I was watching the video for "Danger" by Mystical the other day...

I must say pseudo progressive cats of the early like myself got our wish. I remember saying why don't they all flavors of sistas in the videos why just just lightskin sista and token caucasian sista?

Well nowadays in videos there is equal oppurtnity exploitation.
It weird cuz no matter how much i cringe at the debauchery in these videos i must admit "Damn these are some of the most beautiful women i've ever seen.

I mean Damn on "Danger" that has to be largest gethering of beautiful, sexy, exotic women ever captured in short film. At the same time i have to turn it off cuz i know it's Bullshit, sexist imagery. At the same time when that utopian dark somailan looking sista is engaged in lesbaian-esuqe intimacy on the bar with that caramel brown would be queen, me and most of the hetero-sexual species have a brief brush witht the dark side of the Force....

What i'm trying to say is that while i know that is is wack, i know its' eye candy, and just like real candy it has no substance whatsoever...

But, as hard as it is for me to watch beautiful women be exploited by a patriarchal, sexist enetertainment industry it's just that hard for me to turn away from a half naked African beauty in living color...

So turn that BET off right now, but hold up wait let me check that sis out right there she looks good as hell, man give me that remote! I'm turning on the history chann- damn did you see that Butter Pecan Rican, she's a dime son...Look if don't we don't stop watchin this soft porn, im gonna...Whew! did you see her they had to block her chest out, i know they gonna show her again, they got to, c'mon show her again... there she goes oh my god...Fuck this man i'm turnin' it off for sure, this time but, oh shit, aw man they about play "Danger"....

some poison is reeeeeaaaalllly sweet nahmeen?

personally, i'm at a stage where i just say:
that could be my daughter/niece

i feel you...

somebody elses daughter or niece. I understand your dilemma but if you're planning on even having a daughter (if you dont already have one) how do you plan to see her potential mother?

is there any room for respecting how these women choose to be seen?

>somebody elses daughter or niece.

it is. my point is that until my perspective got a little broader, it was easy to look and not internalize. until i said, "this is an actal person" and "look at this entire situation" -- as opposed to the parts which enticed me carnally-- it was easy to dismiss observing and justify

>how do
>you plan to see her
>potential mother?

the exact same way. again, don't miss the point. i simply moved to a point where i could no longer witness certain things beyond the affect it may have on ME, the culture i'm in, etc.


>is there any room for respecting
>how these women choose to
>be seen?

sure. i respect anyone's decision to define how they are seen (to the extent that they can) but, internally, i cannot choose to take part in (or sanction) something i take issue with. period.

I mean do you still admit to liking the parts that you shun.

I mean- you say you dont want to just see her ass - but are you saying you no longer like ass or that you must control yourself in that fashion so as not to endorse that pathology?

Does watching a video- or even liking it count as such a sanction or taking part? if so does denying that you like it resolve that? Can you condition yourself not to like it?

You say you can no longer "witness certain things beyond the affect it may have on ME, the culture i'm in, etc." but can you witness things as part of that greater reality? Do you have to see a shaking ass beyond its supposed detriment to enjoy it- can you accept the negativty that is involved with it yet appreciate it for its positivity?

When you say "certain" things are you meaning things that you find detrimental or negative? If so when you insist that there is nothing positive about it- are you really broadening your perspective at all?

K

>I mean do you still admit
>to liking the parts that
>you shun.

sure pretty is pretty. ass is good. blah, blah, blah.

on the other hand i also like to see people admired for more than what they look like.

personally, i've met/been with/seen TONS of physically attractive women who (in my opinion) had little else or were lacking in other areas i feel are JUST AS important -- if not more. therefore, i'm no longer impressed by look alone.

going back to the point of videos and such

i like videos that have a little more depth than "lets parade a buch of buts past the camera". particularly at a time when the large majority of hihhop video have little more than that.

>I mean- you say you dont
>want to just see her
>ass -

did i say that?

>but are you
>saying you no longer like
>ass or that you must
>control yourself in that fashion
>so as not to endorse
>that pathology?

i'm saying that if reducing and female to only her ass is a disservice to her and me.

>Does watching a video- or even
>liking it count as such
>a sanction or taking part?

i think so

>if so does denying that
>you like it resolve that?

not necessarily. on the other hand, if i get tired of booty videos all the time -- the easiest thing is to not watch them

>Can you condition yourself not
>to like it?

one could i guess, but i have no desire to in this case

>but can you witness
>things as part of that
>greater reality?

sure

>Do you have to see a shaking ass
>beyond its supposed detriment to
>enjoy it- can you accept
>the negativty that is involved
>with it yet appreciate it
>for its positivity?

one can do/justify however one wants. personally, i DO think that there are ramifications to a constant parade of materialism, sexuality.

to answer your last question, i guess it goes back to weighing the positive vs. the negative. in other words, which is more important: getting my jollies from seeing a behind (and whatever other positives may exist) or any damage that may result from that image being shown.

>When you say "certain" things are
>you meaning things that you
>find detrimental or negative?

what are you talking about here, i'm losing you

>If so when you insist that
>there is nothing positive about
>it

did i say that?

>on the other hand i also
>like to see people admired
>for more than what they
>look like.

on tv!?

>personally, i've met/been with/seen TONS of
>physically attractive women who (in
>my opinion) had little else
>or were lacking in other
>areas i feel are JUST
>AS important -- if not
>more. therefore, i'm no longer
>impressed by look alone.

we're not talking about women you meet- we're talking about women in videos.

>going back to the point of
>videos and such

ok

>i like videos that have a
>little more depth than "lets
>parade a buch of buts
>past the camera". particularly at
>a time when the large
>majority of hihhop video have
>little more than that.

thats fair

>>I mean- you say you dont
>>want to just see her
>>ass -
>
>did i say that?

yeah you said you can "no longer witness certain things beyond the affect it may have on ME, the culture i'm in, etc." you commented on looking beyond "the parts which enticed me carnally."

do you think ive misrepresented you- or are you trying to score "thats not what i said" points?

ok ill spot you that one

>i'm saying that if reducing and
>female to only her ass
>is a disservice to her
>and me.

On what grounds do you consider that reducing? If the woman chooses to put her ass out there- it may be the first thing I see or even the only thing (some asses are just that big) but that doesnt mean that I accept the premise that this is all there is. I disagree with the idea that to enjoy ass- I must disregard that this an actual person - real people have asses - all of them - some of them shake them.

>>Does watching a video- or even
>>liking it count as such
>>a sanction or taking part?
>
>i think so

please tell me how so- do these videos differentiate themselves from television media as a whole? if watchin an ass shakin video count as a sanction then doesnt watching BET or MTV count too?

do you watch BET and MTV?

>>if so does denying that
>>you like it resolve that?
>
>not necessarily. on the other hand,
>if i get tired of
>booty videos all the time
>-- the easiest thing is
>to not watch them

certainly

>>Can you condition yourself not
>>to like it?
>
>one could i guess, but i
>have no desire to in
>this case

so you're advocating suppressing one's carnal urges but not reconditioning them?

