Oeps, Sorry,
I thought this was the Poser forum.

Yeah, listen Vilters, quit being a gatecrasher and get your arse over to Blender and start sculpting me a snake!!!
I want a snake and I want it fast, and make sure it's a male Devil Snake like in the photos!!!

I only want it as a pet, but I want a Devil Snake!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl with Blade

Just two things, Roxie:
1 - No one is ever going to believe you only want him as a pet.
2 - I see you've taken over my avatar again, but as you look so deadly beautiful, I'll forgive you :-D

Did you draw that, Tony?

 **pumeco **since where Artist ,that's not a problem

we can paint render anything are selfs we want on are walls :)

Spoken like a true artist, RorrKonn ;-)

 My friend Mr Google found that LOL.

Pumykins, the reason it is not always possible to find a LINK is that all of human knowledge is, believe it or not, not on the web. A lot of knowledge is actually contained within these mystical objects that educated people know as BOOKS. Educated people actually even read them from time to time, and occasionally remember and pass on the mysterious wisdom contained within. Frequently, this takes place in venerated temples of knowledge known as SCHOOLS.

Alas, not every book has been scanned into Google's archives. However, I did a simple Google search and found this example in less than two minutes:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Jpm4x1bNw7kC&lpg=PA42&ots=J6bRdu-EMv&dq=meaning%20of%20images%20of%20women%20with%20feet%20cropped%20-%22crop%20circles%22&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=meaning%20of%20images%20of%20women%20with%20feet%20cropped%20-%22crop%20circles%22&f=false

Pay attention to this:

"First, body cropping was seen as a form of depersonalization of the woman, and a form of detachment. They explained that the ultimate objectification of the female is to picture her headless and feetless -- unable to think and unable to move."

On page 43:

"Further, the woman in this particular ad cannot move, having no feet. Therefore, she is completely immobile and available, in a both a visual and a physical sense" 

This is standard deconstruction. Nothing strange or controversial about it. However, since a while back you demonstrated a curious inability to even understand the fundamental concept of objectification, I don't expect this to make much sense to you. :D 

PS -- Pumyluv, I'm not mad about your response to my post. Really, :) Moreover, getting upset is an understandable reaction to brutal honesty, which is why I am rarely that blunt. I did not intend to hurt your feelings with my post a couple of pages ago, though I can see how my words could have been hurtful even to someone who seems as invulnerable to criticism as you do. If they were -- if I upset you --, I apologize. :)

<3 <3 <3 

since I just got magna studio 5 and it's been ah since 1998 since I painted in the real wourld and never in CGI.

there's no meaning I just need to practice flesh,hair,cloth,clouds.

I didn't need feet or hands to practice and the pixel size of the paper is so small I have my doubts they would look very good anyways.

 ----

The meaning of cropping . do they ever talk about paper ,size pixel size etc etc.

did they ask the photographer why they cropped it the way they did.

are they just trying to figure out the best way to make a ad to sell me something I don't need.

a book on why we pay 200% taxes might be helpful to society.

I like this one also 

 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bVICDPIU5iU/TbIQZi3UDaI/AAAAAAAAEG0/qLKLkS9Mr8I/s1600/devon_aoki_nude_with_snake.jpg 

humans will be human and I over look them 99.9% of the time.

when some one got a hole church to email me about them thinking I was a devil worshiper cause of some of my paintings .

I just told them I'm not they might want to ask someone be for accusing someone and a few even still wanted to argue with me that I was.

lol humans. but they inspired me to make some of the most satanic painting ever done and they went over quite well .

so it all worked out for the best. 

I have made painting for churches also.

anyways a lot will have there opinion on Art some will be based of fact but most will be based only on there opinion.

might not agree but I'll try to understand another Artist opinion. but if there not even a Artist

then I don't get how they have a opinion about something they don't know anything about.

I don't have any opinion about how to do surgery or traveling to pluto. 

Thou after C4D & zBrush I think rocket science would be easy thou. lol it's a joke .

@Moriador
Hey, thanks for the giggle, and for trying to hide a reply in yet another insult.  Suggesting that I don't understand the objectification of women (or how it's done), is genuinley one of the most amusing things I ever heard in my life - and I really do me in my life!  Even more amusing is that I got an earful from Shane about it in a previous thread.  I pointed out quite happily that I objectify women, and I also pointed out why those who have a problem with it, are nothing less than hypocrites.

