• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

White Torturers, Non-white Victims?

Go to CruxDreams.com
willowfall said:
Beauty maybe, but sexual attraction is a different matter.

I do not find guys who are overly muscled attractive and I find the penis on an uncircumsized guy much less attractive than a guy who is circumsized.
Click to expand...
That's a good example: Circumcision is common in the US, so US girls tend to like it.
It is not common in Europe, so girls here tend to like uncircumcised...

That's exactly what I meant with "acquired in the environment".

But there are other factors that are part of attraction as well, for example exoticism...
 
Fantasmo said:
The other issue: The cristian world evolved out of the dark age, but the islamic world didn't.
Let's not forget: Christans killed others just because they had another faith as well, 500years back!
Click to expand...

500????????
how about the slavetraders? (by my own ancestors and the British) who sold the infidels (no people but animals) in America.
 
admihoek said:
500????????
how about the slavetraders? (by my own ancestors and the British) who sold the infidels (no people but animals) in America.
Click to expand...
That's a different story. This was not because of different faith...
Faith maybe was a lame excuse, among others.
But regardless if it is 100 years back or 500, the big difference: At those times the level of education was low, as was the chance to gain independent information.
As opposed to todays islamistic terrorists who almost all are well educated, even have lived in foreign countries and don't have any excuse along the line of "uneducated" or "uninformed"!
THAT is one big difference.
 
Good debate, thanks for lots of thoughtful contributions.​
There are several things I'd argue with on the historical and contemporary issues,​
but I don't want to get into politics,​
and my concern isn't really with those questions.​
​
Irrespective of the historical "facts", or the "rights and wrongs" of the present-day,​
my concern is about the stereotyped, caricatured portrayal of particular ethnic/ religious groups,​
whether as "goodies" or "baddies",​
what that might be saying and doing.​
​
Again, I'm asking it as a genuine question, a topic for debate,​
I don't want censorship.​
 
Eulalia said:
my concern is about the stereotyped, caricatured portrayal of particular ethnic/ religious groups, whether as "goodies" or "baddies",
Click to expand...
It's way more complex than what can be covered in a simplistic internet discussion, I agree.
And let's stay on the topic as well, what is "juicy blackfemale slaves vs. white torturers" ;)
 
The Orientalist movement reached it's peak in the 19th Century. The movement had two main strands 1. Colonialist,racist,fantasist and 2.Creativity, exploration and faithful documentation and openness to other cultures. It is easy to post pictures produced by people like Jean-Leon Gerome and say that he was obviously a racist and Islamaphobic. However if he were alive he would argue that it is a matter of record (Admiralty House) that between 1530 and 1789 approximately 1.25 million men, women and children were kidnapped by Islamic pirates from around the coasts of Britain and Continental Europe to be sold into slavery in North Africa. According to early 17th Century observers there were around 35 000 European Christian slaves in the Barbary coast towns of Tripoli, Tunis and Algiers at any one time.
So what category would you place Jean- Leon Gerome in. Racist or Creative?

Here is a typical Gerome painting.
 

Attachments

  • ger13.jpg
    ger13.jpg
    127.5 KB · Views: 496
Yes, Jonseygirl, that's exactly the kind of question that taxes and fascinates me.​
It's important to understand and appreciate art and literature on their own terms,​
and not impose anachronistic, present-day judgements.​
​
I certainly count Gerome as a pretty good creative artist reflecting and catering for the tastes and attitudes of his time -​
which were not crudely 'racist', they were a complex mixture of fascination and revulsion, superiority and envy.​
Though what the picture says to a present-day "white", western viewer, esp. male, is another question.​
And there is a difference, though it's far from clear-cut, between 19th cent "salon" art​
and present-day crude caricatures.​
​
 
Fantasmo said:
The other issue: The cristian world evolved out of the dark age, but the islamic world didn't.
Let's not forget: Christans killed others just because they had another faith as well, 500years back!
The other thing: Arabs are proud people. But what do they have to be proud off, once the oil stops flowing? It will be nothing more than a big pile of sand! This is creating envy!

But to quote Imagemaker: No politics ;)
Click to expand...


Islam never really had a "dark ages" to grow out of. While the west was mired in the Dark Ages the Arabs (and the conquered societies) were the intellectual leading lights in the western world. Math, science, poetry, art etc.

But you do make an excellent point. As a religion Islam is about 600-700 years younger than Christianity and 600-700 years ago (really into the 17th century) the western nations were warring on each other (and internally) over religious issues. Hell the British monarch STILL can not marry a catholic. How enlightened can that be?

Religions, like people and societies mature. Islam is still very much in the "teenager" phase that (most of) the west has grown out of.

Although in certain parts of the US maybe not.

kisses

willowfall
 
admihoek said:
500????????
how about the slavetraders? (by my own ancestors and the British) who sold the infidels (no people but animals) in America.
Click to expand...

Also a different context in that Europeans didn't invade or raid the coasts of Africa, they took advantage of an economic product (slaves) that had moved throughout sub-saharan Africa before Christ was born. To some extent, both Egypt and Rome (and other western Empires) tapped into this trade coming down the Nile or in the later stages across the desert into what is today Morocco.

And no I am NOT trying to justify anything that was done to the Africans, I am just pointing out that the product was supplied by AFRICANS to the middlemen and the end users who from about 300 bce onward just happened to be the "west".

Islamic powers had a policy of actively raiding into areas where they wanted to collect slaves from.

However, again under Islamic governments, this trade continued in Africa until just after 1900.