>>but can you witness
>>things as part of that
>>greater reality?
>
>sure

good

>>Do you have to see a shaking ass
>>beyond its supposed detriment to
>>enjoy it- can you accept
>>the negativty that is involved
>>with it yet appreciate it
>>for its positivity?
>
>one can do/justify however one wants.
>personally, i DO think that
>there are ramifications to a
>constant parade of materialism, sexuality.

yet you still willfully participate?

>to answer your last question, i
>guess it goes back to
>weighing the positive vs. the
>negative. in other words, which
>is more important: getting my
>jollies from seeing a behind
>(and whatever other positives may
>exist) or any damage that
>may result from that image
>being shown.

Again -"when you insist that there is nothing (remarkably) positive about it- are you really broadening your perspective at all?"

>>When you say "certain" things are
>>you meaning things that you
>>find detrimental or negative?
>
>what are you talking about here,
>i'm losing you

well I didnt want to assume what you meant by "certain things". my point is- this indicates that there are some things which you dont regard beyond their impact- how do you differentiate? Take fast food for instance- it ceratinly has an impact on you and your culture- but do you still Super Size?

Im not challenging your idea- just trying to find out what it is.

>>If so when you insist that
>>there is nothing positive about
>>it
>
>did i say that?

That was more pre-emptive than anything. You skirted the argument by admitting that getting one's "jollies" was a positive but slighted any others- I still applied it where appropriate.

K

>on tv!?

yup

>we're not talking about women you
>meet- we're talking about women
>in videos.

i was talking about both, in my own patented mendering way

>yeah you said you can "no
>longer witness certain things beyond
>the affect it may have
>on ME, the culture i'm
>in, etc." you commented on
>looking beyond "the parts which
>enticed me carnally."

right...but that doesn't quite translate the way you paraphrased to me. whatever.

>On what grounds do you consider
>that reducing?

on the grounds that she (hopefully) is more than her behind/breasts.

>I disagree with the
>idea that to enjoy ass-
>I must disregard that this
>an actual person

good for you. although i never said nor implied that you SHOULD.
but as usual we digress.

>please tell me how so- do
>these videos differentiate themselves from
>television media as a whole?

in my opinion - to take part any event (whether passively or actively) is sanctioning it.

and to answer your question:perhaps.

there is a difference between "this home beautiful" (or some ish like that) and "106 and park" for example. similarly, there is a difference between say the cartoon network and your local video channel.

>if watchin an ass shakin
>video count as a sanction
>then doesnt watching BET or
>MTV count too?

yep

>do you watch BET and MTV?

rarely, and when i do even rare still do i watch videos.
if your point is that by watching the network (even occasionally) which broadcasts the videos am i in some way sanctioning the videos, i guess the answer is to some extent yes.

>so you're advocating suppressing one's carnal
>urges but not reconditioning them?

i'm not "advocating" anything. i'm simply saying that i choose not to INDULGE my carnal urges at the expense of other factors and/or what may be affected by that indulgance.

>yet you still willfully participate?

sure. on occasion. however, when i THINK as opposed to just responding/reacting i often am able to check myself. which i think is cool for me to do.

>Again -"when you insist that there
>is nothing (remarkably) positive about
>it

again - did i say that?

>how do you differentiate?

forgive me - differentiate between what and what?

>Take fast food
>for instance- it ceratinly has
>an impact on you and
>your culture- but do you
>still Super Size?

in this case. for several reasons i try to avoid damaging my body by eating something more nutricious. if faced with no other alternative - i will grab a burger, but i will try and minimize the sya environmental detriment by throwing the wrapper in the trash as opposed to just on the ground. does that solve the detrimental effect, maybe not, but i do believe it lessens it in a small way.

going back to videos...

if i don't like the images portrayed in a video, or the song, or the messages, i don't watch it. i'm not foolish enough to think that that makes the issues any less existant, but in a small way i feel that by turning off the tv i'm not ADVOCATING it.

>Im not challenging your idea- just
>trying to find out what
>it is.

>That was more pre-emptive than anything.

ok

>You skirted the argument

what was the arguement?

>admitting that getting one's "jollies"
>was a positive

or at least that it COULD be

>but slighted
>any others

if you say so. again in all this discussion and wrangling i'm losing focus (doing this discussion while working isn't helping), so how about we cut to the chase

what exactly IS your question?

>>On what grounds do you consider
>>that reducing?
>
>on the grounds that she (hopefully)
>is more than her behind/breasts.

But you're begging the question that to appreciate one part of her that I must not be aware or considering the other parts. If I understand that she is more than an ass- which i do - how have i reduced her by appreciating her ass?

>>I disagree with the
>>idea that to enjoy ass-
>>I must disregard that this
>>an actual person
>
>good for you. although i never
>said nor implied that you
>SHOULD.
>but as usual we digress.

so can you admit that I can accept that a woman is more than an ass- while still appreciating the ass? You're dancing around that by claiming that appreciating the ass "reduces" the woman to that part. I asked you how it demonstrated such reduction you begged the question.

>>if watchin an ass shakin
>>video count as a sanction
>>then doesnt watching BET or
>>MTV count too?
>
>yep
>
>>do you watch BET and MTV?
>
>rarely, and when i do even
>rare still do i watch
>videos.

you said "to take part (in) any event (whether passively or actively) is sanctioning it. " you also said- "internally, i cannot choose to take part in (or sanction) something i take issue with. period. " but you just admitted that you do. You might want to change that period to an elipse...

>if your point is that by
>watching the network (even occasionally)
>which broadcasts the videos am
>i in some way sanctioning
>the videos, i guess the
>answer is to some extent
>yes.

Im glad we agree

>i'm not "advocating" anything. i'm simply
>saying that i choose not
>to INDULGE my carnal urges
>at the expense of other
>factors and/or what may be
>affected by that indulgance.

but you do sanction it at the same time that you insist that you cant

>>yet you still willfully participate?

>sure. on occasion. however, when i
>THINK as opposed to just
>responding/reacting i often am able
>to check myself. which i
>think is cool for me
>to do.

thats great for you to do- but id encourage you not to take it so seriously

>>Again -"when you insist that there
>>is nothing (remarkably) positive about
>>it
>
>again - did i say that?

I explained this statement already- and the fact is its a question (that you absolutely refuse to answer) not a quote.

ill still give you a point though- that makes 3

>>how do you differentiate?
>
>forgive me - differentiate between what
>and what?

between certain things that should be perceived in regards to their impact and things that shouldnt

>>Take fast food
>>for instance- it ceratinly has
>>an impact on you and
>>your culture- but do you
>>still Super Size?
>
>in this case. for several reasons
>i try to avoid damaging
>my body by eating something
>more nutricious. if faced with
>no other alternative - i
>will grab a burger, but
>i will try and minimize
>the sya environmental detriment by
>throwing the wrapper in the
>trash as opposed to just
>on the ground. does that
>solve the detrimental effect, maybe
>not, but i do believe
>it lessens it in a
>small way.

so again you sanction and participate but claim that you cant

>going back to videos...
>
>if i don't like the images
>portrayed in a video, or
>the song, or the messages,
>i don't watch it. i'm
>not foolish enough to think
>that that makes the issues
>any less existant, but in
>a small way i feel
>that by turning off the
>tv i'm not ADVOCATING it.

