Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The generous reading of that line is that the artist painted bodies (which happened to be beautiful) in such a way (not naked) that it wouldn't be offensive.
It does seem a bit generous. (And they are naked. Although not full frontally. But really I think if the quote is accurate it's hard to interpret it any other way than they're beautiful so their nakedness is not offensive.)
-
Older women aren't allowed to like what they see in the mirror?
Course not. Young is beautiful and beautiful is moral. As exemplified by a killer line from this recent article on the kerfuffle surroundoing a painting exhibited at an art gallery in Nelson:
"[The artist] deliberately pictured beautiful bodies so it wouldn't be offensive"
-
(Is that just my perception, that he's portrayed as doing what he does entirely coldly and deliberately?)
Yes, he's portraied as somebody who preys on drunk women in bars.
-
there are so many ways they could have reinforced the safety message to me that wouldn't have made me want to hurl my television through a window every time it came on.
Yes, that's what I meant - not that the ads were defensible, but that the idea of reinforcing the safety message isn't wrong per se. Sorry to have brought ALAC into this, it's sort of an automatic angry comments generator and I can see why.
-
Does that count as an own gaul, then?
Rofflenui.
-
In a *metal tube*. At *insane speeds*. Using scientific principles *I don't understand*. Knowing that if something goes wrong you are almost automatically *doomed to death*.
In fact I'm pretty sure I would be even more freaked if I was driving that thing. (I'm flying home in less than a month. Yippee.)
-
It's the same reason more folks are afraid of flying than driving, because when you fly someone else is in control and when you drive you are in control.
Being ten thousand feet in the freaking air might also play a part.
-
I'm waiting anxiously for the 'hey, could you not harass people, APB dudes?' PSAs, because they don't seem to make very many.
We just don't seem to know how to handle that. Which baffles me, since we don't seem to have a problem formulating messages against family voilence. A campaign around what constitutes consent for instance would be great - I understand that perhaps you had them in the past? Wouldn't mind a refresher anyhow.
There are quite a lot of the 'chicks, look out!' ones, though. (Or perhaps I'm just particularly well-attuned to hearing 'vagina-bearers, you're not allowed to get drunk in public in case you get raped' messages. Um, yay?)
I think it's get drunk *and* isolated from your friends, which possibly rescues it a bit. But of course I take your point.
-
That's certainly true. I don't know why the discussion often (not here so far, but) ends up being about what the victim of the harassment or assault could have done differently, though. It should really be about the harasser's actions.
There are areas in which that is less clear-cut, though. I know a lot of people who loathe on precisely those grounds the ad with the drunk woman about to be dragged into an alley, and those about women sticking together on nights out. and I'm not saying that I love them either, but it ought to be permissible to promote ways for women of making themselves less unsafe without exculpating the men who are doing the harassing.
Hastening to add that the column quoted by Emma fails to qualify for that by about, oh, this much (places hands roughly one parsec apart).
-
Thankfully there are more things to heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Listener's editorial department, but if they don't fit the "what's in it for me?" test they won't be making it to the front page any time soon.
Sometimes the lack of introspection reaches heroic proportions, like in that cover a few months ago that asked "Will the recession cure us of our body obsession?"