Sexual objectification

[SexDwarf2250]

1 hour ago, Vyxenne said:

Firstly, both men and women are aroused by visual stimuli- that's biological and is usually the very first stimulus in any sexual encounter.

That's a bit like saying "Humans like to eat meat, so we're just like tigers." The differences in intensity and function are  really  very  distinct.

 

1 hour ago, Vyxenne said:

Also, shallow motivations aren't necessarily a bad thing- especially when both participants are at least honest about it:

 

• "Hi, there, I couldn't help noticing your breasts, especially your pokies- I would like very much to fuck you tonight."
• "Funny you would mention that, I was just ogling your sexy ass and thinking how much I would like you to fuck me. Your place or mine?"

Huh. No offense, but... do you ever talk to real people?

[Corsayr]

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

That's a bit like saying "Humans like to eat meat, so we're just like tigers." The differences in intensity and function are  really  very  distinct.

First off those are very small sample groups. But even more importantly it doesn't discount that Men and Women are both stimulated through visual methods. All of those studies showed that women ARE stimulated by visual inputs.

 

Fundamentally women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli. The variation that many perceive to be a difference in "wiring" is actually environmental. 

 

As women, we find out fairly quickly that sexual expectation does not equal sexual gratification. Male and female gratification in a specific encounter is not equally likely to occur. Female gratification is often heavily reliant on the males experience and technique. This is why we eventually begin to de-emphasize visual stimuli and look for deeper cues to indicate a likelihood of sexual gratification. 

 

So while there may be notable differences in how men and women react to sexualized visual stimulus, it is not biological but environmental.  

[Badtanker]

I've noticed in my years of traveling and parties and bars that depending on which part of the country your in or overseas that men in general are more docile towards women, and that the more of a asshole you are to a woman the more some of them love it.(with a lot of rejections I might add).  I have noticed also that men now a days are prone to whine a lot when they don't get their way and point fingers at others when they screw up. Very few will stand on their own 2 feet and say Yes I messed up but will fix it/ or change how I do it next time or handle their own problems and deal with it with out running to the law, bottle, shrink, or away. 

Most of it is they never really had to lean how to cope with life or handle their own problems with out mommy or daddy, and society now has a lot to do with it. Used to Mom and Dad corrected the child (i'm not talking about abusing them) and if they kept doing what ever they shouldn't be doing to spank the child, and they learned what was right and wrong by their parents and grandparents and so on. but now we are so spread out and if you spank a child having a temper tantrum in Walmart watch out for those folks who never had kids/or think they know how to raise your kids to  come over and give you a piece of their mind, Like they can afford to lose what most of them don't have very little to spare. So it keeps going on and on till they are grown ups and now they have to work with women who most of them have dreamed about since they discovered their cocks but now they can't have a fantasy because it's the work place and if you talk to a women they will turn you in for sexual harassment. I probably went overboard with out a life preserver on this rambling rant all I can say is Sorry .  

[Guest]

Men think fundamentally different things about a sexy woman that they see than women do a sexy man.

 

To start off, male power fantasies =/= objectification. *He-Man* is not my, nor nearly any woman's idea of an ideal sex object. Romance covers are closer, but I don't look at those and think about the man's body; I look at them and think about the person there. *That* is what turns me on. I do not get the impression that men tend to think the same when they see a woman's body. 

 

This is, of course, all anecdotal, but there's some research that may bear it out. Dr. Susan Fiske at Princeton has done research which, irritatingly enough, I can't find a primary source for, indicating that men's brains respond to sexualized images of women in a way similar to their response to tools. Literal objectification! 

