Buy a single knife fighting video, doom yourself to years of catalogs with bleach blond, big breasted women striking supposedly sexy poses with automatic weapons on the covers.
Some video offerings from the latest (Delta Force, vol 19)
"Hot Guns, Hotter Girls: You've got to see this tape to believe it. 14 outrageous sexy girls in string bikinis and high heels blast away with the hottest full auto machine guns ever produced. Professionally produced like the mac 10, uzi, m16, ak47 and mp5. You'll love every action packed moment. 29.95"
"Girls and Guns. 5 gorgeous decide to attend commando school. the school is run by an ex-paratrooper and he and his staff teach the girls the proper handling of firearms. Also at the school the girls are taught military style physical conditioning... to stay in top (and topless) shape. Price reduced. 29.95."
These gems are located across from such encouraging titles as "Imroved [sic] Suppressors" and "Unitended [sic] Consequences" (potentially the next turner diaries this is supposedly the story of a firearms afficionado who has to defend himself from a federal raid gone bad and has to hideout after. The text indicates he's "jut [sic] one of the millions of people who compromise [sic] america's gun culture." An extra "om" reverses the intended meaning.
So what do people make of the pairing of adolescent chick flicks with firearms?
Guns and Girls???
Moderator: Available
-
Allen M.
Guns and Girls???
Does watching those luscious videos help one learn to draw the knife from it's sheath, Ian?
Frankly, even ugly women should carry some sort of purse-suader in their pocketbook, video or no.
Frankly, even ugly women should carry some sort of purse-suader in their pocketbook, video or no.
Guns and Girls???
These types of things are silly... (I bet it's an excuse for some men to purchase these items without "really" purchasing porn... 
)
If someone wants to know about a specific firearm, there are extensive videos for that purpose (to supplement actual training)... if someone wants to watch sexually oriented materials, then they should purchase those items.
However, regardless of the bad spelling and advertising, I wonder was it part of the actual ad or your personal commentary to compare Unintended Consequences to the Turner Diaries? Have you ever read either of them? What does that poor advertisement have to do with the point being made about these stupid "Chicks with Guns" videos.
)If someone wants to know about a specific firearm, there are extensive videos for that purpose (to supplement actual training)... if someone wants to watch sexually oriented materials, then they should purchase those items.
However, regardless of the bad spelling and advertising, I wonder was it part of the actual ad or your personal commentary to compare Unintended Consequences to the Turner Diaries? Have you ever read either of them? What does that poor advertisement have to do with the point being made about these stupid "Chicks with Guns" videos.
Guns and Girls???
[This message has been edited by student (edited February 05, 2001).]
-
Tim Ahearn
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Contact:
Guns and Girls???
I wonder was it part of the actual ad or your personal commentary to compare Unintended Consequences to the Turner Diaries?
It's part of the ad.
It's part of the ad.
Guns and Girls???
There seems to be a subset of semi-softcore pornography that goes in for the kind of pictures that you describe. They usually have the women in camouflage bikini underwear or cammie torn tee shirts with whatever kind or heavy metal weaponry they are emphasizing. Then there was the ad that I once saw somewhere that added a cigar to the woman holding the subgun, thereby mixing in another subset. As for me, if, and that is a mighty big "if", I were going to buy pornography, I do believe that I would keep it simple and not involve violence, cigars, knives, swords, or guns.
------------------
Walk in the Light, Hugh
hughf_us@yahoo.com
------------------
Walk in the Light, Hugh
hughf_us@yahoo.com
Guns and Girls???
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tim Ahearn:
It's part of the ad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then the writer of the ad never read either one! The Turner Diaries is a blatantly racist/racial-cleansing, overthrow-the-government, white-supremacy, kill-all-the-bureaucrats, love-fest that isn't worth the paper it's written on. (Note: I read it because someone lent me a copy after it was brought up in a trial that a tattered copy of the book had been found in the defendant's possession. I was asked if it was a "model for how to overthrow the government and an incitement to racial hatred". My position, as just stated, was that it was a piece of trash and only an incitement to those with serious issue problems.)