As for the insult (yet again), how many more times do I have to make it clear, I am not religious, so it's understandable that I'm not educated in religious symbolism.  Suggesting that I'm some uneducated idiot who doesn't know what a book is and doesn't read them, is insulting.  You're talking to someone who's never purchased an "E-BOOK" in his bloody life, I buy real books and use a library while most people nowadays are sucked into the "virtual book" bullshit.  I feel I'm having to say this quite often to you Moriador - but grow up.  I'm not educated enough to knit a sweater, either, but hey, as I'm not interested in knitting, I think I should be let off the hook on that one!

There's a lot of stuff I don't know because I've never had interest in it, and when I were a kid at school and the government wanted to force a whole heap of pointless "History Lessons" down my throat, my mate and I would give them the "big finger", disappear without permission, and do something much more worthwhile, like go into town, buy us a bag of chips, sit on a wall and rate the women that walked by.  There's a lot I don't know, but suggesting I don't understand the objectification of women, is an insult designed to provoke response.  Your own resposes tell a person like myself, someone who knows the things he does, that you're effictively a 'Vanilla Girl' and really shouldn't be talking about the deeper stuff and it's meanings.  I needed to explain to you that it's not the Snake that is erotic, it's the power of suggestion.  That was just basic stuff, so I shudder to think how much 'power of suggestion' and 'eroticism' you miss out on in other images!

Regrds the feet, thanks for the link.  You gain brownie points over Shane for actually posting something to back it up (which is all I was wanting in the first place), but you lose brownie points by being insulting about it.  Again, your insults are brought about by only one thing, you absolutely need to be able to look correct when you post something.  The problem is, the thing you seem quick to dismiss, is that I was more than happy for the cropped feet to represent her being helpless, did you miss that part?  Doric didn't, in fact being a guy he knew exactly what I meant and even pointed out that he doesn't like that sort of thing (which is fine).  He then went on to recommend what I'd need and he managed to do all that without being insulting about it.

Try that approach next time, Moriador.

So like I said, thanks for the info (and I'll read-up more about it because it interests me) but it still don't think it applies to that image.  I think it was cropped like that for aesthetic reasons because that image is strangely difficult to make look right unless the crop is bang-on with that one, there's not many ways you can crop that image and have it look balanced.  One other thing that should be pointed out is that the print of that image has been released in at least three crops that I know of, they're all different.  One is directly below the knees, the other two are along the shins, but none are below the ankles (AKA cropping the feet).  I realise you don't take notice of these things when I say them, but hopefully you'll take note this time: I would prefer the image to represent her being helpless because that would make the image erotic and I like eroticism in art, but I just don't get that from the image, not in the crop, and not in the the image itself.

@RorrKonn
Man, that's nice, she looks very seductive, love the pose as well!  Nice work on defining the edges this time, you've done a good job around the legs but even better around the cleavage, you have some nice highlighting going on as well, much better than on the previous one :-)

Love the girl at the link, a hottie, don't like the colour of the snake though.  But have you noticed how many images the Avodon photo has influenced?  Even the humourous one Moriador posted is influenced by it, we have everything from Lego figures to men having a go at it, surely the sign of a good peice of Art if it has so much influence, makes me all the more "proud to hang it on my wall" ;-)

But shhhhhhhhh, don't tell Moriador, she'll only see me having an "educated eye" for quality art, and we can't have that, I'm too uneducated for that :-D

Regards all that Hippie stuff and Devil Worshipping, lol, if I ever visit America I would love to meet you and buy you a beer, RorrKonn!  I think I'd have handled the situation with the Devil Worshipping a little differently though, I'd have had a lot more fun at their expense if the Church had come whining at me - and I'd have enjoyed doing so.  I'd find a forest area, hire a bunch of willing virgins (they must be virgins but I won't expalin why due to not being educted enough).  I'd build a fire and ask them to dance around it naked while worshipping Mr Devil Snake (me).  And when they come knocking and being all hypocritical about it, I'd just remind them that the only reason they're able to stand in front of me whining about it, is because their parents ultimately commited the same act as Mr Devil Snake did in the forest with his Virgins, only Mr Devil Snake had a heck of a lot more fun doing it.

