Sexual objectification

[Jazzman]

2 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

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...

Fapping Fans for the Win - yeah, that's the apt expression for a horizontal desire in the virtual world.

 

We shouldn't confuse objectification with idolization, represented by the three symbols of importance

I've already mentioned - Evita, 'Che' and Holy Mother Mary, the sister of Mary. Idolization easily leads

to an ideology (or cult) represented by the glorified idol, objectification to dehumanization of the target

of interest. The one gets lifted up, the other hits at rock bottom.

 

Whatever, I see that I've followed just four people on twitter in all those years, the for me relevant ones.

So I really don't know two figs about what those celebs had to say in those days that didn't talk to me. I

have learnt to prefer primary sources whenever possible, not to get distracted by a possibly colored inter-

pretation of a 3rd party or worse - gossip,

 

 

 

 

[worik]

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

I never seen or heard women talk like that about men.

Not quite an equally balanced ratio, but among my friends it's not that uncommon.

Mostly, it's an educational thing, where societey prefers to indoctrinate girls to behave and leaves boys the leeway to misbehave.

 

As soon as girls liberate themselves from that educational obstacle it becomes just a matter of personal taste or style. Even more so with the advancing age

By my own experience: Being as a group of equal friends in a pub and after the first wine/beer/whatever I couldn't see a difference among us, even when we were 20.

 

 

[SexDwarf2250]

19 hours ago, dagobaking said:

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.

You are wrong, I was well aware of your meaning. You simply fail or refuse to comprehend.

5 hours ago, worik said:

Mostly, it's an educational thing, where societey prefers to indoctrinate girls to behave and leaves boys the leeway to misbehave.

 

The truth is that society indoctrinates girls to behave as girls and it indoctrinates boys to behave as boys. The sacrifices that society has expected of men are by no means any less significant than the sacrifices it has expected of women, throughout history even expecting men to lay their lives on the line. Additionally, as far as "leeway," men acting out of role have often earned an equal or harsher backlash from society. Even today, in modern nations, this can still be true in rural areas.

 

A woman wearing jeans, supporting herself and child, and whistling at other women's asses? Regardless of crude, that's cute and sexy and for the first points even expected. At most it's likely to be frowned on.

A man wearing skirts and fawning over babies while batting his eyelashes? You better be clear of this town by nightfall, son... cue Banjo music.

[dagobaking]

24 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

You are wrong, I was well aware of your meaning. You simply fail or refuse to comprehend.

Wrong about what? If you were aware of my meaning, why do you insist that I had a different meaning?

[SexDwarf2250]

34 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Wrong about what? If you were aware of my meaning, why do you insist that I had a different meaning?

No offense, but even at my low levels of expectation, I find it impossible someone could be this dense, so I have to assume you've resorted to trolling.

[dagobaking]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

No offense, but even at my low levels of expectation, I find it impossible someone could be this dense, so I have to assume you've resorted to trolling.

Sorry, no. You are being unclear.

 

You claim that I am wrong. But, you have so far not made it clear what you are referring to. You botched what looked like it was supposed to be a big gotcha moment. Are you still referring to that? Do I really need to explain what the word "someone" means?

[SexDwarf2250]

I can't possibly make it any clearer than "you're wrong," followed immediately by the correction. If you can't figure out what I refer to from there and connect thoughts across a comma, at least you definitely are safe from experiencing gotcha moments.

[dagobaking]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

I can't possibly make it any clearer than "you're wrong," followed immediately by the correction. If you can't figure out what I refer to from there and connect thoughts across a comma, at least you definitely are safe from experiencing gotcha moments.

It's not on me to read your mind when your words are unclear.

 

You wrote: "You are wrong, I was well aware of your meaning."

 

"I was well aware of your meaning" is not a correction. Unless, what you are saying is that you finally agree that I did not claim that every instance of arousal is conscious? Is that what you are saying?

[SexDwarf2250]

I never disagreed with that statement, because it was not the statement you made previously. The statement I disagreed with, among others, is in bold, below, in the third quote. There may be commas on the way down, please take care.

On 8/22/2018 at 9:27 PM, dagobaking said:

A person can tell you what they are consciously aware of experiencing.

On 8/22/2018 at 8:25 PM, dagobaking said:

A person simply telling us what they experience is more likely to give you good information than wikipedia.

On 8/23/2018 at 2:28 AM, dagobaking said:

Arousal is something that someone has some conscious awareness of and their experience can be described.

Ok. And now?

46 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Unless, what you are saying is that you finally agree that I did not claim that every instance of arousal is conscious?

Which is the correct definition? Arousal is something that someone necessarily does have conscious awareness of? Or arousal is something which someone does not necessarily have conscious awareness of?

[dagobaking]

6 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

I never disagreed with that statement, because it was not the statement you made previously. The statement I disagreed with, among others, is in bold, below, in the third quote. There may be commas on the way down, please take care.

Ok. And now?

Which is the correct definition? Arousal is something that someone necessarily does have conscious awareness of? Or arousal is something which someone does not necessarily have conscious awareness of?

That is all very interesting. But, I already pointed out to you that none of those statements equates to the claim that you tried to attribute to me. I am correct in that observation. You have provided nothing to contest that point.

 

The real point I was making (in contrast to your straw man argument) was that scientists, when studying the subject, can gather valuable information about arousal that people are conscious of. That is true regardless of whether or not some aspects of arousal are unconscious or that people can be aroused during dreams that they don't remember. It should be pointed out that, once again, you put yourself at odds with the methods used by the scientists in your own citation given that they don't believe that any unconscious aspect of arousal disqualifies the usefulness of surveys regarding the conscious aspect.

 

Finally, just to head off any further hair-splitting schemes that you might try next: people being aroused during comas or while hypnotized ALSO doesn't mean that talking to people about arousal isn't scientifically valuable.

 

 

[SexDwarf2250]

22 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

none of those statements equates to the claim that you tried to attribute to me.

Tried to attribute? Those were direct quotes from your own posts.

22 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

The real point I was making (in contrast to your straw man argument) was that scientists, when studying the subject, can gather valuable information about arousal that people are conscious of.

I've been aware all along that you think opinion polls about things like biological functions are incredibly valuable to scientists, but the opposite is the case. If I remember correctly, the only thing scientists learned from asking questions of the participants in those four studies was that some of the participants had no clue what was going on in their body more often than the other participants.

[KoolHndLuke]

Men are objectified in clothing ads, tv, movies and so on. The good looking guy sporting some tight Calvin Kleins on a billboard is not celebrating his great intelligence for instance. Women do talk about fucking this guy or that while having a drink or whatever. Just go to any local bar or pub and watch their gaze and listen to some convos. They may not talk about it as much as guys because women are generally more secretive about their desires- especially around other women that they may have to compete with. You almost never have to guess whether a guy is attracted to a woman because we have powerful urges and sort of announce whom we want so as to see who we will have to outmaneuver or fight to claim them as a prize.

[dagobaking]

22 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Tried to attribute? Those were direct quotes from your own posts.

Yes. You took those quotes and then fabricated a new claim (that arousal is only conscious) that those quotes do not reflect.

 

22 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

If I remember correctly, the only thing scientists learned from asking questions of the participants in those four studies was that some of the participants had no clue what was going on in their body more often than the other participants.

We already went over this. You make the assumption that the physical measurements that they set up capture the totality of what arousal is. A laughable premise.

 

Participants could be describing sensations that are caused by reactions that these physical tests are not sensitive to.

[worik]

5 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

A woman wearing jeans, supporting herself and child, and whistling at other women's asses?

men's asses

It's more common that way. Not always, but more common. At least among my friends.

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Men are objectified in clothing ads, tv, movies and so on. The good looking guy sporting some tight Calvin Kleins on a billboard is not celebrating his great intelligence for instance. Women do talk about fucking this guy or that while having a drink or whatever. Just go to any local bar or pub and watch their gaze and listen to some convos. They may not talk about it as much as guys because women are generally more secretive about their desires- especially around other women that they may have to compete with. You almost never have to guess whether a guy is attracted to a woman because we have powerful urges and sort of announce whom we want so as to see who we will have to outmaneuver or fight to claim them as a prize.

Wait, I gotta go google tons but by then you'll be gone and won't really care what I write....so can I ask something totally naive,

why is that "most interesting guy in the world" an object of desire?

In my head he could possibly be an aging gunfighter/assassin, but his best days are behind him.

So he's uh, selling beer to ex-jocks?

And if I remember correctly he's surrounded by beautiful women.

He tells very interesting stories, or he just doles out free beer, or he has a massive erection no one speaks about just under the table?

 

answering my own question (in case no one else does) a guy could smile when asked what beer he wants, pretend to be interesting and an object of desire, and order that beer.

I mean, as long as he orders it, that's what counts. 

The rest (his depression at realizing he's as boring as ever and that babes don't come with the beer) is his problem.

[SexDwarf2250]

 

5 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Yes. You took those quotes and then fabricated a new claim (that arousal is only conscious)

lol, you literally defined arousal in those precise terms:

On 8/23/2018 at 2:28 AM, dagobaking said:

Arousal is something that someone has some conscious awareness of 

 

6 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

We already went over this. You make the assumption that the physical measurements that they set up capture the totality of what arousal is. A laughable premise.

A laughable premise because you're the one drawing up straw men. In other words, it is your laughable argument.

[dagobaking]

5 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

lol, you literally defined arousal in those precise terms:

Do you think that "someone" means "everyone"?

5 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

 

A laughable premise because you're the one drawing up straw men. In other words, it is your laughable argument.

We're finally making progress! This must mean that you finally recognize the limitations of the study you quoted and how people reporting arousal in conflict with physical measurements does not necessarily mean that they are not aware of their arousal level.

[KoolHndLuke]

12 minutes ago, 2dk2c said:

"most interesting guy in the world"

If they would hire Benicio del Toro or George Clooney for those ads, then I might agree.

[SexDwarf2250]

18 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Do you think that "someone" means "everyone"?

Obviously not, because the sentence refers specifically to the person in which arousal is taking place. I also think that "is" means "is." Apparently you don't. And I don't see any point engaging your straw man argument, because you're continuously fabricating statements I never made so you can "refute" them. This must mean you have recognized the futility of trying to argue your point by logic, because your statements have no grounds in reality whatsoever, and I can conclude that you have no points worth debating left.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

If they would hire Benicio del Toro or George Clooney for those ads, then I might agree.

same premise, different beer (guy pretends to be Mr. Del Toro, orders the beer, gets depressed, etc etc)

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Obviously not, because the sentence refers to the person in which arousal is taking place.

lol

 

Wrong.

 

It refers to A person in which arousal is taking place.

 

Understand?

 

A person is not ALL people.

 

[KoolHndLuke]

5 minutes ago, 2dk2c said:

same premise, different beer (guy pretends to be Mr. Del Toro, orders the beer, gets depressed, etc etc)

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Heineken making fun of Dos Equis with a man who is truly interesting.

[SexDwarf2250]

13 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

lol

 

Wrong.

 

It refers to A person in which arousal is taking place.

 

Understand?

 

A person is not ALL people.

 

Finally! I don't know why it took you so long to get to this recognition. It has been my point from the beginning that the babbled hearsay of A random subject is far less valuable than complete measurements of ALL the subjects, which can be taken regardless of their state of awareness. I'm sure you'll have some straw man to respond with, of course, as always.

[dagobaking]

Just now, SexDwarf2250 said:

Finally! I don't know why it took you so long to get to this recognition. It has been my point from the beginning that the babbled hearsay of A random subject is far less valuable than complete measurements of ALL the subjects, regardless of their state.

I accept your white flag regarding what my words were VS what you tried to say they meant.

 

As far as your beleaguered position about witness testimony goes please take it up with the authors of your sources.

[Jazzman]

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Men are objectified in clothing ads, tv, movies and so on. The good looking guy sporting some tight Calvin Kleins on a billboard is not celebrating his great intelligence for instance. Women do talk about fucking this guy or that while having a drink or whatever. Just go to any local bar or pub and watch their gaze and listen to some convos. They may not talk about it as much as guys because women are generally more secretive about their desires- especially around other women that they may have to compete with. You almost never have to guess whether a guy is attracted to a woman because we have powerful urges and sort of announce whom we want so as to see who we will have to outmaneuver or fight to claim them as a prize.

Are you assuming that adult men and women would meet in a local bar or pub (misunderstood as mating ground) in girl- and boy-group fashion as it is still custom for young, nervous teenagers, where a self-confident guy gets attracted by a female individual, telling his smirking boy-group "Guys, hold my beer and watch this!" or fatalities alike? Hmm. Hmm. Not really, I'd say. Usually one goes to such locations with a friend or two and often mixed, not perhaps to hunt for sex supported by pilot fish but to talk in a cozy atmosphere, yes, occasionally about the hunt, but the hunting of those that ain't present but elsewhere. Those who do hunt in such an environment and understand it as their hunting ground usually hunt alone, have checked out the situation in no time and act accordingly. If such an individual is utterly attractive you've caught a glimpse at the womanizer or man-eater (killa bunny). My advice, to quote Monty Python: Run! Run away!!! ... to avoid a broken heart or worse.