Also, I can't stress this enough, Islam views female slaves differently than western culture (post-Rome) did. To the west they were just labor that could be raped, in Islam they could be used to breed legitimate sons thus adding to the warrior pool. For centuries the Ottoman Empire collected a good deal of its "taxes" in the Balkans in the way of humans. Men went to labor or the military (Mamluk/Janissary) while women went onto the Harem. And don't kid yourself, Hollywood aside, when the slave girls weren't spreading their legs they were laboring around the estate.

Which in a way makes many of the depictions we view on this board probably unrealistic. Yes a girl had to learn her place and maybe there was severe discipline but for the most part guys do you really want the girl who is keeping you warm at night seriously battered or damaged?

kisses

willowfall
 
Eulalia said:
Good debate, thanks for lots of thoughtful contributions.​
There are several things I'd argue with on the historical and contemporary issues,​
but I don't want to get into politics,​
and my concern isn't really with those questions.​
​
Irrespective of the historical "facts", or the "rights and wrongs" of the present-day,​
my concern is about the stereotyped, caricatured portrayal of particular ethnic/ religious groups,​
whether as "goodies" or "baddies",​
what that might be saying and doing.​
​
Again, I'm asking it as a genuine question, a topic for debate,​
I don't want censorship.​
Click to expand...

You can't leave history out of it, because history is what created the world we live in.

Boils down to this, if the artists aren't going to produce it where are you going to get it?

And in that I think you have your answer, either the artists see no market for it or have no interest in it themselves.

Regardless of "why" if you are trying to create a balance how are you going to do it if no one is interested?

kisses

willowfall
 
Fantasmo said:
That's a good example: Circumcision is common in the US, so US girls tend to like it.
It is not common in Europe, so girls here tend to like uncircumcised...

That's exactly what I meant with "acquired in the environment".

But there are other factors that are part of attraction as well, for example exoticism...
Click to expand...

I hate late night revalations, thanks alot Fantasmo for waking me up at 2 am this morning with this thought you had. There are better ways to wake up a girl you know!

Again I think we are going down to different path.

Unless European moms are radically different than American moms they don't teach their daughters that an uncircumcised cock is or is not attractive. Depending on where you stand on the globe it may or may not be considered the "societal norm" but sexually attractive is innate and individual not cultural (as opposed to "beauty" which is entirely cultural, subjective and changeable over time).

So a European girl expects her guy to be uncircumcised that doesn't mean that she doesn't prefer you weren't it is just what she expects. Really it isn't any different than a girl going natural or smooth both are 'styles' as opposed to what a guy finds more sexually attractive.

Let's move this away from the penis for a moment to the breast. Some guys like large, some like smaller, some like perky (with their points 'way up high' to quote the song), some like puffy nipples and some don't.

What is considered "beauty" in breast size and shape changes, many times in a very short time span.

What you as a guy finds sexually attractive doesn't. I mean how many times have you dated a woman that as a total package you found attractive but you'd like (or fantasize about) some physical change in her. Maybe you'd like her smooth instead of natural, maybe you'd like her breasts a little bit bigger or firmer. That's innate to you, it has nothing to do with "environment".

kisses

willowfall
 
willowfall said:
I hate late night revalations, thanks alot Fantasmo for waking me up at 2 am this morning with this thought you had. There are better ways to wake up a girl you know!
Click to expand...
I am nut sure if I can follow?! The circumcised vs. uncircumcised thing woke you up?
(anyhow, be assured that I do in fact know some good ways to wake up a girl ;) :p )

Unless European moms are radically different than American moms they don't teach their daughters that an uncircumcised cock is or is not attractive. Depending on where you stand on the globe it may or may not be considered the "societal norm" but sexually attractive is innate and individual not cultural (as opposed to "beauty" which is entirely cultural, subjective and changeable over time).
Click to expand...
There are many more sources than only the parents. Think of the first erotic pictures a teeny gets to see, etc...
You may compare it to "mom's food": What you are used to automatically gets your preference...

So a European girl expects her guy to be uncircumcised that doesn't mean that she doesn't prefer you weren't it is just what she expects. Really it isn't any different than a girl going natural or smooth both are 'styles' as opposed to what a guy finds more sexually attractive.
Click to expand...
Well, comparing shaved/unshaved/trimmed with circumcised/uncircumcised isn't really valid, circumcision does have effects on how a cock functions! (Sensitivity changes)

Let's move this away from the penis for a moment to the breast. Some guys like large, some like smaller, some like perky (with their points 'way up high' to quote the song), some like puffy nipples and some don't.
Click to expand...
The correspondance to that would be: Despite circumcision being the norn in the US, some US women prefer uncircumcised (and vice versa for Europe).
Talking of breasts: In the US most males seem to like "silicone baloons", in Europe that seems to be viewed a bit different...

What is considered "beauty" in breast size and shape changes, many times in a very short time span.
Click to expand...
But again the community around us does have influence.


I mean how many times have you dated a woman that as a total package you found attractive but you'd like (or fantasize about) some physical change in her. Maybe you'd like her smooth instead of natural, maybe you'd like her breasts a little bit bigger or firmer. That's innate to you, it has nothing to do with "environment".
Click to expand...
Here I disagree. Sure there are innate factors, but looking at myself, how things change over time, there are other, more dominant (external) factors.

ButI agree with what you said initially, it's the package, with the "internals" being way more important than the "externals".
So many (not all!) beautiful women are just "empty shells", often because they don't need to be more... around all those stupid men!
 
I don't really know what to say about it to be honest. I'm in no position to judge anyone their turn ons. maybe I'm wrong and someone better than me can enter the topic and shed some more light on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom