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.


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... =\
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?

Jul. 14th, 2003 02:15 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
Yeah, that's true...
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.
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. =)
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.
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. =)
Jul. 14th, 2003 10:25 pm (UTC)
Re: But...
Aaaah! I enjoyed some of that, but not much.
Jul. 14th, 2003 02:49 pm (UTC)
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.
Jul. 14th, 2003 03:06 pm (UTC)
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.


The Bride of the First House

Latest Month

March 2015