Women: babies destroy your fuckability

Really no further comment is needed to this entry by Sister Y. The links speak eloquently enough.

34 thoughts on “Women: babies destroy your fuckability

  1. Gomi January 6, 2012 at 09:20

    Funny, but BS.

    • Francois Tremblay January 6, 2012 at 16:10

      Funny, that’s exactly what I think about you. Also, it’s not BS.

      • Gomi January 6, 2012 at 20:51

        It’s all based on generalizing individual’s anecdotes, and requires the reader to buy into a number of social constructs (like what constitutes “beauty”).

        In other words, it’s narrowly true, and trying to apply it to “women,” as a gender, is BS.

        Doesn’t mean it isn’t funny, however.

        • Francois Tremblay January 6, 2012 at 20:54

          The fuck dude. Have you seen some of those pictures of women on shapeofamother.com? They are HORRIFYING. Some of them gave me nightmares for weeks. We’re waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the social construction of beauty here.

          • Gomi January 6, 2012 at 21:22

            I think the fact that you find them so horrifying says more about your perception of beauty than those women. A woman with stretchmarks and paunch is hardly at the level of sideshow freak, and the fact that we’ve reached the point in our society where we perceive them as such, and not artificially produced, airbrushed and nip-tucked, mall bought beauty, is what’s wrong with this picture. That’s a social construct. One created and based around a very specific and narrow patriarchal pleasure.

            I’m sorry you find your mother horrifying and nightmarish, but that’s not her fault. It’s yours.

            • Francois Tremblay January 6, 2012 at 21:28

              “stretchmarks and paunch”

              HAHAHAHAHA… okay, you HAVEN’T looked at that web site in a lot of detail. I get it, you’re just talking out of your ass. HINT: this is NOT about “stretchmarks and paunch.” Stroll through that web site sometime, if you’re not squeamish.

              I also find it ironic that you’re berating someone who’s into radfem for following patriarchal pleasure. Gomi, you fucking asshole, when was this ever about the artificial production of beauty? Is it also part of the social construction of beauty to argue that third degree burns are beautiful, you ignorant fuck? Die in a fire.

              • Gomi January 6, 2012 at 21:42

                “HAHAHAHAHA… okay, you HAVEN’T looked at that web site in a lot of detail. I get it, you’re just talking out of your ass. HINT: this is NOT about “stretchmarks and paunch.” Stroll through that web site sometime, if you’re not squeamish. ”
                No, Francois, I have looked, and most of it is stretchmarks and paunch. Sure, there are a few scars from C-sections (which my mother has, so it’s not new to me), and some worse. Nothing nightmare inducing, but maybe my threshold is higher than yours. I’ve seen accident victims, butchered animals and done some civilian medical response, so my grossness capacity is decent.

                Either way, you’re basing your horror on the minority of images from a self-selecting set of anecdotes.

                “I also find it ironic that you’re berating someone who’s into radfem for following patriarchal pleasure. ”
                Hey, you’re the one taking a site about realizing the “natural beauty in women’s bodies,” and turning it into a nightmarish freakshow of failing to live up to expected sexual attraction. I call it like I see it, and just because you say you’re “into radfem” doesn’t mean you’ve magically cleansed yourself of patriarchal privilege BS.

                “Gomi, you fucking asshole, when was this ever about the artificial production of beauty?”
                When was it ever about that? Maybe when you titled the post “fuckability?” Don’t blame me.

                ” Is it also part of the social construction of beauty to argue that third degree burns are beautiful, you ignorant fuck? Die in a fire.”
                You’re a friendly sort, ain’t ya? Relax, you’ll live longer.

                • Francois Tremblay January 6, 2012 at 21:45

                  I am not here to make friends, especially not with someone who keeps commenting even though he doesn’t like anything I write. As I’ve pointed out many times, you’re just here to waste my time. None of your comments have ever contributed anything. And yet here I am still allowing you to comment. I guess I am just as responsible for your idiocy as you are.

                  Yea Gomi that’s right, saying that third-degree burns are ugly is patriarchal BS, too. Ho-hum. But hey, you have a greater “tolerance” for it, so I guess that magically makes it okay.

                  Again, die in a fire.