 

Beyond any of that, objectification requires a certain social context. Women have been viewed as sexual objects - literal legal possessions - for millennia. So sexual objectification of women carries a whole lot of social baggage that the male equivalent does not. The only similar objectification for men I've heard argued for that I agree with any is that of economic/"provider" objectification - that women tend to see men as worth the economic contribution they make to the household, as providers and not necessarily *people*. Of course, that also comes from a place of historic female oppression (i.e. women not being legally able to work and provide for themselves, husbands taking over the role of providers for women from their fathers). The two situations just aren't really comparable. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Badtanker said:

I've noticed in my years of traveling and parties and bars that depending on which part of the country your in or overseas that men in general are more docile towards women, and that the more of a asshole you are to a woman the more some of them love it.(with a lot of rejections I might add).  I have noticed also that men now a days are prone to whine a lot when they don't get their way and point fingers at others when they screw up. Very few will stand on their own 2 feet and say Yes I messed up but will fix it/ or change how I do it next time or handle their own problems and deal with it with out running to the law, bottle, shrink, or away. 

Most of it is they never really had to lean how to cope with life or handle their own problems with out mommy or daddy, and society now has a lot to do with it. Used to Mom and Dad corrected the child (i'm not talking about abusing them) and if they kept doing what ever they shouldn't be doing to spank the child, and they learned what was right and wrong by their parents and grandparents and so on. but now we are so spread out and if you spank a child having a temper tantrum in Walmart watch out for those folks who never had kids/or think they know how to raise your kids to  come over and give you a piece of their mind, Like they can afford to lose what most of them don't have very little to spare. So it keeps going on and on till they are grown ups and now they have to work with women who most of them have dreamed about since they discovered their cocks but now they can't have a fantasy because it's the work place and if you talk to a women they will turn you in for sexual harassment. I probably went overboard with out a life preserver on this rambling rant all I can say is Sorry .  

If you're going to advocate for spanking, know what you're arguing for: all evidence points to it being seriously detrimental to mental health outcomes later in life. In fact, it's associated with the same outcomes as physical abuse, with only slightly lessened severity.

[SexDwarf2250]

3 hours ago, Corsayr said:

Fundamentally women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli. The variation that many perceive to be a difference in "wiring" is actually environmental. 

Women and men, biologically the same. Yeah. Just look at all this fake science! Why does it all disagree with you?

3 hours ago, zexari said:

If you're going to advocate for spanking, know what you're arguing for: all evidence points to it being seriously detrimental to mental health outcomes later in life. In fact, it's associated with the same outcomes as physical abuse, with only slightly lessened severity.

Eh, you have to admit he has a point though. I'm not necessarily advocating physical discipline one way or another. I just have a feeling that trying to go against the grain of nature in terms of forcing genders to pretend to be the same will have seriously negative societal consequences in the long run. You can simply watch animals to see that the male behaviour that is so trendy to sneer about in this political era is based on natural and healthy behaviours.

 

[Darkpig]

Male Objectification:

You're welcome?

[Corsayr]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Women and men, biologically the same. Yeah. Just look at all this fake science! Why does it all disagree with you?

Whoa, Wikipedia how early 2000s retro bohemian of you.  

 

What I said was "Fundamentally women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli"

 

Try not to gloss over the full context of my statement.

 

Even your initial links that I originally quoted agreed with me that Men AND women BOTH responded to visual stimuli. 

4 hours ago, Corsayr said:

are  really  very  distinct.

You remember these right?

 

and to round it all out, I even have anecdotal knowledge in the form of my own experience on the matter. Yes, I do receive sexual stimuli from visual triggers.

 

 

PS

 

When they put this at the top of the Wiki article

Spoiler

 

It means you have to take the information with a grain of salt. 

[SexDwarf2250]

12 hours ago, Corsayr said:

What I said was "Fundamentally women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli"

 

Try not to gloss over the full context of my statement.

 

Even your initial links that I originally quoted agreed with me that Men AND women BOTH responded to visual stimuli. 

You remember these right?

 

Yes, let's take a look at what you said and what my links said, that's a great idea.

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the first study, "These results suggest that stimulus features necessary to evoke genital arousal are much less specific in women than in men."

For (apparently necessary) clarification, "much less specific" is not "the same."

Hidden bonus there: women, in contrast to men, were subconsciously turned on by watching not only porn with humans outside of their sexual orientation's interests, but also by monkey porn. I bet society taught them that! ?

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the second study, "Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the amygdala and hypothalamus are more strongly activated in men than in women when viewing identical sexual stimuli. This was true even when women reported greater arousal."

For clarification, "more strongly" is not "the same."

Hidden bonus there: when it comes to arousal, women don't even know what's going on in their own brain, and they think they're way more aroused than they actually are, in relative terms to men. This is probably because they have no experience with the scale that men are exposed to due to having about 5% of the sex drive inducing testosterone (at 18.)

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the third study, "Overall, men found the film clips more sexually arousing than did the women. Cluster regression analyses revealed that men's sexual arousal was dependent upon the attractiveness of the female actor, feeling interested, and both "imagining oneself as a participant" and "watching as an observer." For women, with all variables entered, only "imagining oneself as a participant" contributed to sexual arousal ratings.

For clarification, this very clearly demonstrates that the visual factor as it works in men is large enough to eclipse the impact it has on women in a statistical sense.

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the fourth study, "In contrast to men, women showed little category specificity on either the genital or the subjective measure. Both heterosexual and homosexual women experienced strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. In a second study, we showed that our results for females are unlikely to be explained by ascertainment biases. These findings suggest that sexual arousal patterns play fundamentally different roles in male and female sexuality."

For clarification, this means that heterosexual men draw visual arousal more directly from a connection to the part of their mind that defines them as heterosexual, resulting in an arousal pattern that only responds to their preferred partner. Heterosexual women's arousal pattern is decoupled from this process, confirming, for instance, the reasons behind the gender differences in the first study. If this and the prior clarification aren't as easy as the first two, ask me to help you with the big words.

[Corsayr]

28 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

Yes, let's take a look at what you said and what my links said, that's a great idea.

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the first study, "These results suggest that stimulus features necessary to evoke genital arousal are much less specific in women than in men."

For (apparently necessary) clarification, "much less specific" is not "the same."

Hidden bonus there: women, in contrast to men, were subconsciously turned on by watching not only porn with humans outside of their sexual orientation's interests, but also by monkey porn. I bet society taught them that! ?

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the second study, "Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the amygdala and hypothalamus are more strongly activated in men than in women when viewing identical sexual stimuli. This was true even when women reported greater arousal."

For clarification, "more strongly" is not "the same."

Hidden bonus there: when it comes to arousal, women don't even know what's going on in their own brain, and they think they're way more aroused than they actually are, in relative terms to men. This is probably because they have no experience with the scale that men are exposed to due to having about 5% of the sex drive inducing testosterone (at 18.)

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the third study, "Overall, men found the film clips more sexually arousing than did the women. Cluster regression analyses revealed that men's sexual arousal was dependent upon the attractiveness of the female actor, feeling interested, and both "imagining oneself as a participant" and "watching as an observer." For women, with all variables entered, only "imagining oneself as a participant" contributed to sexual arousal ratings.

For clarification, this very clearly demonstrates that the visual factor as it works in men is large enough to eclipse the impact it has on women in a statistical sense.

 

You said "women and men are biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli."

The US National Library of Medicine presents in the fourth study, "In contrast to men, women showed little category specificity on either the genital or the subjective measure. Both heterosexual and homosexual women experienced strong genital arousal to both male and female sexual stimuli. In a second study, we showed that our results for females are unlikely to be explained by ascertainment biases. These findings suggest that sexual arousal patterns play fundamentally different roles in male and female sexuality."

For clarification, this means that heterosexual men draw visual arousal more directly from a connection to the part of their mind that defines them as heterosexual, resulting in an arousal pattern that only responds to their preferred partner. Heterosexual women's arousal pattern is decoupled from this process, confirming, for instance, the reasons behind the gender differences in the first study. If this and the prior clarification aren't as easy as the first two, ask me to help you with the big words.

 

You cut off Fundamentally which is an important component of my statement.  

 

But listen to what you are saying

 

In all those cases Women DEFINITELY DID react to visual stimuli. While the sample sizes are too small (20 ish men and 20ish women) to account for the level of stimuli and causes of stimuli, the FACT is they DID react to visual stimuli... Just like the guys did. 

 

Stop trying to mansplain this to me. Even your own evidence is telling you that you are wrong. 

[wokking56]

On 8/16/2018 at 1:40 PM, theposhmudcrab said:

Do you think men can be objectified(and/or treated like a sex object?) I don't think I have ever seen that men have been treated that way in the media(not in games, not in movies) or in any other way/place by anyone. I can tell when women are objectified(in the sexual way), with men I can't and I thought maybe they can't be objectified(sexually)? but surely I am wrong, maybe I don't know enough or I just can't tell(for some reason, which I probably don't know). I have heard some men talk about women in a sexually objectifying way, but I never seen or heard women talk like that about men. But there is also the whole case of both genders wanting different things(this is a whole other topic and not what I wanted to discuss in this thread).

 

Hell I don't even know where to start. As several people have already posted examples of male objectification I guess I can skip that. The simple fact is that both males and females make their initial assessment of a "potential mate" on visual cues, sure we will later find out if the are mentally and emotionally compatible. Yet we mostly wont even take the time if they don't "look like our type". Not only do men get objectified but they are also coerced into situations by there business superiors. Have you seen the movies "Horrible Bosses" well the crap actually happens. Years back; where I worked I always got the lousy shifts and the terrible assignments (I rejected my boss's advances) but it was easy to tell who accepted.

 

In my experience (which admittedly is rather limited) men in general don't seem to care if they are objectified. Now being a male I can't truly speak for women but it does seem to depend on the individual woman and the particular situation. Sometimes up tight and angered other times flattered and elated.

[dagobaking]

It seems like the OP conclusion isn't in response to their question.

 

Of course men can be objectified too. But, the conclusion seems to be in response to: "Do men ever care if they are objectified?"

 

I think that the answer is generally "no." But, maybe it can be "yes" in the context of an equal treatment debate. In other words, men don't care if they are objectified. But, they sometimes think that should mean that women shouldn't care either.

[Jazzman]

Guess you've missed the modern elephant in the room: sexual self-objectification, from promoting the own body over consumer products all the way to selfie-mania.

 

[Hermit36]

Objectification is harder to define for two reasons. First, almost all forms of art (from the earliest fertility statues to today's movie blockbusters) has been created by men for men. This also  means that art created for women is mostly by men (we really have no clue what a woman wants). Second, and more important, is what we look for in a mate. In order to be fruitful and multiply men need to spread their seeds, so we are only looking for childbearing qualities (good hips and ample bosoms) which are much easier to objectify. Women, however, are looking for stability, a provider, and someone who is healthy, which are much harder to objectify. This is true for all mammals (I think). It's part of the reason why females gather around one male.

 

So, to answer the OP, objectifying men is part of the natural order and why most species of males have the more "attractive" features to attract females. IMHO, it's not that we don't care, but we need to be.

[27X]

On 8/16/2018 at 1:45 PM, theposhmudcrab said:

but wasn't it more of a celebration of the human body, and not sexual objectification?

Seeing as the two thing you're saying in that sentence are separated exactly and only by situational context, I really have to wonder how much research you've actually committed to the topic.

[SexDwarf2250]

1 hour ago, Corsayr said:

Stop trying to mansplain this to me. Even your own evidence is telling you that you are wrong. 

 

The evidence clearly points out the fundamental differences between men and women. Maybe stop trying to be an ignorant social justice warrior?

[27X]

1 hour ago, Corsayr said:

biologically the same when it comes to visual triggers as stimuli.

Categorically and factually false.

 

For this to happen they'd have to have structurally identical brains, and they don't, and they haven't yet and they won't tomorrow.  Are they both aroused by visual stimuli? Duh. Are they aroused in the same context and to the same degree? Not even kind of.

[SexDwarf2250]

40 minutes ago, Hermit36 said:

Women, however, are looking for stability, a provider, and someone who is healthy, which are much harder to objectify. This is true for all mammals (I think). It's part of the reason why females gather around one male.

 

I think you could make the point that these qualities aren't necessarily harder to objectify. It's quite likely that, for one, the objectification is socially accepted: women don't "think of men as a wallet," no, we simply are taught that women are right to expect men to "be family providers." (Bear in mind I am not saying the arrangement of things is bad. The wisdom of nature tends to trump trendy morality. More awareness of the true nature of affairs, however, would be a good thing.)

 

Secondly, the objectification may simply be harder to notice, because, for example, male wealth, dominance and success can manifest itself in a larger and more subtle variety of ways than female fertility. But it's arguably just as easy to think of a man as a bespoke suit, a wallet, a uniform (or a combination of these, which however still do not make up a person) as it is to think of him as biceps, abs and Fabio hair - which, if you look at male models in every media, definitely is a thing, and it's at least as unrealistic as the female counterpart, with about zero serious movements to address it. Anyway, with more variety, the stereotype of female objectification is harder to pin down to any one thing, and where it is apparent, it is accepted by society.

 

On the other hand, then you have the whole discussion about sex drive and visual stimuli going on, which, if you believe "science," explains very easily why men, and not women, are driven by the visual expressions of fertility to such a massive degree that it is widely considered "male objectification." (Helped along through about 20x the amount of the most powerful arousal hormone in their system and a brain system that triggers arousal from a wider variety of sources yet focuses it more narrowly.)

 

Probably it is a little bit of column A and a little bit more of column B.

[dagobaking]

To be fair, this sounds like saying that women do not have any kind of visual stimulus:

22 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

men are aroused by tangible properties (visual) while women are aroused by less tangible one (social/success)

I think they were just trying to say that women like looking at attractive men too. Not really SJW territory, imo.

[Jazzman]

31 minutes ago, Hermit36 said:

Women, however, are looking for stability, a provider, and someone who is healthy, which are much harder to objectify. This is true for all mammals (I think). It's part of the reason why females gather around one male.

Well, let's make the litmus test. How many females gather around you as we speak, hmm?

[Halstrom]

1 hour ago, dagobaking said:

It seems like the OP conclusion isn't in response to their question.

 

Of course men can be objectified too. But, the conclusion seems to be in response to: "Do men ever care if they are objectified?"

 

I think that the answer is generally "no." But, maybe it can be "yes" in the context of an equal treatment debate. In other words, men don't care if they are objectified. But, they sometimes think that should mean that women shouldn't care either.

It depends on how big the patio extension had to be to get a date

[Hermit36]

Just now, Jazzman said:

Well, let's make the litmus test. How many females gather around you as we speak, hmm?

Advantage of being married for 20 years. The only females I need to have gathered around me are my wife and daughter?

[Jazzman]

5 minutes ago, Hermit36 said:

Advantage of being married for 20 years. The only females I need to have gathered around me are my wife and daughter?

Then why are you posting stuff that contradicts your own experience? Is there something wrong with your experience or the posted stuff? Checkmate, I'd say.

And greetings to wifey and daughter.

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, Halstrom said:

It depends on how big the patio extension had to be to get a date

Patio extension?!

[SexDwarf2250]

1 minute ago, Jazzman said:

So why then are you posting stuff that contradicts your own experience? Is there something wrong with your experience or the posted stuff? Checkmate!

Sounds to me like he probably has more females gathered around him as we speak than you do.