Lesbian Cougar Video--funny or not?

[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.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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.

This is equally irritating for me, because in many respects what you are saying is the entire point of my post.

The satire attempts to highlight the misrepresentations of lesbians in popular contemporary culture. If, again, it was meant as a satire, then it is trying to highlight the fact that those stereotypes still exist and is actually ridiculing their existence.

For example, in Borat, Borat (Cohen, the actor/director, himself is Jewish) says some very anti-semitic things. People claim that it propagates anti-semitism, but that is not the point of the satire. The point is to highlight the continued existance of anti-semitism and, furthermore, to highlight society's hypocrisy; not only because anti-semitism continues to exist, but because so many who laugh at Borat's jokes have likely made anti-semitic comments themselves. It mocks the continued hypocrisy of the populace who continues to perpetuate these misrepresentations and stereotypes.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

This is equally irritating for me, because in many respects what you are saying is the entire point of my post.

The satire attempts to highlight the misrepresentations of lesbians in popular contemporary culture. If, again, it was meant as a satire, then it is trying to highlight the fact that those stereotypes still exist and is actually ridiculing their existence.

For example, in Borat, Borat (Cohen, the actor/director, himself is Jewish) says some very anti-semitic things. People claim that it propagates anti-semitism, but that is not the point of the satire. The point is to highlight the continued existance of anti-semitism and, furthermore, to highlight society's hypocrisy; not only because anti-semitism continues to exist, but because so many who laugh at Borat's jokes have likely made anti-semitic comments themselves. It mocks the continued hypocrisy of the populace who continues to perpetuate these misrepresentations and stereotypes.

I'm done. I don't need you to educate me on satire- particularly when it comes to lesbians.

The video isn't funny to me. The end.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

I'm done. I don't need you to educate me on satire- particularly when it comes to lesbians.

The video isn't funny to me. The end.

If you think I'm wrong, explain why instead of telling me not to "educate" you on satire (if you think I'm wrong on it, then by all means feel free to give me its definition according to you), especially when it comes to lesbians (as though satire takes on a different form depending on the group), instead of dismissing me for an unknown reason. I fail to see what is so upsetting when such satire (whether intended or not) may actually criticise popular stereotypes. Why become offended by it when it can be used for so much more?

As for the video not being funny to you, again, very good...because that may very well not be its point. Again, satire: putting a mirror up in front of society.

[Ebon]

Most satires will always be offensive to someone. I find that when people get the most offended is when they feel like what is being said is true about them or it's something that they don't want to deal with. It was a lame attempt at satire. I don't think that they were saying that lesbians or gay people as a whole are predators. Most of the lesbians that I know would never try to pick up a drunk college girl. Some of them would. Everything is on a person by person basis including what some people find funny and what others find offensive. I've seen things that were far worse than this video, like that dumb girl on The View saying that older women becomes lesbians because they "Couldn't get a man." That is a hell of a lot more dangerous than this stupid video. That's all in my own opinion of course.

[Diva]

Ok....what to say, what to say......

I didn't find it funny. Just like I don't find women who flash their drunken breasts at Mardi Gras funny, either. Yeah....for beads? Or frat boys whose goal it is to become so inebriated they do the ridiculous things they do.

That being said, I'm rather ambivalent about it (the video), as I know what is funny to some, won't be to others. And we can pick and choose about what we become enraged over, yes?

Additionally, I'm beginning to feel my age as I find the word 'cougar' more bothersome to me as the years go by....but that's another thread.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I got it. I also love very dark english humour that I think many people here would find offinsive, whereas in england it's called satire + irony.

it's ok not to get it.

However, there is one thing that satire and satire with irony needs and that's an audience that gets it or you'll get the dichotomy of 1) people thinking you are promoting what you are satirising 2) people thinking you are making fun (taking the piss is not really an american accepted tradition in certain political ways) in a way that isn't funny.

I for one LOVED Bruno, I nearly wet myself.
And Nighty Night, a very black humour satire, where in one scene this very screwed up woman is trying to seduce a 11 year old kid who clearly wants nothing to do with her, has no idea what she's talking about and is just playing his video game. In another she gets sperm off her ex boyfriend, it's accidently dropped in someone's dinner and she then demands that her female gimp shove the whole dinner up her twat while she hangs upside down in a closet.



I personally thought this clip was satire. Unfortunately, I also thought it wasn't all that expertly written. it lost it's mark. I didn't really find it offensive, I understood the double layer and that they were taking the piss. Just thought it was a bit shoddy and needed re-writing.

[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?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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?

I get the feeling you aren't actually reading what I've written when you accuse me of "seeing nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women." If this is a satire, and I have good reason to believe it is, it is not attempting to strip women of their dignity (therefore, it is not about me making light of women or men's dignities). In fact, it is attempting to do the exact contrary by highlighting the existence of this tendency (of stripping women of their dignity) in society. Just because something displays a certain event does not mean it desires to perpetuate it. It can very well be a commentary on it, and where we are as a society.

