Sexual objectification

[Jazzman]

11 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

Even Lilith as Adam's troublesome first wife is much more recent than the original idea of her.

"Much more recent" only if you consider the old non-canonical kabbalistic tradition one (by @2dk2c introduced) Ben Sirach (2nd c. BC) relies on as much younger than the canonical Hebew Bible and its Greek translation aka Septuaginta (both 3rd c. BC) and by pulling an original idea of Lilith out of the mythical Akkadian hat, a truly alien tradition line the Jewish elite (only they got exiled) picked up in fragments like Ezekiel's merkabah / throne chariot mysticism during the so-called Babylonian captivity (6th c. BC). So not everything "is" only because you say so with confidence but imo limited historical knowledge, diplomatically speaking.

[shencereys]

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

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.

Ok, thank you for elaborating.   Because I really do not understand this issue I think, or did not understand how people use this word.

 

 I guess I can see how being rude to somebody else is treating them like an object, or a device to get what you need from them (in this case, sex).  If that's in a sexual context I suppose I can see how that could be called sexual objectification.  What I'm having trouble understanding is how sexual objectification, in this case, is special or worse than the same kind of behavior in a different context.  Is it worse than a salesman treating a customer as an object to get another sale? 

 

What I think when I hear "sexual objectification" (and when I read this topic) is some character is sexy (say, in a video game or a movie) and somebody writes an article or makes a comment saying it's bad because it "objectifies men" or "objectifies women".  As if making people think about sex is inherrently bad.  This is what I meant when I wrote what I did, and that seems entirely like jealousy.  If nobody is being treated badly, then to me that is not objectification, if this is our definition.  If I wear sexy clothes and get everybody's heads to turn and it's not bothering me - how is it anybody else's business?  Is my profile picture hurt somebody because its sexy?  That's what I was thinking about when I wrote what I did before.

 

What you said makes some sense to me, although I'm not seeing how it's fundamentally worse than the same treatment in a nonsexual context, I guess, but at least I think I can see how you define this.

[wokking56]

56 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

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.

Sorry this has nothing at all to do with sexual objectification, this is plain and simple "sour grapes". I can't have it so it wasn't worth having in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, shencereys said:

Who is doing this?  Is this actually something that happens, or is this something people just talk about.  ...  How does this diminish them?  In practical terms, what is actually occurring that diminishes them?

Okay short answers for short questions. First; Who is doing this? Pretty much everyone, even the ones complaining about it. Second; How does this diminish them? In all actuality it doesn't. Third; In practical terms, what is actually occurring that diminishes them? Absolutely nothing.

People all have different tastes men like very different traits in women. Tall, short, long hair, short hair, blond, brunette, big breasts, small breasts, thin, heavy and the list just goes on.

 

So if a breast man says "whoa look at the tits on her." that is a form of objectification. Now while saying something like that out loud might be rude the question remains, has that in some way injured or made the woman less of a woman? The short answer is no, sure it may have caused a moment of embarrassment but certainly nothing that has lessened her femaleness.

[KoolHndLuke]

Attraction is objectification. I mean if we believe that people are no more than the sum of their parts and it's sort of ingrained in the psyche. When you first see someone, you look at their parts and are deciding what you like and what you don't. Depending on how much you like, you might want to get to know that person to see what else they have. Then you will decide if you just like certain features of them and want to use them for awhile or if maybe you like so much of them that you begin to care about them and try and "keep" them for as long as you want or can. I'm going to ask the next woman I meet with nice tits if those come with fries and a drink....and then brace myself for the inevitable response.

 

 Why do we say "MY wife, my husband, my child, my family, my car, my house, etc"? It could be argued that we all feel a sense of ownership about things and people in our lives- and everything and everyone in our lives falls under a subcategory of our "possessions"- either temporary or permanent- and we might even be envious or jealous of those that we feel have "more" or want what we have.  I hear you say "No, but I respect them and their individuality!" If you did then you would stop trying to "measure" their assets or "how much they bring to the table" and just accept and maybe care about them as a another person that is- in all honesty- not that much different from yourself.

 

 

[Jazzman]

@KoolHndLuke

Most interesting is the frequent crossing of the line, the smooth transition from objectification to subjectification through which the target of interest becomes a subject marked for submission under just imagined or in fact real mastery, entailing a necessary present or just assumed vulnerability to the other in order to be. One of Eva's archetypal female attributes dedicated to her by the patriarchal authors was... you guessed it right - stupidity. That indeed made her vulnerable to all sorts of deception.

[KoolHndLuke]

13 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

@KoolHndLuke

Most interesting is the frequent crossing of the line, the smooth transition from objectification to subjectification through which the target of interest becomes a subject marked for submission under just imagined or in fact real mastery, entailing a necessary present or just assumed vulnerability to the other in order to be.

As another person has said to me from here on LL- sometimes we are the master, other times we are the servant. Both can be highly pleasurable.

 

[Jazzman]

8 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

As another person has said to me from here on LL- sometimes we are the master, other times we are the servant. Both can be highly pleasurable.

Of course, under mutually agreed upon conditions everything is possible, but you really don't want me to you into submission, do you?

[KoolHndLuke]

10 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Of course, under mutually agreed upon conditions everything is possible, but you really don't want me to you into submission, do you?

Ummm, who said you would be holding the whip first, my dear? Besides, I have a feeling we would be playing for some very high stakes unnecessarily.

[shencereys]

15 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

Of course, under mutually agreed upon conditions everything is possible, but you really don't want me to you into submission, do you?

 

9 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Ummm, who said you would be holding the whip my dear?

 

As long as somebody films it, one of you pick up the damn whip already ?

 

edit: oh for fucks sake THIS is my 100th post?

[Jazzman]

8 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Ummm, who said you would be holding the whip first, my dear?

Because I have no unused , babe ^^. But not doubt, a dom-dom affair (virtual or real) is a lost cause and absolutely not the peak of excitement, even if both try to play their roles as good as they can - the dom that plays sub always feels a bit like an idiot.

[Bambi1]

well, i have to disagree with you OP.

 

I have experience things my self, being good friends and hangout with female friend 7/10 times. I think in general people consider men is not sexually objectified is mostly because women are more discreet about it, mostly at least. I suppose it both personality and how women need to protect them self by being discreet, the unfortunate fact is there are a lot of men would respond impolitely to a sexually outspoken women. Specially in a 3rd world country i live in, and most of the world is a 3rd world country.

 

Now since i'm pretty open and honest about everything i guess most of my female friend feel more comfortable to be open sexually. In one incidence regarding a martial arts watsapp group where it's mostly older female, i was invited late to the group, and apparently they didn't realise, and so i came to the part where they're texting how they'd have me in sex. off course then i say hi, to prevent things from getting weirder. It was pretty awkward, they apologised, "were just joking" and all that. Hey, no harms done. 

 

I personally do send pictures to a close female friend. NO, its not dick pict. It's other anatomical part, that i found to be her preferred male body part. i also do gym, and sometimes i ask her opinion, she's especially fond of a man's rear. some other times i just send pict for fun.

 

Anyways, imo at least, yes, female do objectify man.

[KoolHndLuke]

24 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

the dom that plays sub always feels a bit like an idiot.

Not so sure about that. I think I could play either role for you quite naturally. Can you say the same? Releasing your self to someone else's control for awhile can be very liberating. Besides, I don't think I would play very nice with the whip in hand- mostly depends on whom is under it/me.

[Jazzman]

18 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Not so sure about that. I think I could play either role for you quite naturally. Can you say the same?

I should say so! The virtual thing I perform here in private on LL (see profile text on the left) is such a dom-dom relationship...  ?

[Atreyu]

On 8/16/2018 at 2:59 PM, Vyxenne said:

As Testosterone levels in American men have markedly declined over the past 20 years or so, whatever watered-down vestiges of normal masculinity remain have been widely and loudly maligned and condemned as "toxic masculinity" in some quarters. Accordingly, men have become more effeminate, more submissive to almost every influence in their lives, more whiny, ineffectual and unable to cope with everyday issues such as "being offended" and thus more prone to sexual objectification and many other traditionally-female issues without complaint or even notice. Our colleges and universities have played a huge role in the effeminization of men.

 

My personal observation is that it has become more difficult to find actual men (i.e. masculine human beings who do not have vaginas.) Younger men today have been effectively neutered. This does not bode well for our society, or for humanity.