How are you advocating it by watching it? Is it ok to sanction it but not advocate it?

>what was the arguement?

"when you insist that there is nothing (remarkably) positive about it- are you really broadening your perspective at all?"

you dont have to answer it- but dont pretend like it wasnt there

>>admitting that getting one's "jollies"
>>was a positive
>or at least that it COULD
>be

>>but slighted
>>any others
>
>if you say so. again in
>all this discussion and wrangling
>i'm losing focus (doing this
>discussion while working isn't helping),
>so how about we cut
>to the chase

>what exactly IS your question?

Ive asked you plenty, you've answered some of them but Im sure you're so concerned that Im setting you up that you dont want to answer the rest so you claim that Im wrangling.

whatever- you've answered enough for me - inconcistencies are abound in your argument you even point them out for me. Thats fine. Like I said I didnt want to challenge your ideas- just wanted to see what they are.

K

>But you're begging the question that
>to appreciate one part of
>her that I must not
>be aware or considering the
>other parts.

this is wrong. i beg no question nor make any judgement of what you are aware of or choose to do.

>If I understand
>that she is more than
>an ass- which i do
>- how have i reduced
>her by appreciating her ass?

again you misunderstand. in regards to reducing - again - i believe that to create or show an image ONLY of a females body parts is to reduce her. i also beleieve for one to watch that image is sanctioning the reduction.

if you diagree, cool. this was originally a discussion about why i am tired or choose not to sit and watch "booty videos"

>so can you admit that I
>can accept that a woman
>is more than an ass-
>while still appreciating the ass?

sure

>I asked you how
>it demonstrated such reduction you
>begged the question.

if you say so. let's flip it then - how does showing an image of some female/male behind NOT reduce them to just that behind?

>you said "to take part (in)
>any event (whether passively or
>actively) is sanctioning it. "

and i stand by that

>you also said- "internally, i
>cannot choose to take part
>in (or sanction) something i
>take issue with. period. "

what i mean by this is that internally i cannot justify taking part (or sanctioning) something i take issue with.

mind you, i don't mean i DON'T do it, merely that i cannot justify it internally (or externally for that matter).

which again goes back to the idea of this being a "moral dilema"

>but you do sanction it at
>the same time that you
>insist that you cant

close (as stated above). i guess this fits in the "i try not to do that which i do not wish to category"

it may not be "right" but it's true

>thats great for you to do-
>but id encourage you not
>to take it so seriously

why not?

>ill still give you a point
>though- that makes 3

are these points redeemable (like green stamps - anyone remember those)?

>between certain things that should be
>perceived in regards to their
>impact and things that shouldnt

i don't believe that anything shouldn't. nothing happens in a vacuum. everything has some result/effect.


>How are you advocating it by
>watching it?

how are you not

>Is it ok
>to sanction it but not
>advocate it?

is there a difference between sanctioning and advocating? to answer the question of whether it is ok to do either: no.

but does that mean it won't be done? no.

>"when you insist that there is
>nothing (remarkably) positive about it-
>are you really broadening your
>perspective at all?"
>
>you dont have to answer it-
>but dont pretend like it
>wasnt there

but see that's the thing...i'm not implying a total lack of anything positive (going back to my "sweetness in the poison" remark). and where did the horizon broadening part come from? if these things are "the arguement" i guess i missed them.



>Ive asked you plenty, you've answered
>some of them but Im
>sure you're so concerned that
>Im setting you up that
>you dont want to answer
>the rest so you claim
>that Im wrangling.

huh? the first part is funny. you assumption about my concern is wrong, and your conclusion based upon that false assumption is made up. did i accuse you of wrangling? if anything i'm saying that the focus of what we are getting at in the discussion was getting cloudy for me (amongst all the "rhetoric" i guess).

>this is wrong. i beg no
>question nor make any judgement
>of what you are aware
>of or choose to do.

I didnt say you judged (thats one for me) but you most certainly did beg the question. For all you non-philosophy/debate fans begging the question is the act of responding to a question with an argument that is either neccesitated upon a the proof that is in question or even responding with a question as if that will suffice as an answer.

>again you misunderstand. in regards to
>reducing - again - i
>believe that to create or
>show an image ONLY of
>a females body parts is
>to reduce her. >

what else can you literally show on television. Doesnt Queen Latifah show her body parts? Unless she's doing narration she's gotta show something- even her head (which is a body part) your only contention is that YOU dont approve of showing those that appease carnal desires. However logically- if Queen Latifah only shows her head- she's being reduced- you dont have a problem with that however cuz it complies to your moral standard.

>i also
>beleieve for one to watch
>that image is sanctioning the
>reduction.

you also admitted that watching the station at all counts as sanctioning. Now Ive established that the media itself is founded in the property of reduction despite what arbitrary delineations you make as to what is appropriate- its tv and these are videos they cant show anything but the physical reality. You can project moral standards on it if ya want- but if its causing you a dilemma then maybe you shouldnt take it so seriously. Just because they're not showing you an ass doesnt mean they're showing something more than physicality- they're even tricking you into thinking thats not what you're seeing.

If you appreciate and accept physicality - as I do - then accept tv for what it is. If you are looking for something more than visually responsive enrichment then you are totally looking in the wrong place. You cant get blood from a stone - you cant get beauty and reality from a video unless you're willing to accept it as MC Whoever's perception of those things. I encourage you to understand that the true dilemma is not what they do but how you demean their character based on the very slight impression that youve gained from a video screen. You cant take that assumption and hold me accountable for believing it, you cant take that prejudice and actually believe that this IS actually the way they are- you say they are not yet women because they dont comply to your standard.

As if the one thing they do in a three minute video can characterize their level of maturity or womanhood entirely- isnt that what you vowed not to sanction?

>if you diagree, cool. this was
>originally a discussion about why
>i am tired or choose
>not to sit and watch
>"booty videos"

Its not really about me disagreeing- I understand where you are coming from and Im also aware of where this can lead- if you dont want to go there thats fine- but Im sure you can appreciate me pointing it out even if you dont see the value of me pointing it out to you.

>>so can you admit that I
>>can accept that a woman
>>is more than an ass-
>>while still appreciating the ass?
>
>sure

good- now can you accept that a woman is still a woman even if she bases her self esteem on her body? even if she doesnt comply to your standards or anybody else's for that matter- if you wont accept that fine. As before I only intend to point that out.

>>I asked you how
>>it demonstrated such reduction you
>>begged the question.
>
>if you say so. let's flip
>it then - how does
>showing an image of some
>female/male behind NOT reduce them
>to just that behind?

see thats begging the question

the problem is material that shows "just that behind" is hardly the context of this discussion. In fact Im not so sure that there are any videos that just show ass (you gotta fit the crystal in there somewhere). As you indicate the videos in question also show breasts- in addition I assert that the primary function is to show compliancy (which may even be more demeaning) not just parts and in any case the reduction that you speak of is a red herring. They're not reducing themselves- they're conducting themselves as they see fit. the only sense of reduction is that they are not measuring up (and in your perception degrading themselves from) to what you expect of them.

>>you said "to take part (in)
>>any event (whether passively or
>>actively) is sanctioning it. "
>
>and i stand by that

as you should- perfectly logical statement

>>you also said- "internally, i
>>cannot choose to take part
>>in (or sanction) something i
>>take issue with. period. "
>
>what i mean by this is
>that internally i cannot justify
>taking part (or sanctioning) something
>i take issue with.

oh but you do- you say its ok if I dont watch too much- or if i only watch the videos without booty, or if I only eat at McDonald's occassionally- thats justification. neither here nor there really- we all do it. Just dont start believing that you dont.

I bet you read Playboy for the articles too- people can actually do that, but not without buying (into) Playboy- na'mean.

>>thats great for you to do-
>>but id encourage you not
>>to take it so seriously
>
>why not?

because you're setting standards that you cant even attain instead of striving for understanding whatever it is that you do

You think to yourself well I shouldnt do that, I cant absolutely stop doing it, so at least I wont sanction it (but you do), and at least I wont justify it (but you do that too). If you want to broaden your perspective dig deep and find out why you do it. If you want a real challenge ask them why they do it.

how you gonna broaden your perspective- if you aint even talkin to the broads!?

sorry

>>ill still give you a point
>>though- that makes 3
>
>are these points redeemable (like green
>stamps - anyone remember those)?

Im gonna start adding them up for everybody that I "argue" with- at the end of the year we'll tally em all up and Ill lose cuz Im not counting. as much of a prick you might think I am when we go back and forth my intention is not to win- it is to share ideas for truer sense at the conclusion. Hones Expression as a friend says. You dont have to concede to me for that sense- you only have to understand me and in my charge as a marginalist this would mean to some extent you understand "them." in turn I understand you - admittedly your perspective is much more healthy.

I respect the fact that it is rooted in controlling yourself but cant abide by the idea that there is some level of control that one MUST abide by.

>i don't believe that anything shouldn't.
>nothing happens in a vacuum.
>everything has some result/effect.

of course- but you indicated that you made a conscious decision to not regard all things only "certain things" in that fashion. irrelevant issue really- just clarifying.

>>How are you advocating it by
>>watching it?
>
>how are you not

Begging the question. I like booties- thats straight up, but I advocate booty shaking cuz I like booty- not just because I watch it. I watch Cops too* - I dont advocate them.

*Know Your Enemy

>is there a difference between sanctioning
>and advocating? to answer the
>question of whether it is
>ok to do either: no.

I would say yes- but those were your ideas.

>>"when you insist that there is
>>nothing (remarkably) positive about it-
>>are you really broadening your
>>perspective at all?"
>>
>>you dont have to answer it-
>>but dont pretend like it
>>wasnt there
>
>but see that's the thing...i'm not
>implying a total lack of
>anything positive (going back to
>my "sweetness in the poison"
>remark).

This is why I added the qualifier "remarkably" this is because while you admit to the lowest common denominator of the inherent positivity you insist that there's not much more positivity worth remarking on- when i said you slighted them that was in direct response to the fact that you played them parenthetically- which is demonstratively slight.

if you want my answer- the idea that these videos are at least Expressive is a remarkable positive despite the context of what they are or expressing or your judgement of it. You dont have to see it that way- but it is there.

i digress

>and where did the
>horizon broadening part come from?

again that was your idea- "my point is that until my perspective got a little broader, it was easy to look and not internalize."

my point is once your perspective gets even broader than that it will be easy to do both.

as you say I know things- I say I only know them cuz I accept that they are there and refuse to belabor the fact that I dont want them to be.

K

>I didnt say you judged (thats
>one for me) but you
>most certainly did beg the
>question. For all you non-philosophy/debate
>fans ((..SNIP...)) if
>that will suffice as an
>answer.

processed as totally unrelated to the point (which i thought was the personal moral dilema in watching "booty videos") as gibberish.

but whatever - neither here nor there.

>what else can you literally show
>on television.

this is the thing for me. what one can show is only limited to ones creativity (ignoring what is censorable for a moment). i ALSO think I'm bored with the majority of videos. Hence (again), i turn the tv off.

this may be "begging the question" so let me answer succinctly:
you can show many things, and (in my opinion) to show the same thing constantly gets boring. additionally, i have a problem with the particular images shown. hence...see above.

>Doesnt Queen Latifah
>show her body parts?

IF Latifah show only consisted of quick cuts of her body parts over the theme song. i wouldnt watch that either.

>However logically- if Queen Latifah
>only shows her head- she's
>being reduced- you dont have
>a problem with that however
>cuz it complies to your
>moral standard.

but see this is where you start assuming. i have no desire to watch just her head over the theme cause it's boring -- which is also a part of why i don't watch many videos (as stated previuosly).

>Now Ive established that
>the media itself is founded
>in the property of reduction

must have missed that part

>despite what arbitrary delineations you
>make as to what is
>appropriate- its tv and these
>are videos they cant show
>anything but the physical reality.

actually, i think that tv is a mechanism by which you convey ideas in the form of sound and images. from that i believe if one does not like what they percieve, they can turn it off. the dilenation may be arbitrary in your mind, but you don't have to agree/disagree/care what i watch (or why) because you can make your own decision in your own home/whatever.

>You can project moral standards
>on it if ya want-
>but if its causing you
>a dilemma then maybe you
>shouldnt take it so seriously.

again, thats your opinion.

>Just because they're not showing
>you an ass doesnt mean
>they're showing something more than
>physicality

and (logically) it follows that they just might be

>If you are looking for something more than
>visually responsive enrichment then you
>are totally looking in the
>wrong place.

again i disagree. there are MANY shows which i recieve more from than "visually responsive enrichment".

this is why i can "watch tv" without looking at it.
this is why i can discuss tv shows beyond what i saw (ramifications, impressions, and that kind of thing).

>I encourage you
>to understand that the true
>dilemma is not what they
>do but how you demean
>their character based on the
>very slight impression that youve
>gained from a video screen.

actually this is something i DO have an understanding of, as it relates to my own morality, etc.

>You cant take that assumption
>and hold me accountable for
>believing it,

who said i did?

>you cant take
>that prejudice and actually believe
>that this IS actually the
>way they are- you say
>they are not yet women
>because they dont comply to
>your standard.

never said i could...

>..Im also
>aware of where this can
>lead- if you dont want
>to go there thats fine-
>but Im sure you can
>appreciate me pointing it out
>even if you dont see
>the value of me pointing
>it out to you.

i'm still not getting where that is, that said i DO appreciate your atttempt to point out whatever you're attempting to point out. otherwise i would have stopped replying a while ago.

>now can you accept that
>a woman is still a
>woman even if she bases
>her self esteem on her
>body?

not necessarily. i do respect that she may see herself as a woman (or you or anyone else for that matter), but personally i do not.

>As before I only
>intend to point that out.

point taken.


>I assert that the primary
>function is to show compliancy
>(which may even be more
>demeaning) not just parts and
>in any case the reduction
>that you speak of is
>a red herring.

compliancy to what? and as far as it being a red herring, i disagree mostly for the fact that in my opinion the fact that i don't watch video that reduce women (or men actually) to parts IS very relevant.

i was gonna keep going, but then i realized.

i'm tired of this discussion.

ultimately, i choose to watch what i choose to watch, for whatever reason -- and this discussion hasn't changed my reasoning (which may not have been the point) or your opinion of it.

either way - thanks for the dialog.

Its tragically obvious that your impression of these women plays in tangent with the very demeaning presumption that in your perception a woman is not a woman unless she complies to your moral (and other) standards- you admitted that. In reference to compliance my point is- these videos arent about showing body parts- otherwise they would show toes and elbows; and if your concern was body parts you would have just as much problems with those limbs being shown- you dont and you wouldnt.

You have a problem with particular parts and their objectification- claiming that to show them is a reduction- yet in another context (the latifah scenario) showing just her head would admittedly bore you but you wouldnt think her any less of a woman. Even gentlemen ingratiate the idea that a woman's sexuality should be kept under wraps while under the auspices that they respect them and their integrity- that seems to be your steez. No offense- just callin a spade a spade.

Do you have a problem with men who parade bare chested in videos-probably not- i bet you dont turn the channel- cuz you're not predisposed to think that the man should conduct his physical form in such a strict fashion that it complies to your sense of integrity certainly not for you to respect him as a man. You unfairly project that obligation on the women in these videos.

When I say the primary intent is to depict compliance my point is its not so much the body parts that are demonstrated and demeaning but the idea that the women involved are complying to the sexual appetities of men. To an extent they are (but I disagree with the idea that they do so without integrity) if you have a problem with that then so too should you have a problem with expecting these women to comply to your moral standard. You dont but you're under the impression that your standards are in their best interests.

Thats a blatant double standard - flip sides of the same coin

the paternal order in full effect

K

> If I understand
>that she is more than
>an ass- which i do
>- how have i reduced
>her by appreciating her ass?

if you appreciate all aspects of a woman, don't you get tired of seeing the same aspects (tits and ass) focused on time and again? That's like saying you appreciate somebody's whole record, but you only play track 12 over and over....or to make a better analogy, you only listen to their single played on the radio over and over, and never purchase the full record.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with people clamoring for the other aspects of women to be exposed in media.

you said "on tv?!" as if a person's mental and spiritual attributes couldn't be displayed through visual media. almost every aspect of human life can be portrayed through film.

>
>>>I disagree with the
>>>idea that to enjoy ass-
>>>I must disregard that this
>>>an actual person
>>
>>good for you. although i never
>>said nor implied that you
>>SHOULD.
>>but as usual we digress.
>
>so can you admit that I
>can accept that a woman
>is more than an ass-
>while still appreciating the ass?

Let's put that in racial terms.

White Person: Can I accept that black people are human while appreciating their comedic talent and amazing ability to tap dance while eating watermelon?

Thoughtfully yours,

Spirit

Wise_Is_The_Name says long sigs are a
2k1 fashion statement...peep game...

http://mp3.washingtonpost.com/bands/in_shallah.shtml
Check out my hip-hop brethren In Shallah
(Arabic for "God's will"); b-boy
conscious soul music for the world to
uprock to...

http://mp3.washingtonpost.com/bands/three_levels_of_genius.shtml
more DC hip-hop for you to rock

http://www.theamphibians.com - I like
most of these guys too.

http://www.honeymag.com/Newsite/photos/sanaagold2.jpg
(future wifey Saana Lathan...heh)

Imagine if Ghostface Killah was the
frontman for The Doors and you have
Miscellaneous Flux. Their four song
debut EP is on sale now. E-mail
bootbennington@hotmail.com to get a
copy. Tell em Spirit sent you.

"the world may seem to cause you pain.
and yet the world, as causeless, has no
power to cause. as an effect, it cannot
make effects. as an illusion, it is what
you wish" denis johnson, "already dead"

if you can't dance, you aren't true to
hip-hop. ha!

>if you appreciate all aspects of
>a woman, don't you get
>tired of seeing the same
>aspects (tits and ass) focused
>on time and again? That's
>like saying you appreciate somebody's
>whole record, but you only
>play track 12 over and
>over....or to make a better
>analogy, you only listen to
>their single played on the
>radio over and over, and
>never purchase the full record.

My girlfriend has the sexiest voice Ive ever heard- I hear it all the time- but if I truly appreciate it why would i get sick of it. I like ass in general- asses of all shapes and sizes- so when they focus on ass yet again I am neither surprised nor dismayed. If I were to grow tired of overused visuals in tv I would have stopped watching tv along time ago.

>there is absolutely nothing wrong with
>people clamoring for the other
>aspects of women to be
>exposed in media.

of course not

>you said "on tv?!" as if
>a person's mental and spiritual
>attributes couldn't be displayed through
>visual media. almost every aspect
>of human life can be
>portrayed through film.

good luck- those aspects can be easily portrayed through reality. If you're encouraging people to enlist in the more uplifting properties of life- to do so through television media is missing the mark.

I can do peyote and get enlightened but Im not about to do it- there are other ways to reach that goal.


>Let's put that in racial terms.
>
>
>White Person: Can I accept that
>black people are human while
>appreciating their comedic talent and
>amazing ability to tap dance
>while eating watermelon?

Im not "white" so I cant really answer that question- but i dont see how a "white" person couldnt do that.

They love the 3 stooges- and those are the biggest baffoons in film history.

K

>Let's put that in racial terms.
>
>
>White Person: Can I accept that
>black people are human while
>appreciating their comedic talent and
>amazing ability to tap dance
>while eating watermelon?

Your analogy doesnt work cuz eating watermelon and tap dancing is an act while ass itself is part of the human body. One can refrain from eating watermelon but not having an ass is not so easy.

maybe your paralel would be between tap dancing and shaking one's ass- but on those grounds you can waste as much time arguing that either act is demeaning nonetheless you'll find dance in general embraced in wide variety throughout our culture.

the problem with your argument is that is seemingly necessitates that respectfulness and character appreciation are standards and not a matter of personal choice and intention.

Can I appreciate the entirety of a woman and still appreciate her shaking her ass- MOS DEF- the question is can you?

K

You didnt answer the question.

I dont mean it in that "are you queer" sort of way- but since you insist on pointing out that there is a difference between women and girls Im curious as to why you cant admit to liking girls?

when i was a boy - i liked girls, as a man i now like - women

As a boy did you like women? If so why cant you like girls as a man?

sounds like rhetoric to me- especially in this sense where we're commenting on the female form. While you may conclude that these are girls in regards to their integrity (which you know is prejudiced and demeaning) they certainly flaunt the bodies of women and as such you should be inclined to like them.

Unless of course a woman is only a woman if she acts according to your moral standards.

