Sexual objectification

[SexDwarf2250]

19 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

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.

And I graciously accept your regrets for still being utterly confused by the meaning of otherwise coherent responses. In regards to your faith in opinion polls as the most valuable resource of the hard sciences, however, you will have to have to direct your complaints to whichever education system has failed so sadly, as the case may be.

[dagobaking]

3 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

And I accept your regrets for still being utterly confused by the meaning of otherwise coherent responses. In regards to your faith in opinion polls as the most valuable resource of the hard sciences, however, you will have to have to direct your complaints to whichever education system has failed you so sadly, or Cosmopolitan magazine, as the case may be.

I'll be sure to let you know when I hit any regrets. In the meantime, be certain that I find this exchange an amusing interlude in between writing code.

 

Especially comedic is how you characterize your responses as coherent and then immediately, again, fabricate an outlandish claim that I never made. I'm noticing a pattern there.

[SexDwarf2250]

9 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

I'll be sure to let you know when I hit any regrets. In the meantime, be certain that I find this exchange an amusing interlude in between writing code.

 

Especially comedic is how you characterize your responses as coherent and then immediately, again, fabricate an outlandish claim that I never made. I'm noticing a pattern there.

I'm not sure why, but feel relatively confident this pattern of understanding could easily be explained simply by measuring comma density in my posts that you have been reading.

 

Speaking of commas, by the way, did you know that programming takes place almost entirely in the language center of the brain?* It is essentially the english major of technology.

 

*Scientists established this fact by asking 720 java programmers how stimulated their language centers felt after programming for 3 hours, so you know it's accurate. I promise most of them were awake when they were asked.

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

I'm not sure why, but feel relatively confident

Agreed.

[KoolHndLuke]

3 hours ago, Jazzman said:

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.

Is this from the perspective of one such "killa bunny" that just happens to be a very beautiful and sexy bartender? Sweet lady, there are probably damn few men (or women) alive that could resist your charm after a few drinks I'd be willing to bet. You would snare and then drain that lucky fool and be back to hunting again in no time- or whatever it is that vampires do right after their last victim lies there spent and helplessly hooked.

 

[Jazzman]

46 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Is this from the perspective of one such "killa bunny" that just happens to be a very beautiful and sexy bartender? Sweet lady, there are probably damn few men (or women) alive that could resist your charm after a few drinks I'd be willing to bet. You would snare and then drain that lucky fool and be back to hunting again in no time- or whatever it is that vampires do right after their last victim.

Pleasure as always, babe.

 

 

[uptower]

On 8/17/2018 at 6:40 AM, 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).

 Well if you've ever seen a wild hen night male strippers can be objectified: they're pawed and prodded and propositioned. However, they're in no danger of assault so the power dynamic is different.

 

As for films, some actors (i think Mel Gibson was one) reported having butt-shots or ab-shots written into contracts to appeal to female viewers. This doesn't make them victims necessarily but surely fits the description of objectification.

 

In pornography, it's fair to say the women are objectified more than men, but in mainstream plain old sex scenes not by much. they're objectified only by the fact that the actress is usually the star the mostly male audience is tuning in for. But otherwise, if it's just two people enjoying consensual sex, it is hard to call it 'objectification'. That's just the fantasy of getting laid with someone good-looking.  Now when you get into some of that weird rapey Japanese stuff,..then there's a stronger case for women being made objects.

 

Yet I have to question the very definition of an 'object'. We are visually attracted to people, both sexes, so is simply enjoying the sight of them [possibly naked] 'objectifying'? We are after all evolutionarily programmed to be aroused by the opposite (and sometimes the same) sex.  Is commenting on the attractiveness of a person 'objectifying' them? Wolf-whistling is certainly pushing it and there's always the consideration of 'time, place occasion' such as don't do it at work. But is it any more wrong for a man to gush to his friends over how beautiful (or slim, or busty, or cute or feminine) a woman is than for a woman to gush to hers about how handsome (or rich, or funny, or well-built) she finds a man? Is being attracted to someone, for whatever reason other than their 'brilliant mind' or 'great personality', objectification?

 

My answer is not always - especially when physical attraction is so often and so naturally the initial spark in any relationship, gay, straight or bi.

 

[wokking56]

20 hours ago, worik said:

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.

 

 

 

I partially agree with you, women may not talk about men as much as men talk about women but when they do it is every bit as salacious.

 

Case in point my very first real job oh so very long ago, I was 16 and worked overnight as a busboy at a restaurant (at the time one of the few open 24hours). Being young and "poor" my car wasn't the greatest so from time to time I needed to ask for a ride home. Since we were all on friendly terms it was never a serious issue, it's just that the "girls" would want to get breakfast (at another restaurant) first. So I would sit in relative silence at this table of 5 to 6 women 2 to 10 years my seniors. Soon my presence was either forgotten or ignored and some of those discussions nearly warped my young mind. I was at that time shocked at the open discussion of the size of male anatomy, favorite positions (some of which I didn't even understand at that time), duration of sessions and so on.

 

Then a couple of years later (drinking age used to 18 around here) after I was deemed relatively harmless or at least easy enough to control, I was taken out drinking with a small group weekly. At first I was elated "me" and 4 beautiful women but all to soon I realized I was not on a group date but that I was insurance. The pack would scope out the prey (more frank and salacious banter) and should they be approached by an unwanted admirer they were all with me. Now while that sounds great for the ego it was rough since nearly every guy in the joint hated me (not to mention the occasional physical altercation). Also the knowledge that I would go home each week sexually frustrated was hard to take.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Is this from the perspective of one such "killa bunny" that just happens to be a very beautiful and sexy bartender? Sweet lady, there are probably damn few men (or women) alive that could resist your charm after a few drinks I'd be willing to bet. You would snare and then drain that lucky fool and be back to hunting again in no time- or whatever it is that vampires do right after their last victim lies there spent and helplessly hooked.

 

Speaking strictly as a pilot fish straining to hear you over the lawyers, I'd think (to myself) that what you're doing counts as daily fare in most any pizza place close by.

But because everything you (all) say is close-captioned, I can take notes

 

Compliment her, compare her to vampires.

Call him a "womanizer" 

Play suggestive videos.

 

Time for me to chime in with new content no one reads anyway:

  O, I was just thinking about all the accessories women are allowed to wear.

If they do it right, you're reminded of trees on biggie holidays.

Men prefer leather and dark shirts (I think).

I'm soooo underdressed 

(I gotta go pee)

[Jazzman]

16 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

Compliment her, compare her to vampires.

Call him a "womanizer"

The female vampire has attracted people at least since the invention of written language. It is demonization,

the missing link between objectification and idolization, in fact negative glorification. You'll find her occasionally

in literature, from the Bible to J.R.R. Tolkien and it's always the same illustration - a beautiful woman that lives

two lives, one as wife of gentle birth in sunlight and one as demon under the moon. Her hair and eyes are black

as the darkness. She's the claw-armed bat from Hell, the orgasmically screaming night owl, the last shadow her

target ever sees when the succubus wears nada. She's the stuff forbidden dreams are made of, the suppressed

guilt that has haunted the sanctimonious hypocrites by night for ages. She's the avenging angel of old. Boorah!

 

Thuringwethil  (J.R.R. Tolkien), Oblivion 2007

 

Let us pray...

[DoctaSax]

Everyone's a sex object - just roll with it.

Expansively annotated case study with incontrovertible evidence:

 

 

[GrimReaper]

There's nothing sexy about vampires and succubi though, that is if you go back to the ancient sources. Unless the image of rotting corpse sucking on their burial cloth causing disease and death gets your engine going of course. The whole sexy evil thing is a rather modern interpretation of ancient myths and legends. Probably because these stories lost their bite over the time so to speak, after all nobody really goes around graveyards digging up recently buried corpses to stake them just because the village cow died suddenly anymore.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

There's nothing sexy about vampires and succubi though, that is if you go back to the ancient sources. Unless the image of rotting corpse sucking on their burial cloth causing disease and death gets your engine going of course. The whole sexy evil thing is a rather modern interpretation of ancient myths and legends. Probably because these stories lost their bite over the time so to speak, after all nobody really goes around graveyards digging up recently buried corpses to stake them just because the village cow died suddenly anymore.

I wondered about "ancient sources".

I swear you guys spend a lot of time on fictional history.

I spent lots of time watching people's lips move, talking about fictional history.

 

Yeah but then they made commercials about pus-sucking vacuum pumps to make you sexier,

blackhead leeching masks, and I'd say there's nothing sexy about the nitty-gritty of personal hygiene and uh, (ok I forgot)

The point is, we romanticize, we satirize, because *Life* sucks generally

https://www.google.com/search?q=Alphabet+of+ben+Sirach&rlz=1C1ZCEB_enUS792US792&oq=Alphabet+of+ben+Sirach&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Ben Sirach (whoever) wrote a satirical book making fun of a serious book (so saith wiki)

and Lilith the ex wife was born.

I dunno, obectification isn't all bad.

If you'd read the PDF I pointed to 567 pages ago, I think I said people misuse it and get all greedy, 

and others tried to bury it in biology.

It's social. (Kind of).

 

Gilgamesh, a manly-type guy, comes to the rescue of a fair maiden trying to grow a tree, when squatters come to take it over.

A Dragon, a bird, and Lilith, who builds her house in the tree.

Gilgamesh smites the mighty Dragon, scaring off the bird and Lilith.

'k *I* don't know what that has to do with vampires or objectification but I didn't read the whole epic thing.

I think I read that "vampire" (the word) didn't exist that far back, and she was called "demon" instead.

https://feminism.eserver.org/gilgamesh-and-hulupp-tree-2000-bc

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

Ben Sirach (whoever) wrote a satirical book making fun of a serious book (so saith wiki)

and Lilith the ex wife was born.

I dunno, obectification isn't all bad.

You forgot to tell the children whose ex-wife Lilith, the already mentioned orgasmically "screaming night owl"

(that's the meaning of the name), actually was acc. to the myths - Primal Adam's first wifey. Poor boy couldn't

handle her demonic sexuality, that's why he, chronically out of ammunition, raised his thumb in desperation to

the God he's made in his own image and pleaded for an immediate, submissive replacement of that bitchy wife.

So Eva and "what is thy bidding, my master?" came into being, the perfect match for Adam's caliber and grand-

standing.

 

?

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

You forgot to tell the children whose ex-wife Lilith, the already mentioned orgasmically "screaming night owl"

(that's the meaning of the name), actually was acc. to the myths - Primal Adam's first wifey. Poor boy couldn't

handle her demonic sexuality, that's why he, chronically out of ammunition, raised his thumb in desperation to

the God he's made in his own image and pleaded for an immediate, submissive replacement of that bitchy wife.

So "What is thy bidding, my master"-woman came into being, Eva, the perfect match for Adam's small caliber...

 

?

I was just looking up the names of fictional birds, and wondered if the mythical Zu-bird was related to the JubJub of Lewis Carroll fame.

Now I know they meant screaming owls.

Plus I didn't know about Adam's performance anxiety, thank you.

 

[Jazzman]

1 hour ago, 2dk2c said:

I was just looking up the names of fictional birds, and wondered if the mythical Zu-bird was related to the JubJub of Lewis Carroll fame.

Now I know they meant screaming owls.

Plus I didn't know about Adam's performance anxiety, thank you.

 

Pleasure as always. Sharing is caring. I was a modder after all.

 

The Akkadian Zu-bird might have influenced those who left Haran (Carrhae) in the Kingdom of Mari and its famous cuneiform tablet library to move west through the Syrian desert with whom a God later made a covenant so that they were "circumcised between their toes" (a cheap excuse, of course), but only to some minor extent. The night owl symbolism is of much younger date cp. to the mythical Zu-bird and most likely genuinely from the semi-deserts in the Levant tho, where the annoying bird actually screams at night to this day, almost like a woman that cums good. [/OT]

 

Objectification, anyone?  ?

[GrimReaper]

10 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I wondered about "ancient sources".

I swear you guys spend a lot of time on fictional history.

I spent lots of time watching people's lips move, talking about fictional history.

It wasn't considered fictional back then. People believed that these creatures were real and responsible for many a thing. If some kind of unknown disease spread through the area killing people in the process, it could be the work of a nachzehrer or strigoi. If a mother lost her unborn or newly born child it could be the work of a succubus or hag.

 

The succubus as a femme fatale that looks mostly human with the exception of horns on her head and maybe a tail is the modern interpretation of old folklore and superstition. That's kinda what Twilight was - you know the vampire story for bored middle aged housewives - only that Vampires themselves are a modern variation of the two examples for life-draining undead I gave earlier, popularized but not invented mostly by Bram Stoker.

 

Even Lilith as Adam's troublesome first wife is much more recent than the original idea of her. The difference between demons and gods is usually that demons embody suffering and trouble whereas gods are symbols of virtue and well-being. Unless you like killing babies in their sleep or something demons are a bad choice for an empowering, masturbatory fantasy. That is, of course, not really relevant if you're content to define yourself through contemporary pop culture that solely exists to sell itself.

[Guest]

I think a lot of it comes down to male sexuality being seen as more or less ordinary. No one bats an eye at Superman's giant muscles that no reasonable human male could obtain, or his skintight jumpsuit that clearly shows them (and sometimes more) off. We've been so exposed to (hetero) male sexuality as a culture that seeing it on display doesn't typically illicit a response.

 

I would argue that men are sexualized more than women are in western society, but it's to the point of ubiquity that it's pretty much meaningless. Whereas a woman sexualized in similar degrees is going to get noticed, and not always for the better.

 

A bit branching off, but for me it's a bit of a pet peeve when people conflate sex with sexism. While I understand some people may not want to be exposed to sexualized content, they really should do their research before calling it outright sexist.

 

Sexism is giving a man a suit of armor and a girl a bikini. But if she's in the bikini and he's wearing similarly revealing clothes and is ludicrously ripped than I don't really see it as an issue. A great example of this I would give is the original Star Trek, the women all wear short skirts, which has understandably garnished some valid scoff over the years, but how many scenes of William Shatner with his shirt torn open got aired? An awful lot.

 

16 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I was just looking up the names of fictional birds, and wondered if the mythical Zu-bird was related to the JubJub of Lewis Carroll fame.

Now I know they meant screaming owls.

Fun fact, most modern cryptids and folklore are in fact sightings of screaming owls. Typically owls in the process of being hit by cars. Mothman is the obvious example here.

[shencereys]

Ok maybe this is derailing the original question, but... I don't understand.  Can anyone actually tell me what is wrong with sexual objectification?  

What does "sexual objectification" even mean?  Why is it bad?  Is anybody actually being hurt by it?

 

Am I missing something here, because my understanding of "sexual objectification" simply means that somebody is being very sexy and someone else doesn't approve because of hangups or jealousy or fear of competition.  Does it mean we think of this very sexy person as less of a person for some reason?  I don't.  So this whole 'objecting to objectification' thing makes zero sense to me at all.

 

When I find a person to be very irresistibly attractive and they are in what people like to call an "objectifying context", I am not less interested in their thoughts or feelings!  I'm not suddenly considering them to be some sort of non-person.  Yes I want to fuck their brains out but it's not irrespective of their wishes.  If anything someone who I think of as very sexy gets more concessions from me not less.  I'm more apt to notice their moods and emotions and treat them well.  I may try harder to get them to notice me or come talk to me, and hope I merit their attention - but that's just me being distracted.

Is that not normal?  Are people going around treating sexy people like furniture and I missed it somehow?  I have never noticed this, so to me having any problem with "objectification" just seems like somebody being jealous they're uglier/ don't know how to look sexy, or a general prude, or have come up with a special negative-context laden word to mean "sexually distracting".

 

[GrimReaper]

43 minutes ago, shencereys said:

Ok maybe this is derailing the original question, but... I don't understand.  Can anyone actually tell me what is wrong with sexual objectification?  

What does "sexual objectification" even mean?  Why is it bad?  Is anybody actually being hurt by it?

 

Sexual objectification simply means reducing another human being to an object, more specifically to a sexual object. Meaning you don't perceive them as a person but as a tool that's there to satisfy your needs. Why this isn't a good thing should be pretty obvious, you don't treat tools the same way you treat people.

[shencereys]

16 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

Sexual objectification simply means reducing another human being to an object, more specifically to a sexual object. Meaning you don't perceive them as a person but as a tool that's there to satisfy your needs. Why this isn't a good thing should be pretty obvious, you don't treat tools the same way you treat people.

 

I'd like to question this idea.

 

Who is doing this?  Is this actually something that happens, or is this something people just talk about.  What i mean is - how is a a sexy person in a sexy pose being reduced?  How does this diminish them?  In practical terms, what is actually occurring that diminishes them?  Do they have a worse fate than someone who was not being objectified?

 

It seems to me this definition of objectification is a circular argument.  

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

11 minutes ago, shencereys said:

Ok maybe this is derailing the original question, but... I don't understand.  Can anyone actually tell me what is wrong with sexual objectification?  

What does "sexual objectification" even mean?  Why is it bad?  Is anybody actually being hurt by it?

 

Am I missing something here, because my understanding of "sexual objectification" simply means that somebody is being very sexy and someone else doesn't approve because of hangups or jealousy or fear of competition.  Does it mean we think of this very sexy person as less of a person for some reason?  I don't.  So this whole 'objecting to objectification' thing makes zero sense to me at all.

 

When I find a person to be very irresistibly attractive and they are in what people like to call an "objectifying context", I am not less interested in their thoughts or feelings!  I'm not suddenly considering them to be some sort of non-person.  Yes I want to fuck their brains out but it's not irrespective of their wishes.  If anything someone who I think of as very sexy gets more concessions from me not less.  I'm more apt to notice their moods and emotions and treat them well.

Is that not normal?  Are people going around treating sexy people like furniture and I missed it somehow?  I have never noticed this, so to me having any problem with "objectification" just seems like somebody being jealous they're uglier/ don't know how to look sexy, or a general prude.

 

Nothing. NOTHING is wrong with "sexual objectification", it's a completely natural thing that both genders do. The only reason some women started making a big stink about it (namely the man hating feminist kind) is because of (as you said) competition. They can't compete with the prettier nicer women so they have to drag them down in some other way, in this case by making it seem like "objectification" is a bad thing. It's just another shaming tactic.

 

The truth is, women actually objectify men more than men objectify women. How can I say that? Simple, men and women are not objects, and it's kind of hard to objectify something that isn't an object in the first place, however if you look at the kinds of things women tend to look for in a man (check Tinder or any other dating site or app), education, job, income, place of residence, social status, car they drive, and so on, those things can be objectified. A woman can get a place to live easily enough if she's relatively nice, young, somewhat attractive, and willing to put out, or really not even that, she can just take advantage of a man's thirst for love and affection (or put him in the "friend zone") and still have a place to stay, men can't really do that save for a few exceptions, and actually that's one of the reasons why there are a lot more homeless men than there are women out there, but I'm getting off topic my self.

 

The point is a little "sexual objectification" is a good thing, and there's nothing wrong with it.

[shencereys]

24 minutes ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

Nothing. NOTHING is wrong with "sexual objectification", it's a completely natural thing that both genders do. The only reason some women started making a big stink about it (namely the man hating feminist kind) is because of (as you said) competition. They can't compete with the prettier nicer women so they have to drag them down in some other way, in this case by making it seem like "objectification" is a bad thing. It's just another shaming tactic.

 

The truth is, women actually objectify men more than men objectify women. How can I say that? Simple, men and women are not objects, and it's kind of hard to objectify something that isn't an object in the first place, however if you look at the kinds of things women tend to look for in a man (check Tinder or any other dating site or app), education, job, income, place of residence, social status, car they drive, and so on, those things can be objectified. A woman can get a place to live easily enough if she's relatively nice, young, somewhat attractive, and willing to put out, or really not even that, she can just take advantage of a man's thirst for love and affection (or put him in the "friend zone") and still have a place to stay, men can't really do that save for a few exceptions, and actually that's one of the reasons why there are a lot more homeless men than there are women out there, but I'm getting off topic my self.

 

The point is a little "sexual objectification" is a good thing, and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

 

I have seen men complain about objectification also, although it is often in order to defend their own want to objectify, but also often not.  When some guy is out of shape, overweight, and wearing clothes that make him look like a slob he sometimes will be jealous of the handsome bricklayer with broad shoulders and big chest, and complain that girls only like "mean guys" and "jerks" (because this sexy man is obviously a jerk).  I have seen it - so I don't think this objection to objectification is the province of women alone.

 

But it is true (and very well and indisputably researched and documented) that men (on average) seek mates more on the basis of appearance than do women.  While both want a sexy mate - men certainly do give this priority more weight than women.  So to that end it seems natural that women would be some more sensitive to this issue.  It effects them personally more.

 

So it doesn't make me happy or think it's right to lay this issue at the feet of women and blame women as the cause of it. 

 

That said, I think it IS a silly issue, but the world is full of silly people who have to better themselves by cutting others down, and they possess many genders.  I don't see how the OBJECT is being hurt by their sexiness, I suspect only the person who complains about that person is actually hurt.  

 

 

[Guest]

as a handsome guy I feel uncomfortable when a very ugly, very old,

or awkward woman finds me attractive in a work or school environment

to a point where i feel like an object

[GrimReaper]

47 minutes ago, shencereys said:

 

I'd like to question this idea.

 

Who is doing this?  Is this actually something that happens, or is this something people just talk about.  What i mean is - how is a a sexy person in a sexy pose being reduced?  How does this diminish them?  In practical terms, what is actually occurring that diminishes them?  Do they have a worse fate than someone who was not being objectified?

 

It seems to me this definition of objectification is a circular argument.  

Some people are doing it. Ever heard some of the creepy reactions some people give when their advances get rejected? Both (some) men and (some) women do it, if you reject them you're suddenly a fucking loser or an ugly bitch anyway. If they're of the especially nasty kind you can expect those people to spread lies behind your back afterwards, too.

 

Also, you conflate sexual attraction with sexual objectification, which have nothing to do with each other.