For example, in Voltaire's Candide you have Pangloss who preaches theodicy, and no matter what ridiculously violent and terrible things happen to Candide and his party, Pangloss continues to claim that it is "the best of all possible outcomes." Is it because Voltaire supports Leibnitz's philosophy? No! It is entirely to the contrary: he stages theodicy in the forefront precisely because he disagrees with it and perceives it as a danger to society (thus allowing for little upwards class movement, since it supports the notion that the lower classes should stay where they because their current station is the "best of all possible worlds.") There are horrible scenes of rape, dismemberment and so on that are made light of, and not because Voltaire supports such things, but precisely because he does not. The violent and horrific things that occur to the party, and the fact that it is being made light of is the contrast. The overexaggeration of horrific events is needed in order to get the author's real point across.

I'm not claiming the creator of this video is anywhere near approaching the genius of Voltaire, but it appears that he is taking a similar approach in attempting to ridicule something by placing it in the forefront. And that something is not lesbians, but the stereotypes surrounding them that are commonly used in popular culture. It "makes light of" in order to make people aware of what they themselves may very well be perpetuating. Could it have been better written? Yes, but just because the creator was not a particularly gifted writer is not reason to claim that he was attempting to demean women, when that doesn't appear to have been the intention.

To use the Borat example again: Sacha Baron Cohen is not demeaning or ridiculing Jews when his character, Borat, makes anti-semitic comments. He is trying to make people aware and accountable for what continues to occur within modern society. The fact that he takes the role of an "ignorant Kazakh" even further plays into American perspectives on non-western nations, when Americans themselves are guilty of precisely the same behaviour.

As for my comments to softness, please explain to me what such comments achieve and why it is ever right to attempt to humiliate someone because of their sex/gender/race/ethnicity/age etc.? What does it achieve? If you have a logical argument against someone then state it. Don't turn it into an emotional maelstrom that may very well just get otherwise important issues ignored. I haven't seen anyone explain that to me yet. And since when is the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth method ever effective in getting your message across in a logical and coherent manner?

[BullDog]

Ender I am not going to argue with you about satire.

See June's post. I don't appreciate a twenty something year old male trying to tell someone who has been a lesbian for over 30 years (that would be me) how I should interpret this video. You have a lot to learn about sexism and misogyny.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

If this is a satire, and I have good reason to believe it is, it is not attempting to strip women of their dignity (therefore, it is not about me making light of women or men's dignities). In fact, it is attempting to do the exact contrary by highlighting the existence of this tendency (of stripping women of their dignity) in society....

the stereotypes surrounding them that are commonly used in popular culture. It "makes light of" in order to make people aware of what they themselves may very well be perpetuating.

Ender - my question is -- does it work? I don't think it does. Because of the point I made earlier: You cannot successfully satirize something if you are basically ignorant about it on a social, cultural, and political level. That's what satire is after all - knowledgeable ironic commentary. This clip does not achieve satire - and if satire misses -- it easily becomes offensive. That's the risk of satire.

Actually the offensive part to me is the ignorant attempt at satire -- the making of satire without the requisite cultural analysis - the kind of analysis that makes The Simpsons work so well -- even when they skewer lesbians.

One last point: I am not at all convinced this was intended to be the kind of sophisticated satire you are arguing on behalf of.

Heart

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Heart

Ender - my question is -- does it work? I don't think it does. Because of the point I made earlier: You cannot successfully satirize something if you are basically ignorant about it on a social, cultural, and political level. That's what satire is after all - knowledgeable ironic commentary. This clip does not achieve satire - and if satire misses -- it easily becomes offensive. That's the risk of satire.

Hi Heart and thanks for your post,

To your first question I would response: No it doesn't work. Like I said, this guy shouldn't quit his day job any time soon. However, I don't feel that the reason this attempt at satire failed was because the author of it was ignorant lesbians, issues women face etc. I think the reason it failed was that he just didn't make it blatant enough that he was attempting to satirise this common misperception in every day society. As you said yourself, that is always the risk of satire (and arguably it happens, to some degree, with any satirical piece).

One last point: I am not at all convinced this was intended to be the kind of sophisticated satire you are arguing on behalf of.

Heart

Neither am I. But, actually, my point was not that it was akin to the genius of Candide or Les femmes savantes, but that to call the author out on misoginy himself is incorrect. Yes, he wasn't all that successful in his attempt, but let's at least recognise it for what it is. Also, there are cases where failed satires can be salvaged for a better purpose. That is part of what I am arguing as well. Do you not think that it may be more productive to approach the issue with a cool head, than with anger or throwing insults? And if it were an attempt to degrade women, would such an approach not have a better chance of gaining sympathy than mud-slinging?