K

>As a boy did you like
>women?

depends on which stage of boyheood you're refering to and what your definition is of "like"

>If so why cant
>you like girls as a
>man?

is this for me personally, or in a more general sense of "you"

>sounds like rhetoric to me- especially
>in this sense where we're
>commenting on the female form.

sounds like your opinion which you are entitled to

>While you may conclude that
>these are girls in regards
>to their integrity (which you
>know is prejudiced and demeaning)
>they certainly flaunt the bodies
>of women and as such
>you should be inclined to
>like them.

you created the "these" and "they" out of thin air. who are you referring to? beyond that, just because a female has the "body of a woman" doesn't make her "likable" in my viewpoint. there are 10 year olds with functioning sexual organs and they are sexy (to me at least).

when i talk about what makes a female a woman as opposed to a girl i refer more to a level of maturity (that of course being by own to decide, since is is me that is choosing a preference).

>Unless of course a woman is
>only a woman if she
>acts according to your moral
>standards.

mral AND other standards actually....

>there are
>10 year olds with functioning
>sexual organs and they are

insert NOT here

>sexy (to me at least).

in regards to other spelling mistakes - whateverman, you get the gist

>>As a boy did you like
>>women?
>
>depends on which stage of boyheood
>you're refering to and what
>your definition is of "like"

thats comical- what sense did you mean it in the first two times you answered the question? Who's wrangling now?

>>If so why cant
>>you like girls as a
>>man?
>
>is this for me personally, or
>in a more general sense
>of "you"

the general sense- more wrangling

>>sounds like rhetoric to me- especially
>>in this sense where we're
>>commenting on the female form.
>
>sounds like your opinion which you
>are entitled to

actually I explained how this applies beyond my opinion and characterizes yours but whatever

>>While you may conclude that
>>these are girls in regards
>>to their integrity (which you
>>know is prejudiced and demeaning)
>>they certainly flaunt the bodies
>>of women and as such
>>you should be inclined to
>>like them.
>
>you created the "these" and "they"
>out of thin air. who
>are you referring to?

women in videos- the same they we've been talking about all along; aside from your wrangling. You insisted on the diferentiation between women and girls (out of thin air) now you dont know who we're talking about

> beyond
>that, just because a female
>has the "body of a
>woman" doesn't make her "likable"
>in my viewpoint.

we're not talking about being likable- we're talking about your differentiation between them being women and girls. Were you saying that the girls in question (girls in videos) arent women or were you just being snide? Dont answer that.

>there are
>10 year olds with functioning
>sexual organs and they are
>sexy (to me at least).

IM sure that this was a typo

>when i talk about what makes
>a female a woman as
>opposed to a girl i
>refer more to a level
>of maturity (that of course
>being by own to decide,
>since is is me that
>is choosing a preference).

fair enough

>>Unless of course a woman is
>>only a woman if she
>>acts according to your moral
>>standards.
>
>mral AND other standards actually....

BINGO

>thats comical- what sense did you
>mean it in the first
>two times you answered the
>question? Who's wrangling now?

just keeping focus.

when i was a boy, lets see if i can remember, of say less than seven i paid females no mind. from seven to thirteen they were different (some pretty, some not as well as many other differences) from boys enough to at times pique my interest, and at times irk me. during this phase i began to know the difference between women and girls beyond their size differences. most of my attention was focused on girls because that was what i had the most contact with. after that all hell broke loose - but that's a different (and much longer story).

when we discuss the issue of "like" i was attempting to clarify whether we were talking about a sexual, intellectual or someohter kind of like.

this is important if you want a clear answer because dependent upon both my stage in life, and the definition of like that we're using the answer to your question COULD be yes or no.

if that's "wrangling" so be it.

>>is this for me personally, or
>>in a more general sense
>>of "you"
>
>the general sense- more wrangling

more clarification because what applies to ME doesn't apply to "men in general" so the answer would be different


>women in videos- the same they
>we've been talking about all
>along;

we've been talking about many things...again: clarification.


>You insisted on the diferentiation
>between women and girls (out
>of thin air) now you
>dont know who we're talking
>about

actually i did insist on the differentiation, when i guess i should have not assumed what you meant about like (as i later realized). actually. i "like" both in light of subsequent disscussion and realizing that "like" means many things

>we're not talking about being likable-

see...i thought we were. because you asked me if i "liked girls"

>we're talking about your differentiation
>between them being women and
>girls.

the differentiation was a different thing which (i thought) attempted to clarify.

>Were you saying that
>the girls in question (girls
>in videos) arent women or
>were you just being snide?
>Dont answer that.

i'll answer like this (even though you asked me not to) because i think it matters to the conversation: depends on the video and depends on the female.

i've seen videos with GIRLS no older than 12 i don't like for different reasons

ive seen videos with much older women that i don't like for some of the same (and for different) reasons

>>mral AND other standards actually....
>
>BINGO

FINALLY....one of the major points is the fact that this is a moral dilema (or can be) for some -- myself included.

just goin back to a question that boodaah asked, how does showing an image of some female/male body parts (like butt, chest, etc.) not reduce them to just those parts?


i'm just curious about your thoughts on that.




puttin all my mem'ries on the shelf, the shelf
*listen*
ain't got time to think of nothin else
naw, naw, naw
the love you bring is full of fire-a- hire-hire-hire-hire!
bein close to you is my desiiiiiiiiire

(baby, baby, baby, babaayyy!!)

can't get enough of yo sweet love
i just want some mo, i want some mo, i want some mo (gi'it hiunh)

-johnny "guitar" watson, 'thank you" (translation by Aja)

"how does showing an image of some female/male body parts (like butt, chest, etc.) not reduce them to just those parts?"

Would it be reduction if I was only to show the females arm, or head, or feet? The issue is not even the parts in question but my argument is that this is primarily what we chalk it up to be.

Ask yourself- if our problem is with reducing the female to her physical form then why is sexual expression the target and not the form itself?

The only thing that makes reduction of the female to her carnal appeasing parts taboo is the socialization that we've undergone to be ashamed of those parts; the pervasively paternal order that suggests that women should act this way, or only show these parts, or only conduct themselves like so to be respected or to even be given the integrity of respecting themselves.

Ask yourself- why shouldnt we be up in arms about women being reduced in any physical fashion? Because we are under the impression that the physical reality is at its peak when it is supressed by notions of class and moral standards - all of which have been handed down primarily by paternal order.

This paternal and sexist tradition has bred the idea that even when a woman capitalizes (and I mean get PAID) on the sexual instincts of the male that it is actually the male that is in control. Thats not true but it is most certainly how it is projected so women lose control thinking they never had it.

Ask yourself- why is integrity encouraged while sexuality is not? Because the paternal order realizes that sexuality places social empowerment squarely in the female's lap.

seriously- you couldnt imagine how much money ive spent on strippers and porn in the last month (much less my entire life) Am I in control of these women or are we both under the thumb of a much larger conspiracy. The shit is so deep that even the women that appease my carnal desires think that as a man I have the power.


If men are truly in power of sexual interaction then surely such interaction would unilaterly be conditioned for the appeasement of men- why then is prositution illegal.

