Totally flawed logic, I say. I will add a hypothetical sentence to the end of PDH's sentence to illustrate how what he said does not in any way state that "pandering to male nerds" exclusively means "nearly naked woman".
"I didn't claim that the movie was not pandering to male nerds. I think that it was with that scene at least. I also think it was pandering to male nerds when Spock yelled, 'KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!'"
Just because he said that the scene in question is a form of pandering to male nerds doesn't in any way suggest that it's the ONLY form.
I never said that it's the ONLY form. You assume that I said that. Also, notice that even PDH himself didn't try to argue that part you are arguing about; even he knows that I was right about that.
Herald wrote:I wouldn't make that claim, man. Just because one woman likes seeing underdressed women doesn't mean "many" of them do. Have you seen my thread about the "6 Stupid Superheroine Designs That Need Redesign, Stat!", in which a female artist bends over backwards to cover up every superheroine she was asked to redesign?? And the female writer of the article badmouths the near-nakedness of every female character up for redesign except her best buddy, Emma Frost?? That's the sort of thing that messes up your claim
Totally not what I said. In fact, I literally said that most females do not want to see naked chicks. (My wife included.) See below...
Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them.
Women are just as much human beings as men are. They have an inherent want and need for sexual excitement as well. I don't think they want to see the same things men do, however. We want to see the obvious stuff like actual sex and bare boobies. They are more interested in emotional connections in movies, and in that scene, there was sexual tension between the two characters. That sexual tension is what I believe would be a draw for many women.
You did say that "they like to see sexually explicit things as well"; that's the part I take issue with. (I highlighted it above for easy reference.) I'm not talking about the "emotional connections" part of your argument, since emotional connections are not "sexually explicit". Sexually explicit things include nudity and penetration. You know, things kids ought not to see... and things not all women like to see.
Also, your example of the superheroine redesign is relevant, but it's hardly proof. You are referencing a single woman. In fact, even if you reference 1,000 articles it still is only a tiny fraction of the view of the masses. A poor sample really. Just like me citing my wife is a poor sample.
As long as you realize that last line.
Oh, and for the record, I referenced TWO women, not just one.
The reality is, no one can speak for the masses. What you hear on TV or read in articles and blogs...those are the loud people, not the average people. Especially when it comes to a more taboo topic like this. For example, if we were straight up suggesting that most females love to see naked chicks in movies, how many females do you think would openly admit it? Sure, there would be some, but most would keep quiet or just flat out deny it, I imagine. So I suppose, after reading my own argument, I am concluding that it's a silly thing to try to prove (one way or the other), and I still firmly stand by my theory simply out of pride and an inability to give up so early in a debate. (Don't mistaken that as a backwards way of saying that I think I'm wrong either.) =D
So, like I said, you shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place.
Ha! Just to clarify, I was only kidding around. I really do think his argument is pretty sound. You do make some good points as well, I think, but a lot of your statements are pretty soaked with sarcasm and perhaps a little disdain, so it's difficult to weed through them. I would say that maybe this is the reason that people tend to side against you. Maybe their bias isn't blindly toward PDH...it could be blind bias against you.
Like you said, it's blind, based on emotion.
As some pointy-eared Trek character would say, "Most illogical..."
Absolutely! WOOOOO!!!!!!!!! *punches the nearest Outhouser in the face and throws a table over*