?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hunting for Bambi

weather: raining
outside: 15°C
mood: ...
"It's a new form of adult entertainment, and men are paying thousands of dollars to shoot naked women with paint ball guns."

Background info on my attitude: I nearly handed in my resignation on the spot when ex-co-workers wouldn't stop having NERF gun wars around my desk. Not only do I hate guns, even toy ones, I can't stand to even have them pointed at me. I will not go near a paintball facility.

That said, the Hunting for Bambi thing is stupid, but all parties are consenting adults. Those women who signed up for it, agreed to it knowing full well what is involved and they are being paid. If it's really that bad, they'll learn to not go back and tell others that it's not worth the money. Then the facilitators won't have the supply and they won't be able to continue.

The facilitators are not dragging unwilling victims into it.

And c'mon. You HAVE to be living under a fucking rock to NOT know that paintballs cause welts even with thick clothes on. I say it's absolutely bullshit that those women say they didn't know or weren't told it could draw blood on bare skin.

The rule about not hitting above the chest means nothing. And it doesn't take fucking rocket science to figure it out. Aim cannot be accounted for with moving targets like that. If the woman is running along and someone is aiming at her feet, if she suddenly runs down a steep slope or jumps downward somewhere, that gun could then be suddenly aimed and shot at her chest or head. Even _I_ can tell you that. Give women a little credit. They must know that when they signed up.

But the key term is CONSENTING ADULTS. A lot of things repulse me — BDSM repulses me; slash fiction repulses me; people, who get so incensed that they're blind to reason, repulse me. I think a lot of entertainment activities are stupid, beyond the realm of "fun" and not worth the risks, like bunjee jumping and regular paintball.

That does not mean other people shouldn't have the right to do it.


Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
fianna
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:24 am (UTC)
ow ow ow! I have really really sensitive skin and painballs hurt like crap to me! But yes, I agree with the whole consenting adult thing. That's not something that I would choose to do but that doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't have the right to do it if they want to.
bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:30 am (UTC)
Same here. NERF darts hurt me. Nevermind paintballs. But if someone thinks that running around, getting sunburned in sensitive places and pelted by paintballs just to have a go at (USD)$2500 or $1000 is a good deal, then they'll learn when they're in the hospital getting their 10 stitches in the ass. No intervention is required.
fianna
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:31 am (UTC)
Re:
exactly! Hell, whatever floats their boats ;-)
katie_ah
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:42 am (UTC)
To begin with, the women are just stupid, I mean, being hit with a paintball WITHOUT CLOTHES on aside, lets look at this fact: They are getting paid, at most $2500 for doing this. How much is the company making? Twice what the girl is gonna get paid, and they don't even get hurt. I mean, sure business costs, but I'd look at that factor alone and say 'no way dudes'.

How stupid. I can understand a little kink, you know, but that's private in someones bedroom, you know? Not a social activity. Never did understand strip clubs though either. *shrug*
bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 11:31 am (UTC)
You wrote:
How much is the company making? Twice what the girl is gonna get paid...

From the article:
Men pay anywhere from $5000 to $10,000 for the chance to come to the middle of the desert to shoot...


It doesn't actually say why it's such a huge range like that. I can't imagine the actual admission fee varies. It might be the cost of the paintball cartridges that's varying. And you don't know if the journalist is including their airfare and accomodations into it just to skew the picture.

I don't trust journalists entirely (it's partially from personal experience too). They're right up there with politicians and salespeople in the Manipulating the Truth department.

Never did understand strip clubs though either. *shrug*

Me neither.
ntang
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:04 am (UTC)
Hmmm. I partially agree (and partially disagree, of course).

I think it's probably ok to allow it, but the "no protective gear" - including headgear - strikes me as a really stupid rule. At a bare minimum they should have goggles on and probably some other stuff as well. Even if they know it'll hurt, serious damage (theoretically death, too) could be done by one of those paintballs (a 200 mph projectile that hits the eye square on is bad, no matter how soft it is, and they aren't that soft) and there are generally laws against things that're that dangerous. I think there should be in this case, too.

I will say I'm not quite sure why you think regular paintball goes beyond fun, since you _do_ wear protective gear all over, and having tried it once, unless you're seriously pounded by a paintball at close range repeatedly, it really doesn't do all that much. Maybe if you're dumb enough to go out there wearing skimpy clothing, but that's just the individual being stupid, not the "sport" as a whole being bad. People are required to wear goggles and gloves and some padding in places, which prevent any actual harm being done (and no, a welt or red spot that goes away in 10 minutes isn't real harm, I think).

Bear in mind it's 5 am here and I'm only awake because I got paged, so I'm barely coherent right now.
bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 08:33 am (UTC)
I think it's probably ok to allow it, but the "no protective gear" - including headgear - strikes me as a really stupid rule. At a bare minimum they should have goggles on and probably some other stuff as well. Even if they know it'll hurt, serious damage (theoretically death, too) could be done by one of those paintballs (a 200 mph projectile that hits the eye square on is bad, no matter how soft it is, and they aren't that soft) and there are generally laws against things that're that dangerous. I think there should be in this case, too.

Not knowing the ins and outs of paintball, I don't know what a paintball can do. Some tell me they're soft, some tell me they can hurt but it's harmless, some tell me you get welts that stay for days afterwards (probably in a lightly clothed area, like the arm or something). I'm piecing it together with second hand information.

I'm not quite sure why you think regular paintball goes beyond fun

It personal. I just have a thing about guns that shoot real projectiles, safe or not. Both shooting them myself and having them pointed at me. I'm not sure what it is. What's odd is that virtual guns are okay to me — I will play Quake and Unreal with the guys.

But I do have friends who love paintball and I love hearing about their stories when they get back. And I'd never try to have all paintball facilities shut down for promoting violence.

Maybe if you're dumb enough to go out there wearing skimpy clothing, but that's just the individual being stupid, not the "sport" as a whole being bad.

That's exactly what I think of the Bambi Hunt. If you're stupid enough to not demand protection for your eyes, then ... you've got two of 'em.
ntang
Jul. 14th, 2003 08:58 am (UTC)
Re:
Like I said, I only did it once. I wore the standard protective gear and long sleeves and jeans. I took no lasting damage although I can say that a higher-powered gun fired at close range could potentially hurt quite a bit on unprotected skin, but with a layer or two of clothing over, the pain is minor or non-existant. Welts for days is highly unlikely unless it's unprotected skin and very sensitive skin at that. (From what I recall. I know I got hurt a lot worse fencing than I ever did doing paintball, but I also fenced regularly for a while and only did paintball once, so... ;) )

I have mixed feelings on the Bambi Hunt thing. For one, it really creeps me out that people get off on hunting naked women. Maybe if it's set up as a sting to take potential sex offenders off the streets or something. :P

Normal paintball doesn't bother me at all. I don't like it at all when people point things like Nerf guns at me in day to day life, because I've got no protection and it's just totally inappropriate for the situation and I want to shove it up their ass, but in paintball it's a game and expected and so doesn't bother me at all. In the former situation, though, it's like the guys that give you a "friendly" pound on the shoulder. Whether or not it hurts, what part of "personal space" do they not understand? I don't want my shoulder punched, playfully or for real.

So I can kinda relate, mostly.
fazia
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:16 pm (UTC)
But...
I agree that we talking consenting adults here. People are
allwoed to do stupid things to each other and to themsleves so long as no one else (who hasn't consented) gets hurt.

That's the problem here. I'm feeling creeped out because I wonder if this could in fact, hurt ME. Here I'm seeing the establishment of a *business* that is facilitating an idea that it's fun and sport (heck, so much good clean FUN that it's a marketable BUSINESS) to run around trying to hunt fleeing women with a gun. If pulling wings off insects and tourturing small animals can be a sign of a future homicidal maniac, then what does a bunch of guys getting off their rocks by shooting naked running women mean?

Seriously, it makes me wonder if my next door neighbor - whose son spends half the afternoon after school taking pot shots at birds with his pellet gun - might suddenly have a break with reality and don his hunting gear and take out most of the women in the neighborhood. It sounds funny until think about how many times a school shooting is based on some young boy's breakup with a girl and how many of the dead are female.

Creepy. Just freakin' CREEPY.

bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 01:46 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
If pulling wings off insects and tourturing small animals can be a sign of a future homicidal maniac, then what does a bunch of guys getting off their rocks by shooting naked running women mean?

I understand the sentiment. But part of me thinks it's a fallacy to automatically draw that kind of conclusion.

I kill spiders and bugs in the house all the time. Am I in danger of becoming a homocidal maniac?

What about someone who writes about murder and terrorism, does that tell you that the author is a dangerous person? If it does then Stephen King and Tom Clancy are the first to go. Most of Hollywood would be gone... not that that's necessarily a bad thing... =\
katie_ah
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:02 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
I kill spiders and bugs in the house all the time. Am I in danger of becoming a homocidal maniac?

You don't derive pleasure from it though- it's more a food chain get the hell out of my house thing, ya know?

bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:15 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
Yeah, that's true...
ugly_boy
Jul. 14th, 2003 04:52 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
I agree. Even people who do get pleasure of killing and even torturing bugs aren't destined to become killers. That reasoning would mean that the majority of little boys will be viscious murderers as adults.
bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 05:35 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
That reasoning would mean that the majority of little boys will be viscious murderers as adults.

And some girls. =)
ugly_boy
Jul. 14th, 2003 09:24 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
Oh, of course. That wasn't meant to be sexist, but it's more or less an established fact! By the way, I was a pretty non-typical "boy" in that since.
bride
Jul. 14th, 2003 09:30 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
I know, I think I was a boy for you XD

I loved batting sow bugs around until they rolled up into a little ball, then I played mini-mini-soccer with them. =)
ugly_boy
Jul. 14th, 2003 10:25 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
Aaaah! I enjoyed some of that, but not much.
fazia
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:49 pm (UTC)
But...
But the example I gave was of someone who was "pulling wings off insects and tourturing small animals". That's different from stomping on a bug to kill it because it's a disease ridden pest, or because you might get stung etc.

I'm talking about someone who's deriving *pleasure* out of *hurting*,*disabling* or *torturing* another creature. Somebody who shoots a horse may not necessarily be an evil person. But the person who ties it up and beats it senseless everyday and derives entertainment out of that certainly is deranged in my book.

It's not the killing that's the problem. It's the intent.
fazia
Jul. 14th, 2003 03:06 pm (UTC)
But...
I'm following up to my own post. Sorry 'bout that. ;-}

Like I said, it's the intent. This would be a totally different conversation - and I wouldn't be nearly so creeped out - if the women were protectively covered, had paintguns of their own and got a reward for taking some one out on the other side. For some that situationhas it's own issues and debates, but I'm not nearly so bothered by it.

Very likely that's because there's no "less-than-human" degredation. In this case there is no "other side". It's all about power for the men and regarding the women as less-than-human animals. You have the hunters and the hunted, and the reason the hunted don't get clothing is because the business owner likens the women to ANIMALS rather than, say, a fleeing prisoner of war. It speaks volumes to the intent behind the "fun" and that's what keeps creeping me out.

ugly_boy
Jul. 14th, 2003 04:56 pm (UTC)
I find this quote particularly disturbing:
"The main goal is to be true as true to nature as possible. I don't go deer hunting and see a deer with a football helmet on so I don't want to see one on my girl either," said Burdick.

Comparing the "hunting" of nude women for some sort of twisted male dominance fantasy to hunting deer is absurd (at best). There's nothing natural about hunting other humans—women or men, clothed or not—so acting as if it some how spoils the fun to have the women be sufficiently protected just shows how sick it really is.
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

eLouai
bride
The Bride of the First House

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031