But you know what I mean, you have to laugh at hypocrites, it's unfortunatley one of the few pleasures I get out of life at the moment.  I have my dad to thank for laughing at them and seeing right through them.  I think it all started in a bakery, I was just a kid and I was hanging out with my dad doing the shopping.  He bought something, pointed to it through the glass display and said:

• I'll have that one love, so she smiled and put it in the bag.
• He opened it, noticed it wasn't what he wanted after all, and asked for the one next to it instead.
• The woman replied "I'm sorry but I can't take it back now".
• My dad asked "Why Not?".
• She said "Because you've touched it with your hands".
• My dad replied "And what the hell did you use to put it in the bag then, your bloody feet?"

Needless to say, she changed it for him.  I was only young at the time but I remember it vividly, and I was educated enough even as a nipper to understood the smile on his face completely.

Anyway, here's another picture of Mr Devil Snake exploring yet another one of his women.  Posted for Roxie, I hope she isn't getting too impatient waiting for Vilters' Snake to arrive, she's never shut-up about it ever since she saw that one with the apple in it:

Painted this about 13 years ago, since we're on the subject and it's mutations...

http://i.imgur.com/0joVhKQ.jpg

Here's a detail. I consider this an inferior painting now, comparatively. But...

http://i.imgur.com/YEoYbsp.jpg

Neither links working for me, Primorge :-(

Would partake of the discussion itself, but I became jaded with these kind of merry-go-rounds long ago.

I will say, however, "who did this before Pollock?"

Well, maybe Max Ernst... but still.

Think about such a thing in the context of history.

Copy and paste into your browser, I just tested them. Working.

I can see it's not a clickable link, which is why I already pasted into my browser to go to the address, but like I said, it's not working, might be a DNS thing.
Anyway, regards "Who did this before Pollock?"

Well here's my guess, and although Mr Chimp has improved considerably since then, he's still not managed to pull-off a Royo or Vallejo:

I'm hoping the sarcasm will teach Shane not to champion "Pollock" in the same discussion he dismisses the work of "Royo" and "Vallejo".
I realise it won't make any difference to who likes what (and it's not meant to), but nevertheless, the contrast needed to be pointed out.

Pumeco, it's hilarious how you feel no compunction whatsoever about dishing out insults to just about every single member in these forums (who doesn't kiss your arse) over utterly trivial matters (such as which browser they use), but when someone gives you just a tiny bit of your own treatment, you go into an emotional meltdown.

I have a grasp of why you consistently behave this way because I've seen it many times. I used to think you were just putting on a show -- because no one could really be such a perfect caricature -- but now I actually believe that you really are suffering.

While I find your case interesting, your behavior has completely poisoned these forums, and for everyone else's sake I'm going to refrain from feeding you.

Pumeco, seriously, this is going a bit far. And your belligerent tone is unnecessary. You can disagree with someone without being an ass about it. Moriador got a bit out of line too but she apologized in a later post. So how about tone down the hostility if you want to keep discussing this. Sarcasm isn't the same as being insulting, which you have been at multiple points. If you feel like Moriador or someone else has insulted you then you can say so and state your case without being confrontational. 

 Yes this is the Poser forum, but discussions on art and art-related things should be allowed, since we're all supposed to be artists on some level. Technically this thread has been completely derailed, but it was pretty much over with before the derailing happened anyway. There's only so much that can be said about purchasing pen tablets. 

As for the objectification thing, I still don't think you really get it, or more specifically, I don't think you get the implications from it and the negativity that surrounds it, all the bad things that it's caused and why it's not seen as something that should really be acceptable by a lot of people. Kind of like a snow-ball affect. But some of it is so common-place now that many people don't even think about it, because they see examples of it every day, everywhere they look, from magazines to tv to billboards, so they're desensitized to it, which is what that article that Moriador linked to was talking about. Being desensitized to an issue doesn't make the issue any less problematic. If anything it could, and often does, make it a whole lot worse. When a person is objectified, they are no longer seen as a person, but an object - something without thought or feeling, that can be treated like property and abused as its owner sees fit. People who deliberately objectify other people are often seen as narcissists and sociopaths, and very often they are exactly that, and their actions tend to lead to much worse things down the road. So when you proudly boast that you objectify women, that's not going to sit very well with others, especially not a woman. It's entirely different in the case of a bdsm type of relationship, between two (or more) adults where that sort of thing is consensual on both sides, and I think that is what you're confusing, when you brought up the point about how "most women like it according to such-n-such research" (which you didn't even bother to provide any source info for, yet were adamant that a differing view's sourcing be done). There may or may not be an element of truth to that, but again it has to be consensual, or it changes the game entirely. I highly doubt that in today's world 'most' women like being treated like or seen as property, by anybody other than themselves. 

And in terms of the religious symbolism, those were two entirely separate aspects that you've somehow combined into one, I can only assume because you misunderstood what I was saying. 

It's obvious you're not an art major. If you were you would recognize the contributions to the art world that artists like Pollock, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc, have made to the world, and how drastically different, and limited, art would be today had those - and many others like them - not done what they were doing in their day. You don't have to like their work to be able to appreciate what they did or why they did it. Pollock, in the mid 20th century, happened to be seen as one of the greatest artists of his time, partly because he refused to conform to what was expected of him. He hated conformity and deliberately looked for ways to create art without traditional tools or methods. He hated using paint brushes because that's what was expected, just for example. He also had a very caustic personality and was extremely anti-social, and his fame just made him that much more anti-social and withrawn. And no, you would not be able to create the kinds of work he created. Only someone who is not familiar with his work and has no respect for it would say that. There have been a few who have tried, and none of them went anywhere with it. They were seen as copycats and wanna-be's who couldn't come up with their own idea or style and definitely didn't have anywhere close to the same technique. These are not poster board sized paintings mind you. Many are massive, room-sized pieces, that when you're standing in front of one, they envelop you and its all you can see. What I see when I look at one, it's hard to explain. Try laying in the grass on a clear night in complete darkness and staring up at the cosmos and see what you see. That's about as close a description as I can get. 

So a lot of these points that I brought up in previous posts probably aren't going to mean much to you. I didn't say the Avedon image was commercial art. I didn't even say that it was tacky. Common and way overdone yes. In the 1970s and 80s naked girls with snakes was not exactly an original idea. I pointed out the different symbolisms and connotations that are in it. It's not my fault that you don't know what various symbolisms are. Vallejo and Royo are commercial art and I said they're good at what they do, but it doesn't make them any less commercial, and it doesn't put any more depth or meaning into their work. They've done nothing new. Frazetta did that - he opened that door for them, they're just imitating it. Most of their work is designed for exactly the reason I said it's designed for - video games and comic books, and what is the primary demographic that video games and comic books are marketed to? Adolescent males. And all 3 of them owe a tip of their hats to artists like Picasso and Van Gogh and many others, for having the balls to break conformity and paint things that were considered obscene in their days. Otherwise we all might still be looking at religious paintings and bunny rabbits and fields of flowers, which were about the only things considered kosher back then and didn't get labeled taboo. Yeah that's a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point. I would think that someone such as yourself who claims to be such a rebel against the man, would have more appreciation for those artists for doing what they did, so that you can look at your pretty naked girls with snakes today. Because that sort of art didn't just come about one day because some guy with a camera or a paintbrush decided he was going to be brazen - it took a number of decades to evolve. 

As for symbolism and all that, If you had any idea the kinds of symbolism and hidden messages that goes into every form of entertainment out there, from tv commercials to magazine ads to movies and games, you might consider just to stop watching tv or movies all together. It's honestly a big reason why I don't watch nearly as much tv as I used to. They don't call it programming for nothing. There are shapes, colors and patterns, not to mention sounds, and then various combinations of all of it, that the human mind responds to on a primary level, that you aren't even aware of most of the time. You don't even have to know what the symbolism is, in fact it works better if you don't, because your mind still recognizes it and responds to it. You know how many psychology classes I had to take, just to get a degree in computer animation and game art? Why do you think psychology would be required for a degree in computer animation? Part of it is so you know how to effectively communicate with your audience, to get them to sympathize with the characters you're parading in front of them - even when it's a character or theme they don't necessarily think they like on the surface - and there are very specific ways that's done and it takes understanding a lot of psychology to do it effectively. And one of the first steps is getting your audience drooling over the titties in impractical armor, so they're hooked and keep coming back for more. So when I see images with things like feet cropped, I tend to think about those things, and wonder what the artist's real intentions behind it are. Because I've sat through lecture after lecture on symbolism and color patterns and how this works with that, and what gets your audience's attention the fastest and how to hold it once it's gotten, because that's the kind of things actors, animators and art students are taught these days. And no, it doesn't all work on everybody, but it works on enough people enough of the time, to be pretty effective, and the entertainment industry has been going for a good while now. Hollywood is over a hundred years old, and they're very good at what they do. Just look around you.  

PS: I love Moriador's take on the snake girl. I would hang that on my wall. Talk about art imitating art, and taking the piss out of it. No objectification of women in it either, haha. 

Here's something I came across that you might find interesting, Shane. The first link is to the actual research on color analysis of art.

http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/141211/srep07370/full/srep07370.html

The second link is where I got that from... The Daily Mail (for those Americans who don't know, in the UK, it's considered a rag mag, on the level of the National Enquirer). But even the Mail can occasionally report something truly interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2870089/Was-Jackson-Pollock-art-like-Medieval-masterpieces-Analysis-shows-evolution-colour-contrast-paintings-centuries.html

You have my permission to tell me what you think I'm suffering from, so go on, I don't mind, go on?

You have a grasp of nothing, Moriador, that's your problem, you only think you do.  I act the way I do and "put it on" because I prefer to do that.  If I wanted to, I could turn into a completely different person, a gullible idiot who says yes all the time and believes everything I'm told.  I could post here under a totally different username, speak to you for years and you would never know it was me.  The only thing I actually do "suffer" from is called "Living in England" - which as I pointed out before, is something I thoroughly intend to (and will) do something about.

I won't be changing myself though, I'm perfectly happy with myself.  I'm proud to be a non-gullible Rebel with a fully functioning brain, and that's who I'll remain.

But now you choose to "harp-on" about web browsers because you've finally realised you were beat in the other discussion.  Well put it this way, I'm "educated" enough not to use a browser developed by Apple, Google, or Microsoft, but you clearly aren't, just remember that.  And as I've already tried to get through to you, it's you who'll discover further down the line, that using those browsers is going to be your problem, not mine, because I don't use them.  Just as with all this Eroticism stuff, you know nothing like the amount of thngs you try to make out you do.  Your real level of intelligence is obvious in you still being prepared to use those commercial browsers!  You seriously haven't a clue as to the sheer depth and implications of using those corporate web browsers, because if you had a clue, you would not use them.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you, but being the stubborn, insulting woman that you are, you'll either listen or you'll learn the hard way.  The fact that you're still using one of those commercial browsers means you've chosen to learn the hard way.  So anyway, talk about "poisioning a forum" discussion, a freaking web browser has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of Eroticism and the Power of Suggestion - so lets drop the web-browser crap and just accept that you were out of your depth on both matters.

The difference is that when I brought up the topic of web browsers, it was to make people aware of what is going on - it was there for good reason.  You, however, have just brought-up the topic of web browsers thinking it might somehow do something for your cause.  I'll admit, I'm not educated enough to know why you though bringing the discussion of web browsers might help you, but whatever, Moriador.  You can use whatever user tracker ... sorry ... "web browser" you like, because the only person that will pay for YOUR choice, is YOU, not me!

I mean, duh, Moriador, pretty easy to work that one out - even for an uneducated peasant like me.

@Shane
Just about to eat, will post later, but that's more like it, and don't worry, the reply is going to be more tollerable than you might think.

 I'm having fum with my wacom intuos :)

can even say I'm kinda on subject cause I'm showing EClark1894 what can be done with them ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

When I was young I liked big cities ,Alanta,NY,LA etc etc all very good parting places for the young.cost a lot to live there thou. 

I won't name the emailing church but was from around the great lakes. 

I currently live in the hillbilly lands got to look after some kin .cost of living is very low.no hurricanes earth quakes or tornadoes but winters are a pain.

movies and tv likes to make them out to be back wood hicks.I've been from Canada to Mexico Atlantic to Pacific.humans are humans no matter where you go.

and if it ant the cold n snow it's the hurricanes,tornadoes or earth quakes. but no matter what the weather I'm always up for a beer :)

Pumeco, give it up. I don't care what you have to say about anything. To care, I'd have to believe there was some small shred of value in your words. You can't possibly believe that I think that. You're not hurting my feelings or making me mad. You can't because you don't have that power. Nor do I care about this imaginary competition you seem to think is going on. I don't care about it because it's all in your head. If you continue with this, you're just pissing in the wind. 

 yes Hollywood is good at what they do and pro commercial makers are good also.

Hollywood does makes comic movies also I like'm.

and no i'm no Art major ,I never cared for school .the study of symbolism razes my curiosity thou.

but they broke music down to a science also so they can make top 40's n #1 songs.

they have a writer and then a singer and then a backup band that makes #1 songs 

Willie Nelson ,Kiss etc etc did not conform to those rules.

but there's a lot of tunes I like that never made it to radio. but I like some of the top 40's also.I like Kelly Clarkson .

for there time wasn't Da Vinci and Michelangelo commercial Artist ?

should Boris and Royo work at micky D's and paint for free ?

are micky D's very very small pay checks even enough for Art supplies ?

even if I like some of Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock stuff does that mean I half to agree it's worth millions ?

could you call there stuff commercial Art for the Wealthy ? 

Do I half to agree with the wealthy that payes there employees dirt that there painting is worth more then one of there hamburgers ? 

Do I half to agree with out Picasso , Pollock , Frazetta. I'd be painting flowers and puppys ?

would there be  Picasso , Pollock , Frazetta with out Da Vinci and Michelangelo ?

Do I half to agree with every thing some Art school said ? Do you think Pollock would ?

@Shane
Where to start ... might as well be Pollock as that's where my comment seems to have had the most influence on your reply to me.

So regards Pollock: At the time you first mentioned Pollock, I was sort of semi-aware of some of Pollock's background because I saw (I think) it was a BBC documentary about him some years back, and if he's the guy I think he is - a big thumbs-up to him.  The thumbs-up is for him, however, not the art.  I like the analogy of looking up at the stars, and believe it or not, I do understand how you would connect that to his work and as I said originally, I do understand why you like it.  Both are big and random, and both allow you to pick what your mind wishes from them.  I'm not an educated "Art" guy, absolutely not, I wouldn't even dream of pretending I am.  I'm the sort of person who, after watching two art experts analyse a nude for hours, would probably walk up behind them and say something like ...

"Hah, so that's why you've been stood here talking for hours, but I don't blame you, great tits!"

Those art critics, like you, and like Moriador, would likely turn your nonses up and just assume I'm an ignorant ass for what I said.  But that's one of the problems with society, because while that ignorant ass might indeed come across as such, it's easy to forget that there is a raw unpoluted truth in what he says.  The well behaved art critics might have whispered deep and meaningful words to each other for hours, but it's the ignorant ass who nailed it on the head, cause like it or not, it's those  "Great Tits!"  that will ultimately sell the image.

And that's the sort of thing that has happened here.  You and Moriador are effectively the art critics, and I'm just the ignorant ass.  It's not Pollock or his art I took issue with, it's how you replied to RorrKonn, the way it appeared to be constructed.  Telling someone that the art they admire is the domain of horny little boys, and then presenting a Pollock like you did, was very belittling.  I know it was belittling because I felt belittled by it myself, and you wasn't even replying to me!  On that occasion, you were effectively the ignorant ass, because you painted the entire hetero-male population as 'horny little boys' without even realising it.  The problem with what you said is that you're only looking at it one-sided.  You are absolutely correct in that such work is done for the commercial value, of course it is - it's the same old story - sex sells.  But the bit you forgot about is that "Fantasy Female" art is absolutely not strictly the domain of horny little boys.  It's popular with that age group for obvious reasons, it might even be most popular with that age group, but it's also popular with the adult male for exactly the same reasons, so it's far away from having the limited market and appeal you seem to think it has.  It just felt very one-sided and belittling.

Regards my discussions with Moriador:  The problem is that whenever a discussion gets heated or she feels she's losing a debate, she looks elsewhere to find something to insult me.  First of all it was that stuff about her suspecting I was gay (WTF!).  Then she became 'Moriador the Analyst' and decided I'm suffering from something.  Oh, and then she brought-up web-browsers for crying out loud!  I was scratching my head right now wondering what the hell she's gonna come up with next, but I just did a page refresh while writing this and I see she's decided not to subject me to it after all.

