Lesbians who like to watch gay male porn?

[3113]

Oh, it's OK with me for you to mealy mouth it so your perceptions fit your preferences.

Wow. I present examples that you asked for to show why I have that perception of imbalance and you come at me with that?

Not cool, sr7. Not cool at all.

 

[sr71plt]

Wow. I present examples that you asked for to show why I have that perception of imbalance and you come at me with that?

Not cool, sr7. Not cool at all.

You made offhand sweeping generalization statements which turned out to sweep much too broadly and then when called on it, you did what you should have done before making the sweeping generalizations--went and looked it up. And what you came back with was a lot of side garbage that didn't really speak to the sweeping generalizations I called you on.

I've got to laugh at what seems to be gobs of free time some of you folks have to do all of this really meaningless research and position white washing in terms of anything of any importance in the world and to go to such extremes to cover a simple overreaching in sweeping generalizations.

It remains that this is a false sweeping generalization:

the fact that the males in the movie/show have all the privilege (to be characters, heroes, even side characters like plane pilots, police, presidents--do you ever notice that they're almost all men?), and the women none (they're still housewives, kindergarden school teachers, secretaries).

The film world has been painfully going out of its way to be politically correct in balancing the representation of gender and race to the extent possible--almost to a laughably knee-jerk extreme--which you evidently haven't noticed because you also make the statement that you don't watch much film programing--which, as I noted, probably should have given you pause in making your sweeping generalizations in the first place.

No skin off my nose that you want to make such a big deal of it--it goes with the whole "drop a nuclear bomb to cover up the gaff" posting technique.

A bored housewife whose kids have already flown away, perhaps?

(The said, the avatars you come up with are high on my favorite lists here. I wish I had the free time to collect ones like this too.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a very interesting reaction, SR. It's almost as if you are SHOUTING REALLY LOUDLY to win an argument with a woman.

But you don't know shit about what women see when they look at Hollywood portrayals of women. And no matter how loud you shout-- you still won't know shit.

Speaking of sweeping generalisations;

The film world has been painfully going out of its way to be politically correct in balancing the representation of gender and race to the extent possible--almost to a laughably knee-jerk extreme--

You have got to be kidding.

The film industry has never worried its little head about painfully going out of its way for anything except profits.

Perhaps you've heard about the Bechdel test?

it's pretty simple, really,. To pass it, your film has to have;
1) At least two female characters, who have names, and

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

What's so hard about that? Well, you would not believe how few movies pass it.

Here's a list complied by women in order to pass on the news of the movies that do pass; http://bechdeltest.com/ Mostly, the names are of the ones that do pass. Even so, nearly half of the films named don't pass all three of the requirements.

Other places where you can read what women think about the film industry;

http://womenandhollywood.com/
http://www.nomeanerplace.com/
http://thehathorlegacy.com

By the way; if 3113 is A bored housewife whose kids have already flown away, perhaps, you just might be a pissant little faggot.

Of course, we all know you are not.

Right?

 

[sr71plt]

That's a very interesting reaction, SR. It's almost as if you are SHOUTING REALLY LOUDLY to win an argument with a woman.

But you don't know shit about what women see when they look at Hollywood portrayals of women. And no matter how loud you shout-- you still won't know shit.

Typically, you always charge a male poster is down on women when you want to put them down. That's boring. (And then you manage to insert your "but you really aren't a faggot, are you, you queer" jab. Which is oh so charming. Especially since I've never bitchslapped you like that ever.)

I laughed at your second paragraph because, if you look up the line, you'll see that I made exactly the same point. That 3113's perception of the formulas current filming uses for casting was skewed by her gender--seeing what she wanted to see (and, amusingly, acknowledging she didn't even watch much of what she was willing to make sweeping judgments about) rather than what was there--as mine would be from my perspective (bringing up the example of my perception that TV situation programing tends toward the buffoon man backed by an ever-suffering, more intelligent woman--which, as you note, is playing at the perceived demographic of who watches these programs).

And then I posited what I'm confident is the objective truth--that the industry has highly structured casting formulas now that purposely balance all of the permutations of what is politically, gender, and race correct--to the closest inch they can manage. Sometimes in a truly belabored way. This doesn't fly in the face of your point that they have their eyes on their pocketbooks whatsoever. It just has the unpopular stance of being an objective view on a discussion board that zips right to the poles no matter what the topic is.

As for all that glop about how women perceive the industry's casting formulas, it's pretty much irrelevant to the point, since I've already posted that women's perceptions would be influenced by what their gender wanted to see--just as a man's perception would.

My, you and 3113 are buzzing with anger tonight. Tough.

By taking all of that time and effort to pull up URLs about a tempest in a Dixie cup, you just affirm what I said about having a lot of time on your hands to pursue trivia. I'll use my time with writing the stories (this is an erotic story site, remember?), which neither you nor 3113 appear to have been motivated to do here for years. I guess trolling the Internet to dredge up URLs to back up your anger at the world pretty much taxes your time.

With luck, I have a fun, satirical political story posting in the next few hours. Give yourself a break from all of your of woe-is-us gender hurt claptrap and give it a read. It might relieve your stress. And, here's an idea. Why don't you and 3113 contribute a story here now and again to pay your Web site dues?

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, and 3113 and Stella, here's a handy dandy little research exercise for you since you have all that free time and an inclination in using it to troll up URLs. Sit for a week and tune in all of those TV shows that have portrayals of judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys and do a male/female comparison tally (oh, hell, do a white/black/Hispanic/Oriental tally too, just for the fun of it). It might open your eyes to the actual formulas the film industry is now doing in its role casting--and you won't have to rely as much on smug gender perception and hurt feelings.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Good lord, SR. I'm sorry my anger made you so angry.

I've been an activist for minority representation in commercial entertainment for about ten years.

3113 got one thing wrong, and you got it right-- the President is more likely to be a woman than a man, because the industry thinks that will make everything else okay.

But the President is not the main character, or even part of the main cast of characters, for most series, and when you look at the cast of "regular people" that make up a show you'll find the same poor representation as ever-- despite CSI, which is what you're thinking of, I'm sure, and which was hailed everywhere for being so much better than the usual run of law and lawyer shows when it first appeared, and has encouraged networks to add some minority characters to other L&L shows too.

One genre down, fifty genres to go.

In adventure genres, for instance, be they sci-fi, western, war, whatever-- there will be two white men who carry the show. If it's a team, you'll have one character to represent each minority, one of which will be female as well. You can play drinking games as to which of the minority characters will survive the first episode, and which of those-- or their replacements-- will survive the season. You won't find many shows where there are, for instance, two black men. Who talk to each other. About something besides the white lead.

All of which is beside the point of this thread, of course. Women do like their sex hard and hot, and a lot of women don't think they, themselves can portray that kind of sexuality. So they project it onto male sexuality as proxy. But we are seeing some movement forward on that. Pink and White Productions, for one, offers rough lesbian sex.

As for my writing for this site, let's face it-- literotica has a primarily straight readership, and people complain that my women aren't girlish enough or my gay men shouldn't like women so much... So I find my readership is best served elsewhere.
I'd read your story, except-- your only link is to an offsite archive, what's up with that, hmm?

 

[sr71plt]

I'd read your story, except-- your only link is to an offsite archive, what's up with that, hmm?

Did you know that Literotica has a story file? Go to the main page, click on the "Stories" button, then "New," then look at the top of the list--at the very top. There my story is for this week (or was as of a few minutes ago. It may have been buried by now with new entries put in above it).

There would be no reason for me to link my Lit. stories to my sig. line, I'd either have massive buildup or have to redo my sig. line every week. And I just write and post the stories that suit me--and let the readership catch up if they wish. I'm not so self-conscious about self that I won't post stories because some readers will make fun of my lifestyle choices.

3113's statement was on characters in positions of privilege/authority. (Do I really have to post it yet again?)

In addition to the invitation on comparison ticking of lawyers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys on TV programing, I invite a check on gender/race of actors filling "the boss" position--at least at a level above the main characters (most of whom are paired genders anyway)--all across the board in the TV program spectrum. Only myopia will miss the political correct balancing makeup of the current casting formulas.

Myopia can be your problem, not mine.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't give a fuck about people who don't like my lifestyle. I don't bother to offer them stories filled with characters they don't understand.

If you've noticed any difference at all in current casting policies, you can say; "Thank you Stella, your work, along with all those other people's, has begun to show some results."


I'm not going to bother hunting for your stories, sr. You've already accused me of wasting my time trolling for links.

You could just link to your stories page in your sig. One line, never needs to be updated. Just a friendly suggestion...

 

[sr71plt]

If you've noticed any difference at all in current casting policies, you can say; "Thank you Stella, your work, along with all those other people's, has begun to show some results."

Honey, I was probably working this before you were born. Let's check that out. In 1968, I was quite publicly fired for handing over a full issue of a national religious magazine to all-women writers on current women's issues. I subsequently was picked up to conduct a workshop titled "What If He Responds?" at a roving women's lib conference motoring around the nation. That lasted for about a year, because at least at that point what women wanted was to voice hurt, not to hear that there might actually be change and that men increasingly might be part of that change. At that point women didn't really want to be empowered (any more than they already were if they just exercised the leverage they had). They didn't want to be equal; more appallingly, they didn't want to be ascendent. They wanted to wallow in hurt.

So, where were you in the late 60s and early 70s?

Times have changed for many women (and men) since then--but not for all.

This thread points to it. You don't want to be accepted and in parity--either as a woman or as a gay. You are the way you are and do the things you do and say the things you do because you want to hang onto the hurt and be a visual symbol of it--and pick at that scab. For some reason you find that easier than just taking charge and using the powers you've got in at least equal supply as anyone else.

And I didn't think for a minute you'd look up my story. I just enjoyed the illustration that you don't know that this is a story Web site. You're only here to be angry and oh-woe-I'm-hurt on the political threads that you claim you'd like to be rid of here.

Oh, and to call me a faggot--like it's on par with calling someone a housewife--apparently because you think it's just fine for cross-dressing lesbians to do that here toward bis and gay males. That puts you in Freddie territory.

And as far as you making any headway in any direction, that ain't gonna happen. You, by choice, are part of the freak sideshow. Nobody's going to follow you anywhere on gender rights, and you're not going to be part of any real progress--haven't been and won't be. You've defined yourself as garish fringe. This isn't what motivates people and moves a nation in any direction.

 

[Handley_Page]

Speaking of sweeping generalisations;


Perhaps you've heard about the Bechdel test?
It's pretty simple, really,. To pass it, your film has to have;
1) At least two female characters, who have names, and

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

I've never heard of this test, and I wonder how much credence is given it by US film-makers. TV shows? No problem. CSI, to name one on our screens.
But our TV shows seem to pass that without effort (Murder in Suburbia as one off-hand example).

Is [3] to include the job in hand, or the price of eggs in the supermarket ?

 

[mynameisben]

I've never heard of this test, and I wonder how much credence is given it by US film-makers. TV shows? No problem. CSI, to name one on our screens.
But our TV shows seem to pass that without effort (Murder in Suburbia as one off-hand example).

Is [3] to include the job in hand, or the price of eggs in the supermarket ?

[3] is to include talk about the effectiveness of the leading brands of toilet bowl cleansers.

 

[Handley_Page]

[3] is to include talk about the effectiveness of the leading brands of toilet bowl cleansers.

Nice one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I've never heard of this test, and I wonder how much credence is given it by US film-makers. TV shows? No problem. CSI, to name one on our screens.
But our TV shows seem to pass that without effort (Murder in Suburbia as one off-hand example).

Is [3] to include the job in hand, or the price of eggs in the supermarket ?

US film makers do not give it much credence, but you notice that CSI came on board after the test became well-known. And it's one of the shining lights in the entertainment panoply,

[3] Can include anything at all. Anything. back when Allison Bechdel first mentioned it in 1985... the price of eggs would have been a novelty.

TV shows pass or fail on an episode-by-episode basis... people talk about which writers are more or less likely to treat the stock characters as objects or subjects, and which episodes are more or less successful.