Men run the country- they dont criminalize the sex of women because they dont want it they do so so they can control its spread and its influence.


A little off the topic- bottom line - we must become increasingly careful of going along with ideas that comply with the paternal order. No matter how often they seem like they are in women's best interests.

Im a man- Im not going to bother telling anybody what a woman should do with her body- not in any context - I will however defend the fact that this in some occassions is what they choose to do.

If I am inclined to respect women in general- I am inclined to respect them.

K

the pervasively demeaning paternal order has conditioned the mother to tell her daughter that her most important part is not whats between her legs- but what is between her ears.

Why is her vagina any less important than any of her parts? Why is her sexuality not appreciated as an equal part of her entire body? Because men will take advantage of it? Why should that have anything to do with her self esteem?

do you know the difference- think about it


do they tell little boys that?

...damned if u don't.

but hell, at least you've got the option. I mean, as a heterosexual female, I find it pretty hard to stomach most videos nowadays.

men: take a lesson from d'angelo: WOMEN WANT EYE CANDY TOO!!

damnit.

ok. I'm through.

L.


GO RAVENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"no matter/whatever/whatever/no...g--girl/u know what I mean" ~~Musiq

"If you don't have no psychology, and no theology, all you got left to offer a man is your biology."(c) a preacher a friend of mine knows

Lookin for me?
carameldom@hotmail.com
AIM: LHoney17
http://members.blackplanet.com/Lex319

By the same token I should be retching at D'angelo's video but while Im confidently heterosexual I can appreciate its intent and artistry. Is it the female body that repulses you, or the supposed objectification, or the intent and somewhat sexist appreciation of those pandering to it?

K

It's b-cuz cats want flesh, it's a beautiful thang, we just have 2 do it alittle differently i.e. Bilal's video, directed by a sista I might add. As a heterosexual man, D' video was whatever, but the boy is in shape and frankly it was appropriate 2 the song... u paid attension 2 the music.
ALSO in D's video it was him! not some faceless, nameless chick who can't sang... as fyne as her ass may be. It's about sensuality no a stripshow... Props 2 Mystkal 4 1 thang only... Sistas of all shades... now if we can get sum women with alittle curve in they slope (meat on they bones) things will b cool.
Where u at Lisa Nicole Carson?

Most of us were watching them abs & he knows it too.

Nobody, I mean nobody called me asking if I heard the song but a lot of people initated conversation behind WATCHING him in the video.

>Is it the
>female body that repulses you,

no, not at all...personally I find the female body much more interesting and varied than the male. We as women are beautiful.


>or the supposed objectification, or
>the intent and somewhat sexist
>appreciation of those pandering to
>it?

That's it. I mean, sometimes I wonder, "Does she know what she LOOKS like??" They are just ass-shaking robots, frowning deeply into the camera. If you're going to degrade yourself, at least make it look like you're having fun doing it.

L.


GO RAVENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"What cements us/is just as important as what prevents us/from being attentive/Cause the spiritual divide causes us all to collide/ in a manner that’s most intensive" ~~WordMosaic

"no matter/whatever/whatever/no...g--girl/u know what I mean" ~~Musiq

"They are just ass-shaking robots, frowning deeply into the camera. If you're going to degrade yourself, at least make it look like you're having fun doing it. "

""Does she know what she LOOKS like??""

There's a big difference between what they look like and what you think they look like. These women certainly look like they're having fun to me and I dont think Ive ever seen a "frown" - and if thats justification enough for you then what exactly do you oppose?

K

Let me first say that in my very first post I was largely joking. But since you asked, I'll get serious.

I already cleared up the female body issue. No problem there. And you're right. I can't read their minds. But from my observation, a lot of them look like they aren't too happy about what they're getting paid to do. Maybe they're just trying to look sexy. I don't know. But the most of the "dancers" in, say, Hot Boyz videos don't look as gleeful as the trained dancers in Q-Tip videos.

What I mind is the continued objectification of women in these videos. The idea that since they got to shake their asses and get pinched by the rap star of the day, everything's ok. The idea that hundreds of young men are watching these videos & don't have any role models to tell them that there is much more to womanhood.

What I mind is that these artists have sisters, mothers and aunts.

I'm not saying women have to be Badu-esque in every video, either. But why perpetuate the materialistic, gold digging stereotype? If they wanna floss, get close ups of platinum rings, not t & a.

I don't know if that answers your question, but that's where I am with the whole thing. Besides, I'm a firm believer in "If you don't like it, turn it off."

L.


GO RAVENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"What cements us/is just as important as what prevents us/from being attentive/Cause the spiritual divide causes us all to collide/ in a manner that’s most intensive" ~~WordMosaic

"no matter/whatever/whatever/no...g--girl/u know what I mean" ~~Musiq

"I'm not saying women have to be Badu-esque in every video, either. But why perpetuate the materialistic, gold digging stereotype? If they wanna floss, get close ups of platinum rings, not t & a."

You have to understand that despite your presumption that this is a stereotype this is actually how some of these people live and amuse themselves. For them shaking asses and popping crys is just about as stereotypical as you burning incense or wearing a headwrap. Sure alot of people wear head wraps- doesnt mean they do it for the same reasons, it doesnt even mean that they all have some determination in wearing them; likewise a girl in a video might be a bikini model or a stripper, or even just some random girl on the beach- the same girl that was gettin mad play at the club last night- she's not thinking about how she's damaging society cuz this is just how she is.

I could easily blast Erykah for wearing dread extensions and perpetuating that au natural, afrocentric, self-righteousness while she's popping out illegitimate babies; but that would be wrong- cuz at least she's positive.

She's not positive - she's being herself (clever), shouldnt the women in these videos be allowed to do the same thing? I understand your opinion but I think alot of you step out of the bounds of opinion and start making characterizations of these people that are founded in your morals - not theirs.

its silly to think that someone has to look "gleeful" to you to justify their behavior even though you'll probably never accept the idea that anybody who does this could truly be happy at all.

Im not sayn that you have to change your views or impressions of these people- but if you feel that they are damaging the esteem of our culture- i submit that you may be just as much to blame despite your good intentions.

K

and I agree with you for the most part.

But I think you misunderstood where I was coming from on the "morality" level. I was just stating my opinion. I don't judge these women one way or the other. I was just calling things as I happen to see them. There is plenty of validity in the way you've responded to me, and I accept that as well. I'm open.

But as far as me thinking that what they're doing as individuals is "wrong" in terms of black and white, I don't know them personally, so I can't make that statement. And I wouldn't try to.

I'm not taking back anything I said, but I'm not judging these women either. If I'm "judging" anything, I think it would have to be the industry itself.

L.


