Sexual objectification

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Jazzman said:

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.

 

11 hours 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 a bit, but of course not w/o a final...

 

Cummers ho! 

 

 

I'm congratulating myself on my very first multiquote,

In contrast To your pithy post-doctorate on akkadian(and stuff).

OK first, I just wrote a post that I hope someone reads, so this one is technically illegal,

but I'm torn between "You can derail us anytime you want, honey"

and (in response to the doctorate) "Witch!!! Enchantress!!"

OK I've just broken three laws (Never say "Honey", never post after your own post, NEver call someone a "witch" even if they do resemble a supernatural being)

Is it my turn to misquote the charm of making?

Anal nathrach, urthvas bethud, dothiel dienve.

I'm your biggest fan (fourth broken law)

 

 

[old cat]

16 hours 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.

to be more explicit about your definition (which, to be clear, I agree with)

Sexual objectification is equating a human (or other living creature; e.g. bestiality, zoophilia) with something like this from Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Silicone-Lifelike-Realistic-Massager-10×6-2×4in/dp/B07G47BBFW/ref=sr_1_10_a_it?ie=UTF8&qid=1535326308&sr=8-10&keywords=adult%2Btoys&th=1 (link as this is not in the Adult Stuff (18+) forums)

 

If this is how you think of/treat your partner then we are running in the same direction as some other social/cultural practices which we may game about but in general abhor in reality such as human trafficking.

 

There is no consent even implied for the object which is only a commodity to be bought and sold, used, abused, disposed of when the value is depleted for whatever reason.

 

k, getting off soapbox ... crawling back in my lurker hole

[Nikkolas]

13 hours ago, Atreyu said:

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.

 

There is zero evidence for the soy myth. It has in fact been completely debunked.

https://ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2015/06/the-startling-truth-about-soy/

[GrimReaper]

11 hours ago, Jazzman said:

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.

There's two issues I have with this post. I've marked them for convenience. First, I didn't talk about a modern invention but about a modern interpretation. These are two very different things and an interpretation is per definition always based on some pre-existing work since you can hardly interpret something that doesn't exist. So no, I didn't say or even imply in the slightest that the modern Lilith was conjured out of thin air.

 

Second, my source was this website, not wikipedia. Though I have to say, wikipedia shaming is really outdated. It's the best ressource common folk have to check up on things.

[Vyxenne]

13 hours ago, Jazzman said:

Spoiler

What hair is that please? I haven't been able to find anything like that in FO4 yet.

 

[Jazzman]

10 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

There's two issues I have with this post. I've marked them for convenience. First, I didn't talk about a modern invention but about a modern interpretation. These are two very different things and an interpretation is per definition always based on some pre-existing work since you can hardly interpret something that doesn't exist. So no, I didn't say or even imply in the slightest that the modern Lilith was conjured out of thin air.

 

Second, my source was this website, not wikipedia. Though I have to say, wikipedia shaming is really outdated. It's the best ressource common folk have to check up on things.

Your reference to one "Ben Sira" w/o "ch" was simply too deceiving not to be connected to wikipedia, a modern fast-food source that offers brief summaries that are more or less colored and sometimes even bent according to the agenda of its authors, esp. when it comes to things that touch their narrow worldview (that's what any agenda inevitably leads to) - in other words, it is too-often misleading. Or as my late professor eloquently put it, read the corresponding books instead if you still remember what that is. So, using wikipedia gives you an overview of sorts but that's by no means enough to be used as a 'weapon of knowledge' in a controversial discourse about complex themes (like objectification), one easily might find it fatal. 

 

Your first paragraph shows where the difference is between us - you seem to know that there must have been "some pre-existing" work that deals with the medieval Lilith to make sense and yet you take her for modern, and I know why the kabbalistic Alphabet of the medieval Age that refers to Lilith is, of all things, attributed (actually just linked) to Ben Sirach and the 2nd BC "proto Kabbalah" that was still connected to Mesopotamian mythology and thus to Akkadian terminology. There might have existed a non-canonical scripture by Ben Sirach referring to Lilith in the past, but much is lost and even more got consciously destroyed in the radical process of canonizing the Torah and the Tanakh, the five book of Moses, the prophets and the writings. And some things simply went underground together with the opposition (early Christian sects in opposition to the Pauline church of Rome and thus on the run for their lives could tell the tale). After the canonization, any alternative view of the Torah (not just Genesis) was understood as blasphemy and forbidden under penalty of death by stoning. No Monty Python joke. And one thing is for sure - a dominant wife suppressing her husband sexually was absolutely not in the interest of a strict patriarchal society like the Jewish (or any medieval society later, unable to take a religious joke) that relied on more submissive female specimens. Such nasty things could only have happened in contemporary high cultures like Egypt or Mesopotamia. And here we go again.

 

Back to topic.

Have a nice day.

 

 

9 hours ago, Vyxenne said:

What hair is that please? I haven't been able to find anything like that in FO4 yet.

 

Oh well, that's a cut from Wasteland Fashion-Hair.

In the frontal view it looks like this:

Spoiler

 

Have fun!

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jazzman said:

Your reference to one "Ben Sira" w/o "ch" was simply too deceiving

I do know now that Ecclesiasticus (wisdom of Jesus-ben-etc)  was parodied by some later guy with a similar name,

and the famed Lilith was only mentioned in his parody "alphabet", not the original "Wisdom".

   

But history has a way of judging past events and I don't know if we're talking about a "desiderata/deteriorata" type of parody or a serious (maybe speculative) work by a scholar.

Regardless, I learned that there are other references besides the two Bens to look at (*I* didn't, but someone *could*).

Thank you for the inspiration to look and wonder.

 

[Jazzman]

6 hours ago, 2dk2c said:

I do know now that Ecclesiastes (wisdom of Jesus-ben-etc)  was parodied by some later guy with a similar name,

and the famed Lilith was only mentioned in his parody "alphabet", not the original "Wisdom".

   

But history has a way of judging past events and I don't know if we're talking about a "desiderata/deteriorata" type of parody or a serious (maybe speculative) work by a scholar.

Regardless, I learned that there are other references besides the two Bens to look at (*I* didn't, but someone *could*).

Thank you for the inspiration to look and wonder.

 

Who has told you that the Alphabet - the title alone shows its close connection to the kabbalistic (i.e. 'passed on') Sefer Yezirah, the Book of Creation (sic! Beast 666 all over again) - would be a religious "parody" based on Ben Sirach's kabbalistic Wisdom, hmm? Aha! These people should read Eco's The Name of the Rose to grasp the humorless atmosphere of the Medieval Age when it comes to religious matters. You see where this goes? It's sink or swim. A matter of faith. It is, so it seems, much safer and more comfortable to hover over the troubled waters like Ruach ha-Qodesh, the Holy Spirit.

 

Source on Lilith almost unknown to the public: The Dead Sea Scrolls

 

4Q510 (4QShir-a) aka 4QSongs of the Sage (fragments); late 1st c. BC, i.e the time around the purported birth of Jesus Christ

Frag 1 (excerpt)

(4) [Blank] And I, a Sage, declare the splendor of his radiance in order to frighten and terrify

(5) all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, jackal demons, Lilith('s) owls and [...]

(6) those who strike unexpectedly to lead astray the spirit of knowledge, to make their hearts forlorn

and the place of their souls in the era of the rul[e of]

(7) wickedness. ...

 

_ The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition Vol 2, Florentino García Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, p. 1029 ©1998 Royal Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

 

Far we have come from my man-eater/killa bunny reference to the screaming owl of the myths and the shrieking, claw-armed bat in Tolkien's Silmarillion. Far enough to say it is good, the work is done. Let's move on, please.

 

Beast 52 (Ana)

[wokking56]

The basis of the Lilith myth dates all the way back to the writing of the Bible itself. We are faced with two separate and somewhat different versions of the birth of woman. So humans being the way we are connect the dots and make conclusions whether right or wrong.

 

Genesis 1:27
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

There are very few other verses in the Bible that support this view like Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. Yet aside from these few and the "be fruitful and multiply" speech in Genesis 1:28 this is pretty much overlooked.

 

Genesis 2:4-3:22
And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

 

This account actually runs from Genesis 2:4-3:18 through Genesis 2:4-4:24 (if I remember correctly). Then there are numerous verses throughout the Bible that reinforce this second version.

Thus enforcing the belief of the day that a woman needed to be subservient to men.

[Vyxenne]

12 hours ago, Jazzman said:

that's a cut from Wasteland Fashion-Hair. In the frontal view it looks like this:

  Reveal hidden contents

Have fun!

Thank you! Just installed it, hoping it has physics (such as they are in FO4)

[Jazzman]

11 hours ago, wokking56 said:

Genesis 1:27
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

There are very few other verses in the Bible that support this view like Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. Yet aside from these few and the "be fruitful and multiply" speech in Genesis 1:28 this is pretty much overlooked.

That's because these two authors of the Gospels still followed the Noachic Covenant (cf. James the Just's authoritative directive to overseas communities in Acts 15.20) with heavily reduced dietary laws and the abstention from 'garbled things', i.e. non-kosher slaughtered things with the lifeblood still in it (cf. Gen 9.4-5, the assumed place of the soul of all living was the blood). And as we all know, the living creatures entered Noah's Ark two by two, one male and one female specimen each, not perhaps one male followed by a (submissive) female. The flood allusion is all-important here. Like other Jewish groups, the group around James in Jerusalem stood in front of a real flood - the 2nd Jewish War and the Roman siege of Jerusalem. Nothing would be still the same afterwards. And indeed, nothing was ever heard from Noah's Ark 2.0 again... except for the scriptures the gone Jewish-Christian group left behind.

 

That's it.

 

10 hours ago, Vyxenne said:

Thank you! Just installed it, hoping it has physics (such as they are in FO4)

Welcome. Here it has physics.

[GrimReaper]

I do find this whole Lilith discussion very interesting. There's not much I can say about the mystical interpretation of certain texts, though. And I doubt that there's any kind of consensus even among those that practice this stuff. Anyways, my original point was more or less about this part here, from the site I linked earlier:

 

Lilith has become such a popular figure that whole enterprises (like the women’s music concert Lilith Fair and the Jewish feminist journal Lilith Magazine) are named after her. Once a source of fear, Lilith has been transformed into an icon of freedom. While some disapprove of this widespread embrace of a former demon, Lilith’s rehabilitation makes sense. The frightening character of Lilith grew, in part, out of repression: repression of sexuality, repression of the free impulse in women, repression of the question “what if I left it all behind?”

 

That's where I personally would disagree. I can certainly see the why and the general appeal behind Lilith, but that's only if you cherry pick some parts and leave out others. A baby killing and man raping (the latter to create more demons which would bring further misery for all mortals involved) demon who might or might have not been a rebellious wife rejecting husband and god shouldn't be reduced to being only the latter. It certainly would fit the empowering narrative but it somehow doesn't sit right with me. It would also rub me the wrong way if Cain (to keep the theme) was suddenly considered the cool rebel rejecting tyranny and instead choosing his own way. That of course would require people to consciously ignore the part about the whole murdering your own family thing that also happened.

[Jazzman]

For my part, I'm more interested in the historical understanding of Lilith the screaming owl - an untouchable figure of 'evilness' in ancient Judaism, not to get accidentally touched by her - and just peripherally in the parallel running theme of Lilith's owls, that are those women who follow her path, understood and in fact treated as faction of the Evil Spirits in those "Days of Wickedness". Of course, Lilith's self-consciousness and self-confidence got inherited by her owls at the dawn of female self-understanding but these owls lacked of Lilith's skills, power and, most likely, her looks as well. I mean, you can tell yourself that you're a womanizer till grass grows on your cheeks but that doesn't quite automatically turn you into the next Mister Decaffeinato, right? Same goes for the man-eater, his female counterpart. So these Lilith owls just rode on some peripheral, social aspects of Lilith and that's the anchor point certain factions of today feminism rely on. There is, however, a striking difference b/t showing your boobs and legs in good Femen fashion and knowing how to use them most effectively to dominate. You simply can't proclaim yourself as Lilith incarnate, you either are or you are not. Don't think you are, know you are! to quote Morpheus in The Matrix. You're free to join Lilith's owls of today, anytime. Choose wisely tho, not to end up as a media clown.

 

May the marbles be with us!

[Atreyu]

On 8/27/2018 at 6:59 PM, Nikkolas said:

 

There is zero evidence for the soy myth. It has in fact been completely debunked.

https://ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2015/06/the-startling-truth-about-soy/

Well, you can choose to believe that, if you want.

