Random Discussion

Sexy women and guns.
ozoneocean at 9:04AM, July 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
ozoneocean
I don't know Bravo. You can do anything naked I suppose, you just have to exercise more caution. And when I'm around dangerous machinery I myself prefer to be pretty safe.
OSHA in the USA, except the Military is exempt.

I'm talking from experience and 30 years of research into military uniform, even to wearing and handling vintage uniforms. Try serving an artillery piece in full British WWII issue Battledress or even desert Khakis or USMC dungarees or BDUs. (let alone running around with fixed bayonets, contrast the posed 8th Army pics with the actual combat footage) I wish I could've get away with a pair of shorts (I need the pockets) helmet, a pair of shoes and ear plugs.

I've also seen lots and lots of guys working with power tools who were not following OSHA regs when it came to wearing the protective clothing outside the goggles, workboots and maybe gloves. It's a choice between heat injury or some scratches and bruises. After a while you don't even notice the scratches and bruises but heat exhaustion… that stays with you.

Thank heavens the military has the cooling off vest and camelback water these days.
So, would you say that the chosen costume of my main character “Pinky”, is entirely ok as battledress then?



If so, that's good to know :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
bravo1102 at 2:32PM, July 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,305
joined: 1-21-2008
I love it. She needs a pair of sunglasses though. :) I'm sure she finds it comfy, but I don't know about those bulging bottom pockets. They would swing too much and be uncomfortable with such loosely fitting pants especially if she has her ammo down there. Sticking it in a lower pocket makes running around difficult and very uncomforable because it will swing and cause worse bruises than all the spent brass you shoot off.

Ammunition storage is heavy and has to be properly supported; suspenders, shoulder straps, vests. It also helps to wear the stuff and run around in it and talk to someone who knows the secrets on how to make it comfy. (Duct/Duck tape, electrical tape, blousing rubbers and knowing what all those straps are for)

Consult Osprey Men at Arms series' titles on infantry equipments. I thought I knew everthing about WWII infantry equipment. Then I bought a set and tried to put it together and wear it. I learned that reading and looking at pictures is one thing but actual experience is something else. 8(

Then there is the fantasyland of bad adventure/war movies where they also fire full auto all the time, empty magazines left and right and rarely change them while shooting their bullets way over the heads of anyone they're pointing their weapon at like the ladies in the video, I'd love to get in close and show them how to lay down effective fire.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Inkmonkey at 7:03PM, July 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
bravo1102
I'd love to get in close and show them how to lay down effective fire.

That's what she said.

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
bravo1102 at 12:08PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,305
joined: 1-21-2008
Inkmonkey
bravo1102
I'd love to get in close and show them how to lay down effective fire.

That's what she said.

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?

*ahem* I am a certified military instructor and trained professional killer (19K30H, that's M1 tank crewman/tank commander, instructor qualifed)(retired) It used to be my job to get in and show them how, except I never got a chance to have any female types in my classes. :(
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Inkmonkey at 12:24PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
bravo1102
It used to be my job to get in and show them how

Ba-ZING!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
SpANG at 1:54PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
OH… COME … ON!

Is this really about the guns or power tools? Riiight, just like this is about Musical Instruments:



Seriously, it's the penis symbolism for guns, trumpets, and power tools that turns men on. It's not what they actually have in their hands, it's the fantasy of what they have in their hands. Be it their lips up to an ‘instrument’, the ‘handling’ of a power tool, or the obvious “discharge” from a gun. lol!
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
Inkmonkey at 2:13PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
SpANG
Seriously, it's the penis symbolism for guns, trumpets, and power tools that turns men on. It's not what they actually have in their hands, it's the fantasy of what they have in their hands. Be it their lips up to an instrument, the ‘handling’ of a power tool, or the obvious “discharge” from a gun. lol!

You say that like it's some kind of huge revelation that we just haven't caught on to yet. We know, it's just that the symbolism is so obvious that it doesn't really necessitate commentary.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
SpANG at 2:16PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Inkmonkey
You say that like it's some kind of huge revelation that we just haven't caught on to yet. We know, it's just that the symbolism is so obvious that it doesn't really necessitate commentary.
You give raging hormones more credit than they deserve.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 4:46PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
I disagree. The phallic association is too simple and doesn't really work. A woman walking around holding a giant penis? Come on, that's not sexy… -_-

Whereas a woman blowing on an instrument is simply an obvious allusion to oral sex. That's an entirely different thing.

What they symbolise (tools and guns) is power, and that's only phallic in a round about way- in that the phallus also equals “power”… if you think it does. The more obvious thing is that tools and guns are traditionally seen as masculine objects of action (another vector for your penis ideas there), it's interesting to see women flirting with aspects of so called “masculine” behaviour.
-the contrast, and not the actions or objects can be the point of interest…

-By showing women empowered and active like that while in various states of undress, it makes them look even more sexualised. Not in such a simple and obtuse way as showing them interacting with a phallic object of some kind- rather, because they're active and empowered, rather than passive and vulnerable, that is what excites the viewer.
—————–

But the best thing about the power tools in the Satisfaction clip, was the way they made the women's bodies wobble. Nothing else at all :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
Skullbie at 4:47PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 4,754
joined: 12-9-2007
ozoneocean
ActionGirls.com lol!

Oh jesus i loved that site! The concept reminds me of an actually not-disgusting suicide girls.com- a rare treat indeed lol!

….


>_> i mean yeah, guns, w00t
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:46PM
ozoneocean at 5:48PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
Skullbie
ozoneocean
ActionGirls.com lol!
Oh jesus i loved that site! The concept reminds me of an actually not-disgusting suicide girls.com- a rare treat indeed lol!
I know. They show the good bits ^_^

I think a lot of it's done in Eastern Europe so the women have a bit of a different look, as well as the weaponry…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
jmt at 9:00PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(offline)
posts: 66
joined: 7-4-2007
i think i went to art school with one of those chicks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:09PM
SpANG at 9:53PM, Aug. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
Whereas a woman blowing on an instrument is simply an obvious allusion to oral sex. That's an entirely different thing.
I disagree right back. Although I will admit that the woman blowing on an instrument is something even an idiot could figure out. The others are a little more subtle in their symbolism.
ozoneocean
I disagree. The phallic association is too simple and doesn't really work. A woman walking around holding a giant penis? Come on, that's not sexy… -_-
If that were the image, I'd agree with you. But a gun/power tool reacts when someone uses it. It doesn't just sit there. The allusion is a woman giving pleasure to a giant penis, and making it er- fire. ;)

Hell, guns and power tools are already considered to be a phallic extension/substitution when a MAN uses them. Is it really a stretch?

Fast cars have the same symbolic value. They really should put hot girls on top of… Oh, wait. They already do.

I guess some people would argue “machinery fascinates men” and that “men admire a perfectly put together machine”. But you have to wonder WHY you think that way, don't you? I personally don't find guns appealing in the least. They all look pretty ugly to me. When a woman is holding one, for me, it's a turn off. Same can be said for power tools. Unless she's helping me renovate my bathroom. ;)
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 9:11AM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
SpANG
Hell, guns and power tools are already considered to be a phallic extension/substitution when a MAN uses them. Is it really a stretch?
I disagree entirely. That's merely a humorous association at best and at worst a misuse of silly out-dated Freudian ideas. I refer back to my evaluation:
Ozoneocean's know it all paragraph
What they symbolise (tools and guns) is power, and that's only phallic in a round about way- in that the phallus also equals “power”… if you think it does. The more obvious thing is that tools and guns are traditionally seen as masculine objects of action (another vector for your penis ideas there), it's interesting to see women flirting with aspects of so called “masculine” behaviour.
-the contrast, and not the actions or objects can be the point of interest…

-By showing women empowered and active like that while in various states of undress, it makes them look even more sexualised. Not in such a simple and obtuse way as showing them interacting with a phallic object of some kind- rather, because they're active and empowered, rather than passive and vulnerable, that is what excites the viewer.


And so when we apply that rationale to this:
SpANG
When a woman is holding one, for me, it's a turn off. Same can be said for power tools. Unless she's helping me renovate my bathroom. ;)
Well, I suppose you could say that you don't get turned on by women with tools or guns because you prefer your women to be passive in their sexuality, weak, retiring? :)

Hahahaa, duelling analysis by non-psych types! lol!
My art theory and art history background helps a leeetle though…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
SpANG at 9:36AM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
And so when we apply that rationale to this:
SpANG
When a woman is holding one, for me, it's a turn off. Same can be said for power tools. Unless she's helping me renovate my bathroom. ;)
Well, I suppose you could say that you don't get turned on by women with tools or guns because you prefer your women to be passive in their sexuality, weak, retiring? :)

I see what you are trying to get at. But when I said:
SpANG
When a woman is holding one, for me, it's a turn off.
… It was insinuated that I was talking about naked or scantily clad women using them as accessories. It does nothing for me. It gets in the way, because they are ugly things being associated with beautiful things. The woman may as well be holding a lump of shit. My reaction would be the same.

That said, it seems like you are saying women are only strong when they have a piece of machinery? It must be, because you view them as “weak” withOUT them. Sorry, my friend. I think women are strong even without guns/tools. ;)

Hahahaa, duelling analysis by non-psych types! lol!
My art theory and art history background helps a leeetle though…
Hahahaa! The theories I am putting fourth are pretty well documented by psychological sources. I didn't make them up. Seriously Freud would have a field day with this stuff. You'll forgive me if I put more a leetle more merit into them than yours.

With this theory into application, it could be suggested that YOU think women are strong… but only if they have penises. Who thinks the opposite sex is weaker now? lol!
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 9:11PM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
SpANG
Hahahaa! The theories I am putting fourth are pretty well documented by psychological sources. I didn't make them up. Seriously Freud would have a field day with this stuff. You'll forgive me if I put more a leetle more merit into them than yours.

With this theory into application, it could be suggested that YOU think women are strong… but only if they have penises. Who thinks the opposite sex is weaker now? lol!
Noooo, Freud is… quite discredited in that regard man. Sorry, but that went out of fashion many decades ago. He's still the “father” of psycho-analysis, but his relating everything to sex and penises is only really taken seriously by die-hard student type fans and self help pop-psychs now ;)

And those are the sorts that make that idea so “well documented”. What I wrote is more based on current theory.

And as to "my" views on empowerment and weaker sex, you've taken entirely the wrong end of the stick there. I'm talking about an interpretation of the imagery specifically, not how “I” see women. ;)

And the interpretation of that imagery is NOT “women made strong through holding a weapon”, that's not what grabs the target audience: What I was saying was that the weapons handling combined with their undressed state makes the imagery more sexually aggressive and assertive.

In more simple terms, the imagery appeals directly to the libido in a “I will take charge and get on top” sort of way. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
SpANG at 9:32PM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
Noooo, Freud is… quite discredited in that regard man. Sorry, but that went out of fashion many decades ago. He's still the “father” of psycho-analysis, but his relating everything to sex and penises is only really taken seriously by die-hard student type fans and self help pop-psychs now ;)
Simply untrue, sorry. I suppose if you are subscribing to the enlightenment model, then you can pan Freud.
There will always be alternating theories, but Freud is still a school of thought that many, many respected psychologists use. As a matter of fact, whether or not a person in the psychiatric industry believes in ALL theories, they always follow Freud to a greater or lesser extent.

As for the issue, I believe that the symbolism is obvious. So did Inkmoney, who also foolishly believed that EVERYONE would.

We'll just need to agree to disagree on this one. ;)
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 10:28PM, Aug. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
It's only “obvious” because you use the same simplistic one for one relationship Freud did. It's true Spang, those ideas really are discredited. The ideas about obvious relationships and sexual symbols are not used widely by serious people in any field these days because they're so prescriptive. It's baby stuff. That's why he's seen as the “father” of the field. We've moved beyond “this equals that” stuff.

His analysis techniques are all very well, but referring aback to the kiddy stuff about penis symbols would be like going to Darwin for your info on genetics: bit too basic. ;)

The thing is symbology is WAY broader in its interpretation than the old goat from straight-laced late 19thC Austria was aware. He was into universal symbolism based on a limited lumber of factors that apply to everyone, no matter their individual background, cultural history, prior learning etc.

Now that has obvious problems, but when you add to that the rudimentary relationships he inferred between objects you really do see it start to come apart. lol!

The only reason it's still so prevalent now is because it's gained that sort of short hand cultural currency that a lot of socially constructed views have:
-All unknown met tastes like Chicken.
-Aliens are short, grey and have big black eyes.
-Radioactive waste immediately mutates you and is easy to find because it glows bright green.
-Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim.

etc. It's “Received Wisdom”

——————————-
edit- Yes, We'll just agree to disagree :)
I dun like arguing with ya at all :(

Besides, by my own rationale, I consider that symbolism more of a general thing, not being able to say for sure and positive what something means exactly, so it doesn't expressly deny your interpretation. It does depend on the individual afterall. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
lastcall at 6:03AM, Aug. 3, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,358
joined: 11-3-2007
Inkmonkey
They're not particularly good shots, are they?

