuzzyBallz

Oct 15, 2003, 12:00 AM

Heavy Duty Breaker anyone? Jiggle... jiggle... jiggle...

Look like Australian models.

"That's just a little disturbing..."

What, you don't like jiggling asses and boobs?

BTW, to save the video, open the link w/ IE, play it, and find it in the Temporary Internet Folder. 14.1MB.

ScottDodson

Oct 15, 2003, 12:14 AM

LOL...sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think this video was made to have the women idealized to any particular interesting end. :rolleyes: IT'S A SEXY VIDEO...THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN ENDING OR UNDERLINING MEANING. I just believe you are trying to look to deep, and find something there isn't.

And as far as funny....I don't remember the person that posted it saying that this was a funny video.

You have a choice to detest meaningless sexuality...wait a minute...you are the guy with some sexy chick as your avatar, and with links to a new sexy pic of her in your sig....hhhhmmmm...you can't detest it that much. Anyway, although you and priests detest this stuff, about 92% of all other males eat this stuff up...I love the vid, and I'm giving you mucho stars.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 12:23 AM

dude, you may think the girl in my avatar is hot, but that's not why i like her at all. i like her because she's beautiful. her beauty, for me, is not in terms of some vulgar sexuality exploited by dressing scantily and making suggestive gyrations and moans, but from the way she holds her head, the way she looks down, or at you, or what have you... she doesn't come off as a sex object at all, and if she does to you, well, thanks for proving my point.

coolbreeze

Oct 15, 2003, 12:32 AM

Whoever put that together has some talent!! Great song....cool tools. Oh yeah, the women aren't that bad either...:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

coolbreeze

Oct 15, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
That's just a little disturbing...
:confused: :confused: Did you just say that :confused: :confused:

To each his own, I suppose.:D

maradong

Oct 15, 2003, 12:54 AM

I like the movie :)

Anybody else got some nice streams. please STW, could be interesting ;-) ?!

Esp. Benny Banissi clips would be cool :)

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
dude, you may think the girl in my avatar is hot, but that's not why i like her at all. i like her because she's beautiful. her beauty, for me, is not in terms of some vulgar sexuality exploited by dressing scantily and making suggestive gyrations and moans, but from the way she holds her head, the way she looks down, or at you, or what have you... she doesn't come off as a sex object at all, and if she does to you, well, thanks for proving my point.

Get off your high horse. I would hazard a guess that you have never met "Tanaka Rena" or even seen her in person. Therefore, she is nothing but an image on the screen to you. Whether you are admiring her face or her breasts, you are still ogling a body part. Whether she is wearing a precious little sundress while gazing at an orchid or a sweat-soaked tank top with her tits popping out, she is still a fantasy object. Whether you fantasize about wooing her with chocolate-covered strawberries on a beach or having your way with her on a table saw in Home Depot, it will still never EVER happen.

Therefore, if you detest meaningless sexuality, then you detest yourself. I think that's the real problem here. Stop trying to bring other people down so you can feel better about your own obsessions.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by aphexist
Get off your high horse. I would hazard a guess that you have never met "Tanaka Rena" or even seen her in person. Therefore, she is nothing but an image on the screen to you. Whether you are admiring her face or her breasts, you are still ogling a body part. Whether she is wearing a precious little sundress while gazing at an orchid or a sweat-soaked tank top with her tits popping out, she is still a fantasy object. Whether you fantasize about wooing her with chocolate-covered strawberries on a beach or having your way with her on a table saw in Home Depot, it will still never EVER happen.

Therefore, if you detest meaningless sexuality, then you detest yourself. I think that's the real problem here. Stop trying to bring other people down so you can feel better about your own obsessions. OK, so... the moral of your story is that the Venus de Milo, for instance, is only art inasmuch as it is meaninglessly sexual? that's asinine, it reflects that you're trying to apologize for the shallowness of your own cheap thought. fantasy is not innately meaningless.

what you fail to grasp is that it's not the "ogling of a body part" that i was ever condemning. meaningless sexuality is not "ogling," it's taking something that should be part of something else and erecting it as an entity after its own right. that's what's cheap. fantasy is not cheap. beauty is not cheap.

if you don't see a difference between titian and porn, that's your loss, not my hypocrisy.

ScottDodson

Oct 15, 2003, 01:37 AM

aaahhh, you have saved me the trouble aphexist.......I would much rather look at that video again, than to have some "poetic intelligence battle" to see who can put together a paragraph better....bottom line, sex is an animal instinct, and that vid tells me it's matin' season. So if I proved your point by implying that I am some un-intelligent man..and all I can say is "boobies...me want boobies" you have it all wrong. So what if I like hot, tan, oiled up chicks shaking what god gave them........and you, oddly enough don't. Just don't take the vid and get all artsy and crap on it...that was (and still is) my biggest peeve in the film industry. People try to sound waaaay to smart to impress people, saying they don't see the "real meaning", and yadda yadda yadda.....just take it for what it is, a vid to turn men on with normal sexual impulses.

MacBandit

Oct 15, 2003, 01:40 AM

That was very nice. My only question is how in the hell did you find it? I can't seem to figure out how to find anything of interest on Apples Quicktime site.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by ScottDodson
aaahhh, you have saved me the trouble aphexist.......I would much rather look at that video again, than to have some "poetic intelligence battle" to see who can put together a paragraph better....bottom line, sex is an animal instinct, and that vid tells me it's matin' season. So if I proved your point by implying that I am some un-intelligent man..and all I can say is "boobies...me want boobies" you have it all wrong. So what if I like hot, tan, oiled up chicks shaking what god gave them........and you, oddly enough don't. Just don't take the vid and get all artsy and crap on it...that was (and still is) my biggest peeve in the film industry. People try to sound waaaay to smart to impress people, saying they don't see the "real meaning", and yadda yadda yadda.....just take it for what it is, a vid to turn men on with normal sexual impulses. i love a woman behaving sexually... but sexually just to get everyone off who cares to watch? that makes me feel cheap. and by the way, i wasn't insulting your intelligence. no matter how hard you try, you'll never be nothing but an animal who mindlessly succumbs to his every desire. you are a rational human being who choses to do such a thing. it doesn't make you stupid. the choice is an ethical one--it involves the value you place on yourself and the women you look at, and the respect that you then afford that value. it has nothing to do with your intellect, per se. whether you have an IQ of 60 or 160 makes no difference.

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
if you don't see a difference between titian and porn, that's your loss, not my hypocrisy.

I've not mentioned what I think of either the movie in question or your Asian lolita. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether I can see the difference between them or not.

I can see the similarities however. Both are alluring pictures of females. Neither are art. Both are nearly infinintely mass-produced in digital form.

Basically, there is no disputing taste. So you have no right to pass judgement on others for having a preference.

For the record, up until the last sentence of your second post, I had no problem with anything you wrote.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by aphexist
I've not mentioned what I think of either the movie in question or your Asian lolita. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether I can see the difference between them or not.

I can see the similarities however. Both are alluring pictures of females. Neither are art. Both are nearly infinintely mass-produced in digital form.

Basically, there is no disputing taste. So you have no right to pass judgement on others for having a preference.

For the record, up until the last sentence of your second post, I had no problem with anything you wrote. that's your interpretation, again. however, from a philosophical standpoint, beauty is very much an ethical issue. as such, one's ethics plays an important role in the determination of his aesthetic. and inasmuch as i can pass judgment on actions via ethics, i can pass judgment on objects via my aesthetic. every specific set of ethics passes judgment on other ethics. for instance, if i uphold that murder is unethical, i thereby judge that any system of ethics permitting murder are flawed, and, to me, unethical. in much the same manner, inasmuch as my set of values determines that sexuality unto itself is wrong, my aesthetic judges that things that exploit such a thing are not beautiful or good. and likewise, it mandates that i pass judgment on the system of ethics and its matching aesthetic that glory in such a thing.

all that to say, that's my appraisal of your values, and i have every right to do that. you're welcome to resent it, of course.

you can say i am on a high horse, if it makes you feel better. but i have offered my defense that such is not the case: passing judgment on something does not imply arrogance, and this issue here is most certainly not an issue of "brown eyes or blue eyes" or "asian or italian food?" --at least, not to my system of ethics.

about your assessment that photography is not art or that mass availability of something via the internet cheapens art: to the former, i simply categorically disagree with you. photography is a fabulous art form, and inasmuch as making portraits and sculptures of a person is art, so too is taking a picture of a person; to the latter, that's just simply uninformed. i can get almost all great art as a digital image on my computer via the internet. sure, it's not the same as being there with the original canvas, but that doesn't cheapen it.

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 02:16 AM

I always thought that there was a double meaning with this video. Yeah, there is the obvious and overt oogling. But I also think there is a comment about sex in our society. Sex sells everything in this country, from beer to clothing to cars to just about anything you could think of. The video is supposed to look like a commercial for tools. It seemed to me that commercials for powertools would probably be the last place to have a "sex sells" theme. And yet in this video/commercial, you could hardly be less subtle. Maybe this is the point? Maybe Benissi would agree with shadowfax? I'm not sure.

Perhaps one might find this video offensive, but this is hardly anything that one can't find in any magazine such as Cosmo, FHM, Maxim, etc.

Do I find the women in this video enticing? You bet I do. I don't think one should have to apologize for finding the female form attractive.

Someone asked how I found this video: A friend sent me the link. I have no idea how he found it. I supposed I could ask if anyone really cares.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Mason
I always thought that there was a double meaning with this video. Yeah, there is the obvious and overt oogling. But I also think there is a comment about sex in our society. Sex sells everything in this country, from beer to clothing to cars to just about anything you could think of. The video is supposed to look like a commercial for tools. It seemed to me that commercials for powertools would probably be the last place to have a "sex sells" theme. And yet in this video/commercial, you could hardly be less subtle. Maybe this is the point? Maybe Benissi would agree with shadowfax? I'm not sure. hm, that could be the missing joke/point... i realized right off that they were trying at some level to parody both the "sex sells" advertising in america as well as mock the prejudice against women working with power tools; the thing i dislike about it is that it doesn't do this very effectively, in my opinion. i didn't laugh, or even smile, and i love humor--especially humor that makes fun of sexual mores in a witty manner.

but still, at the same time, liking this as something you can "get off to" doesn't land well with me, and from my perspective this film lends itself much more to that than a piece of humor.

the macintosh voice was a nice touch, though, it certainly added the flavor of the thoughtlessness of "sex sells" advertising that you suggest the producers are jabbing at. the elements of what you say are most certainly there.

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
about your assessment that photography is not art or that mass availability of something via the internet cheapens art: to the former, i simply categorically disagree with you. photography is a fabulous art form, and inasmuch as making portraits and sculptures of a person is art, so too is taking a picture of a person; to the latter, that's just simply uninformed. i can get almost all great art as a digital image on my computer via the internet. sure, it's not the same as being there with the original canvas, but that doesn't cheapen it.

I don't remember saying anything remotely like "photography is not an art." Oh, wait. I didn't. Fabulous!

Regardless, I do have trouble believing that you would place a JPG on the same level as a gelatin print or a negative. I believe that mass-production does cheapen art. It may not cheapen the effect that it has on any given connoisseur, but a unique piece is priceless.

Therefore, upon bringing up a Renaissance painter and the Venus de Milo as justification, your argument strained a bit.

Nevertheless, who can deny the tongue-in-cheekiness of this video. Obviously a juxtoposition of the colorful men that usually operate the equipment being displayed. Not that original, but clever and gaudy. Thumbs down on as viewing women as objects, but at least they are in a position of control and power rather than being reduced to helpless nymphets.

revenuee

Oct 15, 2003, 02:41 AM

It's a techno music video. It's not supposed to make sence - i have yet to see a techno music video that does

Sandstrom anyone.. LOL

And then my favourite 2 hour music Video - Run Lola Run, ya i know it won tons of awards and stuff - still doesn't mean i like it...

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
hm, that could be the missing joke/point... i realized right off that they were trying at some level to parody both the "sex sells" advertising in america as well as mock the prejudice against women working with power tools; the thing i dislike about it is that it doesn't do this very effectively, in my opinion. i didn't laugh, or even smile, and i love humor--especially humor that makes fun of sexual mores in a witty manner.

but still, at the same time, liking this as something you can "get off to" doesn't land well with me, and from my perspective this film lends itself much more to that than a piece of humor.

the macintosh voice was a nice touch, though, it certainly added the flavor of the thoughtlessness of "sex sells" advertising that you suggest the producers are jabbing at. the elements of what you say are most certainly there.