I suppose I can at least be thankful for that, though what she doesn't realise is that I wanted her to be right, I'd love to agree with her for once!

Regards the Objectification of Women:  I'm glad you posted what you did, because you highlighted an aspect I hadn't thought about, and it's very important.  When I speak of the eroticness of a woman being helpless, I speak of a consenting woman being helpless, and that of course is vital.  There is nothing wrong with roleplaying a sacrifice, a rape, or indeed anything you can imagine - as long as it's consenting.  Such things are nothing new, it's as mainstream as a trip to the Cinema these days, a place where nudity, violence, death, rape - and all sorts of perversions have been used to bait audiences for decades.

So how would some of you like to question your own morals instead of questioning mine?

Now I could, if I wanted to be really cocky, let people click on the attached Film and then tell them why I posted it.  But due to the content, I'll give you fair warning and allow you (and others) to test your own morals; I'll tell you in advance what happens in the Film.  So the film, shot in Spain, is all about Devil Worship, and to Worship the Devil means a sacrifice is in order.  Not surprisingly then, the movie features a beautiful woman who gets restrained, has her clothes removed, gets raped and then killed (representing a sacrifice to the Devil).  It's an "Erotic Horror", and the reason it carries such a label is because, despite how extreme my description might sound to some, it's basically those classic 'Power of Suggestion' and 'Domination' aspects of erotica - nothing more.  It's the classic situation where the women is powerless to do anything about her imminent demise (a take on the 'damsel in distress' theme often used in comics).

Hypocricy Test (For Males Only):
1 - Are you appalled that a Film would feature such things, and refuse to watch it?
2 - Are you trying hard not to watch the Film?
3 - Are you rushing to play it now that you know what happens in it?

Here you go, the scene I described starts at  2:14  and remember you are as free to ignore it as you are to click it :

[link removed]

Hypocricy Test Results - AKA which option applied to you?
1 - You're a dying breed, such Films have been made for decades, are freely available, got my English-Dubbed version on Amazon :-D
2 - Valiant attempt, but my firend Mr Devil Snake just told me you gave in quite easily, so welcome to the adult world of suggestion and restraint - Erotica!
3 - Dammit, RorrKonn, I thought I'd find you here, I don't like hypocrites either so I wonder how many Hypocrite-to-Reality converts we'll find?

Yes, I'm still "proud" to admit that I objectify women, it's what men do, but it's vital to understand the context.  Every heterosexual male on this planet "objectifies" women.  A woman is objectified every time a man looks at a woman in a photo and starts roleplaying in his mind.  I don't care whether it's something tasteful like Playboy, a kinky looking Ad for some Poser Lingerie on Renderosity, or something more unusual, it's exactly the same thing - you are objectifying a woman when you do so.  A women in a photograph never specifically asked you to drool over her, she had no clue who would be looking at her when the photo was taken, but you are looking at her and the moment you start using your imagination, you are objectifying her.  She is just as "powerless" to stop you looking at her as she is to stop your imagination running wild.

The other detail that needs to be cleared-up is regards the women themselves who do these things.  I get the impression that you see this stuff as something most women have no interest in.  I'm sorry Shane, but I have to disagree on that one.  I have no solid figures, but women aren't the little angels you seem to think they are.  The amount of girls who take voluntary nude selfies of themselves is indication enough, that first and foremost, they love to be objectified (those types of images are voluntary).  They do it because they know how much power their body has over the men that are looking at them, it gives them a sense of power (and that's a good thing).  What I also know is I'd be spoilt for choice if I were the sort of guy who'd hang with a total stranger just for the experience.  I could, literally, switch-off this computer right now, and in twenty minutes flat, meet-up and be having the time of my life with a like-minded woman - it's that easy.  It's something I've never done and never will do even though I wouldn't have to pay for the priviledge.  But the fact that it's so easy and there are so many places and opportunities dedicated to this sort of thing, tells me that they are perfectly fine with it.  I really don't think those women would be offering their bodies for free otherwise.

So in my opinion, they're not just fine with it, they want it - big-time.  Of course there are women who aren't into this stuff, I know that, but I'm talking about the ones that are interested, and there's more than plenty of them out there, and more besides (and growing all the time).  I think the bottom line is, as I've tried to point out, this stuff is all pretty mainstream now, it's just "classic erotica", has been for decades, it's nothing unusual and nothing to be ashamed of.  There are hundreds of fetishes etc, but they all boil down to the same surprisingly few categories of erotica.  And I think the only difference between now and the past, is that now, people are more prepared to be honest about it, and the reason they're honest about it is because this stuff is no longer taboo (and it never should have been in the first place).  People shouldnlt be made to feel like freaks because of a fetish no matter how deviant it is.  Consent of a fetish between two adults is no one elses business (and certainly no concern for society).  If others don't like their fetish, who gives a crap because it's not as if they asked them to watch, and what two (or more) consenting adults between them, has nothing to do with any other member of society - whatsoever.

Which brings me to desensitization of the heavy stuff.  You make an interesting point about desensitization, but like many, I've always been of the belief that no amount of Cinema (or rather Sinema) is going to make someone do something they would not have done anyway.  And a movie such as the one I attached to this post, would be no more taboo in a real life situation than someone getting their head chopped-off as they do in a video game.  In a real-life situation, someone getting their head chopped-off is no less horrific than a women getting raped, and no human with a fully functioning brain is ever going to do any of those things.

The desensitization thing is something I always read with fascination if I come across it, but regardless, my conclusion is always the same no matter who says what.   To me, a person either has a killer or rapist in them, or they don't, and I don't believe any amount of Sinema or Throat-Slashing videogames is going to turn any person into one any more than anyone who watches the attached FIlm would go out and really sacrifice a woman to the Devil.  I mean how many millions of people have seen Devil Worship movies over the years, and how many women have really been sacrificed to the Devil?

Exactly, and I think it's important to remember that if the world revolved around such a paranoid mechanism, our lives would be truly unbearable.

• Do we frown upon high-heel shoes because thousands of women topple and hurt themselves in them every year? 
• Do we frown upon cars because thousands of people are killed in (and by) them every year?
• Do we frown upon Erotic Horror just because the occasional loonie doesn't have the brains to understand that you don't really sacrifice women?

I hope this post came across in a respectable manner, and it's kinda hard considering the subject matter.  I think I might have shocked some, but hopefully clarified to others.  I've read it over carefully so as to ensure there is nothing insulting to anyone.  Finally, I thought pretty damn hard about how to structure it, how to make people think, and hopefully make any doubters question their own hypocricies.  The Film itself was chosen for the content it contains, and the whole idea of describing what happens in the Film is that it will either excite or repel a person.  All I've done here is what the Sinema industry has been doing for decades to entice the crowds to the Sinema - it's worked for them for decades and it will work equally well here.

Isn't that right, Mr Devil Snake?

Yesssssssss, it sure isssssssss!
Come ride with the Devil, my children, there issssssss much fun and sssssssssex to be had when you ride with Mr Devil Sssssssssnake!

• Mr Devil Sssssssssnake

OMFG, Mr Devil Snake!!!
I'm so going to get a tattoo of you on my body!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

Pumeco, whenever you get into a discussion, even if the talking continues, all debate ends. So -- even if anyone cared -- there's nothing to win or lose. You may believe there is because these things apparently matter to you and you're projecting that upon everyone else. But seriously, it's just you. :D

pumeco we posted at the same time. I didn't know youtube would post such stuff.

in my life I've seen cruelties beyond comprehension.

guess I'm so desensitized I can watch a flower or a dude being de bowed with the same unemotional attachment.

I do wish film makers would do a little research thou. the symbols on the pentagram didn't make any since.

the film looked like a1970's B horror movie.I always enjoyed a good horror movie. 

Well, I have my Wacom tablet now, and judging from the way the posts are going, I'd say it's time to shut this puppy down.

To objectify means "to degrade to the status of a mere object".

So anyone who says they objectify women is saying that they do not regard women as HUMAN BEINGS.

And that is offensive to anyone with decency and common sense.

Surely time to lock this thread ...

 or maybe would be better to teach them to respect women ?

Yeah, we don't allow links to films or imagery like that here. Just because you tag the post doesn't make the content acceptable in all circumstances. It still has to comply to ToS.