tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2414008169165418445.post209221997550419101..comments2013-02-06T06:05:08.359-08:00Comments on Stanton Audemars' Stockholm Weblog: It's not a Dating Guide, DumbassStanton Audemarshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15250934484497489219noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2414008169165418445.post-1053610489314277402009-07-15T13:52:28.545-07:002009-07-15T13:52:28.545-07:00How long did you think it would take before we saw...How long did you think it would take before we saw through your lies and assumptions? We figured it out, your game’s up! Your suggestion that Stockholm: AETL is about “a man captur[ing] a woman” is unacceptable! Granted, I haven’t seen Stockholm: AETL, and have no plans to, but from what I understand of the project: I suppose women are never violent? Women in lesbian relationships are never abused or dominated? Women are never ruthless or manipulative? Grow up! We women are every bit as strong, smart, and ruthless as men, and we like power just as much as you guys do! Women today are career women, CEOs, and have leading roles in politics (Pelosi, Sec. of State Clinton, etc.) Some are dommes (dominatrixes) and command the authority of male slaves, female slaves, or both. We like to pull the strings as much as any man. <br /><br />Just because the captive portrayed is a female, don't assume the captor is a male! Are you trying to dictate to women what we can or can’t imagine, or just putting out that assumption and laughing into your sleeve.... either way, I challenge your assumption. What you should say, is that behind a veneer of social respectability lies the hearts of cavemen and cavewomen which contains the instinct to club our mate of choice and then have our way with him/her. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, “The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in human beings, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and right of appetite, does the individual, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.”<br /><br />I agree with your assessment of Friends. You said, "Rachel inexplicably fell in love with Ross. But in reality, Jennifer Aniston sure as hell didn’t fall in love with David Schwimmer." <br /><br />You then went sexist again: "Doting, domesticated males are just not attractive." Really, the world is divided into submissives and dominants, and most find dominant traits appealing in males/females, depending on which gender one prefers to partner. <br /><br />"Stockholm [is] more like figuring out a puzzle, or a Zen koan. Stockholm is not meant to be purely a game. It is meant to be a simulation that challenges what you’ve been taught love is supposed to be. The point of Stockholm is not that kidnapping is the right thing to do. The point is that we need to reexamine our definition of love." I actually agree with this one statement of yours.<br /><br />"Some have suggested that to be fair, there should be two versions of Stockholm, one where a man captures a woman, and another where a woman captures a man." If I understand correctly, only the captured woman is shown. Her captor could be male of female. Damn right there should be 2 versions! The other version should show a female captor (preferably the same actress) from the perspective of the captive (male or female unspecified). This provides the ultimate knowledge of self: to be the captor and experience the predatory feelings it engenders; to be the captive, and experience (perhaps) a small taste of Stockholm syndrome. I mentioned that I have no plans to view Stockholm: AETL, but if you ever make the counterpart I describe, many people will buy it, including me!Mary Lounoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2414008169165418445.post-38366592877937926032009-06-26T12:54:06.958-07:002009-06-26T12:54:06.958-07:00This is the most ridiculously UNcontroversial issu...This is the most ridiculously UNcontroversial issue. Video games + sex = satisfied boys. Everyone has their own sexual preference (girls are no different, Mr. Audemars). Some boys like sex with other boys and some boys wish they had a bigger penis and masquerade dominance and female helplessness/dependence as love. In reality, this porn star is not in love, she’s just confused. (Not that I’ve seen the film, I doubt anyone wasted $10 to do so). But with Stockholm syndrome, the victim will do anything to stay alive, even resort to lewd sexual acts to feign intimacy. Maybe there’s no such thing as love. Your version of ‘love’ derives from a need, not socio cultural norms. Example: boy with small penis feels inadequate so he creates love illusion. Cultural values my ass. This is 2009. If you want to live out your own sex/love perversions no one is stopping you. Why do you feel the need to proselytize your own dumb version?? If a man is entitled to this other love perspective, then like a seesaw, women are left without THEIR spirit. Love is a choose-your-own-adventure and not whatever twisted idea Mr. Audemars supports by objectifying women in this retard film. <br /><br />What irks me is that Stanton makes love and sex fantasies an individual, male pursuit. Therefore, sex and love must be played out separately and not components of an emotional relationship. If you are just interested in sex, then the issue of polygamy vs. monogamy is a moot point. Solution? Sleep around. Anyways, the moral of this stupid, pointless, rant from a crazy person (not me, Stanton) is this: instead of dating websites, we need to set up dungeons so that girls who like to be dominated can meet men with small penises.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03771335214867636970noreply@blogger.com