GO RAVENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"What cements us/is just as important as what prevents us/from being attentive/Cause the spiritual divide causes us all to collide/ in a manner that’s most intensive" ~~WordMosaic

"no matter/whatever/whatever/no...g--girl/u know what I mean" ~~Musiq

i think the real problem comes in when u have women who aren't exactly all that self-confident (and, keepin it real, some who ARE) sitting in the room with u and you and your boys are screaming about the chick on the screen who looks like the opposite end of the spectrum from the woman sitting in the room with u. especially if she's younger (teenager or so), hearing praise given to women who show the goods in videos can be really damaging.

bottom line is, we all know you're looking. we just don't wanna hear about how fine "she" is. if u aren't an artist, u can't really do anything about the "dancing freak syndrome." but u can definitely try to hold the fervor down until the impressionable 12 year old leaves the room. . .


you doin ho activities, wit ho tendencies. . .(c) luda-whatever

It is all about the distortion of reality. Yes these sisters are beautiful, but do they have to be half-naked doing it. Can it not be just as sexual with more clothes on? Yes it can be. Does every women in the club look like that? No. The real problem is that it distorts the reality of a lot of people. It makes many people feel inadequate/undesirable if they don't look like that. You may say that these people are insecure but they get the lack of security from these images. Secondly when women are presented as sexual images then men treat many women like that. You may say these type of men are idiots, but they became idiots by watching these very same images. Don't front about it. It happens to me as a big booty sister everything from Cali to Mass. What is really needed is balance. But that goes without saying...

Quote of the Month:
"I'm on the down low like midget door knobs"- S. Edwards

http://members.blackplanet.com/LittleTortilla

Thank you for sharing your dilema. It is so interesting to hear the perspective of a mature intelligent young man on this issue. I always thought that guys weren't thinking at all when they watch these videos, and I wondered how it can be that none of them can see or choose to see the exploitation that's going on. I hadn't really given much thought to them being torn between their personal moral views and their...well, you know what I'm saying. I only thought about the women and wondered what they could possibly be thinking as they're shaking everything they've got as close to the camera as possible. I wondered if they were just completely unaware of how their beauty and sexuality was being perverted. Is this society really so sexist that they would actually think that that's the one thing their good for? Then I wondered, if they do know, how do they justify it to themselves? Are they thinking about the money they will get and telling themselves that the ends justify the means? Do they see this as a smart career move which will ultimately lead them to fame and fortune? Or are they so starved for attention that they feel they have to show as much as possible before they start to sag and that this will be the legacy they leave behind?


You know I only say it 'cause I'm truly Genuine
Don't be a hard rock when you really are a Gem -- Lauryn Hill

dont take it so seriously

i was just try to be honest about how one side i think shit is foul, but at the same those are some most physicallt attractive women on earth....

peace

would you still be considered mature and intelligent if you didnt think it was foul?

i know a lot of mature intellegent cats who are foul....

Those are the cats who are producing, promotoing and marketing the videos...

Is this video considered in the same context of the argument? Is his video more artistic than Danger?
Just some questions

beacuse I look at this video and say damn... these sistahs got some beautiful bone structure, posture etc but when I see a video like Dnager, for example, Im like damn this sistah is exploiting herself....
the first explanation I can think of is the packaging, the artist, things like that...
the sistahs in Bilals video arent portaying strippers or shaking they ass or northing for the most part but if you look at it I think the same delima exists
I mean shit I shake my ass all the time to be perfectly honest with you... Im a dancer and most times Im rockin something thats tight and premotes flexability... so I wonder why I can admire the sistah in one vidoe who isnt half but Completely naked and at the same time condemn the others in simular situations...
I guess lyrical content would have to be considered as well... interesting though because we know not of teh conditions situations and positions that these women are in so we cant really gain understanding of motive... maybe some of them just auditioned for the wrong video

but still a good question




Amina NiaRa

I can tell you anything you wanna hear but I can only teach you what I know

"We are so poor that we have nothing to earn respect but our principles."
-Julius Nyerere

"The philosophy of the African revolution... is defined by three political components of our liberation movement-namely: Nationalism, Panafricanism, and socialism."
- Kwame Nkrumah

aminamoonbeam@hotmail.com
and yes Im still A.L.I.V.E

Im glad that this topic was brought up, foreal.

Its something that been bothering me but not as much as it could since I can easily change the channel, knowwhatimsayin?

The Bilal video is different, I can sit through it and dig the song because of the content and the taste..in my opinion the whole thing (with the Bilal video)is done in a way that UPLIFTS black women. I can look at it and say " damn..we are fly aint we?"
That other shyt is like the artist is saying "look at me, Im so rich and fly..i got women all around me ..my pockets fat, her ass is fat..bling bling .."Bullshit. Its like the Queen is an accessory,something to show off.


I havent seen Danger video so I won't comment on it but with these other vidoes its like "every where i go i see the same h*es" and they put themselves out there like that. They can attempt to justify getting paid to show thier ass by belief that a video will build thier career but its still degregating.



"If your'e not a whore then why dress/act like one?"-my girl's Momma




________________________________________
Open Your 3rd Eye
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
~Or~
http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire

...due to the fact that I really don't pay too much of what's on BET now anyhow due to the lack of creativity and cultural uplifting...BUT...the women on the video's are, in fact, some, if not, the most BEAUTIFUL I've ever seen. Personally I'm not a fan of tight clothes and skimpy leave-nothing-to-the-imagination outfits but when they're portrayed on television it's somethin' else intirely. I'm probably diggin a deeper whole for myself and all of male-kind out there but it's true...I just hope my girlfriend doesn't read this.......




Yunique (aka Kwame de l'Afrique)

***

"head crack, talk back, verbal attack. side tracked, you get japped with my lyric impact. snap outta that"
- CappaDonna

"Hypocrites... are not to be killed, for Allah desires them to be made examples for others by chastising them, like a parent does a child."
- Elijah Muhammad

"Knowledge is like a garden : if it is not cultivated, it cannot be harvested."
-African Proverb (Guinea)

thank me for the short sig. later.....

>>What i'm trying to say is
>that while i know that
>is is wack, i know
>its' eye candy, and just
>like real candy it has
>no substance whatsoever...


I was just about to ask you if you with the way they expliot Sista's but I guess we both agrees that those LOVELY women shouldn't have to get naked to get recognised.............but anyways thats my opinon

Power to all my Black Sista's
Don't let the Materialise you girls

Peace

...

Why would God have given you in life a questioning mind if not to hand to you in death the blinding answers!!!

AIM Carmel3494 say ure okp

hey... on the issue of women in videos... what can u say... for years black woman were seen as not beautiful... now its different and people wanna complain... nothing in this world is perfect along with videos... and i really dont see the difference between a video and lets say sports illustrated... when tyra banks won the cover two years in a row, she was considered a great black women for breaking down that barrier. in most cases she had on less clothes than women from the videos... so i dont see how we could praise that and have such a negative view of women in videos... all it is, is modeling on camera thats all... i bet if Hugh Hefner directed the videos they would be masterpeices.......

>hey... on the issue of
>women in videos... what
>can u say... for
>years black woman were seen
>as not beautiful... now
>its different and people wanna
>complain...


yeah, but we were also seen as oversexxed , sluts
animals/ to be used @ slave master's will.

Now..now what does hollywood portray?

________________________________________
Open Your 3rd Eye
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
~Or~
http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire