Why do people ignore Madonna's ephebophilic character?

[Pop 4,541]

Just now, Snow said:

Excuse me? Is this about M? Jesus christ, what The heck is your problem and obsession to come to M threads to troll with lies and hate and fueling unnecessary flaimbait with this and likes of "Madonna is not a legend". -_-  

Is this really okey on ggd call ppl with these names that are obvious lies? Is this now acceptable behaviour? 

You need to stop being ignorant and google it. Every single thing I said is true.

Madonna is problematic af. 

[Snow 1,582]

5 minutes ago, Pop said:

You need to stop being ignorant and google it. Every single thing I said is true.

Madonna is problematic af. 

One can Take anything out of context and Spin them and even forget to put them in culturally framework of a loooong time ago and how was spoken.

Its you who is an ignorant and delusional hater trolling. Please, just stop. 

[KURUSHITOVSKA 20,439]

4 hours ago, Pop said:

Homophobia (says the word "fag" to a gay man as an insult)

Racism (used the N-word, attack black men in interviews, queen of cultural appropriation)

Pedo (wrote and published pedophile ****, has a history of dating boys that could be her sons)

Shut up and leave

[KURUSHITOVSKA 20,439]

4 hours ago, Pop said:

You need to stop being ignorant and google it. Every single thing I said is true.

Madonna is problematic af. 

Lmao you calling ignorant someone else. Shut up again!

[Easto 143]

"But he gave me crabs. That's what you get. You win some you lose some"

JFJASJFHDKVLF

[StrawberryBlond 13,475]

18 hours ago, elijahfan said:

... that wasn't me asking for being educated, that was me saying "let's agree to disagree". I mean I'm from France, we're obviously from the same "world"  But I mainly think we're all talking about 1000 different things here.

i know you weren't, but I was adding it in anyway, to clarify what I was talking about. And we're not really talking about 100 different things. The idea is that a woman can get away with doing things that a man can't, and I'm talking about all the different ways this is so. I'm surprised that someone who lives in the same "world," can't see these things.

[AyaKara 2,272]

Everyone, please back up any claims about an artist with current evidence to prevent any misunderstandings.

[petty 9,408]

1 hour ago, KURUSHITOVSKA said:

Shut up and leave

how about you leave? you've contributed nothing but your stan-goggled delusion to this debate

[petty 9,408]

Just now, AyaKara said:

Everyone, please back up any claims about an artist with current evidence to prevent any misunderstandings.

why? if people want to find out for themselves, they can google. the receipts are all there and it's a click away.

[AyaKara 2,272]

Just now, thotiana said:

why? if people want to find out for themselves, they can google. the receipts are all there and it's a click away.

They can, but if a claim is going to upset people (which is happening in this thread, with multiple members), it's better if evidence is included in the original post so it's clear whether the person is just disagreeing or actually flamebaiting.

[elijahfan 23,752]

25 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

i know you weren't, but I was adding it in anyway, to clarify what I was talking about. And we're not really talking about 100 different things. The idea is that a woman can get away with doing things that a man can't, and I'm talking about all the different ways this is so. I'm surprised that someone who lives in the same "world," can't see these things.

Well, how do you explain how a guy with many lovers can be called a playboy, a casanova and what not, whereas a woman in the same situation would only be called a *****? You seem very convinced those issues are only black & white when they're not at all. That's literally all I'm saying.

[StrawberryBlond 13,475]

2 minutes ago, elijahfan said:

Well, how do you explain how a guy with many lovers can be called a playboy, a casanova and what not, whereas a woman in the same situation would only be called a *****? You seem very convinced those issues are only black & white when they're not at all. That's literally all I'm saying.

Yes, that's true. But it can also be seen in another light. A woman can use men for sex and focus on just their pleasure instead of his are cited as being a great fighter for women's rights, that she's making a feminist statement by sleeping around and having men please her, she doesn't please them. When a man uses women for sex and is focused on just his pleasure, he's a d**k, an a**hole, a misogynist. When women do it, they're being bold and brave and standing up for women's rights. I strongly disapprove of this ideology. If it's bad when men do it, it shouldn't be acceptable for women to do it either. The issues aren't black and white, but there are different ways of looking at them.

[elijahfan 23,752]

31 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, that's true. But it can also be seen in another light. A woman can use men for sex and focus on just their pleasure instead of his are cited as being a great fighter for women's rights, that she's making a feminist statement by sleeping around and having men please her, she doesn't please them. When a man uses women for sex and is focused on just his pleasure, he's a d**k, an a**hole, a misogynist. When women do it, they're being bold and brave and standing up for women's rights. I strongly disapprove of this ideology. If it's bad when men do it, it shouldn't be acceptable for women to do it either. The issues aren't black and white, but there are different ways of looking at them.

Well, that's a very post-modern way of looking at it but yeah, that's my point: you can look at a particular situation in many different ways.

[Didymus 32,914]

52 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, that's true. But it can also be seen in another light. A woman can use men for sex and focus on just their pleasure instead of his are cited as being a great fighter for women's rights, that she's making a feminist statement by sleeping around and having men please her, she doesn't please them. When a man uses women for sex and is focused on just his pleasure, he's a d**k, an a**hole, a misogynist. When women do it, they're being bold and brave and standing up for women's rights.

That's because women have been conditioned into thinking they can't do what a man does though. You're ignoring historical dynamics here. It's a victory because for women there was an added obstacle. This is why there are gay pride parades: it would probably be deemed unnecessary and probably disrespectful to have a straight pride parade (at which point you could again claim there's a problematic double standard), but you'd ignore the fact that homosexuals have suffered and still suffer suppression.

When a man gets dissed for ignoring a woman's demands it's because he's giving into ancient stereotypes that should have no place in our society anymore. If we see Samantha on Sex and the City change sexual partners like dresses it is empowering not because the man's demands are getting ignored but because the woman's are being affirmed for once. In reality of course, things would be different - a woman consistently ignoring a man's needs would quickly become socially isolated (unless the man got a kick out of it), and deservedly so.

But culture is not a playing field of reality. It's a playing field of social dynamics and their subversion. Different realities and every child intuitively understands that. Just like fans of Tarantino don't go out shooting people, fans of Madonna's Sex book won't live out every sexual fantasy. Yet it can empower them in other ways, making a small change in social dynamics that can be a stepping stone for a repressed social group being embraced by the status quo. The reintegration of female sexuality is an important issue due to centuries of repression and you just dismissing that because you're clinging to the version of feminism in which men and women have to obey the same standard (which one could doubt is even feminist in nature), misrepresenting not just dynamics of empowerment but also events and people who have contributed to it, is the really problematic ideology here.

[Harry 26,836]

22 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No, I said non-professional writers with no literary qualifications must have their work looked at a bit differently. Critics look at it differently, the public looks at it differently. After all, celebrities turn their hand to anything now, even if they don't have the qualifications for it. They make perfumes, fashion lines, apps and even write books. But it's not their full-time job, it's just a little hobby to make some extra money and extend their brand. That's different to someone who has got the qualifications for and has worked really hard for these professions. Therefore, the amount of intention and talent a celebrity could put into a book is questionable.

Unqualified people trying their hand at something they are not experienced or educated in should have their intentions and talent questioned?

I completely agree.