On the other hand, Unintended Consequences is a novel that (upto the last few chapters which give the fictional account of the unintended consequences) is a historically accurate book. The set-up and discussion of historical laws, court cases/decisions, and events, while leaning towards a specific perspective on those events, none the less, give factual and accurate information about those laws, court cases/decisions, and events. In the final chapters, while this is by no means a Pulitzer Prize worthy book, it gives a fairly compelling (if unrealistic in some cases) fictional view that the author has of what one outcome caused by the course of events upto that point may be. Unintended Consequences doesn't advocate overthrow of the government, but rather the standing up of citizens for their inalienable rights. And in no way is it a racist book. In fact, it is specific in it's abhorrence of racists, sexists, and other forms of bigotry. The main character does, by pure chance, fall upon a situation where he is being set-up by some Federal agents and foils their plans in a rather unpleasant manner. But it's fiction and the author spins an interesting tale of of this. In that respect, it is anti-government, but it also includes government agents/employees/officials/legislators who are not only "good guys", but actually helpful/sympathetic to the main character. Given that fact, it isn't even an anti-government book, but rather an anti-governmental-abuse book. (Note: I was also lent this book by someone who wanted to know if it was accurate... I told them the same thing I just posted.)
In recent years, I haven't really found the time to indulge my love of fictional novels, but with the release last fall of the latest in my favorite series (after a few years off), I plan on correcting that hopefully in the not to distant future.
It's part of the ad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then the writer of the ad never read either one! The Turner Diaries is a blatantly racist/racial-cleansing, overthrow-the-government, white-supremacy, kill-all-the-bureaucrats, love-fest that isn't worth the paper it's written on. (Note: I read it because someone lent me a copy after it was brought up in a trial that a tattered copy of the book had been found in the defendant's possession. I was asked if it was a "model for how to overthrow the government and an incitement to racial hatred". My position, as just stated, was that it was a piece of trash and only an incitement to those with serious issue problems.)
On the other hand, Unintended Consequences is a novel that (upto the last few chapters which give the fictional account of the unintended consequences) is a historically accurate book. The set-up and discussion of historical laws, court cases/decisions, and events, while leaning towards a specific perspective on those events, none the less, give factual and accurate information about those laws, court cases/decisions, and events. In the final chapters, while this is by no means a Pulitzer Prize worthy book, it gives a fairly compelling (if unrealistic in some cases) fictional view that the author has of what one outcome caused by the course of events upto that point may be. Unintended Consequences doesn't advocate overthrow of the government, but rather the standing up of citizens for their inalienable rights. And in no way is it a racist book. In fact, it is specific in it's abhorrence of racists, sexists, and other forms of bigotry. The main character does, by pure chance, fall upon a situation where he is being set-up by some Federal agents and foils their plans in a rather unpleasant manner. But it's fiction and the author spins an interesting tale of of this. In that respect, it is anti-government, but it also includes government agents/employees/officials/legislators who are not only "good guys", but actually helpful/sympathetic to the main character. Given that fact, it isn't even an anti-government book, but rather an anti-governmental-abuse book. (Note: I was also lent this book by someone who wanted to know if it was accurate... I told them the same thing I just posted.)
In recent years, I haven't really found the time to indulge my love of fictional novels, but with the release last fall of the latest in my favorite series (after a few years off), I plan on correcting that hopefully in the not to distant future.
Guns and Girls???
I've been thinking about this post for a while, and I'm doing my best to make sure that it's polite because I'm sure no offense was intended by the joke it is about. I do not want to imply that the character of the joke's author is anything but admirable. Certainly I could not criticize anyone that I have never met and know so little of.
However, the joke is a different matter. I posted this topic because the pairing of "chick flicks" (sexism, degradation of women) with aggression / guns / violence / a form of the MAs, which in general I deeply value, upset me.
Therefore the joke that followed my post has bothered me since I read it. Perhaps it meant "are these videos literally instructive for students of knife fighting?"
However it could be easily *be mistaken* for saying that the "luscious" women were erotic, that this helped one draw "the knife," thereby making an analogy between knife and penis. This analogy perhaps unintentionally compares an organ of elimination and coitus to a weapon. By extension it turns sexual relations, which ought to be on an entirely equal, affectionate, and fear-free level, into an act of violence.
If a penis is a knife, sex is an assault. A stabbing. The man is an attacker, and his partner [a woman (presumably given context) or man (possibly)] involved in the sex is his victim. And I wanted to say this kind of humor even if the implications were not intended doesn't belong on any forum here, especially this one.