This is coupled with the increase of soy in food.  Soy has similar composition to estrogen, and has become a filler in most foods.  A lot of ramen seem to have 3 different kinds of soy in it.  This is where the term "soy boy" comes from.  This may also be where the stereotype of Asian men having smaller penises come from since they have a condoment called soy sauce.  You also find whey protein for men and soy protein for women in a GNC.  I've been trying to avoid soy all I could since I found this out, but it's extremely tough since non-soy products tend to be expensive or time consuming to prepare, unless it's a pre-cooked rotisserie chicken.

[KoolHndLuke]

10 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

I should say so! The virtual thing I perform here on LL (see profile text on the left) is such a dom-dom relationship...  ?

So if I spanked your pretty ass and told you how naughty you are and that you need to be punished- you're cool, huh? Somehow, I'm not buyin' it. Too proud.

[Jazzman]

8 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

So if I spanked your pretty ass and told you how naughty you are and that you need to be punished- were cool, huh?

If I'm granted to make you pay dearly, babe...  some five minutes later? I will think about it, maybe. We'll see.

[KoolHndLuke]

5 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

If I'm granted to make you pay dearly, babe...  some five minutes later? I will think about it, maybe. We'll see.

Only if you promise to play rough, Sweetie. Otherwise you'll bore me to sleep. 

[Jazzman]

23 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Only if you promise to play rough, Sweetie. Otherwise you'll bore me to sleep. 

Guess the eleven inch strap-on dildo is ruff enuff to take on for ya, hun. I occasionally go for tight asses... 

That goes for gaming as well...

Spoiler

 

 

[KoolHndLuke]

24 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

I occasionally go for tight asses...

Oooh, I've got a really muscular butt- I think you'd love it, Honey! Of course you will have to tongue and finger my balloon knot to make it slick and ready- just like I will yours.?

 

[Jazzman]

20 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Oooh, I've got a really muscular butt- I think you'd love it, Honey!

I bet you have. But as I've said already, I'll think about it, maybe. Fact is I only take one virtual lover at a time. That multitasking harem thing we once successfully performed in high school where time played no role whatsoever doesn't work later on anymore, and this by a couple of reasons. And before we totally derail this thread into a hot porn show in public we should cool down a bit, but of course not w/o a final...

 

Cummers ho! 

[KoolHndLuke]

18 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

I bet you have. But as I've said already, I'll think about it, maybe. Fact is I only take one virtual lover at a time. That multitasking harem thing we once successfully performed in high school where time played no role whatsoever doesn't work later on anymore, and this by a couple of reasons. And before we totally derail this thread into a hot porn show in public we should cool down, but of course not w/o a final...

 

Cummers ho! 

Well, ya know that I am totally NOT objectifying you. I respect you as the kinky perv dom/sub, slick tongued, long legged, slightly psychotic, thoroughly sexy furry animal that you are. Ciao!

 

BTW- "In public" is one the best places to get yo freak on, Dear!

[Jazzman]

30 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Well, ya know that I am totally NOT objectifying you. I respect you as a kinky perv dom/sub, slick tongued, long legged, slightly psychotic, thoroughly sexy furry animal that you are. Ciao!

Nor am I subjectifying you. I respect you w/o specifying any detailed attributes simply as given, an interesting male specimen, storybook.

Thanks for the convo. Keep up the good discussion work and may the cum be with you!  ?

[GrimReaper]

7 hours ago, Jazzman said:

"Much more recent" only if you consider the old non-canonical kabbalistic tradition one (by @2dk2c introduced) Ben Sirach (2nd c. BC) relies on as much younger than the canonical Hebew Bible and its Greek translation aka Septuaginta (both 3rd c. BC) and by pulling an original idea of Lilith out of the mythical Akkadian hat, a truly alien tradition line the Jewish elite (only they got exiled) picked up in fragments like Ezekiel's merkabah / throne chariot mysticism during the so-called Babylonian captivity (6th c. BC). So not everything "is" only because you say so with confidence but imo limited historical knowledge, diplomatically speaking.

You're probably confusing Ben Sira - the author of Wisdom of Sirach - with the medieval text the Alphabet of Sirach. So your condescending tone is profoundly misplaced, I'm afraid. Diplomatically speaking.

[Jazzman]

5 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

You're probably confusing Ben Sira - the author of Wisdom of Sirach - with the medieval text the Alphabet of Sirach. So your condescending tone is profoundly misplaced, I'm afraid. Diplomatically speaking.

No, I don't. Most definitely not. And I'm not even referring to the anonymous Alphabet attributed to Ben Sirach in particular but the kabbalistic tradition that drives Ben Sirach (let's use the Hebrew name pls not to confuse anyone), a non-canonical wisdom tradition that saw a renaissance in the early Medieval Age. This old kabbalistic tradition alone enabled the author of the alien sounding Revelation (around 95 CE) to talk about a 'beast 666'. Because to understand the symbol as common man you need just two things - a Roman coin, currency of the Empire of which Judea was part of, showing the contemporary Roman emperor and - kabbalistic knowledge of the numerology behind the Hebrew alphabet. That's likewise required to grasp the basics in the later Kabbalah (Sefer Jesira etc) of the Medieval Age when knowledge of Akkadian, the pre-Roman communication language in the know world at the time of interest (the aftermath of the Babylonian 'captivity' of the Jewish elite), was already lost for ages, buried under the sand of time.

 

And yet Akkadian is required to even try to translate Lilith back to possible Akkadian language roots and thus to understand its strange and demonic Mesopotamian mythology behind, possible first after Niebuhr 1765 or something, but absolutely not by the Medieval kabbalists or during the Medieval Age as such just to invent a Lilith of their liking out if nothing... your more modern invention, as you see it. And yet the medieval Lilith as Adams first, demonic wife is there w/o any knowledge of Akkadian, strange huh? No, it isn't. It's a cakewalk to follow the traces of traditions as long as one doesn't try to think in a too small time frame that inevitably leads to a narrow view of things and thus to wrong conclusions.

 

You have no idea how sorry I am for having interfered with your marvelous wiki-knowledge and thus leave it at that. And I'd appreciate if you'd do the same.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, shencereys said:

Ok, thank you for elaborating.   Because I really do not understand this issue I think, or did not understand how people use this word.

 

 I guess I can see how being rude to somebody else is treating them like an object, or a device to get what you need from them (in this case, sex).  If that's in a sexual context I suppose I can see how that could be called sexual objectification.  What I'm having trouble understanding is how sexual objectification, in this case, is special or worse than the same kind of behavior in a different context.  Is it worse than a salesman treating a customer as an object to get another sale? 

 

What I think when I hear "sexual objectification" (and when I read this topic) is some character is sexy (say, in a video game or a movie) and somebody writes an article or makes a comment saying it's bad because it "objectifies men" or "objectifies women".  As if making people think about sex is inherrently bad.  This is what I meant when I wrote what I did, and that seems entirely like jealousy.  If nobody is being treated badly, then to me that is not objectification, if this is our definition.  If I wear sexy clothes and get everybody's heads to turn and it's not bothering me - how is it anybody else's business?  Is my profile picture hurt somebody because its sexy?  That's what I was thinking about when I wrote what I did before.

 

What you said makes some sense to me, although I'm not seeing how it's fundamentally worse than the same treatment in a nonsexual context, I guess, but at least I think I can see how you define this.

It is way too easy as a patient or a customer (or a forum-poster) to inadvertently insult someone based upon the (drier than dirt) philosophy you forgot to read up on (general "you" because that's how I write).

  If they start sneering "Sir" at (you) you've committed some crime, and in the very near future (a few minutes) people you've never met might be condescending or "touchy":.

 

Once I asked a receptionist a question and got a pissed off response,

I held her hand for a second and said "I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot", and she was instantly nice to me.

Now I wouldn't recommend it and if this had been a movie, I'd have cringed at this part and waited for the next line, "security!!"

 

  But, um, I lumped her into a group that needs kindness.

She lumped me into a group that's too needy and annoying.

  Plus, if we'd been in a bar, and me slightly drunk, I think i'd have gotten a bloody nose.

  There's some guy in a bar right now who thinks being brash and pushing all other males out of the way is all women really want. 

^^Or a chat line.

^^Some forums.

Moderators are sexy, and the Staff, well need I say more? 

O nevermind.

I'm a pilotfish.

Objectification is in the eye of the beholder, and maybe the network of the news show killing time between commercials.