[Vuulgar]

In very general, basic terms nature made men to want to advance the species and have the aggression to defend it, women in evolution advanced skills to nurture and identify danger. These skills helped ancient mankind survive in a non-hospitable, cruel world as 2 halves of a team. Now we attempt as best we can to deny this teams existence and criticize the roles that each occupied by only seeing perceived negatives.  And honestly objectification exists everywhere in nature, just one obvious example - peacocks. The females are a brownish green color, quite plain in comparison to the garish colors on the males. At mating times the males grow long lavish tails with amazing 3 foot long feathers and proceed to strut around literally objectifying themselves  to attract a mate. Do you suppose male peacocks sit around saying "the nerve of Edna (no idea if peacocks name themselves), did you see the way she just stared at my tail?!? Disgusting!"

 

The problem controlling this behavior is the offensive line is too subjective, in many cases the difference between an enjoyable compliment and an offensive comment is who said it. As an example, if some ugly guy hit on a woman she would likely be offended but if it is someone the woman finds attractive she might enjoy the same comments, this is human nature, is it not? Then how can we possibly meet the control criteria for behavior or speech like this when the line is not only shifting for what is said but for who said it? This means it is the individuals responsibility to speak up, this gives the speaker confidence and gives immediate consequence to offensive actions but it also adds cost to the judgement being made, was what was said or done bad enough to actually walk up and say something? It does no good at all to just complain about it later on twitter and as always life doesnt care about fair or nice so be prepared to deal with it as needed.

 

I mean no offense by anything I have said (this is why I began with "In very general, basic terms") but I am sure there are people in the world that would label me all kinds of derogatory terms for these simple observations I have made over my several years. Political correctness will keep us from solving problems and advancing all humankind.

[Z0mBieP00Nani]

On 8/26/2018 at 10:35 PM, 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'm not directing this at you GrimReaper, just using your definition (which I also agree with), anyway there in lies the rub, and why I said women objectify men more than men objectify women. It is true that guys pay more attention to a woman's looks or physical beauty rather than her personality, but that's because physical beauty is tied to health and fertility, and from a biological or instinctual standpoint, those things are what a strait man values most in a mate. For a man though (in terms of a genuine relationship, and not just a pump and dump or sport fuck scenario), it's more than that because humans are more than simple animals, we have self awareness, we are aware of our feelings and we have a way to define those feelings and in turn attach value to them. A man won't just look at a woman he is enamored with, for her beauty, he will also look at how agreeable she is or how kind she is, or sympathetic to his needs she is, and in turn he will take care of her because that kindness will cause him to love her, but he won't just lover her for her personality, but also for her tits and her ass as well. He will love HER, not her degree, or her bank account, or her car, or her house, or any of that horse shit, but the woman herself, and he will fight and die if necessary to protect her and any children that may have resulted from the relationship, and all of this is driven by instinct. Women on the other hand, don't love like that, at best they might love you about as much as you love your car (if it's a really nice car), and to sort of prove my point, that's why women seem to get over relationships faster, and why when you get really sick or injured or you loose your job, she's gone shortly after, and why you may also see women complain about and have contempt for men who are "too clingy", even though in reality they really might not be as "clingy" as the woman perceives the man to be, she's just looking at the guy and deep down she's thinking about how weak and pathetic he is being and or maybe how she can use that to take advantage of him, because women instinctually value strength and security, and "clinginess" is just a convenient and polite excuse.

 

The sad thing is, the only woman who will truly love you is your mom, just about every other woman you meet as a man will be in it for what she can get out of the relationship. A mother's love is the kind of love most men look for in a relationship, but that's the kind of love that is near impossible to find these days.

 

*steps off soap box*

[TestSubject101]

Happens in Kpop and sadly the minors are the ones promoting the idea.

[GrimReaper]

6 hours ago, Z0mBieP00Nani said:

I'm not directing this at you GrimReaper, just using your definition (which I also agree with), anyway there in lies the rub, and why I said women objectify men more than men objectify women. It is true that guys pay more attention to a woman's looks or physical beauty rather than her personality, but that's because physical beauty is tied to health and fertility, and from a biological or instinctual standpoint, those things are what a strait man values most in a mate. For a man though (in terms of a genuine relationship, and not just a pump and dump or sport fuck scenario), it's more than that because humans are more than simple animals, we have self awareness, we are aware of our feelings and we have a way to define those feelings and in turn attach value to them. A man won't just look at a woman he is enamored with, for her beauty, he will also look at how agreeable she is or how kind she is, or sympathetic to his needs she is, and in turn he will take care of her because that kindness will cause him to love her, but he won't just lover her for her personality, but also for her tits and her ass as well. He will love HER, not her degree, or her bank account, or her car, or her house, or any of that horse shit, but the woman herself, and he will fight and die if necessary to protect her and any children that may have resulted from the relationship, and all of this is driven by instinct. Women on the other hand, don't love like that, at best they might love you about as much as you love your car (if it's a really nice car), and to sort of prove my point, that's why women seem to get over relationships faster, and why when you get really sick or injured or you loose your job, she's gone shortly after, and why you may also see women complain about and have contempt for men who are "too clingy", even though in reality they really might not be as "clingy" as the woman perceives the man to be, she's just looking at the guy and deep down she's thinking about how weak and pathetic he is being and or maybe how she can use that to take advantage of him, because women instinctually value strength and security, and "clinginess" is just a convenient and polite excuse.

 

The sad thing is, the only woman who will truly love you is your mom, just about every other woman you meet as a man will be in it for what she can get out of the relationship. A mother's love is the kind of love most men look for in a relationship, but that's the kind of love that is near impossible to find these days.

 

*steps off soap box*

I fail to see how judging someone by his/her actions is somehow more unfair than judging someone by his/her looks and personality tbh, they're all a part of who you are. That being said, you can't choose what you're attracted to, if you as a straight guy like blonde hair, big boobs and a fair skin that's totally fine, even if it means you're rejecting the majority of the women. On the other hand, it's also perfectly acceptable for the women who you deem attractive to reject you, because they're people and as such have the right to choose for themselves.

 

Cherrypicking to prove your point about general behavior is also usually a bad idea, because for every horror story about how horrible a woman can be, there's also a story about how horrible a man can be. Some people are genuinely good, some are the polar opposite but the majority of people fall somewhere between the extremes. Being angry at women because not all of them are the best people they could possibly be at all times is pretty unfair. The human condition is messy, complicated and sometimes pretty ugly, that's why we usually assume that it's okay to fuck up every now and then because who doesn't.

[jdods13]

Don't human beings objectify pretty much everything? We take everything and place our own labels on it to help us understand why we like/dislike it or choose to accept it or not. None of this matters in reality because we don't actually have anything to do with what naturally exists in the world. Just because we have named/ labeled a fly a fly doesn't make it so. Our personal taste in the way a man or a woman looks is irrelevant considering that a woman is perfectly imperfect in her natural design without our input. Same goes for men. The objectification starts when the media tries to pin down a label that tells the rest of the population what is "beautiful", "acceptable" and to be "liked" or dis-liked. For some men, woman are primarily a means for their sexual gratification. This is not good because it is a perversion of what a woman truly represents to our existence. Woman a objectified by men with these mentalities because these men want to see more of what they "like" and this gets way out of hand. Woman objectify each other as well... by the same ideals. Men do the same thing to other men.

 

 

Anyway that is just my two pennies...  Woman are human beings that are capable of making mistakes and learning from them. I can honestly say that while we both made mistakes and learned what we learned while we were together, each and every woman I have ever dated has been a beautiful mystery to unlock. I have learned so many things from woman that have ultimately made me a better man, capable of connecting with any man or woman I meet. This is mainly directed at men... it all starts with you as a person. If you are capable of living in the space between Yin and Yang you can allow yourself to feel an emotion or explore an idea of your own but also live in the other person's space. Live in their ideas and emotions. This way you can truly connect with them and have an honest conversation. You will find that you can connect with any woman without having an agenda or being forced or contrived. Woman can make great friends. Never say woman are evil or dumb or wrong or whatever because you know deep down that this is not true. These thoughts are too far in Yang. Immediately forgive them because they are you despite the physical differences. 

[Glaurung26]

I think both (all) sexes get objectified in different ways depending on societal/cultural norms and the desires each sex wants to see from the other. A man might stare at a woman's ass while she stares at his car to guess what his income might be. Or maybe she would stare at his ass too to see if it's muscular or not. I dunno. We all want what we want and sometimes we are part of a majority pattern. So long as you don't forget that that objectification is attached to human being then I don't see the harm. It's okay to admire the parts that make up a greater whole from time to time. Like all things, in moderation.

[jdods13]

12 minutes ago, Glaurung26 said:

I think both (all) sexes get objectified in different ways depending on societal/cultural norms and the desires each sex wants to see from the other. A man might stare at a woman's ass while she stares at his car to guess what his income might be. Or maybe she would stare at his ass too to see if it's muscular or not. I dunno. We all want what we want and sometimes we are part of a majority pattern. So long as you don't forget that that objectification is attached to human being then I don't see the harm. It's okay to admire the parts that make up a greater whole from time to time. Like all things, in moderation.

This!

 

     We should admire and enjoy what we like about each-other but be respectful in the sense that you can tell if you make someone uncomfortable. Woman like to be admired but you don't have to be a complete creep about it. moderation is key. Same goes for woman which is also important. If a woman catches you looking at her don't be afraid to tell her that you think she is beautiful but don't Harvey Weinstein it out... too far in the Yang and wtf gross... don't do that EVER even if you think the woman wants it because if she is a stranger she doesn't want you to just take our your floppy dong and tell her to suck it. that is a DICK MOVE... hahaaaaa? then if you have to say "Please suck it?" it's already too late... she already looked and decided no... not that... just don't do it unless she gives you the signal... every woman has a their own signal...

[Jazzman]

What year is it? 1918? The swinging 20s? Sup'm like dis? Guess so.

[Vuulgar]

16 minutes ago, Jazzman said:

What year is it? 1918? The swinging 20s? Sup'm like dis? Guess so.

So if people dont conform to your world view they are outdated? Maybe I read this wrong but it seems like an insult in the middle of an otherwise fairly nice discussion, am I wrong?

[Jazzman]

18 minutes ago, Vuulgar said:

So if people dont conform to your world view they are outdated? Maybe I read this wrong but it seems like an insult in the middle of an otherwise fairly nice discussion, am I wrong?

Wrong. It's just that we today better shouldn't show up with a hopelessly outdated, almost mystic understanding on how women react to men and vice versa and what causes it. It's for example not the (financed) car, okay?

[shencereys]

On 8/29/2018 at 7:59 AM, Vuulgar said:

In very general, basic terms nature made men to want to advance the species and have the aggression to defend it, women in evolution advanced skills to nurture and identify danger...

I agree that an insightful answer to almost all questions sexual can be found in selection / evolutionary theory (evolution and reproduction and natural selection are all facets of one single process), but I disagree with this characterization of male and female roles in an evolutionary explanation.  I am somewhat versed in evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology - and I don't see anything that causes males to be the gender that "advances the species" or the gender that "defends it", or women to be the ones to "identify danger" or "nurture"

 

Parental Investment Theory  (Alternate for those up for a more academic source) (which is the theory that underpins almost all evolutionary explanations of sexual behavior for any species, humans included) explains very well the general nature of the fertilizing sex (usually males) being the sex seekers and the gestating/ovum-producing (in the case of egg-layers) sex (usually females) being the sex gatekeepers, but there isn't any discovered fundamental driving force I am aware of in the literature which causes men and women to behave in the manner you describe.  

 

While it is true males are larger and more prone to violence (how i'm characterizing this "defends" supposition you mentioned), this isn't due to any "good of the species" kind of phenomenon.  This is due to violent competition for mates - any gender within a species that engages in violent competition for mates tends to grow larger and more aggressive (in fact I think as far as we know "tends" has shown thus far to be "always" in reality with any species we've ever examined).  So human males are bigger and decide to fight more easily than females because this is how our ancestors settled the question "who gets to mate today?" for millions of years, a trait a few thousand years of civilization is still insufficient to breed out. 

 

(I also want to mention the fact that the violent sex is males is not a given.  Females are the violently-competing sex in many insects, Haplodiploid, and arthropods and are thus larger, but that's something of a digression)

 

The other three points ("..advance.." "..nurture.." and "..identify danger..") I don't believe are actually grounded in evolutionary theory / evolutionary psychology. 

 

While I'm a big believer in evolutionary explanations of sexual behaviors, I think you may have had a bad or unreliable source, or possibly been quoted information out of context - i'm not sure.  I'm not certain evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology has much useful to say about the phenomenon of objectification, as that's largely culture-driven.  And while the nuances of animal and primate cultures are more easily explained,  "variations in gender-typical perceptions on the phenomenon of sexual objectification in humans" is a beast I'm certain the fledgling field of evolutionary psychology has not yet tamed.