Sexual objectification

[Hermit36]

3 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

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.

Check, but not checkmate. I've moved to the provider/stability side. I certainly cannot provide much visual stimulation or the healthy look. In my younger days I did have a "harem" but the damn societal norms dictated I had to choose one. My girls thank you for the greeting.

[Clea Strange]

men can be objectified and I'd say generally men don't complain, if a female see's a hot guy working out either in gym or in public her eye will start to wander over the guy and imagine said guy doing something with her sexually and using him as a toy. Another term would be "boy toy" to be used sexually and nothing else.

 

though I'm sure that men are not as objectified as women are, I think that women who wear less clothing do it cause they know they will be objectified and want to be objectifed and actually used like an object. As a guy when I think of women and clothing I think less much less is better

[SexDwarf2250]

34 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

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

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

Yes - you would have to literally be blind to not have any kind of visual stimulus, I assume that people use their brains a little when they read what I write. The point is that, comparatively, the impact of visual stimulus on sexual arousal between men and women is hugely disparate both in function and magnitude. In men (who actually experience similar processes of arousal as women do) it, however, dominates the arousal system so completely that they are entirely in touch with it. Various studies show that women's mental awareness of their arousal is far less expressed, as the levels are sometimes very different from actual arousal to mental awareness of it. On top of that, it is still a matter of research as to what precisely drives women's desires.

 

This is because visual stimulus does not dominate women's  internal arousal process in the slightest, which is driven more via internal workings, imagination, etc. Visual stimulus is certainly the trigger with them too, but then it takes a very convoluted long way home. In men, that other stuff can happen too, but the visual stimulus gets a special, direct path to a huge red, male "nuclear" button.

[dagobaking]

5 minutes ago, Hermit36 said:

Check, but not checkmate. I've moved to the provider/stability side. I certainly cannot provide much visual stimulation or the healthy look. In my younger days I did have a "harem" but the damn societal norms dictated I had to choose one. My girls thank you for the greeting.

Hm. I don't know. Is it really true that women tend to gather around one man? Seems like the same thing happens in reverse equally. Isn't it just that attractive people are... attractive to multiple people?

1 minute ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Yes - you would have to literally be blind to not have any kind of visual stimulus, I assume that people use their brains a little when they read what I write.

People's brains don't include reading minds. If you need to clarify your words, that's on you.

 

It's not as if you haven't held anyone's feet to the fire for their wording instead of looking for their general meaning.

1 minute ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

The point is that, comparatively, the impact of visual stimulus on sexual arousal between men and women is hugely disparate both in function and magnitude.

It's also so hugely disparate between individuals that there are women more visually turned on than some men. So, it's not really that useful of an observation toward the subject of sexual objectification.

[RitualClarity]

On 8/16/2018 at 3:07 PM, Captain Cobra said:

Yep... however, most men don't mind if they are objectified...   It is the women that feel that there is some sort of shame connected with that, as if they are bad because they are objectified... really quite crazy and sexist.

 

Those that are, get over it... sooner or later, you may not be objectified.

 

 

[Vyxenne]

21 hours ago, Celedhring said:

I'm referring to the Heineken commerical that Benicio del Toro was in. 

OMG! I had not seen that commercial. Now I understand completely.

[SexDwarf2250]

21 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Hm. I don't know. Is it really true that women tend to gather around one man? Seems like the same thing happens in reverse equally.

As a point of interesting discussion, there was that old OKCupid survey indicating men's evaluation of women resulted in women's looks being distributed over a pretty realistic bell curve, where the women, on the other hand, considered 80% of men as looking "below average."

 

21 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

It's also so hugely disparate between individuals that there are women more visually turned on than some men.

Re: "Individuals," exceptions define the rule. Blind men also exist, right?

[Vyxenne]

Just now, RitualClarity said:

most men don't mind if they are objectified...   It is the women that feel that there is some sort of shame connected with that, as if they are bad because they are objectified.

Please indulge me while I rephrase that for you:

"most men don't mind if they are objectified...   It is the some women that feel that there is some sort of shame connected with that, as if they are bad because they are objectified.

3 minutes ago, RitualClarity said:

 really quite crazy and sexist

Exactly. Dishonest too.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Hermit36 said:

Check, but not checkmate. I've moved to the provider/stability side. I certainly cannot provide much visual stimulation or the healthy look. In my younger days I did have a "harem" but the damn societal norms dictated I had to choose one. My girls thank you for the greeting.

Well, then let me ask you this question:

For a million years man lived in hunter-gather societies in which a single hunter provided food for his wife, her child taken by her left hand, the baby on her back and the one still in the belly, the fourfold caloric requirements of himself alone, required to develop a big brain. Since that was seasonally hardly doable, man invented the grandma principle in which granny shared food with her daughter and her kids. And you tell me that such hunter could provide enough food for two or more women and their bunch of kids all the time? Impossible. And totally unacceptable for adult hunters of the clan that had no own wife yet but would have to live with such a dude in the same cave or longhouse. Forget it.

 

Polygamy (and slavery) appeared first after the dawn of the Agricultural Age with (rich) farmers and pastoralists that later were called kings some 10,000 years ago, that's recently, and most likely among the (biblical) latter.

 

Checkmate.

[dagobaking]

7 minutes ago, RitualClarity said:

Yep... however, most men don't mind if they are objectified...   It is the women that feel that there is some sort of shame connected with that, as if they are bad because they are objectified... really quite crazy and sexist.

 

Those that are, get over it... sooner or later, you may not be objectified.

Well. What if men should mind?

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

As a point of interesting discussion, there was that old OKCupid survey indicating men's evaluation of women resulted in women's looks being distributed over a pretty realistic bell curve, where the women, on the other hand, considered 80% of men as looking "below average."

Certainly an interesting difference. But, I think it would just mean that the groups surrounding certain men might be larger than the groups surrounding certain women. There would still be grouping on either side.

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Where do you get this?

Life. You doubt that amount of individual variation?

2 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Are you aware that exceptions define the rule?

I didn't make this claim. But, I will point out that trends and evidence are not rules either.

[Guest]

I never get stuff on these forums, is this a heated "Significant Discussion" or a slow day

on the Ponderosa?

Are we happy as hell so many have gathered around one post, were fruitful and multiplied,

or do you really care (one way or another?)

1. yes they are

2. no they're not.

3 yes they are (so what)

4 It depends.

Buut noo, massive walls of text are needed.

I'd agree to anything she says because of how she says it, and that's my downfall.

And if you want women objectifying men, read your bible (as Literature)

 

 

 

[SexDwarf2250]

27 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Polygamy appeared first after the dawn of the Agricultural Age with (rich) farmers and pastoralists some 10,000 years ago, that's recently, and most likely among the (biblical) latter.

 

Checkmate.

"According to scientific studies, the human mating system is considered to be moderately polygynous, based both on surveys of world populations, and on characteristics of human reproductive physiology." (sourced)

 

Biological/evolutionary part explained: "In polygynous species, where one male controls sexual access to females, the testes tend to be small. One male defends exclusive sexual access to a group of females and thereby eliminates sperm competition. Studies of primates, including humans, support the relationship between testis size and mating system. Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, accompanied by moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy (see incidence of monogamy), have moderately sized testes."

 

 

 

Low B (1088) Measures of polygyny in humans. Curr Anthropol 29: 189–194.B.

Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press
Anderson MJ, Dixson AF (2002) Sperm competition: motility and the midpiece in primates. Nature 416: 496
Dixson AL, Anderson MJ (2002) Sexual selection, seminal coagulation and copulatory plug formation in primates. Folia Primatol (Basel) 73: 63–69.
Harcourt AH, Harvey PH, Larson SG, Short RV (1981) Testis weight, body weight and breeding system in primates. Nature 293: 55–57

 

 

And pair bonding in mammals is the exception rather than the rule, so humans definitely didn't invent polygamy.

 

22 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Life. You doubt that amount of individual variation?

I didn't make this claim. But, I will point out that trends and evidence are not rules either.

 

Are you aware what anecdotal evidence implies? And yes, a rule is clearly expressed in trends and evidence. Outliers exist, but they exist as exceptions to a rule.

 

13 minutes ago, 2dk2c said:

And if you want women objectifying men, read your bible (as Literature)

 

You realize how many "cool story, bro" responses you're going to get, right? ?

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

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

He has already answered in  a proper manner.

So you may dream on, feel free... I don't care much about the little boys of other women...

 

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Are you aware what anecdotal evidence implies?

The subject is an individuals experience of arousal.

 

Witness testimony is stronger evidence than brain-scans that may or may not capture the totality of that experience.

8 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

And yes, a rule is clearly expressed in trends and evidence. Outliers exist, but they exist as exceptions to a rule.

Not true. This is why "correlation does not equal causation" fallacies needed to be defined.

 

51% of people responding to a poll saying that the earth is flat does not mean that it's "a rule" that people think the earth is flat. It means 51% of people responding to a poll said that the earth is flat.

[Hermit36]

47 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Hm. I don't know. Is it really true that women tend to gather around one man? Seems like the same thing happens in reverse equally. Isn't it just that attractive people are... attractive to multiple people?

I was thinking broader than modern humans. More along the lines of mammals in general.

30 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Well, then let me ask you this question:

For a million years man lived in hunter-gather societies in which a single hunter provided food for his wife, her child taken by her left hand, the baby on her back and the one still in the belly, the fourfold caloric requirements of himself alone, required to develop a big brain. Since that was seasonal hardly doable, man invented the grandma principle in which granny shared food with her daughter and her kids. And you tell me that such hunter could provide enough food for two or more women and their bunch of kids all the time? Impossible. And totally unacceptable for adult hunters of the clan that had no own wife yet but would have to live with such a dude in the same cave or longhouse. Forget it.

 

Polygamy (and slavery) appeared first after the dawn of the Agricultural Age with (rich) farmers and pastoralists that later were called kings some 10,000 years ago, that's recently, and most likely among the (biblical) latter.

 

Checkmate.

For millions of years there was no concept of ownership, marriage, or even the individual (mostly). The men's primary job was to hunt and fish and bring it back for the entire tribe. Women's primary job was caring for the children. It takes a village to raise a child. I agree that as soon as social-economic classes began to develop and we became more "civilized" is when everything went to hell: polygamy, slavery, and women being viewed as "baby factories" (the beginning of the objectification of women"

[SexDwarf2250]

10 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

The subject is an individuals experience of arousal.

 

Witness testimony is stronger evidence than brain-scans that may or may not capture the totality of that experience.

Not true. This is why "correlation does not equal causation" fallacies needed to be defined.

 

51% of people responding to a poll saying that the earth is flat does not mean that it's "a rule" that people think the earth is flat. It means 51% of people responding to a poll said that the earth is flat.

The subject was, in fact, the difference of arousal and visual stimulus from men to women. This is not a study of personal interpretation, but about the rules underlying the mechanics as separated by genders. In that light, individuals claims of experiences are anecdotal evidence and do not relate to any of the studies. You can't measure "how hard" someone meant it when they said "I'm more turned on than anyone!" on any type of scale. All studies that measure these things in a comparable manner consistently demonstrate significant differences between men and women with very few exceptions.

 

There is also the definition of "trend" as people's opinions. I am concerned with statistical trends of scientific studies. People's opinions do not define truth about anything scientific, it only records what the words coming out of their mouth at the time were.

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, Hermit36 said:

I was thinking broader than modern humans. More along the lines of mammals in general.

Got it.

 

But, I think that is applying the freedom of choice modern humans have to the animal kingdom where freedom of choice barely exists.

 

In other words, in the wild, females don't typically flock around one male by their choice. It's usually because that male threatened to kill (or did kill) the other males in the area. The choice was removed from the females through violence.

[V The Heretic]

Well, I believe this is self answered.

Honestly, anyone can be sexually objectified and anyone can do it. At any point you have said or even had the slightest thought, "I want to bend and/or fuck the shit out of him/her/both" is technically sexual objectification if argued correctly. (Yes, I used both in term add intersex and less blatant terms, transexuals.) I know I have, especially to my girlfriend and she has done it right back to me. It's honestly everywhere.

If you honestly think about it, women do it just as much as men, however, typically women are more quiet. (Not always.) Ever heard someone go, "Dear <insert noun here>, I would let him fuck me and I'd just ride that "fuck stick" like my dildo." That right there, however modified to the person saying it, is sexual objectification coming from both not only women, but men also. So in turn, yes men do get sexually objectified, it's just taken a lot lighter because we live and/or coming out of a male dominant world. To a woman now-a-days, a man wanting to bend her over and break her and doesn't even know them, is considered sexual objectification. (Yeah, it's hilarious I know.) Women whom do it to men, it's just seen as a compliment. (Got to remember the world we live in.) It's the simple fact, for the longest time, we believed it was honestly only one sided and didn't exist for men because statistically men are less likely to care than women are.

At the end of the day, it is what it is. It will always be there. You are the one whom chooses to see it or not.

[SexDwarf2250]

18 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Got it.

 

But, I think that is applying the freedom of choice modern humans have to the animal kingdom where freedom of choice barely exists.

 

In other words, in the wild, females don't typically flock around one male by their choice. It's usually because that male threatened to kill (or did kill) the other males in the area. The choice was removed from the females through violence.

To be fair here, I'm sure you never see these harems banding together to defend any of those smaller males, though they do sometimes watch with a lot of interest. (Often they seem completely disinterested, as well. I believe I saw a lioness interfere in a fight like this, briefly, a single time, but I had the impression it was more like "stop that, someone's getting seriously hurt," and then she went back to her business. The smaller male left. Of course, lionesses are by nature highly aggressive.) On top of that, they could easily choose to leave with the defeated males, but I have yet to see that happen.

 

Sometimes your choice is made for you because you chose to allow it to happen. The interesting question remains: how often does this happen because it was the better choice? Are we going to condemn those cases?

[27X]

56 minutes ago, 2dk2c said:

I never get stuff on these forums, is this a heated "Significant Discussion" or a slow day

on the Ponderosa? 

No.

 

This is "validate my opinion in the form of a loaded question", which is none of those things. Walls of text are needed to establish context. Context is king. Context is never not king.

 

Yes, both sexes are different, biologically and structurally speaking. Those are facts, and no information has come to light in all the preceding years of human civilization that counters this. ever. So until it does the answer is yes.

 

Yes, both sexes objectify each other in differing ways to differing degrees which is directly bound up in culture and context.

 

Also using a book about how an imaginary beardo in the sky had an imaginary zombie son and told an other beardo via DMT from on an fire tree to set an example not only doesn't follow forum decorum, but contains a dearth of stuff like facts or experimental observable data which can be tested.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Hermit36 said:

I was thinking broader than modern humans. More along the lines of mammals in general.

For millions of years there was no concept of ownership, marriage, or even the individual (mostly). The men's primary job was to hunt and fish and bring it back for the entire tribe. Women's primary job was caring for the children. It takes a village to raise a child. I agree that as soon as social-economic classes began to develop and we became more "civilized" is when everything went to hell: polygamy, slavery, and women being viewed as "baby factories" (the beginning of the objectification of women"

No. that's just wrong. Laying famines aside, the hunter provided only food for his family, not for his clan (that's the striking difference b/t an egalitarian and a communist society). His share (!) in the collective hunt was equal to that of all other hunters in the clan. The food surplus of the single is to be understood as the visible proof of being capable of feeding a partner and the offspring. And it took no village or cave as a whole to raise a child. In absence of males on the hunt whose responsibility might it have been, hmm? That of the mothers. The initiation rites for boys took place first after puberty, not before. Until then future hunters served as gatherers like their mothers, the old folk and crippled relatives...

 

The age and gender distribution of bones found in hunter-gatherer caves shows only few women, kids and old folks, more adult males but almost always a striking peak for young males around the age of 18. That must have been their first or second season as hunters and warriors (in raids and feuds). In Vietnam the average age of the combat soldier was nineteen... some things don't change.

 

And I subscribe to your point of view that civilizing progress has as a great many downsides we just tend to place under a taboo.

[dagobaking]

4 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

The subject was, in fact, the difference of arousal and visual stimulus from men to women. This is not a study of personal interpretation, but about the rules underlying the mechanics as separated by genders.

That type of study is obviously limited. I think that the people conducting them would be the first to agree.

 

They necessarily rely on the premise: "If we define arousal as XYZ measurement..."

 

And as soon as you do that, you don't have any "rule" about arousal. Limited insight? Possibly. Sure. A rule? Not so much. I hope that it isn't even necessary for me to explain why listening to witness testimony could reveal data that such a brain-scan study might miss.

4 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

In that light, individuals claims of experiences are anecdotal evidence and do not relate to any of the studies. You can't measure "how hard" someone meant it when they said "I'm more turned on than anyone!" on any type of scale. All studies that measure these things in a comparable manner consistently demonstrate significant differences between men and women with very few exceptions.

You have to read this information closely. Differences between men and women for particular measurements does not mean that you somehow captured the entire experience of arousal and thus uncovered a "rule". You captured some data that may or may not even be relevant.

 

The concept of arousal itself isn't even clear. For a man, a lot of it has to do with having a raging boner. An experience that isn't physically possible for a female. No single brain-scan is going to adequately account for the vast number of ways that different genders may "record" an experience that they happen to give the same name to.

 

While men might measure off the charts when looking at a nude woman in some part of the brain, women might feel something else equally intensely in a different part of the brain, in a different part of their body.

 

I get the point made earlier that its possible that women dont understand how intensely aroused men get. But, that fails to recognize that the reverse could also be true. A brain-scan magnitude does not necessarily reflect what that change feels like. To argue otherwise is like saying that a long-time heroin addict taking a huge dose feels more high than someone taking a lesser dose for the first time. Not the way the human body works.

4 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

There is also the definition of "trend" as people's opinions. I am concerned with statistical trends of scientific studies. People's opinions do not define truth about anything scientific, it only records what the words coming out of their mouth at the time were.

The subject is arousal. Not white blood cell count.

 

Observing brain changes during arousal is not observing the arousal itself. There is no arousal meter. Which is why a person simply telling us what they experience is more likely to give you good information than wikipedia.

[Hermit36]

5 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

No. that's just wrong. Laying famines aside, the hunter provided only food for his family, not for his clan (that's the striking difference b/t an egalitarian and a communist society). His share (!) in the collective hunt was equal to that of all other hunters in the clan. The food surplus of the single is to be understood as the visible proof of being capable of feeding a partner and the offspring. And it took no village or cave as a whole to raise a child. In absence of males on the hunt whose responsibility might it have been, hmm? That of the mothers. The initiation rites for boys took place first after puberty, not before. Until then future hunters served as gatherers like their mothers, the old folk and crippled relatives...

 

The age and gender distribution of bones found in hunter-gatherer caves shows only few women, kids and adult males and rarely old folks but almost always a striking peak for young males around the age of 18. That must have been their first or second season as hunters and worriers (in raids and feuds). In Vietnam the average age of the combat soldier was nineteen...

 

 

"And they were by no means loners. A close-knit community order developed, allowing a high degree of social interaction. Everyone would work together to keep life going. They would cooperate in child rearing and surviving, much like existing hunter-gatherer groups do today." (Cavemanworld.com)

 

That said, I believe we have moved WAY off topic. Though certainly enjoyable.

[Corsayr]

2 hours ago, 27X said:

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.

Only if you leave out the part where I said Fundamentally. I didn't say they were exactly the same, they are the same at a functional (fundamental) level. Functionally both men and women cue off visual stimuli for sexual arousal. This is both categorically and factually true, biologically. Now the environment will create differences. For example the variations in straight males reacting to male on male stimuli VS reactions of straight females to girl on girl stimuli. There is an environmental component to the male aversion to gay stimuli that doesn't exist for females looking at lesbian stimuli. But those types of differences are not biological they are environmentally implanted. 

 

To answer your second part, nobody is aroused in the same context and to the same degree as another person. We all have our own contextual arousal profiles. These differences are not male / female differences but one person to the next differences.  

 

In any case, back on topic. Yes, men can be objectified. 

 

And to some others that have suggested that sometimes women want to be objectified, that is to some degree true. But it isn't so much a desire to be thought of as simply an object, but more of a desire to have those objective stimuli applied to the person we are. It can feel good to be thought of that way. 

 

But it isn't necessarily healthy. Just like scratching a mosquito bite can feel good. The feel-good part goes away quickly, and you are left with surface damage.

 

 

[SexDwarf2250]

19 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

That type of study is obviously limited. I think that the people conducting them would be the first to agree.

 

They necessarily rely on the premise: "If we define arousal as XYZ measurement..."

 

And as soon as you do that, you don't have any "rule" about arousal. Limited insight? Possibly. Sure. A rule? Not so much. I hope that it isn't even necessary for me to explain why listening to witness testimony could reveal data that such a brain-scan study might miss.

Oh, please do explain to me how you're going to measure this data using your totally scientific "let's just ask people" method. I'll even be so kind as to give you an example: In your "study," subject 12 says "I was SOOO aroused." Subject 15 says "I was TOTALLY aroused." Which person was more aroused, relatively? Alternatively: Which one was lying?