Probably because it's the first time they've fired one of those things. They look like they're about ready to fall over; the guns are as big as them. Pretty silly…

SpANG
Seriously, it's the penis symbolism for guns, trumpets, and power tools that turns men on. It's not what they actually have in their hands, it's the fantasy of what they have in their hands. Be it their lips up to an instrument, the ‘handling’ of a power tool, or the obvious “discharge” from a gun.

Don't forget rock bands & those crazy guitar players. ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:28PM
bravo1102 at 6:36AM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,305
joined: 1-21-2008
I doubt anyone who has commented thus far would do a better job on the range with a fully automatic weapon than the ladies did until shown how by an experienced and knowledgable instructor.

As for Freud and phallic imagery, even he said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 7:28AM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
As for Freud and phallic imagery, even he said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
But Siggy was a dick :)

c wat I did thar?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
SpANG at 7:04PM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
My sister in law (a world history professor) is colleagues with a psychology professor that DOES use the Freudian school of thought. And like I said before MANY, MANY people in the psychology field do. Many previously discredited Freudian theories are being accepted again. The “pop-psych” schools of thought are the ones that abandoned Freud all together and are coming back, not the other way around.

I'll try to get a statement from her on “guns and penises” if you'd like, though I tend to think you'd try to discredit that as well. No offense, but it think you may be a little too close to the issue to give an actual informed, honest opinion. :(

It a shame how this thread deteriorated into a “nuh-uh/Yeah huh so” argument. But it was a dumb thread to start with anyway, and of course everyone is entitled to their own rationalizations. ;)
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
ozoneocean at 9:05PM, Aug. 3, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
Spang my friend, I did agree to disagree ;)
Quted for your pleasure:
Me being conciliatory
edit- Yes, We'll just agree to disagree :)
I dun like arguing with ya at all :(

Besides, by my own rationale, I consider that symbolism more of a general thing, not being able to say for sure and positive what something means exactly, so it doesn't expressly deny your interpretation. It does depend on the individual afterall. :)
There are different schools of thought. From my readings and what I've and learned in lectures, the one you're going for is stooooopid. BUT you feel the same about mine so the point is moot and there's no use fighting about it.

Best to accept that there's a multiplicity of ideas out there and everything is worth debating. That's what I try to live by :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Inkmonkey at 8:05AM, Aug. 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
This thread has gone from sexy and/or goofy to boring and/or antagonistic…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
ozoneocean at 8:29AM, Aug. 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
Well I was trying to resolve the antagonism. -_-

As for boring: That's perspective. I find discussion quite fun. You can discuss stuff for ages… But sexy women and guns are a one trick pony.

-Yep, those are some hot gals… Yep those are guns… yep.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
SpANG at 10:09AM, Aug. 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Inkmonkey
This thread has gone from sexy and/or goofy to boring and/or antagonistic…
My work here is done.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
bravo1102 at 12:16PM, Aug. 6, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,305
joined: 1-21-2008
ozoneocean
bravo1102
As for Freud and phallic imagery, even he said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
But Siggy was a dick :)

c wat I did thar?

To paraphrase that British Army officer "A psychiatrist is just a psychiatrist, but a good cigar is a smoke.“

People can be dicks and c***s and it has rarely has anyhing to do with sexual symbolism. Yes, Siggy was a dick. His daughter was a bit smarter and his collegue Jung was so much more insightful.

Excuse me I have to go to the range and blow off some more rounds…Firing weapons is almost as good as sex and as the Tank Master Gunner used to say ”The most fun you can have with your clothes on.“

You know you're a tanker when: During sex you announce ”On the way!“ (to you non-tankers that's the part of the fire command acknowledging that you just fired the gun, the gunner pulls the trigger on the ”y“ of ”way")
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Inkmonkey at 12:21PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
bravo1102
You know you're a tanker when: During sex you announce “On the way!” (to you non-tankers that's the part of the fire command acknowledging that you just fired the gun, the gunner pulls the trigger on the “y” of “way”)

I like how the explanation was longer than the joke itself
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
bravo1102 at 5:59AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,305
joined: 1-21-2008
It's the instructor in me, I have to make it as clear as possible.

Why do you think there are five pages of warnings for a single page of instructions?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 6:33AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
Why do you think there are five pages of warnings for a single page of instructions?
All the warning decals are the best parts of models I find. They look so cool :)

I should go back and plaster them all over Pinky's mecha battle machines in my comic…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved