Sexual objectification

[Jazzman]

14 hours ago, Hermit36 said:

"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.

The local value of a child has changed since the shift from close related family groups (clans) to more and more unrelated groups (town people) and today is often understood in a negative fashion, a reduction in the quality of life (the impact on the budget is significant, I have to face it every month). And as I've already pointed to, male participation in the education of boys, the teaching of male techniques and the art of the hunt, played a decisive role in prehistoric times only after puberty.

 

Of course we're drifting away from sexual objectification, esp. from the omnipresent sexual self-objectification in the epoch of full commercialization with smartphone era attached, a special variant of objectification which is clearly a social taboo b/c of the level of addiction in our society, and not just in this thread which is already derailed due to an almost biblical self-performance of allegedly huge gender differences, especially in... the brains (!). Mark my words, there is another difference tho - b/t ambition and reality. Young primal Adam has somehow missed the train again, as it seems. Too bad. And the worst thing of all - it happens under our watch, the watch of the mothers.

 

Most likely we tend to idealize the opposing gender of our children and thus create as catalysts the gender illusions that might easily lead to a later confusion among young adults (as in this thread) that sooner or later have to face the brutal fact that they are not special only b/c mom and dad once have conveniently preached it. Hell yeah, I was daddy's little girl, the 'princess of his universe'. Guess objectification starts with these things. Wonder what mistakes I'll make (or have made already) with my son, mama's little boy...

 

Kryptonite, anyone?

[lordgdavid]

Bit late to the party. Men are just as much objectified as women. Maybe in different ways but they are. The difference comes from the sexes. A man is mostly in postition of power (physical power that is) and there is the old saying. A key that opens every lock is a master key but a lock that opens to every key is worthless. Objectified men can feel they are the master key or good looking alphas, while objectified women might feel worthless locks or sluts. Women and Men are not on the same playing field but nowadays you cant say that cause equality. Plus the media of the developed countries are not helping, but reinforcing this. Men have to be good looking wealthy alphas and women have to be beautiful princesses that are wanted buy every men. That is shown as success. And people buy it.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, 27X said:

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.

Thanks but reading walls of text in a social forum? I'd rather read wikipedia (and I hate wikipedia) in the context of trying to discern what a particular truth is.

For wasn't it (some quote by descarte, vague dead guy people love quoting)

(pardon me while I google a quote)

You think, therefore you're smart?

You're male, therefore you objectify?

I objectified a pretty woman's sweater once and my life has never ever (ever) been the same, but it was biological, I swear.

I'd hope the dowager realizes that in her dotage, but probably not.

I'd desire that the dowager discerns my damnable, indecorous dilemma, now in the declension of her dotage, but it's doubtful

No, nothing you write,

No wall you build, 

will keep out opposing thoughts from immigrating.

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

For wasn't it some quote by descarte, (vague dead guy people love quoting)

(pardon me while I google a quote)

You think, therefore you're smart?

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote
And think they grow immortal as they quote

 

The next stage is the clear bending of quotes to shift

the o-meaning into quite another, favored direction.

The rabbis call it midrash, the corresponding Christian

term is exegesis, an invention at the turn of the ages.

 

When the own, tome-like argumentation is more or less

just the quote, a simple link is way smarter. Just sayin'.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote
And think they grow immortal as they quote

 

The next stage is the clear bending of quotes to shift

the o-meaning into quite another, favored direction.

The rabbis call it midrash, the corresponding Christian

term is exegesis, an invention at the turn of the ages.

 

When the own, tome-like argumentation is more or less

just the quote, a simple link is smarter. Just sayin'...

Yeah.

What she said.

For sure.

[Captain Cobra]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

No wall you build, 

will keep out opposing thoughts from immigrating.

 

Pretty ? quote there fam.

[Hermit36]

7 hours ago, Jazzman said:

The local value of a child has changed since the shift from close related family groups (clans) to more and more unrelated groups (town people) and today is often understood in a negative fashion, a reduction in the quality of life (the impact on the budget is significant, I have to face it every month). And as I've already pointed to, male participation in the education of boys, the teaching of male techniques and the art of the hunt, played a decisive role in prehistoric times only after puberty.

 

Of course we're drifting away from sexual objectification, esp. from the omnipresent sexual self-objectification in the epoch of full commercialization with smartphone era attached, a special variant of objectification which is clearly a social taboo b/c of the level of addiction in our society, and not just in this thread which is already derailed due to an almost biblical self-performance of allegedly huge gender differences, especially in... the brains (!). Mark my words, there is another difference tho - b/t ambition and reality. Young primal Adam has somehow missed the train again, as it seems. Too bad. And the worst thing of all - it happens under our watch, the watch of the mothers.

 

Most likely we tend to idealize the opposing gender of our children and thus create as catalysts the gender illusions that might easily lead to a later confusion among young adults (as in this thread) that sooner or later have to face the brutal fact that they are not special only b/c mom and dad once have conveniently preached it. Hell yeah, I was daddy's little girl, the 'princess of his universe'. Guess objectification starts with these things. Wonder what mistakes I'll make (or have made already) with my son, mama's little boy...

 

Well said. My father (a much wiser man than I gave him credit for when he was alive) said that one of the worst things we can do is put our children on a pedestal. I think this is part of the problem with the younger generation. It's a fine line between protecting, providing and and building up their self-esteem, and spoiling them rotten.

 

Gender roles are based on both nature and nurture. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, which is a good thing. We are able to compliment each other. Some are carried over from our days as hunter/gatherers, while others are from the way society dictates how boys and girls are treated (bet your son was swaddled in blue at the hospital, just as my daughter was swaddled in pink). As a parent it's hard to break away from those norms. I often wonder if I'm setting my son up to fail because I'm teaching him the more "traditional roles of a man" (dad was born during the depression and mom was a baby boomer). However, I'm teaching my daughter (hopefully) to be a strong, independent woman.

 

If you show me a parent that has never made mistakes, I will show you the most beautiful lake you've ever seen -- in the middle of the Mojave desert. You're obviously an intelligent and educated women who knows she made mistakes. Your son will be better off because of it!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hermit36 said:

Gender roles are based on both nature and nurture. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, which is a good thing. We are able to compliment each other. Some are carried over from our days as hunter/gatherers, while others are from the way society dictates how boys and girls are treated (bet your son was swaddled in blue at the hospital, just as my daughter was swaddled in pink).

If you want to argue that any of it is biological I'm going to need you first to define "men" and "women"... if masculine/feminine behavior is biological, then where does it come from? Is it a result of differing brains? That'd be strange, given that current research is pointing to those "differences" being either not there, less sex-differentiated than thought, or simply inconsequential. If it's a result of sex hormones, those are malleable and levels of them differ greatly from person to person. (And, having tasted "both sides", people attribute to testosterone a wide variety of things that simply are not true.) 

 

To say nothing of the fact that what is masculine and what is feminine is not consistent across cultures. Nor is the supposition of an absolute binary system of gender in the first place. "Man" and "woman" are social identities, not biological ones, and they need to be dealt with as such: in a given, explicitly-stated cultural context. The assumptions made about women and feminine behavior in the context of an Islamic society are very different from the ones made in, say, the Mosuo context.

[wokking56]

13 hours ago, lordgdavid said:

Bit late to the party. Men are just as much objectified as women. Maybe in different ways but they are. The difference comes from the sexes. A man is mostly in postition of power (physical power that is) and there is the old saying. A key that opens every lock is a master key but a lock that opens to every key is worthless. Objectified men can feel they are the master key or good looking alphas, while objectified women might feel worthless locks or sluts.

 

I can only partially agree with you here men and women do look at objectification differently. Men either don't give a hairy rats ass or as you stated feel like the lottery winner. Women however feel that they now have the pick of the litter or again as you stated feel like a piece of meat.

 

Now let me make this next statement very carefully (again personal experience no scientific data). There seems to be a small percentage of women that find delight in stirring up crap and will find any excuse to do so. For instance some women will dress in sexy/provocative outfits (totally their right to do so) knowing full well that it will draw (mostly) male attention. Well we sure as hell are going to look which should be fine (a woman should not be physically accosted due to her wardrobe) yet that small percentage will lose their f***ing shit. They dressed that way then get POed when someone looks, when men dress for attention they only get POed when they don't get it.

[SexDwarf2250]

15 hours ago, dagobaking said:

I can assure you that I am consciously aware of having been aroused when I wake up with a boner.

You remember what happens when you're asleep? Frankly, it sounds like you're either dishonest or unable to follow a thread of logic.

 

42 minutes ago, wokking56 said:

There seems to be a small percentage of women that find delight in stirring up crap and will find any excuse to do so.

 

I'm not sure how this relates in particular to provocative dress, but if I remember correctly, sociopathy in women tends to express itself more in that manner.

[wokking56]

4 hours ago, zexari said:

Nor is the supposition of an absolute binary system of gender in the first place. "Man" and "woman" are social identities, not biological ones, and they need to be dealt with as such: in a given, explicitly-stated cultural context.

 

Sorry this is a whole can of worms I had wished to avoid. Now we are going to play the multiple genders crap. Let's start with a couple of definitions.

 

SEX: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

GENDER: either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior.

 

So sex is a biological constant 2 sexes, and yes I am well aware of intersex individuals but they constitute less than 0.05% so are a statistical aberration and therefore inconsequential. Gender on the other hand as you postulated is a social construct but even the most liberal of scientific sources allow for only 3 genders male, female and neuter. The first 2 adhering to social norms and the 3rd one falling somewhere outside that. So one is either male. female or neuter not one of some 1000 other imaginary genders. As for using the proper pronoun (the way I see it) people are addressed by their obvious biological sex. So if you have a penis you are male if you however have a vagina you are female, now you are welcome to consider yourself whatever the hell you want but don't expect me to share your delusion. 

[Halstrom]

15 hours ago, Jazzman said:

Kryptonite, anyone?

Nah, gives me indigestion and I heard it causes cancer

[dagobaking]

26 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You remember what happens when you're asleep? Frankly, it sounds like you're either a liar or unable to follow a thread of logic.

lol. FFS. It is your own writing that introduces logic problems for your points.

 

That aside, having secret wet dreams doesn't change the fact that people explaining their experiences can be scientifically valuable toward understanding those experiences.

 

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, Halstrom said:

Nah, gives me indigestion and I heard it causes cancer

Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus ey, just like me 

[SexDwarf2250]

11 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

lol. FFS. It is your own writing that introduces logic problems for your points.

You're the one who claimed arousal can only happen in a conscious mind. If you can't see that this is clearly contradicted by subconscious night time arousal, the logic problem is entirely in your mind.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Jazzman said:

Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here. This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus ey, just like me. 

I've always wondered how many people use your account, but I'm only mumbling out loud.

But in my fantasy, I've objectified the imaginary people, wanna hear? 

OK (but this is only mumbling)

The Jamaican Lady

The Argentinian Heiress (riding her horse over the plains....)

The overworked actress struggling to raise her son in her harsh environment (wherever)

And your son,

And maybe your ex.

Eva Peron (someday) (I can hope)

Or was that "Imelda marcos", I really suck at history.

OK this did not turn out well...I hope you smiled anyway.

Everyone else, objectification is relative. Everyone else's point of view is Not a delusion (ok maybe *mine*)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d34/ec4f59f88fbea6291bb08a2d17da6b51e1a0.pdf?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_pulse_read%3BvagC5wteRHmb7xtnmRmJvg%3D%3D

----------

https://psiloveyou.xyz/dont-settle-for-transactional-relationships-cd77c2ed423b

[Badtanker]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:02 PM, 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.

There is spanking and then there is abuse. I have 3 grown boys now who believe that spanking their children is ok. First you explain to the child why they are getting a spanking then follow through. Only 3 swats and never out of anger or when you have been drinking. That is one of the rules the Wife and I had decided on years ago back before we got married.   All 3 boys have turned out just fine and married good wives.  Their kids are normal kids who play and do things kids do like go jump in the mud puddles and fight with their brothers and sisters and cousins.  Folks might consider me wrong in my thinking but so be it. I consider people who look the other way or won't correct their children at the time they are misbehaving as wrong.  My Dad and Mom never believed in time outs or standing with my nose in the corner because it only work for so long that the kids think that is punishment. The worse punishment a child can get is the threat from Mom "Just wait till your father gets home" and get to your room.  Sorry if I rambled again. I tend to do that sometimes.

[dagobaking]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You're the one who claimed arousal can only happen in a conscious mind. If you can't see that this is clearly contradicted by subconscious night time arousal, the logic problem is entirely in your mind.

I made no such claim.

 

*sigh*

 

You remind me of myself.

[SexDwarf2250]

 

2 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You're the one who claimed arousal can only happen in a conscious mind.

20 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I made no such claim.

 

19 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Arousal is something that someone has some conscious awareness of

[dagobaking]

Haha. Are you serious? You don't see the problem there?

[SexDwarf2250]

23 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Haha. Are you serious? You don't see the problem there?

Besides your infantile pedantry, you mean? Yes, you're obviously wrong and unable to admit it. But that's your problem in the end, not mine.

[dagobaking]

The sentence that I wrote was not a claim that every case of arousal must only be conscious. That's a pretty big flaw in your post.

 

And what else have I been wrong about? We've gone through several side topics and it has ended with the facts weighing out against you every time. What is infantile is that in each of these cases, you then shift gears to bring up a new side topic or semantic angle. Clearly, this has nothing to do with any genuine interest that you have in the subject or anyone involved in the discussion. It's an opportunity for you to try and score points. I can only speculate over the reasons why you feel a need to do this, SexDwarf.

 

 

[27X]

20 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

Thanks but reading walls of text in a social forum? I'd rather read wikipedia (and I hate wikipedia) in the context of trying to discern what a particular truth is.

 

 

I

That's fine, but I prefer to think for myself and come to my own decisions; as we've seen letting other people decide your opinions via proxy usually never ends well.

[Jazzman]

15 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I've always wondered how many people use your account, but I'm only mumbling out loud.

But in my fantasy, I've objectified the imaginary people, wanna hear? 

OK (but this is only mumbling)

[snip; checked]

OK this did not turn out well...I hope you smiled anyway.

Everyone else, objectification is relative. Everyone else's point of view is Not a delusion (ok maybe *mine*)

 

Multifacetedness distinguishes the paradise bird from the dissociative identity disorder of a social justice warrior in the mist.

So there can be only one, eventually a complex one, in my case one on the move. This complexity was already known to the

NSA in 2013 during Snowden's Jihad on twitter. However, I've nothing left I want them to see after we solved a few 'things'

in the close atmosphere of these private rooms w/ Mexican fap-fap ceiling fan. Married faggots, pfftt. That on objectification.

 

Eva Perón is a great national symbol in Argentina like 'Che', both marvelously arranged in Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Evita.

Imelda Marcos' level of corruption got beaten first by Hillary Clinton. That's nothing to look up to not to turn into a pillar of salt.

There are far more women of interest. The most interesting is 'Mary the sister of Mary' in the Gospels. Holy Cow, I give her that.

 

And oh yes, I smiled. That's what I always do - showing my sharp teeth. It's pure terror tactics, as my big sister eloquently puts it.

 

Back to objectification, the illusions that share with confusion and finally, the great delusions of the 3rd millenium. Live and let die,

that's my maxim. Therefore I move on (with my little family) when the time has come. I simply lack any messianic attitude, so wide-

spread in these days. The religio-political group that could ever set the hook on me is not yet founded - I just don't make sellouts.

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Jazzman said:

 

Multifacetedness distinguishes the paradise bird from the dissociative identity disorder of a social justice warrior in the mist.

So there can be only one, eventually a complex one, in my case one on the move. This complexity was already known to the

NSA in 2013 during the gassed Privacy War on twitter. The guys showed me a similar profiling w/o me having said anything

- almost correct that is. However, there's nothing left to see after we solved a few 'things' internally in the close atmosphere

of these private rooms w/ Mexican fap-fap ceiling fan. Married faggots, pfft. Left in early 2015, bored. That on objectification.

 

Eva Perón is a great national symbol in Argentina like 'Che', both marvelously arranged in Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Evita.

Imelda Marcos' level of corruption got beaten first by Hillary Clinton. That's nothing to look up to not to turn into a pillar of salt.

There are far more women of interest. The most interesting is 'Mary the sister of Mary' in the Gospels. Holy Cow, I give her that.

 

And oh yes, I smiled. That's what I always do - showing my sharp teeth. It's pure terror tactics, as my big sister eloquently puts it.

 

Back to objectification, the illusions that share with confusion and finally, the great delusions of the 3rd millenium. Live and let die,

that's my maxim. Therefore I move on (with my little family) when the time has come. I simply lack any messianic attitude, so wide-

spread in these days. The religio-political group that could ever set the hook on me is not yet founded - I just don't make sellouts. 

 

 

 

Gawd, someone will see this and award you a book contract, fapping fans FTW.

And objectifying Hillary Clinton into the savior of us "J2PUO" worshippers isn't difficult to imagine, she'd be the fire-breathing dragon with the terrible swift sword to right wrongs and conquer evil, and Martha Stewart would sit at her right hand,

Oprah on her left.

And hell would follow with her (a la "wyatt earp", never mind)

So there are many ways of objectifying, and if you're gonna limit the scope to "sexual" just to please some thread, 

uh,

I defer.

Twitter is the Great Satan....sorry I don't rant too well (but it is).

How to start movements in 140 characters or less, and have media hang on every celebrity's word...