[This message has been edited by Ian (edited February 09, 2001).]
However, the joke is a different matter. I posted this topic because the pairing of "chick flicks" (sexism, degradation of women) with aggression / guns / violence / a form of the MAs, which in general I deeply value, upset me.
Therefore the joke that followed my post has bothered me since I read it. Perhaps it meant "are these videos literally instructive for students of knife fighting?"
However it could be easily *be mistaken* for saying that the "luscious" women were erotic, that this helped one draw "the knife," thereby making an analogy between knife and penis. This analogy perhaps unintentionally compares an organ of elimination and coitus to a weapon. By extension it turns sexual relations, which ought to be on an entirely equal, affectionate, and fear-free level, into an act of violence.
If a penis is a knife, sex is an assault. A stabbing. The man is an attacker, and his partner [a woman (presumably given context) or man (possibly)] involved in the sex is his victim. And I wanted to say this kind of humor even if the implications were not intended doesn't belong on any forum here, especially this one.
[This message has been edited by Ian (edited February 09, 2001).]
Guns and Girls???
Thanks Lori-san,
If anyone would like to continue on the "Tough Issues" forum, (within certain propriety), they are more than welcome.
and while I'm wondering out loud... How do I get on those mailing lists again?
If anyone would like to continue on the "Tough Issues" forum, (within certain propriety), they are more than welcome.
and while I'm wondering out loud... How do I get on those mailing lists again?
Guns and Girls???
Mr. Moulton, it's obvious from your replies already that you didn't mean anything malicious by your initial post and my strong suspicion that nothing was meant by it is confirmed. There's also no reason to worry about apologizing about me, I'm not upset.
-
Allen M.
Guns and Girls???
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
YOU may consider a little exposition degrading of a woman, many people do, many people don't! This is the way of the world, Ian, and there is NO escaping it. However, if one of those bimbos posing were my daughter, that would not settle well with me, not well at all. Not a double standard; I love my daughter but these others are not in my world.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<center>Chill-out and relax more in these forums, Ian, you owe it to yourself.</center>
<hr>
Let's end this dialogue here, Ian, in the interests of the forum and out of respect for our perceptive moderator. Let's walk away from this while we are both ahead. I don't want to get voted off the island.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
I don't want to imply… <font color=red>What!!!</font>I do not want to imply that the character of the joke's author is anything but admirable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
As hardened a man as I am to the ways of the world, Ian, I sensed your sensitivity therefore I made a straightforward apology, not to my post, rather to your feelings; that I will not rescind.However, the joke is a different matter. I posted this topic because the pairing of "chick flicks" (sexism, degradation of women) with aggression / guns / violence / a form of the MAs, which in general I deeply value, upset me.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
My response resulted from, and was directed to, what I perceive, and still perceive, as to the stupidity of such a mix. There is a certain crowd who is into sex fantasy as well as collecting those types of firearms and the advertisers know this, therefore Voila! Yes, women with [better watch my terminology] prominent features will always attract men after you and I are long dead and buried. It is probably the ultimate sugar to attract the fly. The tape you mention, and I'll probably never watch it, reads from your description that it offers considerable entertainment value to a percentage of young males. I understand this. I'll bet more than one has gone off and purchased that specific tape after reading your opening post. So what, big deal. In order to keep peoples interests in, and spark new interests in, subjects that have been around for awhile, the media must become more creative - watched TV lately?.Therefore the joke that followed my post has bothered me since I read it. Perhaps it meant "are these videos literally instructive for students of knife fighting?"
YOU may consider a little exposition degrading of a woman, many people do, many people don't! This is the way of the world, Ian, and there is NO escaping it. However, if one of those bimbos posing were my daughter, that would not settle well with me, not well at all. Not a double standard; I love my daughter but these others are not in my world.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
True so very true that such a ludicrous analogy could be drawn. I'm sure many have done just that.However it could be easily *be mistaken* for saying that the "luscious" women were erotic, that this helped one draw "the knife," thereby making an analogy between knife and penis.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
The comparison as you write it "into an act of violence" is where I sensed you were starting to have trouble with my riposte. It is the person himself, the reader of the words who draws the comparison. If I WANTED one to think that way I could/would have inserted [don't draw a conclusion here either] words to help lean the reader in that direction, which I didn't. The last part of that paragraph plus the entire next paragraph bothers ME.This analogy perhaps unintentionally compares an organ of elimination and coitus to a weapon. By extension it turns sexual relations, which ought to be on an entirely equal, affectionate, and fear-free level, into an act of violence.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
This is the part of what you wrote that I never would have thought of in a zillion years. When I read what you were thinking, my apology to upsetting your feelings came right away. Who could ever even consider sex like that? Life is tough, Ian, for some of us it is real tough sometimes. The ability to look at something a little laughable, such as the original post [not you rather the tape and it's contents] and smile at it is an important part of survival.If a penis is a knife, sex is an assault. A stabbing. The man is an attacker, and his partner [a woman (presumably given context) or man (possibly)] involved in the sex is his victim.
<center>Chill-out and relax more in these forums, Ian, you owe it to yourself.</center>
<hr>
Let's end this dialogue here, Ian, in the interests of the forum and out of respect for our perceptive moderator. Let's walk away from this while we are both ahead. I don't want to get voted off the island.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
-
Allen M.
Guns and Girls???
I had absolutely no thought whatsoever of the connection you made, Ian, but it is a good one.
If I have offended you, Ian, I sincerely apologize for offending you.
If I have offended you, Ian, I sincerely apologize for offending you.
-
Allen M.
Guns and Girls???
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
I'll continue this thread the first chance when I get home from work this evening.I do not want to imply that the character of the joke's author is anything but admirable.
------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera
Guns and Girls???
Okay - take a breath here guys. As usual - within the scope of a single thread are myriad issues that will affect different sensibilities in various ways.
Intial post - knife videos marketed in a sexual content. A little humor here is not only allowed - it is welcome - and says in an off-hand and non-offensive way that using women and sex in a derogatory manner - for advertising or otherwise - is wrong - and yet still a part of our society.
I rarely give my personal opinions on these pages - sticking mainly to issues and the questioning of same as much as I can - for I've found that venturing a personal opinion in a written medium will be interpreted in so many ways that are so often far off base from what I intended - it's not worth the aggravation. (I have enough stress in my life!) But I do participate here in the interest of learning - of expanding horizons - which can be done, with care and moderation.
Now - on this thread - we've got a couple of issues:
Marketing of weapons with soft (or other) porn. Personally - I feel this give a very bad message to youth or other impressionable people that knives and guns and violence are associated with sex. You can take that any where you want in your own head. These videos described in the initial post obviously "tread the line" and yet we all know that much much worse is out there, and available with little work. These above only are able to be more public about it because they are on the edge of what society still accepts - and that edge of what is acceptable when it comes to public depiction of material with sexual content is a hell of a lot more explicit than it used to be. That is a whole other subject. Probably better for the "tough issues" forum as to the level of acceptable sexual content in public media. Censorship and decency issues all enter in and are not really relevant as I see it here.
Sex sells - as we've said and recognized - using beautiful women and connotations that this new whatever it is will make a man (or woman!) desirable to the other sex. What the hell does this have to do with weapons? I have no clue - other than appealing to a more primitive and vicious side of humanity that thrives on primal urges which include sex, fighting, and all of the basic needs. On one hand - sex is used to sell because it grabs attention - (the annual gun show here locally always has some buxom brunette chambering a rifle and saying "Hi - I'm Heather - come and see what I've got!" UGH!
Again - sex/women/whatever is used to sell more than just guns and knives - but I think it is an important issue raised here as to the messages sent when associating sex and weapons. Ian is getting a little explicit in his post - yet within there are some points. What is being perpetuated with this kind of imagery when presented in front of an audience that contains less than emotionally mature members? On the other hand again - some of that "imagery" - that of sheathing and unsheathing and blades and whathaveyou - have their place in romantic poetry and in imagery that in an emotionally mature context are not debasing or degrading anyone. This does NOT make it appropriate for mass marketing to the general populace in my opinion.
I'm in possession of some excellent knife training videos thanks to Dave Elkins Sensei - and none of them come fraught with sexual imagery - instead they focus on training techniques and applications - some even demonstrated by women. So obviously there are some excellent educational materials available without the use of sexual imagery - if you do your research - know who to ask - and take recommendations. The proliferation of instant information gives us too many choices - and the true educated consumer can no longer evaluate all the products available - instead s/he must become a researcher and find a way to distill the information down and find something that will approximate what is really being sought - without all the fluff. It can be done - but it takes work. And it takes a moral and social conscience to refrain from buying something that contributes to the social degradation of our world. If you believe that this association of weapons and women is degrading and wrong - then DON'T BUY THEM. And further - protest them. Object to the perpetuator of the process that got the advertising to you. If it came on the internet unbidden - protest to your ISP. If it came in the mail - find the avenues for protesting unsolicited material of adult content. Don't perpetuate their marketing by mentioning their names in a public forum. Define your own social conscience and live with it. Act on it.
And remember what Mrs. Patrick Campbell, turn of the century British actress said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Intial post - knife videos marketed in a sexual content. A little humor here is not only allowed - it is welcome - and says in an off-hand and non-offensive way that using women and sex in a derogatory manner - for advertising or otherwise - is wrong - and yet still a part of our society.
I rarely give my personal opinions on these pages - sticking mainly to issues and the questioning of same as much as I can - for I've found that venturing a personal opinion in a written medium will be interpreted in so many ways that are so often far off base from what I intended - it's not worth the aggravation. (I have enough stress in my life!) But I do participate here in the interest of learning - of expanding horizons - which can be done, with care and moderation.
Now - on this thread - we've got a couple of issues:
Marketing of weapons with soft (or other) porn. Personally - I feel this give a very bad message to youth or other impressionable people that knives and guns and violence are associated with sex. You can take that any where you want in your own head. These videos described in the initial post obviously "tread the line" and yet we all know that much much worse is out there, and available with little work. These above only are able to be more public about it because they are on the edge of what society still accepts - and that edge of what is acceptable when it comes to public depiction of material with sexual content is a hell of a lot more explicit than it used to be. That is a whole other subject. Probably better for the "tough issues" forum as to the level of acceptable sexual content in public media. Censorship and decency issues all enter in and are not really relevant as I see it here.
Sex sells - as we've said and recognized - using beautiful women and connotations that this new whatever it is will make a man (or woman!) desirable to the other sex. What the hell does this have to do with weapons? I have no clue - other than appealing to a more primitive and vicious side of humanity that thrives on primal urges which include sex, fighting, and all of the basic needs. On one hand - sex is used to sell because it grabs attention - (the annual gun show here locally always has some buxom brunette chambering a rifle and saying "Hi - I'm Heather - come and see what I've got!" UGH!
Again - sex/women/whatever is used to sell more than just guns and knives - but I think it is an important issue raised here as to the messages sent when associating sex and weapons. Ian is getting a little explicit in his post - yet within there are some points. What is being perpetuated with this kind of imagery when presented in front of an audience that contains less than emotionally mature members? On the other hand again - some of that "imagery" - that of sheathing and unsheathing and blades and whathaveyou - have their place in romantic poetry and in imagery that in an emotionally mature context are not debasing or degrading anyone. This does NOT make it appropriate for mass marketing to the general populace in my opinion.
I'm in possession of some excellent knife training videos thanks to Dave Elkins Sensei - and none of them come fraught with sexual imagery - instead they focus on training techniques and applications - some even demonstrated by women. So obviously there are some excellent educational materials available without the use of sexual imagery - if you do your research - know who to ask - and take recommendations. The proliferation of instant information gives us too many choices - and the true educated consumer can no longer evaluate all the products available - instead s/he must become a researcher and find a way to distill the information down and find something that will approximate what is really being sought - without all the fluff. It can be done - but it takes work. And it takes a moral and social conscience to refrain from buying something that contributes to the social degradation of our world. If you believe that this association of weapons and women is degrading and wrong - then DON'T BUY THEM. And further - protest them. Object to the perpetuator of the process that got the advertising to you. If it came on the internet unbidden - protest to your ISP. If it came in the mail - find the avenues for protesting unsolicited material of adult content. Don't perpetuate their marketing by mentioning their names in a public forum. Define your own social conscience and live with it. Act on it.
And remember what Mrs. Patrick Campbell, turn of the century British actress said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
It doesn't matter what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses.
