Lesbian Cougar Video--funny or not?

[Ebon]

I didn't find it offensive at all. I think that they were trying to be funny and missed it by a long shot. I could totally tell it was made by a gay guy too.

I see the world from a comedic perspective so I can understand the satire. Everyone gets made fun of and some people find some things distasteful. Shows make fun of cougars all the time and in this case it just happened to be lesbians.

[SuperFemme]

I understand comedy. I really do, but I also think this particular clip could be construed as anti-lesbian and anti-woman to some.

I may be alone in thinking that, but pieces that are denigrating to women aren't funny. To me.

In the same way that the tired old frat boy type jokes aren't funny to me.

OMG. I've turned into my mother.

[BullDog]

No I don't think this is funny. Taking advantage of someone young and drunk- that's supposed to be funny?

Also why is it that lesbians seem to be open season for other queers to make fun of?

[The_Lady_Snow]

Yeah, images of drunk girls and someone not caring that they are drunk comedy or not is oogey for me...

I did not find it to be funny.

Maybe it's a mom thing I dunno

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Yeah, images of drunk girls and someone not caring that they are drunk comedy or not is oogey for me...

I did not find it to be funny.

Maybe it's a mom thing I dunno

not to mention the image of lesbians as predators of young people.

we already have had real life consequences for that belief when the religious right takes away our civil rights by scaring the masses into believing that we ARE predators recruiting their young.

ugh.

[NJFemmie]

I didn't find it amusing.

[Heart]

Replacing 20-something "frat boys" with 40-something "lesbian cougars," and thinking it's satire is really pretty pathetic. I would expect more from Second City.

It's not even the fact that the dykes are made up to look ugly is that stereotypical lesbian manner or that they use a word like "twat," it's that whomever made this so clearly knows nothing about lesbian culture. That's why its not funny.

For christ fucking sake, a lesbian cougar would not go after a drunk straight college girl. A lesbian cougar would go after a hot young packing butch go-go dancer.



ETA: As for the predator thing -- I get why that's disturbing, but I don't think anyone in the clip is supposed to be underage. Young does not equate to child or minor. Let's remember that people with large age differences DO engage in consensual relationships. Part of the problem with the whole "cougar" thing is that it is so totally age-ist - on both ends of the spectrum.

[Jesse]

I thought it was a waste of space myself. It did not speak of intelligence, nor talent and reeked of ignorance and abuse.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Heart

Replacing 20-something "frat boys" with 40-something "lesbian cougars," and thinking it's satire is really pretty pathetic. I would expect more from Second City.

It's not even the fact that the dykes are made up to look ugly is that stereotypical lesbian manner or that they use a word like "twat," it's that whomever made this so clearly knows nothing about lesbian culture. That's why its not funny.

For christ fucking sake, a lesbian cougar would not go after a drunk straight college girl. A lesbian cougar would go after a hot young packing butch go-go dancer.



ETA: As for the predator thing -- I get why that's disturbing, but I don't think anyone in the clip is supposed to be underage. Young does not equate to child or minor. Let's remember that people with large age differences DO engage in consensual relationships. Part of the problem with the whole "cougar" thing is that it is so totally age-ist - on both ends of the spectrum.

LMAO!!- the packing butch go-go dancer! Good point!

And yes about ageism.... personally, I am uncomfortable with dating someone a lot younger than myself (but I know not to say never about anything), but, absolutely people have adult consensual relationships with many years between them. Its the whole negative judgement thang that bothers me.

[TenderKnight]

OK, maybe this is another one of those times that I need to shut up and listen.. But I wasn't really offended by this video and though it didn't make me laugh, it did get a snort from me.. A "really??" snort.. But then, I'm a sick fucker and find that this is more a play to the stereotype that everyone see's as lesbians then anything else.. Of course, I love Dave Chapel and sometimes I find his stuff pretty damned offensive, but still funny, even if it's wrong..

I don't know.. Again, maybe this is one of those moments when I'm just not seeing the bigger picture..

-Tony

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by softness

I reported it and I posted under my name..

"Where do you find any humour whatsoever in the sexual assault of drunken young women by predators? Be careful what you conjure...the images you have created and watch will linger in the culture and add to the pradigm that woman are just fuck holes. Well, the joke is on you..for it is your emasculated little erections not this video that are truly the pitiful jokes of our sick culture."

Is this kind of thing really necessary? Why throw in emasculating comments like this? Even if you believe the image is perpetuating something you do not support, stooping to what you believe to be a lower level is not the way to go about changing anything, imo. It perpetuates what appears to be the entire qualm you have with the video. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I understand comedy. I really do, but I also think this particular clip could be construed as anti-lesbian and anti-woman to some.

I may be alone in thinking that, but pieces that are denigrating to women aren't funny. To me.

In the same way that the tired old frat boy type jokes aren't funny to me.

OMG. I've turned into my mother.

All satire can be misconstrued as anti- whatever the subject matter happens to be. In some ways, that is part of the reflective point of satire. How many people do you think watched Borat and thought Sacha Baron Cohen was actually perpetuating sexism, racism, homophobia among other subjects he touched upon? The same has happened with nearly every satiric work that has ever come out, and it is because people fail to see the purpose of satire: to hold a mirror up to society, to overexaggerate and therefore make more visible its blatant hypocrisy.

And even if it was not meant as a satire by the original creator (which we still don't know yet, as far as I've seen), there is also the case of inadvertant satire that can function just as well toward that aim. Why not use it in such a manner, consequently stripping it of the power with which you believe it to be endowed?

For those interested, Slavoj Zizek actually talks about how such "jokes" or satires function, and may explain better than I currently am. It's a long clip and I understand most people don't want to get into the whole thing, but his overview of the example joke he uses starts at around 37:00 for those interested (the joke is used to support other arguments in the debate, but the whole debate does not centre around the use of jokes/satire as a tool toward illuminating social hypocrisy, so I don't want anyone to think the whole thing is about such jokes).

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Is this kind of thing really necessary? Why throw in emasculating comments like this? Even if you believe the image is perpetuating something you do not support, stooping to what you believe to be a lower level is not the way to go about changing anything, imo. It perpetuates what appears to be the entire qualm you have with the video. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.



All satire can be misconstrued as anti- whatever the subject matter happens to be. In some ways, that is part of the reflective point of satire. How many people do you think watched Borat and thought Sacha Baron Cohen was actually perpetuating sexism, racism, homophobia among other subjects he touched upon? The same has happened with nearly every satiric work that has ever come out, and it is because people fail to see the purpose of satire: to hold a mirror up to society, to overexaggerate and therefore make more visible its blatant hypocrisy.

And even if it was not meant as a satire by the original creator (which we still don't know yet, as far as I've seen), there is also the case of inadvertant satire that can function just as well toward that aim. Why not use it in such a manner, consequently stripping it of the power with which you believe it to be endowed?

For those interested, Slavoj Zizek actually talks about how such "jokes" or satires function, and may explain better than I currently am. It's a long clip and I understand most people don't want to get into the whole thing, but his overview of the example joke he uses starts at around 37:00 for those interested (the joke is used to support other arguments in the debate, but the whole debate does not centre around the use of jokes/satire as a tool toward illuminating social hypocrisy, so I don't want anyone to think the whole thing is about such jokes).

I absolutely agree.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Is this kind of thing really necessary? Why throw in emasculating comments like this? Even if you believe the image is perpetuating something you do not support, stooping to what you believe to be a lower level is not the way to go about changing anything, imo. It perpetuates what appears to be the entire qualm you have with the video. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.



All satire can be misconstrued as anti- whatever the subject matter happens to be. In some ways, that is part of the reflective point of satire. How many people do you think watched Borat and thought Sacha Baron Cohen was actually perpetuating sexism, racism, homophobia among other subjects he touched upon? The same has happened with nearly every satiric work that has ever come out, and it is because people fail to see the purpose of satire: to hold a mirror up to society, to overexaggerate and therefore make more visible its blatant hypocrisy.

And even if it was not meant as a satire by the original creator (which we still don't know yet, as far as I've seen), there is also the case of inadvertant satire that can function just as well toward that aim. Why not use it in such a manner, consequently stripping it of the power with which you believe it to be endowed?

For those interested, Slavoj Zizek actually talks about how such "jokes" or satires function, and may explain better than I currently am. It's a long clip and I understand most people don't want to get into the whole thing, but his overview of the example joke he uses starts at around 37:00 for those interested (the joke is used to support other arguments in the debate, but the whole debate does not centre around the use of jokes/satire as a tool toward illuminating social hypocrisy, so I don't want anyone to think the whole thing is about such jokes).

In order to make good satire you need to know your subject material. These people know nothing about lesbians- it's obvious.

[SuperFemme]

Ender - I get satire. I still didn't like it. I didn't watch Borat, it didn't seem interesting to me.

Which is ok, I have no problem with anyone who does, it's just not for me for the reasons that I mentioned.

[suebee]

Maybe they meant to satirize men. Or maybe not. Who cares. Taking advantage of young drunk women - not so funny. At the beginning of the video I thought it had the potential to be hilarious. But they missed the mark. Anybody who finds it a funny satire - that's fine, to each his own. . I just think they missed the mark this try. If I was familiar with the folks that made it maybe I'd be able to say whether it was typical of their sense of humour or not. But as I've already said - taking advangage of a drunk girl is disgusting, and it lost any comedic potential as soon as that happened.

One's sense of comedy is a very personal thing, and the best comedy troupes stretch the limit of what is funny. I wouldn't go as far as to report a video like this. But neither would I be tempted to go out and look for more of them.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

In order to make good satire you need to know your subject material. These people know nothing about lesbians- it's obvious.

Except you seem to be missing the point of the satire. The satire itself is not against lesbians, and, therefore, does not need to pretend to show an accurate portrayal of lesbians. The satire, in this case, would be a method of mocking the popular portrayal of lesbians, which is something it does very well. Many here who disagree with me have even made the point that this reflects what seems to be a culture of misrepresenting lesbians for whatever purpose...which would be the whole point of the satire.

The satire does not attempt to show the accurate portrayal of lesbians, because lesbians (and therefore the criticism of lesbians) are not its target. Those who portray lesbians in such a fashion are the target of the satire, and so their misinformed portrayal of lesbians takes the forefront. This, if it were meant as a satire, is classic satiric method. I bold this, because, to me, is the point, and I really don't see how accurate portrayal of lesbians would actually help this be a good satiric work. EDIT: In fact, it would defeat its purpose as a satire.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Except you seem to be missing the point of the satire. The satire itself is not against lesbians, and, therefore, does not need to pretend to show an accurate portrayal of lesbians. The satire, in this case, would be a method of mocking the popular portrayal of lesbians, which is something it does very well. Many here who disagree with me have even made the point that this reflects what seems to be a culture of misrepresenting lesbians for whatever purpose...which would be the whole point of the satire.

The satire does not attempt to show the accurate portrayal of lesbians, because lesbians (and therefore the criticism of lesbians) are not its target. Those who portray lesbians in such a fashion are the target of the satire, and so their misinformed portrayal of lesbians takes the forefront. This, if it were meant as a satire, is classic satiric method. I bold this, because, to me, is the point, and I really don't see how accurate portrayal of lesbians would actually help this be a good satiric work.

Ender I'm a lesbian. Are you? I find it quite irritating that you think you can tell me I'm missing the point.

Lesbian stereotypes are damaging. We've spent months trying to discuss that here. This is irritating.

[Soft*Silver]

wait..let me mull this over...its ok for them to be satiracal about lesbians, cougars, predation, etc but its wrong for me to be offended?

and FYI, HOW I said it is perfectly in line with how they will understand it. It takes the politeness out of the discourse. When it comes to rape, I dont need to be polite.

I am fascinated that you think you can come in and ask me was this really necessary. Obviously. Or I wouldnt have said it...


[QUOTE=EnderD_503;166381]Is this kind of thing really necessary? Why throw in emasculating comments like this? Even if you believe the image is perpetuating something you do not support, stooping to what you believe to be a lower level is not the way to go about changing anything, imo. It perpetuates what appears to be the entire qualm you have with the video. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as they say.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by softness

wait..let me mull this over...its ok for them to be satiracal about lesbians, cougars, predation, etc but its wrong for me to be offended?

Except it wasn't really a satire about lesbians, cougars or predation. If this is, in fact, a satirical work (and even so, could easily be transformed into something it was not intended to be), then it is not being satirical about lesbians, cougars and predation, but about those who perpetuate misrepresentations and stereotypes. It does not accurately represent lesbians, because it may very well not mean to, if, in fact, it is a satire highlight the existence of misrepresentation and stereotypes...I repeat: the target is not lesbians in such a case. I keep bolding this because the responses to what I've written continued to be offended responses that do not correlate at all with what I've actually written.

and FYI, HOW I said it is perfectly in line with how they will understand it. It takes the politeness out of the discourse. When it comes to rape, I dont need to be polite.

I am fascinated that you think you can come in and ask me was this really necessary. Obviously. Or I wouldnt have said it...

If it was necessary for you, then what exactly do you think continuing the cycle achieves? I am not talking about politeness. I am talking about perpetuating a certain type of behaviour: stripping away someone's dignity as a woman/man for the purpose of humiliating them simply because you do not agree with them for whatever reason. If you want to be rude, go ahead, but why do you see fit to bring one's sex into the equation? What do you achieve beyond venting your own anger? It certainly doesn't change anything. If we ever want this kind of thing to stop, it should start with us.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Except it wasn't really a satire about lesbians, cougars or predation. If this is, in fact, a satirical work (and even so, could easily be transformed into something it was not intended to be), then it is not being satirical about lesbians, cougars and predation, but about those who perpetuate misrepresentations and stereotypes. It does not accurately represent lesbians, because it may very well not mean to, if, in fact, it is a satire highlight the existence of misrepresentation and stereotypes...I repeat: the target is not lesbians in such a case. I keep bolding this because the responses to what I've written continued to be offended responses that do not correlate at all with what I've actually written.



If it was necessary for you, then what exactly do you think continuing the cycle achieves? I am not talking about politeness. I am talking about perpetuating a certain type of behaviour: stripping away someone's dignity as a woman/man for the purpose of humiliating them simply because you do not agree with them for whatever reason. If you want to be rude, go ahead, but why do you see fit to bring one's sex into the equation? What do you achieve beyond venting your own anger? It certainly doesn't change anything. If we ever want this kind of thing to stop, it should start with us.

So you see nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women (among other things) but chastize someone that you think is doing that here?