Hmm. Here's what I don't understand. You say you enjoy humor that mocks sexual mores. But aren't you, to some degree, taking the moral high ground with regard to the images this video presents? Is your problem that that it is not very effective in communicating that message? Or is it just the suggestive images?

I don't see how you can appreciate mocking social mores but then criticize people for enjoying this video.

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 02:48 AM

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by aphexist
I don't remember saying anything remotely like "photography is not an art." Oh, wait. I didn't. Fabulous! your taking that out of context--i specifically made my argument not about photography in general but about the practice of photographing people. you called her an "Asian Lolita--" a seductive teenaged girl, which is only half true. she's asian and a girl, but not teenaged or seductive: the body of her photography contains nothing that's intentionally seductive, especially not in a pornographic sense, which the term "lolita" very much connotes--as such, i very much resent your comment. if it were true, i would agree with you that the photos i put in my avatar are not art. however, the photographs that appear in my avatar depict and communicate emotion--from abject, painful disheartedness to playful, childish vanity. that's art. i can show you great paintings by artists like hopper and manet that rest on very similar things. i can't seem to find any art, though, that could really be considered porn--unless you're john ashcroft, that is :p

again, my statement was broad, taken out of context (which you did), but in the context of my argument you should know exactly what i meant. if you want to actually make an argument that the photography i put in my avatar is not art, though, i'll be glad to engage you in such an argument.

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
if it were true, i would agree with you that the photos i put in my avatar are not art. however, the photographs that appear in my avatar depict and communicate emotion--from abject, painful disheartedness to playful, childish vanity.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that pictures that are seductive cannot be considered art?

revenuee

Oct 15, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
i can't seem to find any art, though, that could really be considered porn--unless you're john ashcroft, that is :p
.

Robert Mapplethorpe

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Mason
Hmm. Here's what I don't understand. You say you enjoy humor that mocks sexual mores. But aren't you, to some degree, taking the moral high ground with regard to the images this video presents? Is your problem that that it is not very effective in communicating that message? Or is it just the suggestive images?

I don't see how you can appreciate mocking social mores but then criticize people for enjoying this video. it's pretty simple: it's like the difference between appreciating, say, "A Modest Proposal," a piece of literature that mockingly suggests that we eat children as a solution to the problem of poverty, and enjoying, say, a show that seriously advocates cannibalism.

there's a difference between enjoying a mockery of someone's laughable ways and actually enjoying those laughable ways.

the thing i am saying about this video is that even though it is to some extent a mockery of our sexual mores, i don't think that it communicates that mockery nearly well enough. and the thing that would bother me about someone enjoying this is that mmmm.... boobs! thing. it's like someone spanking it to a work of art that involves a nude, from this perspective.

does that make sense, even though you may not agree?

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Mason
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that pictures that are seductive cannot be considered art? no, not at all. i'd have to say that the Mona Lisa, along with just about all art involving women, is not art, to do that. what i am talking about is pictures that do almost nothing but play off your basest emotion/feeling of sexuality, solely for the sake of hooking you or getting you off. that's porn, not art.

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
the body of her photography contains nothing that's intentionally seductive

Sorry, brah. I didn't want to be the one to tell you but...she is a little seductive. RESENT!

http://members.lycos.co.uk/akanekanezawa/rena/rena2.jpg

http://members.lycos.co.uk/akanekanezawa/rena/rena11.jpg

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 03:02 AM

aphexist, mason: sorry to cut this short, but i'm off to bed for now; i don't know when i'll have time again to respond... maybe tomorrow, though i may be too busy--it kinda looks that way right now. it's been a cool discussion so far, though; don't think i'm dropping out if it takes awhile for me to respond :)

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
aphexist, mason: sorry to cut this short, but i'm off to bed for now; i don't know when i'll have time again to respond... maybe tomorrow, though i may be too busy--it kinda looks that way right now. it's been a cool discussion so far, though; don't think i'm dropping out if it takes awhile for me to respond :)

Goodnight. Good discussion.

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
it's pretty simple: it's like the difference between appreciating, say, "A Modest Proposal," a piece of literature that mockingly suggests that we eat children as a solution to the problem of poverty, and enjoying, say, a show that seriously advocates cannibalism.

there's a difference between enjoying a mockery of someone's laughable ways and actually enjoying those laughable ways.

the thing i am saying about this video is that even though it is to some extent a mockery of our sexual mores, i don't think that it communicates that mockery nearly well enough. and the thing that would bother me about someone enjoying this is that mmmm.... boobs! thing. it's like someone spanking it to a work of art that involves a nude, from this perspective.

does that make sense, even though you may not agree?

Well, "A Modest Proposal" is probably an extreme example. One might also consider the case of Saturday Night Live making fun of a commercial - can't one enjoy both the parody and the commercial?

It seems to me your main objection is what appears, to you, to be an objectification of the female form. There is certainly some of that in this video, but there is also a level of depth that would not be found in your typical music video or sex-sells commercial.

Anyway, it is late. If you wish to discuss this further, I'll respond in the morning.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by aphexist
Sorry, brah. I didn't want to be the one to tell you but...she is a little seductive. RESENT! oh, a little. really, you can see it in any of her photos, if you want to--inasmuch as seduction is drawing you towards something; beauty is very much a magnet :)

but both of those pictures are casual of pose. she's reclining, or relaxing, not attempting to show off, for instance, her breasts. as such, those pictures aren't specifically seductive, like, say this (slightly tenuous)

http://207.44.210.55/402//norika_fujiwara/061.jpg

or this (pretty blatant)

http://207.44.210.55/402/hiroko_anzai/hiroko_anzai117.jpg

for a model, rena's image collection is strikingly modest.

edit: i know i said i was going... heh, just saw that comment as i left. OK, i'm going...

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 03:10 AM

Um. I would probably classify those pictures as seductive - or at least trying to be.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Mason
Um. I would probably classify those pictures as seductive - or at least trying to be. which? the ones i posted? yeah, those are of other girls; i would never put them in my avatar; they rather bother me.

alright! i'm going!

Mason

Oct 15, 2003, 03:20 AM

shadow:

I'm curious as to what you think about this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/tunak.php

mac15

Oct 15, 2003, 04:03 AM

thats one awesome movie, I can do nothing but sit and watch when that video comes on channel V/MTV . Top notch stuff :)

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Mason
shadow:

I'm curious as to what you think about this:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/tunak.php in terms of the video itself, it's really funny. i have no idea what he's singing about, though. i've seen a lot of indians copy that "dance" at parties, heh.

G3-Pwnz-G4

Oct 15, 2003, 09:21 AM

ladies, ladies please. can we just agree to disagree and move onto the next topic?

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
ladies, ladies please. can we just agree to disagree and move onto the next topic? before you take shots at us, why don't you try making a post in the thread that actually contributes something? we had a great discussion, whether you enjoyed it or not; your comment is unfriendly and uncalled for.

maradong

Oct 15, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
before you take shots at us, why don't you try making a post in the thread that actually contributes something? we had a great discussion, whether you enjoyed it or not; your comment is unfriendly and uncalled for.

5/5 for that one shadow :)

FuzzyBallz

Oct 15, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
i like her because she's beautiful. her beauty, for me, is not in terms of some vulgar sexuality exploited by dressing scantily and making suggestive gyrations and moans, but from the way she holds her head, the way she looks down, or at you, or what have you... she doesn't come off as a sex object at all, and if she does to you, well, thanks for proving my point.

If that's your opinion, you might as well put some statue in your avator. Don't tell me you won't get tire of the chicks in your avator and eventually have thoughts of turning them around and doing them doggy style, then pile driver, and reverse cowgirl, follow by unloading a blast of...

eclipse525

Oct 15, 2003, 10:37 AM

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by FuzzyBallz
If that's your opinion, you might as well put some statue in your avator. Don't tell me you won't get tire of the chicks in your avator and eventually have thoughts of turning them around and doing them doggy style, then pile driver, and reverse cowgirl, follow by unloading a blast of... what i may or may not think of it at some undetermined point in the future is irrelevant. you can fantasize about having sex with any woman that you see, whether she's dressed or not, and regardless of her poise. however, there is a difference between poses and dressing that actually demand or lend themselves towards such thoughts as you refer to, and dressing and poses that do no such thing. rena does not, in the way she dresses, make viewers think that she is open to sexuality, as that woman who is cupping her breasts (above) does. that's the key difference i am talking about.

i mean, your point is so irrelevant to what the art actually is. a pedophile can look at a 12 year old girl and want to violate her in the most disgusting ways, but that won't make that girl a whore.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by eclipse525
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.<dr. evil voice> ........BUT if she was real, you'd probably like to hit it, if given the opportunity. That's what is wrong with a good portion of people. The are too uptight (sexually) and look into things WAY too much. Just enjoy the damn thing and if it makes you uncomfortable, then find one that has Men in it. If it floats your boat. IF not, then you need help.

~e people, what is your problem with me expressing a moral view? you people keep coming back and admonishing me to succumb to my basic feelings becaus you just know they must be good. OK, i can gather that you think that pretty easily. but why must you insist that it's me who's thinking about things too much and is being uptight?

seriously, what kind of argument are you making? if i disdain the idea of getting off to porn, i must be gay? oh, that's sensible!

idea_hamster

Oct 15, 2003, 11:15 AM

This thread reminds me a bit of a scene from the film Barcelona where the Navy Lieutenant and his business-man cousin are discussing literary criticism.

"What is it with the sub-text?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you always hear so much about the sub-text. I mean, what do you call that layer just above the sub-text?"
"Um ... that would be ... the text."
"Right. Why doesn't somebody write something about that?"

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by idea_hamster
This thread reminds me a bit of a scene from the film Barcelona where the Navy Lieutenant and his business-man cousin are discussing literary criticism.

"What is it with the sub-text?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, you always hear so much about the sub-text. I mean, what do you call that layer just above the sub-text?"
"Um ... that would be ... the text."
"Right. Why doesn't somebody write something about that?" who cares about OT? technically, we have converted this thread so much that it belongs in the community discussion section. ;)

heh, that dialogue reminds me of Joseph Heller's style.

idea_hamster

Oct 15, 2003, 12:09 PM

Ha! You don't say whether that's good or bad -- but if you like Heller's dark comedy, might I suggest Riotous Assembly by Tom Sharpe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0871131439/102-2629392-9653711). It was written at the height of Apartheid in ZA, and is a wicked, Keystone-Cops-meets-1984 look at the South African police. Had me in tears.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by idea_hamster
Ha! You don't say whether that's good or bad -- but if you like Heller's dark comedy, might I suggest Riotous Assembly by Tom Sharpe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0871131439/102-2629392-9653711). It was written at the height of Apartheid in ZA, and is a wicked, Keystone-Cops-meets-1984 look at the South African police. Had me in tears. Catch-22 is probably my favorite book, ever. the final scene of Snowden's death is some of the most intense writing i have ever read anywhere. it's simply beautiful, in that dark sense. i liked "Good as Gold," too, but not as much.

dstorey

Oct 15, 2003, 12:19 PM

I think (only my opinion) that that girl is selling sex as much as the other girls (such as in the video) just to different markets. The whole point in a model is to sell sex, at its most basic level. The boobs out model is a lot more obvious and aimd at a very animal instinct, but the other girl, even though she's not totally exposed (not dressed like a libarian either, mind you) is aimed more at the target group of people that would like a girl they could take home, meet the parent, feel special with etc...it's still playing to the instinct of 'hey i'd love to be with her', either directly in the bed or via a relationship etc. If it wasn't about sexuality at all, why not just pick an ugly looking girl for example, thats beautiful inside, or even have her lying on a bed? None of us knows (i would guess) how beautiful either of these girls are in person. The 'sexy girls' could quite easy be very smart and nice girls, just they get paid good money to 'act' like that, just as the asian girl could be really stuck up and aragant in person and 'acts' sweet and innocent on camera...we only see whats caught on the film. Personally I prefere the girl in shadwfax's avatar, by a long way cause i much prefere sweeter more innocent looking girls, so i guess shes more marketed at me. But its all fantasy at the end of the day.

BTW lolita isn't really anything pornographic, it just means a girl that is half the age of the guy they are with....

idea_hamster

Oct 15, 2003, 01:12 PM

I kind of though -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that shadowfax's complaint was that the video was selling a sexual image with no other message, no other real content. If I want to eat something sweet, I don't eat a packet of sugar -- but that's what I think she thought of the video. Less about marketing, although the marketing people do want to know this kind of info.

Also, you're right that the term lolita isn't pornographic, but it's not just some May-December romance thing either: it's pedophilic -- the Nabakov book makes that clear.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
I think (only my opinion) that that girl is selling sex as much as the other girls (such as in the video) just to different markets. The whole point in a model is to sell sex, at its most basic level. The boobs out model is a lot more obvious and aimd at a very animal instinct, but the other girl, even though she's not totally exposed (not dressed like a libarian either, mind you) is aimed more at the target group of people that would like a girl they could take home, meet the parent, feel special with etc...it's still playing to the instinct of 'hey i'd love to be with her', either directly in the bed or via a relationship etc. If it wasn't about sexuality at all, why not just pick an ugly looking girl for example, thats beautiful inside, or even have her lying on a bed? None of us knows (i would guess) how beautiful either of these girls are in person. The 'sexy girls' could quite easy be very smart and nice girls, just they get paid good money to 'act' like that, just as the asian girl could be really stuck up and aragant in person and 'acts' sweet and innocent on camera...we only see whats caught on the film. Personally I prefere the girl in shadwfax's avatar, by a long way cause i much prefere sweeter more innocent looking girls, so i guess shes more marketed at me. But its all fantasy at the end of the day.

BTW lolita isn't really anything pornographic, it just means a girl that is half the age of the guy they are with.... again, though, you made my point. i'm not condemning sexuality. i'm condemning sexuality out of context and as a entity unto itself. the girl who's cupping her breasts very plaintively communicates that she is intent on having sex, or at least making you think that's what she wants. she doesn't give qualifications, it's just sex. that's cheap and meaningless. a well-clothed model in a non-erotic pose, on the other hand, is giving qualifications through her pose: "i'm not showing off my stuff to anyone who cares to look; sure, i may be gorgeous, and i'm probably no prudish bitch with a platonic view of sexuality, but at the same time, i'm not whoring myself to a camera and by extension everyone that looks." there is a huge, huge difference.

again, from the start, i have not condemned sexuality entirely. i have specific criteria under which it should be condemned (for me).

as i said, art very commonly plays off of fantasy of one kind or another. a fantasy is an idealization of something; idealization is one of the earliest forms of art (think greek, roman art here).

about lolitas:

from dictionary.com
Lo·li·ta __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(l-lt)
n.
A seductive adolescent girl.

a few from urbandictionary.com
"A fine young female who has a developed body at a young age. Too young to get with however.."

"Hot Young females Steve and I hit on:
This fine lolita was walking past me today and i said ... damnnnn"

"The little lovely gurls. (9 to 16 yrs old)."

"The stuff mikey129 looks at to get off:
That mikey129 sure is one sick **** for looking at that lolita porn!"
the word doesn't seem to have anything to do with young girls sleeping with older men, but even if that were the case, the word is clearly pretty connotative of very inappropriate thoughts about very, very young girls.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by idea_hamster
I kind of though -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that shadowfax's complaint was that the video was selling a sexual image with no other message, no other real content. If I want to eat something sweet, I don't eat a packet of sugar -- but that's what I think she thought of the video. Less about marketing, although the marketing people do want to know this kind of info.

Also, you're right that the term lolita isn't pornographic, but it's not just some May-December romance thing either: it's pedophilic -- the Nabakov book makes that clear. i'm a he, actually--sorry :p

but you interpreted what i said right, heh. and i realize that as far as the video goes, i took it rather far. it certainly tries to do more than turn you on--it tries to mock the fact that it can do that to you, i guess. my problem with it is that it doesn't come off as clearly as i would prefer :)

dstorey

Oct 15, 2003, 01:38 PM

personally, I'm not into it, but can't really condem it. If I'm not interested in it, I wont watch it... If it's other people animalistic choice to like sexual stuff then so be it, the world would be very boring if everyone just liked one thing (and much more compitition ;)) After all its between two concenting adults. No one forced the girls to pose like that for example, I'm sure they are quite happy with it, and get paid very well.

How do you stand on 'erotic art', as in photos of nude girl, or semi nude, done in a more tasteful way. That shows just as much or more flesh, just done in a style like maybe the old nude paintings...only difference is they are photographs. All are showing naked women in seductive ways...its a very grey area really...whats art....

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
How do you stand on 'erotic art', as in photos of nude girl, or semi nude, done in a more tasteful way. That shows just as much or more flesh, just done in a style like maybe the old nude paintings...only difference is they are photographs. All are showing naked women in seductive ways...its a very grey area really...whats art.... as i've mentioned, i think that a lot of great art involves the nude. i've constantly been citing greek art, such as the venus de milo, as great art. nudity is not intrinsically sexual any more than a clothed figure is. the sexuality of a form comes through especially in the way the figure holds him/herself. this can be "enhanced" or intensified by nudity, or scant clothing.

there are certainly gray areas. sometimes it's hard to tell whether a work has any depth to it, or whether it's just meaninglessly playing off a sexual response. i'll agree that this video is definitely in that gray area.

as to whether or not you can make a value judgment about other views: that depends on whether or not your own world view... i have no such qualms about evaluating the morality of things :)

ScottDodson

Oct 15, 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
a pedophile can look at a 12 year old girl and want to violate her in the most disgusting ways, but that won't make that girl a whore.

I think your example has a little flaw in there.....

I agree with you that a 12 year old girl isn't considered a whore for being the object of desire in that case...but for what reason?? Because she isn't trying to intice the older man/woman in that situation. But your Rena, in her "art" is trying to intice men/women to having thoughts and feelings about her, in some words "whoring" her self to peoples minds. Models are models for a reason...and it's not to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it's to tap into male interests and fantasies. After all she is good looking isn't she???

Do people actually use the word "qualms"?? It sounds to me that someone has fell victim to the "power of the vocabulary" audio series.....just by your wording you are trying to come off as an artistic elitist...or superior, which is the basis of my first argument.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by ScottDodson
I think your example has a little flaw in there.....

I agree with you that a 12 year old girl isn't considered a whore for being the object of desire in that case...but for what reason?? Because she isn't trying to intice the older man/woman in that situation. But your Rena, in her "art" is trying to intice men/women to having thoughts and feelings about her, in some words "whoring" her self to peoples minds. Models are models for a reason...and it's not to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it's to tap into male interests and fantasies. After all she is good looking isn't she???
how many times am i going to say that i am not indicting fantasy? fantasy is an integral part of art; there's nothing wrong with it. there's also nothing wrong with sex, intrinsically.

the fact that a model is beautiful is not a bad thing. the fact that beauty attracts is not a bad thing either. in fact, you could say that it's at least a partial definition of beauty.

obviously a model has to be beautiful. beaity draws people in. but beauty is not entirely or only sexual, for one thing, and it's not something that's skewed to attract men using their primal instincts. that's a part of it. my point is that it's bad to try to reduce things to just bare sexuality, because it's meaningless. sex is not meaning, it's a means. it's made good or bad by what you do with it. this is obvious on at least some level: rape is sex. rape is wrong. wouldn't you agree?

"my" rena makes no concerted effort to entice men/women to think of her in a sexual manner.
Do people actually use the word "qualms"?? It sounds to me that someone has fell victim to the "power of the vocabulary" audio series.....just by your wording you are trying to come off as an artistic elitist...or superior, which is the basis of my first argument. no, that's not what i am trying to do. i have a large vocabulary... and i didn't get it by using the smallest set of words i possibly could. you get a big vocabulary by using a wide array of words. i'm not trying to impress you, it's just my habit to speak in this manner. i do adjust for audiences, though. i don't use uncommon or complicated words with, for instance, children, but my assumption is that this audience is educated enough to understand my vocabulary or look it up if necessary. i'm sorry if you don't like that or think it's stuck up. i love it when people use unfamiliar words in writing. it gives me a chance to learn something new. i think an outlook such as that is much more effective than being paranoid about people trying to insult your intelligence or humble you about your bad vocabulary.

Sun Baked

Oct 15, 2003, 03:49 PM

I guess if I better not switch my avatar, to something a little more risqué. :p

Though I'm still waiting for shorts of this video to come out as avatars.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I guess if I better not switch my avatar, to something a little more risqué. :p

Though I'm still waiting for shorts of this video to come out as avatars. you need the applemacdude 'tar... the banana fscking thing you posted all the time in the geek thread....

dstorey

Oct 15, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
but beauty is not entirely or only sexual, for one thing, and it's not something that's skewed to attract men using their primal instincts. that's a part of it.

rape is sex. rape is wrong. wouldn't you agree?

"my" rena makes no concerted effort to entice men/women to think of her in a sexual manner.

One one can truly answer the first point, as it's mearly a point of view, which ever way you go but, we are animals, just as a peacock or whatever. A lot of animals use beauty to attract their mate...as an animal its suvival of the fittest, and breeding is one of the most important functions to survive as a species. The only reason a lot of animals have brigtly colour feathers/fur whatever is to look beautiful and attract a mate...and its highly possible that thats the reason with humans too...we are a more desirable mate if we are beautiful..obviously humans (in general) have evolved to take more into account than just beauty and fitness.

on your other comment, then yes rape is wrong, but thats something different...rape is A) illigal, but B) more importantly, is between a concenting and a non-consenting person. That unrrealted to sexual advertising, where both the audience agree to look at it, and the model agrees to be shor in that way.

I'd disagree with your point about Rena...its her job in many aspects to do just that , and get guys to think of her in a sexual manor...just in a more subtle way. It's less in your face but it's still there...the bed, the short shorts, the hand on the thigh, tyhe dress with holes in etc....

G3-Pwnz-G4

Oct 15, 2003, 04:38 PM

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
One one can truly answer the first point, as it's mearly a point of view, which ever way you go but, we are animals, just as a peacock or whatever. A lot of animals use beauty to attract their mate...as an animal its suvival of the fittest, and breeding is one of the most important functions to survive as a species. The only reason a lot of animals have brigtly colour feathers/fur whatever is to look beautiful and attract a mate...and its highly possible that thats the reason with humans too...we are a more desirable mate if we are beautiful..obviously humans (in general) have evolved to take more into account than just beauty and fitness.

on your other comment, then yes rape is wrong, but thats something different...rape is A) illigal, but B) more importantly, is between a concenting and a non-consenting person. That unrrealted to sexual advertising, where both the audience agree to look at it, and the model agrees to be shor in that way.

I'd disagree with your point about Rena...its her job in many aspects to do just that , and get guys to think of her in a sexual manor...just in a more subtle way. It's less in your face but it's still there...the bed, the short shorts, the hand on the thigh, tyhe dress with holes in etc.... i don't understand your attempt at refuting what i said about beauty. humans are not just animals. we're rational beings capable of making ethical judgments, choices, and so on. sure, there is the element of sexuality in beauty, but that is not the limit of it. and limiting it to that is dehumanizing, just as oversimplifying mankind as "just an animal" is. such an oversimplification is not a "point of view," it's demonstrably wrong. people are much more than animals.

about rape, you're making a backwards argument. rape is not wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. understanding the direction of this causality is crucial to understanding my argument. deciding that rape is wrong and illegalizing it is taking a definite moral stance on the issue--it's a direct refutation of "to each his own." i know that you will say that it's only because it "involves violating the will of one of the involved parties," but that's the basis of the particular system of ethics that the law is based on. the point is that sex can be made bad by the context in which it is used. you may not think that pornography or adultery make sex bad, but that doesn't change the fact that viewing them as such is a perfectly legitimate ethical stance.

you keep making the same error with the rena thing. this is the 4th or 5th time i've explained this: i am not saying there is not element of sexuality in rena's collection of pictures. that comes with being a woman and being in a picture. my point is that it's not the main point of the photography at all. it may play some role in it, for some people, but there is a great deal more there; that is what makes it art, and that is what contextualizes the sexuality of it in a proper way. it's not meaningless sexuality, like some whore sitting there massaging her breasts and trying to give a seductive look; it's focused on nonsexual things, be that, as i have mentioned, playful vanity (the picture of her looking at her nails), nagging depression (the classic blue picture), or what have you. do you see what i have been saying, now? i am not arguing that there is no sex to rena tanaka, i am arguing that she uses it in a more appropriate manner. it's not the main/only "weapon" in her "arsenal" of attraction.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by G3-Pwnz-G4
LOL, you gotta be kidding me! its like a mild flamewar. and i was joking. i think you need to stop reading into things too deeply.;) there are no flames in here. this is what we like to call an argument. we aren't insulting each other or anything. if you want to see a real flame war, i suggest trying the news page, say, an article on new powerbooks or iPods. as to successfully relating humor over the internet, see this:

:) :o :D ;) :p :rolleyes: :eek: :confused:

rainman::|:|

Oct 15, 2003, 04:50 PM

short and sweet, i think that sexualizing people into basically objects is human nature and rather healthy, provided it does not carry over from lust into treating women differently in the workplace, or hitting your girlfriend, or whatever. i won't get too much into it, as my opinion is really totally invalid on this subject, but as a gay guy, i talk to a lot of women very frankly. from most of what i've heard, women seem to think that there's a time and a place for everything-- sitting at your desk is not the place, sitting at the beach is the place. this is assuming straight men can detach their pen!ses from their brains for 90% of the day.

why do men assume that women are less interested in sex than they are? you guys don't really think that women don't do this sort of thing to guys they see... i think the term "side of beef" kind of shows that it happens in reverse, too. women just know where it's appropriate and not, and don't feel the need to talk about it all the damn time.

the moral is, treating people like objects can be fun and rewarding. it can also be very, very stupid and potentially illegal.

pnw

[edit] rape is bad, mkay.

Les Kern

Oct 15, 2003, 04:55 PM

I didn't see the "Anne Coulter Model Orbital Sander". You know, the one she "uses" while she's watching movies about Hitler or the "Sean Hannity Insanity Comedy Hour with Special Guest George "Gonzo' Bush".
(Amazing how I took a useless, adolescent movie and turned it into something more interesting)

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by paulwhannel
the moral is, treating people like objects can be fun and rewarding. it can also be very, very stupid and potentially illegal.

pnw the basis of your opinion is exactly the same principle as mine. there is a time and place for everything. as you mention, treating a woman like a sex object in the workplace is egregiously wrong. that's exactly my point. it's context that makes sex bad, and likewise context that makes it the best fscking thing in the world. and the act of sex, and thinking about it, i would say, is exactly what you say--treating the person as an object. you don't pleasure a mind, or some psychological equal--at least, not physically. you pleasure an object, a thing.

granted, though, when we each hammer out what specific situations we believe such sexuality is appropriate, i'd bet we'd find i tend to be more conservative than you, but the principle remains...

rainman::|:|

Oct 15, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
...Anne Coulter...

now there's one woman i'd like to treat like an object. firewood.

pnw

rainman::|:|

Oct 15, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
the basis of your opinion is exactly the same principle as mine. there is a time and place for everything. as you mention, treating a woman like a sex object in the workplace is egregiously wrong. that's exactly my point. it's context that makes sex bad, and likewise context that makes it the best fscking thing in the world. and the act of sex, and thinking about it, i would say, is exactly what you say--treating the person as an object. you don't pleasure a mind, or some psychological equal--at least, not physically. you pleasure an object, a thing.

yep. i wasn't taking a side, for the record, just putting things out there (i don't like to read arguments like this, it gets very repetitive :)) but i think you're exactly right. there are many kinds of coitus, some very close and passionate that most people call "making love". it generally involves actually caring about your sexual partner enough to really put effort into pleasing them, and enjoying the melding of bodies (there may have been drugs). It's nice and all. but i do like to just **** sometimes, the good old fashioned hot sweaty kind that probably scarred you for life as a child [edit: when you walked in on your parents. i shouldn't have forgotten that line]. in the latter, the whole idea is to treat the person like an object. otherwise, you'd have to be empathic, and that just takes a lot away from enjoying onesself ;)

if you don't like to ****, don't ****, if you don't ever like to make love, watch out for your emotional health as too much ****ing without emotion generally causes badness. tho many philosophers and psychologists argue about this (it starts to get into the human animal debate, which is just annoying).

there's nothing wrong with a balance.

:)
pnw

dstorey

Oct 15, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't understand your attempt at refuting what i said about beauty. humans are not just animals. we're rational beings capable of making ethical judgments, choices, and so on. sure, there is the element of sexuality in beauty, but that is not the limit of it. and limiting it to that is dehumanizing, just as oversimplifying mankind as "just an animal" is. such an oversimplification is not a "point of view," it's demonstrably wrong. people are much more than animals.

about rape, you're making a backwards argument. rape is not wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. understanding the direction of this causality is crucial to understanding my argument. deciding that rape is wrong and illegalizing it is taking a definite moral stance on the issue--it's a direct refutation of "to each his own." i know that you will say that it's only because it "involves violating the will of one of the involved parties," but that's the basis of the particular system of ethics that the law is based on. the point is that sex can be made bad by the context in which it is used. you may not think that pornography or adultery make sex bad, but that doesn't change the fact that viewing them as such is a perfectly legitimate ethical stance.

you keep making the same error with the rena thing. this is the 4th or 5th time i've explained this: i am not saying there is not element of sexuality in rena's collection of pictures. that comes with being a woman and being in a picture. my point is that it's not the main point of the photography at all. it may play some role in it, for some people, but there is a great deal more there; that is what makes it art, and that is what contextualizes the sexuality of it in a proper way. it's not meaningless sexuality, like some whore sitting there massaging her breasts and trying to give a seductive look; it's focused on nonsexual things, be that, as i have mentioned, playful vanity (the picture of her looking at her nails), nagging depression (the classic blue picture), or what have you. do you see what i have been saying, now? i am not arguing that there is no sex to rena tanaka, i am arguing that she uses it in a more appropriate manner. it's not the main/only "weapon" in her "arsenal" of attraction.

I don't think I said at all that rape was just wrong because it's illigal...I said it's maily wrong because of the violation. . I agree with everything you say about it, just not that its related to things such as prawn.

What i was trying to say, is the rena pics are focused on sexual things, ultimatly...that's their main reason for being produced..its just not as in your face, but we've talked about this already and we should agree to disagree. I completly understand what you saying, I just dont agree.

and who says we are so much more than animals...i used to prefere my dogs company to most people, most of the time....and gorillas have feelings too ;)

aphexist

Oct 15, 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by dstorey
What i was trying to say, is the rena pics are focused on sexual things, ultimatly...that's their main reason for being produced..its just not as in your face, but we've talked about this already and we should agree to disagree. I completly understand what you saying, I just dont agree.

And he is saying that he rises above this ultimate fact to roll around in the leaves with her on a misty mountaintop outside of Kyoto...in his mind, while sitting in front of his computer.

Meanwhile, the hoi polloi drool over a bevy of silicone-enhanced bimbos that are operating heavy machinery in their grade school P.E. outfits...in their minds, while sitting in front of their computers.

All the while, here I am, masturbating to this thread in front of my computer...while beating a dead horse to a pulp.

shadowfax

Oct 15, 2003, 08:37 PM

well, as long as we are actually making real arguments, i have the ultimate one:

i pity da foo'!

Sun Baked

Oct 15, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by aphexist
...All the while, here I am, masturbating to this thread in front of my computer...while beating a dead horse to a pulp. :eek:

Congrats...

I didn't think anybody would be able to top the disturbing images this thread (http://notquitereality.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=9646067802&f=7256067802&m=7376015444) at Mickey's site evoked.

Look's like you've done it. ;)

cb911

Oct 15, 2003, 10:11 PM

oh ssswwweeeeeeettt!! :D

i heard that song about a month ago, then saw a small version of the video a couple of weeks later... i loved the song when i first heard, then i just went nuts when i saw the video! :D

thanks for posting this, and if there's any more Benny Benassi videos out there, bring 'em on! :D

Judo

Oct 16, 2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by aphexist
There is another layer. While the producer may be mocking, he is selling the video simultaeneously.

Has anyone seen Aphex Twin's Windowlicker video? That video attempts to draw viewers in with similarly overtly sexual imagery but then revulses them with hideous faces on the models' otherwise flawless figures.

That video is pretty crazy. I had to sit in a corner and rock back and foward for a few hours to get over that one. He's coming down here to NZ to play next year. Looking foward to seeing what he has to offer. :P

revenuee

Oct 16, 2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by cb911
oh ssswwweeeeeeettt!! :D

i heard that song about a month ago, then saw a small version of the video a couple of weeks later... i loved the song when i first heard, then i just went nuts when i saw the video! :D

thanks for posting this, and if there's any more Benny Benassi videos out there, bring 'em on! :D

Art doesn't have to server a purpose, other then just asthetic appeal - to me this music video did just that - i was pretty to watch and amusing to watch.

Seeing the video for what it is - A cool music video for a cool song, by a cool guy.

High-five to cb911 from revenuee - i felt the same way you did when i saw it, as did all my friends that i sent it too.

yamabushi

Oct 16, 2003, 12:41 AM

I think art is about evoking a reaction. This reaction is usually emotional but can also be purely intellectual. Which particular reaction is up to the artist and the person who experiences the art. Any emotion is a valid choice - lust included.

cb911

Oct 16, 2003, 12:46 AM

i can't understand what everyone's gone all serious about? i mean it's just a amusing sort of song... so it's got an amusing, funny sort of video.

just enjoy it people. :D

revenuee, high-five back at ya! :) i guess there's still heaps of people out there that just won't 'get it'.:rolleyes:

shadowfax

Oct 16, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by yamabushi
I think art is about evoking a reaction. This reaction is usually emotional but can also be purely intellectual. Which particular reaction is up to the artist and the person who experiences the art. Any emotion is a valid choice - lust included. so, porn is art? i mean, it sure fits your criteria of evoking lust.

tpjunkie

Oct 16, 2003, 01:35 AM

porn could be considered art. not fine art, but art nontheless.

Here's my drunk en review of the movie.

SWEET

..and now to bed, so i can wake up for my 9:15 class and attend drunk.

jelloshotsrule

Oct 16, 2003, 09:43 AM

i'd like to personally thank eclipse and fuzzyballz for reminding me why i hate my own gender (ie, men).

i'll throw back a pint for you right before i objectify another "broad" so i can get off for 3 seconds.

revenuee

Oct 16, 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'd like to personally thank eclipse and fuzzyballz for reminding me why i hate my own gender (ie, men).

i'll throw back a pint for you right before i objectify another "broad" so i can get off for 3 seconds.

it's a very strong stereotype that as a gender we act that way... with that being the case, i say why not enjoy it ... LOL - have a pint for me too

EDIT : stereotypes are just excuses

But seriously - "objectify women"

When a women dresses the way that you saw in those video's, she wants you to stare - if they didn't they would wear baggy clothes

If a Cop didn't want you asking him for help he wouldn't be in uniform.

Same with women in revealing clothing..
"You may not be a hoe, but your wearing a hoe's uniform"

Raid

Oct 16, 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Fender2112
I've been around construction for 21 years and I have never seen tools handled in this manner. You will never see this on an actually job site. It is a blatant violation of just about every OSHA safety regulation. If you get caught, it's an automatic $10,000 fine.

Don't say I didn't warn you!!!

What if we give them hard-hats & steel toed boots? :D

Raid

idea_hamster

Oct 16, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by shadowfax
i'm a he, actually--sorry :p
Whoa -- there's a typo! Sorry, dude! :eek:

jelloshotsrule

Oct 16, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by revenuee
it's a very strong stereotype that as a gender we act that way... with that being the case, i say why not enjoy it ... LOL - have a pint for me too

EDIT : stereotypes are just excuses

But seriously - "objectify women"

When a women dresses the way that you saw in those video's, she wants you to stare - if they didn't they would wear baggy clothes

If a Cop didn't want you asking him for help he wouldn't be in uniform.

Same with women in revealing clothing..
"You may not be a hoe, but your wearing a hoe's uniform"

i agree that girls that dress like that are asking to be stared at.. but when there are magazines like maxim out there telling me that girls just want a romp in the sack the same as all guys, then that's a load of ****. sure, there are some.

also, just because the women are putting themselves in this situation many times doesn't mean it's ok to perpetuate it. are you seriously that amoral?

what is your point with "stereotypes are just excuses"? a "hoe" is not a stereotype?

you're simply proving my point about men. castrate yourself.