                • Gomi January 6, 2012 at 21:49

                  “I am not here to make friends, especially not with someone who keeps commenting even though he doesn’t like anything I write.”
                  No, I like plenty of stuff you write. I just don’t see a point to little circlejerk congratulatory comments of “you’re so brilliant.” I comment when I disagree.

                  “Yea Gomi that’s right, saying that third-degree burns are ugly is patriarchal BS, too. ”
                  Didn’t say that. Though pointing at a woman who’s been physically scarred and telling her she’s no longer “fuckable” is exerting male privilege, yes.

                  “But hey, you have a greater “tolerance” for it, so I guess that magically makes it okay.”
                  No, just means I don’t have to be horrified into having nightmares, apparently.

          • David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 07:05
            • Francois Tremblay January 9, 2012 at 07:06

              Yes, that is the site in question. As for esthetics, well… I guess we can’t all agree. I still say you can’t tell me a third degree burn is beautiful, no matter what my standards are.

              • David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 07:14

                Fair enough, you could think that this is beautiful. But this is too much suffering too.

  2. David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 07:13

    Gomi, you should look at this site, François doesn’t talk about the same topic than you.

    • Gomi January 9, 2012 at 07:35

      Which site?

      • David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 08:48
        • Gomi January 9, 2012 at 10:07

          That is the site we’re talking about. It’s the one linked repeatedly by Sister Y. I’ve already looked at it. Francois just didn’t think I had because I wasn’t as disgusted by the women as he was.

          • David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 13:28

            Yeah, but you must be disgusted by their suffering, don’t you?

            • Gomi January 9, 2012 at 14:50

              First, they’re not all suffering. Quite a few a very positive about their appearance, even if others have deemed them “unfuckable.”

              Second, it’s a self-selecting set. Women that post on that site do so because of their body image, positive or negative. It’s the basic truth of any volunteered set, you’re going to get people that feel strongly on the issue, skewing your perception of the total population.

              Finally, the question also becomes “Why are they suffering?” Are they suffering because of pregnancy, or because they live in a society where they’re called nightmarish for failing to match an artificial standard of beauty and sexual attractiveness? There are plenty of negative stories on that site that I read that talk about feeling unattractive and unsexy, both external mirror perceptions. They’re the women’s perception of how others view them. Part of the reason I took issue with Francois’ judgments of them.

              So, of those who are suffering, I sympathize with them, but I don’t feel disgusted, no. Because I don’t think they or their pregnancies are the reasons they suffer.

              • David Gendron January 9, 2012 at 15:37

                So why procreating at a first glance if many women suffer from it?

                • Gomi January 9, 2012 at 16:16

                  People fall in the bathtub and suffer, so why bathe? People get into accidents and suffer, so why drive/bike/etc?

                  You’re looking at a highly self selecting set of data, of which a subset are suffering, of whom I mostly blame others for their suffering. You can’t abstract that out to say that “many women” suffer from pregnancy, because you can’t accurately determine that a proportional percentage of all women who have children suffer accordingly.

                  And considering I think their suffering is more the fault of a broader society than anything intrinsic to pregnancy, I don’t think curtailing pregnancy in general really solves the problem of their suffering.

                  It’s like saying “minorities suffer because of racism, so remove the minorities somehow.” The cause of the suffering is the racism, not intrinsic to being a minority, so removing minorities doesn’t solve anything. The body issues reflected on that site are, in my opinion, more a matter of society telling those women that they’ve destroyed their “fuckability,” rather than something to do with pregnancy itself.

                  You could argue that even one woman suffering from pregnancy is too much, but someone always suffers from something somewhere in the world at some time. With those kinds of numbers, I think it makes more sense to deal with the individual cases of suffering, rather than try and cancel out that circumstance for everyone everywhere on the off-chance that they might suffer.

                • David Gendron January 10, 2012 at 15:38

                  How many fucking African niggers that Occidental Nazis kill with their procreation?

                • Francois Tremblay January 10, 2012 at 15:43

                  Well, I don’t really have any exact number…

                • David Gendron January 10, 2012 at 15:43

                  “People fall in the bathtub and suffer, so why bathe? People get into accidents and suffer, so why drive/bike/etc?”

                  Bathtub is a bad example because you neglect the fact that many newly born child are suffering with procreation and because bathtub users are the only ones that could suffer..

                  Driving and cycling are more interesting, though. But again, there’s no need for procreation and there’s some need for transportation. And contrary to transportation, procreating does create unidesired new suffering people.

                • Gomi January 10, 2012 at 16:02

                  I have no counter argument to that aspect of anti-natalism, I admit. You either think that the suffering inherent in life outweighs the rest, or you don’t.

                  If you think the suffering is greater than all the other experience, in terms of risk, then anti-natalism is a logical extension from that premise, on the principle of “don’t cause suffering.” The suffering is too great to be alive, so don’t have children in the first place to spare them that suffering.

                  If, however, you think that the suffering is inherent, but an acceptable risk for all the other experiences of life, then anti-natalism seems kind of like an external version of suicide, pre-empting other life rather than ending your own.

                  And, personally, while I believe in suicide when the suffering becomes too great for the individual, I don’t believe the inherent suffering of existence meets that criteria broadly enough to accept anti-natalism.

              • Bastich January 9, 2012 at 19:02

                “…because they live in a society where they’re called nightmarish for failing to match an artificial standard of beauty and sexual attractiveness?”

                Even newborn infants prefer to look at attractive women rather than ugly ones and they don’t even have object permanence yet, let alone any societal bias. You’re allowing your political correctness to blind you from the truth.

                • Gomi January 9, 2012 at 20:02

                  And you’re letting misinterpretation of science to blind you.

                  Those studies you refer to are about underlying principles, like symmetry. Social constructs of beauty are built on that.

                  There are societies, geographically and temporally diverse, that have viewed post-pregnancy women as beautiful, as much as plump women, thin women, etc, etc. Those constructs are made for a reason, like how pale skin used to be more beautiful because it meant you didn’t work in the field, while currently, tans are beautiful because they indicate leisure time.

                  In our society, perfect airbrushed bodies on the cover of Playboy are considered beautiful, because they’re idealized in a very particular manner. These women don’t meet that ideal, in our society.

                  Don’t pretend that beauty is some universal constant, outside social bias. We make beauty.

                • Sister Y January 10, 2012 at 09:24

                  Pale skin is a gender marker (female) in all groups regardless of overall color.

                • Gomi January 10, 2012 at 12:03

                  Do you have a source for that? As far as I know, skin color is independent of gender.

                  Base line skin color, before the impact of environmental factors, is a result of the parents and developmental changes, rather than chromosomal gender itself.

                  Given many recent traditional gender roles, men work outside, in the sun, while women work inside, sheltered from the elements, so men’s skin will be darker and more weathered as a result. But that’s a result of adherence to gender role, not a secondary sexual characteristic.

                  In many societies, until fairly recently, pale skin was desirable in women, because, like I said, it indicated she didn’t work in the fields (as lower class women did). I can think of examples in European and Asian cultures, and it’s probably true in many others. And then there’s more recent trends, like skin lighteners in India, where it’s tied up in issues of colonialism, race and identity,

                  We perceive pale skin as feminine, but it’s not biologically so. It’s a social construct, same as beauty.

    • Bagworm February 6, 2012 at 02:04

      I really believe that yo have it backward, Dave…

      • Bagworm February 10, 2012 at 17:48

        This comment was here when I read this for the first time, how did it get here?

  3. David Gendron January 10, 2012 at 15:44

    Question: How many fucking African niggers that Occidental Nazis kill with their procreation?

    • Gomi January 10, 2012 at 16:03

      Say what now?

  4. Bagworm February 8, 2012 at 18:20

    Either someone else is using the name Bagworm than me or something fishy is going on here. Stretchmarks and a paunch have been around for a long time and women used to have lots more children on back to back years unless their man went off to war or died.
    I look through the old family pictures and I had some dog ugly women in my family that had huge families and I’m sure that they had the same physical effects from pregnancy. Also they didn’t have access to feminine hygiene products much lees things that we take for granted like being able to bathe regularly and it gets worse as you go back.
    We are all here due to unfuckable people if you really think about it.

    • Bagworm February 10, 2012 at 17:49

      This one I made, kind of confusing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: