# Sexual Objectification And Society.



## Caribbean Man

The following short, youtube vid is a real life, shocking interview of teenage pornstar Sasha Grey and former Victoria Secret supermodel turned TV talk show host, Tyra Banks.

In this interview, she gives graphic details of her career in porn, her gangbang with 15 men, her first sex scene with a man three times her age ,being spat upon during sex scenes, licking toilet seats in S&M scenes, the fact that she love being portrayed as an underage girl on set and much more.

Teenage Pornstar ,Sasha Grey on the Tyra Banks Show.

Sasha says she fully enjoys her " job" , likes the money, the lifestyle perks and has no intention of giving it up.

If ever there was a textbook definition of gross, dehumanizing, sexual objectification , then this has to be it. The question is who is doing the objectifying and who is being objectified.

_Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women._

Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.

I used Sasha Grey as an example because porn is the most obvious example of the many double standards and convoluted mess that is the modern day concept of sexual objectification.

Reality is, sexual liberalism , which is central to feminist philosophy,[ and rightly so ] dictates that each person develops their own code of ethics and not judge another person's sexual preferences, or use of their body.

If this is so, then Sasha Grey isn't doing anything immoral ,neither her handlers , nor the men who view her type of porn.
If any objectification is taking place, it is Saha Grey objectifying _herself_ for money, tens of thousands of dollars, EVERY WEEK.
And while I'm no longer a consumer of porn , even if I was I wouldn't be viewing her type of porn , that's my personal code of ethics. But I take serious umbrage to people telling me that I objectify women by virtue of being a man who does not subscribe to their convoluted , lopsided view of sex and society.

In this vid, another former teenage prostitute, stripper and porn industry
" survivor", tells Sashs Grey EXACTLY what is wrong with her and who's doing the " objectifying."

Former teen Stripper , Prostitute and Porn actress confronts Sasha Grey.

The way I see it,
If you want to change the world, first change YOURSELF, or at least , take responsibility for your actions , and stop blameshifting.

The irony in this interview , to me was thick and obvious.
If according to the theory of objectification, Sasha Grey is being objectified by porn, then isn't the show's host, Tyra Banks also a victim of objectification?
After all ,she was a supermodel for Victoria Secret.
_She modeled skimpy lingerie for years and became famous for it. Taking of her clothes made her a supermodel and gave her, her name.._
Tyra Banks started modelling at the tender age of 15. 
Both were used for their sexuality, right there, is the double standard.

Anybody agrees with me?
Anybody disagree?
Lets talk about it.
What is your definition of " sexual objectification" and who is responsible?


----------



## WyshIknew

I suppose it would be only to easy to blame the advertising world. They market this notion of the hot chick or hot guy as being the ideal person.
There again, without the right audience their marketing would be pointless.

Are the advertising agencies merely being lazy? If they tried something else other than some guy showing his perfect peachy butt or some woman waggling her ta tas at you would they have as much success?


----------



## trey69

I guess everyone is being Objectified in some way. 

When I think of Tyra Banks in Victoria Secret lingerie, I think of nothing no more than someone out on the beach in a swimsuit. At least they are somewhat covered. 

As far as porn stars like Sasha Grey, being spat on, licking toilet seats, having gang bangs, etc, I see someone who thinks very little of herself. She can say all day long she enjoys it, and for the $right price$ I'm sure she does. Most see dollar signs and thats it. And yes, some may actually enjoy it, in the beginning. I doubt most continue to do once they get heavier into the lifestyle. I would think over time it would begin to chip away at their emotional self esteem, but then again there may not have been that much there to begin with since that was their chosen career. 

I'm sure the people who choose that lifestyle do not see themselves as being objectified, just as the people selling it. They don't see it that way because theres usually a certain amount of denial they live in to keep them thinking the way they do, and keeps them where they are at. JMO.


----------



## Jellybeans

I wonder how Sasha is going to feel 10 years from now. Or what it will do to her way of thinking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Jellybeans said:


> I wonder how Sasha is going to feel 10 years from now. Or what it will do to her way of thinking.


Have a look at the second video.
That one is the bombshell.
There was a doctor on set, who had viewed here scenes, and he told he straight up that if she continued doing those scenes , like rough sex, double penetration with well endowed men , gangbangs and so forth , before she hit 30, she would be wearing diapers...


And her reaction was that she wasn't too concerned.:scratchhead:


----------



## Jellybeans

Caribbean Man said:


> Have a look at the second video.
> 
> And her reaction was that she wasn't too concerned.:scratchhead:


I didn't watch the second video and don't want to because I feel sad for her. I mean, ultimately, it is her choice, but she is only 18 (at the time of that video). A human brain/adult brain isn't fully formed until it reaches 25 years old. She is very young and I am sure at some point in time, she is going to reflect back on in this some kind of way. 

I wonder if there is any sexual abuse in her past. Or bad relationships with her parents, etc.


----------



## trey69

Caribbean Man said:


> Have a look at the second video.
> That one is the bombshell.
> There was a doctor on set, who had viewed here scenes, and he told he straight up that if she continued doing those scenes , like rough sex, double penetration with well endowed men , gangbangs and so forth , before she hit 30, she would be wearing diapers...
> 
> 
> And her reaction was that she wasn't too concerned.:scratchhead:



She doesn't care. Thats what I mean by people having no self esteem in that business. If you no longer care if your organs and insides are about to fall out from years of abuse, something is wrong. 

I have read horror stories of some women having to have lots of surgeries just to "tack" things back up into place from being split wide open for years, and their bodily functions no longer work properly. But its their choice, and of course no produce/director isn't going to tell them they have to stop just because they have sh*t on themselves during a scene. They don't care either. As long as its making a buck.


----------



## SolidSnake

Caribbean Man said:


> The following short, youtube vid is a real life, shocking interview of teenage pornstar Sasha Grey and former Victoria Secret supermodel turned TV talk show host, Tyra Banks.
> 
> In this interview, she gives graphic details of her career in porn, her gangbang with 15 men, her first sex scene with a man three times her age ,being spat upon during sex scenes, licking toilet seats in S&M scenes, the fact that she love being portrayed as an underage girl on set and much more.
> 
> Teenage Pornstar ,Sasha Grey on the Tyra Banks Show.
> 
> Sasha says she fully enjoys her " job" , likes the money, the lifestyle perks and has no intention of giving it up.
> 
> If ever there was a textbook definition of gross, dehumanizing, sexual objectification , then this has to be it. The question is who is doing the objectifying and who is being objectified.
> 
> _Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women._
> 
> Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.
> 
> I used Sasha Grey as an example because porn is the most obvious example of the many double standards and convoluted mess that is the modern day concept of sexual objectification.
> 
> Reality is, sexual liberalism , which is central to feminist philosophy,[ and rightly so ] dictates that each person develops their own code of ethics and not judge another person's sexual preferences, or use of their body.
> 
> If this is so, then Sasha Grey isn't doing anything immoral ,neither her handlers , nor the men who view her type of porn.
> If any objectification is taking place, it is Saha Grey objectifying _herself_ for money, tens of thousands of dollars, EVERY WEEK.
> And while I'm no longer a consumer of porn , even if I was I wouldn't be viewing her type of porn , that's my personal code of ethics. But I take serious umbrage to people telling me that I objectify women by virtue of being a man who does not subscribe to their convoluted , lopsided view of sex and society.
> 
> In this vid, another former teenage prostitute, stripper and porn industry
> " survivor", tells Sashs Grey EXACTLY what is wrong with her and who's doing the " objectifying."
> 
> Former teen Stripper , Prostitute and Porn actress confronts Sasha Grey.
> 
> The way I see it,
> If you want to change the world, first change YOURSELF, or at least , take responsibility for your actions , and stop blameshifting.
> 
> The irony in this interview , to me was thick and obvious.
> If according to the theory of objectification, Sasha Grey is being objectified by porn, then isn't the show's host, Tyra Banks also a victim of objectification?
> After all ,she was a supermodel for Victoria Secret.
> _She modeled skimpy lingerie for years and became famous for it. Taking of her clothes made her a supermodel and gave her, her name.._
> Tyra Banks started modelling at the tender age of 15.
> Both were used for their sexuality, right there, is the double standard.
> 
> Anybody agrees with me?
> Anybody disagree?
> Lets talk about it.
> What is your definition of " sexual objectification" and who is responsible?


I agree with you. When people/ radical feminists make broad statements like porn/sex work/ prostitution objectify women, it removes the element of personal responsibility, or places it on the "male oppressor." Assuming that you entered into it voluntarily, if you think that porn/prostitution is degrading, then don't participate, period. 

I like the sex positive approach more because preserves an element of personal responsibility for one's actions. 

My view of voluntary porn work/prostitution, is that while it isn't objectively wrong morally speaking, it just int good for people....women or men. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I suppose it would be only to easy to blame the advertising world. They market this notion of the hot chick or hot guy as being the ideal person.
> There again, without the right audience their marketing would be pointless.
> 
> Are the advertising agencies merely being lazy? If they tried something else other than some guy showing his perfect peachy butt or some woman waggling her ta tas at you would they have as much success?


You're waxing philosophical , Wysh!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Jellybeans said:


> I didn't watch the second video and don't want to because I eel sad for her. I mean, ultimately, it is her choice, but she is only 18 (at the time of that video). A human brain/adult brain isn't fully formed until it reaches 25 years old. She is very young and I am sure at some point in time, she is going to reflect back on in this some kind of way.
> 
> I wonder if there is any sexual abuse in her past. Or bad relationships with her parents, etc.


Well that's what shocked me too. Tyra asked her the question about sexual abuse and I think her answer was no.
She always had a good relationship with her mother and sister , but entered porn secretly because of the money. Not because she was poor, she liked the glamour and it made her feel " liberated."
She said when they came to visit her, and she broke the news to them , they were shocked.


----------



## trey69

Shelley Lubben, former porn star and founder of the Pink Cross foundation, is an organization that helps those people in porn who want out to be able to get out, talked about how most enter because of the "glamour" and she states how that its false glamour, thats what lures people in, money and glamour. She talks about the ugly side of the industry, and how its not as glamorous as they lead you to believe.


----------



## WyshIknew

SolidSnake said:


> I agree with you. When people/ radical feminists make broad statements like porn/sex work/ prostitution objectify women, it removes the element of personal responsibility, or places it on the "male oppressor." Assuming that you entered into it voluntarily, if you think that porn/prostitution is degrading, then don't participate, period.
> 
> I like the sex positive approach more because preserves an element of personal responsibility for one's actions.
> 
> My view of voluntary porn work/prostitution, is that while it isn't objectively wrong morally speaking, it just int good for people....women or men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But do we know how much is truly voluntary?

Is a female drug addict (for example) who 'does' porn or prostitution really, really volunteering?


----------



## Jellybeans

trey69 said:


> She talks about the ugly side of the industry, and how its not as glamorous as they lead you to believe.


When I think porn, I do not think "glamorous" in any way, shape or form.

I can understand the allure to money but I can't myself undestand wanting to make a living off sleeping iwth a bunch of people, the diseases you could get, and I imagine it would kind of fck you up in the head after awhile. Emotionally, mentally.

There is this one porn actress, her name is Audrey something? Red head woman and I once read an interview with her and she was saying she was married to a guy named Otto or Arhtur in the industry who she did a lot of films with him and other men as well (at the same time sometimes) and they were divorced now and she sounded so conflicted/confused/sad in her interview. The way I read it, she was almost trying too hard int he interview to say how "normal" her life is and how "boring" it is and how it's all ok but I read a lot of pain in her words.



WyshIknew said:


> But do we know how much is truly voluntary?
> 
> Is a female drug addict (for example) who 'does' porn or prostitution really, really volunteering?


I agree, Wysh. There is said to be a lot of drug use on those porn sets.


----------



## Caribbean Man

trey69 said:


> Shelley Lubben, former porn star and founder of the Pink Cross foundation, is an organization that helps those people in porn who want out to be able to get out, talked about how most enter because of the "glamour" and she states how that its false glamour, thats what lures people in, money and glamour. She talks about the ugly side of the industry, and how its not as glamorous as they lead you to believe.


I've seen many interviews of former porn actresses who say the same thing , but most of them strike me as opportunist and blame shifting. The fact is that when younger stars emerge, or when an actor contracts a disease like Herpes or HIV, they are unceremoniously thrown out and discarded, so they're off the "gravy train."
And it happens suddenly without warning.
Then it hits them , thet've spent all of their money on "riotious living " and don't have a safety net.
Then they start feeling used by the industry, and the conversation shifts to " sexual objectification."

IMO, the two best former pornstar interviews I've ever seen was that of Crissy Moran and Belladonna. Both of them were at the hieght of their career with a promising future when they both decide to quit because " _they couldn't continue fooling themselves anymore..._"
Interestingly enough , Belladonna was married when she was an actress , and Crissy Moran was in a long term relationship with her live in boyfriend.

But I think the bigger issue is that people should take full responsibility and stop blaming society , men or whoever when they F-up their lives.

Tyra Banks, although she was a mainstream model , started at the tender age of 15. She was pursuing her dreams of the glamorous life too, being sexualized at that tender age. The reality is, many so called teen age models also end up in either hardcore porn or softcore porn. Either way it's their risks, their choices and if like Tyra , they succeed their victory.
So why, when or if it doesn't work out " society " or men should be blamed for "objectifying" them in the media or whatever?


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> But do we know how much is truly voluntary?
> 
> Is a female drug addict (for example) who 'does' porn or prostitution really, really volunteering?


I think in the US alone over 30,000 girls audition for the mainstream porn industry.
I doubt all or even most of them are addicts.


----------



## trey69

Caribbean Man said:


> I've seen many interviews of former porn actresses who say the same thing , but most of them strike me as opportunist and blame shifting.


Could be part of it, but I also think what better way to get the word out about whats really going on, than the people who have actually been in it and through it, and if shes making money off of actually helping people get their lives back on track, then thats a positive thing. 

If they are being an opportunist, then I guess the same could be said for anyone out here trying to help others that they are getting paid to do. Doctors, Self help guru's, Counselors etc.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> I think in the US alone over 30,000 girls audition for the mainstream porn industry.
> I doubt all or even most of them are addicts.


Well I just used addicts as an example.

What about very young girls who are duped by older men?

Mentally vulnerable girls?

Girls with FOO problems?

Destitute?

How do we know that the girl we are watching in a porno film isn't in some way being coerced, duped or otherwise taken advantage of?


----------



## trey69

WyshIknew said:


> How do we know that the girl we are watching in a porno film isn't in some way being coerced, duped or otherwise taken advantage of?


I have a feeling this happens a lot in that industry.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Well I just used addicts as an example.
> 
> What about very young girls who are duped by older men?
> 
> Mentally vulnerable girls?
> 
> Girls with FOO problems?
> 
> Destitute?
> 
> How do we know that the girl we are watching in a porno film isn't in some way being coerced, duped or otherwise taken advantage of?


Good point.

But if you have a good look at the industry and read the interviews from the performers , they claim that they weren't forced. Even the ex porn actress I've listened to , none ever claimed that they were forced or that they've seen people being forced to act in films.

Kinda hard to " force " someone to act in a film that's eing professionally produced for sale to the public.

Also porn companies are required by law ,to submit the files on all of their actors , containing their ages, health condition , pay etc.
Failure to do so would result in prosecution.


----------



## trey69

Caribbean Man said:


> Good point.
> 
> But if you have a good look at the industry and read the interviews from the performers , they claim that they weren't forced. Even the ex porn actress I've listened to , none ever claimed that they were forced or that they've seen people being forced to act in films.
> 
> Kinda hard to " force " someone to act in a film that's eing professionally produced for sale to the public.
> 
> Also porn companies are required by law ,to submit the files on all of their actors , containing their ages, health condition , pay etc.
> Failure to do so would result in prosecution.


Well Linda Lovelace stated she was never forced either. Then later on she said she was forced at gun point while filming. She also stated she was paid to NOT tell the truth about what was going on, then the minute she comes clean and tells the truth, no one believes her, but thats what happens when you are paid to lie to begin with. 

Bottom line, none of us were there to know for sure if any of these people are forced. Or to really know for sure what truly goes on.


----------



## SolidSnake

WyshIknew said:


> But do we know how much is truly voluntary?
> 
> Is a female drug addict (for example) who 'does' porn or prostitution really, really volunteering?


Well, they voluntarily did drugs and became an addict. So somewhere along the causal chain of events they were responsible. One choice affects another. I don't like the remove of personal responsibility, even in adverse circumstances.

I agree that it is difficult to know if there is overt coercion going on from the outside. I just think the sex industry is sleazy and not good for people at all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SolidSnake said:


> *Well, they voluntarily did drugs and became an addict. So somewhere along the causal chain of events they were responsible. One choice affects another. I don't like the remove of personal responsibility, even in adverse circumstances.
> *


Which is what I'm trying to say in the entire " objectification" debate.
To say that " we are all to blame " is to tell me that somehow I'm responsible for Sasha Grey's lifestyle's choices.

I wake at 4.AM every morning and work sometimes till late nights when I'm dog tired, whilst she's getting paid thousands of dollars, getting her hair, makeup and nails done for free, simply because she has sex in front of the camera. 

Why must I or anybody else not even remotely connected to her take any " responsibility" for her actions?

Tyra Banks made her name in her field of choice which is also considered by some to be objectification. She became successful beyond her wildest dreams.
How come no one is congratulating me on Tyra's success , but people think that somehow I am partly responsible for Sasha's apparent " objectification?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I suppose it would be only to easy to blame the advertising world. They market this notion of the hot chick or hot guy as being the ideal person.
> There again, without the right audience their marketing would be pointless.
> 
> Are the advertising agencies merely being lazy? If they tried something else other than some guy showing his perfect peachy butt or some woman waggling her ta tas at you would they have as much success?




In your opinion, is this sexual objectification?


----------



## SolidSnake

Caribbean Man said:


> Which is what I'm trying to say in the entire " objectification" debate.
> To say that " we are all to blame " is to tell me that somehow I'm responsible for Sasha Grey's lifestyle's choices.
> 
> I wake at 4.AM every morning and work sometimes till late nights when I'm dog tired, whilst she's getting paid thousands of dollars, getting her hair, makeup and nails done for free, simply because she has sex in front of the camera.
> 
> Why must I or anybody else not even remotely connected to her take any " responsibility" for her actions?
> 
> Tyra Banks made her name in her field of choice which is also considered by some to be objectification. She became successful beyond her wildest dreams.
> How come no one is congratulating me on Tyra's success , but people think that somehow I am partly responsible for Sasha's apparent " objectification?"


I agree completely. This is the irrationality of collectivist view points that "all women are gold diggers," "all men are oppressive," "its society's fault," and so forth. These are cop-outs. They attempt to remove personal responsibility for one's choices. 

While advertising, and "society," may influence someone's thinking, the person bears the final responsibility for both their thoughts and their choices.


----------



## MSP

I don't want to get into this discussion, but I will say that I've known people in the sex industry, both in porn and prostitution. I've never known anyone who was forced into it. Some of them were happy to do it and some of them weren't. From what I've heard, the women do it for the money and the men do it for the sex. 

And that's pretty much how the world goes round.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> In your opinion, is this sexual objectification?


Depends.

Why are they using this image?

Would they be as happy to use a picture of my mum?

If they are using that picture because it represents a young, pretty, scantily clad female then I think it is a kind of sexual objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Depends.
> 
> Why are they using this image?
> 
> Would they be as happy to use a picture of my mum?
> 
> If they are using that picture because it represents a young, pretty, scantily clad female then I think it is a kind of sexual objectification.


And what if they had used a picture of some distinguished gentlemen, clad in fancy suits , sitting around a table making a toast.

Wouldn't that be a type of " objectification" also?
Because they're using the gentlemen's image to sell their product , just like the used the woman's image.
So then what makes one more acceptable than the other?

Can you see what I'm getting at?

Is it is immoral or unethical to use people's pictures or images of the human form to promote / advertise a product?

If so , what makes it immoral or unethical?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> And what if they had used a picture of some distinguished gentlemen, clad in fancy suits , sitting around a table making a toast.
> 
> Wouldn't that be a type of " objectification" also?
> Because they're using the gentlemen's image to sell their product , just like the used the woman's image.
> So then what makes one more acceptable than the other?


I don't know if I think if ones more acceptable the the other but the image of a image of a woman splay on the ground and a group of men sitting around a table in fancy suits making toasts aren't really comparable imo, one is more sexual where the other would be setting the scene of a good time.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> And what if they had used a picture of some distinguished gentlemen, clad in fancy suits , sitting around a table making a toast.
> 
> Wouldn't that be a type of " objectification" also?
> Because they're using the gentlemen's image to sell their product , just like the used the woman's image.
> So then what makes one more acceptable than the other?
> 
> Can you see what I'm getting at?
> 
> Is it is immoral or unethical to use people's pictures or images of the human form to promote / advertise a product?
> 
> If so , what makes it immoral or unethical?


I sometimes find it hard to adequately put my thoughts into words. But here goes.

I think it depends on intent.

If they are using a picture of smartly dressed businessmen to show that they are business friendly, geared up for business lunches etc. then I don't see a problem.

Substitute that for a guy or guys with jeans halfway down their arse, flashing their photoshopped chest or a young scantily clad female flashing her hooters similarly photoshopped then that is objectification.

It (for me) is the _intent_ in using the image.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I sometimes find it hard to adequately put my thoughts into words. But here goes.
> 
> I think it depends on intent.
> 
> If they are using a picture of smartly dressed businessmen to show that they are business friendly, geared up for business lunches etc. then I don't see a problem.
> 
> Substitute that for a guy or guys with jeans halfway down their arse, flashing their photoshopped chest or a young scantily clad female flashing her hooters similarly photoshopped then that is objectification.
> 
> It (for me) is the _intent_ in using the image.


Both images are used to portray something, that's for sure.

The woman's image to portray sensuality, 
The men's image to portray maybe success.

But the question I'm asking is what makes it more right or morally acceptable to use one over the other?

Unless of course we are saying that the image of the woman makes women look like sex objects.Then that's up to interpretation. 
But what really is a " sex object " and how do we portray someone as a " sex object?"
To me a " sex object" is something inanimate.
If a woman is a living being comprising body , mind, spirit,and sexuality, how does one " separate " her sexuality and turn it into an inanimate object , albeit with her consent?
And is it " sexual objectification" is she enthusiastically agrees ?
What about focusing on one part of a woman's identity makes it 
" degrading?"

Ok,
Lets switch things around a little.

Here is a bottle of Caribonel Extra Virgin Olive Oil. I know that you might be familiar with the brand, it's a Spanish brand.



Olive oil is made from cold pressed olive. But olives are expensive and most olive oils are mixed with other base oils before it reaches the consumer. So what you actually get is a blend of cheaper oils and olive oil.
The term " extra virgin" olive oil is used to represent the purity of the olive oil.Real , pure olive has a pungent, sweet heavy, aroma, and when tested between the fingers is thick and heavy.

Hence the pic of the girl sitting on the wall is supposed to represent that of a virgin girl , the symbol of purity in a man's world.
She was placed on the label for her sexuality.
Nothing else.

Could we also say that it is immoral because of it's intent?

There's nothing really " sexy" about olive oil!

But even if there was , isn't sex an integral part of our lives?
So what would make it to wrong to depict a woman in that manner?


----------



## WyshIknew

That question is a bit of a minefield. Thanks!


Again it is down to intent. If as you say she is on the bottle to represent purity, virginity then I personally don't see that as overly objectifying her. There is no real intent to sexualise her unlike the previous picture where the girl is laid back wine bottle and glass in hand basically saying "come and get me big boy"

However I can see and understand where others may feel differently.

Not familiar with that brand, for general cooking use I use Filippo Berio olive oil.

But for salads etc we are very lucky as our friends in Greece have their own olive grove and they always bring some over for us.
It's quite weird, you get this top notch first pressing delivered in reused fizzy drink bottles.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Caribbean Man said:


> Have a look at the second video.
> That one is the bombshell.
> There was a doctor on set, who had viewed here scenes, and he told he straight up that if she continued doing those scenes , like rough sex, double penetration with well endowed men , gangbangs and so forth , before she hit 30, she would be wearing diapers...
> 
> 
> And her reaction was that she wasn't too concerned.:scratchhead:


Wiki says that doctor is wrong or at least exaggerating. Anal sex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Caribbean Man

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> Wiki says that doctor is wrong or at least exaggerating. Anal sex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you look at the first vid , you would understand exactly what the doctor was saying.
It wasn't just normal anal sex, but insertions etc, of large objects.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> *That question is a bit of a minefield. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Again it is down to intent. If as you say she is on the bottle to represent purity, virginity then I personally don't see that as overly objectifying her. There is no real intent to sexualise her unlike the previous picture where the girl is laid back wine bottle and glass in hand basically saying "come and get me big boy"
> 
> However I can see and understand where others may feel differently.*
> 
> Not familiar with that brand, for general cooking use I use Filippo Berio olive oil.
> 
> But for salads etc we are very lucky as our friends in Greece have their own olive grove and they always bring some over for us.
> It's quite weird, you get this top notch first pressing delivered in reused fizzy drink bottles.


I think my confusion lies in what actually constitutes sexual objectification of anybody.


In the case of the sexual objectification of women,

Some say that a young man _looking _at photographs of naked women and masturbating is sexual objectification of women.

Some say that a man looking at a strange woman's tits , or hips or butt , and _thinking_ of her in a sexual way is sexual objectification.

Some say that hosting a beauty pageant and judging women on their physical beauty is sexual objectification.

Some say using women to promote or advertise commercial products is sexual objectification.

My guess is that all of this sounds a bit Orwellian to me. People are being persecuted for what they think, or what other people think they are thinking.
Kinda like Orwell's 1984 " thoughtcrimes."

What I see is , someone or a group of people attempting to put _their_ particular set of values , surreptitiously on the rest of society. 
I wonder why is there this pressing need to control what people think, when there are already so many forces exerting control of people.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Caribbean Man said:


> If you look at the first vid , you would understand exactly what the doctor was saying.
> It wasn't just normal anal sex, but insertions etc, of large objects.


The Wiki site also quotes a doctor saying he has never seen this issue. We have no idea what was going up each patient's ass. I'm not disagreeing with your original post, I just thought this point needed clarification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> The Wiki site also quotes a doctor saying he has never seen this issue. We have no idea what was going up each patient's ass. I'm not disagreeing with your original post, I just thought this point needed clarification.


Fair enough.

Sasha Grey also stated in that vid, that she likes being hit and punched in the stomach during sex.
She likes serious S&M , it turns her on, and her viewers like to see it.


----------



## CallaLily

Caribbean Man said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Sasha Grey also stated in that vid, that she likes being hit and punched in the stomach during sex.
> She likes serious S&M , it turns her on, and her viewers like to see it.


I understand some liking it rough, but don't know of anyone who likes being hit in the stomach. Perhaps this is how she was treated growing up so its all she knows as normal. Who knows for sure. But give it awhile, and I bet at some point she will be giving another interview on how she really didn't like it but they paid her more money to say she did.


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> I think in the US alone over 30,000 girls audition for the mainstream porn industry.
> I doubt all or even most of them are addicts.


I'm sure a good percentage of them were aspiring models wanting to be viewed for thier physical image and got steered over to porn and/or prostitution.


----------



## Caribbean Man

CallaLily said:


> I understand some liking it rough, but don't know of anyone who likes being hit in the stomach. Perhaps this is how she was treated growing up so its all she knows as normal. Who knows for sure. But give it awhile, and I bet at some point she will be giving another interview on how she really didn't like it but they paid her more money to say she did.


I think in another clip, she was asked if she was abused while she was young and she said no.

But I think she also stressed that the stuff she does on set is what sets her apart from other teenage pornstars. She said she talks a lot during sex, and does it very rough. That has created a niche for her and made her into a star in the industry.
She gets well paid for it because her fans likes it.
So to me, it's like she "likes" it because they like it. A sort of feedback loop.
But i don't think she really " likes" it.
She likes the glamour and the money and thinks it's a fair exchange and sees no shame.
She says emphatically that she feels it's " sex positive."

But i agree with you.
She's way to young to fully understand, and the money is clouding her capacity to think clearly.

It might be interesting to see where she ends up in three years.
Would she go on to own her business ?
Or would she crash and burn.

Definitely a case of " self objectification " in my opinion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

treyvion said:


> I'm sure a good percentage of them were aspiring models wanting to be viewed for thier physical image and got steered over to porn and/or prostitution.


The entire modelling / beauty industry is full of sharks waiting looking for fresh, young meat.

but what are your views on sexual objectification?


----------



## always_alone

The stated preferences of individuals doesn't preclude or invalidate sociological analysis.

Many slaves, for example, reported being happier and wealthier as slaves than as free persons. Does this mean we shouldn't ever question the institution of slavery? After all, if they didn't like it they could always run away.

I do not think it an impingement on Sasha's liberty and self-determination to question what would lead an 18 year old girl to love sexual abuse and her role as porn star.

I mean, what would you say if she were your daughter? "That's nice, dear, as long as you're happy"?

The libertarian slant is always that sociological analysis is "blaming society", but I don't think observing and analyzing the conditions that lead to certain phenomena is casting blame.

It is seeking to understand, and challenge social institutions for the betterment of all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The stated preferences of individuals doesn't preclude or invalidate sociological analysis.
> 
> Many slaves, for example, reported being happier and wealthier as slaves than as free persons. Does this mean we shouldn't ever question the institution of slavery? After all, if they didn't like it they could always run away.
> 
> I do not think it an impingement on Sasha's liberty and self-determination to question what would lead an 18 year old girl to love sexual abuse and her role as porn star.
> 
> I mean, what would you say if she were your daughter? "That's nice, dear, as long as you're happy"?
> 
> The libertarian slant is always that sociological analysis is "blaming society", but I don't think observing and analyzing the conditions that lead to certain phenomena is casting blame.
> 
> It is seeking to understand, and challenge social institutions for the betterment of all.


And that's my point exactly.

Nobody's saying that a particular preference shouldn't be investigated.
In fact that's what this thread is about, investigating and questioning social norms and constructs.

I don't think it's an " impingement on Sasha's liberty" to question her lifestyle choices, but I consider it as an impingement on my liberty and an insult on my intelligence when people try to tell me that I am somehow collectively responsible with the rest of society for her choices.
I think it is just as absurd as saying that I must like and follow X or Y because it is the politically correct thing to do.

But such is the madness of collectivism.

Why do you assume your challenge of social institutions is for the betterment of all?
What makes your construct better than the exiting one , and why should the rest of society agree with yours?

That is the purpose of this thread,
To arrive at a sociological analysis. , by encouraging people to think independently.

Like you , I am questioning why.
But I can't honestly allow myself the luxury of thinking that my questioning is automatically for the " betterment of all."

The mass graves of history are littered with the remains of the tens of millions victims of leaders who thought that their intentions were
_ " for the betterment of all."_


----------



## CallaLily

Caribbean Man said:


> but I consider it as an impingement on my liberty and an insult on my intelligence when people try to tell me that I am somehow collectively responsible with the rest of society for her choices.
> 
> 
> [/I]


I wonder if people mean, that people who watch porn (which is their choice) is contributing to these people in porn being objectified? As in, yes its her choice to be in the porn industry but it takes people watching and supporting what other people are doing in that industry to keep it up running. Other than that, I have no clue.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Sasha Grey also stated in that vid, that she likes being hit and punched in the stomach during sex.
> She likes serious S&M , it turns her on, and her viewers like to see it.


And there are plenty of people in this world who have similar proclivities but aren't on film or paid for it.

But there's porn of guys getting "trampled" or whatever the term for it is. There's porn for just about everything. I'm sure some people are coerced while, for others it fills a sexual need/desire, which included exhibitionism. 

Porn, as an industry, is probably one of the hardest industries to say what's right and wrong. There's the obvious issues such as children, animals or truly forced participation. Aside from that, who has the right to say what's right and wrong. I have my limits, but they aren't going to be the same as someone else. The only way to "control" it would be to ban it completely, but we all know that it would still be out there, just underground.

This is such a difficult topic. As we saw in another thread recently about objectification, there are many many opinions about what it means and how different and passionate the views on it are.

Do I think Sasha Grey is completely in her rights. Definitely. Do I think she poses a problem for feminism...WITHOUT A DOUBT, because a feminist should be an advocate for Sasha Grey to have the rights to do what she wants, BUT also HATE what she does. The number one thing that sticks out to me though is I, personally, don't think Sasha Grey's psyche could be healthy, but that's my personal opinion. I could be wrong.

In 20 years, psychologists might find that she's more normal than I am, but who knows.


----------



## Deejo

I expect that most folks won't watch the whole thing, but they should ...

It gets broken down pretty simply, by a woman, who no doubt will be objectified as a gender traitor. 

I'm a sexy woman, so stop objectifying me! - YouTube


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> It gets broken down pretty simply, by a woman, who no doubt will be objectified as a gender traitor.


Simplistically, I'd say.

After all, two wrongs don't make a right, and even if they did, the issues are about much, much more than hypocrisy and personal attraction.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> I think my confusion lies in what actually constitutes sexual objectification of anybody.
> 
> 
> In the case of the sexual objectification of women,
> 
> Some say that a young man _looking _at photographs of naked women and masturbating is sexual objectification of women.
> 
> Some say that a man looking at a strange woman's tits , or hips or butt , and _thinking_ of her in a sexual way is sexual objectification.
> 
> Some say that hosting a beauty pageant and judging women on their physical beauty is sexual objectification.
> 
> Some say using women to promote or advertise commercial products is sexual objectification.
> 
> My guess is that all of this sounds a bit Orwellian to me. People are being persecuted for what they think, or what other people think they are thinking.
> Kinda like Orwell's 1984 " thoughtcrimes."
> 
> What I see is , someone or a group of people attempting to put _their_ particular set of values , surreptitiously on the rest of society.
> I wonder why is there this pressing need to control what people think, when there are already so many forces exerting control of people.


My definition of sexual objectification, it's probably wrong in other peoples eyes but *shrugs*.

I am an animal and subject to natural desires and passions. I am also a rational man who can control those animal urges.

I can be walking down the street, see a woman and think "wow, nice norks." or "wow I can see her knickers through that slightly see through dress."
But I am also rational enough that I know that that is not all she is. I know she is more than a nice pair of breasts, a cute butt, whatever.

I think sexual objectification occurs when you do not view someone as the sum of all their parts. When you view them as merely a de personalised focus for your enjoyment.

It is (in my opinion) this de personalisation that leads to exploitation and sexual violence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

:rofl:

"norks"


----------



## SolidSnake

always_alone said:


> The stated preferences of individuals doesn't preclude or invalidate sociological analysis.
> 
> The libertarian slant is always that sociological analysis is "blaming society", but I don't think observing and analyzing the conditions that lead to certain phenomena is casting blame.
> 
> It is seeking to understand, and challenge social institutions for the betterment of all.


Maybe "blame" isn't the right word here, "responsibility," is. When we analyze things from a sociological perspective, I feel like there is no clear sense of moral agency, or what the individual solution should be. Am i responsible for the state of society? Are you? Its not clear. I can only change my own actions regarding objectification, not control society as a whole. Defining a social construct doesn't change anything per se. 

I don't read that much sociological literature, so if you can explain this to me I may change my mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> And there are plenty of people in this world who have similar proclivities but aren't on film or paid for it.
> 
> But there's porn of guys getting "trampled" or whatever the term for it is. There's porn for just about everything. I'm sure some people are coerced while, for others it fills a sexual need/desire, which included exhibitionism.
> 
> *Porn, as an industry, is probably one of the hardest industries to say what's right and wrong. There's the obvious issues such as children, animals or truly forced participation. Aside from that, who has the right to say what's right and wrong. I have my limits, but they aren't going to be the same as someone else. The only way to "control" it would be to ban it completely, but we all know that it would still be out there, just underground.
> 
> This is such a difficult topic. As we saw in another thread recently about objectification, there are many many opinions about what it means and how different and passionate the views on it are.*
> 
> Do I think Sasha Grey is completely in her rights. Definitely. Do I think she poses a problem for feminism...WITHOUT A DOUBT, because a feminist should be an advocate for Sasha Grey to have the rights to do what she wants, BUT also HATE what she does. The number one thing that sticks out to me though is I, personally, don't think Sasha Grey's psyche could be healthy, but that's my personal opinion. I could be wrong.
> 
> In 20 years, psychologists might find that she's more normal than I am, but who knows.


Yes, yes , yes and again , YES!

Those are exactly my thoughts, and that's why I used Sasha Grey and porn as an example of the sexual objectification issue.

This is a very complex issue that affects everyone's life and rights , and I find it disturbing that people could approach and view it in such a simplistic , monochromatic manner.

For example, is the fact that the male form is now being highly commercialized and sexualized, evidence of the evils of sexual objectification , or is an indication of a closing of the historical financial gap that created the power differential between the genders and a shifting from the gender based hegemony of yesteryear towards a more evenly distribution of financial power between the sexes?

The fact is , sex sells , and money is power.
Market forces drive advertising , commercialization of the male form is meant to primarily target the _female_ consumer.

There are rows and rows of permutations and combinations that could be applied to explain the phenomenon.

And really, is the commercialization of the sexual aspect of the human form in art or anything else necessarily an indication of sexual objectification?
Or can it be a celebration of the sexual aspect of the human form , at least in some instances?
And if it is objectification , who's objectifying who , and to what end, if it is devoid of any manipulative or coercive tactics?

Is sexual harassment the same as sexual objectification?
Is sexual discrimination the same as sexual objectification?
Is lusting after a stranger the same as sexual objectification?
Or is it that any of these behavior can lead to sexual objectification , which in reality is a type of "camel nose" fallacy, or an illogical approach to the issue.

I agree everybody feels strongly about the issue, but strong feelings are not an indicator of the rightness or wrongness of any issue.

Maybe we need to first clearly define exactly what is sexual objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> My definition of sexual objectification, it's probably wrong in other peoples eyes but *shrugs*.
> 
> I am an animal and subject to natural desires and passions. I am also a rational man who can control those animal urges.
> 
> I can be walking down the street, see a woman and think "wow, nice norks." or "wow I can see her knickers through that slightly see through dress."
> But I am also rational enough that I know that that is not all she is. *I know she is more than a nice pair of breasts, a cute butt, whatever.
> 
> I think sexual objectification occurs when you do not view someone as the sum of all their parts. When you view them as merely a de personalised focus for your enjoyment.*
> It is (in my opinion) this de personalisation that leads to exploitation and sexual violence.



And what if she actually wore that dress to display her sexuality?
Suppose she wore because it makes_ her _feel sexy?
Isn't she well within her rights to do so?
And if it is,
Isn't her sexuality also a part of her?
If so , how do you separate her sexuality from her if all you know of her is what she portrays?
Fact is her sexuality is an integral part of her, and she can , and should be able to use it as she see fit, without infringing upon anybody's rights.
In the same way ,your sexuality is different from hers, and you should be able to do the same without infringing upon her rights as a human being.

The same rule applies to people who freely choose to do porn for money.

Exactly how does your private thoughts of that woman affect her?


I've never seen Jason Stratham in real life, all I know of him is his acting skills.
I like him specifically for his action movies and his talents.
Am I objectifying him?
I don't really care if Stratham gives money to poor kids in Africa or what his position is on gender issues. That is not my business , unless I make it my business. And even if I don't make it my business , how does it affect Jason Stratham?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> And what if she actually wore that dress to display her sexuality?
> Suppose she wore because it makes_ her _feel sexy?
> Isn't she well within her rights to do so?
> And if it is,
> Isn't her sexuality also a part of her?
> If so , how do you separate her sexuality from her if all you know of her is what she portrays?
> Fact is her sexuality is an integral part of her, and she can , and should be able to use it as she see fit, without infringing upon anybody's rights.
> In the same way ,your sexuality is different from hers, and you should be able to do the same without infringing upon her rights as a human being.
> 
> The same rule applies to people who freely choose to do porn for money.
> 
> Exactly how does your private thoughts of that woman affect her?
> 
> 
> I've never seen Jason Stratham in real life, all I know of him is his acting skills.
> I like him specifically for his action movies and his talents.
> Am I objectifying him?
> I don't really care if Stratham gives money to poor kids in Africa or what his position is on gender issues. That is not my business , unless I make it my business. And even if I don't make it my business , how does it affect Jason Stratham?


By talking to her?


The operative word here is _part_, not the whole.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> The operative word here is _part_, not the whole.


Yes.

But how do you separate a person's sexuality from them, especially a stranger?

Suppose she's a lesbian , and you're thinking of her in a sexual way, then that would be an inaccurate depiction of her sexuality.

Hoe does that affect her?

Do you see what I'm getting at?

You can't forcefully separate any part of a person ,sexuality or otherwise from them ,the same way you can't forcefully take away a person's religious , political or ideological beliefs.
Their sexuality is a intangible part of them they willing give to you.
The physical act of sex could be an indicator of your sexuality, but your sexuality is an intangible like your emotions.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes.
> 
> But how do you separate a person's sexuality from them, especially a stranger?
> 
> I wouldn't want to. Their sexuality is their own. I know that if they are a normal human being their overt sexuality is only part of them. Just as a quiet introverted little mouse's demeanour is only part of them.
> 
> Suppose she's a lesbian , and you're thinking of her in a sexual way, then that would be an inaccurate depiction of her sexuality.
> 
> No, I don't think so. Her depiction is her own. My perception of her is my own. And regardless of her sexual tastes my animal side will note "nice hair, lovely eyes" or whatever physical feature I happen to notice.
> 
> Hoe does that affect her?
> 
> Well if she is happy and confident within herself my fleeting notice of some physical feature of hers shouldn't bother her at all.
> However, if I suddenly shouted out "Phwooar, get your baps out for the lads darlin'" I would expect she would be angry, and justifiably so.
> 
> Do you see what I'm getting at?
> 
> I think so, but you yourself keep using the word 'part' so you obviously realise that someone's outward appearance is only _part_ of what they are.
> 
> You can't forcefully separate any part of a person ,sexuality or otherwise from them ,the same way you can't forcefully take away a person's religious , political or ideological beliefs.
> Their sexuality is a intangible part of them they willing give to you.
> The physical act of sex could be an indicator of your sexuality, but your sexuality is an intangible like your emotions.


----------



## Catherine602

I don't get it. What has the sad life of this young woman got to do with objectification and society? Banks is devoid of talent vision or decency. No reason we, as a society, need to follow that pied piper. Exposing this girl's illness to voyuers is like trotting out an uncontrolled alchoholic for her audience to sniff and laugh at disapprovingly. I did not watch, I don't think I could stand to see her pain. 

This is a dispassionate display of human misery. "Of Human Bondage" would be a better title. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> _Well if she is happy and confident within herself my fleeting notice of some physical feature of hers shouldn't bother her at all.
> However, *if I suddenly shouted out "Phwooar, get your baps out for the lads darlin'"* I would expect she would be angry, and justifiably so._


Okay...

Right there is where things begin to get a little clearer!

If she's happy and confident in herself, then a glance or look from a total stranger shouldn't bother her. Even if she is bothered, and she is well within her rights to be , then she has options , the foremost being to completely ignore your stare , an carry on with her life, the least being , to feel 
" objectified." Ultimately however she feel is her choice.

If however , along with your stare , you decide to call out to her or approach her and make comments that are unwelcome to her and that she doesn't approve of , then it is a threat to her safety and can be considered as sexual harassment . She does have the option of taking appropriate action, be it legal or otherwise.

However , if no approach is made and if you kept your thoughts to yourself , then those are _your _thoughts and have absolutely no bearing on _her_.

Think for a minute.

If a husband gets angry with his wife because she has a fleeting sexual thought of a random stranger on the street ,or a guy on a billboard advert or in television commercial with a body she deems desirable.

How would you describe him?
As controlling and insecure.

Why?
Because he's trying to control the very thoughts of his wife.
And a person is supposed to at least have control over the privacy , and ownership of their own thoughts.

Am I correct?

Disgracing and shaming her into thinking that she is only allowed to think of him in a sexual manner is the hallmark of a control freak.
It becomes worse , if such a man is not even married to that woman nor in a relationship with her. 
Telling her that she shouldn't think of a man in a sexual way unless , she first gets to know him, and has permission from him to do so, IMO, is reminiscent of the tactics used by religious zealots and fanatics to control ,instill fear and shame in their followers.

How can that be right?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I expect that most folks won't watch the whole thing, but they should ...
> 
> It gets broken down pretty simply, by a woman, who no doubt will be objectified as a gender traitor.
> 
> I'm a sexy woman, so stop objectifying me! - YouTube


I remember looking at that vid sometime last year.
I can't remember if someone posted in here on TAM , or if I got it in my email.

But she's correct.
There's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty floating around the internet on this issue , being posted by people with very not so dubious agendas.
I completely agree with her statement:

_" These people live on a planet where they either don't know or pretend not to understand how sex works..."_

I find it fascinating that some people could understand Gorillas ,Chimpanzees and Bonobos sexuality , connect them to ours , but still be in denial as to how half of the planet's sexuality work.

The very thought of one thinking themselves to be sexually appealing to another person whether they are of the same sex or different sex can be considered as an act of self objectification , given the broad scope of the term.
What really is the difference between you thinking of yourself as sexy and another person thinking of you as sexy?

Was your physical body only meant only to arouse you or was it meant to arouse others ?
So how under heavens do you expect it to arouse a man you might be interested in if he refused to see you as a sexual being?

The reality is that the first thing we see of people we're attracted to is their physical beauty. Instead of having to go through the tedious process of getting to know hundreds of persons on an intellectual basis before we could approve whether or not we're sexually attracted to their body type, our cognitive functions , does the pre - selection, works out what type we're attracted to, sometimes almost automatically , when we view a strange person.

Interestingly enough ,it works both ways. While we are looking, our bodies are giving off signals.

That is how sex works.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Okay...
> 
> Right there is where things begin to get a little clearer!
> 
> If she's happy and confident in herself, then a glance or look from a total stranger shouldn't bother her. Even if she is bothered, and she is well within her rights to be , then she has options , the foremost being to completely ignore your stare , an carry on with her life, the least being , to feel
> " objectified." Ultimately however she feel is her choice.
> 
> If however , along with your stare , you decide to call out to her or approach her and make comments that are unwelcome to her and that she doesn't approve of , then it is a threat to her safety and can be considered as sexual harassment . She does have the option of taking appropriate action, be it legal or otherwise.
> 
> However , if no approach is made and if you kept your thoughts to yourself , then those are _your _thoughts and have absolutely no bearing on _her_.
> 
> Think for a minute.
> 
> If a husband gets angry with his wife because she has a fleeting sexual thought of a random stranger on the street ,or a guy on a billboard advert or in television commercial with a body she deems desirable.
> 
> How would you describe him?
> As controlling and insecure.
> 
> Why?
> Because he's trying to control the very thoughts of his wife.
> And a person is supposed to at least have control over the privacy , and ownership of their own thoughts.
> 
> Am I correct?
> 
> Disgracing and shaming her into thinking that she is only allowed to think of him in a sexual manner is the hallmark of a control freak.
> It becomes worse , if such a man is not even married to that woman nor in a relationship with her.
> Telling her that she shouldn't think of a man in a sexual way unless , she first gets to know him, and has permission from him to do so, IMO, is reminiscent of the tactics used by religious zealots and fanatics to control ,instill fear and shame in their followers.
> 
> How can that be right?


You are absolutely correct.

But do you want to debate sexual objectification or bullying control freaks?


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> But do you want to debate sexual objectification or bullying control freaks?


I concede.
I get your point!

So have you looked at the vid Dejoo posted?
I think the girl in the vid did an excellent explanation on what objectification is, and why the term sexual objectification could e an oxymoron.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> I concede.
> I get your point!
> 
> So have you looked at the vid Dejoo posted?
> I think the girl in the vid did an excellent explanation on what objectification is, and why the term sexual objectification could e an oxymoron.


No, going to in a minute. I've been at work and wasn't sure if it was NSFW.


----------



## always_alone

SolidSnake said:


> Maybe "blame" isn't the right word here, "responsibility," is. When we analyze things from a sociological perspective, I feel like there is no clear sense of moral agency, or what the individual solution should be. Am i responsible for the state of society? Are you? Its not clear. I can only change my own actions regarding objectification, not control society as a whole. Defining a social construct doesn't change anything per se.


Knowledge is power. It's true that you can only change your own actions, but through them, you can also change society.

This is sometimes a good thing. Indeed, it often is as those in power have a nasty habit of taking advantage of those who aren't.

And, yes,I do think we are responsible for the state of society. If you are availing yourself of the benefits of exploitation of others, then you are contributing to the problem. Maybe not a lot, but contributing nonetheless.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> If she's happy and confident in herself, then a glance or look from a total stranger shouldn't bother her. Even if she is bothered, and she is well within her rights to be , then she has options , the foremost being to completely ignore your stare , an carry on with her life, the least being , to feel
> " objectified." Ultimately however she feel is her choice.


As long as your analysis remains at the level of "feeling", private thoughts, and personal attraction, you will never understand what objectification is about.

It has nothing to do with playing thought police or mandating who someone should or should not be attracted to. It has to do with the way people are treated and how it impacts their lives in very real and concrete ways.


----------



## SolidSnake

always_alone said:


> Knowledge is power. It's true that you can only change your own actions, but through them, you can also change society.
> 
> This is sometimes a good thing. Indeed, it often is as those in power have a nasty habit of taking advantage of those who aren't.
> 
> And, yes,I do think we are responsible for the state of society. If you are availing yourself of the benefits of exploitation of others, then you are contributing to the problem. Maybe not a lot, but contributing nonetheless.


Ok so we don't actually disagree.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> As long as your analysis remains at the level of "feeling", private thoughts, and personal attraction, you will never understand what objectification is about.
> 
> It has nothing to do with playing thought police or mandating who someone should or should not be attracted to. It has to do with the way people are treated and how it impacts their lives in very real and concrete ways.


Ok.

Let's no use my analysis of " feelings" or private thoughts ,because according to you , my analysis is wrong.
So let's use the person who coined the term sexual objection , analysis.
Here goes ;

In social philosophy, objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.
According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:
*_as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
*as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
*as if owned by another (ownership);
*as if interchangeable (fungibility);
*as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
*as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity)._

So exactly how does a mans sexual thoughts of a random , stranger on the street , 

_1) Make her into an instrument ?
2) Deny her of agency in society / take away her power of self determination?
3) Physically own her?
4) Give her physical being fungibility ?
5) Threaten her with physical violence
6) Deny her of subjectivity . Ie: deny her of feelings , perspectives , desires ,beliefs , expectations or cultural influence that are unique to her ?_


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> If she's happy and confident in herself, then a glance or look from a total stranger shouldn't bother her. Even if she is bothered, and she is well within her rights to be , then she has options , the foremost being to completely ignore your stare , an carry on with her life, the least being , to feel " objectified." Ultimately however she feel is her choice.
> 
> If however , along with your stare , you decide to call out to her or approach her and make comments that are unwelcome to her and that she doesn't approve of , then it is a threat to her safety and can be considered as sexual harassment . She does have the option of taking appropriate action, be it legal or otherwise.


I'm afraid objectification isn't as simple as that, CM, and there is a difference between objectification and attraction. 


*Objectification* = is a complete disregard for a person's _humanity_ and a refusal to see past _what that person has to offer sexually._ It generates assumptions galore, and has the potential to hold that person back.

*Attraction* = is simply that chemical rush we feel when we are attracted so someone, but our attraction to them is hardly likely to create assumptions or cause that person be held back. 

I don't know if this will make much sense, but I'll give you a personal account of the effects of objectification on a young, 'uncooked' woman... 

As a young teen in the '60s, I remember becoming increasingly aware of bare boobs. They were everywhere! Sometimes the nipples were censored out, but the message was clear... Boobs were used to sell certain Sunday newspapers, and just about every comedy around that time seemed to involve some woman or other being ogled (nudge, nudge, wink, wink style) because of her big, sexy boobies, and they were being increasingly used to sell a multitude of products in the media.

By the time I was in my late teens I was rather well endowed, and I was becoming very aware of the looks I was getting from the opposite sex, and _it didn't feel good_... It made me feel like a walking set of boobs - that had been created solely for the purpose of being looked at and (even worse) actually _talked _to unless I kept them well covered. 

The upshot of all this was by the time I became a mother, even *I *saw my breasts as sex objects and the idea of breast feeding my child would have felt like committing incest. Very sad indeed....

Attraction feels good. We all like to feel attractive, but objectification doesn't feel good because it tends to reduce our over all value to mere body parts whose sole purpose is for the sexual gratification of others.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I'm afraid objectification isn't as simple as that, CM, and there is a difference between objectification and attraction.
> 
> 
> *Objectification* = is a complete disregard for a person's _humanity_ and a refusal to see past _what that person has to offer sexually._ It generates assumptions galore, and has the potential to hold that person back.
> 
> *Attraction* = is simply that chemical rush we feel when we are attracted so someone, but our attraction to them is hardly likely to create assumptions or cause that person be held back.
> 
> I don't know if this will make much sense, but I'll give you a personal account of the effects of objectification on a young, 'uncooked' woman...
> 
> As a young teen in the '60s, I remember becoming increasingly aware of bare boobs. They were everywhere! Sometimes the nipples were censored out, but the message was clear... Boobs were used to sell certain Sunday newspapers, and just about every comedy around that time seemed to involve some woman or other being ogled (nudge, nudge, wink, wink style) because of her big, sexy boobies, and they were being increasingly used to sell a multitude of products in the media.
> 
> By the time I was in my late teens I was rather well endowed, and I was becoming very aware of the looks I was getting from the opposite sex, and _it didn't feel good_... It made me feel like a walking set of boobs - that had been created solely for the purpose of being looked at and (even worse) actually _talked _to unless I kept them well covered.
> 
> The upshot of all this was by the time I became a mother, even *I *saw my breasts as sex objects and the idea of breast feeding my child would have felt like committing incest. Very sad indeed....
> 
> Attraction feels good. We all like to feel attractive, but objectification doesn't feel good because it tends to reduce our over all value to mere body parts whose sole purpose is for the sexual gratification of others.


This is why I believe quite a lot of this has to do with constructivism.

Take for instance , a couple years ago, I remember reading an online debate about whether women in the USA should breastfeed their babies in public.
I was shocked, because that's pretty much the norm down here .
Also , in the past, I have visited rural places in the Caribbean and South America , where women bathe in the river , topless.
I was never brought up to think breasts were sexual organs until when I was 15 , a girl took my hands and placed it on her breasts while she kissed me.

You've lived in Africa for sometime and I'm sure you would agree that in many indigenous cultures, breasts are worn outside and not sexualized to the extent it is in some European and N. American societies.

So a woman's breasts is sexualized , because it ha been portrayed as sexual. But men don't have breasts.
Te fact that women' breast are sexualized has everything to do with the fact that many women portray them as sexual.
As you stated, you grew seeing pictures of breasts in the Sunday papers.

Would you say that the women who portrayed their breasts as sexual for male consumption were doing other women who didn't want theirs to be viewed as such , a disservice?
Was it immoral or wrong for them to do so?
Is the fact that breast are now viewed as sexual a good or a bad thing overall?

Ultimately , I think the question is , are most women offended if a man looks at their breasts , or are they offended if a man they don't want to look at their breasts , does so?

Surely, a woman who poses for a topless shot , fully knowing that it would end up in the Sunday newspaper ,isn't thinking of portraying her humanity.
Similarly,does a woman really care that much about what some random stranger in the train ,the bus or in the street care about her humanity?
Does she really care about his humanity when she sees him looking clean shaven and smelling good in his custom tailored business suits , and thinks to herself how sexy he looks and how yummy he smells?

So then, what makes her objectifying the good looking businessman in the custom tailored suit more socially acceptable than a random stranger objectifying her breasts?

I don't know.

I think that objectification has to have a much deeper , more concise definition than that, else we would have to agree that women objectify men in the same amount as men objectify women. Only difference being , how this objectification takes place.
The net effect would be the same.

A person's thoughts of a casual stranger can't in real terms alter anything in that stranger's life, unless there is a direct interferance on some level.

As harsh as it might sound, my philosophy is;

Man looking at a woman's breast => His thoughts, his " problem."

Woman worried that men are thinking of her breasts in whatever way => Her thoughts, her problem.

If not for the marvels of modern science and contraception.
If not for the legal construct that gives women full autonomy over their physical bodies,and the threat of incarceration for any man who *she feels* violates that autonomy,
Then random man glancing at woman breast and forming a mental imagery would have constituted a serious threat to her agency and subjectivity.

But , women already have those two, and much more protection under the law and the present social construct.

So realistically, what more is needed?


----------



## Cosmos

CM, you raise some good points and I will give them some thought before replying.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> 
> So exactly how does a mans sexual thoughts of a random , stranger on the street ,
> 
> _1) Make her into an instrument ?
> 2) Deny her of agency in society / take away her power of self determination?
> 3) Physically own her?
> 4) Give her physical being fungibility ?
> 5) Threaten her with physical violence
> 6) Deny her of subjectivity . Ie: deny her of feelings , perspectives , desires ,beliefs , expectations or cultural influence that are unique to her ?_


And here again, all you wish to consider is the private thoughts of a random stranger. Until you are willing to consider how women are *treated* in this world, you will fail to understand the consequences of objectification.

Women are deprived of their autonomy and put under a threat of physical violence *every day*. Women have much less freedom about where they can go, what they can do, who they can talk to, than men do. Go to one of the rape threads and see how everyone reminds women that *it's up to them* to keep themselves safe, and how they *should never* take risks like going out alone at night, being alone with a guy they don't know, travel alone, etc, etc, etc. Women are much more restricted than men are, even in the freest and most egalitarian countries.

Women are also used as instruments on a daily basis, literally every where you go and everywhere you turn. You can't walk down the street, go on the internet, watch TV or read a magazine without seeing a dozen or more women that are solely there for ornamentation. Yes, it's there because sex sells. But that's what it means to be an instrument. A few titties will increase ratings, sell more products, etc. so hire a few. Titties are the means, and I can assure you, the end has nothing to do with the woman attached to them, or her feelings, beliefs, perspectives, or dreams.


----------



## techmom

always_alone said:


> And here again, all you wish to consider is the private thoughts of a random stranger. Until you are willing to consider how women are *treated* in this world, you will fail to understand the consequences of objectification.
> 
> Women are deprived of their autonomy and put under a threat of physical violence *every day*. Women have much less freedom about where they can go, what they can do, who they can talk to, than men do. Go to one of the rape threads and see how everyone reminds women that *it's up to them* to keep themselves safe, and how they *should never* take risks like going out alone at night, being alone with a guy they don't know, travel alone, etc, etc, etc. Women are much more restricted than men are, even in the freest and most egalitarian countries.
> 
> Women are also used as instruments on a daily basis, literally every where you go and everywhere you turn. You can't walk down the street, go on the internet, watch TV or read a magazine without seeing a dozen or more women that are solely there for ornamentation. Yes, it's there because sex sells. But that's what it means to be an instrument. A few titties will increase ratings, sell more products, etc. so hire a few. Titties are the means, and I can assure you, the end has nothing to do with the woman attached to them, or her feelings, beliefs, perspectives, or dreams.


Quoted for truth. Women have the threat of violence and death hanging over their heads every day. As liberated as I am, I wish this was not true. The rape culture dictates that every woman is able to be raped because of what she is wearing, her body shape, the side of the street she is walking on, etc. Why? Because, in most people's opinions, women are nothing more than a way for men to get their rocks off.

If not, then why are women being raped in places where their bodies are mostly covered up in public. Middle Eastern countries, for instance. Are menso entitled in these places to a woman's body? This is what objectification means to me, when a person has no voice, and can just be used and have their honor destroyed through no fault of their own. It has nothing to do with how they look, dress or what profession they are in.

It is just because they are female.


----------



## JCD

I haven't read all (or any) of the responses, so bear that in mind if it seems repetitive.

HOWEVER, I have to object to the original usage of this story.

Sasha Whatshername is a horrible example. It is like using Einstein as a model to discuss educational systems or Hannibal Lecter to discuss morality: so far outside the bell curve that it's on the very tippy edge of the bell.

Let's talk about more germane example: a wife who finds herself grudge 'cuddled' or told 'you need to wear this outfit' which she finds extremely creepy. "Honey...why do you have a thing for Little Bo Peep and what are the scissors for?"

I can't speak for ALL men, but MOST men glancing at a new woman will sexually weigh her on his list of 'do I want her'.

Some, maybe even many women, object to having their entire intrinsic worth being sized up on that one 'hotness' criteria.

Unfortunately, this comes down to sloppy thinking and, sorry to say 'get over it'. The drive to measure women sexually is ONE criteria and the only directly observable one men have. I can't see her brain. I can't see her personality. I can't see her heart. I *can* see her figure and her beauty unless I live in Islamistan. So I go by what I can measure. As I learn more, I can THEN use the other criteria to determine if this is a woman I want to spend more time with. I think a large part of this is a not irrational fear in women that if they don't make the 'hotness' cut, they aren't getting a shot at the other criteria.

And the 'get over it' is that if the MAJORITY of heterosexual men do this, guess what ladies? Men are very unlikely to change on this front. It's an evolutionary drive. We can be trained to hide it from you or even be mentally punished enough to deny that this is something we'd like to do.

But that isn't changing the nature of men. It's changing the nature of A man.

Now, women ensuring that their objections of how they are treated and what can and should be expected sexually is a good debate to have. It is perfectly permissible. The one caveat is this: a woman can decide she will or will not engage in oral sex. However it is also the man's option to what minimum he will accept as is HIS right.

My...amusement over this issue is that of 'price signals'. Men, of course, want a Tyra Banks at Wal Mart prices, not getting that an average niceness or income or blandness should be able to keep a woman of that quality.

And some women feel that they can walk around in pajamas during the day, making no effort in their dress, physical appearance or deportment and still expect high quality men to fall all over themselves to get them, using the phrase 'sexual objectification' to essentially rationalize laziness or stubbornness.

They are 'striking a blow' for women's liberation by not doing their hair AND they get to sleep an extra twenty minutes. Win win...except when it's Friday night.

Just a thought to fan the flames in an already incendiary post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think good men who have no inclination to rape anyone just don't get it sometimes. They think it is some aberration in "some men" to rape, so they (the good men) feel no association with the problem. 

And to some extent it is true, they are not the problem so why should they see it as a problem? And what a lot of us (around the world, men and women both) are saying is that if you other good men who would never rape would help us all by outing those who DO it, by being educated about it and aware that it happens daily and is a real problem...if the good men would be the ones who put the rapists in their place and not allow them to hide their ways...then perhaps there might be less rape, eventually. 

If the good men could see that some of these rape culture ideas are far more dangerous than they give them credit for and would raise awareness and speak out against it, it would help down the line. 

And women should do their part, too...which would include being aware that women also rape, are capable of it and do it in certain circumstances...rape is a human problem, not just a problem with men.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> And here again, all you wish to consider is the private thoughts of a random stranger. Until you are willing to consider how women are *treated* in this world, you will fail to understand the consequences of objectification.
> 
> Women are deprived of their autonomy and put under a threat of physical violence *every day*. Women have much less freedom about where they can go, what they can do, who they can talk to, than men do. Go to one of the rape threads and see how everyone reminds women that *it's up to them* to keep themselves safe, and how they *should never* take risks like going out alone at night, being alone with a guy they don't know, travel alone, etc, etc, etc. Women are much more restricted than men are, even in the freest and most egalitarian countries.
> 
> Women are also used as instruments on a daily basis, literally every where you go and everywhere you turn. You can't walk down the street, go on the internet, watch TV or read a magazine without seeing a dozen or more women that are solely there for ornamentation. Yes, it's there because sex sells. But that's what it means to be an instrument. A few titties will increase ratings, sell more products, etc. so hire a few. Titties are the means, and I can assure you, the end has nothing to do with the woman attached to them, or her feelings, beliefs, perspectives, or dreams.


Everything you say is the truth. You are missing a few things.

Men are constantly 'treated like objects' by work, wives and their government. Our emotional needs are much more likely to be ignored or disdained by society. Consider the sympathy a female rape victim gets vs. a male rape victim.

IIRC, a few hundred thousand MEN had their names taken out of a bowl and told 'hey...what's your name? Here is a rifle. You go over there and shoot whomever we want you too. We don't care about your feelings, beliefs, perspectives and dreams. We need you to kill...so today you are a killer.' We can't 'avoid dark allies'. We are expected to RUN into dark allies which we KNOW are filled with bad guys.

How many women did you see on Omaha Beach in 'Saving Private Ryan'?


And as a man, I am told I will work until I die. Unless I meet a very special woman, I don't get the option of running around in my pajamas all day 'being a dad' and having her support me and even then, I am strongly looked down upon by society whatever HER feelings are on the matter.

And let's not talk about lifeboats. I get to listen to the entire song 'Nearer My God To Thee' right before I hear Sebastian's little number 'Under the Sea.'

Things aren't always rosy on this side of the aisle either.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And here again, all you wish to consider is the private thoughts of a random stranger. Until you are willing to consider how women are *treated* in this world, you will fail to understand the consequences of objectification.
> 
> Women are deprived of their autonomy and put under a threat of physical violence *every day*. Women have much less freedom about where they can go, what they can do, who they can talk to, than men do. Go to one of the rape threads and see how everyone reminds women that *it's up to them* to keep themselves safe, and how they *should never* take risks like going out alone at night, being alone with a guy they don't know, travel alone, etc, etc, etc. Women are much more restricted than men are, even in the freest and most egalitarian countries.
> 
> Women are also used as instruments on a daily basis, literally every where you go and everywhere you turn. You can't walk down the street, go on the internet, watch TV or read a magazine without seeing a dozen or more women that are solely there for ornamentation. Yes, it's there because sex sells. But that's what it means to be an instrument. A few titties will increase ratings, sell more products, etc. so hire a few. Titties are the means, and I can assure you, the end has nothing to do with the woman attached to them, or her feelings, beliefs, perspectives, or dreams.



So what you're saying is that evidence of effects of objectification can be seen in the fact that women's lives are under constant threat.

So here's a table detailing the raw statistical data of crimes in the USA [ across all states except Florida] for the period
2000 - 2010.

Murder in America - WSJ.com

It contains a breakdown of murder figures , rape figures, robbery figures. aggravated assault figures ,and so on.
All the data is classified into; Sex , Race , Age etc of both the victim and the offender.

Based on that table, the total numbers of murder for that period was 165,068. Of that total figure , 128,971 or more than 75% were male , and 35,777 or less than 25% were female.
Of the figures for female murders, approx 11,000 were domestic violence related. 6000 were wives and 5000 were girlfriends.

In the figures for aggravated assault, the overwhelming majority of victims were male.

Based on the figures given on this table , men far outnumber women, almost to a 4 : 1 ration as victims and potential victims of murder or violence in the USA.
I can say with authority that in rogue states like Somalia , Yemen ,Afghanistan, Iraq , or even in some South American ctates, where there is very little value for human life ,the statistics are much, much worse for men.

Based on your logic for objectification ,ie; the value society places on a person's life ,how a person is treated, men are far more objectified than women.

Do you agree?
Or is it that your theory of objectification can *only* be applied to women?
Are you saying that the genders should be treated differently in this matter, that women's life carry more value than men?


If not , please explain , and possibly, post some figures.

I am trying to understand.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I remember seeing Sasha Grey on Tyra Banks show, I also remember seeing her talking about being on the show and how it was very edited and about how they choose her wardrobe ect 

Sasha Grey Talks About Being On The Tyra Banks Show | Julie Meadows Official Blog

So IMO there's not much difference to what Tyra Banks show did to what was being preached about on the actual show. She was there as a porn star to be preached at rather than someone to have a discussion with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Everything you say is the truth. You are missing a few things.
> 
> Men are constantly 'treated like objects' by work, wives and their government. Our emotional needs are much more likely to be ignored or disdained by society. Consider the sympathy a female rape victim gets vs. a male rape victim.
> 
> IIRC, a few hundred thousand MEN had their names taken out of a bowl and told 'hey...what's your name? Here is a rifle. You go over there and shoot whomever we want you too. We don't care about your feelings, beliefs, perspectives and dreams. We need you to kill...so today you are a killer.' We can't 'avoid dark allies'. We are expected to RUN into dark allies which we KNOW are filled with bad guys.
> 
> How many women did you see on Omaha Beach in 'Saving Private Ryan'?
> 
> 
> And as a man, I am told I will work until I die. Unless I meet a very special woman, I don't get the option of running around in my pajamas all day 'being a dad' and having her support me and even then, I am strongly looked down upon by society whatever HER feelings are on the matter.
> 
> And let's not talk about lifeboats. I get to listen to the entire song 'Nearer My God To Thee' right before I hear Sebastian's little number 'Under the Sea.'
> 
> Things aren't always rosy on this side of the aisle either.


:iagree:

That's why I'm asking if the theory of objectification can only apply to women?

Or is there a more universally acceptable definition that can be applied to both genders?

Are men supposed to accept that they are in the * other * category?

If so, and men are objectified in a _different_ way , what warrants one gender receiveing more attention than the other, given that men and women are supposed to be equal?

Realistically, women's lives have always been treated with more value than men, simply because women can bear children.
If in times past women were objectified as bearers of children, then men were objectified as fighters of wars, hunters of food,builders of communities, in essence. man were considered as " _hewers of wood and drawers of water._."
Men's life were basically,
Replaceable.
Women on the other hand ,were spared for the purpose of bearing children, win , loose or draw.
It was considered a criminal act even in war to kill women and children.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> That's why I'm asking if the theory of objectification can only apply to women?
> 
> Or is there a more universally acceptable definition that can be applied to both genders?
> 
> Are men supposed to accept that they are in the * other * category?
> 
> If so, and men are objectified in a _different_ way , what warrants one gender receiveing more attention than the other, given that men and women are supposed to be equal?
> 
> Realistically, women's lives have always been treated with more value than men, simply because women can bear children.
> If in times past women were objectified as bearers of children, then men were objectified as fighters of wars, hunters of food,builders of communities, in essence. man were considered as " _hewers of wood and drawers of water._."
> Men's life were basically,
> Replaceable.
> Women on the other hand ,were spared for the purpose of bearing children, win , loose or draw.
> It was considered a criminal act even in war to kill women and children.


However they were fair game for the victors, their rape regarded as spoils of war. From biblical times through to the present day.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> However they were fair game for the victors, their rape regarded as spoils of war. From biblical times through to the present day.


Yes.
The men's LIVES were also regarded as " _the spoils of war_ " and lower than that of the women.

Women's lives weren't spared for rape. Their lives were spared so that they would become slaves,and concubines, bear more offspring and their offspring would also become slaves.
The women were assimilated into the population, but the men were considered as threats , hence they were killed.


Straight dope,

If we're talking objectification as in treating a person as a disposable object, then the men were the ones whose lives faced greater danger because of objectification..

That status quo seems pretty much in place today, especially in blue collar job where the risk of loosing life and limbs is high.
Men are placed in those types of jobs, hence they are the greater casualty.

If a burglar broke into your home in the dead of night, would you go out to confront him , or would your wife volunteer?

Or would you tell her; "lets both go down and get him?"

So in reality, whose life is more disposable?


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> And here again, all you wish to consider is the private thoughts of a random stranger. Until you are willing to consider how women are *treated* in this world, you will fail to understand the consequences of objectification.
> 
> 
> Women are also used as instruments on a daily basis, literally every where you go and everywhere you turn. You can't walk down the street, go on the internet, watch TV or read a magazine without seeing a dozen or more women that are solely there for ornamentation. Yes, it's there because sex sells. But that's what it means to be an instrument. A few titties will increase ratings, sell more products, etc. so hire a few. Titties are the means, and I can assure you, the end has nothing to do with the woman attached to them, or her feelings, beliefs, perspectives, or dreams.


Is it really this bad? Don't get me wrong there are many backwards undeveloped countries, but in the modern world I have a hard time accepting things are as bad as you say. Times have changed. A woman can do anything she wants to with her life. No one is holding you or anyone else back from doing or becoming whatever you want. 

I always go back to this example because its the one I can relate the most to, but racial prejudice also used to be a barrier. When I read your posts they sound very similar to my relatives that still speak of racism as if its still the 50s and 60s. It isn't, times have changed. What used to be a real barrier is now a sheer curtain that one can easily walk through with some goals and a little ambition. The "man" isn't holding back anybody anymore.

Men get objectified too when it comes to intelligence. Do you think anybody wanted to be the lab partner of the big black guy in school on scholarship? Of course not, most students and professors assumed I was in school for sports only. They did everything they could to discourage me from pursuing engineering. 

I guess what I am trying to say is I've experienced pretty much everything you describe. I'm even way more likely to die violently than women based on my demographics. Yet we have very different outlooks on life. The picture you paint is much bleaker and I guess I just want to know how you came to feel this way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> I guess what I am trying to say is I've experienced pretty much everything you describe. * I'm even way more likely to die violently than women based on my demographics. * Yet we have very different outlooks on life.


:iagree:
In the chart I posted, black males made up almost half of the statistic on both the victim and perpetrator aspect of the crime.
Hispanics came in second.


I am trying to understand exactly how the logic applies, in the way she applied it, and if violence against women is a clear indicator of the level of objectification against women in society, then how come violence against men isn't seen as the same?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes.
> The men's LIVES were also regarded as " _the spoils of war_ " and lower than that of the women.
> 
> Women's lives weren't spared for rape. Their lives were spared so that they would become slaves,and concubines, bear more offspring and their offspring would also become slaves.
> The women were assimilated into the population, but the men were considered as threats , hence they were killed.
> 
> 
> Straight dope,
> 
> If we're talking objectification as in treating a person as a disposable object, then the men were the ones whose lives faced greater danger because of objectification..
> 
> That status quo seems pretty much in place today, especially in blue collar job where the risk of loosing life and limbs is high.
> Men are placed in those types of jobs, hence they are the greater casualty.
> 
> If a burglar broke into your home in the dead of night, would you go out to confront him , or would your wife volunteer?
> 
> Or would you tell her; "lets both go down and get him?"
> 
> So in reality, whose life is more disposable?


Women's lives were spared? Oh that's ok then.

The traditional human-rights image is of a male prisoner of conscience. Yet the Serbian rape camps in Bosnia show that it’s often women who suffer most.Angela Robson reports. The black-and-white poster near the Sarajevo courtroom said it all: ‘Borislav Herak – War Criminal’. Inside, the 22-year-old former textile worker stood charged with 32 murders and 16 rapes, including the murder of 12 of his 16 rape victims. The date was Friday, 12 March 1993 and Herak was the first Serb to be put on trial for war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. But Herak’s accounts of his forced participation in rapes of Bosnian Muslim women – his commander had told him it was ‘good for morale’ – accord with evidence recounted to human-rights observers and journalists throughout the region. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda, these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20,000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims. Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes, in schools, police stations and camps all over the country. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war, an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting. What is new about the situation in Bosnia is the attention it is receiving – and the recognition that it is being used as a deliberate military tactic to speed up the process of ‘ethnic cleansing’. According to a recent report by European Community investigators, rapes are being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims, their families, and on the whole community’.1 In many cases the intention is ‘deliberately to make women pregnant and to detain them until pregnancy is far enough advanced to make termination impossible’. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. If they refuse, they are killed. - See more at: Weapon Of War -- New Internationalist


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wysh,

Lemme ask you a simple question.

A burglar forces his way into your house in the dead of night.
Do you think your wife would offer to confront him ?

Or would you TELL her to hide while you go down to confront him?

Which is more likely to happen in your house , given that scenario ,and why?


----------



## Sandfly

I see your point there CM, but I think most men would prefer to be the ones on the front-line, even if the wife weren't pushing them out the bedroom and locking the door behind them.

All those lads who volunteered for eg: the first world war, it was partly their mothers and girlfriends shaming them into "volunteering" to get their faces shot off - so yeah it existed! , but partly it was their white-knight /slash/ hero complex that made it work.

Maybe men are just suckers?

BTW, if you look at the Titanic thing, plenty of lower class women drowned, while most upper class males got on the boats. So, the idea of 'ladies first' in an emergency in fact becomes 'rich people first', then women, then working stiffs 

If I'd have been on the boats with those toffs, the boat would have mysteriously had fewer gentry aboard when rescue arrived, and I'd like to think there'd be a CM on the same lifeboat to help me proactively alter the demographics of our little boat


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I see your point there CM, but I think most men would prefer to be the ones on the front-line, even if the wife weren't pushing them out the bedroom and locking the door behind them.
> 
> All those lads who volunteered for eg: the first world war, it was partly their mothers and girlfriends shaming them into "volunteering" to get their faces shot off - so yeah it existed! , but partly it was their white-knight /slash/ hero complex that made it work.
> 
> Maybe men are just suckers?
> 
> BTW, if you look at the Titanic thing, plenty of lower class women drowned, while most upper class males got on the boats. So, the idea of 'ladies first' in an emergency in fact becomes 'rich people first', then women, then working stiffs
> 
> If I'd have been on the boats with those toffs, the boat would have mysteriously had fewer gentry aboard when rescue arrived, and I'd like to think there'd be a CM on the same lifeboat to help me proactively alter the demographics of our little boat


Thing is,
Ever since you and I were lads attending primary school, we were always taught that men were supposed to respect women and put even a strange woman, first , ahead of us.

If we were riding the bus and a woman stood next to where we were seated, we were expected to stand and offer her our seat. Lol, I remember being sternly rebuked and reprimanded when I hesitated to stand and offer a woman my seat. The problem was I didn't know how to offer her . I was just a little , shy boy of 8 or 9. But I remember an old woman behind me, talking loudly, saying that I should be ashamed of myself because I didn't act like a gentleman.
I was so ashamed , that I tried to hide myself further down in the crowded bus.

.
We were taught that men were supposed to protect women , show bravery and galantry even to strange women.

We were taught that real men would willing give up their lives for their country and their wives and family

We were taught that we are supposed to love and protect our wives and family even in the face of the threat of physical harm or imminent death.

It was a social construct, and a great one at that, that still is very much intact today , albeit, in a different way.


That's why I struggle with this generalization of men being the perpetrators of the wholesale objectification of women.


----------



## Sandfly

CM, it's true!

We were taught that. Often indirectly, by the simple observation that girls were protected from things like rough sports.

I open doors for the elderly, treat the elderly with particular care, smile at them, greet them, help them lift things, offer seats etc. no matter what mood or state I'm in, which I see other men doing for women. I do it for the elderly, because they appreciate it. 

But I'd never give up my seat to a young woman. Let them stand, I'll wait till some old dear comes along and give the seat to her.

I only help women with kids, but again, because they appreciate it. Would I go off to war because some fair damsel says it's my duty? I'd just tell her where to get off. I might go to protect the elderly and women with kids.

I am expendable, but nowadays, I'd expect the loudmouthed boozy 'single lady' to sign up and be in the firing line too. That's equality.

Men are cash-machines and entertainment-puppets nowadays, can't get much more objectified than that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> CM, it's true!
> 
> We were taught that. Often indirectly, by the simple observation that girls were protected from things like rough sports.
> 
> I open doors for the elderly, treat the elderly with particular care, smile at them, greet them, help them lift things, offer seats etc. no matter what mood or state I'm in, which I see other men doing for women. I do it for the elderly, because they appreciate it.
> 
> But I'd never give up my seat to a young woman. Let them stand, I'll wait till some old dear comes along and give the seat to her.
> 
> I only help women with kids, but again, because they appreciate it. Would I go off to war because some fair damsel says it's my duty? I'd just tell her where to get off. I might go to protect the elderly and women with kids.
> 
> I am expendable, but nowadays, I'd expect the loudmouthed boozy 'single lady' to sign up and be in the firing line too. That's equality.
> 
> Men are cash-machines and entertainment-puppets nowadays, can't get much more objectified than that.


If we are to go strictly by the theory of objectification , then it actually goes both ways.
Both men and women are victims of it, just in different ways.

I have seen two or more men involved in fistfights quite a few times and either stood at the sides and looked or, dismissed them and continued on my way.

I once saw a man punching a young woman with child and I jumped him and beat him to a pulp. I never knew the young woman, and found out during the scuffle that he was supposed to be her boyfriend. i pulled him off her, and he got angry and threatened to shoot me. I got even more angry and beat him to a pulp. Passers by had to get me off of him. My wife was with me, she just waited at the side.
These are things that were instilled in me that cause a visceral reaction when I'm confronted with such situations.
I was taught that a man " _never hits a woman.._" so I didn't bother to ask who was wrong or right, I instinctively judged the young man as wrong because of his gender.
No questions asked.

That's why I'm highly amused when having these type of dialogue on TAM and someone tries to frame me as being a " bad man " or a woman hater, for questioning _their_ concept of the objectification of women by society.
All I ask is please provide the evidence that their is some grand plot by all men in society to cleanse the earth of women , deprive them of their inalienable rights and make them into objects.

Why is it politically incorrect to question this?

Is domestic violence against women prevalent?
Of course it is, and the evidence clearly show that women are more at risk as compared to men.

Does it require special attention?
Of course it does , and to the best of my knowledge, lots is being done to raise awareness. In most developed and developing countries , there are special laws dealing with violence against women.
No such law exist for men, for the same reason,women are the more at risk gender.

But the question is , how does all of this negate the fact that men are four times more at risk of death and violence in almost every society?
If violence against a womann is an indicator of female gender objectification in a society, why is it not also an indicator of male gender objectification?


----------



## Sandfly

There is a double standard.

When women are raped it is a crime worthy of death.

When men get raped, like in a film such as "Harry and Kumar go to Guantanamo" then it's hilarious.

When some guy goes to jail for being a rapist, the 'hope' from female commentators is that he gets raped non-stop and over many years in jail. From male commentators, they just wish him a speedy death.

There is something sick about this, that rape is not rape under certain circumstances.

I read things men don't normally read, such as feminist books and gay biographies. I can do this, because I know I'm not going to start craving hairy arses or buying bras just to burn them just because of what I read - I'm secure enough to be able to do these things.

In a couple of these gay biographies, the first experiences these men had of gay sex was being groomed, fondled, pressured and then ultimately, raped by a much older man. They turned out gay, sure, and they even subsequently formed relationships with their rapist, who treated them nice enough since the first time. However, going off on a tangent, it worried me when the UK lowered the age of consent for male-gay sex from 18 to 16 (still in school!) and I noticed there were no young men on the parade demanding the age be lowered. It was all women (lesbians? Radical feminists?) and men in their 40's and 50's.

I look at these things.... and I start to seriously wonder who is looking out for young men anymore. All the focus is on protecting women and gay rights. So, when for example, president Putin outlawed exposing under 18's to same-sex pornography and literature, and I saw the kind of people who were then 'furious' with Putin... well it only re-inforced this feeling of unease with our current party-line on what is good for society.

I've digressed quite a lot, but my question is: what change do you think is necessary to make things right? I, for example, go along with Putin, and those P*ssyriot girls would still be chopping wood and breaking rocks if it were me in the kremlin. Because I know how England has turned out, and I don't wish the same broken society on Russia (which is also broken, but for different reasons: drink, unemployment, drugs and AIDs)


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> If we are to go strictly by the theory of objectification , then it actually goes both ways.
> Both men and women are victims of it, just in different ways.
> 
> I have seen two or more men involved in fistfights quite a few times and either stood at the sides and looked or, dismissed them and continued on my way.
> 
> I once saw a man punching a young woman with child and I jumped him and beat him to a pulp. I never knew the young woman, and found out during the scuffle that he was supposed to be her boyfriend. i pulled him off her, and he got angry and threatened to shoot me. I got even more angry and beat him to a pulp. Passers by had to get me off of him. My wife was with me, she just waited at the side.
> These are things that were instilled in me that cause a visceral reaction when I'm confronted with such situations.
> I was taught that a man " _never hits a woman.._" so I didn't bother to ask who was wrong or right, I instinctively judged the young man as wrong because of his gender.
> No questions asked.
> 
> That's why I'm highly amused when having these type of dialogue on TAM and someone tries to frame me as being a " bad man " or a woman hater, for questioning _their_ concept of the objectification of women by society.
> All I ask is please provide the evidence that their is some grand plot by all men in society to cleanse the earth of women , deprive them of their inalienable rights and make them into objects.
> 
> Why is it politically incorrect to question this?
> 
> Is domestic violence against women prevalent?
> Of course it is, and the evidence clearly show that women are more at risk as compared to men.
> 
> Does it require special attention?
> Of course it does , and to the best of my knowledge, lots is being done to raise awareness. In most developed and developing countries , there are special laws dealing with violence against women.
> No such law exist for men, for the same reason,women are the more at risk gender.
> 
> But the question is , how does all of this negate the fact that men are four times more at risk of death and violence in almost every society?
> If violence against a womann is an indicator of female gender objectification in a society, why is it not also an indicator of male gender objectification?


Men are not objectified inthe sense that they are seen as the stronger sex. They are made to protect the weaker sex. This is the prevalent opinion.

Let me ask you a questiondo you think that a woman can overtake you and rape you? Can she kill you with her bare hands? When you see a woman in a dark alley, are you on your guard and fearful? Or do you think, what the hell is she doing here, she could get hurt and raped by somebody?

You say that men's lives are valued less than a woman's lives, let's look at Muslim countries for a minute. Women in those countries are valued less than men, families would rather have boys than girls in a number of eastern countries. Girls only value is in marrying as a virgin, heaven forbid they get raped in the process, then they might as well be dead. The family shuns them, and they are left in the street. That is if they are blessed enough to marry the guy who raped them, which is the law in a number of countries.

You feel that women are better off being raped than killed? Not likely, they live lives in seclusion and shame.


----------



## Cosmos

I really think the time has come for me to leave this site...


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Men are not objectified inthe sense that they are seen as the stronger sex. They are made to protect the weaker sex. This is the prevalent opinion.
> 
> Let me ask you a questiondo you think that a woman can overtake you and rape you? Can she kill you with her bare hands? When you see a woman in a dark alley, are you on your guard and fearful? Or do you think, what the hell is she doing here, she could get hurt and raped by somebody?
> 
> You say that men's lives are valued less than a woman's lives, let's look at Muslim countries for a minute. Women in those countries are valued less than men, families would rather have boys than girls in a number of eastern countries. Girls only value is in marrying as a virgin, heaven forbid they get raped in the process, then they might as well be dead. The family shuns them, and they are left in the street. That is if they are blessed enough to marry the guy who raped them, which is the law in a number of countries.
> 
> You feel that women are better off being raped than killed? Not likely, they live lives in seclusion and shame.


How is it that you can assume that " men are made to protect the weaker sex" as if their lives are intrinsically worth less than a woman's?
That line of thinking is what I'm questioning on this thread.
It's almost as if we're expect to just do it and accept whatever comes.
I don't subscribe to the weaker sex and the stronger sex theory.
what I know is that men and women are biologically and physiologically different.
Difference doesn't automatically equate one being superior and the other inferior.
That men are physically stronger than women is a given.
Is it wrong for a man to be physically stronger than a woman?
Does physical strength automatically make every strange man a rapist?
I don't trust strangers, especially male, I am more inclined to trust a female.
Is that good or bad?
How am I supposed to feel about that as a man?
Or am I not supposed to *think* about it, just accept it?
Are men physical life's more at risk than a woman's ?
Yes it is.
What do you think about that?

Am I afraid a woman overtakes me and rapes me?
Absolutely not. That thought has NEVER crossed my mind.
Can a man, or a gang of men overtake me , rape me, and probably kill me?
Definitely YES !
And the thought has crossed my mind.

Which is more acceptable in your eyed, a woman getting raped or a man getting raped?

Do I fear that I would be raped if I walk down a dark alley?
I don't walk through dark alleys for the fear of being robbed , shot and killed by a drug addict or gangster.
I also keep my private property securely locked at night to protect myself and my wife , from the same man that might want to rob me and rape my wife.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Is it really this bad? Don't get me wrong there are many backwards undeveloped countries, but in the modern world I have a hard time accepting things are as bad as you say. Times have changed. A woman can do anything she wants to with her life. No one is holding you or anyone else back from doing or becoming whatever you want.


It really depends on where you live. In some countries, some 75% of women can expect to be raped, often more than once. In some, up to 80% believe that their husbands have the right to beat her for silly infractions like burning the food, and that they have no rights to refuse him sexual intercourse, ever.

Yes, times are changing, especially in the West. I am grateful to all the loud-mouthed activist women who came before me and argued for my rights to be a person, to vote, to own property. I relish my freedom and my autonomy.

But all of my life, I have faced threat and restrictions solely because I'm a woman. I will spare you the litany, but please believe me that it is still very common, and women are often treated as much less than persons even in a supposedly egalitarian society. 



ReformedHubby said:


> I always go back to this example because its the one I can relate the most to, but racial prejudice also used to be a barrier. When I read your posts they sound very similar to my relatives that still speak of racism as if its still the 50s and 60s. It isn't, times have changed.


Please don't get me wrong. I do not view sexual objectification as the only, or as the worst problem there is. Racism is a huge problem, and while I would agree with you that many things have improved immensely, there are still serious issues that need to be addressed. 

Anytime a group is systematically disadvantaged based on some arbitrary criteria like race, sex, or caste, I think there is a failure of justice that should be challenged until rectified.

If I were to read a racist post here, trust me, I would squawk just as loudly. It's just that this is a forum on marriage and relationships, and so issues around sex, gender, and stereotypes seem to come up more often. And I just can't sit here and say nothing.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I really think the time has come for me to leave this site...


Why are you mad?

If someone is wrong, it's not hard to provide a counter-argument.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Anytime a group is systematically disadvantaged based on some arbitrary criteria like race, sex, or caste, I think there is a failure of justice that should be challenged until rectified.


Based on the criteria you gave this morning .
Do you accept that men are objectified as much as women are in society, or is one type of objectification more acceptable than the other?


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> How is it that you can assume that " men are made to protect the weaker sex" as if their lives are intrinsically worth less than a woman's?
> That line of thinking is what I'm questioning on this thread.
> It's almost as if we're expect to just do it and accept whatever comes.
> I don't subscribe to the weaker sex and the stronger sex theory.
> what I know is that men and women are biologically and physiologically different.
> Difference doesn't automatically equate one being superior and the other inferior.
> That men are physically stronger than women is a given.
> Is it wrong for a man to be physically stronger than a woman?
> Does physical strength automatically make every strange man a rapist?
> I don't trust strangers, especially male, I am more inclined to trust a female.
> Is that good or bad?
> How am I supposed to feel about that as a man?
> Or am I not supposed to *think* about it, just accept it?
> Are men physical life's more at risk than a woman's ?
> Yes it is.
> What do you think about that?
> 
> Am I afraid a woman overtakes me and rapes me?
> Absolutely not. That thought has NEVER crossed my mind.
> Can a man, or a gang of men overtake me , rape me, and probably kill me?
> Definitely YES !
> And the thought has crossed my mind.
> 
> Which is more acceptable in your eyed, a woman getting raped or a man getting raped?
> 
> Do I fear that I would be raped if I walk down a dark alley?
> I don't walk through dark alleys for the fear of being robbed , shot and killed by a drug addict or gangster.
> I also keep my private property securely locked at night to protect myself and my wife , from the same man that might want to rob me and rape my wife.


Just like you were taught to protect and honor women, there are some places where men were taught that just because women were weaker that they were the "lesser sex". Which means that they were taught that women were just good for being a wife or sexual object. Most men equate being weak with being less worthy of respect, honor, and having a voice. 

You may have been raised honoring women and protecting them. God bless you. But your views aren't shared with a whole host of men who see women as their personal playthings. God forbid any vulnerable girl they spot in their domain. It is like the predator and the prey. Many men on this site are the good men who won't think this way, but you need to understand that it is a rarity that women encounter people like you.

You say that you don't go into dark alleys, ok then. But what if a woman who works a job which ends after dark has to cross a dark alley on her way home because it is the quickest and most convenient way to get there. She must weigh her options, do I risk this and get raped or do I take the long way around which will take about another half hour for me to get home. Suppose she works in a restaurant and she's tired standing on her feet all day?

These scenarios cross every woman's mind every day, no matter how many good guys like you are out there. Because, more likely than not, she has had to encounter the creeps and scum who catcall and threaten her presence. Make her wish she was not born female, so at least she can punch one of those creeps out. Not unless she has had some training in a martial art. But still, the numbers game has her at a disadvantage.

Either path she takes on her way home proves that she is the prey and not equal to the men who she fears. Regardless of the intentions of the men, she does not know their intentions just from looking at them. She cannot just hope that this is a good guy who crosses her path. Her defenses HAVE to go up, because it may be her last walk home.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Just like you were taught to protect and honor women, there are some places where men were taught that just because women were weaker that they were the "lesser sex". Which means that they were taught that women were just good for being a wife or sexual object. Most men equate being weak with being less worthy of respect, honor, and having a voice.
> 
> You may have been raised honoring women and protecting them. God bless you. But your views aren't shared with a whole host of men who see women as their personal playthings. God forbid any vulnerable girl they spot in their domain. It is like the predator and the prey. Many men on this site are the good men who won't think this way, but you need to understand that it is a rarity that women encounter people like you.
> 
> You say that you don't go into dark alleys, ok then. But what if a woman who works a job which ends after dark has to cross a dark alley on her way home because it is the quickest and most convenient way to get there. She must weigh her options, do I risk this and get raped or do I take the long way around which will take about another half hour for me to get home. Suppose she works in a restaurant and she's tired standing on her feet all day?
> 
> These scenarios cross every woman's mind every day, no matter how many good guys like you are out there. Because, more likely than not, she has had to encounter the creeps and scum who catcall and threaten her presence. Make her wish she was not born female, so at least she can punch one of those creeps out. Not unless she has had some training in a martial art. But still, the numbers game has her at a disadvantage.
> 
> Either path she takes on her way home proves that she is the prey and not equal to the men who she fears. Regardless of the intentions of the men, she does not know their intentions just from looking at them. She cannot just hope that this is a good guy who crosses her path. Her defenses HAVE to go up, because it may be her last walk home.


I understand exactly what you are saying and it is a fact of life.There is absolutely no denying those facts.

But can we look at both genders just for a minute?

Are you willing to accept that the possibility exist , that both sexes face objectification, but in different ways , relative to their biological and physiological differences?
Would you say that all sexual objectification leads to rape?
Are females alone vulnerable to sexual objectification or are both male and females vulnerable , but under different circumstances?

Can you agree that both sexes, based on the figures for the USA, face the threat of physical and sexual violence?
That both men and women are raped, but much more women are raped than men?
That both men and women face the threat of physical harm and even death, but much more men are assaulted and killed than women?
Do you believe that men fear other men who will do them harm as much as a woman would fear such a man ?
In other words is the fear men face , real?

Can you agree that the common denominator in both scenarios is that the perpetrator is most likely to be a man?

So then how does it help to solve the problem when it is put in a way that frames most or all men as predators?


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> I understand exactly what you are saying and it is a fact of life.There is absolutely no denying those facts.
> 
> But can we look at both genders just for a minute?
> 
> Are you willing to accept that the possibility exist , that both sexes face objectification, but in different ways , relative to their biological and physiological differences?
> Would you say that all sexual objectification leads to rape?
> Are females alone vulnerable to sexual objectification or are both male and females vulnerable , but under different circumstances?
> 
> Can you agree that both sexes, based on the figures for the USA, face the threat of physical and sexual violence?
> That both men and women are raped, but much more women are raped than men?
> That both men and women face the threat of physical harm and even death, but much more men are assaulted and killed than women?
> Do you believe that men fear other men who will do them harm as much as a woman would fear such a man ?
> In other words is the fear men face , real?
> 
> Can you agree that the common denominator in both scenarios is that the perpetrator is most likely to be a man?
> 
> So then how does it help to solve the problem when it is put in a way that frames most or all men as predators?


I agree that there are male victims, however the number of women who are victimized far outweighs the number of men. You are trying to place men on an equal playing field with the women, and it does not exist I'm afraid. For there to be an equal playing field, women WORLDWIDE have to feel safe in their neighborhoods regardless of what time of day or night it is. The rape culture must not exist, period, for it targets women on a much larger scale than the men.

I'm sorry to tell you, most men are predators. We can pay lip service to the good men out there, but the numerous cases of date rape, party rape, etc. drowns it out. Until men denounce this behavior amongst their bretheren and call those bad men out, this will continue. Men, like you, are now feeling the burden of carrying the weight of the crimes done against women by the so-called men in the world. Doesn't feel good, does it? Women been carrying the burden of feeling vulnerable for years, subject to being killed just for being women.

Women don't rape and kill men on as large a scale as men rape and kill men. Men are the primary perpetrators of violent crimes which lead to death. So the same result applies across the board, men are to be feared. Men are cautious around other men, it has nothing to do with women. You said so yourself, you don't feel threatened by women in a dark alley you put your guard up against other men. So it is still men who are the feared perpetrator.

I think that it is too early in the game to get politically correct about this and place men and women on an equal playing field. Maybe in a few more generations, maybe. Meanwhile, millions of dads are guarding their daughters against that phantom male.


----------



## JCD

Sandfly said:


> I see your point there CM, but I think most men would prefer to be the ones on the front-line, even if the wife weren't pushing them out the bedroom and locking the door behind them.
> 
> All those lads who volunteered for eg: the first world war, it was partly their mothers and girlfriends shaming them into "volunteering" to get their faces shot off - so yeah it existed! , but partly it was their white-knight /slash/ hero complex that made it work.
> 
> Maybe men are just suckers?
> 
> BTW, if you look at the Titanic thing, plenty of lower class women drowned, while most upper class males got on the boats. So, the idea of 'ladies first' in an emergency in fact becomes 'rich people first', then women, then working stiffs
> 
> If I'd have been on the boats with those toffs, the boat would have mysteriously had fewer gentry aboard when rescue arrived, and I'd like to think there'd be a CM on the same lifeboat to help me proactively alter the demographics of our little boat



Go by percentages.

75% of all women survived. 19% of all men survived. (kids)

Out of 171 1st class men, only 54 survived. So your allegation of 'most 1st class men' survived is bogus.

- 97% of 1st class women, 36% of 1st class men 

- 86% of 2nd class women, 8% of 2nd class men

- 49% of 3rc class women, 13% of 3rd class men

If you were a 3rd class woman, you had a 1 to 1 chance of surviving. The 1st class men had FAR more logistical access to the lifeboats both in proximity, power and size but had a 66% chance of dying.

If these men died, they chose to die. That simple. I know it's cute little meme the class warriors mention, but the truth is, a lot of these men did the right thing and they survived in much smaller numbers than the Third Class women by percent AND numbers. (54 1st class men vs. 88 Third Class women)

Part of the tragedy is everyone treated it as a non-event until the last minute, hence the open seats on the lifeboat.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> I agree that there are male victims, however the number of women who are victimized far outweighs the number of men. You are trying to place men on an equal playing field with the women, and it does not exist I'm afraid. For there to be an equal playing field, women WORLDWIDE have to feel safe in their neighborhoods regardless of what time of day or night it is. The rape culture must not exist, period, for it targets women on a much larger scale than the men.
> 
> I'm sorry to tell you, most men are predators. We can pay lip service to the good men out there, but the numerous cases of date rape, party rape, etc. drowns it out. Until men denounce this behavior amongst their bretheren and call those bad men out, this will continue. Men, like you, are now feeling the burden of carrying the weight of the crimes done against women by the so-called men in the world. Doesn't feel good, does it? Women been carrying the burden of feeling vulnerable for years, subject to being killed just for being women.
> 
> Women don't rape and kill men on as large a scale as men rape and kill men. Men are the primary perpetrators of violent crimes which lead to death. So the same result applies across the board, men are to be feared. Men are cautious around other men, it has nothing to do with women. You said so yourself, you don't feel threatened by women in a dark alley you put your guard up against other men. So it is still men who are the feared perpetrator.
> 
> I think that it is too early in the game to get politically correct about this and place men and women on an equal playing field. Maybe in a few more generations, maybe. Meanwhile, millions of dads are guarding their daughters against that phantom male.



I am only responsible for my own culture, not the world's. And I believe that if I suggested we move our troops into Islamistan to 'make things better for the women there' the same people who are crying about women's rights would also be against any such war.

So you don't get it both ways.

The primary complaint I am reading is of testosterone and size.

Men are more aggressive because of testosterone. They are also bigger and stronger...again, because of testosterone.

So what exactly is the fix? I have a bunch of chemicals going through my brain which tell me 'must screw now!' and also gives me the means to do so.

Are we going to drug and inhibit the growth of the male gender because we MIGHT be rapists?

Now, as a society, we teach that rapists are scum and we make it very illegal. Those that justify it more are people from 'non American' cultures. We make it a crime with very stiff penalties.

What more do you want us to do? I can't fix China. I won't fix Islamistan. 

And frankly, all the fire and steam from many feminists seem more involved in petty issues about career advancement and pennies on the dollar in pay disparity instead of the fact that Fatimah in Dafur can't go to get firewood for her family without risking rape. That she is likely to face 'honor killing' if she isn't a virgin in any marriage. So why are you blaming men for this when your leadership is seemingly ignoring the big stuff?

AND, most importantly, I can't 'fix' maleness. The very police state that you would need to 'control' men...would need men to enforce it. See the pickle? And as we've seen, even the most civilized of men in the highest office can fall afoul with his Little Chief of Staff pushing him to make women victims to his lust.

Oh right...he is supposed to be let off the hook for his good work for women. Who castigated him again?


----------



## JCD

CB, what you say is true, however it is widely acknowledged that rape statistics are underreported due to shame and other factors.

How underreported? Well, there is the rub, isn't it? We can't know. Now if you go by the entirely scientific polls in women's magazines or done by feminist scholars , one woman in four was raped.

Blink blink. One in FOUR! That is, if you minimalize rape to any sexual contact a woman doesn't agree to. So a rude drunk coping a feel in a club is a 'rapist'.

Yes, that above was dismissive, but as a male, that seems to be the 'low threshold' that women seem to be pushing to control male behavior with these studies.

Not saying coping a feel should be allowed. But it isn't rape. 

So we have no data we can rely on.

Now, we as a society call wife beaters and rapists scum. Men's lives are RUINED if allegations of either are attached to their character...and some women, knowing this, throw these allegations around with reckless abandon to get a now despised lover out of the apartment, to get the kids, to ruin his life.

I can't see how we can functionally criminalize this sort of behavior any more. These men tend to be jailed or released according to JURIES which include women and fathers, two demographics which are not exactly amenable to either sort of criminal.

I would do what I can to try harder...but only if techmom would agree to a MINIMUM 10 year jail sentence for women bringing false allegations against her SO...including their attorneys. Only if SHE will castigate and shame any coed who spreads false rumors of rape about an ex who dumped her or got the slightest bit pushy.

It it's serious MAKE it serious to lay these charges on ALL parties.

I can see many women not wanting to bring charges because of how draconian the punishments are. "Damn...Phil was such a great guy for so long and then...I can't destroy EVERYTHING. I'll keep my mouth shut and never see him again"

It would almost seem that making this so bad is inhibiting the frank conversations we need to have on the topic.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> CB, what you say is true, however it is widely acknowledged that rape statistics are underreported due to shame and other factors.
> 
> How underreported? Well, there is the rub, isn't it? We can't know. Now if you go by the entirely scientific polls in women's magazines or done by feminist scholars , one woman in four was raped.
> 
> Blink blink. One in FOUR! That is, if you minimalize rape to any sexual contact a woman doesn't agree to. So a rude drunk coping a feel in a club is a 'rapist'.


Blink all you want, but one in four is the current rape rates for US/Canada. This most certainly *does not* include a guy copping a feel, in any jurisdiction. Should a man be charged for that, it would be sexual assault, not rape.

Wishing the problem didn't exist doesn't make it go away. And your insinuation that the problem is one of false allegation or overreaction is pretty offensive.


----------



## techmom

JCD said:


> I am only responsible for my own culture, not the world's. And I believe that if I suggested we move our troops into Islamistan to 'make things better for the women there' the same people who are crying about women's rights would also be against any such war.
> 
> So you don't get it both ways.
> 
> The primary complaint I am reading is of testosterone and size.
> 
> Men are more aggressive because of testosterone. They are also bigger and stronger...again, because of testosterone.
> 
> So what exactly is the fix? I have a bunch of chemicals going through my brain which tell me 'must screw now!' and also gives me the means to do so.
> 
> Are we going to drug and inhibit the growth of the male gender because we MIGHT be rapists?
> 
> Now, as a society, we teach that rapists are scum and we make it very illegal. Those that justify it more are people from 'non American' cultures. We make it a crime with very stiff penalties.
> 
> What more do you want us to do? I can't fix China. I won't fix Islamistan.
> 
> And frankly, all the fire and steam from many feminists seem more involved in petty issues about career advancement and pennies on the dollar in pay disparity instead of the fact that Fatimah in Dafur can't go to get firewood for her family without risking rape. That she is likely to face 'honor killing' if she isn't a virgin in any marriage. So why are you blaming men for this when your leadership is seemingly ignoring the big stuff?
> 
> AND, most importantly, I can't 'fix' maleness. The very police state that you would need to 'control' men...would need men to enforce it. See the pickle? And as we've seen, even the most civilized of men in the highest office can fall afoul with his Little Chief of Staff pushing him to make women victims to his lust.
> 
> Oh right...he is supposed to be let off the hook for his good work for women. Who castigated him again?


It is true that men have testosterone, but they also have brains which they use to think. I don't think you want us to believe that men are just big dumb knuckle dragging beasts ruled by their hormones. I don't believe that. I'm just answering CB's comment on if men and women are equally objectified. I stated my case. But of course you guys want to use a few cases of false charges of rape to justify your case.

For every false charge there are hundreds of women who are too scared to report the rape. Maybe because the guy was a close family friend, or she's from a conservative family, or the guy has power and influence or comes from a powerful family. There are many reasons why women may not report a rape.

You feel as if someone is trying to limit your behavior as a man, that is very telling. I come from a family of mostly men, and I have high regard for them. None of them never had any trouble avoiding rape or false rape charges. This is just another strawman that guys like to use in these discussions, and it is uncalled for.


----------



## techmom

Also to add, no, I don't expect the United States military to go to other countries and liberate their women. How about this, the women over there who are protesting by driving a car (Saudi Arabia) or participating in **** Walks, how about supporting them by signing petitions with organizations or donating money to their cause. This is what I do, and it helps. 

Cases which would have never been prosecuted are now being prosecuted in those countries. Once these cases are brought to light and people participate internationally by becoming aware of the problem countries tend to take heed In India where a lady was gang raped and killed along with her boyfriend, the perpetrators were brought to justice. Even a few cases where the perpetrators are jailed for these horrific actions inspire hope in the female population of those countries, which inspires real change.

We are no longer separated from these cases, we are a global community now. Men can no longer hide in the shadows of the rape culture, there will be a time when the future women can walk the streets without feeling threatened.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Based on the criteria you gave this morning .
> Do you accept that men are objectified as much as women are in society, or is one type of objectification more acceptable than the other?


There are many, many problems in this world, and lots of pain and suffering. No argument. But to call it all objectification or to argue that men are just as objectified as women is, I think, missing the point.

Yes, I believe that men too are objectified, and sometimes in the same way as women. And as I pointed out in my thread on the topic, the consequences are pretty much the same: body image issues, eating disorders, depression, and so on.

But no, I don't think that men are *as* objectified, certainly not sexually, and I don't think it fair to simply compare stats on victims of crime.

Yes, men are victims of violent crimes, no doubt. But men do not live in the same climate of fear that women do. Sure you might not walk into a dark alley either, but you are also not likely to be afraid when simply walking to your car at night, or some equally innocuous activity. But ask pretty much any woman at all, and you'll find that activities you take completely for granted are ones that she will have to prepare for and take precautions against.

To be honest, I'm really quite stunned at how dismissive so many here are of these realities. They are so commonplace and so ingrained, and yet you want to deny their existence?

When I travelled alone, for example, I was a constant target. On two separate occasions, I had men break into my room at night, wanting to sleep with me, and had to fend off a constant stream of random gropes, crude comments, and various other displays of disrespect. All just because I'm a woman and I was there.

Now yes, men too face risks, and are also attacked, bullied, and treated badly. But it isn't quite the same thing. A problem to be sure (or many problems), but these crimes aren't happening just because the victim is a man; they have all sorts of complicated causes and explanations.

Now, I know you're going to come back at me saying that many women choose to be objectified, and are happy to be so.

And on some levels you are right. If a girl wants to join the wet tshirt contest, or model, or act in porn, who will try and stop her. Her choice, right?

This is why it's important to not look at just individuals, but also the wider conditions. Fact is that when it comes to distribution of power and wealth, men still come out on top. Waaay on top. The choices available are greater, as are the freedoms and privileges. 

No doubt, women have made good strides in gaining equality, and this should not be discounted. But we live in a world where women are defined by our sexuality, and yet we are not even in possession of it. The prevailing climate is still one where women's bodies are treated as a public commodity, and the concomitant very real and frequent concerns for our safety.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> It is true that men have testosterone, but they also have brains which they use to think. I don't think you want us to believe that men are just big dumb knuckle dragging beasts ruled by their hormones. I don't believe that. I'm just answering CB's comment on if men and women are equally objectified. I stated my case. But of course you guys want to use a few cases of false charges of rape to justify your case.
> 
> For every false charge there are hundreds of women who are too scared to report the rape. Maybe because the guy was a close family friend, or she's from a conservative family, or the guy has power and influence or comes from a powerful family. There are many reasons why women may not report a rape.
> 
> You feel as if someone is trying to limit your behavior as a man, that is very telling. I come from a family of mostly men, and I have high regard for them. None of them never had any trouble avoiding rape or false rape charges. This is just another strawman that guys like to use in these discussions, and it is uncalled for.



What a nasty insinuation. Horrible.

I am NOT minimizing anything. I am saying we have LEGAL statistics which are under reports for the reasons you state.

BUT...you don't get to make up the 'for every reported crime, there are HUNDREDS of non reported crimes'.

Because you don't know. 

You accuse me of wanting to be a rapist, and yet are happy to insinuate that most men have no impulse control or are rapists.

I call BS on that. What is my proof?



















Who are these women? Every day women. They think absolutely NOTHING about walking outside dressed like this: attractive, with lots of skin showing, maybe even a hint (or a LOT) of décolletage showing. Short shorts. Tank Tops. Bikini Tops. High heels. Short tight skirts.

And statistically, millions of young women dressed exactly like that walk around, even late at night, without an incident. Sometimes  they even walk my MEN. BIG men. Men who haven't been laid in months. Strange men. Even alone.

And what statistically almost always happens? They walk by unscathed.

Rape happens. But you don't get to make up scare stories without proof.

My cultural proof? Women's dress. Yours? Stats that you can't prove.

If they were REALLY frightened, they'd wear this: 










SOME men have poor impulse control. SOME men are criminals. I can't fix everyone's brain chemistry.

Right now, there is a clubbing girl half drunk with a purse full of money who was left high and dry by her friends. She goes into a street, hails a cab...and she gets home.

Show me a real rape case and I'll vote guilty. But I am not going to have my entire gender shamed when we should be PROUD of how safe our women generally are.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> There are many, many problems in this world, and lots of pain and suffering. No argument. But to call it all objectification or to argue that men are just as objectified as women is, I think, missing the point.
> 
> Yes, I believe that men too are objectified, and sometimes in the same way as women. And as I pointed out in my thread on the topic, the consequences are pretty much the same: body image issues, eating disorders, depression, and so on.
> 
> But no, I don't think that men are *as* objectified, certainly not sexually, and I don't think it fair to simply compare stats on victims of crime.
> 
> Yes, men are victims of violent crimes, no doubt. But men do not live in the same climate of fear that women do. Sure you might not walk into a dark alley either, but you are also not likely to be afraid when simply walking to your car at night, or some equally innocuous activity. But ask pretty much any woman at all, and you'll find that activities you take completely for granted are ones that she will have to prepare for and take precautions against.
> 
> To be honest, I'm really quite stunned at how dismissive so many here are of these realities. They are so commonplace and so ingrained, and yet you want to deny their existence?
> 
> When I travelled alone, for example, I was a constant target. On two separate occasions, I had men break into my room at night, wanting to sleep with me, and had to fend off a constant stream of random gropes, crude comments, and various other displays of disrespect. All just because I'm a woman and I was there.
> 
> Now yes, men too face risks, and are also attacked, bullied, and treated badly. But it isn't quite the same thing. A problem to be sure (or many problems), but these crimes aren't happening just because the victim is a man; they have all sorts of complicated causes and explanations.
> 
> Now, I know you're going to come back at me saying that many women choose to be objectified, and are happy to be so.
> 
> And on some levels you are right. If a girl wants to join the wet tshirt contest, or model, or act in porn, who will try and stop her. Her choice, right?
> 
> *This is why it's important to not look at just individuals, but also the wider conditions. Fact is that when it comes to distribution of power and wealth, men still come out on top. Waaay on top. The choices available are greater, as are the freedoms and privileges.
> *
> No doubt, women have made good strides in gaining equality, and this should not be discounted. But we live in a world where women are defined by our sexuality, and yet we are not even in possession of it. The prevailing climate is still one where women's bodies are treated as a public commodity, and the concomitant very real and frequent concerns for our safety.


Based on what you wrote , the problem in your opinion seems to be that the masculine gender.

I am emphatically stating that you are wrong and cannot show any evidence to back up your assumptions , neither can you establish a correlation.
But you said that you are willing to broaden your perspective.
So here's what I'm going to do.

Lets remove men completely from the power dynamic in relationships and replace the masculine gender with a feminine gender.
We now have same sex [ lesbian ] relationships.
The domestic violence statistic between same sex [ lesbian ] couples are the same as in heterosexual couples, according to the LBGT community.

Obviously the dynamics in a gay relationship is entirely different to a heterosexual one.

Also bisexual women are more likely to experience violent attacks and even death in same sex relationships , than heterosexual women or gay women.

So there we have it.
Move the masculine gender out of the equation , yet the results remain the same.

How would _you_ explain that?

I understand exactly. I understand the dynamics.
But I'm am eager to hear your explanation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PS: The same statistic applies to same sex, gay [ male / male] relationships.


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> Out of 171 1st class men, only 54 survived. So your allegation of 'most 1st class men' survived is bogus.
> 
> - 97% of 1st class women, *36*% of 1st class men
> 
> - 86% of 2nd class women, 8% of 2nd class men
> 
> - *49*% of 3rc class women, 13% of 3rd class men


I was going by memory, but as you see from your own statistics, class was statistically more significant than gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> I agree that there are male victims, however the number of women who are victimized far outweighs the number of men. You are trying to place men on an equal playing field with the women, and it does not exist I'm afraid. For there to be an equal playing field, women WORLDWIDE have to feel safe in their neighborhoods regardless of what time of day or night it is. The rape culture must not exist, period, for it targets women on a much larger scale than the men.
> 
> *I'm sorry to tell you, most men are predators. We can pay lip service to the good men out there, but the numerous cases of date rape, party rape, etc. drowns it out. Until men denounce this behavior amongst their bretheren and call those bad men out, this will continue. Men, like you, are now feeling the burden of carrying the weight of the crimes done against women by the so-called men in the world. Doesn't feel good, does it? Women been carrying the burden of feeling vulnerable for years, subject to being killed just for being women.*
> 
> Women don't rape and kill men on as large a scale as men rape and kill men. Men are the primary perpetrators of violent crimes which lead to death. *So the same result applies across the board, men are to be feared. Men are cautious around other men, it has nothing to do with women. You said so yourself, you don't feel threatened by women in a dark alley you put your guard up against other men. So it is still men who are the feared perpetrator.*
> 
> I think that it is too early in the game to get politically correct about this and place men and women on an equal playing field. Maybe in a few more generations, maybe. Meanwhile, millions of dads are guarding their daughters against that phantom male.



So here's a good ole TAM question.

Here's my *problem* given the startling revelation made in your post quoted above...

My wife vacations every year with her girlfriends, no men around.
This year , they have planned to visit Jamaica and Panama , for the summer ,a group of ONLY WOMEN.
Jamaica has the highest crime / murder rate in the Caribbean region with about 1500 - 2000 murders / year.
Rapes , robberies , pretty much the same.
Panama also has a relative high crime rate with murders, kidnappings a great source of concern for the authorities, according to the US Department of State website.

However, she still wants to vacation in Jamaica and Panama with her girlfriends this summer.

I can't go with them because this year, I'm working on setting up business ventures on three other islands.

What would you suggest I do, seeing that "_ most men are rapists " _all over the world ,and given the travel advisory from the US State Department?

Do you think I should * let* her go?
How do you think I can convince her that it isn't safe _anywhere_ for women?


----------



## richie33

She is aware of the dangers. I am sure she will always stay with the group. Bad things could happen anywhere.


----------



## Deejo

If the world you live in is one where most of the male population is a predator, you have been, raped, attacked, abused, groped, leered at or mocked, I don't think any Internet discussion is going to change that perspective. 

And quite honestly, I'm sorry that's your experience and view.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Based on what you wrote , the problem in your opinion seems to be that the masculine gender.


You are so eager to put words in my mouth. Why is that?

"Wider conditions" does not equal "masculine gender", nor is talking about objectification about calling all men rapists.

This isn't all about you. Believe it or not.

It is about a world where women are defined by our sexuality, and yet not in possession of it. 

I don't know why you feel the need to take this so personally. No one thinks you are a rapist. We are merely trying to describe women's perspectives on the subject.

The apparent need to keep dismissing that is exactly my point. Women don't really have the right to define their experience.

The whole gay relationship question is just another red herring.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Show me a real rape case and I'll vote guilty. But I am not going to have my entire gender shamed when we should be PROUD of how safe our women generally are.


You're proud of this?

Sexual Assault and Rape Statistics, Canada

Rape Is Grossly Underreported In The U.S., Study Finds

Statistics


UN Study Looks at High Rate of Rape


The continual denial of women's experience only serves to perpetuate the problem


----------



## techmom

Evidently there is something wrong where even in Muslim countries there is numerous accounts of rape. Women are required to cover most of their bodies, and their is still rape.


----------



## techmom

My experience was this, as soon as I started developing I started getting sexual attention from men. Made my skin crawl. Then my mother started preaching to stay away from men and boys because they only want one thing. So you can say that I'm jaded, but the links that Always provided do not lie, this is a worldwide problem.

Does not matter what the woman wears, whether she is a porn star or a clerk at the local grocery store. Some men paint all attractive girls with the same brush, sex object. You can say that some women act the same way, but there are not the same amount of statistics pointing to that being a world wide problem where it threatens men's safety.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> If the world you live in is one where most of the male population is a predator, you have been, raped, attacked, abused, groped, leered at or mocked, I don't think any Internet discussion is going to change that perspective.
> 
> And quite honestly, I'm sorry that's your experience and view.


But why is it my or techmom's view that's seen as the problem?

Women report very real statistics about the dangers we face, and are met with disbelief, accused of making false accusations, and shown yet more images of women in sexy outfits to prove how a-okay and safe we should feel. 

I mean, really? The numbers are real. In some countries up to 60% of men openly admit to raping a woman, and are surprised to hear they have done something wrong. 1/4 of women in North America are raped. 

And we are proud of how safe women are? 

I understand why men don't want to be presumed rapists, and it surely is wrong to blame someone for something they didn't do. But pretending the problem doesn't exist serves only to protect those men who are committing the crimes from scrutiny and prosecution. So why wouldn't women respond by painting with a very broad brush? It's not like we can tell who will hurt us and who won't, and it is our safety we're talking about here.

You are absolutely right that continued denial of this problem is not going to change my mind that it is, in fact, a very real problem. And I don't see why it should.


----------



## Sandfly

It's sad that women feel this way, but as a good man, I resent being presumed to be a rapist, and I resent the way the presumption is guilt in Western society, as much as they presume innocence of the man in Muslim countries.

It's the same basic flaw, of not judging each case on its merits. Also: Mud sticks, so 'job done', regardless of outcome. Two soap opera stars in England went through this recently.

Not too long ago, boys like Emmet Till suffered the wrath of a white woman lying to save her 'honour'.

Closer to home, my cousin was accused by his sister of raping her and he was put into care. Soon after he came back to live in the family home. Turns out she switched her story to her father. OK so maybe it was her father... well then she changed her story to my cousin's friends - who were scum, by the way... but it doesn't alter the fact that if she wasn't so stupid, she could have put a lot of people away to satisfy her own vindictiveness.

At what point would you guys have drawn the line and said, you know what? I don't believe you.
Never, probably, you're still wondering not if a rape took place, but who it was. Personally, I think she was just a vicious psycho, like Emmet's accuser. Of course, nothing happened to her for her lies, except that she's estranged from the family.

I think it's not 2%, but 20% or more who could see the benefit in storytelling, if it got them revenge. I just look at the amount of backstabbing in the workplace among the women, and my gut tells me I'm right.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Sexual Objectification And Society.*



always_alone said:


> But why is it my or techmom's view that's seen as the problem?
> 
> Women report very real statistics about the dangers we face, and are met with disbelief, accused of making false accusations, and shown yet more images of women in sexy outfits to prove how a-okay and safe we should feel.
> 
> I mean, really? The numbers are real. In some countries up to 60% of men openly admit to raping a woman, and are surprised to hear they have done something wrong. 1/4 of women in North America are raped.
> 
> And we are proud of how safe women are?
> 
> I understand why men don't want to be presumed rapists, and it surely is wrong to blame someone for something they didn't do. But pretending the problem doesn't exist serves only to protect those men who are committing the crimes from scrutiny and prosecution. So why wouldn't women respond by painting with a very broad brush? It's not like we can tell who will hurt us and who won't, and it is our safety we're talking about here.
> 
> You are absolutely right that continued denial of this problem is not going to change my mind that it is, in fact, a very real problem. And I don't see why it should.


For the same reason that a decent man discovers his wife has been gaslighting him and fu**ing someone else, and DOESN'T choose to believe that ALL women are cheating wh0res.

For the same reason that in spite of overwhelming evidence that our loving relationships will end in failure, we still sign up.

You're preaching to the choir here. Just as you justly or unjustly have earned the tag of 'angry man-hater', lets face it, there are plenty of guys posting here that are labeled as blatant misogynists. 

Are we further presuming these men are rapists?

You don't think the dirty cover is being blown off of 'rape culture'? Do you think there is a man here that wouldn't agree that every single one of the men that raped and killed that young woman on the bus in India should be put down or flayed within an inch of their life and then thrown in a hole?

Do you believe there is any man that posts here that would have participated?

We are caught in a dichotomy of semantics. 

I'm never going to be able to make the leap that because I look at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition that I am an active participant in, or endorse rape culture.

I'll buy thats its a fair cop that rapists sexually objectify.

But I don't buy that sexual objectification makes rapists.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

techmom said:


> *My experience was this, as soon as I started developing I started getting sexual attention from men. Made my skin crawl. Then my mother started preaching to stay away from men and boys because they only want one thing. So you can say that I'm jaded, but the links that Always provided do not lie, this is a worldwide problem*.


 I was taught there are *GOOD MEN* ....they will treat a woman with respect, have actions behind their words, they won't make you feel like a piece of meat -trying to get into your pants immediately...(even when they think you are HOT) because they want more than "just sex"....(rare as this breed may be, I think the female population ignores these types)....

There was *BAD MEN *who are only interested in 1 thing & they'll say ANYTHING to get into your pants, promises & all (never jump too soon)- as their hearts are not with you....

and finally...there are *EVIL/ Danergous MEN* who lurk ...and we better be on our guard.... and I very much agree with what I was taught and ....I will teach my daughter the same...

We can Alert...talk about these horrendous statistics....complain, blame each other....going around in circles on who is at fault for this ugliness in our society....

But at the end of the day...what can WE REALLY DO...

But have it start in our own homes... teach our sons to treat women with respect, not to abuse other people, teach them morals, to respect boundaries, to be honest men...good men..... (yeah that's funny, then they grow up like Nice Guys and all the women shun them...men can't seem to win sometimes!)...since they seem to gravitate to the Bad Boys. Go figure !

Hopefully their fathers are a GOOD example to them in this...and in the meantime...we need to teach our daughters to use wisdom going out in this Big Bad world...because without decent male mentors who succeeded in influencing men growing up today... (and boy has that ever went to Hell !)..... let's face it.. what changes do you really foresee happening ?? 

Therefore... as women, we need to be very much aware of the Wolves out there...and to lower our chances of becoming a victim... 



> *Evidently there is something wrong where even in Muslim countries there is numerous accounts of rape. Women are required to cover most of their bodies, and their is still rape.*


Unfortunately there will always be EVIL among us...those without any moral conscience -combine this with a HIGH testosterone level, and you are more likely to find your self a RAPIST. I don't have the answers, in my opinion, all child rapists need castrated, I have no mercy at all.. 

*I'm always for the victim*....but we don't walk into a Lions Den either...especially when WE ARE SO WELL INFORMED of the statistics and the bad things that CAN HAPPEN to women.


----------



## techmom

Sandfly said:


> It's sad that women feel this way, but as a good man, I resent being presumed to be a rapist, and I resent the way the presumption is guilt in Western society, as much as they presume innocence of the man in Muslim countries.
> 
> It's the same basic flaw, of not judging each case on its merits. Also: Mud sticks, so 'job done', regardless of outcome. Two soap opera stars in England went through this recently.
> 
> Not too long ago, boys like Emmet Till suffered the wrath of a white woman lying to save her 'honour'.
> 
> Closer to home, my cousin was accused by his sister of raping her and he was put into care. Soon after he came back to live in the family home. Turns out she switched her story to her father. OK so maybe it was her father... well then she changed her story to my cousin's friends - who were scum, by the way... but it doesn't alter the fact that if she wasn't so stupid, she could have put a lot of people away to satisfy her own vindictiveness.
> 
> At what point would you guys have drawn the line and said, you know what? I don't believe you.
> Never, probably, you're still wondering not if a rape took place, but who it was. Personally, I think she was just a vicious psycho, like Emmet's accuser. Of course, nothing happened to her for her lies, except that she's estranged from the family.
> 
> I think it's not 2%, but 20% or more who could see the benefit in storytelling, if it got them revenge. I just look at the amount of backstabbing in the workplace among the women, and my gut tells me I'm right.


Bringing up the Emmitt Till death does not prove your point. This boy was wrongly accused because he was black, and a boy. Operative word being black. During the Jim crow era in southern US accusing black men and boys of rape was commonplace. If you want to go back to that era to try to find something to back up your claim of men being wrongly accused of rape you will come up short. There were marital rapes happenning as well, and they were legal and no woman would dare accuse her "dear" husband of rape. Her word would have no credibility against his.

So, that is another red herring.

Seriously guys, the more you deny real rape exists and try to throw out examples of women behaving badly by falsely accusing, the more you sound like those "other" men. Men carry the burden of being physically stronger and having testosterone. Double whammy. It means that you carry great responsibility to restrain your lust. Some of you do an excellent job, and I applaud that. But many of you do not, and take advantage of the weaker ones amongst you.

So, the real question should be who is more objectified but who does more damage to the people they are objectifying?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> But why is it my or techmom's view that's seen as the problem?


Here is a prime example of why I don't trust your statistics.

First, you stated that 1 in 4 women in NA were RAPED.

No. They were sexually assaulted according to your own link. Don't make me get a dictionary, but sexual assault is unwanted sexual touching. So, one in four women *in their 78 year lifetime* has had an unwanted butt pinch (granted...or worse)

This is an offensive mistake to make though I think it was due to sloppy writing on your part.

But let's see HOW these statistics are created.

I am on a date with a woman. I was a FRIEND of the woman...which is why I asked her on a date.

We have dinner. We drink wine.

I take her to her HOME and she lets me in.

I kiss her. Smiles. I kiss her some more. More smiles. I put my hand on her butt.

"WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING? WHY DID YOU HAVE TO RUIN THE MOMENT?"

Blink blink.

Men in our society are expected to be sexually aggressive. The number one sexual fantasy of women is the 'rape' fantasy. So it is in male nature to see how far the woman will let us go. So they push. And because I put a hand on her butt, I am now probably a self reported statistic which some woman can conflate to 1 in 4 women being RAPED.

There is a vast difference between 'cad' and 'rapist'.

I am stating that within this vast underreportage, I'd like to know how many of these 25% of women were actually RAPED...and how much just had some teenaged boy or drunken lout grope them which stopped the minute she made her objections known.

I want context. Because if I put my hand on some girls butt during a date, that's a lot different than randomly doing it to some stranger.

But I doubt very much that some women want such clarity because it will diminish the illusion of imminent threat. And because it is such a personal issue, they want as much attention on the issue as possible, whether the danger is overblown or not.

I understand but unfortunately, I am on the receiving end of the broad brush and I am not accepting the smear.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> So why wouldn't women respond by painting with a very broad brush? It's not like we can tell who will hurt us and who won't, and it is our safety we're talking about here.



If you're talking about being wary of strange men, I'd agree. When I see a female jogger early in the morning, it's kinda sad that her stride breaks somewhat the instant she sees a man coming, but I do understand. 

But if you're defending a particularly odious comment on this thread, isn't the idea above what we call converse accidence?

Aren't negative assumptions based upon gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religious affiliation known alternatively as sexism, racism, ethnicism, homophobia and religious intolerance?


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> But the question is , how does all of this negate the fact that men are four times more at risk of death and violence in almost every society?


perpetrated largely by fellow males



Caribbean Man said:


> If violence against a womann is an indicator of female gender objectification in a society, why is it not also an indicator of male gender objectification?


Death rate from DV- 75% female and 25% male.

I would say the male on male murder in wars and gang violence is objectification in the sense of dehumanizing the victims. However "male gender objectification" is not a fair characterization of this male on male violence.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Here is a prime example of why I don't trust your statistics.
> 
> First, you stated that 1 in 4 women in NA were RAPED.
> 
> No. They were sexually assaulted according to your own link. Don't make me get a dictionary, but sexual assault is unwanted sexual touching. So, one in four women *in their 78 year lifetime* has had an unwanted butt pinch (granted...or worse)


You are so determined to downplay the statistics. What's your vested interest? Do you really imagine that these numbers are a result of women having their butts pinched on a date? 

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.

What you are talking about is the first level of sexual assault, and 90% of these go completely unreported. Those that do are typically those where injury has occurred. And yes, the first level of sexual assault includes assault that causes injury.

This is *not* innocent butt pinching we are talking about.

The following numbers are US, and show 1 in 5 women are raped.
Soraya Chemaly: 50 Actual Facts About Rape

Worldwide the statistic is 35%. And this doesn't include all those unreported rapes, not to mention spousal rapes that are still quite legal in many countries.

And still you want to downplay that and say "oh gee, she was only raped once. She should just get over that"?

Talk about offensive!


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Evidently there is something wrong where even in Muslim countries there is numerous accounts of rape. Women are required to cover most of their bodies, and their is still rape.


Here's the problem with your arguments.

They are inconsistent.

Your argument is that in Islamic countries, women are forced to cover their bodies , and there is still the prevalence of rape by strange men. [ Which ,BTW is totally inaccurate. In Islamic societies , the penalty for rape is death ] 

Now the other part of your argument is that sexual objectification causes rape. Men staring and leering at women's breasts , hips and other body parts , being unable to control their lust.

So here's the inconsistency.
If in Islamic countries ,women are force to cover their entire bodies including their faces, then what are the men who are supposed to be " objectifying " them seeing that turns them into sexual predators?

Here is a picture of Muslim women having a bath in the sea. 



Sexy eh?
No.

Islamic countries don't even allow pictures of any scantily clad women in their public places. It is punishable by law.
They don't have beauty pageants , filming porn movies is prohibited by law, the don't have female singers in their rock concerts ,there are no clubs with sexily clad women ,adverts cannot show any part of the female form uncovered , porn magazines are not allowed , pornographic material of any kind is banned by law and so on.

So what is there for the men to objectify?
Where is the evidence of of sexual objectification in Islamic countries which you claim also leads to rape?

Can you see the inconsistency in your argument?

The problem in Islamic countries is not one of sexual objectification , but a deeper one of a lack of basic_ human_ rights that leads to those type of atrocities we hear of so often.

That's why i said earlier, what a man thinks of a strange woman when he sees her walking in the streets is nobody else's but his private ,business. Whenever it becomes the business of another authority outside of himself, then we are heading in the direction of those Islamic states.
whatever a woman chooses to do with her body or whatever she wants to wear is not the business of anybody other than herself. Whenever it becomes the business of another authority outside of herself , then we are heading in the direction of Burqas on the beach.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> You're preaching to the choir here.


If only that were true. But instead what I'm being told is that rape statistics aren't a big deal, that it's just angry and resentful women making false accusations or getting upset about a harmless butt pinch. What's happening here is downplaying a very real and terrible problem, and for what reason?

The point of talking about this issue is *not* to say that all men are rapists, but to convey the seriousness of the issue.

It is a real problem women face. Yes, we know not all men are like that. Yes, we know that many are as equally appalled at the India rapes as we are.

But if you're the choir, why so much effort put into downplaying the problem? Why make it out to be just a normally sweet guy who is terrible misunderstood because he wants to play to women's rape fantasies? This is basically like saying rape is just women's fault.



Deejo said:


> I'm never going to be able to make the leap that because I look at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition that I am an active participant in, or endorse rape culture.
> 
> I'll buy thats its a fair cop that rapists sexually objectify.
> 
> But I don't buy that sexual objectification makes rapists.


Sexual objectification does not make rapists. I agree wholeheartedly with this. What it does is create a climate where women's bodies are overly sexualized AND seen as public property. The combination helps to foster a sense of entitlement to use women for sexual gratification, whether they want you to or not.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Okay...
> 
> Right there is where things begin to get a little clearer!
> 
> If she's happy and confident in herself, then a glance or look from a total stranger shouldn't bother her. Even if she is bothered, and she is well within her rights to be , then she has options , the foremost being to completely ignore your stare , an carry on with her life, the least being , to feel
> " objectified." *Ultimately however she feel is her choice.*


I disagree. Do you have children CM? Society has a huge impact on how a little girl is going to feel about herself. Collectively, should we not be concerned about the messages our children are receiving?

I didn't watch the video in the OP, but 18yo is still a child in many ways and I feel sorry for her and sad that she is so blind. If she were my daughter I would be heartbroken...

If you took your little girl and did this to her, is she responsible for sexually objectifying herself when she is 18?










CM, are you aware of the statistics on how many children are sexually abused? Such a history affects how a person perceives him/herself as an 18yo and beyond and also affects their feelings. How much of that is really "her choice" as you put it? 



> The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau report Child Maltreatment 2010 found that 9.2% of victimized children were sexually assaulted (page 24).
> 
> Studies by David Finkelhor, Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, show that:
> 
> 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;
> Self-report studies show that 20% of adult females and 5-10% of adult males recall a childhood sexual assault or sexual abuse incident;
> During a one-year period in the U.S., 16% of youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
> Over the course of their lifetime, 28% of U.S. youth ages 14 to 17 had been sexually victimized;
> Children are most vulnerable to CSA between the ages of 7 and 13.
> Child Sexual Abuse Statistics


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> My experience was this, as soon as I started developing I started getting sexual attention from men. Made my skin crawl. Then my mother started preaching to stay away from men and boys because they only want one thing. So you can say that I'm jaded, but the links that Always provided do not lie, this is a worldwide problem.
> 
> Does not matter what the woman wears, whether she is a porn star or a clerk at the local grocery store. Some men paint all attractive girls with the same brush, sex object. You can say that some women act the same way, but there are not the same amount of statistics pointing to that being a world wide problem where it threatens men's safety.


See here CM, I am clearly stating that No Matter What The Woman Wears or does, she is seen as a sex object by some men. You showing me Muslim women in hijab at a beach pretty much proves my point.

Let me state this again..women are viewed as sex objects no matter what they wear, what they do as a profession, or if they are married or not. I did not think this point would be so hard to get across.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Here's the problem with your arguments.
> 
> They are inconsistent.
> 
> Your argument is that in Islamic countries, women are forced to cover their bodies , and there is still the prevalence of rape by strange men. [ Which ,BTW is totally inaccurate. In Islamic societies , the penalty for rape is death ]
> 
> Now the other part of your argument is that sexual objectification causes rape. Men staring and leering at women's breasts , hips and other body parts , being unable to control their lust.


The reason women are required to cover up is *because* of their sexuality. Men cannot be expected to control themselves, so women must cover up, stay inside, basically live under lock and key. Her 12 year old son has more power than she does in a typical household. 

What does that tell you?

As for rape, it takes 4 witnesses before anyone will even attempt to prosecute a man for rape, and in most Muslim countries spousal rape is perfectly legal.

And if you look at the actual cases, you will see that it is mostly the victim who is blamed. More often than not, the one put to death is the rape victim, not the rapist.


----------



## techmom

Another point I want to make, and hopefully I am not misinterpreted, is that female breasts and backside are notthe only sexual parts of a woman's body. Feet, ankles, mouth, legs, etc. are also seen as sexual. Which is why the hijab covers a woman from head to toe. Does not prevent rape though. That picture can be seen as a sexual picture by men in the east, it is not all about the bikinis and lingerie.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> See here CM, I am clearly stating that No Matter What The Woman Wears or does, she is seen as a sex object by some men. You showing me Muslim women in hijab at a beach pretty much proves my point.
> 
> Let me state this again..women are viewed as sex objects no matter what they wear, what they do as a profession, or if they are married or not. I did not think this point would be so hard to get across.



Ok.

Lets take this step by step.

Do you think women are, or can be sexy?

Do you think that men are , or can be sexy?


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Another point I want to make, and hopefully I am not misinterpreted, is that female breasts and backside are notthe only sexual parts of a woman's body. Feet, ankles, mouth, legs, etc. are also seen as sexual. Which is why the hijab covers a woman from head to toe. Does not prevent rape though. That picture can be seen as a sexual picture by men in the east, it is not all about the bikinis and lingerie.


ROTFL,

So maybe they should also ban women from showing their feet and ankles?

Because in some Islamic countries that practice strict Shia law, feet , hands and ankles must also be covered...


----------



## Blonde

IMO *sexual* objectification is not the same as what you are calling "male gender objectification" as in the dehumanizing snuffing out of fellow human beings.

IMO* sexual* objectification happens more to women because men tend to be more visual than women. Porn is a prime example of sexual objectification. Strictly superficial and one dimensional, she exists only as a tool to get off on, and in a click of a switch she is gone.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The reason women are required to cover up is *because* of their sexuality. Men cannot be expected to control themselves, so women must cover up, stay inside, basically live under lock and key. Her 12 year old son has more power than she does in a typical household.
> 
> What does that tell you?



It tells me that maybe all * good men * in society should probably volunteer to cut off their penises so that they won't be suspected of being rapist and they wouldn't be tempted to rape anywhere in the world.

Then the authorities could jail and execute all the *bad men* who refuse to cut off their penises and women would be able to feel safe?

Fair enough?
What do you think?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> You are so determined to downplay the statistics. What's your vested interest? Do you really imagine that these numbers are a result of women having their butts pinched on a date?
> 
> I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are.
> 
> *What you are talking about is the first level of sexual assault, and 90% of these go completely unreported. *Those that do are typically those where injury has occurred. And yes, the first level of sexual assault includes assault that causes injury.
> 
> This is *not* innocent butt pinching we are talking about.
> 
> The following numbers are US, and show 1 in 5 women are raped.
> Soraya Chemaly: 50 Actual Facts About Rape
> 
> Worldwide the statistic is 35%. And this doesn't include all those unreported rapes, not to mention spousal rapes that are still quite legal in many countries.
> 
> And still you want to downplay that and say "oh gee, she was only raped once. She should just get over that"?
> 
> Talk about offensive!


No, I am saying SOME of these statistics are the result of circumstances which are far more nebulous than you obviously want to admit.

If I put out a study and ask 'have you been sexually touched in an unwanted fashion' Of COURSE I'm going to get huge numbers as a result...because there is no context!

And yet these are the crappy questions asked in these studies.

For example, in your last link, it states 'only 3 in 100 rapists will serve time'.

It takes 4 different studies from three different time frames with little overlap to get to that astounding conclusion...and yet do they define their methodology? It is to laugh.

Let us assume that it is true that only 40% of rapes are reported. Then what? How many have evidence? How many women are willing to swear out a complaint? (personal responsibility anyone?) Why did a prosecutor defer trial? All good questions. Sorry, but the legal system does not automatically take the word of ONE PERSON to jail ANOTHER person without evidence. Sex occurred. HOW that sex occurred becomes a matter of debate...but we are supposed to automatically assume the man is a liar in your world.

Ten lead to an arrest...but going to jail awaiting trial or for processing 'isn't serving time'. Um...yeah...it is time. So the headline COULD read '25% of men accused of rape get jail time'

Eight get prosecuted. That means they went to trial and are guilty. What happens then? They go to JAIL!

But that means it should be 8 percent, right? The story should be 1 in 5 men accused of rape are prosecuted and found guilty, right?

Well, no. Because the people who are interested in this study don't like having so say 8%.

So they define it as PRISON (vs. Jail, which is a different facility) time...which gives them the horrible sounding headline to punch the number down for 3%.

Using these same statistics, I can definitively say *80% of men prosecuted for rape face incarceration.* And the average time spent in jail...or prison is 65 months. Five years.

But that isn't the story that RAINN (The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) creator of this study and recipient of FEDERAL FUNDING is interested in telling. Nor do I trust the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, also recipients of federal funding, to say 'nope...the issue is more complicated than that' Their funding is based on sexing up their numbers.

And the highlighted bit is the point: You state that my 'butt pinching' version of sexual assault is 90% unreported...and sexual assault is 94% unreported according to your statistics. Well duh! Where do you think these high numbers come from?

Do I trust RAINN or NSVRC to tell me that the problem is solved? That things are getting better?

No I don't. It is against their financial interest.

I want better data from people without obvious motives to gin up the numbers so we can have an honest conversation. I want a peer reviewed paper, not a headline piece by an issue think tank.


----------



## Blonde

I think the people in conflict on this thread have more common ground than they realize...


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> The reason women are required to cover up is *because* of their sexuality. Men cannot be expected to control themselves, so women must cover up, stay inside, basically live under lock and key. Her 12 year old son has more power than she does in a typical household.
> 
> What does that tell you?
> 
> As for rape, it takes 4 witnesses before anyone will even attempt to prosecute a man for rape, and in most Muslim countries spousal rape is perfectly legal.
> 
> And if you look at the actual cases, you will see that it is mostly the victim who is blamed. More often than not, the one put to death is the rape victim, not the rapist.


I agree with all of this.

Muslim countries are MUCH WORSE than Western countries regarding rape.

And I will continue to point out that the way women dress here indicates that fear of rape, while it exists, seems to fall far short of 'looking good' as a priority.

This is a revealed preference in women's dress.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> IMO *sexual* objectification is not the same as what you are calling "male gender objectification" as in the dehumanizing snuffing out of fellow human beings.
> 
> IMO* sexual* objectification happens more to women because men tend to be more visual than women. Porn is a prime example of sexual objectification. Strictly superficial and one dimensional, she exists only as a tool to get off on, and in a click of a switch she is gone.


And why would a " one dimensional " creature* need* to be paid $10,000.00 per shoot? 
What need does she have for money?

Funny how you use porn as a prime example of how women are sexually objectified and seen as " one dimensional" but you completely left out the other gender.
The male actors.

Is it that men can't be " objectified?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By now you _do_ realize that your theory isn't accurate ?



BTW, The actors in the movie can't really be " objectified " in the way you suggest, any more than the President of the United State when he appears in a Whitehouse press briefing on the seven o' clock news .
You don't give a sh*t if the President has a tummy ache or whether he's a bit under the weather. He's the president and he's supposed to fix things and make life safe and happy for the country.
He's highly paid for that, and he's still a fully functional human being.
Your thoughts and feelings have no bearing on his actions.
The people in the adult movies are fully functional human beings and what they do with their lives outside of that business is no business of you or me. There's absolutely nothing we can think of them that they really care about.


----------



## larry.gray

Blonde said:


> Death rate from DV- 75% female and 25% male.


I had NO idea it was even close to 25% for men.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> It tells me that maybe all * good men * in society should probably volunteer to cut off their penises so that they won't be suspected of being rapist and they wouldn't be tempted to rape anywhere in the world.
> 
> Then the authorities could jail and execute all the *bad men* who refuse to cut off their penises and women would be able to feel safe?
> 
> Fair enough?
> What do you think?


:rofl:


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> I think the people in conflict on this thread have more common ground than they realize...


I am not 'pro rape' nor do I want to normalize caddish behavior.

However, I want a bit more light than heat on this issue. The stats on rape, using multiple information sources from different times to get a forced conclusion.

I would like to know if rape is increasing or decreasing in this country.

I would like to know what kind of sexual assault we are talking about when we talk about how 'unreported' it is.

These are not outrageous questions.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> And why would a " one dimensional " creature* need* to be paid $10,000.00 per shoot?
> What need does she have for money?
> 
> Funny how you use porn as a prime example of how women are sexually objectified and seen as " one dimensional" but you completely left out the other gender.
> The male actors.
> 
> Is it that men can't be " objectified?"
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> By now you _do_ realize that your theory isn't accurate ?


*Whoever views the porn* is objectifying the actors. I don't. Do you? I expect statistically, more males do than females.


----------



## Blonde

Blonde said:


>


She looks like she could be your daughter CM. How would you feel about people jerking off to her? 

Do you not feel that *society* (you included) has an obligation to provide an environment where she can be valued for the content of her character rather than superficial attributes?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> She looks like she could be your daughter CM. How would you feel about people jerking off to her?
> 
> Do you not feel that *society* (you included) has an obligation to provide an environment where she can be valued for the content of her character rather than superficial attributes?


And how do you know that she wants to be valued for those
* other * qualities?

Is she getting paid for those *other* qualities?
Will a " caring" society pay for her expensive , lavish , lifestyle if she leaves the porno business?

Because that's what counts _for her._


----------



## richie33

Which gender is dressing their daughters like the picture you have shown? Can't imagine a man dressing their daughters like that but I sure have seen mothers taking their very young daughters to " beauty contests" all over tv. Are men responsible for that also?


----------



## JCD

Since we are playing with statistics, let's put one out there for the ladies:

Only 6% of men are rapists, but they have, on average, about 6 victims.

So instead of raising the hue and cry against all men, why don't we instead try to find these bastards and punish them accordingly?


----------



## Blonde

larry.gray said:


> I had NO idea it was even close to 25% for men.


"On average, 3 females and 1 male are murdered by their partner each day"
Domestic Violence / Abuse Statistics | Statistic Brain


----------



## JCD

richie33 said:


> Which gender is dressing their daughters like the picture you have shown? Can't imagine a man dressing their daughters like that but I sure have seen mothers taking their very young daughters to " beauty contests" all over tv. Are men responsible for that also?


Well, according to some people, marketing is some kind of mind control ray which MAKES women buy sexy clothing against their better judgment, not, you know, a decision by an adult to make their own choices in purchasing and wearing these garments.

So yes, somehow men are to blame for these beauty contests too. I had never HEARD of these contests until the Ramsey girl died.


----------



## Cosmos

Ladies...

Just about anything any of you post in this thread is likely to be misinterpreted and turned around on you, and I don't know why any of you are continuing to post here.

Most intelligent, enlightened people realize that:-


Both men and women can be objectified, but women are objectified far more than men.


Objectification can be very damaging, and one of the effects of objectification is that it often leads to the person being objectified to eventually objectify themselves.


Objectification is not the same as attraction.


Objectification does not necessarily lead to rape.


Whilst sex is the tool that is used, rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.


Both sexes can be raped, but far more women are raped than men.


Rape is abhorrent, no matter which gender it is perpetrated against.


False allegations of rape are as abhorrent as the act of rape itself.


Most men are not rapists, and both genders despise rape as much as the other.


I'm not sure what the agenda is of those who are deliberately misinterpreting just about every post one of you ladies make, but the solution is simply to leave the playground and let the boys argue with one another.

I'm done. This thread has triggered me badly and I won't be posting here anymore.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> And how do you know that she wants to be valued for those
> * other * qualities?
> 
> Is she getting paid for those *other* qualities?
> Will a " caring" society pay for her expensive , lavish , lifestyle if she leaves the porno business?
> 
> Because that's what counts _for her._


Can you see the child in the picture? I'm not talking about your porno star poster girl. I'm talking about the child in the picture and about* my daughters and yours. *

Don't you want them to grow up knowing that they are valued for the content of their character not mere superficial aspects?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> *Whoever views the porn* is objectifying the actors. I don't. Do you? I expect statistically, more males do than females.


Well you're wrong on all counts.

1] Saying that looking at porn " objectifies " its actors is like saying that looking at comedy and laughing your heart out is 
" objectifying " the actors in that comedy.

2]No , I no longer consume porn , and the reason in not moral. I simply prefer the real stuff.

3]Females look at porn as much as males. Do women like porn as much as men? – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs.,and you'd be surprised what types of porn they like!
.
.
.


----------



## Blonde

Teen-age girl?s appearance and the effects on their self esteem? | Teen Opinion Essay

Why???

How can society (you and I included) change this?


----------



## JCD

> So without quibbling over the precise statutory definition, this equates to rape or attempted rape. 120 men admitted to raping to attempting to rape. This is actually a relatively slim proportion of the survey population — just over 6% — and might be an underreport, though for part of the sample, the survey team did interviews to confirm the self-reports, which tends to show if there is an undercount in the self-reports, and found the responses consistent. But the more interesting part of the findings were how those rapists and their offenses broke down.
> 
> Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). *Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.*
> 
> The breakdown between the modus operandi of the rapists also tells us a lot about how wrong the script is. *Of all 120 admitted rapists, only about 30% reported using force or threats, while the remainder raped intoxicated victims. This proportion was roughly the same between the 44 rapists who reported one assault and the 76 who reported multiple assaults*. (What the authors call “overt-force rapists” committed more sexual assaults, on average, than the “intoxication rapists” by about 6 to 3, but the parts of the sample are so small that this result did not reach statistical significance and could be sampling error rather than a real phenomenon. I’d really like an answer to that, though.)
> 
> Lisak & Miller also answered their other question: are rapists responsible for more violence generally? Yes. The surveys covered other violent acts, such as slapping or choking an intimate partner, physically or sexually abusing a child, and sexual assaults other than attempted or completed rapes. In the realm of being partner- and child-beating monsters, the repeat rapists really stood out. These 76 men, just 4% of the sample, were responsible for 28% of the reported violence. *The whole sample of almost 1900 men reported just under 4000 violent acts, but this 4% of recidivist rapists results in over 1000 of those violent acts. *
> 
> If we could eliminate the men who rape again and again and again, a quarter of the violence against women and children would disappear. That’s the public policy implication.


It seems that dark alleys are actually safer than bars.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> *Whoever views the porn* is objectifying the actors. I don't. Do you? I expect statistically, more males do than females.



There's all kinds of things you could say about visual pornography and its effects on people. 

You could say it depicts objectification, sometimes in very vulgar ways. You could say viewers are condoning objectification even if only tacitly by watching it. You could say it encourages and/or aggravates objectification of people in real life. 

Ultimately though it's not possible to objectify a picture.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Can you see the child in the picture? I'm not talking about your porno star poster girl. I'm talking about the child in the picture and about* my daughters and yours. *
> 
> Don't you want them to grow up knowing that they are valued for the content of their character not mere superficial aspects?


Of course she looks like a child to me.

But is she really a child?

If she's over the legal age , then what she does with her life is no business of mine or yours or even the government.

Think for a minute.

You're a Christian.
Suppose it came to light that some Christian church pastors were regularly having sexual relations with the members of their congregations, and civil groups in society decided that it was their business , so the lobbied the government to ban Christian churches. .
How would you feel if the government decided to step in and grant these groups their wishes and ban Christianity because of the misdemeanors of the few?


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Well you're wrong on all counts.
> 
> 1] Saying that looking at porn " objectifies " its actors is like saying that looking at comedy and laughing your heart out is
> " objectifying " the actors in that comedy.
> 
> .


In *your* opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I like Gary Brooks on the destructiveness of what he calls "The Centerfold Syndrome" to real intimacy


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course she looks like a child to me.
> 
> But is she really a child?
> 
> If she's over the legal age , then what she does with her life is no business of mine or yours or even the government.


She's 10


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> Since we are playing with statistics, let's put one out there for the ladies:
> 
> Only 6% of men are rapists, but they have, on average, about 6 victims.
> 
> So instead of raising the hue and cry against all men, why don't we instead try to find these bastards and punish them accordingly?


This is more like it. I'm with you.


----------



## ReformedHubby

techmom said:


> Seriously guys, the more you deny real rape exists and try to throw out examples of women behaving badly by falsely accusing, the more you sound like those "other" men. Men carry the burden of being physically stronger and having testosterone. Double whammy. It means that you carry great responsibility to restrain your lust. Some of you do an excellent job, and I applaud that. But many of you do not, and take advantage of the weaker ones amongst you.


I think the reason your posts are making folks scratch their heads is because none of the men on here are denying that rape exists. Also, none of the men are making excuses for rapists. What more do you want from us? You can't honestly expect us to do to anything other than that. Why keep going around in circles? Some men rape, and we all agree its a bad thing. We get it, we honestly do.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> She's 10


Well if she' 10 years then that's illegal.

And those who forced her into pornography should be made to feel the full brunt of the law.

Full stop.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> But that isn't the story that RAINN (The Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) creator of this study and recipient of FEDERAL FUNDING is interested in telling. Nor do I trust the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, also recipients of federal funding, to say 'nope...the issue is more complicated than that' Their funding is based on sexing up their numbers.


I've posted stats from the UN. Are they sexing up their numbers too? And he Canadian government, the UK? They all tell the same stories. You think they're all just making it up too?

Is it really an *honest* conversation you're looking for?

The fact is, women are rarely believed when they complain, and it is far more common that the severity of the offense is downplayed or ignored, than it is to be exaggerated. 

By the most objective stats out there.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> 2]No , I no longer consume porn , and the reason in not moral. I simply prefer the real stuff.
> .


----------



## SolidSnake

I agree with the posts where people say that objectification is gender neutral. I just had a lesbian look me up and down at a restaraunt Friday night. Couldn't that be considered objectification even though we are the same gender?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> In *your* opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> I like Gary Brooks on the destructiveness of what he calls "The Centerfold Syndrome" to real intimacy


So what's the difference between looking at a comedy that makes you laugh and looking at a porno flick that makes you aroused?

If looking at porn " objectifies " the actors, how come looking at a comedy movie or a romance movie isn't " objectifying " its actors?

Can you explain?


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> You're a Christian.
> Suppose it came to light that some Christian church pastors were regularly having sexual relations with the members of their congregations, and civil groups in society decided that it was their business , so the lobbied the government to ban Christian churches. .
> How would you feel if the government decided to step in and grant these groups their wishes and ban Christianity because of the misdemeanors of the few?


If so called "christians" are doing that, they are violating their own principles and deserve to be jailed and I'd be in favor of castration too... (punishment fit the crime and all)

France where the kiddie porn photos were published in Vogue is voting on banning beauty pagents for children <16. I could support that! French report: Ban child beauty pageants, padded bras for little girls - World News


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


>


But please note that that's on me.
I am responsible for myself. I am 44 years this month and no longer have the excess energy to spend on porn.
My agenda is packed full.

When I was younger I had the energy so I am not against anyone who consumes or enjoys it.
That's their business , not mine.

Just like those who act in it. That's their business, not mine.
Just like the man on the street who looks at a woman, that's his business, not mine.

And when I see a beautiful , sexy woman confidently strutting her stuff in the street , and I look at her and smile , what goes through my mind is MY business, nobody else's


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> So what's the difference between looking at a comedy that makes you laugh and looking at a porno flick that makes you aroused?
> 
> If looking at porn " objectifies " the actors, how come looking at a comedy movie or a romance movie isn't " objectifying " its actors?
> 
> Can you explain?


Because in a movie, you aren't imagining yourself screwing the person while you masturbate which is* sexual *objectification -using the person as an object to get your rocks off.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> If so called "christians" are doing that, they are violating their own principles and deserve to be jailed and I'd be in favor of castration too... (punishment fit the crime and all)



Again,

There's a point that you are missing.
You can't jail someone for something that isn't illegal. A pastor having sex with his congregation might be unethical, but it's not illegal.
You can't ban a religion because in democratic countries people have the right to worship and congregate as they see fit. It would be unconstitutional.
Just like people who act in porn are well within their rights as citizens to do so.


----------



## Caribbean Man

richie33 said:


> Which gender is dressing their daughters like the picture you have shown? Can't imagine a man dressing their daughters like that but I sure have seen mothers taking their very young daughters to " beauty contests" all over tv. Are men responsible for that also?


Which is another excellent point that I wanted to raise.

Some feminists believe that beauty pageants contribute to the sexual objectification of women in society.

Which I think is kinda bordering on fanatical.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Because in a movie, you aren't imagining yourself screwing the person while you masturbate which is* sexual *objectification -using the person as an object to get your rocks off.


But you are viewing the person in the comedy and laughing _at them._
Or are you laughing at their portrayal?
Which is it?
And what's the difference?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Since we are playing with statistics, let's put one out there for the ladies:
> 
> Only 6% of men are rapists, but they have, on average, about 6 victims.
> 
> So instead of raising the hue and cry against all men, why don't we instead try to find these bastards and punish them accordingly?


You say you want an honest conversation, but then toss out a totally biased stat of your own.

UN statistics show that this figure varies significantly by region. 

As does the average number of times a woman can expect to be raped in her lifetime.


----------



## Blonde

JCD said:


> Well, according to some people, marketing is some kind of mind control ray which MAKES women buy sexy clothing against their better judgment, not, you know, a decision by an adult to make their own choices in purchasing and wearing these garments.


^^Right there you are blaming women that it's our fault we are objectified because of what we wear. 

Men are funny. On one hand you want a hot looking woman. OTH we are slvts who should be ashamed if we dress immodestly...

I'm comfortable in my skin and in sexy clothes at age 50+ now. But I identify with Cosmos as one who developed early with large breasts in the day when that was popular and got way WAY too much unwanted attention at age 12 from DOM. For a very long time, I wore baggy clothes to hide my figure. In many ways I am afraid that "beauty" for a girl is a huge curse.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> But you are viewing the person in the comedy and laughing _at them._
> Or are you laughing at their portrayal?
> Which is it?
> And what's the difference?


The difference is I am not spraying any sperm or O juice their way

Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery - “You have heard that it - Bible Gateway


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> If you're talking about being wary of strange men, I'd agree. When I see a female jogger early in the morning, it's kinda sad that her stride breaks somewhat the instant she sees a man coming, but I do understand.
> 
> But if you're defending a particularly odious comment on this thread, isn't the idea above what we call converse accidence?
> 
> *Aren't negative assumptions based upon gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religious affiliation known alternatively as sexism, racism, ethnicism, homophobia and religious intolerance?*


:iagree:

And that's the point.
She's doing the exact same thing she thinks she's trying to fight.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> Ladies...
> 
> Just about anything any of you post in this thread is likely to be misinterpreted and turned around on you, and I don't know why any of you are continuing to post here.
> 
> Most intelligent, enlightened people realize that:-
> 
> 
> Both men and women can be objectified, but women are objectified far more than men.
> 
> 
> Objectification can be very damaging, and one of the effects of objectification is that it often leads to the person being objectified to eventually objectify themselves.
> 
> 
> Objectification is not the same as attraction.
> 
> 
> Objectification does not necessarily lead to rape.
> 
> 
> Whilst sex is the tool that is used, rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.
> 
> 
> Both sexes can be raped, but far more women are raped than men.
> 
> 
> Rape is abhorrent, no matter which gender it is perpetrated against.
> 
> 
> False allegations of rape are as abhorrent as the act of rape itself.
> 
> 
> Most men are not rapists, and both genders despise rape as much as the other.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the agenda is of those who are deliberately misinterpreting just about every post one of you ladies make, but the solution is simply to leave the playground and let the boys argue with one another.
> 
> I'm done. This thread has triggered me badly and I won't be posting here anymore.


QFT! One last thought, and I'm out too.

* The point of talking about objectification is *not* to blame all men or accuse them of being rapists, but to demonstrate the climate and negative consequences that it creates. Downplaying, mocking, or ignoring them will only serve to make matters worse -- for both women and men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> The difference is I am not spraying any sperm or O juice their way
> 
> Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery - “You have heard that it - Bible Gateway


...lol, ok.

So what if during a really hilarious moment in a comedy film you laugh till tears come out of your eyes?
Or what if during a sad moment in the romantic film you are so moved emotionally , that you begin to cry?

Does that count?
If not, why?
It's body fluids right?

Can't you see that both types of scenarios are playing on the emotional centers of your brains , but just producing different results?
So how does one = objectification of it's actors and the other isn't?
Aren't both affecting the same areas of the brain and producing a reaction at the " expense " of it's actors?


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Again,
> 
> There's a point that you are missing.
> You can't jail someone for something that isn't illegal. A pastor having sex with his congregation might be unethical, but it's not illegal.
> You can't ban a religion because in democratic countries people have the right to worship and congregate as they see fit. It would be unconstitutional.
> Just like people who act in porn are well within their rights as citizens to do so.


You are not comparing apples to apples

You are talking about the govt banning xanity for behavior that is anathema to TRUE xans.

I never talked about banning porn- which I loathe BTW. I talked about protecting children and creating a society where girls do not think their only value is their looks/sexiness.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> You're a Christian.
> Suppose it came to light that some Christian church pastors were regularly having sexual relations with the members of their congregations, and civil groups in society decided that it was their business , so the lobbied the government to ban Christian churches. .
> How would you feel if the government decided to step in and grant these groups their wishes and ban Christianity because of the misdemeanors of the few?


CM,

By your example the govt should ban college football because Sandusky raped boys.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> ...lol, ok.
> 
> So what if during a really hilarious moment in a comedy film you laugh till tears come out of your eyes?
> Or what if during a sad moment in the romantic film you are so moved emotionally , that you begin to cry?
> 
> Does that count?
> If not, why?
> It's body fluids right?


No, because that is not a lust response.

Just yesterday, I was reading this series on desire versus love. Desire consumes the other and is self centered. Love puts the other first.

Desire is Not Love | Gary Thomas


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> You say you want an honest conversation, but then toss out a totally biased stat of your own.
> 
> UN statistics show that this figure varies significantly by region.
> 
> As does the average number of times a woman can expect to be raped in her lifetime.


Just seems like you'll never be satisfied. Statistics rarely end an argument, because we all know they are produced by biased people, using different measures to prove their point.

I saw some stats on that infallible guide, Wiki, which had a range of false-accusation stats, over many different studies. The minimum was 1.5%, the majority were in the 10% to 25% range, and the upper quartile was 40-45%. One study reported a false rape % of 90%. (Gathered in a Table here: False accusation of rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Rather than pick the one that suited and post it, I just kind of thought "statistics" don't matter as much as what I know, and I've been on jury duty, I've witnessed the effect of a false accuser against my cousin, I've seen several recent high-profile acquittals on multiple charges from multiple accusers... all in all, I know that false accusations are neither 1.5% nor 90%, so I'm satisfied to call it about 20%. Which is a big problem, not a red herring.

Avoiding 94% of men, and treating them with automatic suspicion based on the actions of 6% a is red herring way of life.

Avoiding middle-easterners, alcoholics, gang members and recently arrived third-worlders and you could probably get that rapist stat down to 1%.

But the people in the above categories - shucks, we men avoid them too - because they're also the ones likely to stick a knife in _us_.

That's my ramble. Here's an interesting, but completely trivial study to finish with:

According to a single survey of 20 American law enforcement officers done in 2004, the typical person making a false accusation was "female (100%), Caucasian (100%), 15-20 years of age (10%), 31-45 years of age (25%), or 21-30 years of age (65%)". A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge, or to cover up behavior deemed "inappropriate" by their condemning surrounding culture.

_Single white female_, you have to watch out for them, not just Emmet Till is in danger from them.


----------



## Blonde

Watching a movie and laughing or crying is an empathic response.

Watching porn and self pleasuring is self-centered.

Here is another porn actress perspective for ya. The truth about porn with Tamra Toryn (SFW?) - Imgur She says its an act, there is no real pleasure in all the degradation...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> CM my daddy sexualized me. As far as I can recall, this was never physical. But he dressed me up real sexy see through skin tight, etc at age 12 (I was large breasted and looked much older)... and took me on dates and trips alone.
> 
> He looked upon me with lust and it was deeply damaging even though there was no physical violation that I recall.
> 
> When little girls/women are looked upon with lust, it is damaging. I am gratified to know that Jesus agrees with me even if you don't.
> 
> Daddy shipped me off to boarding school when I was 14. I suppose I was too much of a temptation, ya think???
> 
> When I was 18, he married a 22yo


The reality is,
Not all me are like your daddy.
And not because a man looks at porn or likes to look at women means that they are like your daddy.

The pic below is a picture of one of my nieces .



She's a 25 yr old professional model.
When she was 14, her mom and dad had a bitter divorce , and she was a confused , little teenage girl. Her father had to migrate to work so she was left with her mother. She started acting out badly , she was a pretty girl , and lots of guys started coming around, so the sex started. He mother and her would have these terrible fights over the guys and her lifestyle. She dropped out of school and her mother called her a wh0re during one of those fights. I took her under my care, talked to her , found out what was going on in her life, what she wanted to do in her life and steered her back in school and in the right direction.

We talked a lot about sex because her mother was a fundamentalist Christian who never taught her anything about sex. I explained stuff to her that was happening to her body and just why she was feeling the way she did and it's connection to her parents divorce. 
Later ,I helped her get into the modelling business, and today she has her own modelling agency.
I've never touched her inappropriately or anything rapey or shady. I've had the cause to threaten a few guys who hung around her with physical violence, just to get her a chance to breathe and realize her dreams.
She loves me almost like her dad. Anytime she sees me , she runs and hugs me, even today.
Best of all, I get free invites to her fashion meets.

And yes , back then I used o look at porn and it never occurred to me to molest her in her most vulnerable state.
And I liked looking at women too, but it didn't make me think of taking advantage of her or raping her.

So you can well understand why just shake my head when people here on TAM start with the
" all men are rapist " bs.

And I still love looking at beautiful women.

Men are way more complex than you all are making them out to be.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Not that I had anything close to model looks... but I was sure thankful I didn't have their issues back then...I think wearing baggy clothes is a much smaller sacrifice than these other girls go through...
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you are blessed in this way, I think it's very sad to call this a curse.


To be honest it does feel like a curse when a men the same age as you dad is saying sh*t to like 'if you were my daughter I would be still be bathing you' when your 12 and leering at you. 
Fortunately it was very few and I definitely wouldn't put that down to typical male nature but the fact is it does create a very self conscious girl who wears baggy clothes to try to hide herself. Maybe you would prefer the latter than the former but imo both are equally horrible.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> But honestly, would you rather BE the Fat girl, trade her life ....how she feels every night ??? Is it easy for anyone ?? What about the poor... how they are looked down upon.... why shouldn't the beautiful have any difficulties ?
> 
> We all have some cross to bear, don't we?


Yes we do, but it's very unfair to dismiss the damage those sort of comments do to 'the beautiful' just because they where born with good looks or happened to develop early. 
Bad body image and being painfully self conscious doesn't just plague the not so attractive, nor does being born with looks automatically mean they aren't in as much inner turmoil as someone who is overweight.
We do all have some cross to bear, but don't assume the unattractive one's cross is always heavier.


----------



## larry.gray

Blonde said:


> CM my daddy sexualized me. As far as I can recall, this was never physical. But he dressed me up real sexy see through skin tight, etc at age 12 (I was large breasted and looked much older)... and took me on dates and trips alone.
> 
> He looked upon me with lust and it was deeply damaging even though there was no physical violation that I recall.


That just makes me a bit ill. I'm sorry you went through that.

My oldest turns 18 in not too long. She's a beautiful young woman. She gets lots of male attention of all ages. But most definitely not of that nature from me.


----------



## larry.gray

TiggyBlue said:


> Yes we do, but it's very unfair to dismiss the damage those sort of comments do to 'the beautiful' just because they where born with good looks or happened to develop early.
> Bad body image and being painfully self conscious doesn't just plague the not so attractive, nor does being born with looks automatically mean they aren't in as much inner turmoil as someone who is overweight.


One thing my eldest has been a bit creeped out by is the attention on social media even though she has a profile stating "in a relationship." 

Guys will message her and flirt. She'll respond with "don't you see 'in a relationship' on my profile?"

She will usually respond with a nasty note about never wanting to be involved with a guy that goes after women in a relationship.


----------



## TiggyBlue

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes, I tend to think it's heavier...that's my position...for every Ugly old man who makes sexual passes to the beautiful women, there will be some handsome Prince who would like to take her hand.. because of her ...said...*beauty*.. so as I see it...these women have far MORE of an advantage over anyone ..whether that be getting out of traffic tickets, help along side the road, Job offers, *and men*...


But a 12 yr old isn't a women, a 12 yr old's brain is nowhere as developed as a 25 yr old's brain. That's what Blonde was saying that as a girl it can feel like a curse to be developed early.


----------



## techmom

CM your niece is gorgeous, so glad she was able to overcome all she did.

OK, one more thing, I stated earlier in the thread that I come from a family of mostly men. None of them were ever falsely accused of rape or have ever raped. They are upstanding men, and I say that to say this, I don't believe that all men are rapists, but the ones who are make life very difficult for women. We are constantly on our guard and it is tiresome at times.

To the women who don't experience this, congratulations! But don't discount the many of us who do. 

To the men who bring up statistics to try and argue that rape does not happen as much as we say it does, what point does that make? It doesn't change the fact that millions of women all over the world feel unsafe everyday. Statistics won't make these women feel less threatened when a male crosses their path. So stuff it, just sounds like you are trying to justify something not sure what. Why do you feel like we are accusing you of rape? Cool it, the more you post the more you sound like the bad men.

CM, you asked me if men and women can be considered sexy? Yes, both can, but what point would that make? The girl who finds the guy sexy would not be able to overpower him and take advantage? Yes or no? But the guy who finds the girl sexy can overpower her? Can he? Does the guy feel safer with the girl or does the girl feel safer with the guy?

We all know the answer to those questions if we stop the bs and be real with ourselves.

I'm out, I won't post anymore on this thread because it is triggering and it is going in circles.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> CM your niece is gorgeous, so glad she was able to overcome all she did.
> 
> OK, one more thing, I stated earlier in the thread that I come from a family of mostly men. None of them were ever falsely accused of rape or have ever raped. They are upstanding men, and I say that to say this, I don't believe that all men are rapists, but the ones who are make life very difficult for women. We are constantly on our guard and it is tiresome at times.
> 
> To the women who don't experience this, congratulations! But don't discount the many of us who do.
> 
> To the men who bring up statistics to try and argue that rape does not happen as much as we say it does, what point does that make? It doesn't change the fact that millions of women all over the world feel unsafe everyday. Statistics won't make these women feel less threatened when a male crosses their path. So stuff it, just sounds like you are trying to justify something not sure what. Why do you feel like we are accusing you of rape? Cool it, the more you post the more you sound like the bad men.
> 
> CM, you asked me if men and women can be considered sexy? Yes, both can, but what point would that make? The girl who finds the guy sexy would not be able to overpower him and take advantage? Yes or no? But the guy who finds the girl sexy can overpower her? Can he? Does the guy feel safer with the girl or does the girl feel safer with the guy?
> 
> We all know the answer to those questions if we stop the bs and be real with ourselves.
> 
> I'm out, I won't post anymore on this thread because it is triggering and it is going in circles.


The problem is that you keep bring in this negative dynamic about all men being rapist into this thread whilst at the same time minimizing the effect of objectification and a whole lot of other things on men.
The " _men should just get over it_ " attitude is thick on this thread.

What you don't recognize in the story I posted about my niece is that the MEN in her life were responsible for protecting her when the relationship with her mother fractured and she was at her weakest. 
And the facts are that many such men actually exist.

He mother filed for divorce, whilst her father begged. 
Her mother got remarried in quick time when her father dedicated all his time to her and her brother.
Her mother was the one who called her that derogatory name .

She wasn't sexually abused by any man in her life yet she began acting out.
Life can be _that_ complex.
The boys she was fooling around with had no way of know that she was
" acting out." They thought she was just having fun. 
Does that make them bad men?
No.
It took another man, me, to recognize what was happening , put a stop to it, give her hope and get her life back on track , give her a chance to help her realize her dream.

What I'm telling you all is that objectification flies from many different angles in society and is not a simple one dimensional issue as you all are trying to frame it .

Not every woman who feels less than a woman is a victim of some male control freak or sex fiend.
Lawrence Fishbourne , aka " Morpheus " of " The Matrix " , 18 year old daughter decided to get involved in porn in order to spite him and publicly embarrass him. She accused his of trying to control her life. [ or something like that.]

Laurence Fishburne "Very Hurt" Over Daughter's Porn Tape | PerezHilton.com

Even the great " Morpheus" couldn't protect his 18 year old daughter from making _that_ choice.
Life is like that.
Where is the sexual abuse history in her life?
Who " objectifying " her?
Is he now a suspected rapist too because of his daughter's choice?
The less assumptions we make , the more progress we can have in any discussion.

Finally, if it is ok for you to think that men can be sexy as well as women,
Then logically, it would be hypocritical for you to say that men shouldn't be afforded the same privilege simply because they are men.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> You say you want an honest conversation, but then toss out a totally biased stat of your own.
> 
> UN statistics show that this figure varies significantly by region.
> 
> As does the average number of times a woman can expect to be raped in her lifetime.


Hey, these are the same type of people making the other rape stats. I have no dog in that fight.

But yes, now that you mention it, I DO question the objectivity of 'true believers' whose funding is based upon ginning up public outrage. Just to be fair: I trust the WOMEN to tell the truth. But the one study I already mentioned used deceptive methodology to make the number as tiny as possible, something you don't address at all.

And I post ONE statistic on rape and suddenly you FINALLY believe in bogus studies. Not YOURS of course. Mine. Huh. So we are agreed that there might be bogus rape studies out there.

Again, I am trusting the INDIVIDUAL WOMEN not to lie. I have doubts about the people making the study who are ADVOCATES against an issue. You really think they are going to publish ANYTHING that makes the prospects of rape seem less scary? And you call ME biased?

But since you are blaming me for the culture of the world, just a couple of years ago, there was a regime where it was Standard Government Policy to find dissenters, drive a black van to their house, grab every woman who was there in the family, drive them to a special prison where they were multiply raped and abused for up to six years at a time.

The Dark and Secret Dungeons of Iraq. Horror Stories of Female Prisoners

So...were you in favor of or against that little invasion? Because if you care as much as you say you do, the toppling of that regime was a good thing for that issue alone.

If you quibble about the cost...well...sorry...how is that different from a Prosecutor deferring a tough case? Funny how these bigger issues can crop up, isn't it?

And as stated, *I am only responsible for my own country and culture.*

Unless you are signing off on some more military adventurism, what the hell do you expect me to do about it? Are YOU going to sign up for such an honorable Crusade against the rapists of the world?

Me? I've helped stop women being criminalized for walking outside with their face uncovered and getting an education in Afghanistan. I've helped put a crimp in the abuse and rape of women there by giving outside groups access to observe and report on this. The government at least gives lip service to female equality now.

And I've done a little bit to topple that oh so heinous regime which had rape prisons.

That's what I've done about 'rape'. What have you done?

AND I'm proud of my culture. I can see pretty girls walk down the road dressed however they want to, unmolested. That indicates a certain freedom of fear.

Perfect freedom? No. But it isn't a perfect world.


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> ^^Right there you are blaming women that it's our fault we are objectified because of what we wear.
> 
> Men are funny. On one hand you want a hot looking woman. OTH we are slvts who should be ashamed if we dress immodestly...
> 
> I'm comfortable in my skin and in sexy clothes at age 50+ now. But I identify with Cosmos as one who developed early with large breasts in the day when that was popular and got way WAY too much unwanted attention at age 12 from DOM. For a very long time, I wore baggy clothes to hide my figure. In many ways I am afraid that "beauty" for a girl is a huge curse.



Honestly, the primary aspect of this thread is lost on me. Yes, I look at women as sexual objects.

That is one of MANY LENSES which I use to observe women.

And I am, as stated, proud that women feel confident and safe enough to walk around dressed any way they feel comfortable. And if, as it seems, some women DON'T feel that safe and confident, where they prefer to see half of all men as rapists vs. a more realistic number, hey...they can dress in their gingham dresses and I am happy for them too. 

I have spent a lot of time in India, where that confidence is distinctly lacking. The women walk around with every single secondary sexual characteristic covered and are afraid to look men in the eye.

So, in comparison, yeah, America is wonderful.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> The reality is,
> Not all me are like your daddy.
> And not because a man looks at porn or likes to look at women means that they are like your daddy.


I realize that. I am very much healed and recovered from my childhood baggage at this point. Truly  I shared that @ my dad without one ounce of emotion (a sign of forgiveness and healing) and I am in touch with him regularly although I have seen him less than a dozen times since I was age 16 more than 3 decades ago...

You do realize that some men ARE like my daddy???

To tell the truth CM, I have a lot of respect for you. I often agree with your posts and consider you someone who is generally respectful, compassionate, and protective toward women which is TRULY a breath of fresh air! (Daddy and my H do not have a protective bone in their bodies... BUT I take care of myself, protect myself and protect my children fairly effectively IMO)

This thread is not even remotely triggering for me. I stepped into it because it seemed triggering for Cosmos and I have had the exact experience she had as a mature looking child. I felt for her.



Cosmos said:


> I'm afraid objectification isn't as simple as that, CM, and there is a difference between objectification and attraction.
> 
> 
> *Objectification* = is a complete disregard for a person's _humanity_ and a refusal to see past _what that person has to offer sexually._ It generates assumptions galore, and has the potential to hold that person back.
> 
> *Attraction* = is simply that chemical rush we feel when we are attracted so someone, but our attraction to them is hardly likely to create assumptions or cause that person be held back.
> 
> I don't know if this will make much sense, but I'll give you a personal account of the effects of objectification on a young, 'uncooked' woman...
> 
> As a young teen in the '60s, I remember becoming increasingly aware of bare boobs. They were everywhere! Sometimes the nipples were censored out, but the message was clear... Boobs were used to sell certain Sunday newspapers, and just about every comedy around that time seemed to involve some woman or other being ogled (nudge, nudge, wink, wink style) because of her big, sexy boobies, and they were being increasingly used to sell a multitude of products in the media.
> 
> *By the time I was in my late teens I was rather well endowed, and I was becoming very aware of the looks I was getting from the opposite sex, and it didn't feel good... It made me feel like a walking set of boobs - that had been created solely for the purpose of being looked at and (even worse) actually talked to unless I kept them well covered.
> *
> The upshot of all this was by the time I became a mother, even *I *saw my breasts as sex objects and the idea of breast feeding my child would have felt like committing incest. Very sad indeed....
> 
> Attraction feels good. We all like to feel attractive, but objectification doesn't feel good because it tends to reduce our over all value to mere body parts whose sole purpose is for the sexual gratification of others.


A friend pointed out to me years later that all through high school I held my books across my chest like a shield. 

Fraid y'all ran her off 



Cosmos said:


> I really think the time has come for me to leave this site...


----------



## Blonde

Cosmos said:


> Ladies...
> 
> Just about anything any of you post in this thread is likely to be misinterpreted and turned around on you, and I don't know why any of you are continuing to post here.
> 
> Most intelligent, enlightened people realize that:-
> 
> 
> Both men and women can be objectified, but women are objectified far more than men.
> 
> 
> Objectification can be very damaging, and one of the effects of objectification is that it often leads to the person being objectified to eventually objectify themselves.
> 
> 
> Objectification is not the same as attraction.
> 
> 
> Objectification does not necessarily lead to rape.
> 
> 
> Whilst sex is the tool that is used, rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.
> 
> 
> Both sexes can be raped, but far more women are raped than men.
> 
> 
> Rape is abhorrent, no matter which gender it is perpetrated against.
> 
> 
> False allegations of rape are as abhorrent as the act of rape itself.
> 
> 
> Most men are not rapists, and both genders despise rape as much as the other.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the agenda is of those who are deliberately misinterpreting just about every post one of you ladies make, but the solution is simply to leave the playground and let the boys argue with one another.
> 
> I'm done. This thread has triggered me badly and I won't be posting here anymore.


AWESOME post!!!

And I will join the sisterhood in bowing out.

First I want to say as a Christian and a medical professional that my standards are SO HIGH that I think righteous men should be able to see beautiful women completely nude and not lust.

There is a "slvtty" woman in the Bible who washed Jesus feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. To the Jews the hair was considered very sensual and a good modest Jewish woman NEVER let her hair down.



> RavFrand List - Rabbi Frand on Parshas Toldos - Torah.org
> 
> The Talmud records that Kimchas had 7 sons who all became High Priests. She attributed this merit to the fact that “*all my life, the rafters of my house never saw my hair”. She was so modest that even in the confines of her own home, she never removed her hair covering*.


So, this woman engages in this very sensual act toward Jesus and Jesus did not objectify her. 
He saw her personhood. 
He had compassion on her. 
He alone really loved her for who she was and not as a sexual object...
and she loved him back  Luke 7


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> AWESOME post!!!
> 
> And I will join the sisterhood in bowing out.
> 
> First I want to say as a Christian and a medical professional that my standards are SO HIGH that I think righteous men should be able to see beautiful women completely nude and not lust.
> 
> There is a "slvtty" woman in the Bible who washed Jesus feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. To the Jews the hair was considered very sensual and a good modest Jewish woman NEVER let her hair down.
> 
> 
> 
> So, this woman engages in this very sensual act toward Jesus and Jesus did not objectify her.
> He saw her personhood.
> He had compassion on her.
> He alone really loved her for who she was and not as a sexual object...
> and she loved him back  Luke 7


Blonde, 
Here's the problem with your logic , and some of the other women on this thread.
You're using the ideal man , a man who according to the Bible was part God and had no inclination to sexual desires , to to dictate to ordinary men who might not even believe in your version of Christianity, what their sexuality and sexual response to women should be.

That is why I clearly stated in the beginning of this thread that in liberal societies , each person is responsible for himself. You can't force your beliefs about anything on another person, because they have a right to agency , just like you.
By doing so , you are denying them the right to freedom of thought and agency , and inevitably , objectifying them.

That is the problem with some religions and human sexuality . They tend to view sex as a separate part of human beings , which just adds to the shame and confusion.

Below is a cartoon I picked up from a feminist blog about one year ago dealing with the issue of objectification. IMO , the author was very enlightening in her approach. I will share the link a little later.



Do you see the contradiction?
Do you realize that both women are dressed like they are because they _want_ to , but are condemning each other and blaming men for the way each one perceives the other?

Can you understand that objectification and it's root causes is not as simple as you _think_ it is?

You are saying that a man is supposed to be able to look at a fully nude beautiful woman , and not see her sexually.

So in essence , a woman is supposed to be able to walk the streets naked , or dressed in anything she pleases , and men are supposed to ONLY see the other aspects of her " humanity."

To me , that sounds like a person who has a complete misunderstanding , deliberate or otherwise , of how male and female sexuality or biology , works.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

TiggyBlue said:


> But a 12 yr old isn't a women, a 12 yr old's brain is nowhere as developed as a 25 yr old's brain. That's what Blonde was saying that as a girl it can feel like a curse to be developed early.


I'm sorry....I wasn't thinking in terms of 12 yrs old when I wrote my post.... I remember a thread here years ago where a mature woman was complaining she couldn't dress the way she wanted ....and that men were this..that and the other... it was a RANT , another beauty is a curse type thing....Yeah, I guess I just shake my head (on the mature women.. not a 12 yr old).... would they rather be a midget.. and deal with that sort of gawking... the comparisons flood me when I hear these sorts of things.... 

Was talking to my husband about that, he said he could see how some women would hate it, get on their nerves, but he didn't think any of them would trade it for lessor looks!! ...Kinda puts me in mind of a RICH man complaining he has too many friends.. doesn't know WHO TO TRUST... no matter what blessing we have (and a beautiful face and body...I feel is a tremendous Blessing)....it's something that will attract her future husband, isn't it...and he will get to enjoy very much. 

I guess I'm just of the belief we need to warn & alert our girls how SOME MEN ARE.... there will always be dirty old men with a pimple on their nose giving her the creeps.... and the bad boys...even the hot ones... funny how a girl loves his compliments but if the guy is UGLY... she is all up in arms.. how dare him - "he's so gross". 

With all blessings....along comes some bad....the thorns...another one....often beautiful women are hated by other women.. back biting...jealousy....they have to deal with that thorn too...and it's not easy.... But still... so I feel.... it beats being Homely or A Midget...she just has to work harder at allowing others see she is a good person...there is more behind her beauty... Life isn't fair... we all have a cross...and with men, she has to be ever more diligent to not allow any to use her, abuse her...cause she will have FAR MORE temptation coming her way, and choices.

It would be great if we could wave a magic wand & all men would be *respectful* but it's just not going to happen!! ... you think I LIKE the majority of attitudes walking around in society, how people treat each other!

I go out of my way to teach my kids to NOT be influenced by the idiot things others SAY... no matter what it is... even when boys are speaking out of their loins......... so they won't be damaged by the character-less / the BULLY, the heartless nasty people... ... and we NEED to be careful who they are around.. what atmosphere they are in....and Yeah...how they are talked too..(if we are aware)... if it may hurt them......

If it's one's own FATHER or relatives doing this...then it makes sense how one's view of men can be SHAKEN badly...that's a very ugly thing....our homes should be one of comfort away from the rat race in society... I can see how THIS would be shattering.



> *Blonde said*: *First I want to say as a Christian and a medical professional that my standards are SO HIGH that I think righteous men should be able to see beautiful women completely nude and not lust.*


 Those are some HIGH standards, even among christian men, this is their biggest battle.... even on The Marriage bed forum .. of all the sub forums, the Pornography section has the the most threads.... 

Not long ago...I asked my husband if he looked at me like this when we met, he told me *NO*.. he didn't think LIKE THAT..... (LUST was not on his mind)... I was surprised to hear this ..and said back to him .."What in the world was wrong with you, wasn't I sexy enough?"....he explained it wasn't until we started getting frisky -my hands down his pants...that those thoughts entered in....he just really wanted to get to know me.. ..from all I have read about men, this is not the norm AT ALL...


----------



## jld

CM, I think it is hard for women who have experienced what Blonde has to be completely objective on this subject. 

It might be helpful to just try to understand what she is feeling, really put yourself in her shoes, to the degree that you can. And not try to defend your position in the same post.

It is great that your niece was not harmed by her dad, but many women are not so lucky. Many girls have problems with their fathers and their mothers, and it takes many years to get over it, if ever.

And it is great that you helped your niece, but not everyone has a helpful uncle.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I just don't think you are bringing a complete understanding of what Blonde and others have experienced to the table. And instead of just respectfully listening and trying to empathize, you are trying to press your own logic. It just is not going over, not to people who have lived trauma.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Blonde,
> Here's the problem with your logic , and some of the other women on this thread.
> You're using the ideal man , a man who according to the Bible was part God and had no inclination to sexual desires ,


Not true! 

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, *but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin*. Heb 4:15​
Pastor Ed explains the difference between lust and desire well. Pastor Ed also believes, and I agree with him, that we should be able to enjoy and appreciated God's the naked form as in the Garden of Eden, without sinful lust. Praise God for His Naked Creation | My Chains Are Gone – The Blog

Jesus may have responded physically to her touch, her scent, her beauty... But He saw not a piece of flesh for his consumption, but a woman/a Person with feelings, needs, and a history. Jesus would not dream of hurting her by joining the long line of exploiters...


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> CM, I think it is hard for women who have experienced what Blonde has to be completely objective on this subject.
> 
> It might be helpful to just try to understand what she is feeling, really put yourself in her shoes, to the degree that you can. And not try to defend your position in the same post.
> 
> It is great that your niece was not harmed by her dad, but many women are not so lucky. Many girls have problems with their fathers and their mothers, and it takes many years to get over it, if ever.
> 
> And it is great that you helped your niece, but not everyone has a helpful uncle.
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread, but I just don't think you are bringing a complete understanding of what Blonde and others have experienced to the table. And instead of just respectfully listening and trying to empathize, you are trying to press your own logic. It just is not going over, not to people who have lived trauma.


I understand what you are saying, and I understand what Blondie is saying. 
And I am not trying to press my logic _on her._

All I'm saying is that I understand what she went through, and I agree fully that what her father did was completely wrong.

But she too, and other women could also be more understanding of what the men here are saying. 
The men on the thread are simply saying that they want women to understand that it's equally as offensive when a woman accuses us of being rapist , by virtue of saying that all men basically are.
Every , single man on this thread has already condemned rape , sexual abuse , domestic abuse and so on. Yet still a few women on the thread persists with saying that all men are rapist and only a few select " good men " value women for what they are.

That is extremely offensive to the men here.
What is even more offensive is to try using statistics to back up that claim .



It would be good women can at least understand that 
*not all men are like that , and not even a majority*,and stop painting men with that rapist brush , because it is extremely offensive .

That is why men on the thread are on the defensive.
Is that too much to understand?

No woman can fully understand the psychological impact that being falsely accused of rape has on a man, much less being casually called a rapist simply because he's a man.

Just like no man can fully understand the psychological trauma a rape victim goes through for the rest of her life.

Everyone wants to be understood clearly, so everyone needs to try to understand each other , clearly.

I haven't seen any man on this thread making any sweeping negative generalizations about women so far, but on the contrary , a few women are making that offensive, rapist accusation against 
" most men" and no female here is calling them on it.

I understand fully what Blondie and others are saying.
The question is , does she understand what myself and other men on the thread are trying to say?

Neither gender has any intrinsic right to tar and feather the other because of their own personal bad experiences.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Not true!
> 
> For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, *but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin*. Heb 4:15​
> Pastor Ed explains the difference between lust and desire well. Pastor Ed also believes, and I agree with him, that we should be able to enjoy and appreciated God's the naked form as in the Garden of Eden, without sinful lust. Praise God for His Naked Creation | My Chains Are Gone – The Blog
> 
> Jesus may have responded physically to her touch, her scent, her beauty... But He saw not a piece of flesh for his consumption, but a woman/a Person with feelings, needs, and a history. Jesus would not dream of hurting her by joining the long line of exploiters...


Have you ever been to a clothing optional resort / beach or a nudist colony?

What are your opinions on them?
If you have not, would you attend one?
Why / why not?


----------



## Blonde

CM,

I think you and I agree more than you realize...

It is not my fault that I covered myself up in baggy clothes for years to hide my figure because it was a "curse" to me. Blaming MYSELF that I was abused was something I needed deliverance from. Now that I am free, I enjoy that men enjoy the view. 

With my daughters I used to be Nazi modesty mom because they are beautiful and I was afraid that the same thing was going to happen to them as happened to me. Thankfully, they have way better boundaries and have a way of shutting down inappropriateness and brushing off wolf whistles without feeling personally violated. See how we agree? The FEELINGS are a problem but the FEELINGS are not her fault. The FEELINGS come out of experiences of being objectified and she needs to be treated with compassion and respect- which is what Jesus modeled unfailingly BTW.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> JLD while it is kind of you to try to stand up for me, the fact that I was sexualized by my dad, uncle, brother, teachers, etc etc etc... does not invalidate my perspective on the "SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN". To the contrary, I think it makes me somewhat of an authority on the subject.


Goodness, no, I never thought that. I agree with you. You (and others) have an insider's view.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you ever been to a clothing optional resort / beach or a nudist colony?
> 
> What are your opinions on them?
> If you have not, would you attend one?
> Why / why not?


Yes I have been to one, @1985-1986 with the young assistant pastor and wife of our Assembly of God Church in Italy. They chose the campground on the Adriatic Sea of then Yugoslavia for its beauty and were only mildly apologetic that it was also a nudist camp. 

We did not go nude, but I appreciated that it was not a sexually charged atmosphere and I think the Europeans may have a much healthier acceptance of nudity than Americans. IMO a lot of the appeal of porn might diminish if nudity was not viewed with so much shame.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> CM,
> 
> I think you and I agree more than you realize...
> 
> It is not my fault that I covered myself up in baggy clothes for years to hide my figure because it was a "curse" to me. Blaming MYSELF that I was abused was something I needed deliverance from. Now that I am free, I enjoy that men enjoy the view.
> 
> With my daughters I used to be Nazi modesty mom because they are beautiful and I was afraid that the same thing was going to happen to them as happened to me. *Thankfully, they have way better boundaries and have a way of shutting down inappropriateness and brushing off wolf whistles without feeling personally violated. See how we agree? *
> 
> *The FEELINGS are a problem but the FEELINGS are not her fault. The FEELINGS come out of experiences of being objectified and she needs to be treated with compassion and respect- which is what Jesus modeled unfailingly BTW.*


Yes, I can FULLY agree with you on the part highlighted.

Now let me give you all my experience.

When I was just 10 years old I was molested by a strange man I had just met in a crowded video game arcade. He began touching me inappropriately, and rubbing himself on me .Because the arcade was crowded and I was small , it was hard to escape his groping.
But I finally made my way out.
Nobody had ever told me before that this could have happened , to a male. I thought that only girls could be raped , or assaulted, not boys.

I developed an intense hatred for gay men, and during my teens, I physically beat one who had ventured too close to me.
When I was 18 years old I spotted the man in the newspaper , as part of the Newspaper staff. I did some research and found out that he was a freelance photographer. I stalked him for almost a year , planning how to take my revenge.
Eventually, my good friend told me to let go of it. Because I would spend the rest of my life in jail as a murderer and no one would know or even care about what that man did to me.
I would be just another angry black youth statistic behind bars and society would see me as a violent threat.
Today, many years after , I counsel many black youths behind bars in the juvenile prison, who faced the same experiences like me , but were unable to cope.
When I see them, I see where I could have been if I didn't take responsibility for my perception of myself.

I had to accept that what he did way back then was his fault.
But my perception of ALL gay men as child molesters and pedophiles, deserving of death ,was my reaction to that, hence my responsibility.

Can you understand that a great many men have experiences similar to mine but are just ashamed to talk about it?
Would you consider that as sexual objectification?

What I'm saying in this thread is that it is highly possible that both male and females are objectified in that manner, but because of biological differences and social constructs , it is looked upon differently.

Can you understand why I say that how people choose to live their lives is not my personal responsibility but theirs ,as long as they are within the permissible legal limits?

That is why I can decide not to consume porn , but fully understand why some would choose to view it.

That is why i don't believe that all sexual objectification is intrinsically , bad.
The casual sex / dating scene is a perfect example of two people equally sexually objectifying each other.
I am not in favour of it, but some people are , and that is their democratic rights once they are over the legal age.

That's another reason I think we need to further investigate the assumption that only men , or mostly men sexually objectify women. 
I think it's about equal on both levels , if looked at objectively.


----------



## Blonde

CM #201

OTH, some of your posts and those of other men on here appear to minimize the fact that girls are sexually objectified and exploited at a rather high rate- 20% or more (boys too but it is less common and sometimes [often?] the perps are men- like Sandusky or creepy priests, etc).

This exploitation is damaging and society (you included) should have an interest in eradicating it. When you get defensive, minimize, deny, claim that men are huge victims of objectification (which you expand to include all war deaths with the "lucky" women getting to *live*- IN RAPE CAMPS )... I don't think you should be surprised to get reactions of :scratchhead: from women who have been hurt.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I understand what Blondie is saying. No, I am not sure you do, not really.
> And I am not trying to press my logic _on her._
> It feels that way, at least to me.
> All I'm saying is that I understand what she went through, and I agree fully that what her father did was completely wrong.No, you don't understand. You have not been a female in a male world. You just haven't, not in this lifetime.
> 
> Yes, what her father did was wrong, and what my father did was wrong, and what my mother did was wrong, too. But you don't understand it, and you never will. That's your first mistake.
> 
> But she too, and other women could also be more understanding of what the men here are saying. Maybe they cannot. Or only partially. Trauma makes lifelong damage. It is hard to be completely logical when emotion is involved.
> The men on the thread are simply saying that they want women to understand that it's equally as offensive No, it's not.when a woman accuses us of being rapist , by virtue of saying that all men basically are.Put your pride aside, and try to understand this from a victim's perspective.
> Every , single man on this thread has already condemned rape , sexual abuse , domestic abuse and so on.Yes, that's good. Yet still a few women on the thread persists with saying that all men are rapist and only a few select " good men " value women for what they are.Hear beyond the words, CM. Listen with your heart. They are not talking to you and other men who have not abused women. There is a fear we never really get over, not even when we truly love a man, when we realize not all men are like our dads and brothers.
> 
> That is extremely offensive to the men here.They are not the priority here. This is not a question of logic. The priority is making the women, the most likely victims, feel safe. When they feel safe, a more logical discussion is possible. Maybe. Eventually. If the men continue to make them feel safe.
> What is even more offensive is to try using statistics to back up that claim .I don't understand this one at all. Statistics show women are more vulnerable than men.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be good women can at least understand that
> *not all men are like that , and not even a majority*,and stop painting men with that rapist brush , because it is extremely offensive .Yes, men pay the price of what other men have done. The only way around that is by winning trust, and continuing to deserve it.
> 
> That is why men on the thread are on the defensive.
> Is that too much to understand?Again, you are not the victim. You are not the priority. Put your pride aside, put your heart on the line. If your wife had experienced what Blonde and others have, who would be the priority: your wife, or some man's pride being offended?
> 
> No woman can fully understand the psychological impact that being falsely accused of rape has on a man, much less being casually called a rapist simply because he's a man.Again, a minor issue compared to a girl or young woman, vulnerable because of her age and inexperience, being traumatized
> 
> Just like no man can fully understand the psychological trauma a rape victim goes through for the rest of her life.A man who was raped might. Be glad you never experienced that, CM and other men reading this thread.
> 
> Everyone wants to be understood clearly, so everyone needs to try to understand each other , clearly.Again, the priority is the victim. Listen to the victim first, and empathize with her. Later, when things are calmer (she feels understood and validated), you can share your perspective. Gently. Carefully. That is what mature, loving, compassionate men do. Guess how I know?
> 
> I haven't seen any man on this thread making any sweeping negative generalizations about women so far, but on the contrary , a few women are making that offensive, rapist accusation against
> " most men" and no female here is calling them on it.They are scared, CM. You are bringing up a frightening area where they still feel vulnerable, if not for themselves, then for their daughters or nieces or anyone more vulnerable than themselves.
> 
> I understand fully what Blondie and others are saying.Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
> The question is , does she understand what myself and other men on the thread are trying to say?In a way. It is like the poor man being asked to understand the "plight" of the rich man, and make allowances.
> 
> Neither gender has any intrinsic right to tar and feather the other because of their own personal bad experiences.The way my husband sees it, good men will always be, to some extent, paying the price of what bad men did. When you love a woman, you invest in her. You listen and show compassion and show her, through your actions to her, that she can trust you. That no matter what other men did to her, this man is not a bad man. This man is worthy of her goodness.
> 
> There isn't any other way, CM. Not really.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Would you consider that as sexual objectification?


Absolutely!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> We did not go nude, but I appreciated that it was not a sexually charged atmosphere and I think the Europeans may have a much healthier acceptance of nudity than Americans.
> 
> *IMO a lot of the appeal of porn might diminish if nudity was not viewed with so much shame.*


:iagree:

I agree with you on both counts.


----------



## jld

So sorry, CM, for what happened to you. So sorry. (((CM)))

I didn't know when I typed my first reply. I just read it. You have more understanding than I realized.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> Jesus may have responded physically to her touch, her scent, her beauty... But He saw not a piece of flesh for his consumption, but a woman/a Person with feelings, needs, and a history. Jesus would not dream of hurting her by joining the long line of exploiters...


Yep. Jesus is the role model for men, imo.

I know, I get a lot of flack for this, but Jesus is how I see my husband. I can totally put his name in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.

You know he told me I am the only woman who makes him hard? His boss took him to a strip club once, and dh told me he didn't feel anything. I think he just felt sorry for the women forced to do that kind of work.

Dh respects women. He told me that Woman was created to be loved by Man. But so many men do not love women. They use women. And some want to blame women.


----------



## jld

So sorry for your husband, Blonde.

But I cannot excuse what he has done to women and girls. Just cannot excuse it.


----------



## treyvion

jld said:


> Yep. Jesus is the role model for men, imo.
> 
> I know, I get a lot of flack for this, but Jesus is how I see my husband. I can totally put his name in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.
> 
> You know he told me I am the only woman who makes him hard? His boss took him to a strip club once, and dh told me he didn't feel anything. I think he just felt sorry for the women forced to do that kind of work.


Many of them are some of the most predatory people on the planet. They love the easy money that the bleed from a "sucker". Nothing to feel sorry for, the right ones, just may rob and kill you too.



jld said:


> Dh respects women. He told me that Woman was created to be loved by Man. But so many men do not love women. They use women. And some want to blame women.


----------



## jld

I'm sorry to hear that, treyvion. In the world I have lived in, women have mostly been the victims. I get some glimpses of men being the victims, but that is kind of foreign to me, I guess.


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> Yep. Jesus is the role model for men, imo.
> 
> I know, I get a lot of flack for this, but Jesus is how I see my husband. I can totally put his name in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.
> 
> You know he told me I am the only woman who makes him hard? His boss took him to a strip club once, and *dh told me he didn't feel anything. I think he just felt sorry for the women forced to do that kind of work.
> 
> Dh respects women.* He told me that Woman was created to be loved by Man. But so many men do not love women. They use women. And some want to blame women.


May his tribe increase!!!


----------



## jld

Didn't you say one of the first females he was involved with was a young girl in a foreign country, on the mission field? Did I misunderstand?

And yes, we have four boys, lol.


----------



## ocotillo

I'm a little confused after rereading this thread. At least half of the informational/public awareness sites on rape state that rapists do not pick their victim based on physical appearance. They pick their victim based upon perceived vulnerability. Typically, rape is a crime of violence first and foremost and even octogenarians are at risk. 

This would explain why this crime exists in all cultures regardless of how much or how little a woman covers up. It also ties directly to the inability or unwillingness in some to recognize a woman's agency, which is a core component of objectification.

Where I'm getting lost (And I suspect other male readers are too) is how strongly it seems to be tied on this thread to male notions of female attractiveness.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I'm sorry to hear that, treyvion. In the world I have lived in, women have mostly been the victims. I get some glimpses of men being the victims, but that is kind of foreign to me, I guess.


That's what I was trying to tell Techmom earlier on this thread.
The truth is,
Everyone would naturally view it through the lens of_ their own_ life's experiences.

In order to get a better understanding , sometimes one has to be strong enough to step out of their own experiences ,and see the picture from a different perspective.

The reality is , hurt people, _hurt_ people.

Do you have any idea how many men have had a homosexual encounter with an adult before the age of eighteen ?

I'm sure you don't.
Does that mean it never happened?
Does that mean it happened?

We don't know.

But jumping to conclusions , throwing about numbers won't help anyone.
Much less framing it in a way that taints an entire gender is just as unproductive.

A recent study done in the Caribbean suggest that it might be as high as 50%.
The problem , they say is that most men thought that it was
" normal" or that people would laugh at them if they spoke about it ,around that time.
Another problem that has been discovered is that a high percentage of men who are gay were themselves groomed when they were boys into the lifestyle. They just didn't recognize it then.
If that isn't sexual objectification, then what is it?

So I ask again , which is worse , male sexual objectification or female sexual objectification?

Point is, it seems to be happening to both , just that the effects is different for females , than males.
But that doesn't negate the fact that it's still a form of sexual objectification.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> The reality is , hurt people, _hurt_ people.


Yes!

Jesus sees* what motivates* the behavior and has compassion. "Father forgive them, don't know what they do"


----------



## jld

We used to live in India, and I read in a paper there that most men's first sexual encounters there were homosexual. I don't really get that. I don't have much experience with homosexuality, except that my sister is a lesbian.

There was another thread in the spirituality section where some people said lesbian experiences are common among women. I didn't realize that.

When I was in college, some of us went out to play in the snow one time, and a girl pushed me down, throwing herself on top of me. I was like, wth? And I looked at her like that, too, like wth are you doing? And she got up and left me alone after that.

I was just shocked. She was a very pretty girl, and had a great-looking boyfriend. But I think she must have been a bisexual.

I don't have those feelings for women, and so I guess I never attracted that kind of woman as a friend. Or at least I don't know it, if I ever did. I am kind of strait-laced, so someone like that would probably not tell me if she were.

And I don't care how people are. They need to be how they are. But I am not interested in that. And I certainly do not want to be assaulted.


----------



## jld

I just don't know how you can forgive your dad, Blonde. I don't think I can. And my dad is dead. And I did not stop being afraid of him until 8 months _after_ he died.

And I am just creeped out by your husband. Sorry.


----------



## jld

You know, I really wonder what would have happened to me if I had not met my dh. That man has been my own personal Jesus. I don't think there is anything I could do that would stop his love for me. He is just totally compassionate.

I get angry and say a lot of things I shouldn't to dh. My brother got after me one day about it. I told dh what he said, and dh responded, "I hear your words, but I know your heart."

Does that not sound like Jesus?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I'm a little confused after rereading this thread. At least half of the informational/public awareness sites on rape state that rapists do not pick their victim based on physical appearance. They pick their victim based upon perceived vulnerability. Typically, rape is a crime of violence first and foremost and even octogenarians are at risk.
> 
> This would explain why this crime exists in all cultures regardless of how much or how little a woman covers up. *It also ties directly to the inability or unwillingness in some to recognize a woman's agency, which is a core component of objectification.*
> 
> *Where I'm getting lost (And I suspect other male readers are too) is how strongly it seems to be tied on this thread to male notions of female attractiveness.*


Yes.^^^.
That is why I bought up the Burqua clad women and the prohibition of sexual images in public or private in Islamic cultures

A man looking at a random woman in the streets and thinking sexual thoughts of her has absolutely no connection to that woman or even a SAHM getting raped in her home by a rapist.
However that seems to be the trend of thought here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Yes!
> 
> Jesus sees* what motivates* the behavior and has compassion. "Father forgive them, don't know what they do"


And ordinary men and women are quite capable of it to.

Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu come to my mind.


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> So I ask again , which is worse , male sexual objectification or female sexual objectification?


It isn't a contest. They are equally bad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> It isn't a contest. They are equally bad.


Yes.
Glad that we finally agree on that.

Now I fully understand that your views are strongly pro Christian and I respect and admire that.

So your views on things like casual sex , pornography and even sexual attraction would be different from mine because we speak from different perspectives.

But I would like to ask you to view this this question I'm going to ask you from a different , more liberal perspective.

Since sexual objectification on this thread is viewed as wanting a person only for the purpose of sex and not having any interest in the other aspects of their humanity, do you think that common practices like casual sex, friends with benefits , " booty calls" and other related stuff fall within the spectrum of sexual objectification?


----------



## jld

It's good to be open and honest, SA. That's how we learn from each other.

I don't know why dh is only attracted to me. I am just really lucky. He never looks at porn. I have asked him, and he told me no. He said he is busy working.  Not his thing, I guess.

We watched two porn movies together in France. On Sunday night regular TV has them. So we watched one, which I really thought was no big deal, and then a much harder one later that night. 

I had to turn it off. I just felt sick to my stomach. I didn't realize people did things like that. I still have those images in my mind.

I think soft porn, beautiful images, is okay. I am not offended by it. 

I think the burqua is ridiculous. 

I agree that going to a nude beach could probably be a mentally healing experience. I mean, we are all told we have to be tall, skinny, etc. and I think seeing all manner of people accepting their bodies could be a reality check. But I know dh would never do that.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of what you do, SA. You obviously have a great marriage. 

We are all just who we are. Understanding one another brings us a lot more than judgment.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> This would explain why this crime exists in all cultures regardless of how much or how little a woman covers up. It also ties directly to the inability or unwillingness in some to recognize a woman's agency, which is a core component of objectification.


 "Agency" is deeply impacted and can be crippled by childhood experiences.


> Most prostitutes have been victimized, at some point in their lives, by sexual violence.
> *More than 90% suffered childhood sexual abuse, often incest. *Many others have been
> sexually assaulted in the course of working in prostitution. About 75% have been
> violently raped as adults in situations not involving their work.
> 
> *At least 2/3 of prostitutes began working in prostitution before the age of 16. Young
> women and men often enter prostitution as a way of escaping an abusive home
> situation. They see prostitution as their only means of survival. * http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Prostitution Statistics IL.pdf


Sex workers are typically very wounded people. In a very real sense, they had no choice. They were deeply imprinted by their childhood. Like jld's H, I see them with compassion and feel sorry for them and sad for the horrible experiences which have led them to submit to their own objectification and degradation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> this is how I feel too.
> 
> Me & my husband enjoy some of it.... so I guess we're no good. It has brought a spice to our sex lives in mid life, I spent too many yrs being somewhat repressed & it was a blessing for us...I don't expect any conservative women to understand this. but that's the truth..... I 1st bought some instructional videos- put together by sex therapists..real people, we enjoyed it...gave me ideas...
> 
> Then we rented for a time... it wasn't easy finding the softer romantic stuff...sometimes we put it on & shut it right back off...it was a phase in our lives, it ran it's course and we had a great time with it... Should I be ashamed?? Should my husband-he likes looking at solo women, I am fine with it ? Really...we save every orgasm for each other. ...except for one night he couldn't do it again..


SA you just made me remember a similar period in our marriage and I smiled!

My wife and I was similar to your husband and you. 
First we bought some instructional videos with actors in it , and than we started viewing Playboy channel on satellite TV.

She preferred girl - girl scene . because it turned her on.
My preference was solo .
But we just mostly watched softcore.

Lol, after a while, the we would start jumping each other two minutes into the movie. Then we no longer bothered with them . 
But they must be somewhere around, haven't looked at them for more than five years.

See?
That's why I think it's kinda simplistic to categorize all sexual objectification [ as in porn or related stuff], or any type of objectification as bad , simply because it's sex.


----------



## jld

Yes, why is this being brought down to money? They may make a lot of money, but the people going to them are hardly forced there. 

I feel sorry for those gals (and probably some men doing that, too). I would not want to have lived their lives, not for any amount of money.


----------



## Blonde

SimplyAmorous said:


> Me & my husband enjoy some of it.... so I guess we're no good.


I'm not into "shame on you". CM put into my mouth that bit about "banning". I never said that.

Lust is by definition sinful IMO as a Bible believing Christian. However "lust" is not to be confused with sexual desire. You can get a better handle on this nuance at the links I posted earlier.

Sexual Desire and Lust – Are They the Same? (Part 1) | My Chains Are Gone – The Blog

Desire is Not Love | Gary Thomas

and CS Lewis "The Weight of Glory" is also a great (but very VERY deep) read


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> "Agency" is deeply impacted and can be crippled by childhood experiences.


I don't disagree Blonde, but just to be clear, I was speaking of the rapist himself. I don't know this for sure, but I doubt very much if a rapist sees the autonomy of his intended victim (Or any other woman for that matter) as something sacred and inviolate.

I suspect there's probably at least a casual correlation between the prevalence of rape and cultural disrespect for women's agency.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> "Agency" is deeply impacted and can be crippled by childhood experiences.
> 
> 
> Sex workers are typically very wounded people. In a very real sense, they had no choice. They were deeply imprinted by their childhood. Like jld's H, I see them with compassion and feel sorry for them and sad for the horrible experiences which have led them to submit to their own objectification and degradation.


I agree, but aren't we all affected by negative experiences in out childhood in some way or the other?

What is the difference really between a person who shops at Macy's or wears apparel with GAP and many other labels that are manufactured in third world countries under the conditions worse than slavery, and are paid way below minimum wage ,and the person who views porn , visit strip clubs or has sex with a prostitute?

Last year a garment factory in Bangladesh was burnt to the ground and over 200 , under aged girls were burnt to death in it. They were trapped because the multiple story building had no fire escape.
A foreign media worker decided to investigate the story. It was found that the salary those girls were paid was less than $ US 2.00/ day.
Not only that , but another factory had collapsed sometime before killing hundreds.
Both factories produced exclusively for clothing retailers in the US .


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> *I suspect there's probably at least a casual correlation between the prevalence of rape and cultural disrespect for women's agency*.


Or even a general disregard for human life.


----------



## jld

Yes, CM, there is all kinds of injustice. And good people try hard to buy things through fair trade, to the extent they can afford it, and are aware of it.

Not doing everything right does not mean we cannot do some things right.

I don't want to be part of shaming, either. I have too many shortcomings myself.

But how do we bring up concerns if we have to be perfect to do so?


----------



## jld

I really appreciate your post, SA. I was starting to think there was something wrong with me for not liking anything other than "soft" porn.

The human body is beautiful. I wish mine were more beautiful. Dh always tells me it is, but I certainly don't look like the models. 

You know, I think we all learn a lot here, but sometimes I come away feeling inadequate, and just really dumb.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Yes, CM, there is all kinds of injustice. And good people try hard to buy things through fair trade, to the extent they can afford it, and are aware of it.
> 
> Not doing everything right does not mean we cannot do some things right.
> 
> I don't want to be part of shaming, either. I have too many shortcomings myself.
> 
> *But how do we bring up concerns if we have to be perfect to do so?*


That's why I've adopted my position on these issues.

I can't be responsible for another person's morality. If a person belongs to a particular religion and they do things that are ultra vires their religious code, then they can be judged on that.
But if a person sees themselves as a free human agent then how can I condemn them?

The person above eighteen who works as a prostitute , though she may have been abused or damaged in the past is exercising her right to agency as long as she isn't being forced by another human being into what she is doing.
The person who visits that prostitute and agrees with her for a price , is also exercising his right of association ,and to spend his money as he sees fit.

Both are being objectified one for the purpose of sex and the other for the purpose of money.


The person who purchases apparel or goods made under repressive conditions cannot be accused or held personally responsible for encouraging slavery by anyone , but they could decide for themselves to boycott the product or brand because of it.

That's their personal decision.
I don't think it makes them evil or good.


----------



## jld

Put yourself in the shoes of the prostitute. How would you like to be treated?

Or better yet, imagine your wife as the prostitute. How does it feel then?

The prostitute and the client are not equally victims of life, as you said a few weeks ago. She is the victim.

Be honest with yourself. If you were the underdog, how would you want everyone to react? Would just saying, oh, they're all victims be okay with you? Or would you want someone to stand up for the weak? And challenge people who are trying to redefine the weak as somehow being the oppressors?

And better yet, work together with others to improve society. That is how change happens, usually combined with economic motives.

It's okay to admit we are wrong, CM. We all are, in some way, and some of us, in many ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Put yourself in the shoes of the prostitute. How would you like to be treated?
> 
> Or better yet, imagine your wife as the prostitute. How does it feel then?
> 
> The prostitute and the client are not equally victims of life, as you said a few weeks ago. She is the victim.
> 
> Be honest with yourself. If you were the underdog, how would you want everyone to react? Would just saying, oh, they're all victims be okay with you? Or would you want someone to stand up for the weak? And challenge people who are trying to redefine the weak as somehow being the oppressors?
> 
> And better yet, work together with others to improve society. That is how change happens, usually combined with economic motives.
> 
> It's okay to admit we are wrong, CM. We all are, in some way, and some of us, in many ways.


Ok.

Which shoes of the prostitute should I put my foot into?

She actually has two feet.

The left foot is one where she has sex with men who she doesn't even know or whom she sometimes might find repulsive. Society looks down on her because of what she does , and she feels judged because of it. She feels shamed.

The right foot is one where she is _paid_ handsomely by men who could afford , to have sex with her. She chooses who she wants to have sex with and makes her price.
She spends that money on whatever she feels like, guilt free ,on expensive clothes,spa treatments , manicures and pedicures , constant partying with premium alcohol and drugs.

Everyone, even her customers look on her with contempt, but does she want to leave that lifestyle and work a 9 - 5 for a fraction of what she makes in one night?
Seems to me that the better way is for people to respect her ability to make her choices and not judge her , as long as what she's doing isn't affecting the rest of society negatively.
She is not a child and even though she might have been abused in the past , she has full control of her cognitive abilities.
How do I know?
She's making a lot of money, sometimes a whole lot more than those of us who have to work a steady job.
She knows exactly what she's doing,and ultimately, the decision is hers.


----------



## jld

Think more broadly, CM. What would be a healthier solution for everyone?

You are a thinker, and you know that scene better than I do. You are the kind of person who could come up with a better situation overall for everyone.


----------



## Blonde

CM, Your word picture of prostitution is highly airbrushed I think.

Just heard a woman's testimony on NPR the other day. She ran away from an abusive home at age 12, was picked up on the street by a woman who fed her, cleaned her up, and sold her to a pimp. She was a drug addict brutally beaten by her pimp if she don't bring home the target amt. IIRC, she left that life in her early 20's.

Found it: Escaping Forced Prostitution And Leaving The Shame Behind : NPR


----------



## ReformedHubby

ocotillo said:


> I'm a little confused after rereading this thread. At least half of the informational/public awareness sites on rape state that rapists do not pick their victim based on physical appearance. They pick their victim based upon perceived vulnerability. Typically, rape is a crime of violence first and foremost and even octogenarians are at risk.
> 
> This would explain why this crime exists in all cultures regardless of how much or how little a woman covers up. It also ties directly to the inability or unwillingness in some to recognize a woman's agency, which is a core component of objectification.
> 
> _*Where I'm getting lost (And I suspect other male readers are too) is how strongly it seems to be tied on this thread to male notions of female attractiveness.*_


The last part of your post is why I was unable to comprehend why so many posters were offended. I tried to interpret what they were saying and the best that I could come up with was that their perfect world would be one where men view all women they are not in a relationship with as if we are asexual. Which in all honesty is impossible (assuming we actually want the human race to continue). 

I think there is a huge difference between viewing a women with lust and recognizing that she has attractive features. I think some in this thread blurred that line. I work with attractive women every day. It doesn't mean I'm eye fvcking them.


----------



## Blonde

You guys just don't read seem to read very carefully...



Cosmos pointed out there is a difference between 

ATTRACTION (innocent) versus OBJECTIFICATION (offensive)

I pointed out that there is a difference between

SEXUAL DESIRE (natural/human) versus LUST (consuming other selfishly without consideration of their personhood)

Where exactly do you see any of the women advocating that men should be "asexual" aside from words being put into our mouths after it percolates around in your brains??? :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

I appreciate what you are saying, SA. Personal responsibility is very important in life. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we want to.

But some problems cannot be solved on the individual level. Some require society's efforts.

There are some companies that are just very environmentally responsible. But some companies would not be, and that is why we have some environmental laws. We want to protect the greater good, and not rely on people to police themselves. Some people are just not going to do the right thing on their own.

Usually, problems that are brought into the light of day get better. I have heard of publishing the names of clients, for example, in the case of prostitution. Legalizing sex work is another thing I have heard about.

I don't have personal experience in this area, thank God. But I am always going to be on the side of the weak. Because I never know when I might be "the weak." And then how would I want people to treat me?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Think more broadly, CM. What would be a healthier solution for everyone?
> 
> You are a thinker, and you know that scene better than I do. You are the kind of person who could come up with a better situation overall for everyone.


I am thinking broadly and I can think even more broadly than that.

But you wouldn't agree with me.

The answer is simple if we look at it dispassionately ,as a social problem, and not through subjective perspectives.

The main thing that needs to be taken into account is the person who is directly involved in prostitution , feelings on the matter.

So the first question must be, does she want to leave?
I she does ,then provide the avenue.
But what if she does _not _want to leave?

What do you think would be the right thing to do?


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> You guys just don't read seem to read very carefully...


I actually believe I have a modicum of reading comprehension  

Cosmos is always a voice of reason, but even she did not seem to grasp how offensive the assertion that most men are predators was. (Or maybe she didn't see it.) If an esoteric meaning was intended beyond what parsing the statement using standard rules of definition and grammar yields, I missed the elaboration.

The idea that male notions of female attractiveness are a core component of rape seems to me to have been an _a priori _assumption at several points in this discussion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> CM, Your word picture of prostitution is highly airbrushed I think.
> 
> Just heard a woman's testimony on NPR the other day. She ran away from an abusive home at age 12, was picked up on the street by a woman who fed her, cleaned her up, and sold her to a pimp. She was a drug addict brutally beaten by her pimp if she don't bring home the target amt. IIRC, she left that life in her early 20's.
> 
> Found it: Escaping Forced Prostitution And Leaving The Shame Behind : NPR


Blondie,

The world is way more complex than the way you're looking at it.

I posted this vid in my opening post on this thread.

Just click on the link and you would hear one former prostitute confess how money she actually made and how she ended up doing porn.

BTW, she's no longer in porn and states emphatically, the even though she had a background of abuse, she chose prostitution and porn _fully_ knowing what she was getting into. 

Simply put.
It's the money and lifestyle.

Former teen Stripper , Prostitute and Porn actress confronts Sasha Grey.

_The way I see it,
If you want to change the world, first change YOURSELF, or at least , take responsibility for your actions , and stop blameshifting._

End Quote.


----------



## jld

If the incentive is money, then we need to make the economic system fairer. I would love a thread on that.

The money is the issue, right? Can we agree on that?


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> I actually believe I have a modicum of reading comprehension
> 
> Cosmos is always a voice of reason, but even she did not seem to grasp how offensive the assertion that most men are predators was. If an esoteric meaning was intended beyond what parsing the statement using standard rules of definition and grammar yields, I missed the elaboration.
> 
> The idea that male notions of female attractiveness are a core component of rape seems to me to have been an _a priori _assumption at several points in this discussion.


^^still reading into it

The ladies who left left because it was crazymaking having our thoughts twisted to make us out to be evil man hating feminists who think all men are rapists

I said being attractive and looking mature as a 12 yo child can be a huge curse. And I stand by it. No, most of the lecherous DOM did not touch me or rape me physically. But their sexual objectification was disrespectful and assaulted my dignity.

Sorry but some comments here remind me of Genesis 19:5-8 MSG - Before they went to bed men from all - Bible Gateway in serving up girls on a platter and I'm disappointed. I thought some of you fellas had higher standards. 

Unsubscribing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> If the incentive is money, then we need to make the economic system fairer. I would love a thread on that.
> 
> The money is the issue, right? Can we agree on that?


Well yes ,that's part of the root of problem.


----------



## jld

What's the other part? Because that to me _is_ the problem.


----------



## jld

Blonde, please come back. We can't solve problems if we don't have everyone at the table. The worst thing we can do is get disgusted and stop talking to each other.

I know. I have done it enough times.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> ^^still reading into it
> 
> The ladies who left left because it was crazymaking having our thoughts twisted to make us out to be evil man hating feminists who think all men are rapists



Here we go again.

Excerpt from Post # 106 by techmom 

" _*I'm sorry to tell you, most men are predators. We can pay lip service to the good men out there, but the numerous cases of date rape, party rape, etc. drowns it out...*_"

How should this be interpreted?


----------



## ReformedHubby

Blonde said:


> You guys just don't read seem to read very carefully...
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos pointed out there is a difference between
> 
> ATTRACTION (innocent) versus OBJECTIFICATION (offensive)
> 
> I pointed out that there is a difference between
> 
> SEXUAL DESIRE (natural/human) versus LUST (consuming other selfishly without consideration of their personhood)
> 
> Where exactly do you see any of the women advocating that men should be "asexual" aside from words being put into our mouths after it percolates around in your brains??? :scratchhead:


Cosmos's last post made a whole lot of sense. Everyone in the thread would agree to her points. You're right that nobody explicitly said men should be asexual, but in order to get to a world where objectification is minimized as much as some of the posters would like it to be, men would have to be asexual. I don't think what I stated is that much of reach. If we want to reduce the objectification of beauty, we would have to make it have no affect on us. The only disconnect is I think the female posters assume that men can just shut it off. We can't.

Also, its tough to read every word of every poster. So many pages of this thread were pages and pages of stats and links so I skimmed through a lot. Its interesting discussion but I'm not that invested in it.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes.
> The men's LIVES were also regarded as " _the spoils of war_ " and lower than that of the women.
> 
> Women's lives weren't spared for rape. Their lives were spared so that they would become slaves,and concubines, bear more offspring and their offspring would also become slaves.
> The women were assimilated into the population, but the men were considered as threats , hence they were killed.
> 
> 
> Straight dope,
> 
> If we're talking objectification as in treating a person as a disposable object, then the men were the ones whose lives faced greater danger because of objectification..
> 
> That status quo seems pretty much in place today, especially in blue collar job where the risk of loosing life and limbs is high.
> Men are placed in those types of jobs, hence they are the greater casualty.
> 
> If a burglar broke into your home in the dead of night, would you go out to confront him , or would your wife volunteer?
> 
> Or would you tell her; "lets both go down and get him?"
> 
> So in reality, whose life is more disposable?





WyshIknew said:


> Women's lives were spared? Oh that's ok then.
> 
> The traditional human-rights image is of a male prisoner of conscience. Yet the Serbian rape camps in Bosnia show that it’s often women who suffer most.Angela Robson reports. The black-and-white poster near the Sarajevo courtroom said it all: ‘Borislav Herak – War Criminal’. Inside, the 22-year-old former textile worker stood charged with 32 murders and 16 rapes, including the murder of 12 of his 16 rape victims. The date was Friday, 12 March 1993 and Herak was the first Serb to be put on trial for war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former Yugoslavia. But Herak’s accounts of his forced participation in rapes of Bosnian Muslim women – his commander had told him it was ‘good for morale’ – accord with evidence recounted to human-rights observers and journalists throughout the region. Though all figures must be treated with caution in a war so plagued by propaganda, these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape of at least 20,000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims. Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes, in schools, police stations and camps all over the country. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new. Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war, an inevitable feature of military conflict like pillage and looting. What is new about the situation in Bosnia is the attention it is receiving – and the recognition that it is being used as a deliberate military tactic to speed up the process of ‘ethnic cleansing’. According to a recent report by European Community investigators, rapes are being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims, their families, and on the whole community’.1 In many cases the intention is ‘deliberately to make women pregnant and to detain them until pregnancy is far enough advanced to make termination impossible’. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers. Often brothers or fathers of these women are forced to rape them as well. If they refuse, they are killed. - See more at: Weapon Of War -- New Internationalist





Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> Lemme ask you a simple question.
> 
> A burglar forces his way into your house in the dead of night.
> Do you think your wife would offer to confront him ?
> 
> Or would you TELL her to hide while you go down to confront him?
> 
> Which is more likely to happen in your house , given that scenario ,and why?


Sorry, I think I'm done with this thread too.

It seems to have degenerated into a men vs women thread with neither side willing to listen to the others points and instead trying to push their agenda. And I'm probably as guilty as anyone.

CM, you made a post where you stated that (or seemed to from what I read) that in war women have it easy and their lives get spared.

I posted just one example where thousands upon thousands of women were first raped and then killed, and many thousands more raped repeatedly until they were pregnant and their husbands and sons killed. Lucky them.

Then you asked me what I would do if a burglar entered my house. :scratchhead:


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> Its interesting discussion but I'm not that invested in it.


I am sorry to hear this, because I think you would be an excellent person to have involved in this discussion.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> ^^still reading into it


Not at all. If you read what I wrote on this thread, you will see that I simply questioned the fairness of painting with a broad brush before even mentioning the comment specifically. 




Blonde said:


> I said being attractive and looking mature as a 12 yo child can be a huge curse. And I stand by it. No, most of the lecherous DOM did not touch me or rape me physically. But their sexual objectification was disrespectful and assaulted my dignity.


I don't disagree with you Blonde. I'm actually very, very sensitive about this subject myself since all three of my children were daughters. We lived in a semi rural area and they all dressed like the tom-boys they were. It didn't make any difference. Right around 13 or 14 all three of them in turn suddenly became the object of male stares. 

Speaking as a man, I think you'll find that the more sensitive a man is to this topic, the more easily he's going to be offended at the implication that he's part of the problem.




Blonde said:


> Sorry but some comments here remind me of Genesis 19:5-8 MSG - Before they went to bed men from all - Bible Gateway in serving up girls on a platter and I'm disappointed. I thought some of you fellas had higher standards.
> 
> Unsubscribing.


I'm truly sorry you've been given that impression. My personal thoughts here run more along the lines of Proverbs 18:13


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Sorry, I think I'm done with this thread too.
> 
> It seems to have degenerated into a men vs women thread with neither side willing to listen to the others points and instead trying to push their agenda. And I'm probably as guilty as anyone.
> 
> CM, you made a post where you stated that (or seemed to from what I read) that in war women have it easy and their lives get spared.
> 
> I posted just one example where thousands upon thousands of women were first raped and then killed, and many thousands more raped repeatedly until they were pregnant and their husbands and sons killed. Lucky them.
> 
> Then you asked me what I would do if a burglar entered my house. :scratchhead:


Wysh,

If you read my post you just quoted from you would see that I agreed with the post before it which you said that women were considered the spoils of war.
In essence , what you were stating was that men's lives were disposable in war.

I agreed with you.
Then you went on to post more facts concerning women who were raped in war.
I never denied it.

That's why I asked you if a thief came into your home, wouldn't you protect your wife?

Which you refused to answer.:scratchhead:

The obvious answer is YES , you would protect your wife.

So in case you still don't get it, for every woman who was viewed as the spoils of war and raped, *A MAN DIED TRYING TO PROTECT HER DIGNITY.*

In other words, both were stripped of their dignity and right to existence.

Am I wrong for saying that?

Didn't brave men sacrifice their lives to protect their womenfolk and children?


Would give your life for your wife and family Wysh?
Would you fight to the death for a strange woman in a dark alley if she was being attacked by a strange man?

I have done it,and would do it again without any hesitation.

The question is , would YOU?

I am responsible for my views, however, I am not responsible if you decide to view them through that particular filter you're using.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Speaking as a man, I think you'll find that the more sensitive a man is to this topic, the more easily he's going to be offended at the implication that he's part of the problem.


So what he can do is _temporarily_ set _his_ feelings _aside_ and put people who are more vulnerable _than he is_ first, and listen to _them_. 

When they feel heard, and understood, they will be more likely to be able to really and truly listen to _him_ and understand _his_ perspective.


----------



## jld

That's very good, CM, that you fought a man for a woman you did not know in a dark alley. I think we all commend you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> So what he can do is _temporarily_ set _his_ feelings _aside_ and put people who are more vulnerable _than he is_ first, and listen to _them_.
> 
> When they feel heard, and understood, they will be more likely to be able to really and truly listen to _him_ and understand _his_ perspective.


And why can't both sides simply put all the personal feelings aside,
stop the sabre rattling and discuss it like grown folks?

This is an anonymous internet forum.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> That's very good, CM, that you fought a man for a woman you did not know in a dark alley. I think we all commend you.


Well thank you

But why is that fellow trying to paint me with that
" woman hater " brush?


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Well thank you
> 
> But why is that fellow trying to paint me with that
> " woman hater " brush?


I don't know. Maybe he will tell us.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> I actually believe I have a modicum of reading comprehension
> 
> Cosmos is always a voice of reason, but even she did not seem to grasp how offensive the assertion that most men are predators was. (Or maybe she didn't see it.) If an esoteric meaning was intended beyond what parsing the statement using standard rules of definition and grammar yields, I missed the elaboration.
> 
> The idea that male notions of female attractiveness are a core component of rape seems to me to have been an _a priori _assumption at several points in this discussion.


She grasped it perfectly and, for the record, she very clearly stated that:-




> Both men and women can be objectified, but women are objectified far more than men.
> 
> 
> Objectification can be very damaging, and one of the effects of objectification is that it often leads to the person being objectified to eventually objectify themselves.
> 
> 
> Objectification is not the same as attraction.
> 
> 
> Objectification does not necessarily lead to rape.
> 
> 
> Whilst sex is the tool that is used, rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.
> 
> 
> Both sexes can be raped, but far more women are raped than men.
> 
> 
> Rape is abhorrent, no matter which gender it is perpetrated against.
> 
> 
> * False allegations of rape are as abhorrent as the act of rape itself.
> 
> [*]*
> *Most men are not rapists, and both genders despise rape as much as the other.*


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> And why can't both sides simply put all the personal feelings aside,
> stop the sabre rattling and discuss it like grown folks?
> 
> This is an anonymous internet forum.


People still have feelings. Not all of us are all grown up inside.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> She grasped it perfectly and, for the record, she very clearly stated that:-
> 
> .*Both men and women can be objectified, but women are objectified far more than men.*
> 
> .Objectification can be very damaging, and one of the effects of objectification is that it often leads to the person being objectified to eventually objectify themselves.
> 
> .Objectification is not the same as attraction.
> 
> .Objectification does not necessarily lead to rape.
> 
> .Whilst sex is the tool that is used, rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.
> 
> .Both sexes can be raped, but far more women are raped than men.
> 
> .Rape is abhorrent, no matter which gender it is perpetrated against.
> 
> .False allegations of rape are as abhorrent as the act of rape itself.
> Most men are not rapists, and both genders despise rape as much as the other.


And I agree with all the points you made, except the first one.

Which is one of the sticking points in this thread.

There are various forms of objectification, sexual objectification is just one.

Maybe we need to first get a proper definition of exactly constitutes objectification, and the different types of objectification.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> She grasped it perfectly


In fact, the very person who made the off-putting statement came back to clarify what she was really trying to say:



> OK, one more thing, I stated earlier in the thread that I come from a family of mostly men. None of them were ever falsely accused of rape or have ever raped. They are upstanding men, and I say that to say this, *I don't believe that all men are rapists*, but the ones who are make life very difficult for women. We are constantly on our guard and it is tiresome at times.
> 
> To the women who don't experience this, congratulations! But don't discount the many of us who do.
> 
> To the men who bring up statistics to try and argue that rape does not happen as much as we say it does, what point does that make? *It doesn't change the fact that millions of women all over the world feel unsafe everyday.*


But nobody was listening. They were too busy trying to demonstrate that anyone who thinks objectification is a problem is an idiot and hates men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

What is the difference between saying

" _I don't believe that all men are rapist_.."

And 
" _Most men are rapist_?"

Can you please explain?


----------



## Cosmos

> There are various forms of objectification, sexual objectification is just one.
> 
> Maybe we need to first get a proper definition of exactly constitutes objectification, and the different types of objectification.


Female objectification:

http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

Male objectification:

Male Objectification: The Female Gaze |


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> So what he can do is _temporarily_ set _his_ feelings _aside_ and put people who are more vulnerable _than he is_ first, and listen to _them_.
> 
> When they feel heard, and understood, they will be more likely to be able to really and truly listen to _him_ and understand _his_ perspective.


I would not disagree with this in a one on one or support group setting.


----------



## ocotillo

Cosmos:



Cosmos said:


> She grasped it perfectly and, for the record, she very clearly stated that:-


Cosmos, If you say you grasped it, that's good enough for me. 

Please forgive me. I honestly did not get that impression out of the prefatory statement:



Cosmos said:


> Ladies...
> 
> Just about anything any of you post in this thread is likely to be misinterpreted and turned around on you, and I don't know why any of you are continuing to post here.


I'm sorry. 


always_alone:



always_alone said:


> In fact, the very person who made the off-putting statement came back to clarify what she was really trying to say:


A, "Not all" qualifier doesn't actually modify the inclusion in "Most."


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I would not disagree with this in a one on one or support group setting.


Why would it not work here?


----------



## Blonde

Just have to clarify re: this "all men are rapists" meme.



> Whilst sex is the tool that is used, *rape is not about sex or what a woman is wearing / not wearing. It is a violent, criminal act and is about dominance, control and degradation - hence its use as a terror weapon in times of war.*


This warrants clarification.

Rape is a violent crime with more in common with murder than sexual sin.

Men on this thread. 
I believe you.
You are not rapists.
Got it?
Not. Rapists.

I don't recall ever being raped. However I was molested and objectified since age 12. These were not "violent" crimes. They were self-centered narcissistic actions of men and boys who had their head up their butts...

The thread is not called "rape and society". It is called *"sexual objectification and society"*

Sexual objectification needs to be distinguished from rape. Sexual objectification is viewing another person as an object to use for personal gain without respect toward them as persons.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Just have to clarify re: this "all men are rapists" meme.
> 
> 
> This warrants clarification.
> 
> Rape is a violent crime with more in common with murder than sexual sin.
> 
> Men on this thread.
> I believe you.
> You are not rapists.
> Got it?
> Not. Rapists.
> 
> I don't recall ever being raped. However I was molested and objectified since age 12. These were not "violent" crimes. They were self-centered narcissistic actions of men and boys who had their head up their butts...
> 
> The thread is not called "rape and society". It is called *"sexual objectification and society"*
> 
> Sexual objectification needs to be distinguished from rape. Sexual objectification is viewing another person as an object to use for personal gain without respect toward them as persons.


FINALLY, YES THANK YOU!

You got it.
Not that I didn't think you had it before ,that's why I was conversing with you and jld this morning.

That's why my opening post was about Sasha Grey and her
" story."
It* is* about sexual objectification.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Got it?
> Not. Rapists.


And not at all like Abraham's nephew either


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Female objectification:
> 
> http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf
> 
> Male objectification:
> 
> Male Objectification: The Female Gaze |


The first link you gave didn't work. However the second one on male objectification worked perfectly, and I just scanned it.


Here's an excertpt

" *After analyzing magazine ads, I have found that male objectification is becoming a prevalent depiction in today’s culture. I hypothesize 
that the rise of male objectification is in large part due to the increasing status of women in today’s society. Rohlinger states three possible 
explanations for the increase in male objectification: 1) Rise in female empowerment 2) Growing acceptance and attention given to the gay 
community within the U.S. 3) Sex sells no matter what gender. Rohlinger also emphasizes the shift in female empowerment saying that 
male “sexualization” has economic undertones because advertisers are trying to capitalize on the “feminization of the workplace.” 
According to a 2001 US Census, one of three women in dual income households earns more money than their husbands; women 
outnumber men earning Bachelors, Graduate, and Law degrees; and women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men..."*

End Quote.



Here's what I hads to say on that aspect of male sexuasl objectificationon this thread in response to a post from Dad & Hubby:

*Caribbean Man, Post # 50 . 02.07.2014*. 
*
Quote:*

" Yes, yes , yes and again , YES!

Those are exactly my thoughts, and that's why I used Sasha Grey and porn as an example of the sexual objectification issue.

*This is a very complex issue that affects everyone's life and rights , and I find it disturbing that people could approach and view it in such a simplistic , monochromatic manner.

For example, is the fact that the male form is now being highly commercialized and sexualized, evidence of the evils of sexual objectification , or is an indication of a closing of the historical financial gap that created the power differential between the genders and a shifting from the gender based hegemony of yesteryear towards a more evenly distribution of financial power between the sexes?The fact is , sex sells , and money is power.
Market forces drive advertising , commercialization of the male form is meant to primarily target the female consumer.

There are rows and rows of permutations and combinations that could be applied to explain the phenomenon.

And really, is the commercialization of the sexual aspect of the human form in art or anything else necessarily an indication of sexual objectification?*Or can it be a celebration of the sexual aspect of the human form , at least in some instances?
And if it is objectification , who's objectifying who , and to what end, if it is devoid of any manipulative or coercive tactics?

Is sexual harassment the same as sexual objectification?
Is sexual discrimination the same as sexual objectification?
Is lusting after a stranger the same as sexual objectification?
Or is it that any of these behavior can lead to sexual objectification , which in reality is a type of "camel nose" fallacy, or an illogical approach to the issue.

I agree everybody feels strongly about the issue, but strong feelings are not an indicator of the rightness or wrongness of any issue.

Maybe we need to first clearly define exactly what is sexual objectification..."

End Quote.
*Caribbean Man, Post # 50 . 02.07.2014. *

Interesting that both that feminist lady on the link you posted and myself had the exact ,perspective.

But I still think that is only just one perspective amongst many possible perspectives, each different .

The question I'm asking is, is it necassarily bad or evil?
Is there really any negative fallout from this?


----------



## Cosmos

> The question I'm asking is, is it necassarily bad or evil?
> Is there really any negative fallout from this?


Yes, there is a negative fallout:-

_"The direct negative effects on women, as we are exposed to it daily are: negative self-images, shame about ourselves, diminished feelings of dignity, autonomy, privacy, and SAFETY."_ Objectification Of Women | NOMAS

As my link on male objectification indicated, male objectification is on the increase, but it hasn't been around as long as female objectification, nor is it anywhere near on the same scale. Only time will tell what the effects of it would be on young males.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> What is the difference between saying
> 
> " _I don't believe that all men are rapist_.."
> 
> And
> " _Most men are rapist_?"
> 
> Can you please explain?


Ask yourself this:. Why are you trying so hard to read everything as an attack against you, and men generally?

As I said before, this isn't about you. And it isn't about saying all or most men are rapists. It is an attempt to describe the climate that women live in, where we are continually made to feel like pieces of meat. The rape issue is a part of that, but it most certainly isn't all of it.

You can argue with us and tell us we have no right to feel that way, or you can listen and understand that objectification really does impact women in ways that men do not experience.

Why do you think so many men on my thread claimed to enjoy being objectified? 

And why suppose that women should enjoy it? Or if not enjoy per se, then at least stop thinking that the have any problems?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Ask yourself this:. Why are you trying so hard to read everything as an attack against you, and men generally?
> 
> As I said before, this isn't about you. And it isn't about saying all or most men are rapists. It is an attempt to describe the climate that women live in, where we are continually made to feel like pieces of meat. The rape issue is a part of that, but it most certainly isn't all of it.
> 
> You can argue with us and tell us we have no right to feel that way, or you can listen and understand that objectification really does impact women in ways that men do not experience.
> 
> Why do you think so many men on my thread claimed to enjoy being objectified?
> 
> And why suppose that women should enjoy it? Or if not enjoy per se, then at least stop thinking that the have any problems?


* sigh *


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Yes, there is a negative fallout:-
> 
> _"The direct negative effects on women, as we are exposed to it daily are: negative self-images, shame about ourselves, diminished feelings of dignity, autonomy, privacy, and SAFETY."_ Objectification Of Women | NOMAS
> 
> As my link on male objectification indicated, male objectification is on the increase, but it hasn't been around as long as female objectification, nor is it anywhere near on the same scale. Only time will tell what the effects of it would be on young males.



*Quote:*

" _For a problem to be solved we must first see it for what it is. This applies to anything from fundamental calculus to fiscal cliffs. I can’t pretend to know much about either,* but I’ve learned enough in my extensive research into sex trafficking to know this: the sex trafficking of boys is essentially absent from the conversation...*_"

"_ In my visit to Care Corner Orphanage in Thailand *I was shocked that most of the HIV-infected sex slave survivors were boys under the age of ten. I saw and learned of something similar in the Philippines and in Bangladesh.* Upon reflection, I think part of the reason for my shock was because I was conditioned through the media, literature, photo and film to believe that this was a crime perpetrated against only girls and women..._"

Source: The Forgotten Many: Sex Trafficked Boys

Comments?


----------



## jld

Yes, that is disgusting. And I read that the U.S. gov't funds sex parties for old men, tribal chiefs, in Afghanistan, with little boys in order to have influence against the Taliban. Disgusting.


----------



## jld

Exploitation comes down to money, CM. Now back on that question: How could reform our economic system? Are we humans doomed to always have exploitation in the race for riches?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes totally deplorable....and just as sad and wrong. And most of the trafficking of young men and women and children...is done by men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Yes, that is disgusting. And I read that the U.S. gov't funds sex parties for old men, tribal chiefs, in Afghanistan, with little boys in order to have influence against the Taliban. Disgusting.


i wanted to post a link on what happens to little * dancer * boys in Afghanistan, but I thought I'd post it later.
Since you bought it up.
The answer is yes. Grooming young boys into homosexuality is rampant in Afghanistan because of poverty.

Most young men cannot hope to get married, because their family has no money.

These young boys as soon as they hit puberty are purchased from their poor parents or even kidnapped, and sold to tribal chiefs and warlords, for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation.
They are dressed like women, taught to dance like women , and act like women. they are then used for sex and sometimes passed around to corrupt officials and wealthy businessmen.

By the time they hit seventeen or eighteen , they often commit suicide , because they are replaced by younger boys , and they cannot fit in the normal Afghan society.
If it is found out that they are gay, I think the penalty is is death.

There's another such scenario in Brazil , because Brazil is a sex tourism destination, and poverty levels are high.
Young girls and boys as young as eight years are hooked on drugs and they sell their bodies to European sex tourists and others for money to buy drugs , and to live.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Who is doing that grooming, CM?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> *Quote:*
> 
> " _For a problem to be solved we must first see it for what it is. This applies to anything from fundamental calculus to fiscal cliffs. I can’t pretend to know much about either,* but I’ve learned enough in my extensive research into sex trafficking to know this: the sex trafficking of boys is essentially absent from the conversation...*_"
> 
> "_ In my visit to Care Corner Orphanage in Thailand *I was shocked that most of the HIV-infected sex slave survivors were boys under the age of ten. I saw and learned of something similar in the Philippines and in Bangladesh.* Upon reflection, I think part of the reason for my shock was because I was conditioned through the media, literature, photo and film to believe that this was a crime perpetrated against only girls and women..._"
> 
> Source: The Forgotten Many: Sex Trafficked Boys
> 
> Comments?


Deplorable 

Males are not immune from the depravity of sexual abuse. UK stats:- http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/reso...ng/child-trafficking-statistics_wda96895.html


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> And most of the trafficking of young men and women and children...is done by men.


I don't think it's that simplistic.

Most of the kids who are trafficked into the sex work are sold by the PARENTS because of poverty.
Especially in Thailand.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes parents have sold their children into various forms of slavery for centuries, that is true.

Does that change the fact that the slave traders and people who "buy" the slaves are mostly men?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> Most of the kids who are trafficked into the sex work are sold by the PARENTS because of poverty.
> Especially in Thailand.


Same with a lot of child brides, the majority come from rural area's and are given to the 'husbands' by their parents. Also in the celebrity world it's not uncommon for parent's turn a blind eye to what is being done to their kids so their children stay in the lime light.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sex Trafficking: Beyond the Abstract Evil - The Good Men Project


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Deplorable
> 
> Males are not exempt from the depravity of sexual abuse.


No.

They are not exempt.

Just invisible, and have always been.

Which is the point I'm trying to make all along.

Even back in Greece and Roman societies over 1000 years ago , young boys whose family were poor, were often sold to the upper class peoples for sexual exploitation.
That was thought of as " normal."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes parents have sold their children into various forms of slavery for centuries, that is true.
> 
> Does that change the fact that the slave traders and people who "buy" the slaves are mostly men?


So which is worse?

The parent who sold the child?

Or the person who bought the child.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> 
> They are not exempt.
> 
> Just invisible, and have always been.
> 
> Which is the point I'm trying to make all along.
> 
> Even back in Greece and Roman societies over 1000 years ago , young boys whose family were poor, were often sold to the upper class peoples for sexual exploitation.
> That was thought of as " normal."


They were sold to upper class MEN for sexual exploitation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Caribbean Man said:


> So which is worse?
> 
> The parent who sold the child?
> 
> Or the person who bought the child.


They are all wrong. But in this scenario there would be possibly one woman, the mother. And then probably 2 dozen different men, the father, the buyer, the traders, and the sexual deviants who rape the child.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Why do you keep thinking we don't understand what is going on?

On the other rape thread that you started, you straight up admitted that you know nothing and have studied nothing about what victims of rape (male or female) go through. Why would you be arguing so hard when you yourself have admitted to not knowing both sides of the issue?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> They were sold to upper class MEN for sexual exploitation.


Lol,

You just don't get it.

_" After her husband Ferenc Nádasdy's death, she [ Countess Elizabeth Bathory] and four collaborators *were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls, with one witness attributing to them over 650 victims, *though the number for which they were convicted was 80.[4] Due to her rank, Elizabeth herself was neither tried nor convicted..."_

Elizabeth Báthory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countess Elizabeth Bathory was known to prefer young . virgin girls and she was famous for mutilating them and bathing in their blood.
She was also deep into sado masochism and sex torture, and tortured those girls for her own sexual pleasure.


Is it so difficult to understand that the problem isn't a gender problem but a human problem?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Great, that has nothing to do with the GREEKS that YOU brought up.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> They are all wrong. But in this scenario there would be possibly one woman, the mother. And then probably 2 dozen different men, the father, the buyer, the traders, and the sexual deviants who rape the child.
> 
> Why is this so hard for you to accept?
> 
> Why do you keep thinking we don't understand what is going on?
> 
> On the other rape thread that you started, you straight up admitted that you know nothing and have studied nothing about what victims of rape (male or female) go through. Why would you be arguing so hard when you yourself have admitted to not knowing both sides of the issue?



Do you even _know _what the issue is here?

Or are you just trying to stir up conflict?


----------



## Faithful Wife

What I know is that I have just put you on ignore. If you must insist that you are the only expert on any discussion you are part of (even when you admit knowing nothing about what rape victims are faced with) then clearly I have nothing more to say to you.


----------



## richie33

Some women seem to be doing a fine job of exploiting themselves. Put on the TV and watch a few minutes of The Bad Girls Club, the Housewives shows, the Kardasins, plus a ton more. 
Men responsible for that also? Every week in the newspaper I read how a female teacher is caught sleeping with their 15 year old students. It cuts both ways.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> So which is worse?
> 
> The parent who sold the child?
> 
> Or the person who bought the child.


Equally bad imo (in one way the predator is worse because they are the actual one/ones causing harm to the child, in an other way the parents are worse because it's up to them to protect the child).
Both are gaining from the child being put through horrific things, whether it's sexually or financially.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Equally bad imo (in one way the predator is worse because they are the actual one/ones causing harm to the child, in an other way the parents are worse because it's up to them to protect the child).
> Both are gaining from the child being put through horrific things, whether it's sexually or financially.


:iagree:

That's why I'm thinking that there are many different perspectives to this issue.
Some are right before our eyes and other are hidden way underneath.
That's why I think it's not a gender issue only. Both genders are equally affected , but just in different ways.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> That's why I'm thinking that there are many different perspectives to this issue.
> Some are right before our eyes and other are hidden way underneath.
> That's why I think it's not a gender issue only. Both genders are equally affected , but just in different ways.


Of course it is a human problem. That's why from the beginning I've said that we need sociological analysis to understand objectification, and ought not focus only on personal desire.

If you wish to define objectification as "all instances of times when people have been treated soley as a means to someone else's ends", then it absolutely applies in all sorts of ways to both men and women throughout history.

If you want to talk about "sexual objectification" (which is what I thought the subject was), then the story is a bit different. At this moment of history, women have the dubious honour of being far more likely to be defined by and reduced to their sexuality. It is what it is.

But yes, men too are sexually objectified. I've said so from the beginning, and have pointed out that they face many of the same negative effects from it as women. And the problem is getting worse.

So what will we do? Keep pretending that the only relevant analysis is personal desire, and ignore all of the conditions? Or listen to and heed the experiences of women so that we can stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again?


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> 
> You just don't get it.
> 
> _" After her husband Ferenc Nádasdy's death, she [ Countess Elizabeth Bathory] and four collaborators *were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls, with one witness attributing to them over 650 victims, *though the number for which they were convicted was 80.[4] Due to her rank, Elizabeth herself was neither tried nor convicted..."_
> 
> Elizabeth Báthory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Countess Elizabeth Bathory was known to prefer young . virgin girls and she was famous for mutilating them and bathing in their blood.
> She was also deep into sado masochism and sex torture, and tortured those girls for her own sexual pleasure.
> 
> 
> Is it so difficult to understand that the problem isn't a gender problem but a human problem?


I know what you are trying to do here, but this is a false equivalence. That you can find ONE ALLEDGED female sexual sado masochist in history doesn't mean this is a 'human' thing. It means that Bathory was an aberration.

Look evolutionarily speaking, men had to be bastards. There is no getting around that. They were responsible for getting game. Sometimes they had to be willing to wander off alone for long periods either due to ostracism or hunting and they DEFINITELY had to be willing and able to kill other men...and sometimes people.

So the guys who got warm and mushy emotionally, one which slowed that hand ax blade...these guys didn't get back up.

Women had to work together. Those jackels needed every woman throwing rocks to keep them at bay if the men folk were busy hunting. They had to rely on other women during pregnancy. And what little power they had over these big strong psychopaths they had to interact with lay in togetherness and unity in the face of the worst offenders.

Men are aggressive and men have a far different sexuality than women do. And YES, it leads to greater objectification of women. Nog and Barak taking a look at the next tribe saw the nice location, the hunting ground...and all those attractive women they could get their mitts on.

That drive to strive, to take, to push, to conquer has some, to female eyes, unsettling consequences to male sexuality *when taken to extremes* even while causing us great leaps and bounds forward as we pushed and conquered and made a pretty frigging comfortable life for both men and women.

Men's sex drive tends to lead them to slightly more immoral behavior (see infidelity rate...though, ladies, you are catching up) and for the morally bankrupt, do despicable things like buying children.

Women aren't frequenting all these brothels. But to get laid, women just have to say 'yes'. So there is that glaring blind spot women have. Men need to work hard to get laid and they are more than happy to exchange 'work' for 'sex' in a direct fashion.


BUT...when men have reasonable access to sexual outlets or HOPE for reasonable access, they are generally well behaved. So this broad brush stroking of 'men are all rapists' is really frigging annoying. That men are just one horny month from taking women left and right is offensive in the extreme.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> If you want to talk about "sexual objectification" (which is what I thought the subject was), then the story is a bit different. At this moment of history, women have the dubious honour of being far more likely to be defined by and reduced to their sexuality. It is what it is.



It is. But because of male sexuality being sight driven, why do you think it is 'solvable'? It is also ONE ASPECT of how men view women. Frankly, running through 'sex in marriage' some of the wives wish they were objectified at least once a week!





> But yes, men too are sexually objectified. I've said so from the beginning, and have pointed out that they face many of the same negative effects from it as women. *And the problem is getting worse.*



Really? Would you prefer to be alive today or 50 years ago? Would you prefer to be alive today or 300 years ago? Would you prefer to be where you are now or in a Muslim country?

Yes, there are a lot more sex billboards up on the walls. (you have, btw, seen Ancient Greek statues, yes?) But even 30 years ago, there was a wild expectation that an expensive enough dinner entitled a guy to a little action, which is less the case these days (though you can't cure 'cad')

Thirty years ago, 'date rape' was not an 'issue' and it was swept under the rug A LOT MORE than today.

So please answer the question: where and when would you prefer to live than here and now to be 'less sexually objectified'?


Or state that maybe things have improved. Certainly rape awareness has become something not discussed in polite society to a cause celebre.

So I dispute this point.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Of course it is a human problem. That's why from the beginning I've said that we need sociological analysis to understand objectification, and ought not focus only on personal desire.
> 
> If you wish to define objectification as "all instances of times when people have been treated soley as a means to someone else's ends", then it absolutely applies in all sorts of ways to both men and women throughout history.
> 
> If you want to talk about "sexual objectification" (which is what I thought the subject was), then the story is a bit different. At this moment of history, women have the dubious honour of being far more likely to be defined by and reduced to their sexuality. It is what it is.
> 
> But yes, men too are sexually objectified. I've said so from the beginning, and have pointed out that they face many of the same negative effects from it as women. And the problem is getting worse.
> 
> So what will we do? Keep pretending that the only relevant analysis is personal desire, and ignore all of the conditions? Or listen to and heed the experiences of women so that we can stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again?



Have you ever done any research on sex tourism?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> It is. But because of male sexuality being sight driven, why do you think it is 'solvable'? It is also ONE ASPECT of how men view women. Frankly, running through 'sex in marriage' some of the wives wish they were objectified at least once a week!


I don't think sexual attraction is the same as objectification, so maybe we need to clarify what we're talking about here?

My h treats me as an autonomous human being, and values my whole me. Having sex with him has nothing to do with objectification.

Do you dispute that?




JCD said:


> So I dispute this point.


My point was that is was getting worse *for men*.

JCD, I think it's really great that you have no idea what it is like to be objectified. Let's hope it stays that way, shall we? As it really is a lot more unpleasant than looking at billboards.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you ever done any research on sex tourism?


Very, very depressing, and often terribly cruel exploitative.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> I don't think sexual attraction is the same as objectification, so maybe we need to clarify what we're talking about here?
> 
> My h treats me as an autonomous human being, and values my whole me. Having sex with him has nothing to do with objectification.
> 
> Do you dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that is was getting worse *for men*.
> 
> JCD, I think it's really great that you have no idea what it is like to be objectified. Let's hope it stays that way, shall we? As it really is a lot more unpleasant than looking at billboards.


Perhaps it would help if you defined how you view the term so we don't go talking past each other, because I think *I* at least am misunderstanding you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Very, very depressing, and often terribly cruel exploitative.



The world itself at times can be a very cruel and exploitative place for some people , for so many different reasons.

The problem arises when these reasons are not clearly identifiable or defined.

But the question I asked was have _you_ ever researched sex tourism?

How do you accurately quantify something like sexual objectification in any given area when the term itself can be very subjective ?

For example ,
Does porn objectify women only , or does porn also objectify men?
And if it does , how much does it objectify women as compared to men who are the actors in it ?
And how much do you suppose it's objectifying effects reach beyond its actors into the wider society?
What system is used to measure who's affected more if the psychological effects on the sexes are different?
If women in society feel a personal sense of degradation from porn , how would the average man who doesn't measure up in any way to the male actor feel?
What do you think it does to his self esteem?
How do you measure is effect?

If the depiction of the female human form in art , or any form of media leads to sexual objectification , does the depiction of the male human form also lead to sexual objectification?

Why or why not?

Or is it that men and women are sexually objectified in different ways , so its effects would be felt differently?

I suspect quite a lot of things are being confused here.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Of course it is a human problem. That's why from the beginning I've said that we need sociological analysis to understand objectification, and ought not focus only on personal desire.
> 
> If you wish to define objectification as "all instances of times when people have been treated soley as a means to someone else's ends", then it absolutely applies in all sorts of ways to both men and women throughout history.
> 
> If you want to talk about "sexual objectification" (which is what I thought the subject was), then the story is a bit different. At this moment of history, women have the dubious honour of being far more likely to be defined by and reduced to their sexuality. It is what it is.
> 
> But yes, men too are sexually objectified. I've said so from the beginning, and have pointed out that they face many of the same negative effects from it as women. And the problem is getting worse.
> 
> So what will we do? Keep pretending that the only relevant analysis is personal desire, and ignore all of the conditions? Or listen to and heed the experiences of women so that we can stop repeating the same mistakes over and over again?


:iagree: And this is the crux of the problem with this thread. The subject started off as sexual objectification and society, and has meandered off into an attempt to compare it to the vilest of crimes (rape and child trafficking / paedophilia).

There are so _many_ forms of objectification and stereotyping in society, some more pervasive and odious than others, but attempting to compare the sexual objectification of men and women to heinous _crimes_ like rape and child trafficking / paedophilia doesn't seem logical to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok then.

So lets get it back on track.


This is one of my favorite singers, India arie [ _I saw her perform this song in the Tobago Jazz fetival down here some years ago! _] in a really positive music video .

India.Arie - Video.

Here are a few pics of men in adverts for products.
The author on the site I mentioned yesterday is of the opinion that these images of men represent some form of sexual objectification.

Personally , I don't think it necessarily does objectifify anybody to the extent that it does any tangible harm.

What's your opinion?

In this first pic I see a pretty woman, well dressed in a micro mini skirt riding a man [ with sexual connotations] who's topless.
The first thing that jumped out at me was her sexy , pink high heels, with the oversized buckle on the ankle.
1] 



In this pic, I see the image of a man with a well sculptured body representing perfection of the human form. The shape of the lit passageway he's encased by is that of an Absolut Vodka bottle. I personally think this is a brilliant , creative ad concept because the passageway is lit with white light, going into blue. Absolut Vodka comes in a whole range of flavours , each one represented by a color. White light is a blend of all the colors of the electromagnet spectrum, hence it represents purity and perfection.
What I see is ' _Absolut Perfection._."
2]



In this pic , what I see is a very clear message about safe sex, rather than a particular brand of condom.
In a bar full of dirty pigs , a man and a woman stand chatting in what appears to be a very civilized manner, a little bit of flirting via body language taking place. Based on the type of ad, they are negotiating a sexual encounter.
The message of the ad is directed towards women. the message I get is that any man who refuses to wear a condom is a dirty pig. Always be safe, always have a condom , and it's best to have a Trojan condom.

3]

I'm interested in hearing what you all see in these ads.
Positive or negative?


----------



## trey69

CM just wondering, have you or your wife, or even a family member been sexually objectified in some way? It seems you are trying really hard to understand all of this, and thats ok, I guess I wasn't expecting it to be a thread still going 21-22 pages later, because from what I have read, many people have been responding with their opinions on it, and I'm not sure what is left that can be said. I think its one of those things where theres no real right or wrong answer.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Perhaps it would help if you defined how you view the term so we don't go talking past each other, because I think *I* at least am misunderstanding you.


Let's start with CM's list, and if we need more, we'll turn to Cosmos' articles:



Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:
> *_as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
> *as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
> *as if owned by another (ownership);
> *as if interchangeable (fungibility);
> *as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
> *as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity)._





Cosmos said:


> Female objectification:
> 
> http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf
> 
> Male objectification:
> 
> Male Objectification: The Female Gaze |


----------



## Cosmos

I think context is everything. 

*Photo 1: *

Sexy. I don't believe either gender is objectified.
*
Photo 2: *

Artistic (non-sexual as there is no frontal nudity)
*
Photo 3: *

I don't like to see men depicted as pigs and I find this one offensive. Also, the message is lost on me because if you're going to pick someone up in a bar for sex, you can end up with a lot more than an STD. Irresponsibly indulging in unprotected sex should not be a gender issue, and depicting one gender (but not the other) as pigs for not using protection is inappropriate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

trey69 said:


> *I think its one of those things where theres no real right or wrong answer.*


Well that's the thing.
Not looking for a " wrong or right" answer , but there are so many variations and they only seem to apply to one gender.

I'm wondering if much of it has to do with people's perception.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I think context is everything.
> 
> *Photo 1: *
> 
> Sexy. I don't believe either gender is objectified.
> *
> Photo 2: *
> 
> Artistic (non-sexual as there is no frontal nudity)
> *
> Photo 3: *
> 
> I don't like to see men depicted as pigs and I find this one offensive. Also, the message is lost on me because if you're going to pick someone up in a bar for sex, you can end up with a lot more than an STD. Irresponsibly indulging in unprotected sex should not be a gender issue, and depicting one gender (but not the other) as pigs for not using protection is inappropriate.


Here's what the author of the blog in that link you posted had to say about photo #1

" _Here, as in previous ads, Jennifer Lopez is taking an active stance and is not being portrayed as the object, but the male is once again 
casting a distant gaze. *This male model is being made to appear powerless, submissive, and decorative because of his distant gaze. Another 
element of objectification can be noted with the fact that the male is shirtless in this photograph. *It is an interesting contrast because Jennifer 
Lopez has become known as a powerful icon in many realms, and the fact that she uses male objectification to display her fashion line 
further intensifies the element of female empowerment in today’s society.._."

Could it be an issue of perspective / perception?

Could it also be that sexual objectification in this context , is an inextricable part of modern advertising because of the culture of sexual liberalism ?
Are the advertising execs simply responding to a growing demand for flesh by the consumer?

A significant portion of the marketing component is cultural relevance. The adverts must reflect cultural realities , whilst at the same time providing some sort of creative dissonance to the target audience, and beyond.


----------



## ocotillo

To be fair, there is an unspoken implication in comparative size and strength of the two people in adverts that hint at dominance and submission.

If the male model is obviously bigger and stronger than the female model, the viewer believes that his compliance is voluntary. 

But when the situation is reversed, the implication is that she does not have a choice.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> And not at all like Abraham's nephew either


Abraham's nephew, Lot was NOT a rapist.

However he did sexually objectify his daughters, viewing them as things, bargaining chips he could use to save his fanny. He did not rape them and he was prevented from trading them but he was not innocent. 

He ignored their person-hood and viewed their sexuality as something to be used for his own gain.

I don't find this^^ any different than what goes on with porn use or strip club use or prostitute use. 

The person-hood of the sex worker is ignored, her feelings, needs, history... and her sexuality is exploited for the john to get off. For the man, IMO, it is very like he is using her to masturbate himself, it is all and only about him and his feelings and needs. She is just a tool to be used and then tossed aside and forgotten.

All of those women are someone's daughter. And I view them all as God's daughters. Are they objectifying themselves? Sure, but Jesus understands what traumatic experiences brought them there... Jesus has compassion on them and would not dream of joining the long line of exploiters!


----------



## Blonde

I was thinking @ this theologically. 

Rape is a violent crime more akin to murder. It is about hatred, power, control. A sin AGAINST the other.

Using a prostitute, the Bible says, is a "sin AGAINST your own body"

IOW Sexual objectification of another is very self destructive for the one doing it.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, there is an unspoken implication in comparative size and strength of the two people in adverts that hint at dominance and submission.
> 
> If the male model is obviously bigger and stronger than the female model, the viewer believes that his compliance is voluntary.
> 
> But when the situation is reversed, the implication is that she does not have a choice.


:iagree: This is my take on it, too. The female model is on the male model's back because he is _allowing _ it.

It is all about context and perception.

I usually get a little irritated / uncomfortable when my SO and I are watching a movie in which there is a lot of gratuitous female nudity. Not because I'm a prude or feel that my SO is ogling the nude females, nor because I'm necessarily comparing myself unfavourably to them either. Interestingly, though, a while back we watched a particular series with a _lot_ of nudity in it and it failed to elicit the same response... I analyzed the reasons why and concluded that it was because there was an _equal_ focus on male/female full frontal nudity. In other words, I felt that neither gender was being objectified and my response to it was, therefore, quite different.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Abraham's nephew, Lot was NOT a rapist.


Although I'm agnostic, my perspective is Jewish, which is going to be a little different here and might strike Christian palates as legalistic. (My wife is a conservative Christian and we often have to simply agree that the end conclusion is what's truly important, not how a person got there.)

I understand that in the NT, St. Peter refers to him as 'Righteous,' but in Judaism, he's simply wicked and the story is read as a warning. Abetting the commission of a crime is no different morally than doing it yourself, and the weakness of his character is revealed later on in the narrative when he has drunken sex with his daughters.

--Not trying to derail the thread into a theological discussion; --Just showing the variety of perspectives we bring to the table.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> Although I'm agnostic, my perspective is Jewish, which is going to be a little different here and might strike Christian palates as legalistic. (My wife is a conservative Christian and we often have to simply agree that the end conclusion is what's truly important, not how a person got there.)
> 
> I understand that in the NT, St. Peter refers to him as 'Righteous,' but in Judaism, he's simply wicked and the story is read as a warning. Abetting the commission of a crime is no different morally than doing it yourself, and the weakness of his character is revealed later on in the narrative when he has drunken sex with his daughters.
> 
> --Not trying to derail the thread into a theological discussion; --Just showing the variety of perspectives we bring to the table.


Fascinating! I agree with you @ the weakness of his character. (And I hear ya! the NT claim of his righteousness is confusing). Lot, the daddy of these daughters, objectified them when they were virgins. He sowed and he reaped 

But OTH I think the cultural objectification of women abets sex slavery and rape. And I think porn objectifies women. So should I make the leap to "Abetting the commission of a crime is no different morally than doing it yourself"??? This is where the men all get defensive and think they are being accused of being rapists. No. NOT rapists. But if *the demand *for the sexually objectifying and exploitative media/acting/servicing dried up, there would be no more need for a supply of fresh meat.


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> Abraham's nephew, Lot was NOT a rapist.
> 
> However he did sexually objectify his daughters, viewing them as things, bargaining chips he could use to save his fanny. He did not rape them and he was prevented from trading them but he was not innocent.
> 
> He ignored their person-hood and viewed their sexuality as something to be used for his own gain.
> 
> I don't find this^^ any different than what goes on with porn use or strip club use or prostitute use.
> 
> *The person-hood of the sex worker is ignored, her feelings, needs, history... and her sexuality is exploited for the john to get off. For the man, IMO, it is very like he is using her to masturbate himself, it is all and only about him and his feelings and needs. She is just a tool to be used and then tossed aside and forgotten.*
> 
> All of those women are someone's daughter. And I view them all as God's daughters. Are they objectifying themselves? Sure, but Jesus understands what traumatic experiences brought them there... Jesus has compassion on them and would not dream of joining the long line of exploiters!


Here is the thing. I agree with your first few paragraphs on Lot's daughters, though if I recall correctly, Lot did have incest with the later. Not a rape, but skeevy to the extreme.

It is the bolded part which had me thinking. When I call a plumber, I don't care about his needs. I don't care about his history. I don't care about his feelings except as to not offend him enough to ruin my pipes. His very name is irrelevant to me except to avoid having to use 'hey you' to refer to him. (This assumes I am not acting farsighted enough to actually create a LTR with him in case I need him again...but men do that for sex workers too...)

Seriously, how many people provided you a service yesterday? Did you care about their feelings, needs and history every single time, or were you more concerned about if your coffee was made correctly? What is the hobby of your garbage man? What is the middle name of your doctor?

I say this not as a contradictory statement, but as one to cause some reflection. If it is 'objectifying' a woman who sexually services you by not knowing anything about her, how is it not objectifying to not know or care a thing about your coffee barista? 

I think there are critiques of using sex workers, but this isn't really one of them. Yes, the emotional distance is used by bad actors to allow abuse. But doing the same to a barista is just as vile. The main difference is the sex worker has a more dangerous work location.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Let's start with CM's list, and if we need more, we'll turn to Cosmos' articles:





> Originally Posted by Caribbean Man View Post
> Ok.
> According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:
> *as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
> *as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
> *as if owned by another (ownership);
> *as if interchangeable (fungibility);
> *as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
> *as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).


I am reading this list and except for one or two aspects, the difference between an 'objectified' woman and a plumber seems minimal.

A plumber is a tool used by me to clean my pipes. They are not allowed to do whatever they want, having to be on call and service clients so there is a lack of agency.

They are 'owned' by the management team, who are also the actors who 'own' their agency (unless they quit)

I don't care if it's one plumber or another unless there is a major skill disparity. 

I don't really spend a lot of time on his feelings except if he is obviously violent or weeping on my kitchen floor. I will treat him decently, but I try to treat everyone decently.

It is the 'destruction' thing which is huge.

So in aspects, MOST people and workers are objectified to a certain degree.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm interested in hearing what you all see in these ads.
> Positive or negative?


I'm fine with the ads superficially. I will say I'm getting straight up sick to death of how men AND women are portrayed in advertising.

The man is either a slack jawed moron and the woman is full of wisdom OR the woman is a greedy materialistic jerk while the man is a nothing but a means to gain pretty things. There never seems to be any other formula followed by advertisements. 

It's ALL BULLSH*T and BOTH sexes objectify each other. Women objectify women and men all the time. Men do the same damn thing. We're all guilty. 

That's just my .02


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> I usually get a little irritated / uncomfortable when my SO and I are watching a movie in which there is a lot of gratuitous female nudity. Not because I'm a prude or feel that my SO is ogling the nude females, nor because I'm necessarily comparing myself unfavourably to them either. Interestingly, though, a while back we watched a particular series with a _lot_ of nudity in it and it failed to elicit the same response... I analyzed the reasons why and concluded that it was because there was an _equal_ focus on male/female full frontal nudity. In other words, I felt that neither gender was being objectified and my response to it was, therefore, quite different.


:iagree:. I find gratuitous female objectification very off-putting, enough that I no longer want to watch whatever it is. 

But it's not the nudity or the sexuality, per se, as I have no problem with either if it's done holistically, with respect

It's the "titties are for gawping" or "body parts only" attitudes that I find offensive. 

As for the pictures, I'd be interested in hearing more about what men have to say. For me, the third was offensive, and I didn't much like the first either. The second, though, was okay.


----------



## JCD

I didn't care about the first two positively or negatively. It's a boytoy. It's a naked man. Ho hum. I am neither of those things.

The third WAS offensive but it was the slogan as much as anything 'evolve'.

Well excuse me, but not being an idiot, I can see the benefit of safe sex. It was intellectually offensive on many levels, one of them being that having a condom will somehow raise my number higher than either of the men pictured in picture 1 or 2.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I am reading this list and except for one or two aspects, the difference between an 'objectified' woman and a plumber seems minimal.
> 
> A plumber is a tool used by me to clean my pipes. They are not allowed to do whatever they want, having to be on call and service clients so there is a lack of agency.
> 
> They are 'owned' by the management team, who are also the actors who 'own' their agency (unless they quit)
> 
> I don't care if it's one plumber or another unless there is a major skill disparity.
> 
> I don't really spend a lot of time on his feelings except if he is obviously violent or weeping on my kitchen floor. I will treat him decently, but I try to treat everyone decently.
> 
> It is the 'destruction' thing which is huge.
> 
> So in aspects, MOST people and workers are objectified to a certain degree.


In some respects, this is true. And some people really do treat others as merely ends to their means. 

But let me put a different spin on this. A plumber chose his profession, and may be very well respected for what he does. His work might be in demand, and people will be very grateful that he's solved their problem. As a plumber, he will be evaluated as to how well he does his job. Plus he has other roles: husband, father, community member, hobbyist, whatever.

As a woman, I am always, wherever I go, whatever I do, evaluated on my looks and sex appeal. I did not choose to be a porn star or model, but I'm still evaluated against them. I do not wear make-up or push up bras, and I'm told this is a failing that will most certainly harm me both personally and professionally (and it has). I do have other roles, but no matter what they are, it's still the looks and sexuality that come first. I am *very* good at what I do, but whether I get the job depends on whether I'm wearing make-up.

The plumber might be criticized for his plumber's crack, but if he does a good job, he will be hired again. Women don't have that luxury: We either play the expectations, or lose out in virtually every area of our lives. Whether we care about our looks or not.

And yes, violability is huge. It's one of the reasons why objectification conversations often end up talking about rape or sexual assault. The most offensive part of being objectified, IMHO, is that your very own body is viewed as just an object that someone else feels entitled to do whatever they want with.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> :iagree:. I find gratuitous female objectification very off-putting, enough that I no longer want to watch whatever it is.
> 
> But it's not the nudity or the sexuality, per se, as I have no problem with either if it's done holistically, with respect
> 
> It's the "titties are for gawping" or "body parts only" attitudes that I find offensive.
> 
> As for the pictures, I'd be interested in hearing more about what men have to say. For me, the third was offensive, and I didn't much like the first either. The second, though, was okay.


It's funny. I was watching '300' when it came out and they had a scene where a drugged up oracle (naked, of course) was on screen and I just felt damned uncomfortable. It felt non-erotic and contrived. 'We need a boob in here'.

Since then, I understand when there are shots where nudity fits, but far more often, it's just there to drum up some viewer numbers and I have to roll my eyes and question the director's choices.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Fascinating! I agree with you @ the weakness of his character. (And I hear ya! the NT claim of his righteousness is confusing). Lot, the daddy of these daughters, objectified them when they were virgins. He sowed and he reaped
> 
> But OTH I think the cultural objectification of women abets sex slavery and rape. And I think porn objectifies women. So should I make the leap to "Abetting the commission of a crime is no different morally than doing it yourself"??? This is where the men all get defensive and think they are being accused of being rapists. No. NOT rapists. But if *the demand *for the sexually objectifying and exploitative media/acting/servicing dried up, there would be no more need for a supply of fresh meat.


Blondie,
I agree with Octillo.
But you have part of the account of Abraham's nephew, Lot right.
I think you're being generous to Lot.
Abraham's nephew lot was an evil man. He was not just weak of character but evil. He had many opportunities to redeem himself but in the end he decided that it was better to offer his two virgin daughters to sexually depraved men.
That's on him.
That's where I part ways with most people in matters like this.
I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility.
A man's family is his responsibility.
Lot was supposed to_ protect _his daughters, not use them as a bargaining chip to satisfy the lusts of those men in lieu of the two holy men whom they wanted to rape.
To me , that showed low as a yellow bellied coward.

If I remember the story well, after Sodom and Gomorrah was burnt to ashes and they managed to escape, Lot pretended t be drunk and had sex with both of his daughters and impregnated them.
His actions shows that he was a morally bankrupt man to the core.

About your thoughts on porn,
If porn objectifies women, how come it doesn't objectify men?
Both men and women act in porn?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Caribbean Man said:


> Blondie,
> I agree with Octillo.
> But you have part of the account of Abraham's nephew, Lot right.
> I think you're being generous to Lot.
> Abraham's nephew, Lot was an evil man. He was not just weak of character but downright evil. He had many opportunities to redeem himself but in the end he decided that it was better to offer his two virgin daughters to sexually depraved men.
> That's on him.
> That's where I part ways with most people in matters like this.
> I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility.
> A man's family is his responsibility.
> Lot was supposed to_ protect _his daughters, not use them as a bargaining chip to satisfy the lusts of those men in lieu of the two holy men whom they wanted to rape.
> To me , that showed low as a yellow bellied coward.
> 
> If I remember the story well, after Sodom and Gomorrah was burnt to ashes and they managed to escape, Lot pretended t be drunk and had sex with both of his daughters and impregnated them.
> His actions shows that he was a morally bankrupt man to the core.
> 
> About your thoughts on porn,
> If porn objectifies women, how come it doesn't objectify men?
> Both men and women act in porn?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> In some respects, this is true. And some people really do treat others as merely ends to their means.
> 
> But let me put a different spin on this. A plumber chose his profession, and may be very well respected for what he does. His work might be in demand, and people will be very grateful that he's solved their problem. As a plumber, he will be evaluated as to how well he does his job. Plus he has other roles: husband, father, community member, hobbyist, whatever.
> 
> As a woman, I am always, wherever I go, whatever I do, evaluated on my looks and sex appeal. I did not choose to be a porn star or model, but I'm still evaluated against them. I do not wear make-up or push up bras, and I'm told this is a failing that will most certainly harm me both personally and professionally (and it has). I do have other roles, but no matter what they are, it's still the looks and sexuality that come first. I am *very* good at what I do, but whether I get the job depends on whether I'm wearing make-up.
> 
> The plumber might be criticized for his plumber's crack, but if he does a good job, he will be hired again. Women don't have that luxury: We either play the expectations, or lose out in virtually every area of our lives. Whether we care about our looks or not.
> 
> And yes, violability is huge. It's one of the reasons why objectification conversations often end up talking about rape or sexual assault. The most offensive part of being objectified, IMHO, is that your very own body is viewed as just an object that someone else feels entitled to do whatever they want with.


I'm trying to comprehend your generalizations.

Basically , what you are saying that a female school bus driver who is very professional in her job wouldn't be liked and appreciated for her role as much as a male school bus driver simply because she doesn't have the body of a pornstar and can't afford a Wonderbra. 

Doesn't compute.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm trying to comprehend your generalizations.
> 
> Basically , what you are saying that a female school bus driver who is very professional in her job wouldn't be liked and appreciated for her role as much as a male school bus driver simply because she doesn't have the body of a pornstar and can't afford a Wonderbra.
> 
> Something is wrong with that picture.
> Does not compute.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> As a woman, I am always, wherever I go, whatever I do, evaluated on my looks and sex appeal.


As a man, I'm evaluated on the contents of my savings account, and the expensiveness of my clothes.

It's not fair on either gender. But those evaluations of you are in-built and involuntary, just as millions of women can't help being in love with Mr Darcy.

There's a song which goes (paraphrasing: )

"I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger,
But she ain't messin' with no swarthy gentlemen of modest income"

We shouldn't pretend things have changed, and thereby live in a state of politically correct hypocrisy. All that gets us is people who one day fall out of the clouds and end up hurt.


----------



## Cosmos

"All research to date on body image shows that women are much more critical of their appearance than men – much less likely to admire what they see in the mirror. Up to 8 out of 10 women will be dissatisfied with their reflection, and more than half may see a distorted image.

Men looking in the mirror are more likely to be either pleased with what they see or indifferent. Research shows that men generally have a much more positive body-image than women – if anything, they may tend to over-estimate their attractiveness. Some men looking in the mirror may literally not see the flaws in their appearance.

_Why are women so much more self-critical than men? Because women are judged on their appearance more than men, and standards of female beauty are considerably higher and more inflexible. _Women are continually bombarded with images of the 'ideal' face and figure – what Naomi Woolf calls 'The Official Body'. Constant exposure to idealised images of female beauty on TV, magazines and billboards makes exceptional good looks seem normal and anything short of perfection seem abnormal and ugly. It has been estimated that young women now see more images of outstandingly beautiful women in one day than our mothers saw throughout their entire adolescence."

Mirror, mirror - A summary of research findings on body image


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos, you are correct, but you made a false conclusion.

You indicated that women are hypercritical of their appearance, and then you explain that it's because they are judged more harshly.

From what I see, women do most of the judging, of each other and themselves. There is no standard being imposed from above, it's coming from below.

A woman of reasonable health and weight can always put on make-up, flattering clothes and turn up to a bar after the men have had a few drinks and find a mate for the evening.

So men aren't doing the judging. Most of the change, if you are demanding it, would most fruitfully take place by closing down the very magazines and gossip columns and boutiques which women alone are keeping economically viable.

I worked with quite a few muslim girls, and they all used to wear the headscarf. Two of them stopped wearing the headscarf at different points in my acquaintance (one still does). They stopped wearing it, started wearing make-up, curling their hair etc etc etc - _in spite of _their fathers/brothers telling them they had to cover up. The third one e-mailed me recently, talking about how she's not attracted to the men/boys her parents keep introducing her to. Won't be long before she abandons modesty and starts tarting up. She may go overboard. She's a really nice woman too, but I can see her going off the rails toward the opposite extreme. And it'll be her doing it, not society... her "society" doesn't want her to dress provocatively.

So in fact "Sexual Objectification And Society" begins with women wanting to compete with other women.

I'm right again, aren't I.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Cosmos, you are correct, but you made a false conclusion.
> 
> You indicated that women are hypercritical of their appearance, and then you explain that it's because they are judged more harshly.


I didn't reach that conclusion, actually, Sandfly (although I do agree with it)... The conclusion was reached by researchers from the Social Issues Research Centre. The Social Issues Research Centre is an independent, non-profit organisation founded to conduct research on social and lifestyle issues, monitor and assess global sociocultural trends and provide new insights on human behaviour and social relations.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I didn't reach that conclusion, actually, Sandfly (although I do agree with it)... The conclusion was reached by researchers from the Social Issues Research Centre. The Social Issues Research Centre is an independent, non-profit organisation founded to conduct research on social and lifestyle issues, monitor and assess global sociocultural trends and provide new insights on human behaviour and social relations.


OK, so I misread who was saying it.

How does their conclusions, supported by yourself, square with the women I know who decide to dress more provocatively, when they live in a micro-culture where it is frowned upon?

Their men and their religion are telling them to cover up, and they're the ones going _against _the culture to objectify themselves. They're not teenagers, by the way. They put the headscarves back on when they are around their brothers and father.

Living in England, I'm sure you'll recognise that the main objectors to provocative dressing has always been fathers and brothers and patriarchal organisations such as the church and mosque. The resistance to the 'cover-up' message has always been women's lib.

We can't have it both ways. I don't know any right-minded man who thinks it's a good idea to have beauty pageants for 10 year olds, or make-up for 12 year olds. Plenty of mothers are encouraging it though. Who is selling the avon? Who is hosting the Ann Summers parties? Not a single male hosts these parties for women, I'll wager.

Change must therefore begin with women, not men. Amiright?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> As a man, I'm evaluated on the contents of my savings account, and the expensiveness of my clothes.
> 
> It's not fair on either gender. But those evaluations of you are in-built and involuntary, just as millions of women can't help being in love with Mr Darcy.
> 
> There's a song which goes (paraphrasing: )
> 
> "I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger,
> * But she ain't messin' with no swarthy gentlemen of modest income*"
> 
> We shouldn't pretend things have changed, and thereby live in a state of politically correct hypocrisy. All that gets us is people who one day fall out of the clouds and end up hurt.


LMAO^^^:rofl::rofl::rofl:

It was a really catchy song with serious implications,

"_..18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his!
{ she did me wrong }
I ain't saying she's a gold digger , but she ain't messin' with no broke.._." 
"Gold Digger "~ Kanye West ft. Jamie Fox.

The reality is that if women have been objectified for their sexuality in advertising and the media, then it can also be said that men have been through pretty much the same only difference being , the media sends these messages to men in a different way. Men have always been valued for what they can provide materially, first.
Everything else came after.
A " good man " is not one who sits home ,writes poems and love songs, waiting for his " big break.." No matter how romantic he is ,he must first have a payday , or a skill that could be exchanged for a payday.
No woman is going to appreciate his " humanity" if he doesn't have a salary or at least a marketable skill that could attract one.

In a sense ,that's the nature of things because women faced the greater risk in any sexual encounters. She could get pregnant.

I guess some of what some of the ladies here are saying is that this
" objectification " by men have gone too far, insomuch , that it's beginning to have psychological effects.
But I think quite a few issues here are being mixed up. What is personally acceptable will vary from woman to woman. It is a very subjective area IMO.
In the end , I still thing that every person can only be responsible for themselves. Of course we can all get together to stop the ills of society. 
But we have to firstly correctly identify and agreeing to what some of those ills are is where the problem lies.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> But OTH I think the cultural objectification of women abets sex slavery and rape. And I think porn objectifies women. So should I make the leap to "Abetting the commission of a crime is no different morally than doing it yourself"???


Abetting is limited to the chain of events in the commission of the actual crime, but I think we both agree that there are other levels of ethical responsibility here.



Blonde said:


> This is where the men all get defensive and think they are being accused of being rapists. No. NOT rapists. But if *the demand *for the sexually objectifying and exploitative media/acting/servicing dried up, there would be no more need for a supply of fresh meat.


I hear you, but I honestly don't know what the answer is. I'm not even sure that there is much of a correlation between opinions on this topic and gender.

I think men are going to be upset when they feel that they are demonized simply for being men and appreciating the female form. 

Visual pornography hurts my wife's conservative Christian sensibilities on many levels, so I abstain from it. But that only increases the impact of things you can't avoid seeing in day to day life. How much should a woman be required to cover up in the name of modesty? 

I think it's an interesting paradox that the most rigidly patriarchal cultures are the ones who demand that a woman cover up the most, while women's rights and erosion of body modesty taboos are social phenomenon that have happened at the same time. 

But again, I don't know what the answer is...


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> OK, so I misread who was saying it.
> 
> How does their conclusions, supported by yourself, square with the women I know who decide to dress more provocatively, when they live in a micro-culture where it is frowned upon?
> 
> Their men and their religion are telling them to cover up, and they're the ones going _against _the culture to objectify themselves. They're not teenagers, by the way. They put the headscarves back on when they are around their brothers and father.
> 
> Living in England, I'm sure you'll recognise that the main objectors to provocative dressing has always been fathers and brothers and patriarchal organisations such as the church and mosque. The resistance to the 'cover-up' message has always been women's lib.
> 
> We can't have it both ways. I don't know any right-minded man who thinks it's a good idea to have beauty pageants for 10 year olds, or make-up for 12 year olds. Plenty of mothers are encouraging it though. Who is selling the avon? Who is hosting the Ann Summers parties? Not a single male hosts these parties for women, I'll wager.
> 
> Change must therefore begin with women, not men. Amiright?


Not quite as simplistic as that...

As I stated in an earlier post, _sexual objectification causes the objectified to objectify themselves_. It is a _societal problem_, not a male vs female problem.

As UK Coroner Michael Rose pointed out at a recent inquest into the suicide of a young, bulimic woman:-

_“The one class of person… whom I hold directly responsible for what happened is the fashion industry. I ask for magazines in the fashion industry to stop publishing photographs of wafer-thin girls. For their vanity, families like this suffer. It is an increasing problem and, until they control themselves, tragedies like this will continue.” _ 

Teenage bulimia and the warped world of fashion magazines - Telegraph


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> But I think quite a few issues here are being mixed up[/B]. What is personally acceptable will vary from woman to woman. It is a very subjective area IMO.


IMO that's what's happening too, a lot of different issues has caused a hybrid problem.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> No matter how romantic he is ,he must first have a payday , or a skill that could be exchanged for a payday.
> No woman is going to appreciate his " humanity" if he doesn't have a salary or at least a marketable skill that could attract one.


Halleluyah, amen.

I speak several languages, I'm world travelled, I'm 6.1, with nice olive skin and a good physique. Flat stomach and wide shoulders because I don't drink (often, pardon me), and I do exercise regularly. So in other words, I'm tall dark and (reasonably) handsome. Hair in all the right places. I'm normally confident, people always say that nothing affects me (not true, but at least it looks that way). 
And I'm not thick, though I'm told I'm a bit arrogant and lack empathy. All the _right _qualities in other words...

... But until I can get some decent money, get some nice new threads and a new car

It all means .... Nothing ! 

So what do I do, complain about it? One career down the pan, I just have to retrain, I guess.


----------



## ocotillo

Sandfly said:


> ... But until I can get some decent money, get some nice new threads and a new car


My wife and I reminisce sometimes about the things that most impressed us about each other when we first met. Invariably, one of the things she mentions (Quite unashamedly) is that the showroom sticker was still on my car window. :rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> How does their conclusions, supported by yourself, square with the women I know who decide to dress more provocatively, when they live in a micro-culture where it is frowned upon?
> 
> Their men and their religion are telling them to cover up, and they're the ones going _against _the culture to objectify themselves. They're not teenagers, by the way. They put the headscarves back on when they are around their brothers and father.


I posted these two pics on another thread about the same subject last year.

In our country, Islam is not a subculture but one of the top three dominant religions. Muslim , Hindu and Christianity. The population is mostly divided into those three religions.

Below are a couple pics of how most Muslim teenager girls dress down here.





They dress radically different from the older ones around my age.

I know for sure that it's the pressures of living in a society that's very liberal in it's views , having an extremely diverse, cosmopolitan population.
But in the context of this idea of objectification by society and the pressures on women, which way of dressing objectifies them more?
Seems to me that both ways can be considered as
" objectifying."
The older styled baggy outfits tried to deny their sexuality, treating them like sexless objects.
The fitted jeans and fitted tops that emphasize their curves and sexuality could also be seen as treating them as sex objects.

An interesting " catch 22."


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm trying to comprehend your generalizations.
> 
> Basically , what you are saying that a female school bus driver who is very professional in her job wouldn't be liked and appreciated for her role as much as a male school bus driver simply because she doesn't have the body of a pornstar and can't afford a Wonderbra.
> 
> Doesn't compute.


Yes, a woman bus driver will be treated differently than a male bus driver, simply based on the way she looks. Harshly and cruelly if she doesn't have them. (There was a very famous case about this recently, with school children bullying a female bus driver to the point where she broke down). Endless leering and harassment if she does. 

It may not compute, but it happens all the time.

One job I had, my supervisor's first words to me were "so you're my new sex slave, are you?" 

Really the examples are endless, and everywhere. I'm utterly amazed that you don't see it at all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> My wife and I reminisce sometimes about the things that most impressed us about each other when we first met. Invariably, one of the things she mentions (Quite unashamedly) is that the showroom sticker was still on my car window. :rofl:


My wife tells me that even before we became friends back then, she secretly admired they way that I looked , dressed and smelled.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> Not quite as simplistic as that...
> 
> As I stated in an earlier post, _sexual objectification causes the objectified to objectify themselves_. It is a _societal problem_, not a male vs female problem.
> 
> As UK Coroner Michael Rose pointed out at a recent inquest into the suicide of a young, bulimic woman:-
> 
> _“The one class of person… whom I hold directly responsible for what happened is the fashion industry. I ask for magazines in the fashion industry to stop publishing photographs of wafer-thin girls. For their vanity, families like this suffer. It is an increasing problem and, until they control themselves, tragedies like this will continue.” _
> 
> Teenage bulimia and the warped world of fashion magazines - Telegraph


Heterosexual men don't run the fashion industry.

Back to you?


----------



## always_alone

I don't agree that sexual objectification of women is equivalent to ahead monetary objectification of men.

I mean, if you don't want a person who's after you for your money, then don't marry one. It's just that easy to fix, because society as a whole still values men for all of their other attributes. And most women don't value money over other attributes anyway.

But while a woman can also choose not to marry a man who just wants her for her looks/sex, she is still not going to avoid the objectification. To do so, she has to leave society altogether. And I'm not so certain their are any actual alternatives in this globalized world.

One is an individual problem of finding a good mate; the other is a social problem.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I don't agree that sexual objectification of women is equivalent to ahead monetary objectification of men. I mean, if you don't want a person who's after you for your money, then don't marry one. It's just that easy to fix, because society as a whole still values men for all of their other attributes.



I agree that the two aren't the same, but think there is often a disconnect when one gender tries to speak from the perspective of the other.

Isn't that one thing that really rankles women? When men say that objectification is no big deal to them, so it shouldn't be any big deal to you either? And when they refuse to see how very, very different it is and how many mental health issues women suffer disproportionately are directly tied to it? 

The money thing is so easily disguised as admiration for work ethic, strength of character, raw intelligence, willingness to commit and other positive traits that appeal to a young man's vanity that he never considers that there might be a starker reality.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Heterosexual men don't run the fashion industry.
> 
> Back to you?


The coroner wasn't interested in the sexual preferences of those who run the fashion industry / media, nor am I. I am only interested in how the problem can be solved.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes, a woman bus driver will be treated differently than a male bus driver, simply based on the way she looks. Harshly and cruelly if she doesn't have them. (There was a very famous case about this recently, with school children bullying a female bus driver to the point where she broke down). Endless leering and harassment if she does.
> 
> It may not compute, but it happens all the time.
> 
> One job I had, my supervisor's first words to me were "so you're my new sex slave, are you?"
> 
> Really the examples are endless, and everywhere. I'm utterly amazed that you don't see it at all.


See, 
I don't know what country you're from so I can't even begin to make any assumptions about it's culture. But it seems to me that something's not normal about these scenarios you speak of, especially if it's a Western culture.

I live on an island in the Caribbean , where women have outnumbered men in population size for quite a long time , and the gap is now beginning to close.

Women here tend to be very liberal generally even though most of them are from religious backgrounds. They dress how they feel like , wear what they want and do what they want.

There is no level in our society where women haven't reached.
The head of our country , our prime minister , is a woman. She is the _de facto_ most powerful person in the Caribbean.
And yes, we even have women own industries that are traditionally controlled by men. There are only two women worldwide who own steel manufacturing companies, and one lives here.

Every year, something magical happens in our country, women , and to a lesser extent men , take off their business suits , work uniforms ,corporate work wear , don the skimpiest of feathered costumed bikinis , whether fat , thin , perfect physique , whatever. They pay thousands of dollars to join bands with hundreds of thousands of other revelers from all over the Caribbean and globe, and the dance , parade , gyrate and display themselves in the streets over a period of 72 hours nonstop. 

here's a short clip of what that looks like:

Harts Carnival 2013 On De Road.

Notice in the vid, women far outnumber men.
Women from the middle and upper class, Judges , Lawyers , Top level managers, technocrats you name it, are represented right there , in the naked glory , enjoying themselves without fear of being judged or some unwanted stare " ogling " or " objectifying" them, reducing them to " a thing."
They're showing off one thing, they want the public to see. Not their professional side or " humanity" , but their sexuality.

And they simply don't care what anyone else thinks of them.

It's called Carnival, a Latin word meaning " _Farewell To The Flesh_ " and it marks the beginning of the Catholic fasting season of Lent.
Interestingly , the first day after Carnival, " Ash Wednesday" these same women [ and men] would flock to the Catholic churches all over the country , in droves to have the priest forgive their sins and start the Lenten fasting season.
Human beings are very complex...


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> The coroner wasn't interested in the sexual preferences of those who run the fashion industry / media, nor am I. I am only interested in how the problem can be solved.


How will the problem be solved, if we don't establish the correct cause.

Where does it come from?

"Society" is not an answer we can work with.

And if you're saying that the fashion industry is the answer, then looking at who runs it is entirely and completely relevant.

I'll be more direct: None of us men are attracted to women who look like boys, the stick-thin parodies of femininity. None of us are interested in how a dress 'hangs' off the shoulder, or what the latest fashion in colours will be.

So - who is promoting bulimia and under-age beauty pageants?

Not us.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> If you don't want a person who's after you for your money, then don't marry one. It's just that easy to fix, because society as a whole still values men for all of their other attributes. And most women don't value money over other attributes anyway.


What is this mystical thing called society?

How do you effect practical change in such a thing as a vague concept?

What other 'attributes' does a man have for 'society' outside of his achievements, expressed in dollars and cents?

That's right - he has no worth.

Just ask your local homeless person how valued he feels, and how many chicks chat him up.

No money - no value.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I agree that the two aren't the same, but think there is often a disconnect when one gender tries to speak from the perspective of the other.
> 
> .


:iagree:
Precisely^^^.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> How will the problem be solved, if we don't establish the correct cause.
> 
> Where does it come from?
> 
> "Society" is not an answer we can work with.
> 
> And if you're saying that the fashion industry is the answer, then looking at who runs it is entirely and completely relevant.
> 
> I'll be more direct: None of us men are attracted to women who look like boys, the stick-thin parodies of femininity. None of us are interested in how a dress 'hangs' off the shoulder, or what the latest fashion in colours will be.
> 
> So - who is promoting bulimia and under-age beauty pageants?
> 
> Not us.




I really can't debate this with you further. I'm finding your responses unconstructive and extremely tedious.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> In some respects, this is true. And some people really do treat others as merely ends to their means.
> 
> But let me put a different spin on this. A plumber chose his profession, and may be very well respected for what he does. His work might be in demand, and people will be very grateful that he's solved their problem. As a plumber, he will be evaluated as to how well he does his job. Plus he has other roles: husband, father, community member, hobbyist, whatever.
> 
> As a woman, I am always, wherever I go, whatever I do, evaluated on my looks and sex appeal. I did not choose to be a porn star or model, but I'm still evaluated against them. I do not wear make-up or push up bras, and I'm told this is a failing that will most certainly harm me both personally and professionally (and it has). I do have other roles, but no matter what they are, it's still the looks and sexuality that come first. I am *very* good at what I do, but whether I get the job depends on whether I'm wearing make-up.
> 
> The plumber might be criticized for his plumber's crack, but if he does a good job, he will be hired again. Women don't have that luxury: We either play the expectations, or lose out in virtually every area of our lives. Whether we care about our looks or not.
> 
> And yes, violability is huge. It's one of the reasons why objectification conversations often end up talking about rape or sexual assault. The most offensive part of being objectified, IMHO, is that your very own body is viewed as just an object that someone else feels entitled to do whatever they want with.


Believe it or not, I sympathize with this. How could I not? I have two daughters. One is cute. The other is less cute. Do I want my daughters to face all kinds of issues because they won or lost the genetic lottery? And in fact, the way you are characterizing things, they will BOTH face issues: one because she will be fending off unwanted male attention forever, the other will lose opportunity and be treated like an 'invisible person' because of her appearance.

I can understand the resentment. Talk to a short man to hear similar issues. Many of them are alpha pr*cks because they HAVE to be to get ANY attention in life. I've noticed that unless there is a CLEAR hierarchy and established relationships, if the 'group' needs direction, they first place they look is the tall guy (since I am a tall guy and I frequently don't have a clue, guess I get a tiny bit of this 'issue' too. I never volunteered to solve their problem) I'm sure you've experienced the same thing where the 'group' looks to the guy before they look to the woman for leadership despite the fact she might have been there longer.

All that being said, I'm afraid it's out of our hands and you ignore the other side of the coin. 

I was talking to a platonic girlfriend who I was training with in a job. I asked her "What are you going to do if this job doesn't pan out?' It was a risky career path to take and not everyone succeeded at it.

"Oh...I guess I'll just get married."

:wtf:

That comment blew my mind. Seriously (I was young at the time)

All the worries and concerns I have every day, about making a living and MAKING a place in society were just waved away by this woman. 

Because my friend even not being a porn star or a model, KNEW she always had a place in society simply by virtue of her gender. She was born with it. It also has some drawbacks. If women always have an insured place in society by virtue of baby making i.e. sex, it stands to reason that they will always be judged by that profession (one would argue evolutionarily, it is the PRIMARY profession) as well.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I am offering a different perspective on other aspects of that. 

Some women resent this more or less than others, but I don't think it's solvable. 

And while I get that you resent the necessity, I'd happily put on make up if it could get me a job. Heck, looks work HARD for men in getting a job as well, hence my constant trips to the gym. In fact, as a man, I ALSO resent the fact that Ms. Hottie Tottie can get a job when she has fewer qualifications because it works against me too.

That is life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Believe it or not, I sympathize with this. How could I not? I have two daughters. One is cute. The other is less cute. Do I want my daughters to face all kinds of issues because they won or lost the genetic lottery? And in fact, the way you are characterizing things, they will BOTH face issues: one because she will be fending off unwanted male attention forever, the other will lose opportunity and be treated like an 'invisible person' because of her appearance.
> 
> I can understand the resentment. Talk to a short man to hear similar issues. Many of them are alpha pr*cks because they HAVE to be to get ANY attention in life. I've noticed that unless there is a CLEAR hierarchy and established relationships, if the 'group' needs direction, they first place they look is the tall guy (since I am a tall guy and I frequently don't have a clue, guess I get a tiny bit of this 'issue' too. I never volunteered to solve their problem) I'm sure you've experienced the same thing where the 'group' looks to the guy before they look to the woman for leadership despite the fact she might have been there longer.
> 
> All that being said, I'm afraid it's out of our hands and you ignore the other side of the coin.
> 
> I was talking to a platonic girlfriend who I was training with in a job. I asked her "What are you going to do if this job doesn't pan out?' It was a risky career path to take and not everyone succeeded at it.
> 
> "Oh...I guess I'll just get married."
> 
> :wtf:
> 
> That comment blew my mind. Seriously (I was young at the time)
> 
> All the worries and concerns I have every day, about making a living and MAKING a place in society were just waved away by this woman.
> 
> Because my friend even not being a porn star or a model, KNEW she always had a place in society simply by virtue of her gender. She was born with it. It also has some drawbacks. If women always have an insured place in society by virtue of baby making i.e. sex, it stands to reason that they will always be judged by that profession (one would argue evolutionarily, it is the PRIMARY profession) as well.
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you at all. I am offering a different perspective on other aspects of that.
> 
> *Some women resent this more or less than others, but I don't think it's solvable. *
> 
> And while I get that you resent the necessity, I'd happily put on make up if it could get me a job. Heck, looks work HARD for men in getting a job as well, hence my constant trips to the gym. In fact, as a man, I ALSO resent the fact that Ms. Hottie Tottie can get a job when she has fewer qualifications because it works against me too.
> 
> That is life.


And I think some of it might be solvable , but the issues are either being mixed up or not clearly defined.

Most of what you mentioned fall squarely in the realm of social constructs benefitting one gender or the other , and most of it is true. But those constructs are based on our biology and not some clandestine plan hatched by a bunch of grey bearded men sitting in a smoke filled back room.

That's why I gave the example of men who are taught from little to treat a woman's life as more valuable than his. In an obtuse sense , a woman's life _*is*_ more valuable than a mans , not because she's the " weaker sex " but because only she could bear offspring and only she could nurture them.
That significantly shifts the balance of power in the sex and reproductive equation into the hands of the woman.
Therein lies the advantage of her gender. 
But built into that advantage and the constructs based on it are some serious disadvantages. 
Where the advantages ends and the disadvantages begin , modern scientific and legal constructs try to offer protection.
In the past religion has tried to offer the same protection ,Islamic and Victorian concepts of modesty , for example , but again scientific progress like birth control and medicine made that part of religion ,obsolete.

Men too have their advantages because of their gender , but the biggest disadvantage in being a man is not having a penis or a different kind os sex drive , but in having huge amounts of a hormone called testosterone . It is a double edged sword . Because of our strength and size women expects us to take all the life threatening ,physical threats ,whether it be from another testosterone filled male or nature.
For example , a boy cannot tell his parents that he wants to be a stay at home dad when he gets older. Society has always defined men by their provider / leadership roles. Refusal to conform to that role means he would face ridicule and even ,ostracism , think beatnik and hippie men .
But there's even another greater disadvantage. The disadvantage of being seen as a threat to all females and even other males in the sex and reproduction equation.

Is it a curse being a woman in today's world?
Maybe.
Is it a curse being a man in today's world?
Maybe.
It comes down to a matter of personal perspectives.


----------



## jld

You basically want to hear that men and women are both vulnerable, equally vulnerable? 

I think you have shown to many of us that men too are vulnerable to objectification. We all knew women were vulnerable. Where many of us disagree is on how much each gender is affected, who is the more disadvantaged.

I thought the comments on how women support their own objectification were very thought-provoking. I am still trying to work all that out in my head.

I think the answer to all of this is empowerment, of people feeling good in their own skins and not needing external affirmation. But that is a tall order. And then we have the economic issues, which as far as I know have not been addressed.

Well, we are certainly beating this horse.

Is there a certain conclusion you would like us to all come to, CM?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> You basically want to hear that men and women are both vulnerable, equally vulnerable?
> 
> I think you have shown to many of us that men too are vulnerable to objectification. We all knew women were vulnerable. Where many of us disagree is on how much each gender is affected, who is the more disadvantaged.
> 
> I thought the comments on how women support their own objectification were very thought-provoking. I am still trying to work all that out in my head.
> 
> *I think the answer to all of this is empowerment, of people feeling good in their own skins and not needing external affirmation. But that is a tall order. And then we have the economic issues, which as far as I know have not been addressed.*
> 
> Well, we are certainly beating this horse.
> 
> Is there a certain conclusion you would like us to all come to, CM?


Nope!
Not looking for any particular conclusion.
This is just an open discussion for independent minded people to give their views on the subject matter of sexual objectification.

If anything , I want people to get , is that if we really want to help each other, minimizing a person's experience because they're from a different gender comes down to hypocrisy.
But certainly , you have hit the nail squarely on it's head with the empowerment of people being confident in their own skins and less dependent on others in society for their validation.

And you are again, quite right in your view that economic issues are inextricably linked to it.

I agree 100% with this most important part of your post,
The paragraph highlighted. It reminds me of the lyrics to one of my favorite India Arie songs:

The INDIA ARIE

_Sometimes I shave my legs and sometimes I don’t
Sometimes I comb my hair and sometimes I won’t
Depend of how the wind blows I might even paint my toes
It really just depends on whatever feels good in my so_ul

_[Chorus]_
_I’m not the average girl from your video
And I ain’t built like a supermodel
But I learned to love myself unconditionally,
Because I am a queen

I not the average girl from your video
My worth is not determined by the price of my clothes
No matter what I’m wearing I will always be
India.Arie_

[Verse 2]
_When I look in the mirror and the only one there is me
Every freckle on my face is where it’s suppose to be
And I know my creator didn’t make no mistakes on me
My feet, my thighs, my Lips, my eyes, I’m loving what I see_

_[Chorus]_

[Verse 3]
_Am I less of a lady if I don’t where panty hose
My momma said a lady ain’t what she wears but what she knows…
But I’ve drawn the conclusion, it’s all an illusion
Confusion’s the name of the game
A misconception, a vast deception,
Something got to change

Now don’t be offended this is all my opinion
Ain’t nothing that I’m saying law
This is a true confession 
Of a life learned lesson 
I was sent here to share with y'all
So get in when you fit in
Go on and shine
Clear your mind 
Now’s the time
Put your salt on the shelf
Go on and love yourself
‘Cause everything’s gonna be alright_

_[Chorus]_

[Out]
_Keep your fancy drink, and your expensive minks
I don’t need that to have a good time
Keep your expensive cars and your caviar
All’s I need is my guitar

Keep your crystal and your pistol
I’d rather have a pretty piece of crystal
Don’t need you silicone, I prefer my own
*What god gave me is just fine…*_

~India Arie.


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> And I think some of it might be solvable , but the issues are either being mixed up or not clearly defined.
> 
> Most of what you mentioned fall squarely in the realm of social constructs benefitting one gender or the other , and most of it is true. But those constructs are based on our biology and not some clandestine plan hatched by a bunch of grey bearded men sitting in a smoke filled back room.
> 
> That's why I gave the example of men who are taught from little to treat a woman's life as more valuable than his. In an obtuse sense , a woman's life _*is*_ more valuable than a mans , not because she's the " weaker sex " but because only she could bear offspring and only she could nurture them.
> That significantly shifts the balance of power in the sex and reproductive equation into the hands of the woman.
> Therein lies the advantage of her gender.
> But built into that advantage and the constructs based on it are some serious disadvantages.
> Where the advantages ends and the disadvantages begin , modern scientific and legal constructs try to offer protection.


I agree with this and while I am looking at it from the outside, we SEEM to do a pretty good job.

It is very difficult to gripe about the genetic lottery except to bemoan one's fate of being ugly, or short, or whatever, particularly when one remembers the TRULY disabled.

And when one gripes about something 'solvable' like make up . . . I am trying to be polite here, but just like doing homework on the HR staff to try to find a 'hook' like a mutual hobby, or getting a gouge for the questions asked on the interview process, putting on make up, while PERSONALLY detestable honestly says more about one's priorities. No, it isn't fair but tell that to a balding 5'6" man with chronic halitosis and a stutter about how hard things are.

This probably comes off as less sympathetic than I mean it. But there are LOTS of similar disadvantages suffered by other people beyond their control. Gender is but one...but it is one 'suffered' by half the population.

This isn't discussing rape or anything else like that. It is merely pedestrian objectification. Criminal activities are their own category.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> You basically want to hear that men and women are both vulnerable, equally vulnerable?
> 
> I think you have shown to many of us that men too are vulnerable to objectification. We all knew women were vulnerable. Where many of us disagree is on how much each gender is affected, who is the more disadvantaged.
> 
> I thought the comments on how women support their own objectification were very thought-provoking. I am still trying to work all that out in my head.
> 
> I think the answer to all of this is empowerment, of people feeling good in their own skins and not needing external affirmation. But that is a tall order. And then we have the economic issues, which as far as I know have not been addressed.


I believe that society has got to go back to basics with this:- 


We need to educate our children from a very early age about body image, self-respect, respect for others and self-esteem. We need to educate them that these things come from within, not from external sources.


We need to educate our children about both genders being equal but different.


We need to teach children that they are not sexual objects and that it is damaging to objectify one another or themselves. 


We need to lead by example... Fathers need to educate their sons about the dangers of porn, rather than encouraging it. Mothers need to discourage their daughters from becoming overly fixated on their appearance, rather than encouraging it.


We need to teach our children that objectification leads to self-objectification and competition with others.


Society needs to put pressure on the fashion industry, media etc to stop objectifying women. We need to band together and simply stop buying / watching what they churn out. (This can be done. Only a few years ago a certain chain store in the UK was pressured into removing bras for very young girls from their stores.)

We can only eradicate objectification, IMO, by educating our children about the dangers of it from a very early age.


----------



## jld

Well, I like your song.

I do think true beauty is inside. I am with a man that knows that. At least, he does not look at porn and tells me I am the only woman who makes him hard. Maybe he is just wired differently. But I would like to think it is because I am just the perfect fit for him. That is what he tells me, anyway.

So where are we going with this discussion now? How to affirm ourselves so external affirmation is just a plus, not a desperate need?

I don't know enough about economics to propose a different economic system than the one we are all familiar with: chasing money with two feet.

As far as affirming people, we could start with just accepting ourselves as we are, bad as well as good. We could be as honest as possible. We could decide it is better to stand alone than to lie just to get along and seem acceptable.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I believe that society has got to go back to basics with this:-
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children from a very early age about body image, self-respect, respect for others and self-esteem. We need to educate them that these things come from within, not from external sources.
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children about both genders being equal but different.
> 
> 
> We need to teach children that they are not sexual objects and that it is damaging to objectify one another or themselves.
> 
> 
> We need to lead by example... Fathers need to educate their sons about the dangers of porn, rather than encouraging it. Mothers need to discourage their daughters from becoming overly fixated on their appearance, rather than encouraging it.
> 
> 
> We need to teach our children that objectification leads to self-objectification and competition with others.
> 
> 
> Society needs to put pressure on the fashion industry, media etc to stop objectifying women. We need to band together and simply stop buying / watching what they churn out. (This can be done. Only a few years ago a certain chain store in the UK was pressured into removing bras for very young girls from their stores.)
> 
> We can only eradicate objectification, IMO, by educating our children about the dangers of it from a very early age.


:iagree:
Now THAT^^^ I can agree fully with!


----------



## jld

I agree with you, Cosmos. And in my mothering, I have tried to do these things. I hope I have been somewhat successful. But not only are there societal limitations, but I have my own insecurities that I have unfortunately, undoubtedly, passed along, too. Sorry, kids.

But I apparently cannot, or have not, overcome all of my conditioning, backed up by pressure from my mother, especially.

Have you overcome these issues? How? 

I think it is great to focus on children, but there are a lot of damaged adults out there, male and female.

CM, have you overcome your trauma? How?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> *So where are we going with this discussion now? How to affirm ourselves so external affirmation is just a plus, not a desperate need?*
> 
> I don't know enough about economics to propose a different economic system than the one we are all familiar with: chasing money with two feet.


Lol,

That is the difficult part.
We are all inextricable connected. Race is really a construct , but gender is biological.
We are all born dependent upon external affirmation and validation, that's why the biological family is important.
But that unit called the biological family is also connected to other families.
Right there is where society comes in. Those groups of families are called communities and people from communities make up societies.
Constructs are derived from societies.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> I believe that society has got to go back to basics with this:-
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children from a very early age about body image, self-respect, respect for others and self-esteem. We need to educate them that these things come from within, not from external sources.
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children about both genders being equal but different.
> 
> 
> We need to teach children that they are not sexual objects and that it is damaging to objectify one another or themselves.
> 
> 
> We need to lead by example... Fathers need to educate their sons about the dangers of porn, rather than encouraging it. Mothers need to discourage their daughters from becoming overly fixated on their appearance, rather than encouraging it.
> 
> 
> We need to teach our children that objectification leads to self-objectification and competition with others.
> 
> 
> Society needs to put pressure on the fashion industry, media etc to stop objectifying women. We need to band together and simply stop buying / watching what they churn out. (This can be done. Only a few years ago a certain chain store in the UK was pressured into removing bras for very young girls from their stores.)
> 
> We can only eradicate objectification, IMO, by educating our children about the dangers of it from a very early age.


And if that doesn't work?

What if male attraction is hardwired? It is very likely. They have done studies on beauty and to a very narrow degree, beauty CAN be scientifically determined outside a few cultural factors.

So if it is hard wired for men to react to women, all I can see is decades of shaming, humiliating and badgering our sons over things not totally in their control because some people don't like that they are fat or ugly.

That is a pretty steep price to pay and I for one would VEHEMENTLY oppose that. So you better be VERY VERY sure that there IS a fix before we start brainwashing kids.

I will instead teach my son to respect all people, to note to him that pretty goes away, and that there are far more parts to a person's character than clear skin, deep cleavage and a tight waist. I will teach him he is not OWED sex from a woman, but that he can also vote with his feet if he feels he is being taken advantage of in a relationship.

But I will also tell him to shoot for as absolutely wonderful a total package as he can bring down.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I agree with you, Cosmos. And in my mothering, I have tried to do these things. I hope I have been somewhat successful. But not only are there societal limitations, but I have my own insecurities that I have unfortunately, undoubtedly, passed along, too. Sorry, kids.
> 
> But I apparently cannot, or have not, overcome all of my conditioning, backed up by pressure from my mother, especially.
> 
> Have you overcome these issues? How?
> 
> I think it is great to focus on children, but there are a lot of damaged adults out there, male and female.
> 
> CM, have you overcome your trauma? How?


I don't think it;s possible to fully overcome childhood psychological trauma.
I might be wrong.
But I must be honest with myself.
I am still suspicious of gay men.
And I know it's not about how society sees them, but it's because of _that_ experience.
I absolutely have no problem with gay or lesbian women. In fact I have a few female business friends who are openly lesbian.
But no gay male friends.

But you are correct.
There are a lot of people suffering from past childhood traumas.
And I think those traumas affect their world view.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to me dealing with any issues I might have and not projecting my issues to anyone else in society.

Projecting can only lead to negative outcomes.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I agree with you, Cosmos. And in my mothering, I have tried to do these things. I hope I have been somewhat successful. But not only are there societal limitations, but I have my own insecurities that I have unfortunately, undoubtedly, passed along, too. Sorry, kids.
> 
> But I apparently cannot, or have not, overcome all of my conditioning, backed up by pressure from my mother, especially.
> 
> Have you overcome these issues? How?
> 
> I think it is great to focus on children, but there are a lot of damaged adults out there, male and female.
> 
> CM, have you overcome your trauma? How?


I agree with you. A lot of the damage has already been done, and the only remedy is to go within and find out who we really are. We need to learn that there is a lot more to us than the way we look, and this can be very difficult if we've grown up in a society that has taught us to objectify ourselves (by depicting us as objects).

I'm probably much older than you, but it's only been in recent years that I've learned that it's OK to nip to the shops with chipped nail polish, and I don't need to have gone through the entire grooming / makeup ritual before setting foot out of the door. I'm getting so good at this that I even let a workman into my home recently when I was still in my PJs!


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> But I will also tell him to shoot for as absolutely wonderful a total package as he can bring down.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with this at all.


We like what we like. 

I am not attracted to overweight men. Doesn't matter how smart they are, which is my usual first attraction point. Probably doesn't even matter how truly good their character is, my second attraction point. Overweight to me bespeaks laziness, which is just a manifestation of selfishness. And I am not interested in being with a selfish man. And fortunately for me, dh has maintained the same weight since I have known him, seemingly effortlessly. And he may be the least selfish man I know, though I am sure some men somewhere surpass him.

He loves, truly loves my body, which is not at all what the advertising circulators display. This is so hard for me to understand. How could he possibly love something I felt so shamed for by my mother for so long? And that I have so much difficulty breaking?

I think the advantage of "shooting for what we like," as JCD says, is that it helps us stay focused on just that one person.

I do wonder if that is more important for men than women, at least in terms of appearance. Not sure about that.


----------



## jld

I bet you are not that much older than I am, Cosmos. You are just more secure than I am.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> the only remedy is to go within and find out who we really are. We need to learn that there is a lot more to us than the way we look


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> And if that doesn't work?
> 
> *What if male attraction is hardwired? It is very likely. They have done studies on beauty and to a very narrow degree, beauty CAN be scientifically determined outside a few cultural factors.*
> 
> So if it is hard wired for men to react to women, all I can see is decades of shaming, humiliating and badgering our sons over things not totally in their control because some people don't like that they are fat or ugly.
> 
> That is a pretty steep price to pay and I for one would VEHEMENTLY oppose that. So you better be VERY VERY sure that there IS a fix before we start brainwashing kids.
> 
> I will instead teach my son to respect all people, to note to him that pretty goes away, and that there are far more parts to a person's character than clear skin, deep cleavage and a tight waist. I will teach him he is not OWED sex from a woman, but that he can also vote with his feet if he feels he is being taken advantage of in a relationship.
> 
> But I will also tell him to shoot for as absolutely wonderful a total package as he can bring down.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with this at all.


JCD,

I sometimes wonder about that.
I'm not so sure.
I think , from what I've seen, beauty or the perception of beauty mighr not necessarily be hardwired per se.
I think cultural realities might take precedence over any biological " hard wiring."

Maybe the question might be how much does culture affect our perception of beauty and to what extent does the media affect culture, or is it the other way around?


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> And if that doesn't work?
> 
> What if male attraction is hardwired? It is very likely. They have done studies on beauty and to a very narrow degree, beauty CAN be scientifically determined outside a few cultural factors.
> 
> So if it is hard wired for men to react to women, all I can see is decades of shaming, humiliating and badgering our sons over things not totally in their control because some people don't like that they are fat or ugly.
> 
> That is a pretty steep price to pay and I for one would VEHEMENTLY oppose that. So you better be VERY VERY sure that there IS a fix before we start brainwashing kids.
> 
> I will instead teach my son to respect all people, to note to him that pretty goes away, and that there are far more parts to a person's character than clear skin, deep cleavage and a tight waist. I will teach him he is not OWED sex from a woman, but that he can also vote with his feet if he feels he is being taken advantage of in a relationship.
> 
> But I will also tell him to shoot for as absolutely wonderful a total package as he can bring down.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with this at all.


Attraction and objectification are different. The way we express our attraction is key, and the way you intend teaching your son sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> What if male attraction is hardwired? It is very likely. They have done studies on beauty and to a very narrow degree, beauty CAN be scientifically determined outside a few cultural factors.
> 
> So if it is hard wired for men to react to women, all I can see is decades of shaming, humiliating and badgering our sons over things not totally in their control because some people don't like that they are fat or ugly.


To educated people about objectification, we have to first understand that it has *nothing* to do with winning the genetic lottery. I know the immediate assumption is always that anyone who would complain about it must be ugly and fat, and just whining about that, but that isn't the case at all.

Many, many, many of the women suffering the worst effects are gorgeous, gorgeous, people. Models. Porn stars. The ones all the men want. Yet they scrutinize every pore, watch every morsel of food that goes into their mouths, and can't bear to look at themselves in the mirror because their thighs touch or their nose is too big.

As long as we frame the problem as just unattractive people feeling sorry for themselves, we are only perpetuating the problem.


----------



## ocotillo

JCD said:


> And if that doesn't work?
> 
> What if male attraction is hardwired? It is very likely.


Objectification is not simply finding someone physically attractive. Objectification is what what we do with that feeling. The short definition is treating someone else like an object instead of a person. A fuller definition can be seen in the ten separate behaviors listed by Nussbaum and Langton: 


_instrumentality:_ the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes.

_denial of autonomy:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination.

_inertness:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.

_fungibility:_ the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects.

_violability:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity.

_ownership:_ the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold).

_denial of subjectivity:_ the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

_reduction to body:_ the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts.

_reduction to appearance:_ the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses.

_silencing:_ the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.​

I think realistically all of us are guilty at times. The things that most impress us when meeting someone new are often superficial, but if we make an effort, those things recede into the background as we get to know and appreciate them as a person.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> To educated people about objectification, we have to first understand that it has *nothing* to do with winning the genetic lottery. I know the immediate assumption is always that anyone who would complain about it must be ugly and fat, and just whining about that, but that isn't the case at all.
> 
> Many, many, many of the women suffering the worst effects are gorgeous, gorgeous, people. Models. Porn stars. The ones all the men want. Yet they scrutinize every pore, watch every morsel of food that goes into their mouths, and can't bear to look at themselves in the mirror because their thighs touch or their nose is too big.
> 
> *As long as we frame the problem as just unattractive people feeling sorry for themselves, we are only perpetuating the problem.*


I don't think we are framing the question like that.Beauty is subjective.
The conclusion is that it has to do with internal validation vs external validation.

You just said that most people who suffer from it are beautiful, this I know for sure because I am in that industry.

I've seen really gorgeous models get into physical catfights backstage , ripping off each other's clothes because one posted something about the other's nose or hair or teeth etc , on a social media website.

Which is better , internal validation or external validation?


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> Objectification is not simply finding someone physically attractive. Objectification is what what we do with that feeling. The short definition is treating someone else like an object instead of a person. A fuller definition can be seen in the ten separate behaviors listed by Nussbaum and Langton:
> 
> 
> _instrumentality:_ the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes.
> 
> _denial of autonomy:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination.
> 
> _inertness:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity.
> 
> _fungibility:_ the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects.
> 
> _violability:_ the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity.
> 
> _ownership:_ the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold).
> 
> _denial of subjectivity:_ the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
> 
> _reduction to body:_ the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts.
> 
> _reduction to appearance:_ the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses.
> 
> _silencing:_ the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.​


:iagree: Excellent post 

And I do believe that the following is all about how we are conditioned to _respond_ to attractiveness:-



> *Octillo said:*
> I think realistically all of us are guilty at times. The things that most impress us when meeting someone new are often superficial, but if we make an effort, those things recede into the background as we get to know and appreciate them as a person.


Thinking and acknowledging to ourselves that someone is attractive is something we all do, but quite openly checking out their breasts / body parts whilst talking to them, or making random comments about them (directly or indirectly), is something that can be avoided.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> :iagree: Excellent post
> 
> And I do believe that the following is all about how we are conditioned to _respond_ to attractiveness:-
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking and acknowledging to ourselves that someone is attractive is something we all do, but quite openly checking out their breasts / body parts whilst talking to them, or making random comments about them (directly or indirectly), is something that can be avoided.


Well in that case: if you can stop women from talking about men, I'll see what I can do about getting men to stop talking about women.

After that, we can both work on getting that water to flow uphill...


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Well in that case: if you can stop women from talking about men, I'll see what I can do about getting men to stop talking about women.
> 
> After that, we can both work on getting that water to flow uphill...


We would never achieve that, JCD. It's what both genders do. I think it's more the language we use and the level of respect at play - particularly within earshot of the gender being discussed.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> To educated people about objectification, we have to first understand that it has *nothing* to do with winning the genetic lottery. I know the immediate assumption is always that anyone who would complain about it must be ugly and fat, and just whining about that, but that isn't the case at all.
> 
> Many, many, many of the women suffering the worst effects are gorgeous, gorgeous, people. Models. Porn stars. The ones all the men want. Yet they scrutinize every pore, watch every morsel of food that goes into their mouths, and can't bear to look at themselves in the mirror because their thighs touch or their nose is too big.
> 
> As long as we frame the problem as just unattractive people feeling sorry for themselves, we are only perpetuating the problem.


ONLY that? No. It is a piece of the truth.

Seeing people as 'human' is a difficult thing without that personal touch regardless of gender. "The Stranger" isn't human to us.

We expand our sense of 'human' wider and wider in our civilization. In hunter/gatherer societies, human was 'people in my village'. The 'social divide' has widened and widened as our sense of 'society' has expanded.

But there may very well be a limit to how 'understanding' we can be. I doubt we weep for the Iraqis as much as we do our own fallen, though some will pontificate about how 'globally aware' they are, while frequently turning around and excoriating their political opponents in quite vile terms as 'sub human'.

Hmm.

When you add a gender change, there is a POV shift which is difficult to overcome.

I think we have and continue to do a good job. Not a PERFECT job, but a good job. And there is a cost/benefit ratio. At a certain point, will we get commensurate benefits from additional efforts? How do we judge this? And again, is it solvable. 

I am skeptical. We criminalize bad behavior but getting 'boys to stop talking about women's bits' or to get women to not gossip is unlikely. What will happen is that will be driven further underground...as it was in Victorian society. This is what we want to emulate? Maybe. Men behaved like staunch gentlemen...for the most part...but women had to toe the line themselves by not behaving in cringe worthy ways. Sorry, there is no free lunch here.

Would women be willing to sacrifice 'fashion freedom' and make a major move to being unappealing by, for example, dressing in Victorian fashions while retaining their other freedoms?

That is a way to deny objectification. But to do so, they would also have to give up the ability to use their appearance to manipulate men. 

Obviously they would not because the 'cure' would be worse than the disease, at least in my view.

Your mileage may vary.

This is an opinion only, but it is easy to imagine a perfect objective free world. It is much harder to actually get there, particularly without a road map.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Well in that case: if you can stop women from talking about men, I'll see what I can do about getting men to stop talking about women.
> 
> After that, we can both work on getting that water to flow uphill...


lol,

You made me laugh!

But I think Cosmos is talking about striving for an ideal , directed at men who could sometimes be obnoxious in their behaviour towards women, much to the displeasure of some women.

I emphasize some women because there are some women who actually enjoy that type of attention from _some_ men.
It all depends on whether they like him or not.

Here's an example of it in this thread from the Ladies Lounge subforum here on TAM;

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/164114-men-compliments.html


Lust Sunday at the gym, while I was training, my training partner , a female fitness model nudged me , and nodded her head in the direction of a woman who's on another piece of equipment , looking a bit clumsy. She shouted in my ear [ music blaring in the gym] some disparaging comments about the poor woman's physique, and laughed at her. I just shrugged my shoulder and continued working out. I pretended not to hear her comment and asked her about an upcoming competition and her feelings about her chances.
I personally think it is a NOT good character trait to make nasty comments about people I don't know behind their backs.
However , many people participate in that kind of behavior.

But the reality is , people will always talk about people's body parts , either glowingly , or disparagingly.


----------



## Blonde

JCD said:


> Would women be willing to sacrifice 'fashion freedom' and make a major move to being unappealing by, for example, dressing in Victorian fashions while retaining their other freedoms?
> 
> That is a way to deny objectification. But to do so, they would also have to give up the ability to use their appearance to manipulate men.


It isn't a way to deny objectification though. It is a way to blame women for being objectified. "If only you were MODEST you wouldn't be violated. It's all YOUR fault you evil temptress!"


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> We would never achieve that, JCD. It's what both genders do. I think it's more the language we use and the level of respect in play - particularly in earshot of the gender being discussed.


I can agree to this provided we have RATIONAL standards and do not set the bar to the most easily offended.

After all, going back to Victorian days, some lady, afraid the curve of the piano legs might suggest into the mind of a man the shape of a FEMALE leg, put little skirts on her piano to avoid exciting 'hunnish passions'.

HER I don't want training my boy.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Well in that case: if you can stop women from talking about men, I'll see what I can do about getting men to stop talking about women.
> 
> After that, we can both work on getting that water to flow uphill...


It's not getting people to stop being attracted or talking, but about changing attitudes and assumptions.


----------



## JCD

Blonde said:


> It isn't a way to deny objectification though. It is a way to blame women for being objectified. "If only you were MODEST you wouldn't be violated. It's all YOUR fault you evil temptress!"


Mmm, there is a thread of that, to be sure.

It is asking a lot of men to not talk about a woman when you have someone behaving like Tara Reid or Lindsey Lohan.

Sometimes women BEHAVE like objects, sorry to say.

But again, some women seeing this will blame men for 'demanding' this behavior according to 'objectification'

Sorry, but that doesn't exonerate a bad actor from their own choices in behavior. After all, for every woman acting like 'men want' or whatever, I can point to any number of women who don't.

Personal responsibility goes both ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Being involved in the fashion industry, I have done some studies and research into the fashions trends of centuries past , because they still influence modern designs and trends.

Fashionable apparel design is cyclical, and there is really nothing new except in fabric technology.

One thing I can say for sure, is that those fashions of that so called
" Victorian era " was in every aspect designed to accentuate female and male sexuality as much as fashion designs of today are.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> I can agree to this provided we have RATIONAL standards and do not set the bar to the most easily offended.
> 
> After all, going back to Victorian days, some lady, afraid the curve of the piano legs might suggest into the mind of a man the shape of a FEMALE leg, put little skirts on her piano to avoid exciting 'hunnish passions'.
> 
> HER I don't want training my boy.


Lol. Absolutely not! I'm not talking about being prissy, prudish or diving into the murky depths of political correctness.

We just have to somehow teach our kids that there's a difference between being attracted and complimentary towards someone and objectifying them. For example:-


A smile and/or an appreciative look

vs

"Hey, nice rack / ass!" [*whistle*]


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I was talking to a platonic girlfriend who I was training with in a job. I asked her "What are you going to do if this job doesn't pan out?' It was a risky career path to take and not everyone succeeded at it.
> 
> "Oh...I guess I'll just get married."
> 
> :wtf:
> 
> That comment blew my mind. Seriously (I was young at the time)
> 
> All the worries and concerns I have every day, about making a living and MAKING a place in society were just waved away by this woman.
> 
> Because my friend even not being a porn star or a model, KNEW she always had a place in society simply by virtue of her gender. She was born with it. It also has some drawbacks. If women always have an insured place in society by virtue of baby making i.e. sex, it stands to reason that they will always be judged by that profession (one would argue evolutionarily, it is the PRIMARY profession) as well.


But see, that's just it. Women's value and place in society is perceived as sex. That's objectification.

Yes, women have babies. That's biology. But women can build things, fix things, solve problems, grow, prepare and preserve food, haul water, manage finances, run households, design efficiencies, and so on. And we have done so since the beginning of humanity.

But in this world, we've decided her only value is sex --and that somehow we are biologically wired to all find this inevitable. Fan-****ing-tastic.

I met a woman at school who was there for her Mrs., so I know it happens. I do get what you're saying -- even if as the *sole* provider for my household, and as someone who has *always* known the need to make a living, I simply cannot relate to this view, and never have.

But the upshot is that we keep insisting that sex is the only, or the prime, reason to value women, we'll never move forward.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> One thing I can say for sure, is that those fashions of that so called
> " Victorian era " was in every aspect designed to accentuate female and male sexuality as much as fashion designs of today are.


If not more so... Nothing sexier than a woman wearing a corset and stockings held up with lacy garters

And as for men wearing high collars, cravats, figure hugging knee breeches and boots...


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> Lol. Absolutely not! I'm not talking about being prissy, prudish or diving into the murky depths of political correctness.
> 
> We just have to somehow teach our kids that there's a difference between being attracted and complimentary towards someone and objectifying them. For example:-
> 
> 
> A smile and/or an appreciative look
> 
> vs
> 
> "Hey, nice rack / ass!" [*whistle*]


That is impolite behavior and would earn my son a solid hand across his ear.

He wouldn't do that however and frankly, most CADS won't do that either.

They tend to hide it with their close friends. That is part of the large trouble: you don't know who holds these attitudes particularly if they are smart enough to keep their yaps shut.

Which is part of the reason I am cynical about this.

But I suppose driving it deep underground is at least a partial win for women.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> If not more so... Nothing sexier than a woman wearing a corset and stockings held up with lacy garters


Provided there isn't a silly dress in the way. Or is that objectifiying?


HEY! Are YOU allowed to do that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> But see, that's just it. Women's value and place in society is perceived as sex. That's objectification.
> 
> Yes, women have babies. That's biology. But women can build things, fix things, solve problems, grow, prepare and preserve food, haul water, manage finances, run households, design efficiencies, and so on. And we have done so since the beginning of humanity.
> 
> But in this world, we've decided her only value is sex --and that somehow we are biologically wired to all find this inevitable. Fan-****ing-tastic.
> 
> I met a woman at school who was there for her Mrs., so I know it happens. I do get what you're saying -- even if as the *sole* provider for my household, and as someone who has *always* known the need to make a living, I simply cannot relate to this view, and never have.
> 
> But the upshot is that we keep insisting that sex is the only, or the prime, reason to value women, we'll never move forward.



I think you're attempting to rewrite history..

You're making the same mistake many Afrocentric rabble rousers and self proclaimed scholars in African history make.


----------



## Blonde

JCD said:


> Mmm, there is a thread of that, to be sure.
> 
> It is asking a lot of men to not talk about a woman when you have someone behaving like Tara Reid or Lindsey Lohan.


I have sons 26,13, and 11. I don't know much about the above actresses but who is the one who played Hannah Montana and has the wrecking ball song nude and did the porno dance on some awards program?

Anyway, the 11 and 13 yo showed me her youtube video on the wrecking ball and I told them to avoid women like that and to avoid porn. Thankfully young MEN are starting to realize and speak up about the fallout of porn use. Their older brother (26) has pointed them to yourbrainonporn.com. He has a lot more "authority" speaking to that issue than mommy.

I wish men would stop using femininity as an INSULT toward each other. "You pu$$Y" "you throw like a girl" "mangina", etc.

Any wonder that girls would struggle with their femininity when to be a "girl" or "woman" is considered an insult?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Which is part of the reason I am cynical about this.
> 
> But I suppose driving it deep underground is at least a partial win for women.


I share your ambivalence about whether this counts as a "win". Personally, I like it when people let their true attitudes slip out as it makes it easier to determine who to avoid.

But I still believe that education and raising awareness is worthwhile. Much of what we believe and how we act is based on what we're taught. So if we change the teaching, we can change the world.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Provided there isn't a silly dress in the way. Or is that objectifiying?
> 
> 
> HEY! Are YOU allowed to do that?


Some of those silly dresses revealed a lot more cleavage than many dresses today.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you're attempting to rewrite history..
> 
> You're making the same mistake many Afrocentric rabble rousers and self proclaimed scholars in African history make.


The research about gender roles and contributions to primitive societies is pretty clear on this point. 

What is it that you think I am rewriting?


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> That is impolite behavior and would earn my son a solid hand across his ear.
> 
> He wouldn't do that however and frankly, most CADS won't do that either.
> 
> They tend to hide it with their close friends. That is part of the large trouble: you don't know who holds these attitudes particularly if they are smart enough to keep their yaps shut.
> 
> Which is part of the reason I am cynical about this.
> 
> But I suppose driving it deep underground is at least a partial win for women.


We can never control what goes in someone's head, but we can teach them to control what comes out of their mouths and how to behave respectfully around others...

Sometimes people would be horrified if they knew what goes on in my head. But it's a constant delight to my SO


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> The research about gender roles and contributions to primitive societies is pretty clear on this point.
> 
> What is it that you think I am rewriting?


I think what he is objecting to is THIS:



always_alone said:


> But see, that's just it. Women's value and place in society is perceived as sex. That's objectification.
> 
> Yes, women have babies. That's biology. But women can build things, fix things, solve problems, grow, prepare and preserve food, haul water, manage finances, run households, design efficiencies, and so on. And we have done so since the beginning of humanity.
> 
> *But in this world, we've decided her only value is sex *--and that somehow we are biologically wired to all find this inevitable. Fan-****ing-tastic.
> 
> I met a woman at school who was there for her Mrs., so I know it happens. I do get what you're saying -- even if as the *sole* provider for my household, and as someone who has *always* known the need to make a living, I simply cannot relate to this view, and never have.
> 
> *But the upshot is that we keep insisting that sex is the only, or the prime, reason to value women, we'll never move forward*.


This is, I feel and probably a LOT of other people, very absolutist and inaccurate.

To say in THIS day and age that women are ONLY sex objects is frankly insulting to the vast progress we've made! I think that in this age of luxury, where making a living is pretty darned simple and the Age of the Pill, where sex is (mostly) consequence free (and btw, has also removed one of women's most potent excuses to demur from sex...see what I mean about no free lunch?), sex sort of gets pushed to the forefront.

I, for one, am happy to admit that women can also make pretty decent sandwiches.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> *We can never control what goes in someone's head, but we can teach them to control what comes out of their mouths and how to behave respectfully around others...*


And that's what I've been saying from the get go on this thread.

You can't control what another person thinks about you or any part of you , but you can decide to accept and internalize or outright reject their words / attitude towards you.

Yes, it is easier said than done , but it is quite achievable.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> I believe that society has got to go back to basics with this:-
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children from a very early age about body image, self-respect, respect for others and self-esteem. We need to educate them that these things come from within, not from external sources.
> 
> 
> We need to educate our children about both genders being equal but different.
> 
> 
> We need to teach children that they are not sexual objects and that it is damaging to objectify one another or themselves.
> 
> 
> We need to lead by example... Fathers need to educate their sons about the dangers of porn, rather than encouraging it. Mothers need to discourage their daughters from becoming overly fixated on their appearance, rather than encouraging it.
> 
> 
> We need to teach our children that objectification leads to self-objectification and competition with others.
> 
> 
> *Society needs to put pressure on the fashion industry*, media etc to stop objectifying women. We need to band together and simply stop buying / watching what they churn out. (This can be done. Only a few years ago a certain chain store in the UK was pressured into removing bras for very young girls from their stores.)
> 
> We can only eradicate objectification, IMO, by educating our children about the dangers of it from a very early age.


I would like to agree, but let's come back to earth, practicalities. We don't need more educational programs - the US already resembles north Korea in how manipulated the children and citizenry has become through 'education'.

Who is 'society', and how we can reach him on the telephone?
It's just an abstract concept.

So who specifically within this society is going to put the pressure on the fashion and porn industry...

-Congressmen? Consumers? Parents? Feminists? Fathers groups? Churches?

_Who _is going to teach the children - parents, teachers, church? And what is their incentive, when there is no discipline nor unity on the subject in the wider society?

If I had to guess who had the main influence on children it wouldn't be parents or school... it's TV and now, internet.

So not society: Media - and therefore censorship. But we're too scared to do this, because of another abstraction 'freedom of expression'.

So you'd need a dictatorship to change course.

By the way, the advert on the right of my screen reads:

"Adult fantasy Game" Warning, ADULT content." It's got a picture of a vacant looking platinum blonde elfin 14 year old with big bazongas and make-up.

Up above is an advert from Sky (TV broadcaster) the main character on show is Sean Connery as James Bond - millionaire playboy spy, .... the housewive's favourite.

Our society is North Korea, but instead of the Kim family, it's the corporations controlling brains and desires.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's what I've been saying from the get go on this thread.
> 
> You can't control what another person thinks about you or any part of you , but you can decide to accept and internalize or outright reject their words / attitude towards you.
> 
> Yes, it is easier said than done , but it is quite achievable.


I agree one solution is to validate oneself internally, but let me put this to you:. You had one terrible experience that severely affected your outlook and continues to do so.

Multiply that by 1000, then what happens? What if it happens pretty much every day of your life? What if it happens to you, to your friends, all around you, all the time?

Might you start seeing it as a pattern, maybe even a genuine widespread social problem?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> If you read my post you just quoted from you would see that I agreed with the post before it which you said that women were considered the spoils of war.
> In essence , what you were stating was that men's lives were disposable in war.
> 
> I agreed with you.
> Then you went on to post more facts concerning women who were raped in war.
> I never denied it.
> 
> That's why I asked you if a thief came into your home, wouldn't you protect your wife?
> 
> Which you refused to answer.:scratchhead:
> 
> The obvious answer is YES , you would protect your wife.
> 
> So in case you still don't get it, for every woman who was viewed as the spoils of war and raped, *A MAN DIED TRYING TO PROTECT HER DIGNITY.*
> 
> In other words, both were stripped of their dignity and right to existence.
> 
> Am I wrong for saying that?
> 
> Didn't brave men sacrifice their lives to protect their womenfolk and children?
> 
> 
> Would give your life for your wife and family Wysh?
> Would you fight to the death for a strange woman in a dark alley if she was being attacked by a strange man?
> 
> I have done it,and would do it again without any hesitation.
> 
> The question is , would YOU?
> 
> I am responsible for my views, however, I am not responsible if you decide to view them through that particular filter you're using.


Well I know I said I was done, but feel I just have to answer this.

I didn't refuse to answer, I've just been ever so tired and busy with my training course I'm on at the moment and don't have a lot of time. I also didn't understand how I would tackle a burglar had any bearing to a thread on sexual objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The research about gender roles and contributions to primitive societies is pretty clear on this point.
> 
> What is it that you think I am rewriting?


And I'm not disputing that.

I don't want to derail the conversation with long boring accounts of history that has only peripheral value to what we're discussing.

However, a primitive tribe or society is not quite the same as a civilization. It took a whole lot more than drawing water , building furnaces and hunting food to build Sumer , Akkad ,Egypt or Persepolis.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's what I've been saying from the get go on this thread.
> 
> You can't control what another person thinks about you or any part of you , but you can decide to accept and internalize or outright reject their words / attitude towards you.
> 
> Yes, it is easier said than done , but it is quite achievable.


I agree, but the people being most affected (young teens) aren't fully cooked and are unable to apply this reasoning. By the time they are, the damage is already done and they're already in a catch 22 situation of self-objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I agree one solution is to validate oneself internally, but let me put this to you:. You had one terrible experience that severely affected your outlook and continues to do so.
> 
> Multiply that by 1000, then what happens? What if it happens pretty much every day of your life? What if it happens to you, to your friends, all around you, all the time?
> 
> Might you start seeing it as a pattern, maybe even a genuine widespread social problem?


That's why I posted that vid in response to your post last evening.

I don't think that all or even most women experience those negative experiences with men which you often use as your terms of reference for your interactions with men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I agree,* but the people being most affected (young teens) aren't fully cooked and are unable to apply this reasoning.* By the time they are, the damage is already done and they're already in a catch 22 situation of self-objectification.


YES!!!

And right there is where the problem of " society" comes in.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> To say in THIS day and age that women are ONLY sex objects is frankly insulting to the vast progress we've made! I think that in this age of luxury, where making a living is pretty darned simple and the Age of the Pill, where sex is (mostly) consequence free (and btw, has also removed one of women's most potent excuses to demur from sex...see what I mean about no free lunch?), sex sort of gets pushed to the forefront.
> 
> I, for one, am happy to admit that women can also make pretty decent sandwiches.


What counts as "progress" depends entirely on what you're comparing, and who you're comparing it to.

What I was trying to say is that I often hear the old saw that we "evolved" to be the way we are because women have babies, but the fact is that primitive societies depended as much on women's contributions for survival as they did on men. Women weren't just baby-making machines that relied on men for everything else. 

Human history is complicated. It isn't just a straight arrow of progress. And some of the problems we face now with respect to objectification are unique.

Now maybe in your mind it is a "better" problem to have. Maybe you're even right. But it's at least debatable.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I posted that vid in response to your post last evening.
> 
> I don't think that all or even most women experience those negative experiences with men which you often use as your terms of reference for your interactions with men.


Well maybe I just need to move to where you live.

But world stats support my terms of reference.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Well maybe I just need to move to where you live.
> 
> But world stats support my terms of reference.


All I'm saying is that you shouldn't allow only negative experiences or world stats to dictate your terms of reference when dealing with the rest of society.

I'm black.
Do you know what world stats say about me?
I
It says that I'm supposed to be either in jail or dead from gang violence by age 25, leaving three dependent , hungry kids behind to continue the cycle of poverty.

Here I am at 44 years old , married with no kids and running a successful business, and currently expanding in more than one country.

I simply said fcuk the stats , fcuk the system I make my rules.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> * Women weren't just baby-making machines that relied on men for everything else. *


LMAO! Just saw this^^^ and it made me laugh!:rofl:

But I understand your point and you are quite right.


----------



## Cosmos

> *Caribbean Man:*
> That's why I posted that vid in response to your post last evening.
> 
> I don't think that all or even most women experience those negative experiences with men which you often use as your terms of reference for your interactions with men.





> *Always_Alone:*
> Well maybe I just need to move to where you live.
> 
> But world stats support my terms of reference.


Culture certainly appears to play a role in our responses to objectification. According to Barbara L Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts ("Objectification Theory - Toward Understanding Women's Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks"), 

_"...Not all women experience and respond to sexual objectification in the same way. Unique combinations of ethnicity, class, sexuality, age, and other physical and personal attributes undoubtedly create unique sets of experiences across women, as well as experiences shared by particular subgroups."_

http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/FredricksonRoberts.pdf


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> What counts as "progress" depends entirely on what you're comparing, and who you're comparing it to.
> 
> What I was trying to say is that I often hear the old saw that we "evolved" to be the way we are because women have babies, but the fact is that primitive societies depended as much on women's contributions for survival as they did on men. Women weren't just baby-making machines that relied on men for everything else.
> 
> Human history is complicated. It isn't just a straight arrow of progress. And some of the problems we face now with respect to objectification are unique.
> 
> Now maybe in your mind it is a "better" problem to have. Maybe you're even right. But it's at least debatable.


And that is part of my statement about our Age of Luxury and what you are referring to as our increasing sexual objectification.

In olden days, a woman with a sty in her eye, a jaw like a shovel and was bowlegged was STILL a good catch if she could a) have babies and b) work like a donkey, because the future was uncertain, there was little surplus, and things like beauty, while desirable, was something 'expensive' if she COULDN'T work like a donkey. Hard work damages beauty.

Note the difference between Eastern Europe and Western Europe in the appearance of their women (though this is also changing) Life was much less luxurious in the east and 'sexual objectification' was less prevalent (even as ownership of women was and still is)

Today, women can work, so men don't need to work as hard FOR them. Let them get their own stuff. Luxuries abound, particularly time and travel. So we can get much choosier about what we want in a partner, and one of the things MEN want is someone pretty for a large number of reasons.

AND...women have more time and resources to beautify themselves, with surgeries, ever more expensive fashions, make up etc. AND THEY CHOOSE TO BUY THESE THINGS.

Sex is more important because mere survival is less important. Women are more dismissive of a guy built like a beer keg with back hair which grandma would have swooned for because he was a plumber and mom would have definitely dated.

I think this is partly a societal structural thing and technology's 'fault'.

YMMV.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> If not more so... Nothing sexier than a woman wearing a corset and stockings held up with lacy garters
> 
> And as for men wearing high collars, cravats, figure hugging knee breeches and boots...


And a couple centuries before [ 16th century ] there was the famous
" codpiece ."



Yes, that was an important part of the equivalent to the modern day Armani suit. It was what " distinguished " gentlemen wore.

A woman didn't have to look to far to get answers.

Now, the codpiece is more associated with S&M clothing in the sex industry.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I simply said fcuk the stats , fcuk the system I make my rules.


And I agree with you! I have always bucked the rules, and have worked very hard to be where I am today.

But it doesn't mean I won't speak out on issues that are important to me. There is the personal realm, and there is the social realm. And I will aim to work in both to the best of my ability.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes, that was an important part of the equivalent to the modern day Armani suit. It was what " distinguished " gentlemen wore.
> 
> A woman didn't have to look to far to get answers.


Let's get real here: you don't think these things are padded?


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Let's get real here: you don't think these things are padded?


They were padded to emphasize rather than conceal


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And I agree with you! I have always bucked the rules, and have worked very hard to be where I am today.
> 
> But it doesn't mean I won't speak out on issues that are important to me. There is the personal realm, and there is the social realm. And I will aim to work in both to the best of my ability.


Well fair enough.
I honestly cannot disagree with you on that. We see eye to eye .
One pf my personal codes is:

"_ God loves the fighter.._"

But I also believe in the process of self determination ,positive growth and evolution.


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> Note the difference between Eastern Europe and Western Europe in the appearance of their women (though this is also changing) Life was much less luxurious in the east and 'sexual objectification' was less prevalent (even as ownership of women was and still is)


Interesting article, exaggerated for effect, but readable.

What is the difference between Eastern European and Western European in appearance of their women?


----------



## Cosmos

This has to be the creepiest form of sexualised imagery I've seen in the media for a long time... Yahoo!


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Let's get real here: you don't think these things are padded?


Of course it was padded!

But the there has always been an element of sexualization in European fashion.
The codpiece was meant to be worn by rich lords , knights [ their codpiece was made of iron ]noblemen and kings.
Their fancy, elaborate suits , was meant to display their wealth to women , the codpiece was meant to show virility.

Have a look at this 16 century low neckline dress.



There was a name for it back then I can't recall it now. But basically it was the female fashion response to the male codpiece.
A corset was worn below the dress to trim the waistline , and expand the busom , making the breasts look larger.There were also hoops below the skirt,making the hip look larger than life.

They were meant to draw the man's attention to a woman's reproductive potential.

Was it objectification, yes, but in a way that was tastefully done, and left lots for the imagination.


----------



## TiggyBlue

The thing is (from what I have seen) is that it really depends on the guy who is 'objectifying' to how some women respond. A very attractive guy in my experience can get away with a lot more than and isn't seen as offensive as a guy who isn't as attractive.


----------



## SolidSnake

Caribbean Man said:


> See,
> I don't know what country you're from so I can't even begin to make any assumptions about it's culture. But it seems to me that something's not normal about these scenarios you speak of, especially if it's a Western culture.
> 
> I live on an island in the Caribbean , where women have outnumbered men in population size for quite a long time , and the gap is now beginning to close.
> 
> Women here tend to be very liberal generally even though most of them are from religious backgrounds. They dress how they feel like , wear what they want and do what they want.
> 
> There is no level in our society where women haven't reached.
> The head of our country , our prime minister , is a woman. She is the _de facto_ most powerful person in the Caribbean.
> And yes, we even have women own industries that are traditionally controlled by men. There are only two women worldwide who own steel manufacturing companies, and one lives here.
> 
> Every year, something magical happens in our country, women , and to a lesser extent men , take off their business suits , work uniforms ,corporate work wear , don the skimpiest of feathered costumed bikinis , whether fat , thin , perfect physique , whatever. They pay thousands of dollars to join bands with hundreds of thousands of other revelers from all over the Caribbean and globe, and the dance , parade , gyrate and display themselves in the streets over a period of 72 hours nonstop.
> 
> here's a short clip of what that looks like:
> 
> Harts Carnival 2013 On De Road.
> 
> Notice in the vid, women far outnumber men.
> Women from the middle and upper class, Judges , Lawyers , Top level managers, technocrats you name it, are represented right there , in the naked glory , enjoying themselves without fear of being judged or some unwanted stare " ogling " or " objectifying" them, reducing them to " a thing."
> They're showing off one thing, they want the public to see. Not their professional side or " humanity" , but their sexuality.
> 
> And they simply don't care what anyone else thinks of them.
> 
> It's called Carnival, a Latin word meaning " _Farewell To The Flesh_ " and it marks the beginning of the Catholic fasting season of Lent.
> Interestingly , the first day after Carnival, " Ash Wednesday" these same women [ and men] would flock to the Catholic churches all over the country , in droves to have the priest forgive their sins and start the Lenten fasting season.
> Human beings are very complex...


This is nice to hear because it seems very positive to me. 

I hate when these types of discussions just become a p*ssing contest over which gender is the bigger victim.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> The thing is (from what I have seen) is that it really depends on the guy who is 'objectifying' to how some women respond.


To a great extent , yes.

But truthfully , we can all agree that things have gone too far.

Since the dawn of the " information age" , things like the internet has revolutionized our perception of reality. Knowledge that was forbidden to us when we were kids, is now at the fingertips of our kids on their android devices.

That's driving a huge part of the problem.

Now we have teens like Sasha Grey doing what she does , making tons of money , but unashamedly defending her lifestyle on public TV.
And she's well within her rights.

Innocence is gone.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> To a great extent , yes.
> 
> But truthfully , we can all agree that things have gone too far.
> 
> Since the dawn of the " information age" , things like the internet has revolutionized our perception of reality. Knowledge that was forbidden to us when we were kids, is now at the fingertips of our kids on their android devices.
> 
> That's driving a huge part of the problem.
> 
> Now we have teens like Sasha Grey doing what she does , making tons of money , but unashamedly defending her lifestyle on public TV.
> And she's well within her rights.
> 
> Innocence is gone.


Kind of hard for me to answer that because TBH I was one of those kids (not on android but on the computer). By the time I was 11/12 free porn was on the internet or downloadable and I was watching (and looking a mags at a younger age).
I think a big part of the problem is that now it is sooooo available and all types. It has became a lot easier for kids to get things in abundance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's an excellent short film that I am sure the men won't watch and some of the women will...(trigger warning for abuse victims)

RH Reality Check


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an excellent short film that I am sure the men won't watch and some of the women will...(trigger warning for abuse victims)
> 
> RH Reality Check


I 'liked' this then quickly 'unliked' it because it just didn't seem right to 'like' something so vile...

It certainly does give a perspective on what far too many women face on a day to day basis, FW!


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an excellent short film that I am sure the men won't watch and some of the women will...(trigger warning for abuse victims)
> 
> RH Reality Check


Excellent, FW. Thank you so much. Dh is French, and I am going to ask him to watch it tomorrow (he is in Germany sleeping right now). Dd18 will appreciate it, too.

Consciousness-raising. I loved the guy in the burqua.

And your trigger warning shows sensitivity. Thanks.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an excellent short film that I am sure the men won't watch and some of the women will...(trigger warning for abuse victims)


I've seen Eléonore Pourriat's, _Majorité Opprimée_ before. Why wouldn't men watch it?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's an excellent short film that I am sure the men won't watch and some of the women will...(trigger warning for abuse victims)
> 
> RH Reality Check


This is exactly what I'm talking about, and why I get so incensed when people tell me that it isn't a real problem or that men are just wired to act this way.

Thanks for the link, FW!


----------



## Cosmos

I saw the following and thought it was worthy of posting here. It really is the message we need to be getting across to our children:-




> Dr. Kelly Flanagan is a clinical psychologist, married with three children, and loves to write. He has an amazing blog, where you can find fascinating articles about various topics such as marriage, family and parenting, and mindfulness. This particular article about the fashion industry really stuck out to me and I thought it needed to be shared.
> 
> He wrote the following letter first for his young daughter, but also for every woman who needs to hear the words of a father:
> 
> Dear Little One,
> 
> As I write this, I'm sitting in the makeup aisle of our local Target store. A friend recently texted me from a different makeup aisle and told me it felt like one of the most oppressive places in the world. I wanted to find out what he meant. And now that I'm sitting here, I'm beginning to agree with him. Words have power, and the words on display in this aisle have a deep power. Words and phrases like:
> 
> Affordably gorgeous,
> 
> Infallible,
> 
> Flawless finish,
> 
> Brilliant strength,
> 
> Liquid power,
> 
> Go nude,
> 
> Age defying,
> 
> Instant age rewind,
> 
> Choose your dream,
> 
> Nearly naked, and
> 
> Natural beauty.
> 
> When you have a daughter you start to realize she's just as strong as everyone else in the house—a force to be reckoned with, a soul on fire with the same life and gifts and passions as any man. But sitting in this store aisle, you also begin to realize most people won't see her that way. They'll see her as a pretty face and a body to enjoy. And they'll tell her she has to look a certain way to have any worth or influence.
> 
> But words do have power and maybe, just maybe, the words of a father can begin to compete with the words of the world. Maybe a father's words can deliver his daughter through this gauntlet of institutionalized shame and into a deep, unshakeable sense of her own worthiness and beauty.
> 
> A father's words aren't different words, but they are words with a radically different meaning:
> 
> Brilliant strength. May your strength be not in your fingernails but in your heart. May you discern in your center who you are, and then may you fearfully but tenaciously live it out in the world.
> 
> Choose your dream. But not from a department store shelf. Find the still-quiet place within you. A real dream has been planted there. Discover what you want to do in the world. And when you have chosen, may you faithfully pursue it, with integrity and with hope.
> 
> Naked. The world wants you to take your clothes off. Please keep them on. But take your glovesoff. Pull no punches. Say what is in your heart. Be vulnerable. Embrace risk. Love a world that barely knows what it means to love itself. Do so nakedly. Openly. With abandon.
> 
> Infallible. May you be constantly, infallibly aware that infallibility doesn't exist. It's an illusion created by people interested in your wallet. If you choose to seek perfection, may it be in an infallible grace—for yourself, and for everyone around you.
> 
> Age defying. Your skin will wrinkle and your youth will fade, but your soul is ageless. It will always know how to play and how to enjoy and how to revel in this one-chance life. May you always defiantly resist the aging of your spirit.
> 
> Flawless finish. Your finish has nothing to do with how your face looks today and everything to do with how your life looks on your last day. May your years be a preparation for that day. May you be aged by grace, may you grow in wisdom, and may your love become big enough to embrace all people. May your flawless finish be a peaceful embrace of the end and the unknown that follows, and may it thus be a gift to everyone who cherishes you.
> 
> Little One, you love everything pink and frilly and I will surely understand if someday makeup is important to you. But I pray three words will remain more important to you—the last three words you say every night, when I ask the question: "Where are you the most beautiful?" Three words so bright no concealer can cover them.
> 
> Where are you the most beautiful?
> 
> On the inside.
> 
> From my heart to yours,
> 
> Daddy
> 
> This Father Stood Up To The Entire Fashion Industry After Visiting A Makeup Aisle. You Have To See What He Wrote


----------



## Anonymous07

WyshIknew said:


> I suppose it would be only to easy to blame the advertising world. They market this notion of the hot chick or hot guy as being the ideal person.
> There again, without the right audience their marketing would be pointless.
> 
> Are the advertising agencies merely being lazy? If they tried something else other than some guy showing his perfect peachy butt or some woman waggling her ta tas at you would they have as much success?


Look at Carl's Jr commercials... Almost every single one has a sexual scene of a woman in barely any clothing, licking her fingers, bending over, showing off her butt, etc. Carl Karcher(nice Catholic man) would roll over in his grave if he knew what was happening to the company he started.

But somehow it's all seen as normal. It's normal for women to be looked at in such a way that they are diminished to a "piece of meat", but when the tables are turned, the guys aren't happy. I was out to dinner with my husband watching a football game there when a commercial came on for a pizza place. The commercial showed shirtless, muscular men baking pizza, rolling the dough, and so on. I laughed when I saw it(interesting to see men objectified) and looked around at other guys in the restaurant who were not pleased with having to see such advertising. 

Sadly, "sex sells", so the media will continue to use it to sell products. It would be great if it would all stop, but I don't see that happening.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Kind of hard for me to answer that because TBH I was one of those kids (not on android but on the computer). By the time I was 11/12 free porn was on the internet or downloadable and I was watching (and looking a mags at a younger age).
> I think a big part of the problem is that now it is sooooo available and all types. It has became a lot easier for kids to get things in abundance.


:iagree:

But I'm not just talking about kids exposure to porn.
When I was young I had exposure to porn via VCR , and magazines. Most of my friends , both male and female had the same level of exposure I believe.

The difference with the internet nowadays is not so much the images , but the blogs and chatrooms where anonymous people spread very questionable ideas and concepts about relationships and sex to today's kids that help corrupt their value system.

So basically relationships are about sex first ,second and last. And it's not gender specific.
Both people using each other for their casual sex encounters to build experience. 
It _is_ objectification on every level.

This is the age of narcissism.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Now _this _is interesting!

I came across this podcast by a psychologist and a host sometime today.

It's about sex as a social currency, a concept I'm familiar with.

Sex is a Social Currency from Men's Psychology Newsletters on podbay: open podcasting

What are your thoughts on it , in the context of sexual objectification?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Now _this _is interesting!
> 
> I came across this podcast by a psychologist and a host sometime today.
> 
> It's about sex as a social currency, a concept I'm familiar with.
> 
> Sex is a Social Currency from Men's Psychology Newsletters on podbay: open podcasting
> 
> What are your thoughts on it , in the context of sexual objectification?


I don't think it's about objectification. It's more about the differences in how both genders view sex.

In my dating years, when a man invited me out for dinner the only thing that I felt I _owed_ him was congenial company and a thank you at the end of the evening.

I've never been into casual sex so I can't really comment on whether or not I would feel that a man 'owed' me something (emotionally) if I had casual sex with him.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> What are your thoughts on it , in the context of sexual objectification?


I'm tired of people telling me that I invest currency in sex because of my limited collection of eggs. Fact is, I have way more than enough! Every single one of them is a potential baby, and even if I was on a mission to repopulate the world, I couldn't possibly crank out that many over a lifetime.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> I'm tired of people telling me that I invest currency in sex because of my limited collection of eggs. Fact is, I have way more than enough! Every single one of them is a potential baby, and even if I was on a mission to repopulate the world, I couldn't possibly crank out that many over a lifetime.


:iagree: Also, I'm surprised that, as therapists, they didn't touch on why emotions are often a factor after a woman has sex with a man. :scratchhead: It's common knowledge that our bodies release the bonding (judgment clouding?) hormone, oxytocin, during orgasm (unless this is in fact what they meant). This is one reason why, IMO, sex isn't a good 'currency' for a woman to use (particularly) too early in a relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree: Also, I'm surprised that, as therapists, they didn't touch on why emotions are often a factor after a woman has sex with a man. :scratchhead: * It's common knowledge that our bodies release the bonding (judgment clouding?) hormone, oxytocin, during orgasm (unless this is in fact what they meant). * This is one reason why, IMO, sex isn't a good 'currency' for a woman to use (particularly) too early in a relationship.


In fact,
That, [ the part I highlighted above ] is what they meant in the podcast.
Men and women view the act of sex differently [ contrary to what some confused people believe].
And there is always the aspect of exchange during sex.


So here's the concept according to the psychologists:

Women tend to view sex as a bonding mechanism , however fleeting or temporary , and she hopes that the man she has sex with shares those feelings. She expects to be treated a certain way by him , if they have sex.
Those emotional feelings are very important _to her_, both before and after sex. How long she keeps those feelings are solely up to her.
Women don't have to do much , apart from select a suitable male , to experience those feelings.

Men on the other hand have to invest time and money because of the nature of the mating game. The man asks and the woman says yes or no.
Men "ask" for sex by investing time, money and emotional energy in the pursuit of it. He asks a woman out on a date that he has taken the time to plan and most likely will pay for. 
A woman could fully enjoy everything on that date without feeling obligated to have sex with him. She is well within her right to do so.

Those feelings during the buildup stages and during sex is considered as having value _to her_ . They are her currency.
The time, money, emotions and effort he puts into pursuing her is also of value _to him_ . They are his currency.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I'm tired of people telling me that I invest currency in sex because of my limited collection of eggs. Fact is, I have way more than enough! Every single one of them is a potential baby, and even if I was on a mission to repopulate the world, I couldn't possibly crank out that many over a lifetime.


And the average male has more than a billion times more eggs than your body could produce in a lifetime.
So logically, the currency spoken of is not in eggs or sperm , but something more valuable and intrinsic to both genders.

Both sperm and eggs come at a dime / million.


----------



## Stonewall

Caribbean Man said:


> The following short, youtube vid is a real life, shocking interview of teenage pornstar Sasha Grey and former Victoria Secret supermodel turned TV talk show host, Tyra Banks.
> 
> In this interview, she gives graphic details of her career in porn, her gangbang with 15 men, her first sex scene with a man three times her age ,being spat upon during sex scenes, licking toilet seats in S&M scenes, the fact that she love being portrayed as an underage girl on set and much more.
> 
> Teenage Pornstar ,Sasha Grey on the Tyra Banks Show.
> 
> Sasha says she fully enjoys her " job" , likes the money, the lifestyle perks and has no intention of giving it up.
> 
> If ever there was a textbook definition of gross, dehumanizing, sexual objectification , then this has to be it. The question is who is doing the objectifying and who is being objectified.
> 
> _Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women._
> 
> Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.
> 
> I used Sasha Grey as an example because porn is the most obvious example of the many double standards and convoluted mess that is the modern day concept of sexual objectification.
> 
> Reality is, sexual liberalism , which is central to feminist philosophy,[ and rightly so ] dictates that each person develops their own code of ethics and not judge another person's sexual preferences, or use of their body.
> 
> If this is so, then Sasha Grey isn't doing anything immoral ,neither her handlers , nor the men who view her type of porn.
> If any objectification is taking place, it is Saha Grey objectifying _herself_ for money, tens of thousands of dollars, EVERY WEEK.
> And while I'm no longer a consumer of porn , even if I was I wouldn't be viewing her type of porn , that's my personal code of ethics. But I take serious umbrage to people telling me that I objectify women by virtue of being a man who does not subscribe to their convoluted , lopsided view of sex and society.
> 
> In this vid, another former teenage prostitute, stripper and porn industry
> " survivor", tells Sashs Grey EXACTLY what is wrong with her and who's doing the " objectifying."
> 
> Former teen Stripper , Prostitute and Porn actress confronts Sasha Grey.
> 
> The way I see it,
> If you want to change the world, first change YOURSELF, or at least , take responsibility for your actions , and stop blameshifting.
> 
> The irony in this interview , to me was thick and obvious.
> If according to the theory of objectification, Sasha Grey is being objectified by porn, then isn't the show's host, Tyra Banks also a victim of objectification?
> After all ,she was a supermodel for Victoria Secret.
> _She modeled skimpy lingerie for years and became famous for it. Taking of her clothes made her a supermodel and gave her, her name.._
> Tyra Banks started modelling at the tender age of 15.
> Both were used for their sexuality, right there, is the double standard.
> 
> Anybody agrees with me?
> Anybody disagree?
> Lets talk about it.
> What is your definition of " sexual objectification" and who is responsible?




For the record; I have never had a problem being sexually objectified! Just sayin!


----------



## Cosmos

> *CM:*
> Those feelings during the buildup stages and during sex is considered as having value to her . They are her currency.
> The time, money, emotions and effort he puts into pursuing her is also of value to him . They are his currency.


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

So Cosmos,

Do you think that casual sex , pick up sex , hook up sex, booty calls ,friends with benefits,etc can be a type of sexual objectification?

Or it could lead to objectification?
Both people or one objectifying each/the other for the only purpose of their own pleasure?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Those feelings during the buildup stages and during sex is considered as having value _to her_ . They are her currency.
> The time, money, emotions and effort he puts into pursuing her is also of value _to him_ . They are his currency.


This is how I see it: Both of them are investing time, energy and emotion into the date. And sometimes even the money part is shared.

If he's doing it solely just to have some sex with her, that is if he really does see that as "currency", a ticket of his entitlement, then he's objectifying her. 

If she's doing it solely to get free meals, or presents, or laid, that is using him without regard to his personal investment, then she's objectifying him.

I've no doubt that some relationships are entirely usurious. 

Definitely not something I want to be a part of, and probably not very healthy, but if it's truly a two-way game, they probably deserve each other.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> So Cosmos,
> 
> Do you think that casual sex , pick up sex , hook up sex, booty calls ,friends with benefits,etc can be a type of sexual objectification?
> 
> Or it could lead to objectification?
> Both people or one objectifying each/the other for the only purpose of their own pleasure?



^^^

I do think that it involves viewing the other person as a tool (object) for sexual gratification, so to this extent it is objectification. But as long as both parties are on the same page with it - no harm no foul.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> This is how I see it: Both of them are investing time, energy and emotion into the date. And sometimes even the money part is shared.
> 
> If he's doing it solely just to have some sex with her, that is if he really does see that as "currency", a ticket of his entitlement, then he's objectifying her.
> 
> If she's doing it solely to get free meals, or presents, or laid, that is using him without regard to his personal investment, then she's objectifying him.
> 
> I've no doubt that some relationships are entirely usurious.
> 
> Definitely not something I want to be a part of, and probably not very healthy, but if it's truly a two-way game, they probably deserve each other.


Are you saying that casual sex, or hook up sex where boy meets girl in a bar, he buys some drinks , they go back to his place and have sex is a form of sexual objectification?


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> If he's doing it solely just to have some sex with her, that is if he really does see that as "currency", a ticket of his entitlement, then he's objectifying her.
> 
> If she's doing it solely to get free meals, or presents, or laid, that is using him without regard to his personal investment, then she's objectifying him.


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> ^^^
> 
> I do think that it involves viewing the other person as a tool (object) for sexual gratification, so to this extent it is objectification. But as long as both parties are on the same page with it - no harm no foul.


Are you then agreeing that to an extent , sexual objectification could be subjective?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you then agreeing that to an extent , sexual objectification could be subjective?


Yes.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you saying that casual sex, or hook up sex where boy meets girl in a bar, he buys some drinks , they go back to his place and have sex is a form of sexual objectification?


I think it depends on intent, attitude, and overall treatment/behaviour.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I think it depends on intent, attitude, and overall treatment/behaviour.


Care to explain?

Maybe give some examples of both genders?


----------



## JCD

So hang on a second.

Cary meets Amy. They go on a date. He wants to keep things casual and see if she is willing to have sex with him. Some girls are okay with that. Others, not so much.

He may or may not consider that sex may lead to something farther. Right now, his goal is sex. Since he asked AMY and not the 50 other girls he met yesterday, he is choosing her. This is to remove the 'any girl will do' aspect.

Amy goes to the dinner or whatever. She comes in with this fantasy of where they are going, the house with the white picket fence. Ted and Julia seem like good names for the kids. Bear in mind, they JUST met or are early in a relationship.

And...Amy puts out. Why is she putting out if she wants so much more? Obviously she thinks that giving out sex will get her what SHE wants. Let us assume for a moment that while he is willing to make his interest in her body clear, he does it in a polite and clear manner without some kind of caddish pressure.

What exactly is it she wants? 

Why is HIS desire to 'just have sex' automatically considered less noble than Amy 'selling herself' for the 2.5 kid fantasy?

This seems a bit value judgey to me.

I am not sure in this case that Cary is noble, per se, but how do her actions automatically ennoble her? Because she wants MORE than sex? Did she ask him what HE wanted? Or did she take his autonomy for granted, assuming that a little mattress play will 'hook him' so she gets what she wants?

Not saying she is evil either, but this default assumption that a man wanting sex is somehow 'bad' unless it cleaves to female desires (yes, you generally added some caveats) is a bit of a biased way of looking at things.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you saying that casual sex, or hook up sex where boy meets girl in a bar, he buys some drinks , they go back to his place and have sex is a form of sexual objectification?


I think sex after a hook up in a bar is a whole different animal. Unless the guy laced the girl's drink in order to have sex with her, it was a consensual transaction that was a means to an end for both of them. If it is objectification, I would call this mutual objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I think sex after a hook up in a bar is a whole different animal. Unless the guy laced the girl's drink in order to have sex with her, it was a consensual transaction that was a means to an end for both of them. *If it is objectification, I would call this mutual objectification.*


Well I agree with you.
As long as it was consensual between both,
It is mutual sexual objectification, and neither could claim innocence if due diligence wasn't done.

But the reality is that this is another area where men get accused of being predatory.
Their goals of sex makes them into animals , when, like JCD said the female's goals of either a little more intimacy [ respect for her feelings ] or a white picket fence , dog and two kids get dashed by midday after.


----------



## Deejo

I was actually going to post a response directly to what is being discussed now.

Objectification is subjective.

I've ended a dating relationship with a woman who believes I was objectifying her for sex. We talked about sex. She knows I've had a lot of it. I know she hasn't had any for 5 years, and oddly enough, I was her last partner 5 years ago. My point here being that we have known one another for a very, very long time. This isn't a case of 'getting to know someone'.

Two things are apparent to me. Either she puts a very high value on her sexuality, or ... she just isn't that into sex.

But consequently she can't reconcile the difference between her 'high value' on sex, that she's not going to have it with just anyone, and my 'high value' on sex, in that, sex is very important to me, and I don't much care WHEN we have it, whether it's 1st date or 10th, as long as once we are ... we are having it often.

Consequently, she thinks I'm objectifying her. And further, she objectifies the kind of woman that I have been seeing, and having sex with.

And I simply can't get behind that.

Basically, she is consciously or unconsciously creating obstacles for us getting to intimacy. It has been apparent to me that there have been times that she wanted to have sex, but she has this threshold in her head where sex becomes ok, and it isn't clear to her, so consequently isn't clear to me ... as to where or when that is.

I have no control over how she views sex. And I have no intention of letting my sexual relationship fall back into being 'managed' by a partner.

Consequently? I started dating someone else, with whom I am VERY sexually compatible, and there are no hang-ups or judgements about where sex fits, the fact that I'm attracted to her and WANT to have sex with her, excites her, and she is perfectly comfortable expressing that she wants sex too.

Objectification is in the eyes of the objectified. And arguing it's validity becomes a slippery slope, quite simply because it can be such a personal perspective.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I agree with you.
> As long as it was consensual between both,
> It is mutual sexual objectification, and neither could claim innocence if due diligence wasn't done.
> 
> But the reality is that this is another area where men get accused of being predatory.
> Their goals of sex makes them into animals , when, like JCD said the female's goals of either a little more intimacy [ respect for her feelings ] or a white picket fence , dog and two kids get dashed by midday after.


I think there's a difference between 'wooing' and acting in a predatory manner. I've met sexual predators, but they were never the sort of men that I would date.

As for JCD's example a few posts back (Cary and Amy, I think), Cary should head for the hills - PDQ. A woman who can decide that she wants to settle down, set up house and have children with a man after a few dates doesn't sound like a good proposition to me. Her 'currency' is low and the only real value she is likely to place on a man is that of provider. There are exceptions to the rule, of course but, IMO, a woman having such expectations of a man she barely knows is as potentially dicey as a man expecting sex on the first date.


----------



## JCD

Deejo said:


> I was actually going to post a response directly to what is being discussed now.
> 
> Objectification is subjective.
> 
> I've ended a dating relationship with a woman who believes I was objectifying her for sex. We talked about sex. She knows I've had a lot of it. I know she hasn't had any for 5 years, and oddly enough, I was her last partner 5 years ago. My point here being that we have known one another for a very, very long time. This isn't a case of 'getting to know someone'.
> 
> Two things are apparent to me. Either she puts a very high value on her sexuality, or ... she just isn't that into sex.
> 
> But consequently she can't reconcile the difference between her 'high value' on sex, that she's not going to have it with just anyone, and my 'high value' on sex, in that, sex is very important to me, and I don't much care WHEN we have it, whether it's 1st date or 10th, as long as once we are ... we are having it often.
> 
> Consequently, she thinks I'm objectifying her. And further, she objectifies the kind of woman that I have been seeing, and having sex with.
> 
> And I simply can't get behind that.
> 
> Basically, she is consciously or unconsciously creating obstacles for us getting to intimacy. It has been apparent to me that there have been times that she wanted to have sex, but she has this threshold in her head where sex becomes ok, and it isn't clear to her, so consequently isn't clear to me ... as to where or when that is.
> 
> I have no control over how she views sex. And I have no intention of letting my sexual relationship fall back into being 'managed' by a partner.
> 
> Consequently? I started dating someone else, with whom I am VERY sexually compatible, and there are no hang-ups or judgements about where sex fits, the fact that I'm attracted to her and WANT to have sex with her, excites her, and she is perfectly comfortable expressing that she wants sex too.
> 
> Objectification is in the eyes of the objectified. And arguing it's validity becomes a slippery slope, quite simply because it can be such a personal perspective.



:iagree:

A guy wanting to get laid is bad? No. A guy wanting to get laid is NATURAL.

It is the immense social and emotional frameworks which are artifices. Now, they are not BAD artifices. Some of them were designed to safeguard women from abuse etc.

And merely SEEING a woman as a sexually desirable person whom I have absolutely no wish to get to know personally, but observe from afar...that doesn't make me bad either. It makes me someone who appreciates ONE facet of the woman...just as I can appreciate Prince's music without engaging or approving of his lifestyle choices in the 90's.

Part of what makes me suspicious is that the shaming of men and their sex drive CAN ALSO be tied to the sexual monopoly thing that women used in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. So there is a strong power dynamic here outside of mere safety, though I will FULLY GRANT that this is also an issue for women too.

Slvt shaming isn't just a manly pastime. If a woman was 'too easy' in the recent past, i.e. gave it up to men without what 'respectable females' thought were the necessary preludes, they were ostracized as much as the men who dallied with them.

This seems a form of objectification too, but based on power dynamics. And also done by women. 

This, as always, is an opinion.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Why is HIS desire to 'just have sex' automatically considered less noble than Amy 'selling herself' for the 2.5 kid fantasy?
> 
> This seems a bit value judgey to me.


Who said it was? This is your example, so why do you assume he is considered less noble than her?

If he is upfront, straightforward and treats her with respect, while she is manipulative and deceitful (or completely delusional, which rather seems likely) then I would think he was the more noble (or reasonable).


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> A guy wanting to get laid is bad? No. A guy wanting to get laid is NATURAL.


So is a woman wanting to get laid. What turns it into objectification or not is what you *do* in pursuit of your goals and how you treat others.

IMHO.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> :i
> 
> Part of what makes me suspicious is that the shaming of men and their sex drive CAN ALSO be tied to the sexual monopoly thing that women used in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. So there is a strong power dynamic here outside of mere safety, though I will FULLY GRANT that this is also an issue for women too.


I think it was more than a power dynamic, JCD. In the 18th, 19th and, at least, half of the 20th century the risk of unplanned pregnancies was the driving force behind women being more 'selective.' Not only would there have been the enormous shame factor (particularly for the 'high born'), but also the danger of not being able to fend for their children and (the 'low born') ending up in the workhouse (or worse).


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Objectification is in the eyes of the objectified. And arguing it's validity becomes a slippery slope, quite simply because it can be such a personal perspective.


I see this as a trust issue, rather than proof that objectification is merely subjective impression.

Objectification is real, it is measurable, as are its consequences. For both men and women.

However, one of those consequences is a loss of trust --or a sense that there is no escaping it. This is very damaging to relationships, and the possibilities for developing them. And worse, the objectifying messages never just shut the fck up, and so they keep feeding this loss of trust. 

Terrible for everyone involved.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> I think it was more than a power dynamic, JCD. In the 18th, 19th and, at least, half of the 20th century the risk of unplanned pregnancies was the driving force behind women being more 'selective.' Not only would there have been the enormous shame factor (particularly for the 'high born'), but also the danger of not being able to fend for their children and (the 'low born') ending up in the workhouse (or worse).


Not to mention *extreme* sexual shaming.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I see this as a trust issue, rather than proof that objectification is merely subjective impression.
> 
> Objectification is real, it is measurable, as are its consequences. For both men and women.
> 
> However, one of those consequences is a loss of trust --or a sense that there is no escaping it. This is very damaging to relationships, and the possibilities for developing them. And worse, the objectifying messages never just shut the fck up, and so they keep feeding this loss of trust.
> 
> Terrible for everyone involved.


But I also thought we had agreed that not all objectification is bad ... unless we are planning on using a different word.

As evidenced by the two threads, and I tried to illustrate with my example, what I see as attraction and non-harmful, you may view as blatant sexual objectification, which MAY be harmful depending upon who is measuring it.

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is blatant objectification. Has nothing to do with sports. But it's popular, and I think it's safe to say most folks are just fine with it ... I'm fine with it. Most men who view the issue, don't subsequently become rapists or violent towards women.

The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition doesn't send the message to a bunch of guys on a bus that's it's rational to target, rape, violate, and kill a lone female passenger.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Not to mention *extreme* sexual shaming.


:iagree: And sexual shaming was pretty bad for men, too, from what I can gather:-

_



"Men were vigorously counselled to conserve vital health by avoiding fornication, masturbation and nocturnal emissions (for which a variety of devices were invented) and by rationing sex within marriage. Even when other causes were present, sickness and debility were frequently ascribed to masturbation - the great erotic subject described as vigorously as it was denounced. 'That insanity arises from masturbation is now beyond a doubt', declared one widely read authority, who also claimed that 'masturbators' became withdrawn, flabby, pale, self-mutilating and consumptive." http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/s/sex-and-sexuality-19th-century/

Click to expand...

_There was a more permanent (and barbaric) solution for both male and female masturbators, however; penile cauterisation and clitorodectomy.



Anti-Masturbation Device:-


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> But I also thought we had agreed that not all objectification is bad ... unless we are planning on using a different word.


I think again, confusion between lust, attraction, and objectification occurs.

Here's an example that likely won't be that relevant...but it is my own barometer.

I can't help but experience lust when I see a naked woman...it just happens. But I'm a straight-looking female and most women will never see me "looking" at them that way, because they aren't expecting it.

Now put me in a shower room at a gym. I really shouldn't even be allowed in there, if the women only knew...

So I have to police myself, so that I don't allow my desire to feel lust over ride my logic which tells me "it isn't fair to sexually objectify people who don't even know you are doing it and are placing trust in you while running around naked in this room".

When I was very young, I honestly couldn't regulate myself like this.

Now, it is easy. I just avert my eyes. I know what is "right" and what these women would feel like if they knew I was creeping on them. The desire to feel that lust is very strong...I strongly want to "look", trust me. (Might as well put a 15 y/o boy in there...)

But I know what's right...and it ain't right to steal peeks...that would be objectifying them as bodies.

I respect them as women and people too much to do that.

If I want to see a naked woman in the flesh, I have to go through the same thing a man does, court her, date her, and see if there is consent.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> I think again, confusion between lust, attraction, and objectification occurs.
> 
> Here's an example that likely won't be that relevant...but it is my own barometer.
> 
> I can't help but experience lust when I see a naked woman...it just happens. But I'm a straight-looking female and most women will never see me "looking" at them that way, because they aren't expecting it.
> 
> Now put me in a shower room at a gym. I really shouldn't even be allowed in there, if the women only knew...
> 
> So I have to police myself, so that I don't allow my desire to feel lust over ride my logic which tells me "it isn't fair to sexually objectify people who don't even know you are doing it and are placing trust in you while running around naked in this room".
> 
> When I was very young, I honestly couldn't regulate myself like this.
> 
> Now, it is easy. I just avert my eyes. I know what is "right" and what these women would feel like if they knew I was creeping on them. The desire to feel that lust is very strong...I strongly want to "look", trust me. (Might as well put a 15 y/o boy in there...)
> 
> But I know what's right...and it ain't right to steal peeks...that would be objectifying them as bodies.
> 
> I respect them as women and people too much to do that.
> 
> If I want to see a naked woman in the flesh, I have to go through the same thing a man does, court her, date her, and see if there is consent.


This seems more like YOUR issue than one of objectification.

For whatever reason, you feel lust at the sight of naked female skin (me too).

However, you feel you owe the women...what? As long as you don't ACT on your impulses or take advantage of their feeling of safety to try to seduce them, this is something in your own mind.

But because you have been taught that seeing a woman as a 'sexual object' is horrid, you avert your eyes.

She isn't a 'sexual object' to you. Heck, she isn't a 'sexual object' to most guys. They appreciate the beauty. They aren't making more of it than an appreciative glance.

But to many women, including, it seems you, an appreciative glance is WAY too far. You won't even allow them for yourself.

Do you think there aren't full blown lesbians in the gym or the military, or the pool? Yet do they feel the need to self identify or wear blinders?

No. They look...but they don't act (well, usually) That is all you ethically owe the other person. Are the lesbians ethically being dishonorable by not self identifying or staying to their own facilities? According to your lights, it is.

By that logic, we SHOULD ostracize gay men from the military since they are taking advantage of the hetero soldiers, yet I can't see you being okay with that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> But because you have been taught that seeing a woman as a 'sexual object' is horrid, you avert your eyes.
> 
> She isn't a 'sexual object' to you. Heck, she isn't a 'sexual object' to most guys. They appreciate the beauty. They aren't making more of it than an appreciative glance.
> 
> But to many women, including, it seems you, an appreciative glance is WAY too far. You won't even allow them for yourself.


I allow myself appreciative glances at clothed people any time I want.

No one "taught" me that seeing a woman as a sexual object is horrid...*I know that being treated like a sexual object is horrid by direct experience*.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I was actually going to post a response directly to what is being discussed now.
> 
> Objectification is subjective.
> 
> I've ended a dating relationship with a woman who believes I was objectifying her for sex. We talked about sex. She knows I've had a lot of it. I know she hasn't had any for 5 years, and oddly enough, I was her last partner 5 years ago. My point here being that we have known one another for a very, very long time. This isn't a case of 'getting to know someone'.
> 
> Two things are apparent to me. Either she puts a very high value on her sexuality, or ... she just isn't that into sex.
> 
> But consequently she can't reconcile the difference between her 'high value' on sex, that she's not going to have it with just anyone, and my 'high value' on sex, in that, sex is very important to me, and I don't much care WHEN we have it, whether it's 1st date or 10th, as long as once we are ... we are having it often.
> 
> Consequently, she thinks I'm objectifying her. And further, she objectifies the kind of woman that I have been seeing, and having sex with.
> 
> And I simply can't get behind that.
> 
> Basically, she is consciously or unconsciously creating obstacles for us getting to intimacy. It has been apparent to me that there have been times that she wanted to have sex, but she has this threshold in her head where sex becomes ok, and it isn't clear to her, so consequently isn't clear to me ... as to where or when that is.
> 
> I have no control over how she views sex. And I have no intention of letting my sexual relationship fall back into being 'managed' by a partner.
> 
> Consequently? I started dating someone else, with whom I am VERY sexually compatible, and there are no hang-ups or judgements about where sex fits, the fact that I'm attracted to her and WANT to have sex with her, excites her, and she is perfectly comfortable expressing that she wants sex too.
> 
> *Objectification is in the eyes of the objectified. And arguing it's validity becomes a slippery slope, quite simply because it can be such a personal perspective*.


:iagree:

And this^^^right there is another one of the reasons I started this thread by juxtaposing the extreme example of teenage pornstar , Sasha Grey, against that of her interviewer on that show, Tyra Banks.

Objectification is subjective.
Does Sasha feel objectified?
No.
Why?
Because she's being highly paid , and he lavish lifestyle is paid for by her sexual currency.
In an bizarre sense , her sexual currency is worth more than what some women who would never do such things.
Why?
Because most men would invest quite a lot in hard currency to have sex with her. The fact that she has a fan club and lots of men spend money on her movies is evidence of such.
They might not want her for a life partner , but they would pay lots of money to spend the night with her.

Given that, how can it even be logical for someone who is not Sasha to complain of how she or other women in porn are being objectified?

Now if Sasha's career in porn comes to a screeching halt because the company she signed onto, got another girl they consider more marketable then her, what do you think Sasha would say about the porn industry?

That same rule applies to other areas being discussed with respect to objectification.
A certain amount of honesty and objectivity is needed


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> I allow myself appreciative glances at clothed people any time I want.
> 
> No one "taught" me that seeing a woman as a sexual object is horrid...*I know that being treated like a sexual object is horrid by direct experience*.


I have no idea why you put yourself in their camp.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What camp?


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> This seems more like YOUR issue than one of objectification.
> 
> For whatever reason, you feel lust at the sight of naked female skin (me too).
> 
> However, you feel you owe the women...what? As long as you don't ACT on your impulses or take advantage of their feeling of safety to try to seduce them, this is something in your own mind.
> 
> But because you have been taught that seeing a woman as a 'sexual object' is horrid, you avert your eyes.
> 
> She isn't a 'sexual object' to you. Heck, she isn't a 'sexual object' to most guys. They appreciate the beauty. They aren't making more of it than an appreciative glance.
> 
> But to many women, including, it seems you, an appreciative glance is WAY too far. You won't even allow them for yourself.
> 
> Do you think there aren't full blown lesbians in the gym or the military, or the pool? Yet do they feel the need to self identify or wear blinders?
> 
> No. They look...but they don't act (well, usually) That is all you ethically owe the other person. Are the lesbians ethically being dishonorable by not self identifying or staying to their own facilities? According to your lights, it is.
> 
> By that logic, we SHOULD ostracize gay men from the military since they are taking advantage of the hetero soldiers, yet I can't see you being okay with that.


I work out in a large commercial gym where there are lots of guys who could very well be gay. 
I use the same changing room with them and sometimes I am naked in the same room with them.
Whether or not they lust after my body is no concern of mine.
Maybe another man would feel objectified.

I have been told outright by some women that my a$$ looks good in a pair jeans.
People always look.
It is how they subconsciously evaluate what they're attracted to.It's not as if they only see sexy women or sexy men. They see EVERYBODY.
Then they mentally sift through what they like from what they don't like. Then they have a picture of what they're attracted to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> So is a woman wanting to get laid. What turns it into objectification or not is what you *do* in pursuit of your goals and how you treat others.
> 
> IMHO.


I don't know.
You seem to be conveniently shifting the goalpost.

How does what a man does in pursuit of sex , outside of drugging or rape ,turn it into objectification?

If he decides to purchase a house for her , and she accepts , is that objectification?
Or is it only objectification is all he purchased for her were a few drinks.
The fact is, SHE placed a value on her sexual currency and used it as she saw fit.

Didn't we agreed earlier that, if both parties agreed to have no strings attached sex , they were BOTH objectifying each other?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,
A post just made me remember coming across this verse in the Quran , many years ago.
So I Googled it , and found it listed under " Major Sinful Acts " in Islam.

" _Say To The Believing Men That They Should Lower Their Gaze And Guard Their Modesty; That Will Make For Greater Purity For Them, And Allah Is Well Acquainted With All They Do. And Say To The Believing Women That They Should Lower Their Gaze And Guard Their Modesty..._ " (*Surah 24:* Ayah 30-31)


And then there's this pic I came across on an interesting website 



What would you fill into the empty chat boxes above each character?

Here's the website.


Objectifying Men? That's Okay!

On it there are quite a few examples of ads which we are all very familiar with, that clearly objectify men. Evidence being, that if the gender were reversed many would say it's objectification.

Another dose of reality.
It isn't that men aren't objectified a whole lot in the media.
They are just passive about it.
So _to them_, it's no big deal.
A good example of why objectification is a very subjective area.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And this^^^right there is another one of the reasons I started this thread by juxtaposing the extreme example of teenage pornstar , Sasha Grey, against that of her interviewer on that show, Tyra Banks.
> 
> Objectification is subjective.
> Does Sasha feel objectified?
> No.
> Why?
> Because she's being highly paid , and he lavish lifestyle is paid for by her sexual currency.
> 
> Whilst it's true that what she's doing is out of choice, one has to wonder why any woman would make such choices, unless they are emotionally damaged.
> 
> The problem with women like Sasha is that through their self-objectification they cause other women to feel and be objectified.
> 
> In an bizarre sense , her sexual currency is worth more than what some women who would never do such things.
> Why?
> Because most men would invest quite a lot in hard currency to have sex with her. The fact that she has a fan club and lots of men spend money on her movies is evidence of such.
> They might not want her for a life partner , but they would pay lots of money to spend the night with her.
> 
> 
> I don't believe her sexual currency is high at all. On the contrary. It is merely an illusion, and her real life currency devalues with every man she has sex with.
> 
> The very fact that you say "_They might not want her for a life partner , but they would pay lots of money to spend the night with her_" highlights to me that she is an object to them and, therefore, is objectified.
> 
> Given that, how can it even be logical for someone who is not Sasha to complain of how she or other women in porn are being objectified?
> 
> Because what they are doing causes many of their gender to feel and be objectified.
> 
> This is a very real problem amongst teens right now, with young boys having unrealistic expectations about sex and young girls being pressurized into complying with those expectations.
> 
> I read a nauseating account a short while back of a young girl losing her virginity to a boy whilst he was actually viewing porn on his cellphone... Although (emotionally) scarred by the experience, she said at the time she had thought his behaviour was 'normal' because "all guys watch porn."
> 
> Now if Sasha's career in porn comes to a screeching halt because the company she signed onto, got another girl they consider more marketable then her, what do you think Sasha would say about the porn industry?
> 
> That same rule applies to other areas being discussed with respect to objectification.
> A certain amount of honesty and objectivity is needed


----------



## Sandfly

In reply to your picture with the captions, if I was the guy with the pizza box, all I would be saying is

Crikey!

And all she would be saying is:

Oh, the pizza boy... I was expecting someone else. 

With regards to that Surah, this is one of the contradictions which turned me away from Islam, because I didn't see the men practicing modesty as they should.

The other things were the special dispensations for Muhammed to have more than the maximum number of wives (suspicious that God would pick a highly sexed individual to deliver a religion of modesty), the marriage to that little girl, whom he at first treated as a niece, and the description of heaven as a place where all lusts denied on earth would be satisfied.

Just didn't make sense to spend a life in denial, get used to that life, and then as your reward... spend eternity in Gluttony and orgies. Basically asking people to deny their natures, while attracting them into the sect with the promise of satisfying their cravings.

Put it another way: like promising a heroin addict that if he stays off heroin for five years, that he'll get a lifetime supply at the end of it !


----------



## Deejo

Which is why, herein lies the problem.

From my ex-date's perspective, I ended it because she wouldn't put out soon enough for my liking.

From my perspective I ended it because I know well and good that we are never going to be sexually compatible. Our view of sex isn't congruent. 

We all can call out objectification when we see it. It is the results, actions, or consequences that I think everyone is struggling with.

If I'm out and about and I see a beautiful woman who is dressed seductively and she catches my eye and acts offended and calls me pervert ... I REALLY don't care. That isn't about objectification, that's about attraction. If I was Ryan Gosling, odds are she wouldn't feel objectified, she'd be flattered.

I don't think this needs to be as difficult as we are making it.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that pornography is the objectification of women. I'm perfectly fine saying that the SI swimsuit edition is objectification, girlie calendars are objectification ... 

NONE of that means that I treat women that I interact with like objects. None of that means that I imagine tying them up, having sex with them, shaming them, or smacking them around.


----------



## Cosmos

Deejo said:


> Which is why, herein lies the problem.
> 
> From my ex-date's perspective, I ended it because she wouldn't put out soon enough for my liking.
> 
> *From my perspective I ended it because I know well and good that we are never going to be sexually compatible. Our view of sex isn't congruent*.
> 
> A sound and honest reason, IMO, for ending a relationship.
> 
> We all can call out objectification when we see it. It is the results, actions, or consequences that I think everyone is struggling with.
> 
> If I'm out and about and I see a beautiful woman who is dressed seductively and she catches my eye and acts offended and calls me pervert ... I REALLY don't care. That isn't about objectification, that's about attraction. If I was Ryan Gosling, odds are she wouldn't feel objectified, she'd be flattered.
> 
> I agree, it's about attraction. If, however, you _continually _stared at her, it would be as rude as staring at anyone else.
> I don't think this needs to be as difficult as we are making it.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with saying that pornography is the objectification of women. I'm perfectly fine saying that the SI swimsuit edition is objectification, girlie calendars are objectification ...
> 
> NONE of that means that I treat women that I interact with like objects. None of that means that I imagine tying them up, having sex with them, shaming them, or smacking them around.


----------



## firebelly1

I haven't read all the threads so sorry if I'm repeating or hijacking in some way, but here's my two cents: both sexes "objectify" the other sex all the time. Because we are attracted to the way someone looks. That is objectification and there is nothing wrong with it. 

While factions of feminists (not my faction) don't want to admit it, sex is a power that women have and we use it. And it is disingenuous to blame men when we do. 

In the case of the young porn star - is she using her power, or is she being exploited? Maybe a little of both. Maybe you can't say all porn stars are exploited and its a case-by-case basis. Really, all it takes to be a porn star anymore is the camera on your cell phone and lots and lots of women are choosing to use them and posting their creations on the internet. No exploitation there. Objectification, yes. That is the point. 

Should the young porn star have gone to college instead? Yes. Would it have been nice if, from an early age, she had someone telling her that she could have more power than just her sexuality? Yes. Is it a man's fault that none of that happened or that he is now enjoying the result of those things not happening? Not necessarily.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> In reply to your picture with the captions, if I was the guy with the pizza box, all I would be saying is
> 
> Crikey!
> 
> And all she would be saying is:
> 
> Oh, the pizza boy... I was expecting someone else.
> 
> With regards to that Surah, this is one of the contradictions which turned me away from Islam, because I didn't see the men practicing modesty as they should.
> 
> The other things were the special dispensations for Muhammed to have more than the maximum number of wives (suspicious that God would pick a highly sexed individual to deliver a religion of modesty), *the marriage to that little girl, whom he at first treated as a niece*, and the description of heaven as a place where all lusts denied on earth would be satisfied.
> 
> Just didn't make sense to spend a life in denial, get used to that life, and then as your reward... spend eternity in Gluttony and orgies. Basically asking people to deny their natures, while attracting them into the sect with the promise of satisfying their cravings.
> 
> Put it another way: like promising a heroin addict that if he stays off heroin for five years, that he'll get a lifetime supply at the end of it !


Yes.
Muhammed got married to an eight year old girl by the name of Ayesha.

See, reading some responses in this thread and the other one got me thinking.
There are a lot of contradictions in some people's responses , just like with Islam , Muhammed and modesty. That's why I remembered that verse in the Hadith.

One of my favorite Nietzche quotes on power , goes something like this: 
" _Right and wrong at any given time is a function of power and not of truth._"


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Which is why, herein lies the problem.
> 
> From my ex-date's perspective, I ended it because she wouldn't put out soon enough for my liking.
> 
> From my perspective I ended it because I know well and good that we are never going to be sexually compatible. Our view of sex isn't congruent.
> 
> We all can call out objectification when we see it. It is the results, actions, or consequences that I think everyone is struggling with.
> 
> If I'm out and about and I see a beautiful woman who is dressed seductively and she catches my eye and acts offended and calls me pervert ... I REALLY don't care. That isn't about objectification, that's about attraction. If I was Ryan Gosling, odds are she wouldn't feel objectified, she'd be flattered.
> 
> I don't think this needs to be as difficult as we are making it.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with saying that pornography is the objectification of women. I'm perfectly fine saying that the SI swimsuit edition is objectification, girlie calendars are objectification ...
> 
> *NONE of that means that I treat women that I interact with like objects. None of that means that I imagine tying them up, having sex with them, shaming them, or smacking them around.*


Precisely^^^especially the highlighted part.

That's why I said earlier in this thread , that I like to look at beautiful women. I don't whistle at them or make catcalls or make obnoxious comments about their anatomy. In fact , I don't even talk to them. I simply smile and nod my head , acknowledging their beauty , gracefully.

So why should I be blamed for a group of men hanging out by a corner harassing a passing female?
Of course they'e acting obnoxious. 
So does that mean all men are obnoxious in their treatment towards women?

Sometime ago , I walked into a jewelry store in the mall after I spotted a watch in the showcase. There were about five sales girls in the store and all of them were either smiling or stifling a laugh. Obviously I thought maybe something was funny on my clothing so I checked myself in the mirror . After all , I was the only customer in the store.
Then they all began to giggle.
I pleasantly asked the manager what was the matter.
She told me that whilst I was outside looking at the showcase , the girls were looking at me.
I smiled and said ok. Asked the cost of the watch and was about to bid them farewell and have a nice day, when the manager had this to say:

"_ Actually it was me that told the girls that your a$$ looks good in that jeans , and the same time you decided to come in. That's why we were smiling..."_

I nodded my head in approval, turned to leave ,slapped my a$$ and said farewell.

I couldn't help but think that those girls in that store probably does that many other guys who they think looks good. I imagined switching the genders around and definitely , they would have lost their jobs.
I smiled to myself.

To be fair to those girls , they were neither rude or obnoxious.
I took no offence to their comments , not only because it made me feel good , but because it doesn't really matter _to me._
I've heard it quite a few times before, in my lifetime.

Can it be objectification?
Yes.
But is it bad.
No,, because I don't feel offended by it.
Neither can I say if the exact , same thing happened to another man , that I know for sure whether they'll like it or be offended by it.
It is totally subjective, and it doesn't automatically make someone bad or good.
It all depends on the context.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2galsmom said:


> Thank you for a thoughtful rational thread CM.
> 
> As a person who has received a violent blow from the other sex, I can say I do think society is changing. Attention is now drawn to issues like the ones that occurred all the way from India to Ohio. With the attention on accepting that rape of a woman is not okay, so will the the rejection of raping little boys as acceptable.
> 
> In California there are laws now that prevent battered women from being discriminated against when looking for a job. There are many positive things that have occurred.
> 
> When Gloria Steinem didn't condemn Miley Cyrus I was surprised. As usual though she was misquoted but the bottom line remains the same, women choose to objectify themselves in some cases as with Kim Khardashian who is a really nothing more than a porn star - just a non XXX rated version.
> 
> Did Kim's mom set her on the path to porn? It would seem so. If you look at studies of porn stars, many of them were abused as children and never addressed and processed this issue in a healthy way. Many of them commit suicide.
> 
> In these interviews were women give their "real" reasons for doing porn I am skeptical that they really have done enough self-introspection to answer these questions authentically.
> 
> *As for Tyra Banks, you could say that she herself is capitalizing on porn stars for her own profit. If society is going to change for the better, women have to accept responsibility for their role in acting as potential role models for other women.*


:iagree:

I agree with your entire post, but I'm especially glad that you understood the part Tyra Banks played in that entire scenario.
Tyra was actually exploiting her for shock value and ratings on her show. Ironically , Tyra also made her name by taking off her clothes.
Although she didn't do porn , she modeled fashionable, sexy lingerie.
Some kinda weird irony in that cycle.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is blatant objectification. Has nothing to do with sports. But it's popular, and I think it's safe to say most folks are just fine with it ... I'm fine with it. Most men who view the issue, don't subsequently become rapists or violent towards women.
> 
> The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition doesn't send the message to a bunch of guys on a bus that's it's rational to target, rape, violate, and kill a lone female passenger.


The problem with Sports Illustrated and it's ilk is that it perpetuates a sexually objectified environment -- an environment that normalizes objectification and makes it virtually impossible to escape.

Yes, some individuals are noble, some are sociopaths, and the rest of us somewhere between. We can argue all day over these anecdotal scenarios, but the issue is not personal desire, but a climate, an overall environment that reduces women to body parts and conceives of them as toys for male amusement.

The effect on men isn't to make them violent or immoral, it's to desensitize and normalize. Because it caters to their whims and fantasies, they encourage it, and because they encourage it, the more prevalent and accepted it becomes. The more accepted and normal, the more it feeds male expectations, and their views of women, women's sexuality, and women's humanity.

The effect on women is to suck all of us in the objectification game. Yes, the *model* is paid, and this is her main motivation to participate. But while she may benefit from her objectification, the rest of us are dragged along with her, whether we want to be or not. And the consequences are seen in endless body image issues, trust issues, and dissociation from our own sexuality.

In the end, we create a world where 18-year old girls "love" thief sexual abuse, and piles of men "dream" of paying dearly for the privilege of sleeping with her. I mean, really. Does this not say something extremely profound about the world we're creating for ourselves?


----------



## JCD

Here is a question for Faithful Wife, Always_alone and Cosmos (and any other woman who wants to chime in)

If FW walked into the locker room, looked around at all the naked women openly (not leering with a horrible slobber and a smirk), got a momentary instant of sexual gratification by looking at that blonde over there with beautiful body, is she doing something wrong?

She isn't seducing the woman. She isn't talking to the woman. She is walking by, appreciating her bosom or whatever and going to get changed.

Is she doing ANYTHING wrong?


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> Here is a question for Faithful Wife, Always_alone and Cosmos (and any other woman who wants to chime in)
> 
> If FW walked into the locker room, looked around at all the naked women openly (not leering with a horrible slobber and a smirk), got a momentary instant of sexual gratification by looking at that blonde over there with beautiful body, is she doing something wrong?
> 
> She isn't seducing the woman. She isn't talking to the woman. She is walking by, appreciating her bosom or whatever and going to get changed.
> 
> Is she doing ANYTHING wrong?


If she was just in the locker room doing her thing and her eye's were naturally drawn to someone I would say no, it's human nature to notice attractive people. If she was looking around specifically to find someone attractive to get a peak glimpse of I would say that's a little disrespectful.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Here is a question for Faithful Wife, Always_alone and Cosmos (and any other woman who wants to chime in)
> 
> If FW walked into the locker room, looked around at all the naked women openly (not leering with a horrible slobber and a smirk), got a momentary instant of sexual gratification by looking at that blonde over there with beautiful body, is she doing something wrong?
> 
> She isn't seducing the woman. She isn't talking to the woman. She is walking by, appreciating her bosom or whatever and going to get changed.
> 
> Is she doing ANYTHING wrong?


IMO, she isn't. As a bisexual woman, FW has every right to be in the women's locker room, and her fleeting appreciation / response to another woman's body would be as natural as breathing to her.

The same would apply to a man in a nudist colony. Providing he doesn't ogle I don't believe that it could be perceived in any way offensive.

Attraction and respectful appreciation does not = objectification.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD, I have done it in every way possible.

The "saw it because it was there but wasn't trying to cop a peek".

The "saw it pretty good because it was in a mirror and she didn't see me, so I looked, really looked and lusted".

The "moved myself around a corner so as to put myself into a position to which she couldn't see, then peeked...lusted...looked hard and long..."

And then the "averts eyes, honestly not looking even if it is just there".

And nearly every other way you can imagine it.

The sneaky looking stuff was when I was very young and I literally felt like I couldn't help it. I felt lucky to be able to see such gorgeous bodies, and knew it was natural to want to see this. But I also felt something lurch in my stomach when I would do it...and I have had something similar things done to myself in varying ways. So I was filled with conflict when this was going on.

Over the years, I just learned that I felt crappy about it when I would do it. So I stopped, truly. Now I could undress a woman with my eyes diverted and really not cop a peek. I can also play cards with someone and truly not cop a peek at their cards, even if I could get away with it and they'd never know.

I was never told to behave in this manner, I regulated myself over time with the awareness I gained as it happened. I was truly objectifying and being gross...and even though it might be "ok it wasn't THAT bad though, was it?", I still feel gross when I think about doing it. Because those young girls, in some cases, would have stopped being my friend if they knew how I was leering at them while they trusted me. 

I'm sure now, maybe they would forgive me. I am not trying to say this was the crime of the century. I only offered as an example of using your inner compass and finding where *I* drew that line for myself. I assume others have drawn their own types of lines that guide their behavior.


----------



## JCD

Okay.

Let's spice things up a bit. (and FW, I am not trying to pick on you. I am using you as a generic example because you offered a personal anecdote and removing gender from the situation of 'male/female' is probably important.)

Same scenario: FW is in the locker room. She specifically looks. "There is a hot one there." Gets her eye full and she runs a 5 second sex fantasy scenario through her head.

She doesn't go taking pictures. She isn't stalking. She isn't planning on seduction. She is taking what is offered: an attractive woman is visible and she is taking an opportunity to get her 'look' on and play with the idea of having sex with her.

Is THIS wrong?

Does it make you uncomfortable?

Is it objectifiying?


All of these are separate issues.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What I would like to hear is from the women, if they were being checked out thusly by myself in a locker room, would they be ok with this? And you can picture me as a non-threatening looking average straight girl...in case that matters. If you knew about this would it matter to you? 

(I have asked close friends the same question in discussions about this in the past).


----------



## Faithful Wife

He he, this one is fun...(not related to above discussion)


When You Sexualize Men And Women Equally, It’s Amazing How Much Fun You Can Have


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> What I would like to hear is from the women, if they were being checked out thusly by myself in a locker room, would they be ok with this? And you can picture me as a non-threatening looking average straight girl...in case that matters. If you knew about this would it matter to you?
> 
> (I have asked close friends the same question in discussions about this in the past).


My reaction would be the same as it would be even if the changing room was unisex. Providing you aren't staring / leering at me, your thoughts are your own business.

FW might be objectifying me, but I don't feel uncomfortable because she isn't making those thoughts known to me.

If, however, FW starts quite openly leering at me, and giving me the odd wink or come hither look, she is making her thoughts _my business_ and she will make me feel uncomfortable.

Would the latter scenario make me feel objectified? Strangely enough, No... Because she's another woman I wouldn't find her actions physically threatening. I would probably just find her staring rather rude and might even challenge her about it.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> What I would like to hear is from the women, if they were being checked out thusly by myself in a locker room, would they be ok with this? And you can picture me as a non-threatening looking average straight girl...in case that matters. If you knew about this would it matter to you?
> 
> (I have asked close friends the same question in discussions about this in the past).


I would hope that you can agree that 'makes me uncomfortable' and 'is ethically wrong' or 'is easily correctable in society' are vastly different things.

I have always joked that if I could design a piece of clothing that selectively allowed a woman to look like a woman in a burka to men she wasn't interested in, but was a hot 'off the shoulder' number for men she WAS interested in, I'd probably be rich enough to buy a small island...say Australia. 

The offense seems directly related to how much offense the lookee wants to take...which isn't exactly an objective metric.


----------



## JCD

Here is an minor deviation from the topic:

Men's magazines frequently put attractive women in sexual attire on the cover of their magazines. The demographic is men and they appeal to male sexuality.

Women's magazines are directed at women. Many (not all) female magazines have attractive and frequently sexualized attired women on the front cover. ANY woman on a female magazine is incredibly attractive.

Women seem to buy them. If they didn't or were highly offended by them, one would assume that they would NOT sell.

I get part of the objectification of women is 'training our daughters to perform like a porn star/model' but that can't be all there is involved in the female psyche if they buy into this in such great numbers. It can't ALL be [email protected] Avenue Mind Control Photos.

It is touching something in the women. What? How is that different from Men's Health Magazines having very buff men on the covers hoping to tap into the same thing in men?

Is it objectifying or aspirational?


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> I would hope that you can agree that 'makes me uncomfortable' and 'is ethically wrong' or 'is easily correctable in society' are vastly different things.
> 
> I have always joked that if I could design a piece of clothing that selectively allowed a woman to look like a woman in a burka to men she wasn't interested in, but was a hot 'off the shoulder' number for men she WAS interested in, I'd probably be rich enough to buy a small island...say Australia.
> 
> *The offense seems directly related to how much offense the lookee wants to take...which isn't exactly an objective metric.*


Or if the looker is behaving offensively.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The problem with Sports Illustrated and it's ilk is that it perpetuates a sexually objectified environment -- an environment that normalizes objectification and makes it virtually impossible to escape.
> 
> Yes, some individuals are noble, some are sociopaths, and the rest of us somewhere between. We can argue all day over these anecdotal scenarios, but the issue is not personal desire, but a climate, an overall environment that reduces women to body parts and conceives of them as toys for male amusement.
> 
> *The effect on men isn't to make them violent or immoral, it's to desensitize and normalize. Because it caters to their whims and fantasies, they encourage it, and because they encourage it, the more prevalent and accepted it becomes. The more accepted and normal, the more it feeds male expectations, and their views of women, women's sexuality, and women's humanity.
> *
> *The effect on women is to suck all of us in the objectification game. Yes, the *model* is paid, and this is her main motivation to participate. But while she may benefit from her objectification, the rest of us are dragged along with her, whether we want to be or not. And the consequences are seen in endless body image issues, trust issues, and dissociation from our own sexuality.
> *
> In the end, we create a world where 18-year old girls "love" thief sexual abuse, and piles of men "dream" of paying dearly for the privilege of sleeping with her. I mean, really. Does this not say something extremely profound about the world we're creating for ourselves?


I'm sorry, but I think this is extremely subjective:

"_ The effect on men isn't to make them violent or immoral, it's to desensitize and normalize. Because it caters to their whims and fantasies, they encourage it, and because they encourage it, the more prevalent and accepted it becomes. The more accepted and normal, the more it feeds male expectations, and their views of women, women's sexuality, and women's humanity.._."

Reason being is that you cannot speak for every man. I have seen Sport Illustrated Swimsuit editions and I NEVER used it as a gauge of my expectations of any woman.
I am FULLY capable of separating fantasy from reality.



And this is even more subjective and judgmental:

"_ The effect on women is to suck all of us in the objectification game. Yes, the *model* is paid, and this is her main motivation to participate. But while she may benefit from her objectification, the rest of us are dragged along with her, whether we want to be or not. And the consequences are seen in endless body image issues, trust issues, and dissociation from our own sexuality..._"

Reason being, you cannot speak for every woman.
You cannot even say for certain that the money is the main motivation for the models to participate, and even if it is , then that's her fundamental right. You can't take it away from her, neither can you place the responsibility for another woman's insecurity on her.
Can you prove that there's any direct correlation between her modelling for a sport mag and the perceived objectification of all women ?

Is there any real difference in what these three pics do?
1]

2]


3]


Or is it a matter of personal perspective ?

Pic #1] Sport Illustrated Model on a beach in the Bahamas.

Pic #2]A friend of mine posing by a dilapidated jetty on one of our country's popular beaches.

Pic#3] My niece posing for a pic on a small jetty ,while on vacation on a private island . The same niece whom I posted earlier in the thread. She was around 17 or 16 at the time ,she was goofing around. But she's a very extroverted person who just love being in front of a camera. Besides , she's photogenic. That's why I got her into the modelling business.

What's the difference in your opinion?
And I'm sure everyone would have a different opinion of all three women. But aren't they all just posing on the beach?
Because the first one is highly paid to pose for a magazine mainly view by men , you assume that she's dragging the rest of women into the objectification matrix where they would be viewed as meat for men's sexual pleasure.
But that's just _your_ opinion.
Which is fine.
However you can't speak for the other two women.
Yes?
Or are you saying that the other two pics of my friend and niece are also contributing to the way men objectify women?


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> I would hope that you can agree that 'makes me uncomfortable' and 'is ethically wrong' or 'is easily correctable in society' are vastly different things.
> 
> I have always joked that if I could design a piece of clothing that selectively allowed a woman to look like a woman in a burka to men she wasn't interested in, but was a hot 'off the shoulder' number for men she WAS interested in, I'd probably be rich enough to buy a small island...say Australia.
> 
> *The offense seems directly related to how much offense the lookee wants to take...which isn't exactly an objective metric.*


:iagree:

Purely subjective.

Whenever I'm out with my wife and I see other men staring at her , I simply put my arms around her and pull her a little closer.

Neither she or I have any problem with people looking at us.
If they cross our personal boundaries or physical space, 
Then I will deal with it.


No negative or insecure feelings there.
Can't stop people from looking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> *If, however, FW starts quite openly leering at me, and giving me the odd wink or come hither look, she is making her thoughts my business and she will make me feel uncomfortable.*


:iagree:
Bottomline, this^^^is probably the best example of objectification which leads to sexual harassment.









Just a side note.

A bisexual or lesbian woman ogling another woman would give that woman a completely different feeling than a man doing the same.
Also the feeling of attraction of lust a bisexual or lesbian woman feels for another woman is completely different from that of a male.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Here is an minor deviation from the topic:
> 
> Men's magazines frequently put attractive women in sexual attire on the cover of their magazines. The demographic is men and they appeal to male sexuality.
> 
> Women's magazines are directed at women. Many (not all) female magazines have attractive and frequently sexualized attired women on the front cover. ANY woman on a female magazine is incredibly attractive.
> 
> Women seem to buy them. If they didn't or were highly offended by them, one would assume that they would NOT sell.
> 
> I get part of the objectification of women is 'training our daughters to perform like a porn star/model' but that can't be all there is involved in the female psyche if they buy into this in such great numbers. It can't ALL be [email protected] Avenue Mind Control Photos.
> 
> It is touching something in the women. What? How is that different from Men's Health Magazines having very buff men on the covers hoping to tap into the same thing in men?
> 
> Is it objectifying or aspirational?


I think context is key. 

I used to buy women's magazines to gain inspiration for hair, make-up and style. Over the years, though, I've noticed a tendency for the images to become increasingly provocative and sexualized.

For example, images advertising women's underwear are no longer about support, comfort and elegance, they're about sex. The eye is drawn more to the sexual allure of the model's pouting mouth, come to bed eyes, impossibly perfect body and suggestive pose than the underwear itself.

I'm not saying that there's anything _wrong _with sexy underwear (I love it) but, along with the total onslaught of provocative ads for women's attire, products etc, the message does seem to be that in order to feel good about herself a woman needs to strive for physical_ perfection_ and endless desirability. IMO, this engenders feelings of objectification, encourages women _objectify themselves _and compete with (often) unrealistic standards of womanhood.

It's a fine line (because we all want to look and feel good), but these days I think the media has crossed it.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> A bisexual or lesbian woman ogling another woman would give that woman a completely different feeling than a man doing the same.
> Also the feeling of attraction of lust a bisexual or lesbian woman feels for another woman is completely different from that of a male.


:iagree:

It might be flattering, even, but devoid of all threat.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> My reaction would be the same as it would be even if the changing room was unisex. Providing you aren't staring / leering at me, your thoughts are your own business.
> 
> FW might be objectifying me, but I don't feel uncomfortable because she isn't making those thoughts known to me.
> 
> If, however, FW starts quite openly leering at me, and giving me the odd wink or come hither look, she is making her thoughts _my business_ and she will make me feel uncomfortable.
> 
> *Would the latter scenario make me feel objectified? Strangely enough, No... Because she's another woman I wouldn't find her actions physically threatening*. I would probably just find her staring rather rude and might even challenge her about it.



Okay...let me get this straight. 

We are assuming that this nameless woman is engaging in every single thing that you've mention as objectifying, BUT you won't feel objectified because she's a woman.

Furthermore you'd find her rude behavior rude.

So one can only infer that it isn't the BEHAVIOR per se which is the issue here; it is instead the fact it's a man.

A man who evinces sexual interest which is unwelcome is a not objectifying because we've already established that this woman has broken the 'objectifying' definitions. So 'objectify' seems to be code word for 'threat'.

Why is it a threat? Again, not because of the behavior. Not because of the size, because one can easily find men as small as women and I think that you'd find a small man behaving that way as big as issue as a big man.

It's because this is a MALE acting this way.

I'm sorry, but I can't fix being a man and from some of the comments, there _seems_ to be a tacit 'guilt until proven innocent' air to the judging.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> It might be flattering, even, but devoid of all threat.


Which makes my point.

Is it the objectifying or is it that women are uncomfortable around men because men are always sexual threats?

Granted, it could be both. But the fact a woman crossing those lines doesn't seem offensive beyond rudeness says oodles.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Which makes my point.
> 
> Is it the objectifying or is it that women are uncomfortable around men because men are always sexual threats?
> 
> Granted, it could be both. But the fact a woman crossing those lines doesn't seem offensive beyond rudeness says oodles.


It could also mean that a woman being _overtly_ viewed as a sex object by another woman is far less common than her being viewed as a sex object by a man, and is, therefore, less irksome.

As for your question regarding are men always perceived as a sexual threat? I don't believe that _generally_ they are. But the way _some_ show their attraction / appreciation can be perceived as threatening and / or offensive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is what my friends have mostly said as well, when I have asked (that it wouldn't be that big of a deal).

And the women here on this post, I am not surprised who have answered this way.

Being that I have actually been through this several times, I can usually tell which women would see it as a threat, flattering even, and which would not. It usually matters "how straight" they are. For some women who are "very" straight, they do get offended. When you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you can tell by the eyes of the person whether they were offended, flattered, or just didn't care at all. I have experienced all three reactions.

I have also learned that many straight women will encourage me to pursue them this way once they learn my orientation, or even if they just get a whiff of it. For instance, I work with a woman who is quite sexual and has HUGE huge huge ones. (Really huge). There was a moment during a conversation once when she was talking about what a hassle it is having big boobs, they are painful, "but the boys sure seem to like them, they are always peeking" she said...and before I could stop myself I had said "well some of us just can't help ourselves". Her eyes lit up, and ever since then, she will not miss a chance to tell me about (and show me) a new bra she bought or any other excuse she can come up with to show me her cleavage or boobs. She loves attention. I understand this, and I love giving it...in this case I have to hold way back as this wouldn't be ok with my husband. But if I wanted to I know I could talk this woman into stripping completely for me, and she would love it.

I have done similar before. Some women love having a non-threatening woman asking to see them naked...even totally straight women. Some women just don't get to show their grand glory in that way that and may even desire to be objectified and don't get it at home....but the key in this is that I am not a threat to anyone. If I cannot hurt them in any way, they can enjoy it. 

Except those extremely straight women who think I'm creepy, they definitely let me know I am a threat. I have lost friends over this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos, your point is great....covert versus overt does make a difference, I have found. Being overt about it, and getting consent and encouragement even, is one thing. Being covert about it, doing it without their knowledge and then getting caught...really is pretty offensive to most women, even the ones who might be open to it overtly.

Part of the reason for this is that no one really wants to be stared at when they are naked and they don't know, because ew, what if I was doing something private or "adjusting" or had my gut hanging out??

And the other part is just that creepy feeling that "someone" is watching you.

Overt tends to work ok for me, covert not so much.

JCD said something about what if I saved an image for a later fantasy....I can cop to that...no question about it, I have cataloged in my mind every breast I've ever seen in my life and I parade the images out for myself whenever I want to. I am not ashamed of that, in the least.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> What's the difference in your opinion?
> And I'm sure everyone would have a different opinion of all three women. But aren't they all just posing on the beach?
> Because the first one is highly paid to pose for a magazine mainly view by men , you assume that she's dragging the rest of women into the objectification matrix where they would be viewed as meat for men's sexual pleasure.


The difference is in attitude and intent. Personal photos are personal. They capture an experience, a memory. They are about the people involved, and an expression of themselves.

Sports Illustrated is about glossing and sexing, and deliberately playing to male fantasy, and doing so by erasing all that is personal and all that is imperfect to keep the fantasy intact. That's why it's objectifying. The real human qualities are eliminated in favour of the glossy fantasy.

Yes, the model may have many reasons to do the job she does. Yes, many women participate exuberantly in their own objectification, and doll up their daughters for more of the same. Why do they do this? Because for women, it is our prime source of money and power. 

And yes, those that objectify, or celebrate objectification, are dragging the rest of us into it. 

You say you don't compare, but many, many men do. Right here on TAM, I've seen dozens of posts from men explicitly saying that they're disappointed by their wives or gfs because they don't look like models and porn stars, and sad that it remains only a fantasy. I've seen them explicitly ranking women, all against the Playboy ideal, claiming these ranks are completely objective indicators. I've seen them explicitly insist that the most important thing is looks, and that all go after the best looking they can muster.

And women play along. So we're all obsessed by her measurements, and we can't talk about a woman without talking about how she looks. We can't help her on TAM until we know if she is attractive and acts like a porn star. And on and on it goes.

How is this *not* having judgments of women being informed by media ideals?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The difference is in attitude and intent. Personal photos are personal. They capture an experience, a memory. They are about the people involved, and an expression of themselves.
> 
> Sports Illustrated is about glossing and sexing, and deliberately playing to male fantasy, and doing so by erasing all that is personal and all that is imperfect to keep the fantasy intact. That's why it's objectifying. The real human qualities are eliminated in favour of the glossy fantasy.
> 
> Yes, the model may have many reasons to do the job she does. Yes, many women participate exuberantly in their own objectification, and doll up their daughters for more of the same. Why do they do this? Because for women, it is our prime source of money and power.
> 
> And yes, those that objectify, or celebrate objectification, are dragging the rest of us into it.
> 
> *You say you don't compare, but many, many men do. Right here on TAM, I've seen dozens of posts from men explicitly saying that they're disappointed by their wives or gfs because they don't look like models and porn stars, and sad that it remains only a fantasy. I've seen them explicitly ranking women, all against the Playboy ideal, claiming these ranks are completely objective indicators. I've seen them explicitly insist that the most important thing is looks, and that all go after the best looking they can muster.
> 
> And women play along. So we're all obsessed by her measurements, and we can't talk about a woman without talking about how she looks. We can't help her on TAM until we know if she is attractive and acts like a porn star. And on and on it goes.
> 
> How is this *not* having judgments of women being informed by media ideals?*


Sorry,
I can't agree with anything you posted there.

First of all, I pulled all three pics off the internet , so they're not personal photos. The first two were from Google images and the last one of my niece was from her business facebook page, which is public.

Secondly, what is intrinsically wrong with the media catering to the male fantasy via imagery?

What is intrinsically wrong with the media catering to the female fantasy via imagery and the idea of sex , love and romance?

Where did you get your concept of a good man from if not some form of media?

What makes your media representation of men good and the Sport Illustrated representation of women in that form bad?

All your evidence is purely anecdotal and highly subjective.
You use TAM as an example by speaking of dozen of threads where a man complains about his wife's body.
I am willing to put my membership on TAM on the line.
For every thread you show me of a man complaining about his wife's looks , I would show you five posters who love their wife's body or even on those exact threads where men are complaining, I guarantee you there are men right there, countering the OP's argument. 
And how can the demographic on TAM be an accurate representation of ALL men and ALL women if TAM is a self help forum where people who need help come seeking solutions?

Do women complain about their husband's weight , and general appearance here on TAM?
A resounding yes.
However few they might be on TAM, does that mean that their expectations of their husband's physical appearance should be dismissed because chances they likely her expectations are informed by the Old Spice man, or the zesty guy in the Kraft commercial?
A resounding no.


But lets go with your assessment of the problem of men's expectation of their wife's physical appearance for a while.

What do you suggest need to be done to the reproduction of the female human form in any public medium in order to fix that problem you attributed to media productions like Sports Illustrated?
What would you like to see happen?

For example there's fashion lingerie giant Victoria Secret, whose media production features glossed over photos of female models in sexy lingerie , way more provocative than the Sport Illustrated Swimsuit issue, in EVERY SINGLE MAGAZINE.
That magazine is geared towards the FEMALE consumer , and my guess is that men would also have access to it.
What would you personally recommend to " fix" a production like that , so that it accurately represents women, and doesn't strip them of their humanity, or
" objectify " them?

Here's a pic of ex Victoria Secret model , Tyra Banks on the cover of an old VS swimsuit edition. She has been on the cover many , many times.
Some commentators back in the day said that VS made tyra a supermodel because of her race. They wanted to reach the Black consumers.
You're saying Tyra became a supermodel because of her gender , and that she is a pawn in the plot to keep women at the level entertainment for the sexual fantasies of men.

Which one should I accept as a black person?
Or should I just accept that the media always strove to idealize the human form in whatever aspect , in an effort to boost sales?



How would you " fix" this?
Lets hear your ideas , of a solution to that " problem."


----------



## Sandfly

Always Alone, This is on the subject of your post and CM's about media ideals.

Personally, I have my own ideas of what constitutes beauty. 

I don't know any men who fancy women with boyish figures - 6ft tall and painfully thin. So you'd have to look elsewhere to find out who is foisting these ideals on women. Who runs the fashion, film and soap-opera industries? 

You can look in a clothes catalogue, and the image of woman is manipulated and unreal. But who is looking at these magazines?
By contrast, the magazines of women intended for men are a minute percentage of deviant publications. There's hundreds intended for women.

If we're not the ones who are creating the problem, we're not responsible for it.
Music videos are the worst offenders: but this is all crud for the underclass - they've always existed and they never had any ideals or values in the first place. They'll never change. Best to just censor them.

Also, I have yet to come across a thread where men are rating women according to Playboy magazine. You don't have to exaggerate to make a point.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I do wonder how much the campaigns to stop women/girls insecure or objectified is also adding to women feeling insecure or objectified (or if it does at all). Fot me it's a bit of a 'don't think of a pink elephant' problem, in a way it could potentially increase the focus on insecurity or objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I don't know any men who fancy women with boyish figures - 6ft tall and painfully thin. So you'd have to look elsewhere to find out who is foisting these ideals on women. Who runs the fashion, film and soap-opera industries?
> 
> You can look in a clothes catalogue, and the image of woman is manipulated and unreal. But who is looking at these magazines?
> By contrast, the magazines of women intended for men are a minute percentage of deviant publications. There's hundreds intended for women.
> 
> If we're not the ones who are creating the problem, we're not responsible for it.
> 
> Also, I have yet to come across a thread where men are rating women according to Playboy magazine. You don't have to exaggerate to make a point.


:iagree:

Here is a thread in the Men's Clubhouse of TAM about what real , ordinary men prefer their woman to look like.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/152321-big-bottomed-woman-3.html

Here are a few comments from that thread:

*Dad & Hubby Post # 41*

" _It's not in for the media that is driven to make women feel inferior so they can sell more products.

You do a survey of MEN. You'll find, for the most part, men like cushion and curves. Just look at this thread.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE roundness and softness. I love running my hands up the back of the thigh and having a nice round butt come out to greet me. I've been with curvy women and one girl with a classic "nice" body (skinny). I held back as a lover with the skinny girl. I couldn't help it. The hip bones and all that. It's just a me thing. I like having that cushion ..."_

*Caribbean Man , Post # 39*

_" For all intent and purposes, curvy women were always in , because it is the genetic disposition of the majority of women.
Fashion is now beginning to to cater for,and pay homage, to them..."_


*Badcompany Post # 44*

_" I love curvy women, nice flared hips and some cushioning.....I'll pass on the anorexic runway models thanks..."_


*sh987 Post #66*

_" Good looking women exist in many shapes and sizes (not to mention races). Honestly, I don't have a "type"..."_


Just a few random thought of men on a nine page long thread about larger sized women ,9 page in the men's Clubhouse , right here on TAM.
Interestingly, more than 99% of men on the thread ,agreed with the OP about his love for larger sized women


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> *I do wonder how much the campaigns to stop women/girls insecure or objectified is also adding to women feeling insecure or objectified (or if it does at all).* Fot me it's a bit of a 'don't think of a pink elephant' problem, in a way it could potentially increase the focus on insecurity or objectification.


:iagree:

I agree.
That's my question as well.I agree that a problem exists, but:
Is it quantifiable?
Is it fixable?
Or are we making it out to be a greater problem than it really is and inadvertently creating another larger problem?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Sorry,
> I can't agree with anything you posted there.
> 
> First of all, I pulled all three pics off the internet , so they're not personal photos. The first two were from Google images and the last one of my niece was from her business facebook page, which is public.
> 
> Secondly, what is intrinsically wrong with the media catering to the male fantasy via imagery?
> 
> What is intrinsically wrong with the media catering to the female fantasy via imagery and the idea of sex , love and romance?


Okay, well clearly I am whistling in the wind again, with people not terribly interested in even understanding what I'm trying to say, let alone considering it viable in any way. So I'll leave you with a couple of last thoughts:

If you can't tell the difference between a personal photo capturing a memory and experience and one from VS or Sports Illustrated, then nothing I can say will demonstrate to you the extent to which women are turned into idealized representations of themselves, and how his informs their self-assessment.

If you can't see that men are virtually *never* lined up and trotted out so that the world can rank them on their beauty, and that the focus on men's looks is *miniscule* compared to the focus on women's, combined with the incessant shaming women receive for failing to meet those ideals, then nothing I can say will help you see any connection between these practices and women's troubling body image issues, dissociation from their sexuality, and the oh so common worries that their men are only interested in their sex.

If you insist on seeing all of this as an indictment of men's sexuality rather than an observation of the damaging social practice it is, nothing I can say will make you even think there is any reason to change anything, anyway.

So I give up. If you ever do want fixes, Cosmos posted a bunch of great stuff.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Human females are I believe the only mammals that don't go into heat. So sexual attraction is a vital part of the continuation of the species. If being thought of in those terms outrages people then all I do is point the "Shakers" who wouldn't allow anyone to be born into their religion and no members could marry or have sex. There are of course, no more Shakers.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I was reading about a kind of vole that's socially monogamous and sexually promiscuous. Maybe voles got it right.


----------



## Cosmos

Runs like Dog said:


> Human females are I believe the only mammals that don't go into heat. So sexual attraction is a vital part of the continuation of the species. If being thought of in those terms outrages people then all I do is point the "Shakers" who wouldn't allow anyone to be born into their religion and no members could marry or have sex. There are of course, no more Shakers.


Or do we?



> "WOMEN don't miaow and they don't scratch at the door," says Randy Thornhill, "but they do have oestrus."
> 
> Most female mammals experience a hormone-induced oestrus or "heat", but women are not thought to, and are not considered to be aware of when they are most fertile. Thornhill, a biologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, challenges that view.
> 
> He suggests we have mistaken the function of being on heat. "Oestrus doesn't indiscriminately increase sexual desire," he says. "It functions to get good genes."
> 
> He and colleague Steve Gangestad say there are many examples of mammals that don't mate with just any male when on heat. Mice, for example, try to mate with males that have different immune systems from their own, while female elephants go for the most dominant male..."


Sign in to read: Women may come into 'heat' like other mammals - life - 12 September 2007 - New Scientist

[Unfortunately, to read the entire article, one has to be a sdubscriber]

Interestingly, many women of child bearing age who spend a lot of time in the company of other women are aware that eventually their menstrual cycles sync and, presumably, their ovulation cycles, too.

It would also appear that men 'know' when a woman is ovulating:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...etect-when-a-woman-is-on-heat-says-study.html


----------



## Sandfly

Always alone -

The not-listening is going both ways.

Weird how you ignore that all the stuff directed at women is created by women, with the help of men who aren't even attracted to women. 

Tiggy's comment reminded me of Gok Wan, who "helps" women, but in fact, each of his shows only makes women even more self conscious, in a roundabout way, by making t*ts and lingerie the central "issue", instead of say... teaching good manners and conversational skills, which would achieve a lot more.

He is not attracted to women, and yet currently dominates the airwaves telling women how to be 'beautiful'.

What does he know?

He always focusses on 'real women'... right there he is defining what a real woman is... in his case it's plus-sized.

Who is this man, how did he get his own show?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> If you can't tell the difference between a personal photo capturing a memory and experience and one from VS or Sports Illustrated, then nothing I can say will demonstrate to you the extent to which women are turned into idealized representations of themselves, and how his informs their self-assessment.
> 
> If you can't see that men are virtually *never* lined up and trotted out so that the world can rank them on their beauty, and that the focus on men's looks is *miniscule* compared to the focus on women's, combined with the incessant shaming women receive for failing to meet those ideals, then nothing I can say will help you see any connection between these practices and women's troubling body image issues, dissociation from their sexuality, and the oh so common worries that their men are only interested in their sex.
> 
> If you insist on seeing all of this as an indictment of men's sexuality rather than an observation of the damaging social practice it is, nothing I can say will make you even think there is any reason to change anything, anyway.
> 
> So I give up. If you ever do want fixes, Cosmos posted a bunch of great stuff.



Yeah, but AA, we KNOW this. We know it's a gimmick. The gimmick is fun to think about.

Christian Grey is a gimmick too. And lets face it, women went ape-sh!t when the casting of that role didn't fit their perceived 'gimmick'.

We have posted porn stars without makeup. We've posted the pre and post photoshop stuff.
I know it's not real. I believe that most of the men here think the same way I do.

The 'gimmick' is NOT who we want to partner with. I see the gimmick as an object. And it may be a beautiful object, but it has zero impact on how I perceive, interact with, or fantasize about women. I just don't see how we bring an end to the gimmick, especially when both sides of the gender divide participate in, and support the gimmick. 

And we simply cannot be saying that Sasha Grey getting DP'd is the same 'gimmick' as a woman posing for a bikini shoot.

I just don't see how we get any traction in making those things equivalent.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Okay, well clearly I am whistling in the wind again, with people not terribly interested in even understanding what I'm trying to say, let alone considering it viable in any way. So I'll leave you with a couple of last thoughts:
> 
> *If you can't tell the difference between a personal photo capturing a memory and experience and one from VS or Sports Illustrated, then nothing I can say will demonstrate to you the extent to which women are turned into idealized representations of themselves, and how his informs their self-assessment.*


I'm sorry, 
But again you're terribly wrong here like I hinted to you in your last post.
What you don't get is that those three pics are NOT personal pics , but pics of professional female models.
The only difference is that the first is on the cover of Sport Illustrated and the rest are local to my country.

In other words, it is not that what you are saying doesn't have some element of truth in in , but you refuse to accept that your views are highly subjective and only shared by a fraction of women.

You are attempting to dictate what men expect from their women based on very small limited , anecdotal evidence and you completely reject that it might not necessarily so.

Are you aware that part of your conclusion could have been influenced by your personal, negative experience with men?

My point is, if I think the world is unfair_ to me_ because of my race, then to me , it_ is_ unfair, and nothing except me could change that. I can find tons of " evidence " and conspiracy theories,to prove that the world is unfair to people of my race .

Think about it.


----------



## over20

always_alone said:


> Okay, well clearly I am whistling in the wind again, with people not terribly interested in even understanding what I'm trying to say, let alone considering it viable in any way. So I'll leave you with a couple of last thoughts:
> 
> If you can't tell the difference between a personal photo capturing a memory and experience and one from VS or Sports Illustrated, then nothing I can say will demonstrate to you the extent to which women are turned into idealized representations of themselves, and how his informs their self-assessment.
> 
> If you can't see that men are virtually *never* lined up and trotted out so that the world can rank them on their beauty, and that the focus on men's looks is *miniscule* compared to the focus on women's, combined with the incessant shaming women receive for failing to meet those ideals, then nothing I can say will help you see any connection between these practices and women's troubling body image issues, dissociation from their sexuality, and the oh so common worries that their men are only interested in their sex.
> 
> If you insist on seeing all of this as an indictment of men's sexuality rather than an observation of the damaging social practice it is, nothing I can say will make you even think there is any reason to change anything, anyway.
> 
> So I give up. If you ever do want fixes, Cosmos posted a bunch of great stuff.


Women are NOT lined up and trotted around by force. They are willing and paid workers. Free choice.

I by choice put on make-up, color my hair blonde, wear attractive clothes and perfume.....am I objectifying myself? Maybe, but most women I know LOVE to dress up, look pretty and even model. I think it boosts a woman's self esteem rather than diminish it. It's fun to be a woman.


----------



## JCD

One of the most germane points that Always Alone made IMO is the one on porn having an effect on male sexual expectations.

I would be HORRIFIED to have some boy approach my daughters with the idea that the Jack Hammer or some other really odd sexual act is something they should submit to.

And I have had an uncomfortable conversation with my son to let him know that what is done in porn is NOT real life and is not something 'normal' women do or are fond of doing.

This is not to say I am a prude sexually, but porn can make you jaded. As stated, if you think the norm IS big breasted very slim women who are just gosh darn it so vocal about loving anal...well...you are in for a disappointment in real life.

One of my daughters is slightly heavier and my wife is critical of this, sometimes vocally (she comes from a culture which is much more frank about this issue) I actually have to reign her in from saying such things because it is such a sensitive topic in most Western countries.

But here is an uncomfortable reality: if my daughter doesn't reign in her eating, she is making more problems for herself down the road both health wise and career wise. It is a reality that attractive people are more successful so if she makes a choice not to put on make up and forego cheesecake, she is creating her own problems. And I do NOT think having a thousand public awareness campaigns is going to fix that. Being thin and attractive is, for those not genetically gifted *hard work.* This is a definite market signal to people about how seriously you take yourself in life that you make that extra effort. Going to the gym, I have a much better understanding at how much work it actually is.

That being said, men may drool over these super models but at the end of the day we know *they are out of our league.*

So please give us men some credit. Most of us are not trying the jack hammer or these other crazy things. Yes, we want our women to try to be as attractive as they can for us, but that is as a gesture of affection. Give us some make up, a bit of fellatio and doggie style and we're generally pretty happy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Here's why I think most of this stuff is subjective.

Pic #1]
Claudia Lynx.


Pic #2 
Mahlagha Jaberi



So what's so interesting about those two women?
Claudia Linx was an international fashion model from Iran.
Mahlagha Jaberi is at present a Vogue supermodel, also from Iran.

The irony is that both are like " poster girls " of the women's liberation movement in Iran. An Islamic country where it's against the law for a woman to be in public places with her head or any part of her body uncovered.
These two women and a few more represent hope to hundreds of thousands of Muslim girls and women around the world.
They aren't hoping to become as beautiful as them but they hope that maybe one day the rules of their world would change and recognize women for their beauty and not just as for their utility.
See, in most of those countries, women are not allowed to show their beauty, and they want to.
On the other side of the globe , some are saying that they are fed up of women being objectified because of their beauty.

See why it's subjective?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyway, it's Valentine's Day , and my wife and I are eating out.
So I've got to log off for the night .
Nice chatting with you all, and Happy Valentines everyone.
Hope ya'll enjoy the rest of the evening!


----------



## Cosmos

over20 said:


> Women are NOT lined up and trotted around by force. They are willing and paid workers. Free choice.
> 
> I by choice put on make-up, color my hair blonde, wear attractive clothes and perfume.....am I objectifying myself? Maybe, but most women I know LOVE to dress up, look pretty and even model. I think it boosts a woman's self esteem rather than diminish it. It's fun to be a woman.


There's a big difference between taking good care of ourselves and feeling compelled to objectify ourselves. Rather like the difference between maintaining a healthy body mass and anorexia.

Like you, I colour my hair, wear attractive clothing, paint my nails, use make-up etc, etc, because it makes me feel good. I do it for myself, not because I'm trying to fit in with some image the media tells me I _should_ look like. But I'm older and didn't grow up in the current media climate. I am not a youngster trying to establish my identity in the midst of an unprecedented barrage of unrealistic brainwashing / stereotyping...

_"Think about the hundreds or thousands pictures of Women that we see, every month and year, in magazines, on TV, in the movies, in advertising. How do these pictures compare with what we see when we look at the real women around us, every day?

In a country where coverage of women's lives and achievements is hardly equal to that of men’s, where pictures of women scientists, writers, and thinkers rarely appear in the popular press, we are awash in photographs of anonymous young women, selected and pictured to sell products, attract attention, and please male viewers.

Magazines like Playboy claim to be "celebrating women's beauty." But Playboy doesn't run pictures of... Women... Of female human beings of all ages and sizes, of the women who make up more than half of our population. What Playboy does in fact is to "celebrate" one minutely small portion of the female gender. They are usually "models:" young, VERY PRETTY women of a physical type chosen to appeal to male eyes.

But even these "highly selected and carefully chosen" young women are not presented as full and multi-dimensional people; instead, they are often posed and dressed so as to de-emphasize individuality. The effect visually reduces a woman to a body, or in some instances, to parts of her body, as if she is not a real, whole person.

The term that most often describes this phenomenon is: objectification."

Objectification Of Women | NOMAS_


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> There's a big difference between taking care of ourselves and feeling compelled to objectify ourselves. Rather like the difference between maintaining a healthy body mass and anorexia.
> 
> Like you, I colour my hair, wear attractive clothing, paint my nails, use make-up etc, etc, because it makes me feel good. I do it for myself, not because I'm trying to fit in with some image what the media tells me I _should_ look like. But I'm older and didn't grown up in the current media climate.
> 
> _"Think about the hundreds or thousands pictures of Women that we see, every month and year, in magazines, on TV, in the movies, in advertising. How do these pictures compare with what we see when we look at the real women around us, every day?
> 
> In a country where coverage of women's lives and achievements is hardly equal to that of men’s, where pictures of women scientists, writers, and thinkers rarely appear in the popular press, we are awash in photographs of anonymous young women, selected and pictured to sell products, attract attention, and please male viewers.
> 
> Magazines like Playboy claim to be "celebrating women's beauty." But Playboy doesn't run pictures of... Women... Of female human beings of all ages and sizes, of the women who make up more than half of our population. What Playboy does in fact is to "celebrate" one minutely small portion of the female gender. They are usually "models:" young, VERY PRETTY women of a physical type chosen to appeal to male eyes.
> 
> But even these "highly selected and carefully chosen" young women are not presented as full and multi-dimensional people; instead, they are often posed and dressed so as to de-emphasize individuality. The effect visually reduces a woman to a body, or in some instances, to parts of her body, as if she is not a real, whole person.
> 
> The term that most often describes this phenomenon is: objectification."
> 
> Objectification Of Women | NOMAS_


Exactly as I said in my own way earlier in this thread.


But apparently I was wrong because < insert point completely unrelated to objectification here>.


----------



## Cosmos

> *Wysh quoted:*
> 
> "...The effect visually reduces a woman to a body, or in some instances, to parts of her body, as if she is not a real, whole person.
> 
> The term that most often describes this phenomenon is: objectification."





WyshIknew said:


> Exactly as I said in my own way earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> But apparently I was wrong because < insert point completely unrelated to objectification here>.


No, you were completely right, Wysh.


----------



## Cosmos

I just want to throw this into the mix, too... Although nowhere near on the same scale, yet, male objectification is certainly out there, too.

It's easy to confuse this with no longer practical (or fair) stereotypical gender roles / expectations (which do exist), but I think the difference is the focus on appearance and body image. Whilst lots of men have always taken pride in their appearance and taken care of their bodies, never before, IMO, have we seen so many 'ripped' torsos in the media and heard so much talk (generally) of muscle size / tone etc, etc. It may or may not have reached the stage where young men are gaining the impression that without a ripped body, huge muscles and an impossibly impressive 'package' they're not attractive / sexy / desirable / valued, but it's my guess it could happen. 

I wouldn't want that for my son any more than I would want a preoccupation with body image for my granddaughters, one day...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Yeah, but AA, we KNOW this. We know it's a gimmick. The gimmick is fun to think about.
> 
> Christian Grey is a gimmick too. And lets face it, women went ape-sh!t when the casting of that role didn't fit their perceived 'gimmick'.
> 
> *We have posted porn stars without makeup. We've posted the pre and post photoshop stuff.
> I know it's not real. I believe that most of the men here think the same way I do.*
> 
> *The 'gimmick' is NOT who we want to partner with. I see the gimmick as an object. And it may be a beautiful object, but it has zero impact on how I perceive, interact with, or fantasize about women. I just don't see how we bring an end to the gimmick, especially when both sides of the gender divide participate in, and support the gimmick. *
> 
> *And we simply cannot be saying that Sasha Grey getting DP'd is the same 'gimmick' as a woman posing for a bikini shoot.*
> 
> I just don't see how we get any traction in making those things equivalent.


:iagree:

In addition , a huge part of the problem is that AA thinks men and women are the same, she also thinks their sexuality is supposed to be the same.

Men have always been and are still sexually attracted to how a woman looks physically.

Women are less attracted than a man ,to how a man looks physically as compared to what he is or does.To a woman, a man must not only look the part , but also be the part.

I once saw a documentary on this same thing , where they did an experiment.
They took three men, same age , race , physical build ,and average looks.One was a construction worker, one a lawyer and the third a sanitation worker.
They dressed the sanitation worker in a designer suit , gave him an expensive haircut , clean shaven etc , and identified him as a lawyer. The dressed the lawyer in the sanitation worker's overalls and gave him a pair of gloves and boots ,identified him as a sanitation worker. The construction worker remained dressed as a construction worker. Jeans , safety boots etc.

Then they asked quite a few random women passing on the street, to identify , without speaking to the men ,whom they thought was most sexually appealing to them.

Most women chose the sanitation worker dressed like a lawyer ,in the expensive suit.
The construction worker came in second.
The lawyer dressed as the sanitation worker got no votes.

It's not that looks aren't important to most women, but somehow, a man's sexual attractiveness is tied in with his roles in society , or his ability to provide.

In that way , both sexes objectify each other, because sex has always been and still is to a great extent,about exchange.

So the sexual objectification of men is not limited to his body parts. To say that men are sexually objectified based on the size of their penis is ridiculously simplistic. Men are and have always been sexually objectified in the media , but it is not offensive to most men because they define themselves differently.

A man _would_ have sex with a strange woman even though she's not attractive in his eyes.
A woman however would have sex with a strange man she doesn't find attractive _only_ if she gets tangible benefits from it.

In the first scenario, the man _is _objectifying the woman's body. Sexual objectification.
In the second scenario , the woman is objectifying the man's for his potential as a man. This can also be considered as sexual objectification. She is using sex to her sole advantage, to separate the man into different parts and only using the part that benefits her, his wallet.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I just want to throw this into the mix, too... Although nowhere near on the same scale, yet, male objectification is certainly out there, too.
> 
> It's easy to confuse this with no longer practical (or fair) stereotypical gender roles / expectations (which do exist), but I think the difference is the focus on appearance and body image. Whilst lots of men have always taken pride in their appearance and taken care of their bodies, never before, IMO, have we seen so many 'ripped' torsos in the media and heard so much talk (generally) of muscle size / tone etc, etc. It may or may not have reached the stage where young men are gaining the impression that without a ripped body, huge muscles and an impossibly impressive 'package' they're not attractive / sexy / desirable / valued, but it's my guess it could happen.
> 
> I wouldn't want that for my son any more than I would want a preoccupation with body image for my granddaughters, one day...


The thing is,
A ripped torso is the icing on the cake for most women.

An overweight lawyer , dressed in a Donna Karan suit would be more likely get a beautiful woman to have sex with or to wed than a garbage collector with a ripped torso.

Especially now , more so because women are more financially empowered than before.

women are looking for their equals in relationships.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> Exactly as I said in my own way earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> But apparently I was wrong because < insert point completely unrelated to objectification here>.


No. There was a very related point made which you also chose to not address.

That when I see Suzy Sexbot, I am never going to meet her. I have no relationship to her. I don't care about her views on global warming or her favorite movie. I am enjoying ONE very apparent aspect of her as a person which she herself is putting out there.

She is providing a service.

And this is not any different about anyone else. When I talk to tech support, I don't care a whit about their appearance, their personality, or their political views.

I care that the blue screen of death goes away.

Now, I can easily be persuaded that culture might have gone too far in the sexification of our youth (I have daughters). But I have also looked at art from all periods of history.

Guess what I recall? Lots and lots of boobs when the artist could get away with it.

The fact that it is cheaper and easier to create, copy and sell is a change in technology, not a change in the nature of mankind. But this is not something that is 'fixable'.

Wealth allows us to be ourselves. God help us all.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> The thing is,
> A ripped torso is the icing on the cake for most women.
> *
> An overweight lawyer , dressed in a Donna Karan suit would be more likely get a beautiful woman to have sex with or to wed than a garbage collector with a ripped torso.*
> 
> Especially now , more so because women are more financially empowered than before.
> 
> women are looking for their equals in relationships.


Don't you think that this ties in more with traditional gender roles / expectations and stereotyping, though, than objectification per se? ie The overweight lawyer is going to be a better provider than the garbage collector.

I do agree with you that most women these days want equals in a relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Don't you think that this ties in more with traditional gender roles / expectations and stereotyping, though, than objectification per se? ie The overweight lawyer is going to be a better provider than the garbage collector.
> 
> I do agree with you that most women these days want equals in a relationship.


That's because sexual objectification is inextricably linked to gender roles in society.
That's why it is not a new thing, hence the media's portrayal of women is a continuation in part , of that objectification.
Even when you examine male sexual objectification in the media, it is much different from female sexual objectification in the media.
Male sexual objectification in the media is a function of female empowerment in society.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> ...But I have also looked at art from all periods of history.
> 
> Guess what I recall? Lots and lots of boobs when the artist could get away with it.


Very true, but traditional art usually depicted slightly more realistic and more variety in body imaging (think rubenesque)... Except sometimes with men, for some reason... Greek art was renowned for depicting smaller penises:-

_"Greek culture has left a legacy in terms of portraying penis size as small in art. Although Greeks have demonstrated an interest in the genitals, but they were not preoccupied with size. This coincides with the nature of the Greek art as Greeks considered a large phallus to be humorous, and their art was supposed to be austere.

In the arts, small penis identified the ideal or intellectual aspect of the human male, whilst in theatre for example, the person playing the "fool" role wore something like an oversized phallus to indicate his stupidity, the idea being he was therefore closer to animals and less human than his opponent."_

And then we have the biggest cover up of all. The sculptured fig leaf!


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> That's because sexual objectification is inextricably linked to gender roles in society.
> That's why it is not a new thing, hence the media's portrayal of women is a continuation in part , of that objectification.
> Even when you examine male sexual objectification in the media, it is much different from female sexual objectification in the media.
> Male sexual objectification in the media is a function of female empowerment in society.


:iagree: It is a continuation in part - but on a much larger scale than ever before.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> _"Greek culture has left a legacy in terms of portraying penis size as small in art. Although Greeks have demonstrated an interest in the genitals, but they were not preoccupied with size. This coincides with the nature of the Greek art as Greeks considered a large phallus to be humorous, and their art was supposed to be austere.
> 
> In the arts, small penis identified the ideal or intellectual aspect of the human male, whilst in theatre for example, the person playing the "fool" role wore something like an oversized phallus to indicate his stupidity, the idea being he was therefore closer to animals and less human than his opponent."_!


Interesting. I also notice the temple sculptures on the Indian subcontinent tends toward lewd scenes, and the thin waist b*g tits motif, even by modern standards - sexual objectification has ancient roots, but India was very rich back then. They had steel at one time when we were still using bronze swords. 

Indians are very puritan nowadays though... due to poverty?

Around the same time in Mesopotamia, you had a religion where you throw a coin into the lap of a woman who lived at the temple - a kind of 'nun' - and then she would have sex with the supplicant. Kind of institutional prostitution in the name of worship, again, they were wealthy before the river changed course (Ur and Uruk?) and before the climate got more arid, and they had to abandon many of their cities.

The party often seems to end when the desert tribes or the nomads on horseback conquer the towndwellers. Is there some historical link between living in abundance, matriarchy and loose living, and between a Spartan existence, monogamy and fanatical patriarchy? Would be good to see if there are any exceptions.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> Very true, but traditional art usually depicted slightly more realistic and variety in body imaging (think rubenesque)... Except sometimes with men, for some reason... Greek art was renowned for depicting smaller penises:-


I believe it was a status thing. Women who were fat were most likely rich. They could afford the masses of calories which made their girth possible without having to work it off by slaving on the fields.

That being said, reading "The Red Queen" it is postulated that the WEIGHT of a woman is less important that her bust/waist/hip ratio.


If they conform to a specific rate, be it a size zero to a size 14, men's eyes tend to be attracted to it.

But it is much harder to make a marble sculpture than for a ditzy girl dreaming of internet porn riches to take a few shots with a digital camera and the later gets MUCH wider dissemination.

So a few idiots and micro marketing makes these things seem bigger than they actually are.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Interesting. I also notice the temple sculptures on the Indian subcontinent tends toward lewd scenes, and the thin waist b*g tits motif, even by modern standards - sexual objectification has ancient roots, but India was very rich back then. They had steel at one time when we were still using bronze swords.
> 
> Indians are very puritan nowadays though... due to poverty?
> 
> Around the same time in Mesopotamia, you had a religion where you throw a coin into the lap of a woman who lived at the temple - a kind of 'nun' - and then she would have sex with the supplicant. Kind of institutional prostitution in the name of worship, again, they were wealthy before the river changed course (Ur and Uruk?) and before the climate got more arid, and they had to abandon many of their cities.
> 
> The party often seems to end when the desert tribes or the nomads on horseback conquer the towndwellers. Is there some historical link between living in abundance, matriarchy and loose living, and between a Spartan existence, monogamy and fanatical patriarchy? Would be good to see if there are any exceptions.


Actually, ancient art is a bit more complex.

The Greeks were very aloof , and thought of themselves as the most civilized.
Remember it was the Greeks that started the Olympics, and they ere famous for their institutions of learning , and their affinity to good debate. Mars hill is a good example.
The Greek had their own religion , but were very tolerant of other religions. In Athens , there were many shrines dedicated to all sorts of deities , they even had one dedicated " to the unknown God " as mentioned in one of the epistles of St.Paul.
I suspect that the minimizing of the male penis in Greek art has more to do with the fact that hey saw themselves as superior in all other areas. Knowledge , Philosophy , Art , Physical Size and strength, and most of all Military . 



Note in their art and sculpture , all of the men are muscular and almost as if they used steroids. In fact I once read that Greek athletes ate the testicles of rams because the thought it contained the male hormone testosterone.
The portrayal of the shrunken testicles and penis might have been in a effort for the viewer to focus more on the other aspects of the Greek male. Also male nudity in some public places and homosexuality was accepted in Greek society.

However, if you take at Greek erotic art, you will most definitely see the oversize , erect penis.

In other civilizations such as India , Mesopotamia etc, the art always depicted male and female in an ideal form, much like today especially in porn.
Males were always pictured with oversized penises and females were always depicted with large hips and large breasts.
The penis represented virility and power.
The oversized breasts and hips in the female represented fertility.

There are a few interesting carvings and arts in some thousand yr old temples which still stand today like ,
Ranakpur Jain Temples, Rajasthan ,Sun Temple, Orissa ,Padawali Temple, Madhya Pradesh ,Markandeshwar Temple, Maharashtra, and a few others.

Here's a link to a page that features arts , carvings and reliefs:

Erotic Art in Indian Temples

Notice that all of the women's breasts and hips are oversized , as well as the men's penises.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> I believe it was a status thing. Women who were fat were most likely rich. They could afford the masses of calories which made their girth possible without having to work it off by slaving on the fields.


:iagree:

This still applies in some cultures today. Many African males prefer larger wives as it is a sign of success and prosperity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> This still applies in some cultures today. Many African males prefer larger wives as it is a sign of success and prosperity.


You are correct.
A bigger woman, especially on the hips and bustline was seen as more sexually attractive because she was seen as more fertile.
More children translated into prosperity, especially if those babies were male. Families were tightly knit.
Now that too, was a form of sexual objectification of women.
Thin women were mocked and discriminated against. Chances are , they'd never get married because they would not fetch a good dowry [ price.]

Observe in most ancient art , [ except Greek] ,a sexually desirable woman was always portrayed full breasts and hips.

In Bible , the book of the Songs Of Solomon , King Solomon pays tremendous homage to women's breasts and hips. He however made mention once of a woman with small breasts, and it wasn't very complementary.


----------



## Cosmos

^^^

And today we can never be "too thin or too rich!"


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> ^^^
> 
> And today we can never be "too thin or too rich!"


So then the question is , what should be done about all of this?

I asked AA the question yesterday and she didn't respond.

How can all of this be " fixed " outside of each person taking responsibility for educating their kids and learning to love themselves in spite of what is projected to them from the outside?

Should porn be banned?

Should publications featuring airbrushed female models be banned?

What do you suggest , and how do you suggest it can be done?


----------



## Cosmos

^^^

Other than what I suggested several pages back:-

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...l-objectification-society-24.html#post7086985

I'm afraid I don't.

Even if we could, simply banning these things won't work, IMO. We need to educate and police ourselves.


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> No. There was a very related point made which you also chose to not address.
> 
> That when I see Suzy Sexbot, I am never going to meet her. I have no relationship to her. I don't care about her views on global warming or her favorite movie. I am enjoying ONE very apparent aspect of her as a person which she herself is putting out there.
> 
> She is providing a service.
> 
> And this is not any different about anyone else. When I talk to tech support, I don't care a whit about their appearance, their personality, or their political views.
> 
> I care that the blue screen of death goes away.
> 
> Now, I can easily be persuaded that culture might have gone too far in the sexification of our youth (I have daughters). But I have also looked at art from all periods of history.
> 
> Guess what I recall? Lots and lots of boobs when the artist could get away with it.
> 
> The fact that it is cheaper and easier to create, copy and sell is a change in technology, not a change in the nature of mankind. But this is not something that is 'fixable'.
> 
> Wealth allows us to be ourselves. God help us all.


I haven't chosen to ignore anything as I tried to explain to CM. Surely I don't have to respond to every post????

Incidentally he 'chose' to ignore my post explaining this.

I've been away in Brussels on a training course. After a day sat in a classroom trying to ram facts into my poor old head, then evenings out with my wife (I invited her to come with me) friends and sometimes hosts (that was a brilliant meal) I was too tired and too short of time to participate.

I will try to catch up but I am a bit leery of posting in this thread as the topic of rape had come up and I could see some people were struggling with this topic. The last thing I would want to do is inadvertently further hurt somebody who had experienced this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I haven't chosen to ignore anything as I tried to explain to CM. Surely I don't have to respond to every post????
> 
> Incidentally he 'chose' to ignore my post explaining this.
> 
> I've been away in Brussels on a training course. After a day sat in a classroom trying to ram facts into my poor old head, then evenings out with my friends and sometimes hosts (that was a brilliant meal) I was too tired and too short of time to participate.
> 
> I will try to catch up but I am a bit leery of posting in this thread as the topic of rape had come up and I could see some people were struggling with this topic. The last thing I would want to do is inadvertently further hurt somebody who had experienced this.


Wysh,

One of the true marks of a gentleman is honesty.

Post#76 pg 6.

" _However they were fair game for the victors, *their rape regarded as spoils of war. From biblical times through to the present day..*_."

This ^^^post was the first post to mention rape on this thread.
This thread is about sexual objectification and society, _you_ chose to bring rape into the conversation.
At least, own your actions, that's another mark of a gentleman.

If you didn't want to hurt anyone who suffered the trauma of rape, then you shouldn't have brought it into the thread. And the best you can do now is take responsibility for your actions and , publicly apologize for bringing rape into the thread.

Nowhere on this thread can you point out where I or anyone else disagreed with your interpretation of sexual objectification.

Neither has anyone on this thread asked you to leave except someone PM'ed you, then that's on you.

If you could choose not to respond to every post, then by the same token , why can't I or anyone else choose _not_ to respond to your post?

Double standard much?
Nah.
I doubt it.
You're a gentleman, you would never think like that.
Yes?
Incidentally, I responded to all of your post on this thread except three.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> One of the true marks of a gentleman is honesty.
> 
> Post#76 pg 6.
> 
> " _However they were fair game for the victors, *their rape regarded as spoils of war. From biblical times through to the present day..*_."
> 
> This ^^^post was the first post to mention rape on this thread.
> This thread is about sexual objectification and society, _you_ chose to bring rape into the conversation.
> At least, own your actions, that's another mark of a gentleman.
> 
> If you didn't want to hurt anyone who suffered the trauma of rape, then you shouldn't have brought it into the thread. And the best you can do now is take responsibility for your actions and , publicly apologize for bringing rape into the thread.
> 
> Nowhere on this thread can you point out where I or anyone else disagreed with your interpretation of sexual objectification.
> 
> Neither has anyone on this thread asked you to leave except someone PM'ed you, then that's on you.
> 
> If you could choose not to respond to every post, then by the same token , why can't I or anyone else choose _not_ to respond to your post?
> 
> Double standard much?
> Nah.
> I doubt it.
> You're a gentleman, you would never think like that.
> Yes?
> Incidentally, I responded to all of your post on this thread except three.


Well I've just done a simple check and there were at least six mentions of rape before mine, plus you have mentioned the retaining of women for 'breeding' purposes.
So I don't think I'll be publicly apologising for anything thanks.


I only posted that as a response to being called out by both you and JCD for not responding to posts despite my previous post explaining that I have been very busy and unable to post.




JCD said:


> No. There was a very related point made which you also chose to not address.





Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> That's why I asked you if a thief came into your home, wouldn't you protect your wife?
> 
> Which you refused to answer.:scratchhead:



So as you have made a mistake I assume you will be doing the gentlemanly thing and apologising?


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Well I've just done a simple check and there were at least six mentions of rape before mine, plus you have mentioned the retaining of women for 'breeding' purposes.
> So I don't think I'll be publicly apologising for anything thanks.
> 
> 
> I only posted that as a response to being called out by both you and JCD for not responding to posts despite my previous post explaining that I have been very busy and unable to post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as you have made a mistake I assume you will be doing the gentlemanly thing and apologising?



I apologize, my mistake

Post # 17 on page 2 was the first post to bring in the dynamic of women being coerced or forced into sex and porn...

How could I have miss this?

"_ How do we know that the girl we are watching in a porno film isn't in some way being coerced, duped or otherwise taken advantage of?_"
.
.
.
.
Guess who made that post?:rofl:


I clearly stated in my OP that what I was taking about was people involved in CONSENSUAL sex acts like Sasha Grey.
My idea was that they should be allowed to do whatever they wanted with their life , but I am not responsible for their actions.

Seems pretty clear to me now in hindsight that somebody else was trying quite early in the thread to bring in the rape dynamic.


----------



## WyshIknew

I mentioned that I believed that there instances where young vulnerable women are coerced, forced, whatever you want to call it, to 'star' in these films.
I still think this is a valid point and one that you agreed with in your next post after the one you quoted.

And I think it is at least partly, a consequence of sexual objectification.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> I haven't chosen to ignore anything as I tried to explain to CM. Surely I don't have to respond to every post????
> 
> Incidentally he 'chose' to ignore my post explaining this.
> 
> I've been away in Brussels on a training course. After a day sat in a classroom trying to ram facts into my poor old head, then evenings out with my wife (I invited her to come with me) friends and sometimes hosts (that was a brilliant meal) I was too tired and too short of time to participate.
> 
> I will try to catch up but I am a bit leery of posting in this thread as the topic of rape had come up and I could see some people were struggling with this topic. The last thing I would want to do is inadvertently further hurt somebody who had experienced this.



1) Enjoy your time with the Mrs.

2) Good luck with the training

3) Don't discuss rape

4) Respond to the point. Is there any difference between me only seeing the sex appeal of a woman or you just wanting training from a person. Do you see your trainer as a 'whole' person or do you only care about the one aspect? 

It is a human nature thing to conduct a psychic shorthand with people you aren't invested in. But with sex appeal, some wish to make more of this than is actually there.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> I mentioned that I believed that there instances where young vulnerable women are coerced, forced, whatever you want to call it, to 'star' in these films.
> I still think this is a valid point and one that you agreed with in your next post after the one you quoted.
> 
> And I think it is at least partly, a consequence of sexual objectification.


Okay. Law schools are packed. They have many more applicants than there are slots. Lawyers are celebrated and/or excoriated in the media. They are seriously glamorized. Additionally, one in ten lawyers is a millionaire.

Parents see this all around the world. In India, you can be a doctor, an engineer or a lawyer as a chosen career path. And parents act in ways you would expect when it comes to 'encouraging' their kids, will they or nil they.

So...are people 'coerced and forced' to be lawyers? Or does a sense of greed cause them to make choices which they may later regret? (the lawyer glut means they are probably making a mistake careerwise)


----------



## TiggyBlue

WyshIknew said:


> I mentioned that I believed that there instances where young vulnerable women are coerced, forced, whatever you want to call it, to 'star' in these films.
> I still think this is a valid point and one that you agreed with in your next post after the one you quoted.
> 
> And I think it is at least partly, a consequence of sexual objectification.


I think that's one of the danger's of porn, how do you know who's liberated and who's vulnerable?


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> 1) Enjoy your time with the Mrs.
> 
> I did, a bit of an uneven deal as she went shopping and sightseeing while I was training.
> 
> 2) Good luck with the training
> 
> Had a 95% pass.
> 
> 3) Don't discuss rape
> 
> ok
> 
> 4) Respond to the point. Is there any difference between me only seeing the sex appeal of a woman or you just wanting training from a person. Do you see your trainer as a 'whole' person or do you only care about the one aspect?
> 
> It is a human nature thing to conduct a psychic shorthand with people you aren't invested in. But with sex appeal, some wish to make more of this than is actually there.


I don't know how you view a woman so it is difficult to identify any difference.

I've already said that ultimately I am an animal and subject to animal desires and passions, but I am also a rational human who recognises that my desires don't define the object of my desires and she is ultimately far more than a nice smile, pretty eyes, shapely butt, whatever.

My trainer?

I know his name and where he lives. We discussed his neat home automation system,

Audio-TV-Data-Telephone

I know he doesn't like spicy food, what his favourite beer is. I know his wife was ill on Wednesday night as her pregnancy is giving her some problems, she is due early April.

He is a very funny guy who enjoys joking around and he is a natural trainer.

We shared a few songs and some YouTube vids.


Possibly I tend to view things very simplistically?:scratchhead:

Tired now, am on watch at 05:30 tomorrow so hitting the sack.


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> Okay. Law schools are packed. They have many more applicants than there are slots. Lawyers are celebrated and/or excoriated in the media. They are seriously glamorized. Additionally, one in ten lawyers is a millionaire.
> 
> Parents see this all around the world. In India, you can be a doctor, an engineer or a lawyer as a chosen career path. And parents act in ways you would expect when it comes to 'encouraging' their kids, will they or nil they.
> 
> So...are people 'coerced and forced' to be lawyers? Or does a sense of greed cause them to make choices which they may later regret? (the lawyer glut means they are probably making a mistake careerwise)


Yes, as I understand it many people are coerced to be lawyers, engineers, merchant bankers etc.

Many drop out eventually to follow their heart.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I mentioned that I believed that there instances where young vulnerable women are coerced, forced, whatever you want to call it, to 'star' in these films.
> I still think this is a valid point and one that you agreed with in your next post after the one you quoted.
> 
> And I think it is at least partly, a consequence of sexual objectification.


What percentage of actors in the porn industry do you think are forced into it against their own will?

Here are just a few LEGAL regulations governing the Adult industry in the USA and UK.

1] _" In the United States Code of Regulations, under title Title 18, Section 2257, no performers under the age of 18 are allowed to be employed by adult industry production companies. The failure to abide by this regulation, results in civil and criminal prosecutions. To enforce the age entry restriction, all adult industry production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records that documents and holds records of the ages of all performers..."_

2] _"*The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, subtitle N (§7501 et seq.), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4485, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress, and part of the United States Code, which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction..*."
_
3]"_ Extreme pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government in Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,[3] which made possession of such images a criminal offense from 26 January 2009.[4][5] It refers to pornography (defined as an image which "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal") which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real..."
_

4]_" Due to the international nature of the Internet, Internet pornography carries with it special issues with regard to the law. There is no one set of laws that apply to the distribution, purchase, or possession of Internet pornography. Only the laws of one's home nation apply with regard to distributing or possessing Internet pornography. This means that, for example, even if a pornographer is legally distributing pornography, the person receiving it may not be legally doing so due to local laws..."_

5] "_ In response to an actress who tested positive to HIV in 1998, the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation was started. After AIM's procedures were followed, the company found four more women infected with HIV. Since then, AIM has created services and programs such as STD testing and treatment, hepatitis vaccinations, alcohol and drug treatment, prevention education, "life after porn" scholarships, medical check up and group counseling [10]._."

~Adult film industry regulations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Here's and interesting , fact based , no bs approach to the industry by feminists.
Naked Feminism: The Unionization of the Adult
Entertainment Industry.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> Yes, as I understand it many people are coerced to be lawyers, engineers, merchant bankers etc.
> 
> Many drop out eventually to follow their heart.


There is nary a difference between the two...except you don't actually have many parents pushing their daughters to become porn stars....

So actually, one of these is MUCH more coersive...and it isn't the porn star...

Now, there is coerced prostitution and anyone who has a lack of money will feel pressure to find the money somehow. But in the end, you (generic) don't get to cite female empowerment and autonomy on the one hand, and then suddenly give these same girls a free moral pass for MAKING THEIR OWN CHOICES. And that is what the 'coerced' argument boils down to: these are nice girls who have no other options.

Well crud. I am much more sympathetic to the small number of girls in Thailand who have much more pressure because they had zero education or job prospects in their home provinces. But guess what? The unemployment rate in Thailand is almost zero...and there are fewer and fewer women going into that line of work as a result. 

They don't have a social network and frequently have BIG families to support.

Except in view of criminal circumstances, there is no gun held to anyone's head. We have a social network which provides basic sustenance.

But this isn't interesting to the girls going into this industry. They don't want 'basic' anything. They want the big ball of wax.

So I am a lot less moved by the 'coerced and forced' aspect for the reasons cited above. This is not the era of _Moll Flanders_ or _Les Miserables_, where the only path for a woman to make any money was sewing or on her back (though that is still the case in some parts of the world)

The fact they don't choose these other options is on them.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> I don't know how you view a woman so it is difficult to identify any difference.
> 
> I've already said that ultimately I am an animal and subject to animal desires and passions, but I am also a rational human who recognises that my desires don't define the object of my desires and she is ultimately far more than a nice smile, pretty eyes, shapely butt, whatever.
> 
> My trainer?
> 
> I know his name and where he lives. We discussed his neat home automation system,
> 
> Audio-TV-Data-Telephone
> 
> I know he doesn't like spicy food, what his favourite beer is. I know his wife was ill on Wednesday night as her pregnancy is giving her some problems, she is due early April.
> 
> He is a very funny guy who enjoys joking around and he is a natural trainer.
> 
> We shared a few songs and some YouTube vids.
> 
> 
> Possibly I tend to view things very simplistically?:scratchhead:
> 
> Tired now, am on watch at 05:30 tomorrow so hitting the sack.


And if I met Suzy Sexbot after her set at the Strip-O-Rama and we had a REAL conversation and not a bar conversation, I would ALSO embrace more aspects of her personhood than her magnificent set of Ta Tas. 

That is how people work. But in the artificial environment of performance or training, we only look at one aspect of the person.



Mmm...personal anecdote time. And this sort of contradicts everything I said before, but it is important to be honest.

I recall a couple of decades ago, Pamela Anderson had that supposedly stolen sex tape put out. A friend loaned me a copy...but the whole thing was pretty much ruined for me in the first 5 minutes.

What happened in the first five minutes? It was a rather mundane scene. She was in a big bubble bath and Tommy came in with his video camera. You could see that she was appalled and embarrassed at this violation of her privacy. She was enjoying some alone time.

This took her from 'sex object' to 'real person'. So I could not enjoy her as much as a 'sex object' anymore.

However, the tape was for a single purpose, and it wasn't 'to embrace her as a real person'. (I don't buy it was stolen, btw. I think the couple wanted it both ways. I could be wrong)

And later, she may have been appalled by THAT invasion of her privacy, but she had no problem putting herself out in a variety of other public displays. She performed...and acted drunk and stupid. So she was a drunk, stupid sexy real person with poor personal boundaries.

Like I said, I didn't enjoy the tape that much...because I wasn't looking for a new friend. I was looking for a specific function. And Pamela never sold herself as 'real person'. She constantly and willfully sold herself as a 'sex icon'.

Some people PURPOSEFULLY objectify themselves. It isn't inflicted. It is EMBRACED. Look at the Virgin Queen for another woman grasping an Icon.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> What percentage of actors in the porn industry do you think are forced into it against their own will?
> 
> Here are just a few LEGAL regulations governing the Adult industry in the USA and UK.
> 
> 1] _" In the United States Code of Regulations, under title Title 18, Section 2257, no performers under the age of 18 are allowed to be employed by adult industry production companies. The failure to abide by this regulation, results in civil and criminal prosecutions. To enforce the age entry restriction, all adult industry production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records that documents and holds records of the ages of all performers..."_
> 
> 2] _"*The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, subtitle N (§7501 et seq.), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4485, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress, and part of the United States Code, which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction..*."
> _
> 3]"_ Extreme pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government in Part 5, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008,[3] which made possession of such images a criminal offense from 26 January 2009.[4][5] It refers to pornography (defined as an image which "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal") which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character", and portrays any of the following:
> (a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
> (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
> (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
> (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
> and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real..."
> _
> 
> 4]_" Due to the international nature of the Internet, Internet pornography carries with it special issues with regard to the law. There is no one set of laws that apply to the distribution, purchase, or possession of Internet pornography. Only the laws of one's home nation apply with regard to distributing or possessing Internet pornography. This means that, for example, even if a pornographer is legally distributing pornography, the person receiving it may not be legally doing so due to local laws..."_
> 
> 5] "_ In response to an actress who tested positive to HIV in 1998, the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation was started. After AIM's procedures were followed, the company found four more women infected with HIV. Since then, AIM has created services and programs such as STD testing and treatment, hepatitis vaccinations, alcohol and drug treatment, prevention education, "life after porn" scholarships, medical check up and group counseling [10]._."
> 
> ~Adult film industry regulations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Here's and interesting , fact based , no bs approach to the industry by feminists.
> Naked Feminism: The Unionization of the Adult
> Entertainment Industry.


To be honest CM I don't have a clue. It's not something I have researched.

I did find this in seconds on Google.

Please, if anyone finds this distressing or traumatic let me know and I will delete it. It was awful for me to read let alone someone who has experienced a sexual attack/trauma.


http://todaango.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sex-Trafficking-for-Production-of-Pornography.pdf


----------



## Cosmos

No matter how willingly these young women enter the sex industry, one does have to seriously wonder at the mental health / ability of anyone who willingly earns money by, inter alia, licking toilet seats, allowing themselves to be gang banged by a bunch of well-endowed men, spat on, degraded, humiliated and nonchalantly accepting that they could well be faecally incontinent by the tender age of 25...

If I saw a young woman self-injuring or standing precariously on the edge of a high building, the last thing I could do is encourage her by paying to watch her do it - simply telling myself "Her choice. No one's making her do it." No matter _how much_ she was getting paid, morally I just couldn't allow myself to watch - _just for kicks_.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos said:


> No matter how willingly these young women enter the sex industry, one does have to seriously wonder at the mental health / ability of anyone who willingly earns money by, inter alia, licking toilet seats, allowing themselves to be gang banged by a bunch of well-endowed men, spat on, degraded, humiliated and nonchalantly accepts that they could well be faecally incontinent by the tender age of 25...


Most have been sexually abused as children and this is the continuation of it. What we tell ourselves though is that these women want and love to do this, it's harmless and they're having fun. That's the defense mechanism viewers employ. It's a way to detach themselves from the reality of it all.


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Most have been sexually abused as children and this is the continuation of it. What we tell ourselves though is that these women want and love to do this, it's harmless and they're having fun. That's the defense mechanism viewers employ. It's a way to detach themselves from the reality of it all.


This is one of my main concerns about it, TRBE, and I believe these young women are damaging themselves even further at a very deep level

As a woman and a mother, I can't help _but_ identify with them, and I feel great pain on their behalf... 

Neither my SO nor I are interested in porn, but if he did watch it my feelings wouldn't be of jealousy and insecurity (things women are often accused of when they object to porn), but I would question the value and respect he places on me and my gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> To be honest CM I don't have a clue. It's not something I have researched.
> 
> I did find this in seconds on Google.
> 
> Please, if anyone finds this distressing or traumatic let me know and I will delete it. It was awful for me to read let alone someone who has experienced a sexual attack/trauma.
> 
> 
> http://todaango.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Sex-Trafficking-for-Production-of-Pornography.pdf


Therein lies your problem.
You don't have any statistics to prove that people are actually forced into the legitimate Adult Entertainment industry. All you have are assumptions.

Do you know any woman who is or was a stripper or prostitute?
Well I did . 
Outside of human trafficking cases , they all have a couple of things in common.
A history of sexual abuse and drug and alcohol abuse .

Having read the link that you posted I also saw the same thing there :

_My agent forced me to use a driver because he knew I was always wasted. About 75% of the women who make porn have to have drivers because they’re addicted to drugs and alcohol.” 10 Madelyne suggested that the doctors might be receiving kick-backs from the pornography producers.
" When Madelyne could not longer perform in porn scenes because “No one wanted to hire me because of my drug and alcohol problem was out of control,” her agent suggested she go into prostitution and stripping..."_

Right there is the problem. These women and men make a series of bad choices in life and porn is usually the final stop and a convenient scapegoat. But in the end, it's THEIR CHOICE. 

Hear this.
I have an older brother who is a drug addict , sleeping on the streets. When he was much younger , he got involved in a life of crime . He joined a highly organized criminal gang and got himself in trouble repeatedly . Clearly he was being used by its overlords , but he was highly paid . He lived a life of opulence.
He got hooked on crack cocaine in the 80's , and from there it was a downward slide. It cost our family probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees etc , to get him out of trouble every time he got himself in trouble.
But things just got worse, his drug use got chronic.
I have literally spent tens of thousands of dollars running behind him , 
Cleaning him up , giving him my own clothes ,
Visiting him in prison ,
Getting him into expensive drug rehab programs , 
Hired him to work for me and he only shows up once ,
Purchasing groceries for him , purchasing personal stuff like toothpaste and soap for him ( he sells them to buy drugs ) , 
And much , much more.

For over twenty years I've done all that I can to help him. The last thing I did was tell him my house is always open to him for a warm bath , a hot meal and a clean set of clothes and pair of shoes. So he comes from time to time, and I clothe and feed him.
I forgot to mention , that he also owned a house which he sold all the furniture and appliances to purchase drugs. When he tried to sell the house for a meager $20 K , I had to step in and legally take over the property. It was worth around $500K. That house was an empty shell , I refurbished it and my sister now lives in it. Ironically there's also a room there for him , which I instructed her to leave empty , so whenever he felt like it , he could return there, under one condition , no drug use , because she has kids.

Who do you think I should blame for my brothers lifestyle?
Was it that he was abused as a child ?
Well , we all got smacked when we were young.
Was it because he didn't have access to proper opportunities ?
He dropped out of school.
Was it because there wasn't any father around?
Well , we both had the same parents and they got divorced. He was luckier than the rest of us. Our grandfather took him under his personal care and gave him everything he wanted. He was the apple of our grandparents eyes.

So who would you blame for my brothers current condition , sleeping on the streets , addicted to drugs Wysh?

Show me a porn actor or actress who's been to jail numerous times , who has slept on filthy streets in rain , who's been beaten and robbed for $5.00 and a crack pipe ,who begs on the street for money to buy drugs , who simply can't help themselves even though help is waiting right there for them. 
Do you know of any?

I thought so.

Me neither.

But I have a crack addicted older brother whose been through one hundred times worse than that , and still , sometimes he tries to help himself.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Most have been sexually abused as children and this is the continuation of it. What we tell ourselves though is that these women want and love to do this, it's harmless and they're having fun. That's the defense mechanism viewers employ. It's a way to detach themselves from the reality of it all.



And how do we explain those people who film themselves doing all sorts of sexual acts and sell vids to porn producers for cash?

How do we explain the plethora of " user submitted " clips on the internet ,that people call amateur porn?

What about those who take " selfie " shots and submit the to porn sites FOR FREE ?

Who's responsible for that?

I have a beautiful cousin who posed nude for a men's mag .
She was a final year student at a foreign university . 

That was the first time I saw any of my uncles cry.

She was his only daughter , his pride and joy. He was one of the head honchos in the company he with and one of his subordinates showed him the mag.

There was no history of sexual abuse there.


----------



## Cosmos

CM, I'm sorry about your brother... I can empathize because I lost my only brother to the side effects of an alcoholic, and eventually homeless, lifestyle. He was 54 when he died.


----------



## WyshIknew

I never claimed to have hard and fast evidence. I do try to say that something is 'what I believe' or 'in my opinion' when I do not have full data.

Whether it is their choice or not it doesn't make the exploitation or consequences of objectification any less real.
So because porn star A and B enter into the world willingly it makes it ok that C does not?

I think the question is not so much that the industry exists and the reasoning behind the people who enter it. It is why the industry exists in the manner it does and what facilitates it that is the problem.

Sorry to hear about your brother, that kind of stuff can really rip families apart. Hopefully one day he wakes up and decides that today is the day he sorts himself out.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> And how do we explain those people who film themselves doing all sorts of sexual acts and sell vids to porn producers for cash?
> 
> How do we explain the plethora of " user submitted " clips on the internet ,that people call amateur porn?
> 
> What about those who take " selfie " shots and submit the to porn sites FOR FREE ?
> 
> Who's responsible for that?
> 
> I have a beautiful cousin who posed nude for a men's mag .
> She was a final year student at a foreign university .
> 
> That was the first time I saw any of my uncles cry.
> 
> She was his only daughter , his pride and joy. He was one of the head honchos in the company he with and one of his subordinates showed him the mag.
> 
> There was no history of sexual abuse there.


Exhibitionism is a well known kink. That is someone's sexuality and as far as I am concerned someone's sexuality ≠ objectification. Although I wonder if a psychologist could make a claim that over objectification helps fuel exhibitionism?


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Lastly, I am 100% pro-sex and pro-filming sex. I am a voyeur and love watching others. There are plenty of people who record and upload themselves because they like to be watched and plenty of others (like me) who like to watch them. Not supporting commercial ventures that prey on the most downtrodden and vulnerable of society isn't going to cramp anybody's style.


I don't have a problem with this, either. I'm not someone who enjoys watching others have sex, but understand that others do, and that is their prerogative. However, the problem I do have is the scale and accessibility of internet porn and the exploitation / objectification of women (by themselves or others), because of the wider damage it is doing to younger members of society.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Exhibitionism is a well known kink. That is someone's sexuality and as far as I am concerned someone's sexuality ≠ objectification. Although I wonder if a psychologist could make a claim that over objectification helps fuel exhibitionism?


Wysh,

Fundamentally , pornography is based in the exhibitionism fetish.
Even before cameras and recording devices existed , porn existed in live sex shoes.
Back in the old days , the Roman colosseum was used to host live sex shows with willing participants.
That is the history of porn.

And yes,
Kinks = Sexual objectification.
Voyeurism = Sexual Objectification.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> Fundamentally , pornography is based in the exhibitionism fetish.
> Even before cameras and recording devices existed , porn existed in live sex shoes.
> Back in the old days , the Roman colosseum was used to host live sex shows with willing participants.
> That is the history of porn.
> 
> And yes,
> Kinks = Sexual objectification.


Where we were in Brussels, and we weren't in a seedy run down place I can assure you, there were numerous porn outlets and shows. Le Plaza Hotel Brussels | Luxury hotel in Brussels

At one point you seemed to have a baby shop, porn shop, grocers, strip show, chemist, porn shop etc.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Wysh,
> 
> Fundamentally , pornography is based in the exhibitionism fetish.
> Even before cameras and recording devices existed , porn existed in live sex shoes.
> Back in the old days , the Roman colosseum was used to host live sex shows with willing participants.
> That is the history of porn.
> 
> And yes,
> Kinks = Sexual objectification.
> Voyeurism = Sexual Objectification.


Live sex shoes.


Man, I gotta get me some of them! :rofl:


Cue a new Nancy Sinatra song.

These shoes are made for bonking.
And that's just what they'll do,
One of these days these shoes are gonna bonk all over you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos said:


> I don't have a problem with this, either. I'm not someone who enjoys watching others have sex, but understand that others do, and that is their prerogative. However, the problem I do have is the scale and accessibility of internet porn and the exploitation / objectification of women (by themselves or others), because of the wider damage it is doing to younger members of society.


Is it the accessibility you object to? I fully understand that. As a parent, I know where you are coming from. We set blockers. As for exploitation/objectification, that's something that is close to my heart. The type of porn I mention is couples porn. Everyday people who set up a camera in their bedroom and upload it. 

I understand about our younger generation and their views of women based on porn. I think it was a U.K. study but cannot remember what university did it, however it was that something like 40% of boys that actually got to see real breasts were disappointed as they looked nothing like the women in porn. Might I add......commercial porn.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The fact that you can't see the difference between someone who films themself having sex with a boyfriend vs. a woman who has been raped since the age of 7 and now works in porn, shows me you really have no idea what you are talking about.
> You visited brothels for years telling all of us here that they loved being there, enjoyed their work and were happy. You fashioned yourself some sort of gentleman because you were supporting them with your money. Those women were also some mans daughter. I like you but your hypocrisy is staggering.


what really is the difference between two persons or one person filming themselves doing sexual acts and selling it for cash to porn companies , and a professional porn vid?
And how do you know for sure that the woman in the private vid wasn't also raped when she was 7 years old ?

I think you're just making wild assumptions.

Maybe you can show me exactly where my hypocrisy lies?

I am probably the only person on TAM that thinks that prostitution should be legalized so that those who live by it can be treated with respect.

I am the also probably the only person here who said thet there is absolutely no difference between casual sex and prostitution.
In fact I have stated here quite recently that society is very hypocritical in it's approach to prostitution.

Here's an excerpt from my OP

_" Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.

I used Sasha Grey as an example because porn is the most obvious example of the many double standards and convoluted mess that is the modern day concept of sexual objectification.

Reality is, sexual liberalism , which is central to feminist philosophy,[ and rightly so ] dictates that each person develops their own code of ethics and not judge another person's sexual preferences, or use of their body..."_

There is not a single post from me that you can point to where I have EVER condemned prostitution or prostitute. In fact I have more respect for them than some people who aren't into it.

What I do understand very clearly though, is that even if a person has been sexually abused and ends up doing porn, then that's their choice if they were not forced.

Are there organizations working to help people come out of porn?
Yes.
Can any woman be forced out of porn by anyone willing to help her?
No.
You survived and came out because you accepted help.

In the meantime, those who choose to stay are very well within their rights.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Live sex shoes.
> 
> 
> Man, I gotta get me some of them! :rofl:
> 
> 
> Cue a new Nancy Sinatra song.
> 
> These shoes are made for bonking.
> And that's just what they'll do,
> One of these days these shoes are gonna bonk all over you.


It happens regularly when using an ipad and stylus with auto correct.



It happens when using an ipad with auto correct, and a stylus.

Man , you're like a lexicographer


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> I don't have a problem with this, either. I'm not someone who enjoys watching others have sex, but understand that others do, and that is their prerogative. However, the problem I do have is the scale and accessibility of internet porn and the exploitation / objectification of women (by themselves or others), because of the wider damage it is doing to younger members of society.


I think it is possible that people can confuse sex and sexuality with objectification.

There was an experiment done some time ago where they connected a camera and sensors to a pair of spectacles. They had men wearing them, and even when they were warned that they would do this their gaze was tracked and every woman they met their gaze flicked from face to breasts to legs/hips.

The experiment wasn't done on women to the best of my knowledge but I'm fairly sure that I've been 'scanned' when walking around.
I think that isn't objectification, it is just nature. sex and sexuality can increase our feelings of self worth, over objectification can diminish it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I don't have a problem with this, either. I'm not someone who enjoys watching others have sex, but understand that others do, and that is their prerogative.
> 
> *However, the problem I do have is the scale and accessibility of internet porn and the exploitation / objectification of women (by themselves or others), because of the wider damage it is doing to younger members of society.*


And this^^^right there is the crux of the matter. That's another reason I started this thread.
That's the central question . How much responsibility should society accept for the actions of people involved in those type of activities that other people choose not to associate themselves with?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> It happens regularly when using an ipad and stylus with auto correct.
> 
> 
> 
> It happens when using an ipad with auto correct.
> 
> Man , you're like a lexicographer




Sorry about that, it's just that given the context of the discussion 'live sex shoes' seemed so funny to me!


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I think it is possible that people can confuse sex and sexuality with objectification.
> 
> There was an experiment done some time ago where they connected a camera and sensors to a pair of spectacles. They had men wearing them, and even when they were warned that they would do this their gaze was tracked and every woman they met their gaze flicked from face to breasts to legs/hips.
> 
> The experiment wasn't done on women to the best of my knowledge but I'm fairly sure that I've been 'scanned' when walking around.
> I think that isn't objectification, it is just nature. sex and sexuality can increase our feelings of self worth, over objectification can diminish it.


It is sexual objectification.

But it isn't destructive because it has no real effect on the person being viewed.
But if we expand it, some people seem to say that there is a collective effect on society where men begin to view women as just breast . hips and legs, and there might be some validity to it.
The question is how much.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> And this^^^right there is the crux of the matter. That's another reason I started this thread.
> That's the central question . How much responsibility should society accept for the actions of people involved in those type of activities that other people choose not to associate themselves with?


That's sort of why I posted that for me it was not so much the porn, more the why of the porn and what is facilitating it?

What on earth makes someone want to watch (from my link earlier) a young girl getting hurt by three guys so badly that she can't even use the toilet afterwards?
To me that is objectification and more, just literally using her as a piece of meat.


----------



## Cosmos

> *Therealbrighteyes;*
> 
> Is it the accessibility you object to? I fully understand that. As a parent, I know where you are coming from. We set blockers. As for exploitation/objectification, that's something that is close to my heart. The type of porn I mention is couples porn. Everyday people who set up a camera in their bedroom and upload it.
> 
> Yes, the accessibility concerns me, because in the UK we have kids watching it in the school yard. For every parent who might set blockers on their child's phone or PC, there's another parent who doesn't, and kids just love sharing with one another!
> 
> I should imagine that homemade porn is unlikely to be of the degrading variety that I've seen on the net and, even if it is, I doubt that it's as freely available?
> 
> I understand about our younger generation and their views of women based on porn. I think it was a U.K. study but cannot remember what university did it, however it was that something like 40% of boys that actually got to see real breasts were disappointed as they looked nothing like the women in porn. Might I add......commercial porn.
> 
> I agree. And it's alarming that youngsters are using porn as a form of self-help sex education. They're too young to understand that it's fantasy, and the messages that they're receiving from porn are, apparently:-
> 
> 
> 
> Only people of a certain race, ethnicity, age, body type, etc. have-or should have-sex. The visual representation of sexual behaviors in porn speaks volumes and reinforces age-old sexist, racist, ageist, ableist and other stereotypes.
> 
> 
> Bigger is better-whether penises, breasts, buttocks (on women) or muscles (on men). The number one question adolescents ask is, “Am I normal?” Porn reinforces the idea that young people are not “okay” unless their bodies look like what they see represented. This can have a significant effect on viewers’ self-esteem and body image.
> 
> 
> Girls and women exist to “service” men. Even same-sex porn between women is created for men. I worked with a group of seventh-grade boys, where we were discussing gender stereotypes. I asked them to describe boys and received unsurprising responses: “strong, athletic, funny.” When I asked about girls, the first response I received was, “Girls are here to give lap dances to guys.” There is absolutely no reason why a seventh-grade boy should know what a lap dance is, let alone have the accompanying value that a girl’s worth is in performing one.
> 
> 
> Hook up; don’t look for relationships. Porn does not tend to depict love relationships. It depicts one-time hook-ups, usually without showing or even discussing condoms or other latex barriers. Adults are alarmed by teen hook-up culture, but it’s not exclusive to teens, and it’s certainly reinforced by what is in porn.
> 
> 
> Answer - Sex Ed, Honestly -- The Trouble With Teens and Porn


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> It is sexual objectification.
> 
> But it isn't destructive because it has no real effect on the person being viewed.
> But if we expand it, some people seem to say that there is a collective effect on society where men begin to view women as just breast . hips and legs, and there might be some validity to it.
> The question is how much.


I think a certain amount of objectification is inevitable, and as has been pointed out it has been going on since time immemorial.
Does that mean that we have to perpetuate it or make it worse?


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> What on earth makes someone want to watch (from my link earlier) a young girl getting hurt by three guys so badly that she can't even use the toilet afterwards?
> To me that is objectification and more, just literally using her as a piece of meat.


An excerpt from my OP;

_" And while I'm no longer a consumer of porn , even if I was I wouldn't be viewing her type of porn , that's my personal code of ethics..."_

I really can't figure out why someone who is able to represent herself in a very professional manner on a widely viewed talk show ,would subject themselves to _that_ type of treatment.

The only conclusion I can come to is the money.


I remember sometime ago , there was a young Brazilian girl who auctioned her virginity online to the highest bidder.


That's the reality of when sexual liberalism and internet technology meet.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I think a certain amount of objectification is inevitable, and as has been pointed out it has been going on since time immemorial.
> Does that mean that we have to perpetuate it or make it worse?


Well that's the million dollar question Wysh.

How much is too much in a society that promotes individual rights over the collective?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> An excerpt from my OP;
> 
> _" And while I'm no longer a consumer of porn , even if I was I wouldn't be viewing her type of porn , that's my personal code of ethics..."_
> 
> I really can't figure out why someone who is able to represent herself in a very professional manner on a widely viewed talk show ,would subject themselves to _that_ type of treatment.
> 
> The only conclusion I can come to is the money.
> 
> 
> I remember sometime ago , there was a young Brazilian girl who auctioned her virginity online to the highest bidder.
> 
> 
> That's the reality of when sexual liberalism and internet technology meet.


Money, a society that makes it possible and psychiatric concerns maybe. Many professional, rational sounding people are actually completely fruitbats.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well that's the million dollar question Wysh.
> 
> How much is too much in a society that promotes individual rights over the collective?


That is possibly an unanswerable question.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos, all excellent points and ones I don't have an answer for.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> If I saw a young woman self-injuring or standing precariously on the edge of a high building, the last thing I could do is encourage her by paying to watch her do it - simply telling myself "Her choice. No one's making her do it." No matter _how much_ she was getting paid, morally I just couldn't allow myself to watch - _just for kicks_.


You mean like this?











People do this all the time. You have watched a movie where a real person died in it's production.


----------



## southbound

trey69 said:


> I guess everyone is being Objectified in some way.
> 
> When I think of Tyra Banks in Victoria Secret lingerie, I think of nothing no more than someone out on the beach in a swimsuit. At least they are somewhat covered.
> 
> As far as porn stars like Sasha Grey, being spat on, licking toilet seats, having gang bangs, etc, I see someone who thinks very little of herself. She can say all day long she enjoys it, and for the $right price$ I'm sure she does. Most see dollar signs and thats it. And yes, some may actually enjoy it, in the beginning. I doubt most continue to do once they get heavier into the lifestyle. I would think over time it would begin to chip away at their emotional self esteem, but then again there may not have been that much there to begin with since that was their chosen career.
> 
> I'm sure the people who choose that lifestyle do not see themselves as being objectified, just as the people selling it. They don't see it that way because theres usually a certain amount of denial they live in to keep them thinking the way they do, and keeps them where they are at. JMO.


I agree. I see a big difference between what the two did.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do this all the time. You have watched a movie where a real person died in it's production.


I knew someone would come up with this analogy... In fact, I'd actually thought of stunt artists performing dangerous stunts and motorsport, so I do get what you're saying... Of course people die and are injured doing other things, and of course people watch these things regardless.

The difference is that the stunt artist is taking _very carefully calculated_ risks in the possibility of an injury, whereas the porn actress is often being coerced / encouraged into taking more and more risks that a mentally healthy individual would not normally choose to take. 

You and others may choose to see things differently (which is your right), but _to me _hard core porn is little more than the celebration of the degradation and humiliation of my own gender.

I don't blame men for this ultimate (IMO) objectification of women. I blame our society in which enough is never enough and more is never enough, either - no matter what the consequences...


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> I knew someone would come up with this analogy... In fact, I'd actually thought of stunt artists performing dangerous stunts and motorsport, so I do get what you're saying... Of course people die and are injured doing other things, and of course people watch these things regardless.
> 
> The difference is that the stunt artist is taking _very carefully calculated_ risks in the possibility of an injury, whereas the porn actress is often being coerced / encouraged into taking more and more risks that a mentally healthy individual would not normally choose to take.
> 
> You and others may choose to see things differently, but to me hard core porn is little more than *the celebration of the defilement of my own gender*.


I think this is the nub of the issue.

Hard core stuff (which is not the majority by a long shot) is about power fantasies, usually upon women.

Which again goes to my constant refrain for accurate data about rapes.

People say similar things about video games: they cause violence. However, looking at murder and assault stats, which are less prone to the whims of sexual politics, that doesn't appear to be the case.

So I wish I could be able to say definitively that the fears of women are or are not justified.

FOR THE MOST PART, I think hard core porn (pain and serious submission) is not good for the soul of the man watching, particularly in large quantities. It certainly isn't good for the women involved, though I could probably think of a number of more dangerous jobs, at least physically.

I say FOR THE MOST PART because I have to wonder...if the number one female fantasy is to be raped in a romantic and sexually alluring way (See Shades of Gray, female porn), why is it automatically wrong for men to occasionally indulge in their own 'rape' fantasies as long as no one is seriously thinking about actually conducting the act?

After all, we don't accuse the women who buy bodice rippers of seriously WANTING to be a rape victim. (I am leaving aside mouth breathers who are moral morons) It is for the most part harmless taboo mental titillation. Why do we accuse men of watching an occasional aggressive movie of wanting to 'celebrate the defilement of women?'

Please note, I am just offering devil's arguments so we can explore these ideas. 

I can't tell you the number of women on this forum who 'wished their husband's were a little rougher'. Should we throw the same accusations of mental and moral sickness on them?


**

I have to ask: how is it somehow less dangerous for a woman to swing on a rope four stories up, or go into a cage full of lions than to lick a toilet bowl which was cleaned by bleach about five seconds before she licked it? And the coercion element...it exists. Perhaps not to the extent you believe any more than that of anyone else having to do things they hate because of their job "Honey...I really hate to miss our anniversary but..."

This is more a matter of degree than of kind.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD, the rape fantasy of _some_ women is not held by all, and I doubt that it's that well thought out... I also doubt that those fantasies involve anal rape, the possibilities of STDs and other forms of brutal violence....

As a teen I fantasized about being an astronaut. The fact that, in reality, I was claustrophobic and would probably have flunked the grueling training of an astronaut didn't come into the equation. I just liked the fantasy of wearing one of those big white suits and wafting around in outer space...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I knew someone would come up with this analogy... In fact, I'd actually thought of stunt artists performing dangerous stunts and motorsport, so I do get what you're saying... Of course people die and are injured doing other things, and of course people watch these things regardless.
> 
> *The difference is that the stunt artist is taking very carefully calculated risks in the possibility of an injury, whereas the porn actress is often being coerced / encouraged into taking more and more risks that a mentally healthy individual would not normally choose to take. *
> 
> *You and others may choose to see things differently (which is your right), but to me hard core porn is little more than the celebration of the degradation and humiliation of my own gender*.
> 
> I don't blame men for this ultimate (IMO) objectification of women. I blame our society in which enough is never enough and more is never enough, either - no matter what the consequences...


Cosmos,

I agree 100% with SOME of what you said above.

Here's the part I agree with:

"* but to me hard core porn is little more than the celebration of the degradation and humiliation of my own gender*[/B]..."

I agree with this because somehow I've always felt the same. As I've said earlier on in this thread , my preference when I viewed porn was always softcore porn which IMO , focused more on the beauty aspect of the female body.Camera angles and so on, no penetration etc.But that was just_ my_ preference.
I just never liked hardcore stuff, maybe because it was never my idea that six men should be having sex with one woman or that a man should be spilling his DNA all over a woman's face. Something's not " natural " or beautiful about that IMO.

However you do recognize that people like you and I are in the minority?
I say this because even though you might be tempted to think that most women don't like porn, research and observers are saying that more and more women are viewing and consuming porn. In fact they are almost equal in number as men. I suppose that's what's feeding the industry.
What's also interesting is the type of porn most women say they like.
It seems they prefer gay , [ male on male ] porn ,or lesbian porn.
Maybe the fantasy of sexual domination also exists among females too, just in a different way to men. Maybe it's a thing with the younger females., or maybe it's the ease of accessibility and privacy of internet porn. But more and more women say they're into it now.
I know for sure from reading articles, that there that there are now quite a few female ex porn actresses who now own their own companies and produce porn exclusively for females.


I think in the end, it all comes down to the almighty " _dead presidents ._" [ US dollars.]


----------



## always_alone

The focus on choice insinuates that all choices are equally rational and equally informed. While a few may enter the sex trade knowing full well what they are getting into, and in control of their economies and destinies, the more typical story is a very young woman, economically desperate, with few options, and with very little idea of the reality she is getting into and the degree to which she'll need to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol to ease the pain and humiliation: 
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/28/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-about-the-porn-industry/

The focus on law ignore the various unsavoury predatory practices of a sex trade industry perpetually seeking fresh meat:
FBI â€” Human Sex Trafficking

The focus on a "service, just like any other" discounts the research that shows that while men are also sexualized, they are still viewed as persons, whereas women are viewed as objects, whose sole purpose is the gratification of male fantasy:
Sex objects: Pictures shift men's view of women | Science | theguardian.com


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The focus on choice insinuates that all choices are equally rational and equally informed. While a few may enter the sex trade knowing full well what they are getting into, and in control of their economies and destinies, the more typical story is a very young woman, economically desperate, with few options, and with very little idea of the reality she is getting into and the degree to which she'll need to self-medicate with drugs and alcohol to ease the pain and humiliation:
> Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry
> 
> The focus on law ignore the various unsavoury predatory practices of a sex trade industry perpetually seeking fresh meat:
> FBI â€” Human Sex Trafficking
> 
> The focus on a "service, just like any other" discounts the research that shows that while men are also sexualized, they are still viewed as persons, whereas women are viewed as objects, whose sole purpose is the gratification of male fantasy:
> Sex objects: Pictures shift men's view of women | Science | theguardian.com



Lemme ask you something.

Do you believe that the same excuse about "_ choices not being equally rational and equally informed_ " could or should be applied to young men who go astray and join criminal gangs , commit serious, violent crimes like robbery , rape, murder and so forth?

See, I sometimes counsel young convicts in the juvenile prison in our country and the first thing I ask any new batch of prisoners is:
" _why are you here?_"
Then they start with all sorts of excuses about single parent, society, abuse everything from A-Z.
Then I tell then ; " _Shaddup!_"
" _You're here because yo choose to be here. Full stop, and repeat after me!_"
Then they say:
"_I'm here because I chose to be here.._"
After that , then we talk about the _circumstances_ , leading up to them being convicted.
Was I wrong to tell them that?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> *However you do recognize that people like you and I are in the minority?*
> I say this because even though you might be tempted to think that most women don't like porn, research and observers are saying that more and more women are viewing and consuming porn. In fact they are almost equal in number as men. I suppose that's what's feeding the industry.


I actually doubt this, CM, and find some of the stats I've read quite suspect. I think we might be in the minority when it comes to the _entire population_, which includes all age groups, but I know that I'm not in the minority amongst people I know. We're a broad minded bunch and discuss these matters quite openly, and most of us feel the same way.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> As a teen I fantasized about being an astronaut. The fact that, in reality, I was claustrophobic and would probably have flunked the grueling training of an astronaut didn't come into the equation. I just liked the fantasy of wearing one of those big white suits and wafting around in outer space...


Teenaged boys have a similar fantasy about going off to war and coming back with lots of medals and being the big man of a small town.

If they join up, they find out that getting a medal is likely to cost you a limb or your goodnight's sleep for years to come. They only find out when leaving is not an option ...

The organisations themselves like to feed us these fantasies, whether it's NASA or the Army, because otherwise they'd only get recruits who were certifiably insane already.

In a sense, someone always talks a prostitute or a porn-star into the job - promises, flattery, easy money, free drugs, approval, new friends... it gets ugly later.

I have a problem with the film Pretty Woman... I know at least one woman for whom it is a favourite film, and I wonder what she 'learnt' from it. Maybe, that "if all else fails you can prostitute your way into an easy and fulfilling life?"


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> JCD, the rape fantasy of _some_ women is not held by all, and I doubt that it's that well thought out... I also doubt that those fantasies involve anal rape, the possibilities of STDs and other forms of brutal violence....
> 
> As a teen I fantasized about being an astronaut. The fact that, in reality, I was claustrophobic and would probably have flunked the grueling training of an astronaut didn't come into the equation. I just liked the fantasy of wearing one of those big white suits and wafting around in outer space...


And the same guy who watches an aggressive film probably has to pull over when he sees adder hit by a car,he's so upset. The male rape fantasy is held by _some_, not all men.

It goes both ways, you see...


----------



## JCD

There was a question avoided. Do you judge women who engage in rape fantasies with the same opprobrium as you do men with the same?

Granted, it is not a straight comparison because one is engaging in potentially threatening fantasies and the other isn't. 

But just as for MOST of these women, it is just a bit of fun to get hot and sweaty, for most of these men, it is a vicarious way to rub one out. 

So I think that in so far as it leads to bad behavior it is worrisome, I'd like a bit more evidence its as bad as you fear. Most of these guys are probably accountants for goodness sakes!


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> See, I sometimes counsel young convicts in the juvenile prison in our country and the first thing I ask any new batch of prisoners is:
> " _why are you here?_"
> Then they start with all sorts of excuses about single parent, society, abuse everything from A-Z.
> Then I tell then ; " _Shaddup!_"
> " _You're here because yo choose to be here. Full stop, and repeat after me!_"
> Then they say:
> "_I'm here because I chose to be here.._"
> After that , then we talk about the _circumstances_ , leading up to them being convicted.
> Was I wrong to tell them that?


I get what you're saying, really I do. But right now, you are not talking to a bunch of women who are realizing the consequences of their unfortunate choices to get into the sex trade. 

You are talking to women who have the misfortune to be objectified without making any choices at all, but just born and raised in a culture that will treat them, first and foremost, like sex objects.

Yes, we have to allow that people have the liberty to live their lives however they see fit, and will always own the consequences of their actions whether they want to or not. 

But don't we also have an obligation to try and make the situation better for those just entering into it, and who will be carried along in our wake?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You are talking to women who have the misfortune to be objectified without making any choices at all, but just born and raised in a culture that will treat them, first and foremost, like sex objects.


But can't the same thing be said of young men, all of them under the age of 18 ,some as young as EIGHT YEARS OLD, behind bars, convicted of serious crimes , who grew up in fatherless homes, or sometimes even on the streets, living in squalid conditions , having to suffer misuse and abuse at the hands of society in order to eat a meal?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> But can't the same thing be said of young men, all of them under the age of 18 ,some as young as EIGHT YEARS OLD, behind bars, convicted of serious crimes , who grew up in fatherless homes, or sometimes even on the streets, living in squalid conditions , having to suffer misuse and abuse at the hands of society in order to eat a meal?


Horrendously sad, CM, but doesn't this have its roots more in serious neglect and abuse rather than sexual objectification?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> But can't the same thing be said of young men, all of them under the age of 18 ,some as young as EIGHT YEARS OLD, behind bars, convicted of serious crimes , who grew up in fatherless homes, or sometimes even on the streets, living in squalid conditions , having to suffer misuse and abuse at the hands of society in order to eat a meal?


Yes definitely, it's horrendous that their is people willing to exploit a young person and use their vulnerabilities against them whether it's for financially/sexually ect.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> There was a question avoided. Do you judge women who engage in rape fantasies with the same opprobrium as you do men with the same?
> 
> Granted, it is not a straight comparison because one is engaging in potentially threatening fantasies and the other isn't.
> 
> But just as for MOST of these women, it is just a bit of fun to get hot and sweaty, for most of these men, it is a vicarious way to rub one out.
> 
> So I think that in so far as it leads to bad behavior it is worrisome, I'd like a bit more evidence its as bad as you fear. Most of these guys are probably accountants for goodness sakes!


Was that question for me? If so, I don't judge anyone for their personal fantasies, and hope that no one would judge me for mine!

What we fantasize about is our own business, and what happens between two consensual adults is their business, too. The problem only arises, IMO, when our fantasies are such that they are allowed to impact negatively on others (particularly the young) in a way that changes the way they think about themselves and others, and distorts their views about healthy relationships and sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Horrendously sad, CM, but doesn't this have its roots more in serious neglect and abuse rather than sexual objectification?


It's not sexual objectification, but it's objectification for the purpose of fulfilling someone's else's lust for power.

I usually tell them that the blame must stop right here because you are now in prison for 5 years or how many years their sentences must run.
If it took you twelve years to reach here , you need to take responsibility for your actions so that at the end of five years after you leave, you will not make the same mistake and return.

In the end, only the person who is in chains could set himself free when given the opportunity. Can't let the past forever dictate your future actions.

At some point , you must recognize that you _can_ do better.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> In the end, only the person who is in chains could set himself free when given the opportunity. Can't let the past forever dictate your future actions.
> 
> At some point , you must recognize that you _can_ do better.


Agreed that there is lots of trauma, pain, and suffering in this world. And agreed that it's all very tragic. But it simply doesn't all fit under the objectification umbrella. Earlier in this thread you were complaining that the term "objectification" is too nebulous, but the fact is that what makes it so is this endless conflating of every problem. Not all problems are the same!

Also, it's simply not the case that it's always up to the individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and throw off their shackles to achieve the oh so wonderful liberation. Sometimes it requires much more, a sea change, an alteration in the overall climate and society before the chains will disappear. 

I think objectification is one of those issues. It isn't enough for the one person to decide she doesn't want to be objectified, because fact is she will be, whether she wants to or not. It isn't enough for her to buck the trend, to refuse to play the game, because all that will happen is that she will be ostracized and insulted for challenging the status quo, or she will simply be ignored.

Objectification is so prevalent and so widely accepted that a single individual could never stop or prevent their objectification. It will require a shift in attitude, a refusal to accept that women (or men) are just sex objects or should ever be considered as such. And from the tone of this thread, and other discussions on the topic, I can see that those days are a long, long way away.


----------



## over20

JCD said:


> There was a question avoided. Do you judge women who engage in rape fantasies with the same opprobrium as you do men with the same?
> 
> Granted, it is not a straight comparison because one is engaging in potentially threatening fantasies and the other isn't.
> 
> But just as for MOST of these women, it is just a bit of fun to get hot and sweaty, for most of these men, it is a vicarious way to rub one out.
> 
> So I think that in so far as it leads to bad behavior it is worrisome, I'd like a bit more evidence its as bad as you fear. Most of these guys are probably accountants for goodness sakes!


Great point!!! :smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup: I am a woman who DOES engage in rape fantasies.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> It's not sexual objectification, but it's objectification for the purpose of fulfilling someone's else's lust for power.
> 
> I usually tell them that the blame must stop right here because you are now in prison for 5 years or how many years their sentences must run.
> If it took you twelve years to reach here , you need to take responsibility for your actions so that at the end of five years after you leave, you will not make the same mistake and return.
> 
> In the end, only the person who is in chains could set himself free when given the opportunity. Can't let the past forever dictate your future actions.
> 
> At some point , you must recognize that you _can_ do better.


No matter what our origins, it is up to us to make the best that we can of lives. Sometimes, though, without a lot of help and healing some are too damaged to make that transition without making some seriously bad choices on the way.

I'm still not seeing how serious neglect / abuse and family dysfunction in childhood has its _roots _in objectification, though, and I don't feel that 'objectification' is a strong enough description of those things... It might well lead to the unfortunate person ending up objectified and objectifying themselves, but I don't see how it is the root cause of their plight in life?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> No matter what our origins, it is up to us to make the best that we can of lives. Sometimes, though, without a lot of help and healing some are too damaged to make that transition without making some seriously bad choices on the way.
> 
> I'm still not seeing how serious neglect / abuse and family dysfunction in childhood has its _roots _in objectification, though, and I don't feel that 'objectification' is a strong enough description of those things... It might well lead to the unfortunate person ending up objectified and objectifying themselves, but I don't see how it is the root cause of their plight in life?


Have you ever seen the Award winning ,British film " _Slumdog Millionaire _ " produced by Danny Boyle? 

I think he captured it well.

Three kids born into abject poverty in the slums of India, two boys and a girl , not related but around the same age.

Basically used by adults to make money until the boys escaped .

Later in life the girl was forced into sex work because of her beauty , one of the boys became an enforcer and hitman for a notorious gangster , and the other boy managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a low paying job. However he faced horrible discrimination simply because he belonged to the wrong economic strata in society , hence the name , "_ Slumdog..._" 

The irony in the film however, is that the little kids who acted in it, were actually "_ slumdogs_ " in real life.
Just two kids among the endless millions of India's 
" _slumdogs_."


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Agreed that there is lots of trauma, pain, and suffering in this world. And agreed that it's all very tragic. But it simply doesn't all fit under the objectification umbrella. Earlier in this thread you were complaining that the term "objectification" is too nebulous, but the fact is that what makes it so is this endless conflating of every problem. Not all problems are the same!
> 
> Also, it's simply not the case that it's always up to the individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and throw off their shackles to achieve the oh so wonderful liberation. Sometimes it requires much more, a sea change, an alteration in the overall climate and society before the chains will disappear.
> 
> I think objectification is one of those issues. It isn't enough for the one person to decide she doesn't want to be objectified, because fact is she will be, whether she wants to or not. It isn't enough for her to buck the trend, to refuse to play the game, because all that will happen is that she will be ostracized and insulted for challenging the status quo, or she will simply be ignored.
> 
> Objectification is so prevalent and so widely accepted that a single individual could never stop or prevent their objectification. It will require a shift in attitude, a refusal to accept that women (or men) are just sex objects or should ever be considered as such. And from the tone of this thread, and other discussions on the topic, I can see that those days are a long, long way away.


AA,

The problem is that you are only seeing one aspect.

Of course some people in the underdog position can't always pull themselves up. That's why I do what I do in our Juvenile Prison system. Not only myself, there are many other r in our country that do pretty much the same.

But the point i'm making and I wish you'd understand is that no matter how many organizations and people work with prisoners behind bars, the choice is still up to them to CHOOSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for themselves and change.

We can't force anyone in the adult industry to leave it if they don't want to leave it.

The most that could happen without infringing on their rights is bringing to their awareness that help is available IF THEY WANT TO LEAVE. You cannot expect society to change in order for someone else to change. 
Change begins with me.
The porn industry is extremely seductive to a young woman.
That's why girls with low self worth who think they could become famous fast flock to it. It is like the fashion industry.
Neither you nor I could change Sasha Grey or any other young girl involved in the porn industry.
The best I can do for Sasha is to choose not to look at porn and I have already done that.
Do you think that you can convince Sasha Grey or any other pornstar , or even a model with a contract with any random men's magazine to stop taking off their clothes for money?
The answer is a resounding NO.
What are you offering them in exchange for the money they get from stripping for the camera or acting in porn?
How are they going to maintain their lifestyle? 
Truth is , they must first come to realize that something is wrong with their value system ,that informs their choices.

So what can YOU , AA , realistically do beside place that responsibility on the rest of society?
And why should society accept that responsibility given that those involved refuse to accept responsibility themselves?

I think it is now up to Sasha Grey or anyone else to decide to leave and seek help. 

Others in much worse conditions have pulled themselves up by accepting help offered to them.
But the first action must come from the person involved.
Help_ is _available.

One of the saddest things about the porn industry is when the actors get tested and their results return positive for either herpes or HIV. By law, they must be tested every six weeks and their medical records must be publicized when they are involved in the industry. So the producers finds out first and they loose contracts, then the media finds out, then they are forced to face reality and the public.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you ever seen the Award winning ,British film " _Slumdog Millionaire _ " produced by Danny Boyle?
> 
> I think he captured it well.
> 
> Three kids born into abject poverty in the slums of India, two boys and a girl , not related but around the same age.
> 
> Basically used by adults to make money until the boys escaped .
> 
> Later in life the girl was forced into sex work because of her beauty , one of the boys became an enforcer and hitman for a notorious gangster , and the other boy managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps and get a low paying job. However he faced horrible discrimination simply because he belonged to the wrong economic strata in society , hence the name , "_ Slumdog..._"
> 
> The irony in the film however, is that the little kids who acted in it, were actually "_ slumdogs_ " in real life.
> Just two kids among the endless millions of India's
> " _slumdogs_."


The above is objectification (as well as child abuse and serious neglect) as the children are merely seen as a source of income.

I was referring more to an earlier post by you in which you were talking about single parent families and the children ending up living on the streets.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> AA,
> So what can YOU , AA , realistically do beside place that responsibility on the rest of society?
> And why should society accept that responsibility given that those involved refuse to accept responsibility themselves?
> 
> I think it is now up to Sasha Grey or anyone else to decide to leave and seek help.


You accuse me of only seeing one side, but you keep speaking as though the entire problem rests with the decisions of Sasha Grey and her fellow actors. But there's also the producers, and their highly questionable practices. There's the demand, and their indifference to the sources of their titillation. And then there's those who will be objectified even though they do not at all participate in the objectification industries.

Do I think I can change any of it? Not likely given that everyone seems quite satisfied with the status quo, and not particularly interested in questioning their cash cows and endless sexual titillation.

I will still talk about it, though --to add a different perspective, and to challenge the prevailing assumptions that it's all just harmless fun to treat fellow humans as objects.


----------



## Cosmos

^^^

I agree with you, AA. And frankly, I'm less concerned about porn actors than the damage their self-objectification does to youngsters who are using porn as self-help sex ed. We can put as many blocks as we like on our PCs, but until we start educating our young (and ourselves) about these issues, they're going to be accessing it and becoming damaged.


----------



## Faithful Wife

We can talk about the issues. We can bring it out in the open and examine it. We can encourage people to examine their own position, their choices, and ask them to ask themselves "why" they make those choices. We can educate our children. We can stop paying attention to the media outlets that are not sending good messages. We can open our minds and ask others to open theirs to the idea that just because something feels good in your crotch when you look at it, does that mean it is always a good thing?

And we can raise awareness about the dark side of it all.


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> We can talk about the issues. We can bring it out in the open and examine it. We can encourage people to examine their own position, their choices, and ask them to ask themselves "why" they make those choices. We can educate our children. We can stop paying attention to the media outlets that are not sending good messages. We can open our minds and ask others to open theirs to the idea that just because something feels good in your crotch when you look at it, does that mean it is always a good thing?
> 
> And we can raise awareness about the dark side of it all.


Exactly!


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> ^^^
> 
> I agree with you, AA. And frankly, I'm less concerned about porn actors than the damage their self-objectification does to youngsters who are using porn as self-help sex ed. We can put as many blocks as we like on our PCs, but until we start educating our young (and ourselves) about these issues, they're going to be accessing it and becoming damaged.


Indeed, the myths perpetuated about sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, by the objectification industries are utterly appalling. 

Young girls taught from prepubescence to wear thongs and suggestive slogans, feeling as though they must always be sexual available and titillating to gain any acceptance. Young boys thinking that girls are just there to service their sexual whims. De facto sex education that tells boys that all they need to do is show up, and girls that it's their responsibility to look right, act right, and fake it just right. 

I came across a poster the other day, with yet more scantily clad girls and the slogan "Girls: the only thing they are good for is sex."

Is this really the message we want to spread?

No. Just no!


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> We can talk about the issues. We can bring it out in the open and examine it. We can encourage people to examine their own position, their choices, and ask them to ask themselves "why" they make those choices. We can educate our children. We can stop paying attention to the media outlets that are not sending good messages. We can open our minds and ask others to open theirs to the idea that just because something feels good in your crotch when you look at it, does that mean it is always a good thing?
> 
> And we can raise awareness about the dark side of it all.


I wanted to like this more, but I can't. So, QFT!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> We can open our minds and ask others to open theirs to the idea that just because something feels good in your crotch when you look at it, does that mean it is always a good thing?
> 
> And we can raise awareness about the dark side of it all.


And shouldn't " we " be also telling those who are actually involved in it that just because something makes them feels good , when they look at their balance statements in their bank accounts , doesn't mean it a good thing?

How is it that the rest of society , men and women who view porn are being treated as perpetrators while those involved in the industry , who are being highly paid , are not?

Exact how does that type of logic work?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *Young girls taught from prepubescence to wear thongs and suggestive slogans, feeling as though they must always be sexual available and titillating to gain any acceptance. Young boys thinking that girls are just there to service their sexual whims.
> 
> De facto sex education that tells boys that all they need to do is show up, and girls that it's their responsibility to look right, act right, and fake it just right. *
> 
> I came across a poster the other day, with yet more scantily clad girls and the slogan "Girls: the only thing they are good for is sex."
> 
> Is this really the message we want to spread?
> 
> No. Just no!


:iagree:
Well you're NOW beginning to to see the problem from a different, more real perspective!

Right there is the root of the problem.
Every person places a value on themselves and _their_ sexuality.

We , adults, teach our kids exactly how to objectify themselves and others. 

We teach them that it is ok to use someone for their sexual pleasure alone. 

But worse of all, we teach them not to think for themselves in a world where collectivism is the dominant religion.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> Well you're NOW beginning to to see the problem from a different, more real perspective!


Now? I've been saying the same things from the beginning, over and over, in thread after thread.

Ah, well, nevermind. At least I know it's not all just whistling in the wind.


----------



## Sandfly

This is a lovely theory, but completely wrong. 

The threat of losing something - money, freedom, respect... something.... is what brings about social change.

People don't smoke on trains because they don't want to pay a fine. They don't download porn at work, because they don't want to lose their job. Tobacco companies put warnings on packets not because they care, or because they've seen the light, but because not warning people set them up for expensive legal battles. People started using condoms with strangers, not to avoid pregnancy, but because of the devastation of HIV.

The idea that education has solved a social issue is an illusion, and a waste of effort and money without sanctions.


----------



## whitehawk

1/2 of it is women doing to themselves anyway, much more l'd say.
They wear the clothes, decide to do the photos, wanna be hot, pole dance , buy the skimpiest clothes they can find, lift their legs in cheer leading, when they're 9 or 10, 30 or 40, hell 85 if they can get away with it. 
Even the Actresses, all do at least their one dream stripper hot dancer or pro role, why do you think that is. Then they go hook up with a guy 1/2 their age.
They don't have to do those roles or make video clips with their snatch shoved down a camera lens , or write the lyrics they write. Have a listen to some of the female artists stuff your 10yr old daughters and their friends listen to, l dare you. A close up at some of those lyrics will blow you mind , and they all love it.
Why do you think every 2nd question in the men's clubhouse or pretty well anywhere , is a female asking something about sex ?

You can 2x4 it as much as you like but if your really worried about it then take a good look at girls through to women around you first l say.

ps , and what noone's noticed round here that 75% of divorces now are animated by waw and 70% of those blew up their family to go screw someone else , often 10 x or 1/2 their age. Oh yeah that's right , it's all h's fault. Why do you think that is ?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Agreed that there is lots of trauma, pain, and suffering in this world. And agreed that it's all very tragic. But it simply doesn't all fit under the objectification umbrella. Earlier in this thread you were complaining that the term "objectification" is too nebulous, but the fact is that what makes it so is this endless conflating of every problem. Not all problems are the same!
> 
> Also, it's simply not the case that it's always up to the individual to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and throw off their shackles to achieve the oh so wonderful liberation. * Sometimes it requires much more, a sea change, an alteration in the overall climate and society before the chains will disappear. *
> 
> I think objectification is one of those issues. It isn't enough for the one person to decide she doesn't want to be objectified, because fact is she will be, whether she wants to or not. It isn't enough for her to buck the trend, to refuse to play the game, because all that will happen is that she will be ostracized and insulted for challenging the status quo, or she will simply be ignored.
> 
> Objectification is so prevalent and so widely accepted that a single individual could never stop or prevent their objectification. It will require a shift in attitude, a refusal to accept that women (or men) are just sex objects or should ever be considered as such. And from the tone of this thread, and other discussions on the topic,* I can see that those days are a long, long way away*.



That is because I believe your expectations and demands are far too high.

It SOUNDS like you never want anyone to look at you in a sexual manner (unless you want him to), think about you in a sexual manner (same caveat), or try to manipulate you sexually ever and that you will never be offended by a sexy billboard image.


So, from the sounds of an Always Alone World:

Porn should be abolished

Media should have very stringent guidelines to how they portray women in garb, behavior and status.

Boys (because THEY are the ones who have the problem) should stringently have their education changed so that if they behave in what AA considers an inappropriate manner sexually to girls, they get punished to stop that behavior however stringently is necessary. Not so much education but RE-education.

In rape cases, women's testimony will always be given greater weight. In the case of drunkenness, even if BOTH parties were drunk, it is likely rape and the man should be punished as such.

In sexual harassment suits, men will have to prove to a jury of his peers, if his peers are all women, that he was engaged in harmless behavior and that the most sensitive woman would not be offended by his action/remark.

**

Well, sign me up for that!

Sorry, but this is how you are coming across.

We can't make men stop looking at you. We can't make men stop thinking about you. This should be obvious.

We can't stop men from being turned on by sexual imagery. It is part and parcel of being men. We are visual creatures. WOMEN take advantage of this fact all the time. 

So like drugs, gambling and alcohol, there will ALWAYS be a market for porn and prostitution. You can do it the Fifties American way, and drive it underground, or the Holland way, where is it all above board and regulated.

We can't make a man prefer the company of an unattractive girl to an attractive girl in a work or social environment. We can punish him for doing so, but you aren't changing the man.

So, bearing these facts in mind, where do you want us to go from here?

We CAN train our men to be more polite to women. We've done it in the past.

We can crack down on porn and marketing some, but there are limits to what you can do in a free society.

Now, that being said, what do you suggest is a minimum you can accept and see if we can do some tweaks which make y8ou happier?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Indeed, the myths perpetuated about sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, by the objectification industries are utterly appalling.
> 
> Young girls taught from prepubescence to wear thongs and suggestive slogans, feeling as though they must always be sexual available and titillating to gain any acceptance. Young boys thinking that girls are just there to service their sexual whims. De facto sex education that tells boys that all they need to do is show up, and girls that it's their responsibility to look right, act right, and fake it just right.
> 
> I came across a poster the other day, with yet more scantily clad girls and the slogan "Girls: the only thing they are good for is sex."
> 
> Is this really the message we want to spread?
> 
> No. Just no!


And I've seen a woman's coffee mug which says: Spiders and Car Repair: What a Man is Good For.

I've seen the media portray every single man and dad as a buffoon who gets in his own way until bright, sexy, perky wife fixes it all with one stunningly brilliant and humiliating quip.

That being said, to your first point: Do you really think I am teaching my daughters that they need to be sexbots to boys? REALLY? Do you think I wouldn't blow a gasket if I saw a thong in their laundry? You had best believe it. 

And if I got a hint that Johnny Bravo was making unwarranted moves on one of my daughters, someone would be hurt real bad. Might be me. Might be him. This is not because I think my daughters are OWNED by me. It is because I support my loved ones and are trying to bolster THEIR rights.

And I am NOWHERE NEAR alone in these attitudes.

I happen to agree that sex is overweighted in society. But I am realistic that young boys ARE thinking with their crotches, at least part of the time. 

Part of it is the chemicals they have running through their heads. If mens and pregnancy can drive a woman slightly bonkers, why is puberty not part of the culprit for boy misbehavior? So yes, smack them around a bit, but be understanding.



> Anton: Men are not the same as women.
> 
> Kate: It's Christmas and we skate. I have the flu and we skate. I have a boyfriend in London that I never see. I skate every day for you, so that you can play Dr. Frankenstein with this guy. I show up every morning for seven months so that you can give him two days to go off whoring in New York City?
> 
> Anton: Is not entirely correct.
> 
> [pause]
> 
> Anton: He went to Boston.


From The Cutting Edge. Just a cute quote which highlights some truths.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

whitehawk said:


> ps , and what noone's noticed round here that 75% of divorces now are animated by waw and 70% of those blew up their family to go screw someone else , often 10 x or 1/2 their age. Oh yeah that's right , it's all h's fault. Why do you think that is ?


Please provide the factual information to prove that 75% of all divorces are filed by "walk away wives". Also provide proof that 70% of them are for other men most notably men 1/2 their age. It sounds like you are using feelings as fact. Please cite your sources.


----------



## JCD

whitehawk said:


> 1/2 of it is women doing to themselves anyway, much more l'd say.
> They wear the clothes, decide to do the photos, wanna be hot, pole dance , buy the skimpiest clothes they can find, lift their legs in cheer leading, when they're 9 or 10, 30 or 40, hell 85 if they can get away with it.
> Even the Actresses, all do at least their one dream stripper hot dancer or pro role, why do you think that is. Then they go hook up with a guy 1/2 their age.
> They don't have to do those roles or make video clips with their snatch shoved down a camera lens , or write the lyrics they write. Have a listen to some of the female artists stuff your 10yr old daughters and their friends listen to, l dare you. A close up at some of those lyrics will blow you mind , and they all love it.
> Why do you think every 2nd question in the men's clubhouse or pretty well anywhere , is a female asking something about sex ?
> 
> You can 2x4 it as much as you like but if your really worried about it then take a good look at girls through to women around you first l say.
> 
> ps , and what noone's noticed round here that 75% of divorces now are animated by waw and 70% of those blew up their family to go screw someone else , often 10 x or 1/2 their age. Oh yeah that's right , it's all h's fault. Why do you think that is ?


I think that Cosmos, AA and FW would submit that these actresses are given very little choice in the matter.

Nothing overt, but the script overrides their reservations. If they want the job, they better be willing to do THE WHOLE JOB, even the uncomfortable parts.

So it is a constant set of subtle cuts: AA has to wear make up for a job. Cosmos notes that the girl with the tight sweaters seems to be on the fast track. Natalie Portman may have enough clout to do a stripper scene with all her clothes on, but what about Jackie Newgirl? She certainly doesn't and no one cares about her personal morality. But she REALLY wants to be an actress. So it's 'lose the bra'.



> Sarah Marshall: Seemingly, the only actresses that can survive are the ones that show their cooter and I refuse to that. Excuse me, but I have a little dignity.


Forgetting Sarah Marshall


I won't say that women are naturally more modest, but I think they generally have a good sense on what some of the consequences of their sexual actions may have. They are not wrong to complain about the pressure. But the question is about if there IS a cure, how much a cure would cost society, and if the expectations are realistic.

We all WANT life to be better for us, however we define 'us'. Sometime life disappoints.

**

Let me add that MEN, or at least American men seem to feel that they are under enormous pressure to treat women MUCH better. They are thorny, prickly, take offense quickly and to male minds inexplicably.

So...they retreat to porn. Easier to rub one out without being yelled at as some kind of monster/idiot because one asks for a blow job at the wrong time or in the wrong way.

And women are now wondering why men are suddenly obsessed with porn and why men don't date them in the numbers they expect.

It's a constant war. Enjoy the battle.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> We can talk about the issues. We can bring it out in the open and examine it. We can encourage people to examine their own position, their choices, and ask them to ask themselves "why" they make those choices. We can educate our children. We can stop paying attention to the media outlets that are not sending good messages. We can open our minds and ask others to open theirs to the idea that just because something feels good in your crotch when you look at it, does that mean it is always a good thing?
> 
> And we can raise awareness about the dark side of it all.


You mean like we are doing here? 

Trust me, a lot of these conversations will be transferred to my kids.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Here's some interesting info I found about some former pornstars on Wikipaedia . Take note of the lifestyle and the amount of money they made while active. I often ask myself ,what do they do with all of that that money?

1) *Crissy Moran.*

" One day, after posting bikini photos of herself on the Internet,[2][6] she received email responses that led to her modeling in Miami and Los Angeles for Playboy and Hustler. *She found greater financial success through establishing her own online pornography site.*[3] After moving to California, she eventually performed in over 40 mainstream porn films.[3]
*It was reported that Moran was making nearly $15,000[5] each month through her work in the porn business, along with receipts from her successful website*. However, in October 2006, she became a Christian and announced that she was leaving the sex industry.[3][6][7]
Moran now travels internationally and domestically, sharing her story about the realities of adult entertainment. While her adult site continues to run (she does not own it and is not able to remove the site), she started NEWcrissymoran.com in 2013 to reflect her life after porn.[8].."

2) *Asia Carerra.*

Asia Carrera was born in New York City to a Japanese father and German mother,[3] the eldest of four siblings.[4] She was raised in Little Silver, New Jersey, attending the Little Silver School District and Red Bank Regional High School. She studied piano as a child and performed at Carnegie Hall twice before the age of 15. At the age of 16, she taught English at Tsuruga College in Japan.[5]
She was awarded a full academic scholarship to Rutgers University, where she majored in Japanese and Business but from which she did not graduate,[6][7] and is a member of Mensa,[5][8] with an IQ of 156.[9]
Carrera's adult film career ran from 1993 to 2003 and included over 400 films and video features.[10] According to interviews, she chose her stage name surname from actress Tia Carrere, changing the spelling for legal reasons.[11]
Carrera was the first Asian performer ever to win the award AVN Female Performer of the Year Award.[12]

3) *Amber Lyn*

Amber Lynn was born Laura Lynn Allen, the youngest daughter of a retired Air Force officer. She had 4 brothers and an older sister who died at the age of two from an undetected heart defect. When Lynn was three, her parents divorced after it was discovered her father had a family with another woman. Shortly after, Lynn's mother suffered a nervous breakdown, and Lynn was placed in foster care where she was physically abused. At age 7, she was reunited with her mother. Shortly after, the two of them were involved in a car accident on the interstate; Lynn was thrown clear of the car while her mother, who was nearly decapitated, died at the scene.[4]
Lynn entered the pornographic film industry in 1983, after her friend Ginger Lynn Allen (aka Ginger Lynn).[5] She got a photo spread in Penthouse magazine and soon after went to an audition for a movie where the director was a well-known porn veteran.[who?][4] There, in an effort to calm her nervousness, the director offered Lynn a pipe with some freebase cocaine. It was her first encounter with the drug; she later described the feeling of being as, "It's as if the birds are singing. The light is brighter. All of a sudden I'm no longer this gangly nervous teenager. I'm sitting there going 'Oh wow!'".[6]
At one point Lynn was the highest paid dancer on the strip club circuit, making $32,000 a week.[7]

Seems to me that the seductiveness of a career in porn is based three things.
Money .
Glamorous life.
Fame.
That's why so many young women , about thirty thousand , audition for mainstream porn every year.
Also noteworthy is that female stars are much higher paid than male actors . A male actor gets a few hundred dollars per scene , while a female actor makes between $6000.00 - $ 30,000.00 per month.
Female actors also make money by running their own websites.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> *I think that Cosmos*, AA and FW would submit that these actresses are given very little choice in the matter.


No, I don't believe that all porn actresses are forced to join the industry. Perhaps _some_, but certainly not all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> No, I don't believe that all porn actresses are forced to join the industry. Perhaps _some_, but certainly not all.


I agree that this might be true in some cases, but the vast majority join on their own.

That's why I stress on personal responsibility here.

In the example I gave on Sunday morning about my brother , he had everything in growing up that I didn't have, yet look at his life today.
The irony is that he _still_ has other options, but he is still hooked on drugs, the " reward ."
I remember reading somewhere that human beings are reward oriented , we do things that we think would bring happiness or benefits to us.

My brother sleeps on the streets because he can't use drugs where if he comes to live with me or where my sister lives or in a rehab centre. Does he really " like" sleeping on the filthy streets?
Absolutely not. But he likes the high he gets off of drugs , and they're only available on the filthy streets.

In the same way many young girls are attracted to performing in porn because they are addicted to the money and the glamour. The see the abuse they go through as " work " which they are highly paid for. Do they " like " their roles in porn and stripping ? I don't think so , but they like the " high" they get when they can shop at Neiman Marcus and pop $200.00 bottles of Cristal in the V.I.P booths at exclusive clubs , whilst rubbing shoulders with the who is who in the entertainment business.

While the sexual objectification of women is central to all of this, we cannot overlook that a lot of it is actually self objectification. Of course there is the spill over effect into society.
But if we don't want our kids following them then the responsibility is ours to guide them away from it.
However, when they get of age, it's quite a different story, as we see in the case of former pornstar turned entrepreneur, Asia Carerra.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Do they " like " their roles in porn and stripping ? I don't think so , but they like the " high" they get when they can shop at Neiman Marcus and pop $200.00 bottles of Cristal in the V.I.P booths at exclusive clubs , whilst rubbing shoulders with the who is who in the entertainment business.


Yes, women go into the sex trade because it is an opportunity for money and possibly "fame" in a world where a girl's power is her sexuality.

However, the stories you post are not at all representative, and the picture you paint here is not the life of the typical porn star or sex trade worker. Not even close. 

These estimations of big bucks and lavish lifestyles are just myths to whitewash the more sordid realities.


----------



## Cosmos

> *CM said:*
> 
> While the sexual objectification of women is central to all of this, we cannot overlook that a lot of it is actually self objectification. Of course there is the spill over effect into society.
> But if we don't want our kids following them then the responsibility is ours to guide them away from it.


I absolutely :iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes, women go into the sex trade because it is an opportunity for money and possibly "fame" in a world where a girl's power is her sexuality.
> 
> However, the stories you post are not at all representative, and the picture you paint here is not the life of the typical porn star or sex trade worker. Not even close.
> 
> These estimations of big bucks and lavish lifestyles are just myths to whitewash the more sordid realities.


Here are the facts on the industry from Shelly Luben's website.
Shelly Luben is a former pornstar turned Christian , who runs the Pink Cross foundation, an organization geared towards reaching out to people in the porn industry who want to come out of it , and also reaching out to potentially troubled teens who might be tempted by it.

*According to recent pornography stats:*

*1]* It is estimated that there are 4.2 million porn Web sites—12% of the total amount of sites—allowing access to 72 million worldwide visitors monthly.

*2]* One-quarter of the total daily search engine requests, or 68 million, are for pornographic material, where 40 million Americans are regular visitors.

*3]* According to comScore Media Metrix, 71.9 million people visited adult sites in August 2005, reaching 42.7 percent of the Internet audience.

*4]* The United States adult film industry produces 4,000–11,000 films a year and earns an estimated $9–$13 billion in gross revenues annually.

*5]* An estimated 200 production companies employ 1,200–1,500 performers.* Performers typically earn $400–$1,000 per shoot and are not compensated based on distribution or sales.*

*6]* Lobbyist Bill Lyon told 60 Minutes that the porn industry employs 12,000 people in California and pays the state $36 million in taxes per year. When 60 Minutes first spoke to Lyon, he was running the free speech coalition, a trade organization that represents 900 companies in the porn business.

Please not point #[5]

" 5]*An estimated 200 production companies employ 1,200–1,500 performers. Performers typically earn $400–$1,000 per shoot and are not compensated based on distribution or sales.*

Here's some further information, in Ms. Luben's own words:

_" Pornographic performers and adult industry workers also engage in prostitution through escort agencies such as Body Miracle, Dreamgirls, and Porno Star Escorts, where they not only risk sexually transmitted disease but also HIV and hepatitis C infection.

Pornographic performers usually prefer escorting because the pay is much higher and sex acts are not as degrading or physically demanding. 
*They receive approximately $100 an hour for working in pornographic films or $1500 an hour for escorting.Adult industry workers who are also pornographic performers get paid higher than other adult escorts due to their celebrity status and can book 2-3 hour appointments and make approximately $3000 a day.* 

Agents also lie to women in the adult industry and lure them into prostitution. Porn Star Erin Moore says, “some agents lie to the girls and tell them they are shooting a scene when instead they set up prostitution acts for them.”

While I was a pornographic performer in 1993-94 I was flown to different parts of the United States by porn companies where consumers of pornography sometimes paid me thousands of dollars to spend a weekend with them where we engaged in unprotected sex. During one appointment with a man and his wife, we engaged in unprotected sex and I passed the disease to both of them. Pornographic performers and adult industry workers definitely spread sexually transmitted diseases to the general public..."_

Here's another interesting fact;

_Chatsworth, California produces 85% of the world’s adult content. All of the top female talent agencies are located in or within the Chatsworth local radius. *Female performers are flown or fly to Chatsworth to work in the adult industry.* All of the world’s top male talents live or travel to Chatsworth California for work. Every major and minor adult DVD Company is in the local Chatsworth radius._

Source ~ Ex-Porn Star Tells the Truth About the Porn Industry

Can you understand why I'm not 100% into the " victim" theory?
Yes, they are victims , but not in the way you proposing.
They are victims of their own delusions and the seductive nature of the porn industry.
They are victims of a society whose values system have gone so far south that it's going to take another lifetime to brink it back to some sort of balance.It is quite noteworthy is the fact that the USA produces a whooping 85% of all the world's pornography.

Saying that the problem is about men and what makes them feel good in their crotch is not only false , but also an overly simplistic ostrich like approach to a complex problem.

Men , and within recent times women who get addicted to porn are also victims.

_" The United States adult film industry produces 4,000–11,000 films a year *and earns an estimated $9–$13 billion in gross revenues annually...*"_ 

Lord Have Mercy^^^!

But moral sensibilities and everything else aside.
What do these women really do with their money?
To me, it's mind boggling.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> No, I don't believe that all porn actresses are forced to join the industry. Perhaps _some_, but certainly not all.


Excuse me. I was unclear.

The gentleman whom I was responding to was talking about actresses doing strip scenes. He acted as if they all WANTED to take all their clothes off for a bit of fame and money.

I suggested that no, most of them don't. It is a due they have to pay the industry. Maybe SOME do, but I imagine faux sex scenes, nude shots and yes, strip scenes with or without full disrobement are not exactly on the top ten list of most actresses.

BUT, because they are, among their other traits, sex objects, they feel pressure overt and covert to go along with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have friends who are strippers, porn stars and prostitutes. I have no problem with legit sex work, and these friends of mine are doing something they love.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said: "And women are now wondering why men are suddenly obsessed with porn and why men don't date them in the numbers they expect."

No, JCD, we don't wonder why men are suddenly obsessed with porn...not all men are married for one thing so it isn't always some kind of rebellion against a sexless woman in a man's life.

And "won't date them in the numbers they expect?"...where did you get that?


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "And women are now wondering why men are suddenly obsessed with porn and why men don't date them in the numbers they expect."
> 
> No, JCD, we don't wonder why men are suddenly obsessed with porn...not all men are married for one thing so it isn't always some kind of rebellion against a sexless woman in a man's life.
> 
> And "won't date them in the numbers they expect?"...where did you get that?


I can't tell you the number of articles I have seen where women bemoan the fact they can't find 'good men' to date.

I have also seen articles and websites where men are suddenly marriage averse.

The best quote I heard was a video I just saw from the "The Agenda", a Canadian talk program.

The woman said (and I paraphrase) "Young women (20s) underestimate their sexual power when young. They see men like subway cars at rush hour. If they don't pick one, another will be along in a little while."

"When they hit their thirties, suddenly it's like a subway toward the end of the day. The cars aren't coming all that frequently and the guy who gets off of one is a drunken hobo whom no one would want."

Two of the young women were ardently bemoaning the fact they could NOT find a 'decent man' to marry despite a) being in favor of marriage and b) looking to at least find someone to DATE.

As married people, we sometimes forget how hard it was to get to this state. With porn, internet dating, the lack of structured meet and greets between nubile young people, and the dissolving of neighborhoods, getting to know 'decent people' is harder than ever.

This is a bit of a thread jack, btw.


----------



## JCD

My brush with 'being a sex object' or 'how the shoe feels on the other foot'.

So today of all days, I am minding my own damn business doing my job. I go to the gym. I try to look good, but I don't obsess over it. I am not even being a flirt.

So a co-worker gives me a letter from someone else. A woman who was a customer.

She writes this whole song and dance about how I have a nice voice, blah blah (bad handwriting) and she wants to know if I want 'a friend'. An act of bravery and/or desperation...and now her ego was in MY hands and I was put on the spot.

My co-worker was smirking when she gave it to me. My other co-worker was actively laughing at me.

While there were all kinds of ego kibbles, what I really felt was this huge weight of discomfort and responsibility. I would never see this other woman again, but now I was somehow responsible for letting her down easily (no easy task) AND maintaining my reputation AND dealing with this snickering hyena next to me.

Validation is nice. But it comes at a cost. I am getting it a little bit ladies.

And this is as a MAN. When I think of how a woman's rejection can be characterized in the work place...OMG. A huge minefield.

Now...can this be FIXED? Buggered if I know.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Yes, women go into the sex trade because it is an opportunity for money and possibly "fame" in a world where a girl's power is her sexuality.
> 
> However, the stories you post are not at all representative, and the picture you paint here is not the life of the typical porn star or sex trade worker. Not even close.
> 
> These estimations of big bucks and lavish lifestyles are just myths to whitewash the more sordid realities.


:iagree:

Even with volunteers, many of these women lose the ability to have 'normal' relationships.

For every Asia (whose story I followed a bit) there are a slew of sex workers who can either lie to their SOs or marry another sex worker because of the baggage.

This lays aside the issues of emotional scarring. A man I know who follows sex workers for a living discusses that they are hard cynical people within months of serving as pros. Substance abuse is common. Many of them LIE.

It is a huge ego blow to go a day as a sex worker, letting it all hang out...and not have anyone select you. Aside from the fiscal devastation of not earning, there is the ego devastation of not being picked. Do this day after day after day and see if you don't hit the bottle. Earning just enough to get by while watching other women make more money...jeez.

And these girls are flying into Chatsworth because they don't want to be seen on the streets there. The men don't care. By living in Podunk or wherever, they can try to pretend to have a normal life by hiding.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> I can't tell you the number of articles I have seen where women bemoan the fact they can't find 'good men' to date.
> 
> I have also seen articles and websites where men are suddenly marriage averse.
> 
> The best quote I heard was a video I just saw from the "The Agenda", a Canadian talk program.
> 
> The woman said (and I paraphrase) "Young women (20s) underestimate their sexual power when young. They see men like subway cars at rush hour. If they don't pick one, another will be along in a little while."
> 
> "When they hit their thirties, suddenly it's like a subway toward the end of the day. The cars aren't coming all that frequently and the guy who gets off of one is a drunken hobo whom no one would want."
> 
> Two of the young women were ardently bemoaning the fact they could NOT find a 'decent man' to marry despite a) being in favor of marriage and b) looking to at least find someone to DATE.
> 
> As married people, we sometimes forget how hard it was to get to this state. With porn, internet dating, the lack of structured meet and greets between nubile young people, and the dissolving of neighborhoods, getting to know 'decent people' is harder than ever.
> 
> This is a bit of a thread jack, btw.


I'm a dating coach and matchmaker and I can testify...this just isn't true.

If anything, the older more wise crowd has much more fun dating than ever these days.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lisa Firestone: Advantages of Dating After 40


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm a dating coach and matchmaker and I can testify...this just isn't true.
> 
> If anything, the older more wise crowd has much more fun dating than ever these days.


Hang on. You work in a job which is specifically designed to help people a) date successfully and b) meet each other...and you are saying it ISN'T difficult?

If it was simple to do all by their lonesome, why would they need you? :scratchhead:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JCD said:


> It is a huge ego blow to go a day as a sex worker, letting it all hang out...and not have anyone select you. Aside from the fiscal devastation of not earning, there is the ego devastation of not being picked.


Ego? They aren't devastated because some sleazy, skeevy guy didn't find them pretty enough. They are however terrified of the beatings that will follow the next morning for failing to bring in money. That's where the devastation lies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD - Because usually it isn't the lack of finding good people to date, it is the lack of dating and relationship experience that causes problems. People love to have guidance and support, and they definitely need it.

For instance, when someone is newly divorced, they may want to:

*jump right back out there and date to find another spouse (not recommended)

*stay hiding in bed under their covers for fear of having pain again (not recommended)

*screw everyone they meet because they have been sex starved (not recommended)

So in any of these cases...the person who does one of these things gets their feelings jerked around a bit or whatever, then they realize "hey, I could use a coach or some advice here".

Some people need coaching advice because they are having a hard time making a choice among several suitors.

Some people need matchmaking help because although they can and do get dates...they want to find love instead of sex. Some need help for the opposite reason...they have love thrown at them, but not sex.

People think that dating and relationships should just come along easy but without experience, why would it? Finding people to date isn't the hard part.


----------



## JCD

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ego? They aren't devastated because some sleazy, skeevy guy didn't find them pretty enough. They are however terrified of the beatings that will follow the next morning for failing to bring in money. That's where the devastation lies.


There are different flavors of sex worker. For girls in sexual bondage to a pimp, yes you are correct.

For strippers, escorts and a different style of sex worker, Thailand for example, my statement is valid.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm a dating coach and matchmaker and I can testify...this just isn't true.
> 
> If anything, the older more wise crowd has much more fun dating than ever these days.


Just out of curiosity, are the people you're date coaching older? Like 40+?

In my dating experience it takes significant effort to grab, much less hold, the attention of 20-something y/o women. They're quite flighty and very much have an attitude of plenty and seemingly a sense of entitlement - as in, "entertain me"; be unique and charming and witty and mysterious and c*cky without being a dismissive a-hole. Not saying their preference is a bad thing, just an observation, but it is a little bizarre to hear women say they want a guy who is crazy about them, only for them to dismiss the guys are crazy about them in favor of the nonchalant or distant.

More than once I've been out with guy friends who are trying to appeal to a girl, only to have her be more interested in me, and I'm not even trying. There's even been times where I'm playing Devil's Advocate (imagine that), and being unoffensively critical or argumentative in order to give my friend a chance to "get on her team". They both end up jabbering against me, the villain, and yet I've come away feeling her interest is more in me than him. Its never worked. I don't think I'm better looking than this guy, and when I'm arguing a case I know I'm not appealing lol.

They really don't seem to give a hoot that someone is interested and seem to want the guy who isn't. I've always took this to be some kind of value play... or that they simply want to feel like they have to chase/lure him a little - like something they did contributed to it. Or that the easy guy has lower value than the guy who isn't trying.

Perhaps there are two dating worlds? The women for whom men are a dime a dozen and the women who aren't getting attention? From my observation, it seems like even regular looking girls get plenty of male attention from regular+ males... attention regular looking guys do NOT get.

It definitely creates an impression that women are largely dismissive. Like one girl I dated I've mentioned before... when asked why she didn't take me up on it right away, she said she wasn't sure if she was attracted to me or not. How do you not know something like that?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JCD said:


> There are different flavors of sex worker. For girls in sexual bondage to a pimp, yes you are correct.
> 
> For strippers, escorts and a different style of sex worker, Thailand for example, my statement is valid.


Nope. Go to a strip club and ask one of the women if they would prefer a compliment from you or $5 bucks. As I said, ego does not factor in to the equation whatsoever.


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm a dating coach and matchmaker and I can testify...this just isn't true.
> 
> If anything, the older more wise crowd has much more fun dating than ever these days.


I got divorced when I was 31 and, after a few flings, decided to focus on rearing my son. I only started dating again in my 50s, and there was certainly no shortage of men to date, and I'm now in the best relationship of my life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nope. Go to a strip club and ask one of the women if they would prefer a compliment from you or $5 bucks. As I said, ego does not factor in to the equation whatsoever.


I happen to know quite a few strippers lol. They're weirdly insecure while simultaneously seeking the narcissistic supply of men wanting their bodies. There is definitely an ego thing happening here (in addition to the money of course), whether its healthy or not is another question.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just out of curiosity, are the people you're date coaching older? Like 40+?
> 
> In my dating experience it takes significant effort to grab, much less hold, the attention of 20-something y/o women. They're quite flighty and very much have an attitude of plenty and seemingly a sense of entitlement - as in, "entertain me"; be unique and charming and witty and mysterious and c*cky without being a dismissive a-hole. Not saying their preference is a bad thing, just an observation, but it is a little bizarre to hear women say they want a guy who is crazy about them, only for them to dismiss the guys are crazy about them in favor of the nonchalant or distant.
> 
> More than once I've been out with guy friends who are trying to appeal to a girl, only to have them be more interested in me, and I'm not even trying. There's even been times where I'm playing Devil's Advocate (imagine that), and being unoffensively critical or argumentative in order to give my friend a chance to "get on her team". They both end up jabbering against me, the villain, and yet I've come away feeling her interest is more in me than him. Its never worked. I don't think I'm better looking than this guy, and when I'm arguing a case I know I'm not appealing lol.
> 
> They really don't seem to give a hoot that someone is interested and seem to want the guy who isn't. I've always took this to be some kind of value play... or that they simply want to feel like they have to chase/lure him a little. Like the easy guy has lower value than the guy who isn't trying.
> 
> Perhaps there are two dating worlds? The women for whom men are a dime a dozen and the women who aren't getting attention? From my observation, it seems like even regular looking girls get plenty of male attention from regular+ males... attention regular looking guys do NOT get.
> 
> It definitely creates an impression that women are largely dismissive. Like one girl I dated I've mentioned before... when asked why she didn't take me up on it right away, she said she wasn't sure if she was attracted to me or not. How do you not know something like that?


You tend to date very young women. It shouldn't surprise you that somebody in that age group is flighty, impulsive and "in the now". If you want someone more grounded and put together, you need to head north of 30. So you have some decisions to make. Is youth your primary motivator in a relationship or is it compatibility? Also, if you pick one are you going to resent the person for not being the other?


----------



## JCD

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nope. Go to a strip club and ask one of the women if they would prefer a compliment from you or $5 bucks. As I said, ego does not factor in to the equation whatsoever.


Lose the looks, lose the bucks. And every day is a new election on the 'looks' department.

I recall this documentary where they followed this stripper around. She was...older. She did a few gigs but when she went for a full time gig at a club, she was turned down. Not good enough to work that club...and it was not exactly 'Players' either.

Since bucks=validation to strippers, how the men look at them DOES correspond to ego.

If I were an older stripper, I'd be scared to death.

I think we are talking about two different things.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nope. Go to a strip club and ask one of the women if they would prefer a compliment from you or $5 bucks. As I said, ego does not factor in to the equation whatsoever.


Lived with a couple of strippers when I was younger, that was the impression I got from them, it was all about the money.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD - Because usually it isn't the lack of finding good people to date, it is the lack of dating and relationship experience that causes problems. People love to have guidance and support, and they definitely need it.
> 
> For instance, when someone is newly divorced, they may want to:
> 
> *jump right back out there and date to find another spouse (not recommended)
> 
> *stay hiding in bed under their covers for fear of having pain again (not recommended)
> 
> *screw everyone they meet because they have been sex starved (not recommended)
> 
> So in any of these cases...the person who does one of these things gets their feelings jerked around a bit or whatever, then they realize "hey, I could use a coach or some advice here".
> 
> Some people need coaching advice because they are having a hard time making a choice among several suitors.
> 
> Some people need matchmaking help because although they can and do get dates...they want to find love instead of sex. Some need help for the opposite reason...they have love thrown at them, but not sex.
> 
> People think that dating and relationships should just come along easy but without experience, why would it? Finding people to date isn't the hard part.


Just as another thread jack, I've always had the opinion that for best results, one should date within 10 years of the other person.

Do you find that is accurate? Not interested in successful outliers. More on what works for the run of the mill couple.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I happen to know quite a few strippers lol. They're weirdly insecure while simultaneously seeking the narcissistic supply of men wanting their bodies. There is definitely an ego thing happening here (in addition to the money of course), whether its healthy or not is another question.


So you are telling me that the ones you know would turn down money in favor of a compliment from a patron? Is today April Fools Day?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

JCD said:


> Lose the looks, lose the bucks. And every day is a new election on the 'looks' department.
> 
> I recall this documentary where they followed this stripper around. She was...older. She did a few gigs but when she went for a full time gig at a club, she was turned down. Not good enough to work that club...and it was not exactly 'Players' either.
> 
> Since bucks=validation to strippers, how the men look at them DOES correspond to ego.
> 
> If I were an older stripper, I'd be scared to death.
> 
> I think we are talking about two different things.


Perhaps I'm not stating myself well. If they lose their looks they will lose money. That is their fear, not that some midwestern fat ass doesn't find them pretty. Money is what it is about, not this ego driven thing you mentioned.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You tend to date very young women. It shouldn't surprise you that somebody in that age group is flighty, impulsive and "in the now". If you want someone more grounded and put together, you need to head north of 30. So you have some decisions to make. Is youth your primary motivator in a relationship or is it compatibility? Also, if you pick one are you going to resent the person for not being the other?


I'm in a relationship, so I'm not actually on the market... just noting previous observations.

Compatibility with me has thus far meant youth. My experience has been that with youth comes less aversion to risk. So the trick is finding someone youthfully adventurous who isn't so flighty that she's going to keep entertaining other men's advances.

I've dated in the 30s... and virtually all of them were overly cynical/jaded and honestly... boring. I know this isn't the case for all, but that's been my experience. And contrary to what's been expressed here, they've been much quicker to want to get really serious like they're on a schedule.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So you are telling me that the ones you know would turn down money in favor of a compliment from a patron? Is today April Fools Day?


Absolutely not. I'm saying what I said: that ego definitely plays into it. The ones I know also clearly WANT the adulation and enjoy the reactions they get from being outrageous and sexual. Each one behaves this sexually enticing way, even outside of the club. edit - and yes, they all tell you "its just money". Most people can read between the lines however, based on out of the club behavior. The ones I know enjoy showing off.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm in a relationship, so I'm not actually on the market... just noting previous observations.
> 
> Compatibility with me has thus far meant youth. My experience has been that with youth comes less aversion to risk. So the trick is finding someone youthfully adventurous who isn't so flighty that she's going to keep entertaining other men's advances.
> 
> I've dated in the 30s... and virtually all of them were overly cynical/jaded and honestly... boring. I know this isn't the case for all, but that's been my experience. And contrary to what's been expressed here, they've been much quicker to want to get really serious like they're on a schedule.


Mazel Tov on the relationship! We all have our own experiences and it sure does add to the discussion here. Of course a younger woman has less of an aversion to risk. She typically has less to lose. When I was 18, I was doing all kinds of wild and reckless things.....things that should have rendered me dead. At 42, married with two kids and a mortgage, I am less inclined to get wasted and pass out alone on a beach in Ensenada.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Mazel Tov on the relationship! We all have our own experiences and it sure does add to the discussion here. Of course a younger woman has less of an aversion to risk. She typically has less to lose. When I was 18, I was doing all kinds of wild and reckless things.....things that should have rendered me dead. At 42, married with two kids and a mortgage, I am less inclined to get wasted and pass out alone on a beach in Ensenada.


Thank you re the relationship. About 6 mos now and still going.

Its not just being a party goer... but there's a little of that. Here's a better example. In the past couple years I've taken up rock climbing. Mostly indoor walls, but I'm a member of a local club that climbs now and then. Thus far, no 30+ woman has accepted my invitation to come rock climbing with me, and where I live the climbing is NOT difficult. Indoors, you can choose your skill level. The 30+ women just don't seem to have this want to be physical. None of the 20-somethings I've invited have refused.

Its a lot of things like that. The 20-somethings can't wait to go for a motorcycle ride. With the 30-somethings, its like 50/50... or they prefer a relaxing ride a la cruisers (I ride a sportbike).

Stuff like that. Btw, showing someone new adventurous things, taking risks and doing things that are exciting and maybe a little bit scary, and even teaching how to do something (ie belaying)... are important ways I connect with someone. If someone is very settled and docile, I can't relate.


----------



## JCD

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Perhaps I'm not stating myself well. If they lose their looks they will lose money. That is their fear, not that some midwestern fat ass doesn't find them pretty. Money is what it is about, not this ego driven thing you mentioned.


Since it is the Midwestern 'fat ass' who gives her the bucks, and he gives the bucks according to how HE appreciates her looks, how exactly is his opinion irrelevant?

She doesn't live in a vacuum where if she has looks, bucks automatically come to her. She has be actually PLEASE someone to do it. She needs a vote a night.

Ask those same strippers how they feel if they aren't picked, even to chat by the end of the evening...


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> At 42, married with two kids and a mortgage, I am less inclined to get wasted and pass out alone on a beach in Ensenada.


Damn it brighteyes you ruined my surprise plans for us


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thank you re the relationship. About 6 mos now and still going.
> 
> Its not just being a party goer... but there's a little of that. Here's a better example. In the past couple years I've taken up rock climbing. Mostly indoor walls, but I'm a member of a local club that climbs now and then. Thus far, no 30+ woman has accepted my invitation to come rock climbing with me, and where I live the climbing is NOT difficult. Indoors, you can choose your skill level. The 30+ women just don't seem to have this want to be physical. None of the 20-somethings I've invited have refused.
> 
> Its a lot of things like that. The 20-somethings can't wait to go for a motorcycle ride. With the 30-somethings, its like 50/50... or they prefer a relaxing ride a la cruisers (I ride a sportbike).
> 
> Stuff like that.


They don't know what they're missing, then! At 50 I was devastated that a badly broken ankle had killed all hopes of learning to roller blade and, now I've developed cervical spine issues, I've had to cross paragliding off my bucket list


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thank you re the relationship. About 6 mos now and still going.
> 
> Its not just being a party goer... but there's a little of that. Here's a better example. In the past couple years I've taken up rock climbing. Mostly indoor walls, but I'm a member of a local club that climbs now and then. Thus far, no 30+ woman has accepted my invitation to come rock climbing with me, and where I live the climbing is NOT difficult. Indoors, you can choose your skill level. The 30+ women just don't seem to have this want to be physical. None of the 20-somethings I've invited have refused.
> 
> Its a lot of things like that. The 20-somethings can't wait to go for a motorcycle ride. With the 30-somethings, its like 50/50... or they prefer a relaxing ride a la cruisers (I ride a sportbike).
> 
> Stuff like that.


See and I have a different experience. Of the women I know over 30, they are doing all kinds of things. Warrior Dash, marathons and one particularly crazy lady did the MS-150. Certainly this isn't a representation of all women over 30, just a few I know. 

It could be that the 20 year olds are "in to" you and thus participate in activities you enjoy and the 30 year olds not so much. That could explain why they don't join you. Perhaps age isn't the issue at all. Could that be?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> They don't know what they're missing, then! At 50 I was devastated that a badly broken ankle had killed all hopes of learning to roller blade and, now I've developed cervical spine issues, I've had to cross paragliding off my bucket list


See, that makes you awesome. That's the kind of woman I'm interested in. I feel like there's no age at which you stop jumping out and trying something cool unless you're physically unable to.

When I'm at the racetrack there are a bunch of 50+ y/o guys with RVs and awesome pit setups and they're FAST. No compromising. Their families come with them, their wives zip around the pits on pit bikes. One even rides on track days (not racing). We get rowdy camping out on race weekends... its a hoot.

I've met so many people who I just could not relate to... they seem so uninspired! There are so many cool things to do!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See and I have a different experience. Of the women I know over 30, they are doing all kinds of things. Warrior Dash, marathons and one particularly crazy lady did the MS-150. Certainly this isn't a representation of all women over 30, just a few I know.
> 
> It could be that the 20 year olds are "in to" you and thus participate in activities you enjoy and the 30 year olds not so much. That could explain why they don't join you. Perhaps age isn't the issue at all. Could that be?


Could be. I don't mean to totally derail the thread with all this. I was just interested in getting FW's date coach opinion of what I frequently observed.

I did see plenty of 30-something women when I did Spartan race, but for whatever reason the ones I've been with were more homebody. I could see a future with them where the most excitement I would have is renting a Blu-ray... and that just isn't going to work for me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TiggyBlue said:


> Damn it brighteyes you ruined my surprise plans for us


Ha, ha.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I could see a future with them where the most excitement I would have is renting a Blu-ray... and that just isn't going to work for me.


I guess it depends what's on that Blu-Ray. :lol: I hear where you are coming from though.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I guess it depends what's on that Blu-Ray. :lol: I hear where you are coming from though.


:rofl: I hadn't thought of that. I might be able to make exceptions.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD - Because usually it isn't the lack of finding good people to date, it is the lack of dating and relationship experience that causes problems. People love to have guidance and support, and they definitely need it.
> 
> For instance, when someone is newly divorced, they may want to:
> 
> *jump right back out there and date to find another spouse (not recommended)
> 
> *stay hiding in bed under their covers for fear of having pain again (not recommended)
> 
> *screw everyone they meet because they have been sex starved (not recommended)
> 
> So in any of these cases...the person who does one of these things gets their feelings jerked around a bit or whatever, then they realize "hey, I could use a coach or some advice here".
> 
> Some people need coaching advice because they are having a hard time making a choice among several suitors.
> 
> Some people need matchmaking help because although they can and do get dates...they want to find love instead of sex. Some need help for the opposite reason...they have love thrown at them, but not sex.
> 
> People think that dating and relationships should just come along easy but without experience, why would it? Finding people to date isn't the hard part.


At the risk of sounding like an utter ignoramus, (I got married at 19) would you say that dating is completely different than all other people skills or are there some commonalities?


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> There are different flavors of sex worker. For girls in sexual bondage to a pimp, yes you are correct.
> 
> For strippers, escorts and a different style of sex worker, Thailand for example, my statement is valid.


:iagree:

There are also some countries where prostitution or sex work is legal.

The old sex worker who was controlled by a pimp is no longer in vogue. That category is found mostly in ghetto areas and consists mainly of drug addicted women working for a fix. Their pimp usually pay them in drugs , and a little cash. 
With the invention f the internet those are basically extinct. Many ordinary women sell sex online via webcam and chat.

In some countries like Costa Rica for eg, prostitution is legal , but " pimping " is illegal. Basically prostitutes work for themselves once they have a legal permit to do so. They are required by law to have regular medical tests and I think their medical records are public.
" _Hotel Del Rey_ " in San Jose Costa Rica is probably one of the the most popular hotels and casinos across there , but it is also a pick up spot for escorts in that country , beside on the beaches.
But I think it's illegal to solicit for sex on the streets .

I think in countries where prostitution is legal , pimping is almost nonexistent.


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There are also some countries where prostitution or sex work is legal.
> 
> The old sex worker who was controlled by a pimp is no longer in vogue. That category is found mostly in ghetto areas and consists mainly of drug addicted women working for a fix. Their pimp usually pay them in drugs , and a little cash.
> With the invention f the internet those are basically extinct. Many ordinary women sell sex online via webcam and chat.
> 
> In some countries like Costa Rica for eg, prostitution is legal , but " pimping " is illegal. Basically prostitutes work for themselves once they have a legal permit to do so. They are required by law to have regular medical tests and I think their medical records are public.
> " _Hotel Del Rey_ " in San Jose Costa Rica is probably one of the the most popular hotels and casinos across there , but it is also a pick up spot for escorts in that country , beside on the beaches.
> But I think it's illegal to solicit for sex on the streets .
> 
> I think in countries where prostitution is legal , pimping is almost nonexistent.


Still happens. From what I understand, human trafficking in the Russian states is still pretty common and they tend to run the girls with an iron fist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> At the risk of sounding like an utter ignoramus, (I got married at 19) would you say that dating is completely different than all other people skills or are there some commonalities?


I think it is quite a bit different than any other type of transaction or interaction between people...and sadly, there is precious little information about how to do it. 

Some do get lucky and are "naturals" at it, though!


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Still happens. From what I understand, human trafficking in the Russian states is still pretty common and they tend to run the girls with an iron fist.


Human trafficking is the fastest growing business worldwide, and affects millions. 80% are women and children for the sex trade.

FBI — Human Sex Trafficking

This "empowered choice" thing is largely myth. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it is owned or controlled by the women being sold. And this is just the US. Things get much more sordid elsewhere.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Still happens. From what I understand, human trafficking in the Russian states is still pretty common and they tend to run the girls with an iron fist.


Russia has a huge problem with human trafficking.From mail order brides to prostitution. Russia actually exports sex slaves to a few other countries under the pretense of immigrants for cheap labour. Prostitution in Russia is illegal , hence the pimps and traffickers.


----------



## TiggyBlue

A few years ago a documentary about the human trafficking in Amsterdam, can't find it anywhere now  (it was really interesting).

Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking - National Human Trafficking | Examiner.com


----------



## Deejo

I'm reading this thread while having dinner at a Moxies in Ottawa. All of the staff both male and female are contracted through a modeling agency. The ginger chicken teryaki is pretty good too.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I'm reading this thread while having dinner at a Moxies in Ottawa. All of the staff both male and female are contracted through a modeling agency. The ginger chicken teryaki is pretty good too.


Stop objectifying chicken breasts.


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Stop objectifying chicken breasts.


Hmmm... There's a name for that sort of thing!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Cosmos said:


> Hmmm... There's a name for that sort of thing!


[email protected]?


----------



## ReformedHubby

Deejo said:


> I'm reading this thread while having dinner at a Moxies in Ottawa. All of the staff both male and female are contracted through a modeling agency. The ginger chicken teryaki is pretty good too.


Interesting. Beauty definitely sells. It honestly doesn't even matter what the product is. Most of my sales staff is very physically attractive and I'm in technology. The funny thing is it doesn't really matter what the sex of the customer is. Even if they are the same sex as the sales person they seem to just enjoy having a good looking person around. Its a fantasy I suppose. They either want to be with them, or be like them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Interesting. Beauty definitely sells. It honestly doesn't even matter what the product is. Most of my sales staff is very physically attractive and I'm in technology. The funny thing is it doesn't really matter what the sex of the customer is. Even if they are the same sex as the sales person they seem to just enjoy having a good looking person around. Its a fantasy I suppose. They either want to be with them, or be like them.


This is something I've also noticed over the years too.
Women tend to make better sales reps , or put another way , most men , including myself , are more open to purchasing stuff , or more convinced to do business with a new company if the sales rep is a pretty , well spoken , female. 

Quite a lot of companies tend to put pretty women in the frontline as public relations officers , corporate secretaries and sales representatives.

My banker is female , insurance agent , female.

Most of the insurance giants in our country have what they call 
" The Million Dollar Round Table " or a group of insurance agents that bring in millions of dollars of new business for a particular agency ,on a yearly basis. Most of the members of " The Million Dollar Round Table " are females and damn pretty ones too. [ Although they tend to be more mature women ]


----------



## ocotillo

Caribbean Man said:


> Women tend to make better sales reps , or put another way , most men , including myself , are more open to purchasing stuff , or more convinced to do business with a new company if the sales rep is a pretty , well spoken , female.


-Different train of thought, but for some reason that reminded me of a female sales rep who sold to the company I worked for at one time. Around Christmas, she was going from office to office, giving out nice golf shirts with her company's logo on them. 

But she would only give you one if you changed into it in front of her. Nobody gave it a second thought. Her request came across as a challenge rather than an attack. 

I think (hope) this might illustrate some of the disconnect we have in these type of discussions and I wholeheartedly agree with those ladies who've pointed out that the degree to which you feel threatened has a lot to do with how you perceive conduct that is arguably objectifying.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Sexual Objectification And Society.*



ocotillo said:


> -Different train of thought, but for some reason that reminded me of a female sales rep who sold to the company I worked for at one time. Around Christmas, she was going from office to office, giving out nice golf shirts with her company's logo on them.
> 
> But she would only give you one if you changed into it in front of her. Nobody gave it a second thought. Her request came across as a challenge rather than an attack.
> 
> I think (hope) this might illustrate some of the disconnect we have in these type of discussions and I wholeheartedly agree with those ladies who've pointed out that the degree to which you feel threatened has a lot to do with how you perceive conduct that is arguably objectifying.


Flip that script with a male rep and female clients and that is blatant harassment. 

Yet, when a pretty woman does it to the boys, I'm sure everyone has a good natured laugh about it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Flip that script with a male rep and female clients and that is blatant harassment.
> 
> Yet, when a pretty woman does it to the boys, I'm sure everyone has a good natured laugh about it.


And that's why some parts of this sexual objectification concept are so difficult for ordinary , decent men to accept.

Earlier I gave the example of me walking into a jewellery store staffed with only women , to enquire about a watch in the show window , when the female manager casually told me that my a$$ looks good in my jeasns.

I took no real offence or notice of it because it's not the first time I've been told that.
However , what did occur to me was that if the genders were reversed , and I was a female , who chose to be offended by the remark ,and they were male , then everyone in that store would have lost their jobs.

Funny thing is, if the genders were reversed then I would be well within my rights as a female to feel offended , given social mores.
However as a male , it just never occurs to feel offended by these things.
Men are expected to accept it.

I guess it's just the way things are .
There are benefits and there are drawbacks for both sexes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2galsmom said:


> A review of the research (Done by the U.S. Department of Justice) found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" (intimate partner) violence is perpetrated by men.
> 
> So can we at least stop feigning ignorance on which gender perpetuates more violence?
> 
> 
> And I am all for seeing violence against men as the same thing, but are the men? Does accepting that men are victims of violence make them weak? Does it make them less of a man as they could not "man up" and stop the violence? You don't want to be weak like a woman right?
> 
> 
> I do not think you will get much resistance from females in bringing equality here, but there is a stigma associated with being a victim of violence. A stigma women know well and a stigma men are reluctant to take on. A stigma where ethe victim is blamed, you were hurt little boy? Well you should have done something about it.
> 
> Women have fought this, with the don't blame the victims mantra. Men need to stop being so hard on other men and when wives abuse them, and I concede withholding sex is abuse, don't blame the men for not being manly enough and tell them to get rougher with the woman! It happens ALL THE TIME HERE.
> 
> That is weak.
> 
> Don't force yourself on your wife because other men put you down, it is still violence, get out of your abusive relationship and get a woman who will lovingly sleep with you and meet your needs.
> 
> Men need to not allow themselves to be the silent victims any longer. If you don't want to be weak, then take a stand against sexual violence to people of all ages and genders.
> 
> So that is my take on why more people are not running with the cause of the silent abuse victims i.e. men.
> 
> It is not easy, ask Dylan Farrow. Lying and taking on a stigma to hurt a movie career during awards season? NO WAY.
> 
> Check out Measuring Intimate Partner (Domestic) Violence | National Institute of Justice they welcome your feedback.



Everything you say is accurate, and I'm familiar the statistics you're referring go. But I think you misunderstood what I was responding to in the post you quoted from.

I was making reference to this paragraph in AA's post :

" _ Women are deprived of their autonomy and put under a threat of physical violence *every day*. Women have much less freedom about where they can go, what they can do, who they can talk to, than men do. Go to one of the rape threads and see how everyone reminds women that *it's up to them* to keep themselves safe, and how they *should never* take risks like going out alone at night, being alone with a guy they don't know, travel alone, etc, etc, etc.._.

Basically I was saying that men are faced with even more threat of physical violence from other men in society than women are 
[ not referring to violence from their husbands or partners ] ,because statistically , much more men are robbed , are victims of wounding and murdered per year in any country than women.
So in reality , that alone can't be an accurate indicator of how badly women are treated in any society.

I wasn't referring to intimate partner violence statistics , but general crime and murder statistics.
In the table I quoted from and linked to my previous post, I deliberately left out the domestic violence statistics for both men and women, because we were discussing sexual objectification on a societal level , media , workplace , public etc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2galsmom said:


> Do women view men as sex objects? In my opinion, rarely. Do some they perhaps objectify them as wallets, in many cases. There is even a saying that if he can look at me as a sex object then I can look at him as a wallet, and there you have two peas in the pod.


Yes :iagree:, that is what I've been trying to say throughout this entire thread!

I also agree with the rest of your post.

However , deep in my mind I can see what some women here are saying about sexual objectification of women by society, but it is a very difficult topic to navigate. The "quagmire theory" effect came very early in this thread.

There needs to be a lot more open discussion about it, because I feel that somehow as a society , we have gone to far and the female form is exploited on many levels in the media. And I use the term exploited in a neutral way. 
What makes this subject difficult to navigate is that is is exploited with permission of many females. The same can be said of the quasi private social media like facebook and many others. Women tend to post pics of themselves for others to " like " or rate on a scale of " hotness " or beauty.
Whether that exploitation is good or bad for society is debatable , and should be discussed ,especially if it affects some women negatively.

I do find your perspectives on this thread refreshing , however!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I caught this on CNN the other night... and thought of this thread...this College student ...she has went very public in defense of her choices... it was a Frat boy who revealed who she was ... then he was getting offers for Porn... crazy world!










 Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar -Porn to Pay Tuition

 Part 2 of 2 - Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar - CNN - 3-6-14

Her quote... 

"For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy when I finish the scene, I know I have done an honest days work... it is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home... I can definitely say I have never felt more empowered, or happy doing anything else in a world where women are so often wronged for their choices... I am completely in control, as a Bisexual woman with sexual quirks.... I feel completely accepted, it is freeing, it is empowering, it is wonderful.... it is how the world should be"...

She talks about how REPRESSED we are in society, every single day, told that sex is bad , not to have sex, not to show our bodies..she feels being naked in porn is "incredibly freeing"...

She says her family is supportive, only concern, according to her...."Is my child safe, does she enjoy what she is doing?"...she claims she is not exploited...college is $60,000 a year...and she makes $1,200 each scene...her regrets..not telling her family from the get go. 

She speaks against Patriarchy and religion in the beginning of Part 2 ...to why porn is NOT accepted...and how she is not being "used"...or exploited....she argues against women having bad experiences in porn claiming it's a Political agenda... she is obviously new at this..

*** *Seems the real motive was paying for COLLEGE....does she really feel as she speaks ?? ... according to this article *>>*



> The Duke porn star has revealed her stage name, Belle Knox, in xoJane and Playboy. She told Playboy that since her name is already out there, she “might as well capitalize on that fact.” Remember, Knox is not just in it to illuminate the sexist double standard of ****-shaming — she’s also here to get paid.
> 
> *“If Duke had given me the proper financial resources, I wouldn’t have done porn,” she said. “My story is a testament to how ****ing expensive school is."* If you can watch Knox's work and respect her at the same time (a challenge for some of her online critics) consider it a sex-positive libertarian feminist scholarship fund.


----------



## Cosmos

There's nothing wrong in telling a little girl that she's pretty, but it would seem that some of the brainwashing / stereotyping starts very early in society:-

Donâ€™t you dare tell my daughter sheâ€™s 'pretty' - Telegraph


----------



## ReformedHubby

SimplyAmorous said:


> I caught this on CNN the other night... and thought of this thread...this College student ...she has went very public in defense of her choices... it was a Frat boy who revealed who she was ... then he was getting offers for Porn... crazy world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar -Porn to Pay Tuition
> 
> Part 2 of 2 - Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar - CNN - 3-6-14
> 
> Her quote...
> 
> "For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy when I finish the scene, I know I have done an honest days work... it is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home... I can definitely say I have never felt more empowered, or happy doing anything else in a world where women are so often wronged for their choices... I am completely in control, as a Bisexual woman with sexual quirks.... I feel completely accepted, it is freeing, it is empowering, it is wonderful.... it is how the world should be"...
> 
> She talks about how REPRESSED we are in society, every single day, told that sex is bad , not to have sex, not to show our bodies..she feels being naked in porn is "incredibly freeing"...
> 
> She says her family is supportive, only concern, according to her...."Is my child safe, does she enjoy what she is doing?"...she claims she is not exploited...college is $60,000 a year...and she makes $1,200 each scene...her regrets..not telling her family from the get go.
> 
> She speaks against Patriarchy and religion in the beginning of Part 2 ...to why porn is NOT accepted...and how she is not being "used"...or exploited....she argues against women having bad experiences in porn claiming it's a Political agenda... she is obviously new at this..
> 
> *** *Seems the real motive was paying for COLLEGE....does she really feel as she speaks ?? ... according to this article *>>*


I kind of feel bad for her. Well known porn actors/actresses have a very difficult time transitioning into the "normal world". Everyone judges them for their choices. I wouldn't hire a former porn personality. I personally don't care, but I bet my customers would. The degree she is working so hard to pay for will have limited value because of the choices she made.


----------



## Cosmos

ReformedHubby said:


> I kind of feel bad for her. Well known porn actors/actresses have a very difficult time transitioning into the "normal world". Everyone judges them for their choices. I wouldn't hire a former porn personality. I personally don't care, but I bet my customers would. The degree she is working so hard to pay for will have limited value because of the choices she made.


:iagree:

One of the criteria for being admitted as an Attorney is that the applicant is a "fit and proper person." Very few law practices, IME, would admit a woman with a past like this - particularly now that she's courting publicity about it.

The legal profession tends to guard its reputation and be very conservative in many respects. I knew one (married) senior partner who was kicked out for having an affair with an ex client, and another who's contract stated that she was not allowed to consult with clients or attend Court unless her upper arm tattoo was completely covered.


----------



## WyshIknew

Perhaps it's a failing in me but I would have difficulty doing business with someone if a few weeks before someone had shown me an internet thing of her bouncing around on top of a bunch of men and shrieking out loud.
Would feel the same way if it was a male porno actor, so not a sexist thing.

I suppose ultimately it would come down to whether she did her job correctly, but........


----------



## ReformedHubby

Cosmos said:


> There's nothing wrong in telling a little girl that she's pretty, but it would seem that some of the brainwashing / stereotyping starts very early in society:-
> 
> Don’t you dare tell my daughter she’s 'pretty' - Telegraph


Are those posters really that big of a deal? I'm raising children of both genders and to be honest it was very obvious that they prefer to play differently and have different interests before they can even talk or read. About the only thing they like to do the same is ride bikes. They even like different movies. I guess what I'm saying is most little girls are still going to prefer pretty things, dolls, and colors like pink and purple, even if that poster isn't hanging on their wall. Most boys will gravitate to the rough and tumble style of play. 

With that said I can see where the frustration is derived from. Women were told not to pursue education. Then it was okay, you can go to school but you have to be a secretary, teacher or a nurse, then it was okay you can do everything except science and technology. But at least in American and most of the western world none of this is true anymore. Women can follow any path they choose, and that's why its so difficult for me at least to understand why the poster is so controversial.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> I kind of feel bad for her. Well known porn actors/actresses have a very difficult time transitioning into the "normal world". Everyone judges them for their choices. I wouldn't hire a former porn personality. I personally don't care, but I bet my customers would. The degree she is working so hard to pay for will have limited value because of the choices she made.


 I think similar... me & husband talked about this... I was the only one who watched it.... but there will be *a price* for her choices... 

*Should there be ??* *...

Shouldn't there be??* 

I do wonder where society is heading.....we speak against SHAME so much... so the world would be better without it... this IS the end result.. is this what we want???

These are difficult questions...I certainly don't have the answers... and I like a little porn [email protected]#...and I wouldn't want my daughter doing this....Belle Knox would be the 1st to call *me* a Hypocrite!

She said here >>Duke porn star Belle Knox says she wants to help sex workers after bankrolling law degree with sex - NY Daily News



> “I want to be a women’s rights or civil rights lawyer. Maybe start a foundation for sex workers,” she said.
> 
> Several blogs identified her as Miriam Weeks, the daughter of a doctor in Spokane, Wash. She revealed herself on the website xoJane.com Tuesday after a male friend spilled her secret to members of the Duke fraternity he was pledging.
> 
> She has no shame.
> 
> “I think it’s hard for people to understand the people who do pornography,” she said. “They’re not always desperate or drug addicted. Some of them really, really enjoy their jobs.”


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> There's nothing wrong in telling a little girl that she's pretty, but it would seem that some of the brainwashing / stereotyping starts very early in society:-
> 
> Donâ€™t you dare tell my daughter sheâ€™s 'pretty' - Telegraph


I agree to a great extent.

I'm all in favor of gender neutrality in terms of roles and stereotypes for children.
Technology has radically changed the way we do things and the way we perceive the world around us.
The gender roles and rules of yesteryear can no longer be applied , carte blanche.

However I don't think it's " brainwashing" but _stereotyping_ that takes place. Old habits die hard. Deprogramming something that has been with us for thousands of years isn't as easy and seamless as we would like it to be.

Most societies are still coming to terms with the rapid advances in technology that is a changing our lives by the minute, and it's effects on how we perceive gender.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> Are those posters really that big of a deal? I'm raising children of both genders and to be honest it was very obvious that they prefer to play differently and have different interests before they can even talk or read. About the only thing they like to do the same is ride bikes. They even like different movies. I guess what I'm saying is most little girls are still going to prefer pretty things, dolls, and colors like pink and purple, even if that poster isn't hanging on their wall. Most boys will gravitate to the rough and tumble style of play.
> 
> With that said I can see where the frustration is derived from. Women were told not to pursue education. Then it was okay, you can go to school but you have to be a secretary, teacher or a nurse, then it was okay you can do everything except science and technology. But at least in American and most of the western world none of this is true anymore. Women can follow any path they choose, and that's why its so difficult for me at least to understand why the poster is so controversial.


It's difficult to achieve the right balance.

While I want women to be equal in all matters, as I do anyone regardless of their race, sex, gender preference whatever, I still want them to be those lovely, feminine, wonderful, different people that us men love to bits.

When younger my sons sometimes played with my daughters toys and she often played with my sons toys.

The boys have grown up to be men and my daughter is a woman.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Perhaps it's a failing in me but I would have difficulty doing business with someone if a few weeks before someone had shown me an internet thing of her bouncing around on top of a bunch of men and shrieking out loud.
> Would feel the same way if it was a male porno actor, so not a sexist thing.
> 
> I suppose ultimately it would come down to whether she did her job correctly, but........



Can't same that I agree with you.


Just that I think what a person does with their body is their own business. 
How society views that is a different thing, but I've always preferred to analyze things myself.

I wouldn't have any problem doing business with her just a s long as she can do the job.

But I know society might be inclined to think otherwise.

Some years ago ,in our country there was a scandal involving a female news anchor, whom I knew, from one of the leading media houses.

There was a vid circulation via email and social media with her having sex with and on a desk in the office of a well known bad boy type DJ / entertainer.

She lost her job.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Can't same that I agree with you.
> 
> 
> Just that I think what a person does with their body is their own business.
> How society views that is a different thing, but I've always preferred to analyze things myself.
> 
> I wouldn't have any problem doing business with her just a s long as she can do the job.
> 
> But I know society might be inclined to think otherwise.
> 
> Some years ago ,in our country there was a scandal involving a female news anchor, whom I knew, from one of the leading media houses.
> 
> There was a vid circulation via email and social media with her having sex with and on a desk in the office of a well known bad boy type DJ / entertainer.
> 
> She lost her job.


However when what they do with their body is filmed in explicit close up detail and then sold for all and sundry to see it no longer becomes just their business does it?

And as I said at the end of my post what would really matter is whether she does her job correctly.

I just couldn't look at her across a desk without seeing her 'performing'.

A failing in me? No doubt, I'm not perfect.

Probably once the initial strangeness (for me) was over and done with I'd be fine.


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> Perhaps it's a failing in me but I would have difficulty doing business with someone if a few weeks before someone had shown me an internet thing of her bouncing around on top of a bunch of men and shrieking out loud.
> Would feel the same way if it was a male porno actor, so not a sexist thing.
> 
> I suppose ultimately it would come down to whether she did her job correctly, but........


Can't say I disagree. I know my feelings towards it are somewhat judgemental, but why would I want to bring negative attention to my business because of someone else's choice's. I'm not willing to put myself at risk for that. I think most people feel the same way which is why it is so difficult for porn actors to get a normal 9-5 that pays a decent wage.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> Can't same that I agree with you.
> 
> 
> Just that I think what a person does with their body is their own business.
> How society views that is a different thing, but I've always preferred to analyze things myself.
> 
> I wouldn't have any problem doing business with her just a s long as she can do the job.


I have the same thoughts, porn stars do on screen what millions do at home. It really wouldn't make any difference to me.

Speaking about social views of porn stars reminds me of the backlash Sasha Grey reading to 1st graders at schools.

Porn Legend Sasha Grey Reads to 1st Graders, School District Attempts Cover-Up | TMZ.com


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> I just couldn't look at her across a desk without seeing her 'performing'.


This ^^^just made me laugh out loudly!

But seriously, in the story I posted about the news anchor, funny things is , I knew her,[ she is was one of our business clients] and me seeing that three min vid didn't make me think anything of her other than how stupid she was to let the guy film her.
She was always my favorite news anchor, and a high end client of our business.We still made lots of money from her even after the vid, lol !

I think I posted this on TAM already, but there is this well known political activist and feminist down here who also happened to be a famous stripper in her younger days.
She stopped the stripper work, went back to school, studied law I think, and she ran for a local government election.



She won.

Now she' involved in all sorts of programmes empowering women in poorer communities and poor migrant women who come here illegally either as domestic workers or prostitutes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> I have the same thoughts, porn stars do on screen what millions do at home. It really wouldn't make any difference to me.
> 
> Speaking about social views of porn stars reminds me of the backlash Sasha Grey reading to 1st graders at schools.
> 
> Porn Legend Sasha Grey Reads to 1st Graders, School District Attempts Cover-Up | TMZ.com


There seems to be this double standard society has toward sex and sex workers.

I think that a person is entitled to his or her own personal view, but as a society we shouldn't discriminate against anybody.

It's complicated for sure, because on the flip side ,people also have the right not to want certain persons as role models or in close proximity to influence their children...


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> It's difficult to achieve the right balance.
> 
> While I want women to be equal in all matters, as I do anyone regardless of their race, sex, gender preference whatever, I still want them to be those lovely, feminine, wonderful, different people that us men love to bits.
> 
> When younger my sons sometimes played with my daughters toys and she often played with my sons toys.
> 
> The boys have grown up to be men and my daughter is a woman.


This reminds me of two of my brothers inlaw...

The one was really ahead of his time with some of his views (a lot older than me, and my main role model during my adolescent / teen years). He and my sister had 7 children and he was against having his daughters 'prettied up' and encouraged to only do 'girly' things. They played with their brothers, got dirty and did everything their brothers did. Today they're happy, well-adjusted, intelligent, successful, ultra-feminine women with families of their own.

The other brother in law was horrified when my 10 year old nephew asked for a Barbie doll for Christmas - and got it. He spent hours playing with her golden locks and cuddling her, and his father was convinced he was 'maimed' for life! Today he's a highly successful, happy, stable alpha-type (for want of a far better term!) businessman with a beautiful wife and daughter.

We really don't need to stereotype and restrict our children to specific gender roles. Happy, stable children find their own balance as adults.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> This ^^^just made me laugh out loudly!
> 
> But seriously, in the story I posted about the news anchor, funny things is , I knew her,[ she is was one of our business clients] and me seeing that three min vid didn't make me think anything of her other than how stupid she was to let the guy film her.
> She was always my favorite news anchor, and a high end client of our business.We still made lots of money from her even after the vid, lol !
> 
> I think I posted this on TAM already, but there is this well known political activist and feminist down here who also happened to be a famous stripper in her younger days.
> She stopped the stripper work, went back to school, studied law I think, and she ran for a local government election.
> 
> 
> 
> She won.
> 
> Now she' involved in all sorts of programmes empowering women in poorer communities and poor migrant women who come here illegally either as domestic workers or prostitutes.


Excellent story.

I'm sure that once I got over the initial  I'd be more than happy. I'd like to think I'm fairly broad minded.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> There seems to be this double standard society has toward sex and sex workers.
> 
> I think that a person is entitled to his or her own personal view, but as a society we shouldn't discriminate against anybody.
> 
> It's complicated for sure, because on the flip side ,people also have the right not to want certain persons as role models or in close proximity to influence their children...


Well said. I can imagine that there were many business owners that weren't racist in the south but couldn't serve black people out of fear. This type of attitude prevents progress. I should be able to look past something like this, but if it were me even if she were qualified I wouldn't hire her. I'm still a work in a progress I guess.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> There's nothing wrong in telling a little girl that she's pretty, but it would seem that some of the brainwashing / stereotyping starts very early in society:-
> 
> Donâ€™t you dare tell my daughter sheâ€™s 'pretty' - Telegraph


The ending summed this article up well..


> My daughter doesn’t need to hear, “you’re so pretty.” She doesn’t need to hear “you’re so” anything. Tell her how well she did, how fast she’s learning, how much she helped. Tell her how great it is that she fell over and then got back up again. Tell your own daughter, and your nieces and cousins and grandchildren. Let them know just how much they can achieve. Don’t define girls by their looks; show them what they can do.
> 
> Our girls need to know that they are so much more than pretty. I want my daughter to aspire to be a superhero, and not lower her sights on being a mere supermodel. I want her to know that she’s still great even when she falls off her skateboard. In fact, I want her to realise that part of what makes her great is that she does fall off. And gets back on again


I tell my daughter she is pretty...when she allows me to fix her hair (I have to twist her arm for that)..or when she puts on a dress.. (not her favorite thing -she likes her jeans)...... but I tell her so much MORE.... I want her to grow into a lady who takes care to her appearance, of course..but on the other hand... not to dress "scantly"...because of what this invites.. she is not going to change the roaming eyes of men & how they perceive a woman who shows a lot of skin. 

My aim is her empower her to CHOOSE and * choose wisely*...to figure out what will bring *her happiness* in this life (that could be very different from what I wanted)...and take the best path before her....so she will minimize regrets later in life ......I don't want to see her take detours that can hurt her...and to not fall prey to the games and manipulation of others around her ..whether that be men or women.



> *Caribbean Man said*:* I think that a person is entitled to his or her own personal view, but as a society we shouldn't discriminate against anybody.
> 
> It's complicated for sure, because on the flip side ,people also have the right not to want certain persons as role models or in close proximity to influence their children.*..


:iagree:

Check out these nominations... Sasha Grey - Wikipedia....favorite a$$... super****...one of her films is called "F*** Susha Grey"...another one "F*** Slaves"..

Do we really expect parents -if they knew these things, and was against this sort of lifestyle ...to not say anything??

I personally wouldn't restrict my kids from sitting under anything.... wouldn't bother me what this person did..she wasn't an ax murderer..there is no DANGER there... like these 2 opposing comments on that link...

*1*. Someone said..."That's not who she is now so why does it matter? I swear some people like to bit** about everything! I am a mother of a 2 year old and 5 year old. If she came to the school to read to my kids so what! She is fully dressed, she doesn't look skanky and she is not teaching my girls how to perform a blo* job! Damm!"...

*2.* Someone else said "...Ok, maybe there's nothing wrong with it, and I see that side...but sorry, I wouldn't want some chick who had 1500 d**ks in her mouth - and won an award for it - spitting children's stories to my toddler at school. She is what she represents, and she's a porn star. I'm sure when she "won" that "award" she was all smiles and gave her speech. So, that's her world. You're telling me you can't find someone else other than a pornstsar to read to kids at school?" 

So what can you do! I can see both sides !


----------



## jld

If everything about everyone were known, we would all see just how short of perfect and acceptable each of us is. Until all things are known, until we are all transparent and are forced to embrace our common humanity, people will feel free to judge one another.

Who cares what the girl did in her past? Or a guy? That sex worker CM talked about who became an activist, wasn't it based on her experience of what it is like to be exploited?

RH, I think it is good that you are honest. But honesty is just the first step. I think striving to be less judgmental, to imagine yourself in the shoes of the oppressed, is the next.

And maybe we cannot change everything. Obviously we cannot. Everyone has some choice in what they do, at least at some point in their life.

But don't have to pretend somehow we are better or more moral or something like that than someone born into poverty without any kind of social support who turns to crime or prostitution or whatever. There but for the grace of God go I, and all that.


----------



## richie33

SimplyAmorous said:


> I caught this on CNN the other night... and thought of this thread...this College student ...she has went very public in defense of her choices... it was a Frat boy who revealed who she was ... then he was getting offers for Porn... crazy world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar -Porn to Pay Tuition
> 
> Part 2 of 2 - Piers Morgan Interviews Belle Knox Duke Pornstar - CNN - 3-6-14
> 
> Her quote...
> 
> "For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy when I finish the scene, I know I have done an honest days work... it is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home... I can definitely say I have never felt more empowered, or happy doing anything else in a world where women are so often wronged for their choices... I am completely in control, as a Bisexual woman with sexual quirks.... I feel completely accepted, it is freeing, it is empowering, it is wonderful.... it is how the world should be"...
> 
> She talks about how REPRESSED we are in society, every single day, told that sex is bad , not to have sex, not to show our bodies..she feels being naked in porn is "incredibly freeing"...
> 
> She says her family is supportive, only concern, according to her...."Is my child safe, does she enjoy what she is doing?"...she claims she is not exploited...college is $60,000 a year...and she makes $1,200 each scene...her regrets..not telling her family from the get go.
> 
> She speaks against Patriarchy and religion in the beginning of Part 2 ...to why porn is NOT accepted...and how she is not being "used"...or exploited....she argues against women having bad experiences in porn claiming it's a Political agenda... she is obviously new at this..
> 
> *** *Seems the real motive was paying for COLLEGE....does she really feel as she speaks ?? ... according to this article *>>*


I read in the newspaper today a owner of a porn company released the name of the student who outed her. Turns out he is a avid porn user who pays for his online porn use.....some pretty rough porn site. If this girls parents should have to be hurt by this I think the kid who outed her parents should feel some of the pain also.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> RH, I think it is good that you are honest. But honesty is just the first step. I think striving to be less judgmental, to imagine yourself in the shoes of the oppressed, is the next.


Hmmmm....I guess that's the leap that I just can't make here. She isn't oppressed. She chose the profession of her own free will. My stance is that I wouldn't want the baggage of her choice to affect me adversely. 

Truth be told I don't even think my female execs would respect her. They would definitely see her as someone whose behavior was setting women back. Duke degree or not I think they would read me the riot act if I were to hire her. 

Lets be honest, we all have to do things to prepare ourselves for the path we want to take in life. A lot of people make choices in life that limit their options in the future. It could be anything from lack of education to drug addiction. However, we can't expect others to just look past it. We are responsible for our own actions _and_ our own dreams. If you make choices that prevent you from getting there its on you, nobody else. I don't see her situation quite the same as age, sex, race, or sexual preference discrimination. Its the path she chose for herself. I'm glad she find its empowering, good for her. But, she doesn't have the right to tell everyone else how they should feel about it, and we don't have to accept it if we don't want to.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Who cares what the girl did in her past? Or a guy? That sex worker CM talked about who became an activist, wasn't it based on her experience of what it is like to be exploited?
> 
> RH, I think it is good that you are honest. But honesty is just the first step. * I think striving to be less judgmental, to imagine yourself in the shoes of the oppressed, is the next*.


 What if they are not oppressed... does it matter that we choose these things from our own free will...that the motivation is QUICK MONEY... 

A drug dealer does the same... do we excuse him too... when others throw the "Though shall not judge " around.... it was never intended to excuse all behaviors... when it hurts others , we are supposed to be outraged... Porn does hurt many marriages... even liking the stuff, I am not dumb enough to argue that one...

Did you watch that Belle Knox video on CNN ...how she acted about Girlfriends being "jealous of her"... she laughed in their faces... calling them "petty" just cause their boyfriend wants to watch her porn...

Her attitude was not one I cared much for to be honest. 

I see this from different eyes than many women here... SOME CHOOSE to do these things, Bell's Father is a Doctor... she came from money... did she not have the same options to pay for her college as the homely chubby college student -who wouldn't have men offering to pay even $20 to take her clothes off... 

They money was the allure.. I just can't see this as oppression. Even she would speak against that ...she'd give you an earful jld!



> *But don't have to pretend somehow we are better or more moral or something like that than someone born into poverty without any kind of social support who turns to crime or prostitution or whatever. There but for the grace of God go I, and all that*.


 So poverty is an excuse to do crime...I'll never hang with that.. At least in the United states, we are littered with programs to help the poor....and what happens, they get abused... . there are always other options.. I do feel when mental illness is thrown in the mix...this gets really murky though.



> *richie33 said*: *I read in the newspaper today a owner of a porn company released the name of the student who outed her. Turns out he is a avid porn user who pays for his online porn use.....some pretty rough porn site. If this girls parents should have to be hurt by this I think the kid who outed her parents should feel some of the pain also.*


 Well this is him >>







and this is how TWISTED society is.. anything to make more money out of a scandle.. he is getting PORN offers to be in his own scenes...Porn big offers frat boy who outed Duke porn star 10G to appear in his own flick* - NY Daily News

and you know he is going to take it .*.MONEY speaks*... 

Ya know...does it mean anything anymore when people say "NO" ...is there any respect that some do things the HARD way, the way of integrity... I foresee a world in the future where PORN AWARDS with the* FU** awards* on our national TV...again...there is no shame for anything anymore.. just excuses.. "Oh the money was just too tempting"...people exploit themselves --for quick gain.. in some of this.. I didn't say all.. the responsibility is ON THEM.


----------



## richie33

That's the article I read. I came away after reading it that the offer was to embarrass this kid, rightfully so. Outed him that he exposed this girl all the while being a hypocrite who pays for porn himself. I took away that the offer was tongue in cheek saying that the kid thinks its bad she is doing porn but he himself sits in a dark room rubbing one out to porn.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

richie33 said:


> That's the article I read. I came away after reading it that the offer was to embarrass this kid, rightfully so. Outed him that he exposed this girl all the while being a hypocrite who pays for porn himself. I took away that the offer was tongue in cheek saying that the kid thinks its bad she is doing porn but he himself sits in a dark room rubbing one out to porn.


I skimmed that article too quick... you are right, they are sarcastically SHAMING HIM for exposing her.....If it wasn't him, it would be someone else down the line..

They shame him and happily take his money too ... addiction feeds the porn industry ... this kid blows $1,000 a month on porn ...so the article reads.....Jesus, how does he have time for studying !

And that Kulich character...offering Italian murder suspect Amanda Knox $20,000 to star in a skin-flick....he is seeking to devour .. obviously making a substantial profit to lure viewers... and advertising for more HOT College girls to contact him.. 

We can't stop these type people, it's a free society.....but we sure can make our daughters be aware of these snakes before they hit college..

I see this kinda on par with using a Sugar Daddy.. it's all in the name of money.. people using people.. and we wonder where empathy has gone...


----------



## jld

We are a ways away from being able to separate a person's past from her present. We are also a ways away from being able to look at a person's heart and mind and not his or her looks.

If I were running a business, I would be practical, too. As a mother, you are right, SA, I am pretty careful about what my kids are exposed to, too. I think I would be picky about their friends if I did not feel comfortable with them, too.

I am just idealistic, I guess. I look at my sister's background and how successful she has been in the business world. I am so glad no one knows what she has been through and what free choices she made after her childhood, as a young adult. The judgment would be incredible.

But she does a good job at work, makes a lot of money, and has given a good life to her son as a single mother.

The way I see it, no one is perfect. If a person has reformed, I don't think we should hold the past against them.


----------



## jld

I think you make a good point about not excusing criminals, SA. That is where I am weak. I am pretty strong on empathy and compassion, but holding people accountable is more of a challenge for me.

Where are the limits?


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> If everything about everyone were known, we would all see just how short of perfect and acceptable each of us is. Until all things are known, until we are all transparent and are forced to embrace our common humanity, people will feel free to judge one another.
> 
> Who cares what the girl did in her past? Or a guy? That sex worker CM talked about who became an activist, wasn't it based on her experience of what it is like to be exploited?
> 
> RH, I think it is good that you are honest. But honesty is just the first step. I think striving to be less judgmental, to imagine yourself in the shoes of the oppressed, is the next.
> 
> And maybe we cannot change everything. Obviously we cannot. Everyone has some choice in what they do, at least at some point in their life.
> 
> But don't have to pretend somehow we are better or more moral or something like that than someone born into poverty without any kind of social support who turns to crime or prostitution or whatever. There but for the grace of God go I, and all that.


Depends on circumstances jld as far as I'm concerned.

There was a situation in the UK some years back when the Conservative Party was preaching something called Family Values.

Conservatives I think roughly equate to your Republicans?

Anyways, they were preaching about family values and of course it came out that some of the members of the Conservative Party were shagging their secretaries, indulging in kinky sex outside marriage, pregnancies etc. etc.

So sometimes somebodies history does matter.


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> Depends on circumstances jld as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> There was a situation in the UK some years back when the Conservative Party was preaching something called Family Values.
> 
> Conservatives I think roughly equate to your Republicans?
> 
> Anyways, they were preaching about family values and of course it came out that some of the members of the Conservative Party were shagging their secretaries, indulging in kinky sex outside marriage, pregnancies etc. etc.
> 
> So sometimes somebodies history does matter.


I never vote Republican, Wysh. Lots of hypocrisy there. Whatever they may say, it is ultimately all about keeping the rich rich, and everybody else panting after them. Okay, I will keep any further political comments to the P&R section.

I am not saying history does not matter, but I think people deserve second chances.

And I think at work, work has to be the focus. A person's performance is what matters. If a mechanic does a great job fixing your car, does his sex life really matter?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I think you make a good point about not excusing criminals, SA. That is where I am weak. I am pretty strong on empathy and compassion,* but holding people accountable is more of a challenge for me.*
> 
> Where are the limits?


 I have no problem with tough love......I'd be harder on my kids over a Judge.. we tell our sons if they drink and drive...or they do something reckless in the heat of peer pressure and get their a$$ in a Pickle.. to not bother expecting us to get them out of Jail.. cause we wouldn't... 

We'd allow them to feel the heat of the flames -so they learn from it.. That is just how we parent... and thankfully we haven't had to deal with things like this...like at all... 

If they were innocent , that's completely different, but don't come crying to me that you are a victim when you had a choice in the matter... this does not work well with us..

I have compassion for innocence.... stupidity (don't expect me to hold my tongue)...and carelessness (you don't want me to be your Mother!)..... I am sure I come off rather COLD in this reply.... but it's just how strongly I see treating others right, a sense of justice and wanting to raise kids with a strong sense of respecting others boundaries and not being a statistic that will hurt their lives... my motivation is GOOD... and our kids know this..... they feel this.. so it does make a difference.

Our oldest son just got a Job working in a School for Institutionalized Teen delinquents ...I'm going to say his beliefs has given him more compassion over me ... I look forward to hearing some of the things he learns from these youth.. but a mother worries..there was a counselor killed there back in '03...but this is what his passion is.. God love 'im... this is what he wants to do.. to help teens... I'd rather be around NICE PEOPLE ...and not be worrying about my back!



> *jld said*: *And I think at work, work has to be the focus. A person's performance is what matters. If a mechanic does a great job fixing your car, does his sex life really matter*?


 This is how my husband felt about Clinton... I can't be anything but an Independent.. I see good and bad on both sides, depending on the issue.. I think they need each other to balance themselves out .... the system is not perfect, but what is ?


----------



## jld

Lol, SA. I am pretty strict with my kids, too. But I am talking about criminals, you know? There are so many people out there with troubled backgrounds. And even among them, they are individuals. What may work with one may not work with another.

I guess I tend to err on the side of compassion and understanding. And that is where it is good to balance my approach with a more conservative one. I just don't discipline other people very well, I guess.

I was thinking about Clinton after I wrote that. I don't think he is sorry for what he did. I don't think he ever changed. 

But can we separate that from the good things he did? 

Though signing into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall set up the financial crisis of 2008 which we have all suffered from. And he has hardly expressed sorrow for that, either. Okay, this is way off and belongs in P&R.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> I never vote Republican, Wysh. Lots of hypocrisy there. Whatever they may say, it is ultimately all about keeping the rich rich, and everybody else panting after them. Okay, I will keep any further political comments to the P&R section.
> 
> I am not saying history does not matter, but I think people deserve second chances.
> 
> And I think at work, work has to be the focus. A person's performance is what matters. If a mechanic does a great job fixing your car, does his sex life really matter?


His sex life wouldn't matter but not the best example in my opinion. If that mechanic had a significant amount of publicity for doing something controversial that he/she chose to do. I can't fault all the garages that would decline to hire him/her. 

Trust me. I'd bet good money when this young lady gets that degree she is going to go public and whine about all the legal firms she has applied to that won't hire her.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> I never vote Republican, Wysh. Lots of hypocrisy there. Whatever they may say, it is ultimately all about keeping the rich rich, and everybody else panting after them. Okay, I will keep any further political comments to the P&R section.
> 
> I am not saying history does not matter, but I think people deserve second chances.
> 
> And I think at work, work has to be the focus. A person's performance is what matters. If a mechanic does a great job fixing your car, does his sex life really matter?


No, which is why I say context and circumstances are important.

Car mechanic no problem.

Religious church leader preaching chasteness, sanctity of marriage etc while shagging half the choir? No way.

Politician setting up his manifesto on the moral health of the nation while shagging young women he is in charge of? No way.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> His sex life wouldn't matter but not the best example in my opinion. If that mechanic had a significant amount of publicity for doing something controversial that he/she chose to do. I can't fault all the garages that would decline to hire him/her.
> 
> Trust me. I'd bet good money when this young lady gets that degree she is going to go public and whine about all the legal firms she has applied to that won't hire her.


Then she will make money from the book.

You don't have to hire anyone you don't want to. You are the CEO. You know your business best.

But your female execs would accept it if you said nobody's personal life would be held against them, right? Or does it just not work that way? They can stand against you? Do you feel like you get the best work out of people by letting them set the tone here, and so it is not worth it to overrule them?


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> No, which is why I say context and circumstances are important.
> 
> Car mechanic no problem.
> 
> Religious church leader preaching chasteness, sanctity of marriage etc while shagging half the choir? No way.
> 
> Politician setting up his manifesto on the moral health of the nation while shagging young women he is in charge of? No way.


Totally agree. A president is not a mechanic. Dh was able to separate Clinton's actions in his personal life from his political decisions. I was not.

And I was totally disgusted with Clinton's support of deregulation.

And you know what I really could not stand? His wife's trying to destroy the other women in his life.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WyshIknew said:


> Religious church leader preaching chasteness, sanctity of marriage etc while shagging half the choir? No way.


 I am sure this is not of your concern -but you may find it interesting that even the BIBLE ITSELF warns such teachers will be held 
*to a harsher judgement *


----------



## WyshIknew

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am sure this is not of your concern -but you may find it interesting that even the BIBLE ITSELF warns such teachers will be held
> *to a harsher judgement *


As it should be SA.

If you talk the talk you'd better be able to walk the walk.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> Then she will make money from the book.
> 
> You don't have to hire anyone you don't want to. You are the CEO. You know your business best.
> 
> But your female execs would accept it if you said nobody's personal life would be held against them, right? Or does it just not work that way? They can stand against you? Do you feel like you get the best work out of people by letting them set the tone here, and so it is not worth it to overrule them?


My issue isn't with her making money. I'm pretty much a capitalist at heart. A book is but one of many avenues she can pursue to make money. 

My issue is that she is actively engaging in something that will most likely be a huge barrier to the goal she is ultimately seeking. She can't expect to be given a pass for that.

Interesting observations on my leadership style. Being honest I dislike yes men/women in my organization. You can't help me if you always agree with me. I'm paying you for your expertise. I might disagree with you but if you never challenge me I don't have much use for you.

But.... yes I do have too much respect for my female execs to make an ex porn actress their equal. To me that would be insulting to them. Truth be told she wouldn't fit lower in the organization either. People would probably assume somebody was sleeping with her, and half the male employees actually would be trying to sleep with her. This young lady is radioactive. I can't imagine any non sex/celebrity based business putting her on their payroll. They would all find a "reason" why she wasn't a fit.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> But.... yes I do have too much respect for my female execs to make an ex porn actress their equal. To me that would be insulting to them. Truth be told she wouldn't fit lower in the organization either. People would probably assume somebody was sleeping with her, and half the male employees actually would be trying to sleep with her. This young lady is radioactive. I can't imagine any non sex/celebrity based business putting her on their payroll. They would all find a "reason" why she wasn't a fit.


And this right here is the inherent problem with objectification: once you become an object, regardless of whether it was your choice or imposed on you, it is *very* difficult to transition back to human.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Lol, SA. I am pretty strict with my kids, too. But I am talking about criminals, you know? There are so many people out there with troubled backgrounds. And even among them, they are individuals. What may work with one may not work with another......
> 
> *I guess I tend to err on the side of compassion and understanding. And that is where it is good to balance my approach with a more conservative one. I just don't discipline other people very well, I guess*.


 and your kids don't mow you over?? Here is what we need JLD...some of your compassion and understanding...and MY CONSEQUENCES....wrap that all up and you got a good model to deal with troubled people..but it's best if they can be reached by early adulthood...

I'd be more like a drill sargent to unruly brats in my presence...I might even carry a club... (I'm kidding!)...I'm not a push over..I'd never make a "sweet" Teacher...though you might be proud of me jld...one of my favorite movies was "To sir with Love"... and I get all mushy & break out in tears listening to those words...when Lulu sings to her beloved Teacher... LULU: "To Sir With Love"  

This was a post I did on my movie thread ....



> *Simplyamorous said *: From the very 1st time I seen this movie as a young girl, I LOVED LOVED LOVED it...
> 
> To Sir, With Love: Sidney Poitier
> 
> About a Black teacher who walks into a Den of uncontrollable unruly teens in a London classroom...He is the most unlikely candidate for the job.... but he is determined to not give up....Some tough love in this movie.... all about *LIFE LESSONS*...learning Respect ....
> 
> I don't feel any teacher movie yet has compared with the "spirit" in this one, a classic.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> And this right here is the inherent problem with objectification: once you become an object, regardless of whether it was your choice or imposed on you, it is *very* difficult to transition back to human.


I'm probably coming across as insensitive on this young lady. I do have compassion for those that are objectified against their will. I just can't find any sympathy for those that do it to themselves and then demand to be respected later.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> Interesting observations on my leadership style. Being honest I dislike yes men/women in my organization. You can't help me if you always agree with me. I'm paying you for your expertise. I might disagree with you but if you never challenge me I don't have much use for you.
> 
> But.... yes I do have too much respect for my female execs to make an ex porn actress their equal. To me that would be insulting to them. Truth be told she wouldn't fit lower in the organization either. People would probably assume somebody was sleeping with her, and half the male employees actually would be trying to sleep with her. This young lady is radioactive. I can't imagine any non sex/celebrity based business putting her on their payroll. They would all find a "reason" why she wasn't a fit.


That last paragraph sounds like an honest, practical answer. I have not run a business, so I certainly can't judge.

I do like the idea, however idealistic, of a CEO hiring the most qualified person and telling her peers that she is the hire, they can learn from her, she can learn from them, and they can put their prejudice about her past aside.

We all know there are no perfect people. Again, we just need to have X-ray vision on each other for one day for all of us to see just how incredibly imperfect we all are, have been, and will be.

And I bet those female execs have some gripes about each other, too. And they are expected to put it aside and do the job the best they can.


----------



## jld

Oh, no, SA, I am hard on my kids. And that is why they are turning out well. And yes, I spank them when they have it coming, and I have slapped them across the face, too. I caught some flack for that on here a few weeks ago. I need kids I can live with, and I can live with mine just fine, lol.

I mean other people. I would not have any idea how to run a criminal justice system. I could not be a police officer or prosecutor. I just don't have it in me. I am too compassionate.

And I know you have great kids.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I'm probably coming across as insensitive on this young lady. I do have compassion for those that are objectified against their will. I just can't find any sympathy for those that do it to themselves and then demand to be respected later.


Oh, no doubt she is bringing this on herself and owns responsibility for the consequences. 

Where my sympathy comes from is that she is just 18 years old and lives in a world where women's value is their looks/sex, but whenever they use that fact to their own advantage, they are disparaged -- even threatened.

But maybe it will all work out well for her...sex worker activism is a growing field, after all. 

And maybe we can eliminate some of the attendant objectification.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh, no doubt she is bringing this on herself and owns responsibility for the consequences.
> 
> *Where my sympathy comes from is that she is just 18 years old and lives in a world where women's value is their looks/sex, but whenever they use that fact to their own advantage, they are disparaged -- even threatened.*
> 
> But maybe it will all work out well for her...sex worker activism is a growing field, after all.
> 
> And maybe we can eliminate some of the attendant objectification.


And this^^^the highlighted part, is where you and I [ and quite a few others ] part ways on this subject matter.

How many people in the history of this troubled world that we live in do you know have been exempt from the negatives that life has to offer?
Whether it's objectification , discrimination, physical violence leading to extinction as a race , gender , society or civilization?

The answer is none.

Can we help?
Sure, by helping those who _want_ help, enter activism of many different kinds.

Like I said earlier on , my elder brother is a drug addict , living on the streets. I've sent him to the best rehabs this country could offer, but he would always quit the programmes and return back to the streets. He sleeps on the streets because he can take drugs there.
I have come to the sad realization that he must first want to stop using drugs enough to leave the streets , before I or the many other people interested in helping him, can actually do so.

Sure , he's a victim of a society that objectifies people at almost every different level, but he _chose_ and continues to choose to become and remain, enslaved _and_ a victim.

I can't honestly blame society for his problem.Glorifying
victimhood IMO , takes the responsibility of the power of choice from the person, and unfairly places it on people who are not even remotely connected to the problem.

This does more damage to the person in my opinion.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I can't honestly blame society for his problem.Glorifying
> victimhood IMO , takes the responsibility of the power of choice from the person, and unfairly places it on people who are not even remotely connected to the problem.


I don't see why having sympathy is glorifying the victim. I have sympathy for your brother too.

We live in a very alienating and difficult world. Was it always this way? Perhaps. But it doesn't mean we can't have concern for those who are trampled by it, and wish for them a better life.

And if we are perpetuating, or even supporting, the injustice, well that blood is on our hands, whether we want to admit it or not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I don't see why having sympathy is glorifying the victim. I have sympathy for your brother too.
> 
> We live in a very alienating and difficult world. Was it always this way? Perhaps. But it doesn't mean we can't have concern for those who are trampled by it, and wish for them a better life.
> 
> And if we are perpetuating, or even supporting, the injustice, well that blood is on our hands, whether we want to admit it or not.


And I have no problem with this. 
However , the problem comes in when " injustice" , " rights" and
" wrongs " are determined by the whims and fancies of a person or a group of persons with questionable motives, much like Napolean and Squealer in Orwell's ' Animal Farm."

For example some Black people use the argument of the brutality of slavery to justify their own brand of anti White racism, and claims of reparations in the form of huge sums of money.

What they skillfully hide is the fact the slavery always existed in Africa and the rest of the world . it was the stronger blacks that sold other weaker tribes to the white slave traders into slavery.
_Blacks in Africa were paid money for those slaves._
Slave traders didn't purchase slaves because they hated them, they purchased slaves because of the economics of sugar and cotton. 
It was what fueled capitalism in the West.

Ironically you as well as I are both beneficiaries from past slavery, as the majority of economies in the West was built by slave labor.
Does that mean that you have "_ blood on your hands_" or that you support what has happened in the past?

I did't think so.
History and the world we presently live in is way more complex than that .


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Does that mean that you have "_ blood on your hands_" or that you support what has happened in the past?
> 
> I did't think so.


That's where you're wrong. I do think that blood is on my hands. I have never personally participated in the slave trade, nor has my family, going back for generations.

But I very much benefit from the discrimination of others, my country was literally built on the exploitation and cultural genocide of those who were here first, and this disturbs me greatly. One reason I am vocal about and do my best to promote equality and human rights.

The world is complicated, and we cannot always be on the right side. But I believe we should try.

We can try to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the state of society, but let us not forget that society is us.


----------



## ConanHub

Caribbean Man said:


> And I have no problem with this.
> However , the problem comes in when " injustice" , " rights" and
> " wrongs " are determined by the whims and fancies of a person or a group of persons with questionable motives, much like Napolean and Squealer in Orwell's ' Animal Farm."
> 
> For example some Black people use the argument of the brutality of slavery to justify their own brand of anti White racism, and claims of reparations in the form of huge sums of money.
> 
> What they skillfully hide is the fact the slavery always existed in Africa and the rest of the world . it was the stronger blacks that sold other weaker tribes to the white slave traders into slavery.
> _Blacks in Africa were paid money for those slaves._
> Slave traders didn't purchase slaves because they hated them, they purchased slaves because of the economics of sugar and cotton.
> It was what fueled capitalism in the West.
> 
> Ironically you as well as I are both beneficiaries from past slavery, as the majority of economies in the West was built by slave labor.
> Does that mean that you have "_ blood on your hands_" or that you support what has happened in the past?
> 
> I did't think so.
> History and the world we presently live in is way more complex than that .


Aside from blood on our hands, many of us wouldn't exist without the past transgressions. I would never support slavery, but my genetic line comes from the old south in more ways than one.

I have white skin but am not all white. My nephews are fairly dark and I have cousins that are as black as anyone.

Yet we are also descendants of general Robert E Lee. I do not support what happened in the past, I, and most of my family simply would not exist if it had not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> Aside from blood on our hands, many of us wouldn't exist without the past transgressions. I would never support slavery, but my genetic line comes from the old south in more ways than one.
> 
> I have white skin but am not all white. My nephews are fairly dark and I have cousins that are as black as anyone.
> 
> Yet we are also descendants of general Robert E Lee. I do not support what happened in the past, I, and most of my family simply would not exist if it had not.


That's because the history is _that_ complex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The world is complicated, and we cannot always be on the right side. But I believe we should try.
> 
> We can try to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the state of society, but let us not forget that society is us.


Collectively, we are all responsible, but we can't be individually held responsible, or hold another person responsible for a person's individual choices , simply because we don't agree with them.

Especially in a society that promotes personal liberty and responsibility over the collective.

In any event, perfection belongs to Utopian societies.


----------



## ConanHub

So should my white part pay reparations to my black part?
I sometimes get confused and angry when it seems my society tries to make a separation between me and my family members.
Even tries to separate one part of my heritage from another.

Seems pretty silly to me. My family is of the human race.


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. Sorry for the thread jack.


----------



## SlowlyGettingWiser

SimplyAmorous said:


> LULU: "To Sir With Love"



Just watched this last Monday night; one of my all-time FAVORITE movies! Love it!:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> So should my white part pay reparations to my black part?
> I sometimes get confused and angry when it seems my society tries to make a separation between me and my family members.
> Even tries to separate one part of my heritage from another.
> 
> Seems pretty silly to me. My family is of the human race.


You are not hijacking the thread, you are right on the button of what I'm trying to say.

A significant part of my family intermarried when they migrated to the USA and England during the 60's & 70's from the Caribbean ,so I can see the problem from both sides of the coin.

The problem comes in when we start trying to put blame where it doesn't belong.

There were wrongs done in the past both in the form of slavery and gender inequality that cannot be undone.

Some of these problems still exist today in many different forms, it is the human condition.

Although the Greeks and Spartans prided themselves as the most civilized in their time, it is interesting to note that they believed and practiced infanticide. Any Spartan child born with a birth defect or handicap was simply wrapped in a basket and left out on the roadway to die.

If we continually dwell on the past,taking it out of context, spewing blame and hatred to those we think are our enemies, rewrite history to suit our little agendas, then how can we as a society move forward?

Understanding the effects of the past is supposed to help empower us , not bind us in chains of helplessness and victimhood.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> For example some Black people use the argument of the brutality of slavery to justify their own brand of anti White racism, and claims of reparations in the form of huge sums of money.
> 
> What they skillfully hide is the fact the slavery always existed in Africa and the rest of the world . it was the stronger blacks that sold other weaker tribes to the white slave traders into slavery.
> _Blacks in Africa were paid money for those slaves._
> Slave traders didn't purchase slaves because they hated them, they purchased slaves because of the economics of sugar and cotton.


Oh, don't get me onto the topic of slavery, CM... I've been watching Roots for the first time, and have howled through just about every episode so far

I don't give a damn about the economics of sugar and cotton... Those buyers were supposedly educated, unlike the people who sold them (not that their actions were any less heinous). They should have known better...

As you say, though, the abomination called slavery has existed, at some time or other, the world over.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> I don't give a damn about the economics of sugar and cotton... Those buyers were supposedly educated, unlike the people who sold them (not that their actions were any less heinous). They should have known better...


:iagree:

But we all close our eyes . . .


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> :iagree:
> 
> But we all close our eyes . . .


When it suits us... But once we 'know' something, we can't unknow it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I don't give a damn about the economics of sugar and cotton... Those buyers were supposedly educated, unlike the people who sold them (not that their actions were any less heinous). They should have known better...


Well that's my point.

Everybody _should have known better._

But hindsight is always 20/20 vision.

The Greeks were the fathers of modern philosophical thought and Democracy , _yet_ they discarded their sick and handicapped babies at birth and left them to die ,in order to produce a superior race. 

The Trans Atlantic slave trade was a brutal part of the history of the West , but even before slaves were bought from Africa, the Amerindians , Aztecs , Mayans and many other indigenous peoples of South and Meso America were either enslaved or brutally killed when the Conquistadores discovered new land in the south.
Entire civilizations simply disappeared off the face of the earth, entire races were killed.

But even whilst all of this slavery and death was happening we had people like Dominican Friars ,Antonios de Montisinos ,and Bartholomew de Las Casas along with many other Catholic monks who left Europe to face the harsh condition of the West Indies to speak out against slavery. They openly condemned the colonial authorities for their treatment of slaves and worked with slaves pro bono to improve their living conditions.
Friar Antonio de Montisinos preached his last scathing sermon on Dec 04 , 1511 against slave owners on the island of Hispanola
[ Haiti ], when he was attacked and had to flee for his life...

The history of slavery is very complex.

But it's all part of the human condition.


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos. Education has never been a solution for evil. Education is a tool to be used for good or evil. Many educated people feel justified in feeling superior to others. 

Dark traits in humanity are driven by dark desires.


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Dark traits in humanity are driven by dark desires.


Like greed. And selfishness. And lust. Among others.


----------



## ConanHub

Yes jld. Education can simply make a common thug into a crime boss. The intentions of the heart determine the actions of man.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> Cosmos. *Education has never been a solution for evil. Education is a tool to be used for good or evil. Many educated people feel justified in feeling superior to others. *
> 
> Dark traits in humanity are driven by dark desires.


:iagree:

YES!

Slavery didn't end because men became " morally enlightened" , and felt sorry for slaves.

The declaration of " the rights of man" during the French Revolution happened decades before slavery ended.

It ended because the industrial revolution made mass production cheaper. It became easier to purchase or rent mechanical equipment to pick cotton or plough the fields than to purchase , maintain and feed 200 slaves.

The plantation economy was no longer viable.
Modern factories began to replace large scale plantation powered by slaves

Slavery was really the beginning of the economic paradigm called capitalism.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ConanHub said:


> Yes jld. *Education can simply make a common thug into a crime boss. *The intentions of the heart determine the actions of man.


He becomes an " _Educated Criminal_."


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Yes jld. Education can simply make a common thug into a crime boss. The intentions of the heart determine the actions of man.


Yes, that is it: the _heart._

I feel sad when I hear that people buy porn. I feel sad when I hear so much emphasis on appearance. I feel sad about all the superficialities that keep us from loving and caring for one another.

I know all these things are human. But they still make me sad.

And a person's _heart_ is absolutely key.

Thank you for mentioning that, Conan.


----------



## Cosmos

ConanHub said:


> Cosmos. Education has never been a solution for evil. Education is a tool to be used for good or evil. Many educated people feel justified in feeling superior to others.
> 
> Dark traits in humanity are driven by dark desires.


Very true. Rather like a lot of organized religions... The atrocities that have been committed by those who purport to be doing God's work... The bind just moggles!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Here's an interesting , maybe thought provoking article I came across on jezebel.com last week Thursday.

Demonizing Sex Work Harms Sex Workers

Have a read of the comments posted in response to the article.



Your thoughts?


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> YES!
> 
> Slavery didn't end because men became " morally enlightened" , and felt sorry for slaves.
> 
> The declaration of " the rights of man" during the French Revolution happened decades before slavery ended.
> 
> It ended because the industrial revolution made mass production cheaper. It became easier to purchase or rent mechanical equipment to pick cotton or plough the fields than to purchase , maintain and feed 200 slaves.
> 
> The plantation economy was no longer viable.
> Modern factories began to replace large scale plantation powered by slaves
> 
> Slavery was really the beginning of the economic paradigm called capitalism.


Well put, and totally in accordance with the facts (as opposed to the self-perceptions and self-deceptions of those eras).

Slavery wasn't just a phase, a fad or a thing for tanned people - we too were slaves, but slaves for _hire _rather than purchase. It's an essential ingredient of any industrialising country to uproot and undermine the population to make them more 'flexible' about their 'working patterns'. 

Lots of Irish in the states. Ireland went from a nation of 7 million to 2 million, during industrialisation... now _that _is a holocaust, and not a nazi or communist behind it, but a "parliamentary democracy" (britain). 

Democracy is the worst of all possible systems, if by democracy we mean corporations running things.


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos said:


> The bind just moggles!


Unfortunately, my bind just moggles all the time.


----------



## jld

I read the article. They do this work because it pays better than other service jobs. 

So the problem is economic. I tried to bring this up many pages back. No one seems to have a solution for this economic problem.


----------



## Cosmos

ConanHub said:


> Unfortunately, my bind just moggles all the time.


My bind is so moggled, I live in a permanent state of boggliness


----------



## ConanHub

Caribbean Man said:


> Here's an interesting , maybe thought provoking article I came across on jezebel.com last week Thursday.
> 
> Demonizing Sex Work Harms Sex Workers
> 
> Have a read of the comments posted in response to the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Your thoughts?


Just read the article and several responses.

Disclaimer: I hate the sex trade with a passion that is beyond white hot! If I thought God wouldn't judge me, I would kill as many slavers and pimps that I could. That being said...

I don't believe it is making the world a better place to make it safer or more socially acceptable for your daughter to be stuffed like a Christmas turkey by hundreds of wangs on video.

As a society, we are trying to normalize abhorrent behavior. History proves that every society that has embraced the obscene as normal, has disappeared from the face of the earth and good riddance.

Making it harder or shameful for little Suzie or Diane to grow up and choose to prostitute themselves is definitely healthier for a society.


----------



## Cosmos

ConanHub said:


> As a society, we are trying to normalize abhorrent behavior. History proves that every society that has embraced the obscene as normal, has disappeared from the face of the earth and good riddance.
> 
> Making it harder or shameful for little Suzie or Diane to grow up and choose to prostitute themselves is definitely healthier for a society.


:iagree:

Herein lies the problem... Society is treading a very fine line, IMO, and in a world where 'anything goes,' one wonders what will happen when everything's 'gone.' A society with no holds barred and no restraints might sound good to some, but where are we going to draw the line? What are the next taboos that we're going to insist on normalizing?


----------



## ConanHub

Scary stuff Cosmos. Past a point violence eventually breaks out form one side of the issue or another.


----------



## jld

Well, rather than shaming Suzy or Diane, I would like to shame Tom, ****, and Harry for engaging them.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> Well, rather than shaming Suzy or Diane, I would like to shame Tom, ****, and Harry for engaging them.


Why not do both? I don't think it is one sided.


----------



## richie33

I wouldn't want my daughter to become a porn star. Just like I wouldn't want my sons to become a professional boxer or football player.


----------



## ConanHub

richie33 said:


> I wouldn't want my daughter to become a porn star. Just like I wouldn't want my sons to become a professional boxer or football player.


Don't see things the way you do but agree with the porn thing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> I'm probably coming across as insensitive on this young lady. I do have compassion for those that are objectified against their will. * I just can't find any sympathy for those that do it to themselves and then demand to be respected later.*


This comes down to personal *responsibility *for our own choices...(in anything, not just starring in Porn....a myriad of things that has the power to bite us down the road)...

It's much more realistic to explain to someone....you have this choice before you, but UNDERSTAND this carries a PRICE along with it...we can not change society and their feelings on this (meaning a SEGMENT of society)....so if you go forth...do not claim "ignorance"...

Especially if one is over age 18.....are we not old enough to "count the cost" ...in anything we set our hands to do... or put out there. 

What I see so much in society is an attitude of....."Well I was young and stupid" speaking of their younger years...like it is some sort of Right of Passage ... if Belle Knox doesn't use this excuse in her future... I would have more respect for her ... but I am guessing she will be like everyone else.. and start blaming _________ that TEMPTED HER BEYOND HER POWER TO SAY "*NO*".... 

There was a thread here in the social section a couple yrs ago.......asking if people ever listen to the advice of others..or see value in it...from a relative / friend... the overwhelming responses was ..... "NO.. people should mind their own business and let me learn from my own mistakes".....this is the prevailing attitude of far too many... I find THIS VERY SAD ..... so if we try to warn someone to not go down a certain path....chances are we are met with *>>>* "Mind your own damn business and don't judge me!".... 

So our hands are tied.....all we can do is pick up the pieces of broken lives *after the fact*... 



> *ConanHub said*: *Cosmos. Education has never been a solution for evil. Education is a tool to be used for good or evil. Many educated people feel justified in feeling superior to others.
> 
> Dark traits in humanity are driven by dark desires.
> 
> Yes jld. Education can simply make a common thug into a crime boss. The intentions of the heart determine the actions of man.*





> *jld said*: *Like greed. And selfishness. And lust. Among others.*


:iagree::iagree::iagree:



> *jld said*: *I feel sad when I hear that people buy porn. I feel sad when I hear so much emphasis on appearance. I feel sad about all the superficialities that keep us from loving and caring for one another*


Well we would make you ... we rented it for a year a few yrs back....I originally rented the ones by Sex therapists for Married Couples.. to spice up our sex life.. but also enjoyed many PlayGirl's... 

To be honest, it IS a conflict in my head...I should HATE it, want to destroy it and feel like the rest of the women here...makes me feel like a BAD PERSON...so now you all can JUDGE ME [email protected]#$......I guess these are my dark desires.... I can think of far worse things to do.... We'd rather watch porn over sports any day. 

Voodoo & his wife...they are like "ARTWORK" together...



Caribbean Man said:


> And this^^^the highlighted part, is where you and I [ and quite a few others ] part ways on this subject matter.
> 
> How many people in the history of this troubled world that we live in do you know have been exempt from the negatives that life has to offer?
> Whether it's objectification , discrimination, physical violence leading to extinction as a race , gender , society or civilization?
> 
> The answer is none.
> 
> *Can we help?
> Sure, by helping those who want help, enter activism of many different kinds.*


 I think identical to you..


> Like I said earlier on ,* my elder brother is a drug addict , living on the streets. I've sent him to the best rehabs this country could offer, but he would always quit the programmes and return back to the streets. He sleeps on the streets because he can take drugs there.
> I have come to the sad realization that he must first want to stop using drugs enough to leave the streets , before I or the many other people interested in helping him, can actually do so.*


 I had no idea you had a family member in such a place as this ... 

I think reaching teens BEFORE they make these choices of trying drugs or doing crime is the best way to help society...ethical discussions/ early intervention...being careful who our kids hang with.. (this is being judgmental again)...You know what , we all judge...every day... parents have a vital role....but still if kids don't listen... if they sneak, hide and lie.. what to do! 

I'm just really BIG on personal responsibility at every turn....that's just how my brain works... They can do what they want to DO in life.....It's THEIR LIFE...but we'll warn every pitfall that could come down the pike , even magnify it a little so they can't claim ignorance....always encouraging them to carefully weigh their choices in light of their futures...


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Why not do both? I don't think it is one sided.


You think it is equally exploitative, Conan? Could you help me understand your pov, please?


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> That's where you're wrong. I do think that blood is on my hands. I have never personally participated in the slave trade, nor has my family, going back for generations.
> 
> But I very much benefit from the discrimination of others, my country was literally built on the exploitation and cultural genocide of those who were here first, and this disturbs me greatly. One reason I am vocal about and do my best to promote equality and human rights.
> 
> The world is complicated, and we cannot always be on the right side. But I believe we should try.
> 
> We can try to absolve ourselves of responsibility for the state of society, but let us not forget that society is us.


That's a heavy burden AA. I certainly don't expect white people to feel guilty about the past. I also don't expect them to apologize or change the minds of the minority of white people that are still racist. I'm not thinking about the past I'm focused on the future.


----------



## jld

That is very healthy, RH.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> That last paragraph sounds like an honest, practical answer. I have not run a business, so I certainly can't judge.
> 
> _I do like the idea, however idealistic, of a CEO hiring the most qualified person and telling her peers that she is the hire, they can learn from her, she can learn from them, and they can put their prejudice about her past aside.
> 
> We all know there are no perfect people. Again, we just need to have X-ray vision on each other for one day for all of us to see just how incredibly imperfect we all are, have been, and will be._
> 
> And I bet those female execs have some gripes about each other, too. And they are expected to put it aside and do the job the best they can.


I'm not trying to pick on you jld but this idealistic solution you seek is way off base. Trying to convince a female technology exec with battle scars who has often had to work twice as hard to get where she is as her male counterparts that she should make room for some porn bimbo is something I would never do. 

How would one even start that conversation, "I know you've paid your dues and done everything the right way, but....we're moving in a different direction." They'd quit and rightfully so.

The bottom line is a person's past does matter. I honestly don't think its the same as discrimination. This is the reason we don't want our kids making stupid decisions. She wouldn't be the first person male or female to ruin their lives before age 21.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> You think it is equally exploitative, Conan? Could you help me understand your pov, please?


I think shaming men for being a consumer of women in the sex trade is just as fair as shaming the women in it.

I am not friends with men who enjoy the degradation of women. I walk the walk. I am indirectly responsible for the firing and/or demotion of more than one man who thought to objectify (sexually) and harass women in my place of employment. 

By "indirectly " I mean no one knows I was responsible. However, men know not to disrespect or degrade women within earshot of me as well.

I am one man but I can affect my immediate surroundings.


----------



## ConanHub

ReformedHubby said:


> I'm not trying to pick on you jld but this idealistic solution you seek is way off base. Trying to convince a female technology exec with battle scars who has often had to work twice as hard to get where she is as her male counterparts that she should make room for some porn bimbo is something I would never do.
> 
> How would one even start that conversation, "I know you've paid your dues and done everything the right way, but....we're moving in a different direction." They'd quit and rightfully so.
> 
> The bottom line is a person's past does matter. I honestly don't think its the same as discrimination. This is the reason we don't want our kids making stupid decisions. She wouldn't be the first person male or female to ruin their lives before age 21.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:
I have read forums where what a young woman did at 18 pretty much destroyed her family years later.

This one woman did amateur porn when she was 18 and hard up for money. She did several videos and quit. 

She met her husband when she was 20 and never disclosed her past. Fast forward 20 years. She has a wonderful marriage and a14 year old son.
Her husbands friend discovers her getting porked on video and figures the husband should know and tells him.

When the H confronted her she just starts crying. Sure she regrets her past but now it is affecting her present. Wouldn't it have been wonderful for her son to have found mommy getting degraded like an ally cat?

He is trying to work it out with his wife but he just can't look at her the same way and the lie by omission is killing him as well as having his wifes birth canal being plowed by many men, being readily available to his friends and neighbors on the internet.

Keeping this from affecting his son is turning into a nightmare for him.

Your past might truly be in the past but it does harm you and possibly unfairly, your family.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> That's a heavy burden AA. I certainly don't expect white people to feel guilty about the past. I also don't expect them to apologize or change the minds of the minority of white people that are still racist. I'm not thinking about the past I'm focused on the future.


The past is still present where I live. And by not learning from history, we are making the same mistakes over and over again.

I agree that reparations can get complicated and unwieldy as you start to go backwards in time. But injustice is ongoing.

I too am thinking about the future.


----------



## jld

I don't know what to say, RH and Conan.

I don't run a business like you do, RH. I am sure you do what you need to do to keep things going well. I am sure my idea of just focusing on someone's talents seems idealistic. I am certainly not going to tell a business owner how to run his business.

Conan, I think we just see women in prostitution differently. I see them as victims. I know that is unpopular. But except for the money, they would not be there. I just think it is sad. It is just not what I want for any woman I care about, and I think I need to extend that concern to women I do not know. If there are no customers, there will be no prostitutes. Go after the johns, I say.

I am sorry that husband cannot overlook his wife's past, esp. if they have been happy for 20 years. I am not sure there is anything my husband cannot forgive me for. I am so grateful.

I am sorry we see this differently. Thank you both for sharing your views.


----------



## Cosmos

We were talking earlier in this thread about our 'anything goes' society and where it all might end. At the time, the following (inter alia) occurred to me, but I thought it was too far-fetched to even contemplate. Apparently not... Apparently there's a group that has actually been campaigning for_ paedophile rights_: 

"...PIE had called for greater tolerance and paedophile "rights" and campaigned for a lowering of the age of consent to 10..."

BBC News - Lord Justice Fulford backed paedophile campaign, paper claims


----------



## ReformedHubby

Cosmos said:


> We were talking earlier in this thread about our 'anything goes' society and where it all might end. At the time, the following (inter alia) occurred to me, but I thought it was too far-fetched to even contemplate. Apparently not... Apparently there's a group that has actually been campaigning for_ paedophile rights_:
> 
> "...PIE had called for greater tolerance and paedophile "rights" and campaigned for a lowering of the age of consent to 10..."
> 
> BBC News - Lord Justice Fulford backed paedophile campaign, paper claims


These groups have always been around. Google NAMBLA if you want to make yourself nauseous.


----------



## Cosmos

ReformedHubby said:


> These groups have always been around. Google NAMBLA if you want to make yourself nauseous.


I'd horse:whip: the lot of them!


----------



## ReformedHubby

Cosmos said:


> I'd horse:whip: the lot of them!


These guys used to actually have commercials on TV when I was I kid. They are more underground now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> We were talking earlier in this thread about our 'anything goes' society and where it all might end. At the time, the following (inter alia) occurred to me, but I thought it was too far-fetched to even contemplate. Apparently not... Apparently there's a group that has actually been campaigning for_ paedophile rights_:
> 
> "...PIE had called for greater tolerance and paedophile "rights" and campaigned for a lowering of the age of consent to 10..."
> 
> BBC News - Lord Justice Fulford backed paedophile campaign, paper claims



I glad that you posted that story.

i remember about a decade ago there was a similar political group in the Netherlands that called for the lowering of the age of consent to 12 or 13 yrs I think.

What was extremely disturbing to me at the time I heard it was that all political parties in the Netherlands were entitled to receive funding from the state according to law. 

So technically the state was funding a party of paedophiles.

Paedophilia to me is a clear cut case of sexual objectification if ever there is one. I can't figure out exactly what is the fantasy or attraction of a man attracted to an eight , nine , ten or teen aged girl.
Some men use to biology argument , which I might agree with if the girl is physically mature and looks like a woman. I'm talking about a girl around 15 or probably 16. Although I still consider that age to be way too young and inexperienced to be having sexual relations with a mature male.

But what I don't get is men who go after those little kids who haven't even began to develop breasts , hips or other outward signs of maturity, like in a 10 yr old. What exactly is there is a 12 yr old girl to elicit sexual arousal in a man? 


Back in the old days , a young girl was married off when she was around 14 , 15 or 16, and most likely , she would have to be a virgin. So how do we really rationalize men wanting to have sex with 11 year olds? This must be something fairly new, imo.

I think the entire scenario reeks of sexual objectification of the worst kind, and is one of the scourge of post modern societies.

I also think we need to stop playing stupid legal games with children's welfare and enact serious legislation to protect them. They are the future.


----------



## jld

Pedophilia is a sickness. I bet it is genetic. What a terrible illness to have.


----------



## ConanHub

Pedophiles are simply child rapists. There is one certain cure and they would be certain to receive it if I ever caught one of them "loving" a child. 

There are things worth dying for. If society ever legalizes the rape of children, I would become an enemy of the state that instant. A society that does not protect women and children doesn't deserve to exist.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Pedophilia is a sickness. I bet it is genetic. What a terrible illness to have.


The trouble is, where do we draw the line between illness and pure deviancy? How are we going to even define deviancy if we keep moving the boundaries and relabeling 'normalcy.'

Some things that are, apparently, 'normal' today are completely abhorrent to me, but if I were to voice some of my views on TAM I would be labelled anything from "inhibited" to "insecure" - even though I'm neither of those things...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> The trouble is, where do we draw the line between illness and pure deviancy? How are we going to even define deviancy if we keep moving the boundaries and relabeling 'normalcy.'


:iagree:

I seems to me that we human beings possess the unique ability to continually delude ourselves all in the name of 
" progress and enlightenment."


----------



## ConanHub

Cosmos said:


> The trouble is, where do we draw the line between illness and pure deviancy? How are we going to even define deviancy if we keep moving the boundaries and relabeling 'normalcy.'
> 
> Some things that are, apparently, 'normal' today are completely abhorrent to me, but if I were to voice some of my views on TAM I would be labelled anything from "inhibited" to "insecure" - even though I'm neither of those things...


Thanks for thinking clearly Cosmos. I get a bit of the "red fog" on subjects like this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Conan, I think we just see women in prostitution differently. * I see them as victims. I know that is unpopular.* But except for the money, they would not be there. I just think it is sad. It is just not what I want for any woman I care about, and I think I need to extend that concern to women I do not know. * If there are no customers, there will be no prostitutes. Go after the johns, I say.*


 I know you used the word Prostitution here, not sex workers....

Me & H was talking about this the other night.... about Belle Knox...the college girl doing Porn.. I happen to see what SHE is doing as a *WILLING CHOICE*...and it IS all about The money... ....and that's fine!!! ....it's her choice to make...
*I support people having CHoice*!....

I am just saying there is a PRICE with our choices.... (drink & drive, you might get a DUI, kill someone or yourself)....(unprotected sex with someone who doesn't love you -pregnancy might result... end up a single Mom, STD's, maybe even an abortion..not a great start in life).... Say "yes" to drugs (at any age)... say Hello to addiction that will destroy [email protected]#....you might end up homeless, resort to crime, even get into prostitution to feed your habit...those are the breaks..

I just don't like the blame shifting so many do *after the fact*.....it's like they rewrite history and want some pass....people can say "No"...there are other options....if you are PROUD of your choice.. stand by it... 

With Belle Knox... she is sending a loud and clear message to how utterly outrageous College costs are... will anyone listen to her....Heck I agree with her on that [email protected]#$....but will it have any effect.. will we all feel so bad that young women are resorting to the porn industry so we should lower tuition costs?? Did the college make her a VICTIM...who made her a VICTIM?? 

*1*. Men who consume porn / the person who hired her ...
*2*. Duke University ...whomever has the power to charge these outrageous tuition costs...
*3*. Her Parents for not paying... she could have done what this 18 yr old did & tried to SUE HER PARENTS.....she was a Stunner /former cheerleader...the porn industry would have hired her on the spot...maybe she is thinking about it now....with all these headlines... New Jersey honor student sues parents for school fees after they cut her off at age 18 - NY Daily News








Back to Belle Knox... her statement :

US girl stars in porn flicks to meet college fees - 



> *Playboy*: Is that what this is really about for you — the skyrocketing cost of higher education in America?
> 
> *Knox*: Absolutely. My story is a testament to how ****ing expensive school is. The fact that the only viable options to pay for college are to take out gigantic student loans, to not go to college at all or to join the sex industry really says something. We need to recognize that there's a gap between what middle-class and upper-middle-class families can pay and what they're asked to pay. We also need to stop looking at loans as a solution to fix our education system, because they're crippling our economy.


My husband talks like YOU JLD..."well if the men didn't want to watch it...she wouldn't do it"...I am assuming this is your mindset..... but if that was *Me*.. I would not be blaming the men, the porn industry or even the school... Oh I'd be pissed about the cost.. no doubt...

She listed 3 choices there... *1)* Doing porn....*2)* NO school or ...*3)* gigantic student loans... 

How about another..*4)* choosing a lower cost college.. they aren't all $60,000 a year! The College our son went to, on his 1st day, we met a kid from another state -which I found odd....who choose to attend there because it was less expensive than his Home State's College.. he did his homework. 

I'd never say they're aren't victims.....each situation & life story is so different.....if it is ever outlawed, I would fear it would get worse though...

I will have respect for this woman if years down the road -she will admit..."I did it for the money... it was a wrong choice, it has hurt my life.. if I could do it all over again, I would not advise women to do this"... and maybe she will.. or maybe she will be an advocate to how wonderful PORN IS...and how sexually repressed we all are and advise more college students to do what she did [email protected]# ...but right now....I see her blaming her choice on DUKE... 

Now imagine if there was not some "judgement" on these type behaviors...what do you think would happen?....wouldn't more and more young women be looking for similar jobs...consider stripping (I've met some who were going to college they told us this was why they do it -the $$)...one did get into porn...it's like going from pot to drugs for many.... imagine no backlash... doesn't societies voices even things out...

*...It holds some behaviors back*... Belle Knox is one who hates this, she wants embraced for her choices, NO JUDGEMENT...she calls those who judge repressed, jealous, and she damns religion....and you stand along with her...not wanting to see her judged... but I am just asking you to imagine if she got her wish... *you are against porn*, *SHE IS FOR IT*.. but you both WISH for a day where people are not judged for what they do... how can this go both ways?? What will the social activist be fighting for ? 

*This is the meaning of Victim:*



> : a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else
> 
> : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else
> 
> : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)


She applied for the Job...she looked it up on the internet.....How is she being cheated or fooled.. this is not an accident, she is not mentally ill.. she is a smart girl, she made a choice.....basically she has invited "sexual objectification" upon herself to pay for her tuition...


----------



## jld

ConanHub said:


> Pedophiles are simply child rapists. There is one certain cure and they would be certain to receive it if I ever caught one of them "loving" a child.
> 
> There are things worth dying for. If society ever legalizes the rape of children, I would become an enemy of the state that instant. *A society that does not protect women and children *doesn't deserve to exist.


Maybe a society that does not protect _the weak_?


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> The trouble is, where do we draw the line between illness and pure deviancy? How are we going to even define deviancy if we keep moving the boundaries and relabeling 'normalcy.'
> 
> Some things that are, apparently, 'normal' today are completely abhorrent to me, but if I were to voice some of my views on TAM I would be labelled anything from "inhibited" to "insecure" - even though I'm neither of those things...


We absolutely need to protect the weak. 

I read a news article many years ago about a man who out of the blue started to molest children. He was found to have a brain tumor. It was removed and he was normal again.

After a few years, the molestation started up again. Indeed, another growth had presented itself. 

I am not saying child molestation is okay in any way. But I think we would do well to understand why it might happen, and see what we can do from a logical perspective against it, if anything.


----------



## Jellybeans

Child molestation by an adult happens because that person is a pedophile.

A tumor does not cause someone to be a pedophile.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Jellybeans said:


> Child molestation by an adult happens because that person is a pedophile.
> 
> A tumor does not cause someone to be a pedophile.


I understand and agree with you.

However I think I have read somewhere before, or heard about some research that pointed in the direction of men who are paedophiles as having some sort of mental illness or chemical imbalances in their brain.

I think I read something similar about people who are chronic drug users. Those who are hopelessly hooked on drugs.
What they were hinting at , was that it might be an imbalance in the brain chemistry.

Lol, I really don't know.
These things always baffle me.

I personally know some people who took cocaine for years and lost everything , begging on the streets and eating out of a dumpster, my brother included.
Then suddenly some come to their senses , get into rehab and never touch cocaine or even alcohol again . they got their lives back.
others like my brother , no matter how many times I got him into rehab or help him, he always goes back using crack.
So I'm tempted to believe that maybe the imbalance in the brain/ mental illness might have some credibility.

However, I still believe that personal responsibility trumps everything.
Whether you have urges to have sex with little kids, or whether those urges tell you to take drugs.
Both can be controlled by the person.


----------



## Jellybeans

CaribbeanMan... you are correct: personal accountability trumps everything.

A tumor or drugs does not a pedophile make. 

That sucks about your bro. Drugs are bad, ya'll.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Paedophilia to me is a clear cut case of sexual objectification if ever there is one. I can't figure out exactly what is the fantasy or attraction of a man attracted to an eight , nine , ten or teen aged girl.


I think its a case of clear cut dominance - the comfort of power. Weak men attracted to the only people they feel they have a total upper hand with. It may truly be a mental health issue, I don't know. Of course, like all things, some will take finding reason for it to be justifying it, as we see in a lot of the replies. There is a desire to believe free will is everything. There is no justifying such behavior of course, even if we found the cause.

Now, being attracted to late teens I understand and don't believe it to be about power but youth and maybe even forbidden fruit. Even so, I agree with them still being off limits as the potential for psychological harm of a developing person is just too great.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MissFroggie said:


> ALL paedophiles are sick. They all have their 'reasons'. NOTHING can justify it EVER. Brain tumour or not, if I EVER did something so heinous I would kill myself before I risked it happening again. If suicide was not possible I would NEVER be near another child, in fact I'd never be near ANYONE again. I'd cut off my hands before I allowed that risk. I'd rather be dead than allow that to happen a first time, even more so a second!


Some pedophiles even regret their desire for children. I've read of some voluntarily being castrated in hopes of lowering their sex drive and thus drive to harm children.

I agree with you though, if I recognized that I was driven to pursue children sexually, I'd off myself and consider it an honorable death - saving others from my demons that I can't say for sure will never get out. Even one child is too many.


----------



## Cosmos

_"A variety of different theories exist as to the causes of pedophilia. A few researchers attribute pedophilia along with the other paraphilias to biology. They hold that testosterone, one of the male sex hormones, predisposes men to develop deviant sexual behaviors. As far as genetic factors are concerned, as of 2002 no researchers have claimed to have discovered or mapped a gene for pedophilia.

Most experts regard pedophilia as resulting from psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Some think that pedophilia is the result of having been sexually abused as a child. Still others think that it derives from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life. Some researchers attribute pedophilia to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically. Some regard pedophilia as the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner. Since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. This drive for domination is sometimes thought to explain why most pedophiles are males."_

Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz2vaQdV3WC


And another interesting article:- Pedophilia and Psychological Profiling


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> *However I think I have read somewhere before, or heard about some research that pointed in the direction of men who are paedophiles as having some sort of mental illness or chemical imbalances in their brain*.


Jld mentioned the Brain tumor....Here is one such article.... Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia - 21 October 2002 - New Scientist..

I don't have this particular book but I have one of this author's books.....Change Your Brain, Change Your Life: The Breakthrough Program for Conquering Anxiety, Depression, Obsessiveness, Anger, and Impulsiveness: Daniel G. Amen:  ...and it spoke of things less severe but changes none the less... for instance , there was a story about a husband who worked around paint fumes daily... gradually his temper became more violent.... uncontrollable urges ...it put them on the brink of divorce...she was wondering what happened to her husband.... a brain scan determined how parts of his brain was altered, connections lost... due to his inhaling those chemical fumes for years on end...this helped her understand the WHY's ...and they did the best they could with treatment from there..

Also there was a poster here , her husband had a stroke....his personality changed after this... he suddenly was interested in transvestite porn...he was never like that [email protected]#...I recall her Doctor telling her this can Happen... it speaks of this very thing in this article.. The Neurocritic: Unusual Changes in Sexuality: Case Studies in Neurology...

... the Neurological Doctors who see the changing effects, talking to the relatives about prior behavior...they have the real story....and I hope we never have to find out.

Even depression, Bi-polar, all of it is brain dysfunctions... when mental illness enters the picture... anything goes!...why people need prompt treatment. But what do you do when a family member of age refuses treatment.. our hands are tied.. until someone hurts themselves or another... we can not force someone to get help... so this is a quandary... 

*The very rights we carry...also puts the risks to society at large.*



> *I think I read something similar about people who are chronic drug users. Those who are hopelessly hooked on drugs.
> What they were hinting at , was that it might be an imbalance in the brain chemistry.
> 
> Lol, I really don't know.
> These things always baffle me*.


According to this The Brain—Lesson 5—Drug Addiction Is a Disease—So What Do We Do about It? (Page 1 of 2)

"*Drug abuse and addiction lead to long-term changes in the brain’s chemistry and physiology.* The changes in the brain cause drug-addicted people not only to lose the ability to control their drug use, but their addiction also changes all aspects of their lives. "



> *However, I still believe that personal responsibility trumps everything.
> Whether you have urges to have sex with little kids, or whether those urges tell you to take drugs.
> Both can be controlled by the person*.


 It seems Education is not enough....and unfortunately one wrong turn, can set a person on a detour that was never never never meant to be, destroying their lives, their brains and everyone else's around them... 

According to this article...Why "Just Say No" Doesn't Work - Scientific American

..


> "All the approaches seem sensible on the surface, so policy makers, teachers and parents typically assume they work.* Yet it turns out that approaches involving social interaction work better than the ones emphasizing education.* That finding may explain why the most popular prevention program has been found to be ineffective—and may even heighten the use of some substances among teens....
> 
> They further observed that programs that unfold during many sessions—*ideally, over several years—garner especially strong results, probably because they provide students with lessons that are reinforced over time, as children mature and encounter different environments."... we need better programs, kids involved... all of it.. education is not enough*...


----------



## Cosmos

> *SimplyAmorous said:*
> 
> Jld mentioned the Brain tumor....Here is one such article.... Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia - 21 October 2002 - New Scientist..
> 
> I don't have this particular book but I have one of this author's books.....Change Your Brain, Change Your Life: The Breakthrough Program for Conquering Anxiety, Depression, Obsessiveness, Anger, and Impulsiveness: Daniel G. Amen: ...and it spoke of things less severe but changes none the less... for instance , there was a story about a husband who worked around paint fumes daily... gradually his temper became more violent.... uncontrollable urges ...it put them on the brink of divorce...she was wondering what happened to her husband.... a brain scan determined how parts of his brain was altered, connections lost... due to his inhaling those chemical fumes for years on end...this helped her understand the WHY's ...and they did the best they could with treatment from there..
> 
> Also there was a poster here , her husband had a stroke....his personality changed after this... he suddenly was interested in transvestite porn...he was never like that [email protected]#...I recall her Doctor telling her this can Happen... it speaks of this very thing in this article.. The Neurocritic: Unusual Changes in Sexuality: Case Studies in Neurology...


These sort of things do happen, but I think psychological factors are far more common, SA.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think all agree that whether its a psychological disorder or a vice ,it is BAD news for the most vulnerable in our society, little children who sometimes don't really know better, and whose lives are at risk because they become prey. 

I've read " The Lolita Urge" by Jasper Kossov many years ago and it was inconclusive.

But I think I like Devil's explanation above when he said it's a type of power and control dynamic.
It's like a man who doesn't feel he's capable of having meaningful sexual relations with a mature woman because of a deficiency somewhere in his early developmental stages.

Basically , his wiring is bad...
Very bad.


----------



## jld

We all know molestation is bad. My point was that if we try to understand why it happens, maybe we can systematically prevent it.


----------



## Jellybeans

I don't think you can "prevent" pedophilia or "child molester."

It's not like you take a pill and it's gone. Or send them to jail for a time and "rehabilitate" them.


----------



## jld

I hear you, MF. I am well aware of molestation being a very bad thing. 

But unless we are going to have laws that just kill molesters, we are going to have to look at how to deal more effectively with this issue. We need to look at whatever science there is that can prevent it, or deal with it better.

I think I read once that pedophilia occurs in 1% of the population. That is a lot. Are we going to systematically put to death one percent of the population?


----------



## Jellybeans

The science that can prevent pedophilia? Wth. Do you really believe that? :scratchhead: Oh my.


----------



## jld

I don't think they stay in prison forever. There is one state that keeps them as long as they can in group homes after prison time, or so I heard a decade or so ago.

I am against child molestation, too. I hate it, too.

And I think there may have been some talk of identifying a gene that predisposes people to pedophilia. Anyone heard this, too?


----------



## Sandfly

Before we go too far down the 'testosterone creates pedophiles' route, for every sick man there is a sick woman encouraging him; in some cases, who even instigate the child abuse.

Ian Brady - Myra Hindley,
Ian Huntley - Maxine Carr.
Mariusz Krezole - Magdalena Luczak
Carl Manning - Anna Kouao
Ian Watkins (musician) - Many, _many_ mothers offering their kids.

A full example is provided here, of Zahbeena Navsarka and her "Partner" Subhan Anwar

BBC News - Child murderer Subhan Anwar killed in Long Lartin Prison

There are hundreds of similar cases.

I hypothesise that we only find out a woman is also involved when it goes from being abuse to murder... 

I firmly believe a woman is almost always in on it, but society has been conditioned to believe women when they say they "didn't know about it" - eg Fritzl and Mrs. Fritzl (How "naive" was she!) Maxine Carr gets off on lesser charges, they all do. eg: 

"Sanam's mother Zahbeena Navsarka was jailed for manslaughter and Subhan Anwar for murder."

In my opinion, pedophilia is just as prevalent among women. We needn't even go into all the cases of female teachers who get a slap on the wrist for screwing 14 year old boys.

Let's demand death for repeat offending pedophiles of both genders, maybe negligence charges for mothers who invite dodgy boyfriends into the house also.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> We all know molestation is bad. My point was that if we try to understand why it happens, maybe we can systematically prevent it.


As far as I know, JLD, there's some debate over whether paedophilia is actually a sexual orientation as opposed to a mental disorder. One thing does seem clear, though, it doesn't respond well to therapy, medication or other interventions. 

Prevention is difficult, because children are very often molested by people they know.


----------



## jld

MissFroggie said:


> Lol, so because we are not using the 100% efficient way to prevent re-offending, that we already have, we should look for new ways?
> 
> Now it is genetic? How is it that we have paedophiles in both genders, all races, all sexual orientations, all financial levels, all educational backgrounds, everything, then? Yeah, it's probably on a par with your previous comment that Asian women are unable to be open and honest; Indian maids always steal; Americans are all materialistic and the French are all into food? Probably genetic...of course your genes would be perfect lol


I am not really sure how to respond to this, MF. I do think there is more to pedophilia than we might realize. I was trying to go beyond emotion to look at it more seriously..

And I am not really sure how to respond to the last half of your last paragraph. And I am very hurt by the mischaracterizations. And I am now leaving the thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Before we go too far down the 'testosterone creates pedophiles' route, for every sick man there is a sick woman encouraging him; in some cases, who even instigate the child abuse.
> 
> Ian Brady - Myra Hindley,
> Ian Huntley - Maxine Carr.
> Mariusz Krezole - Magdalena Luczak
> Carl Manning - Anna Kouao
> Ian Watkins (musician) - Many, _many_ mothers offering their kids.
> 
> A full example is provided here, of Zahbeena Navsarka and her "Partner" Subhan Anwar
> 
> BBC News - Child murderer Subhan Anwar killed in Long Lartin Prison
> 
> There are hundreds of similar cases.


Interesting.

We had that " problem" in our country some years ago where children were being molested, and when the case came to courts the child saying that the mother or some other adult knew, and the mother or whoever, feigning ignorance.

Well the lawmakers took care of that.

They changed the laws so that if a person is convicted of sexual activity with a child, they get mandatory life sentence.

If the child says that the mother or any other adult like the school teacher , neighbor or whoever knew,
They get up to 10 years in prison.

The emphasis being that a child's safety is everyone's responsibility in that community.

After the law was passed, suddenly a number of cases started surfacing.


----------



## jld

MissFroggie said:


> How are they mischaracterisations? This is what you sent me after I accepted your apology for saying Asian women were incapable of being completely open or honest. Saying you are racist towards other people and not just Asian women doesn't really change it and now we're getting into genetics too and your pushing me about my father being a paedophile (which is on this site and no secret) then saying it is genetic...wow, I'm not just an Asian woman who is incapable of being completely open or honest, now I might have the paedophile gene too!


Well, I guess I am not out of this thread.

Is that what you think I meant here? That you or I or any child of a pedophile could have the gene, too?

Yeah, my dad, too, MF. 

Pushing you?

I am not a racist and anyone who knows me, knows that. I said that man's wife might have a hard time being open and honest because not all cultures encourage it like we do in the West. Do you know that he told me in a pm that I was right on?

If you go to India, you will be warned, by the Indians themselves, about maids stealing. I had one that did not, and one that did. But these warnings come about for a reason.

There are such things as cultural differences. That was my point.


----------



## Sandfly

jld said:


> There are such things as cultural differences. That was my point.


I don't think we can deny this, MissF?

You can read this sort of thing in any lonely planet guidebook. 

I remember the Masai warriors who visited London for some sporting exchange were told not to meet and greet people so readily as they do back home. They explained it as "people in London don't smile because they hate their work." Got me thinking, that did. None of them down there seem happy unless they have a wine-glass in one hand. Up here, people say hello and smile for no reason.


----------



## Anon Pink

MissFroggie said:


> At no point did I deny cultural differences
> 
> I did however mention the fact there is a difference between pointing out a possible cultural difference and a making a derogatory blanket statement that could be taken as racism...which was then met with more blanket statements to justify the first. I don't think it fair to say that Asian women are unable to be completely open or honest. As an Asian woman I can quite honestly and openly say that is nonsense...but then again, why would you believe me? Since I'm Asian I'm probably lying


You know I wanted to stay out of this. But I just have a hard time believing JLD has made such a statement. Could you please quote and link to this statement that was a racist blanket statement stating Asian women are unable to be open and honest?


----------



## Anon Pink

This....



MissFroggie said:


> I don't think it fair to say that Asian women are unable to be completely open or honest.


does not resemble this....



jld said:


> I would urge you both to be as completely open and honest as you can be, but is that possible with someone from her culture?


Jld's question was not a blanket statement. Perhaps you cued into the "honest" part and can't let go of that? Some people think that hiding your feelings is a form of emotional dishonesty. While that can be debated until the cows come home I don't think it is a racist statement to say that some Asian cultures don't value and actively discourage being open about intimate feelings. This is not to say people from Asian cultures are incapable of being emotionally open. But if their culture discourages it, learning to be emotionally open can be quite a leap wouldn't you agree? It's like asking a very shy person to stop being shy.


----------



## Sandfly

Just an idea, not that it changes anything, but did you know that "Asian" as used in the UK usually means

-india, pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka

and in most of the rest of the english speaking world, "asian" definitely _does not_ mean those countries, but means

-China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, vietnam ?

It still confuses me when I see on UK official forms the category "asian" and then "chinese" separate. It must be the only english speaking country with this peculiar interpretation of the word 'asian'.


----------



## Anon Pink

Sandfly said:


> Just an idea, not that it changes anything, but did you know that "Asian" as used in the UK usually means
> 
> -india, pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka
> 
> and in most of the rest of the english speaking world, "asian" definitely _does not_ mean those countries, but means
> 
> -China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, Korea, vietnam ?
> 
> It still confuses me when I see on UK official forms the category "asian" and then "chinese" separate. It must be the only english speaking country with this peculiar interpretation of the word 'asian'.


That is so wrong!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> *These sort of things do happen, but I think psychological factors are far more common, SA*.


Absolutely ... it's just that nothing is so black and white, I often wish it was! Would make things so much easier to define...but always so many variables... why we act the way we do.. environment, experiences, choices, genetics...can meds correct their behavior....how we were raised/ what we were taught.... our temperaments, were we abused, sexually/ emotionally, the internal scars...brain tumors.... hopelessness can make people dangerous...



> *jld said*: *We all know molestation is bad. My point was that if we try to understand why it happens, maybe we can systematically prevent it*.


 Many intelligent minds who care have warred this out..and still are... but they don't agree... one side feels they are too harsh, taking their individual freedom & rights away.. the other cares less about them and more about the children at large.. I am one who cares more about the innocent children..

I was never so angry in my life -as when I heard some Rich Lawyer wanted to use our small town to build some 200 bed Halfway house ..(would have been the largest in the state in the smallest town).....that would have had Child molesters coming from all over the state, I was LIVID.... I was making flyers...stuffing them in mailboxes in the middle of the night...made an anonymous website to inform the community.. of the statistics, the facts..... I was on a mission...we won that battle....but we were darn lucky the Government was collapsing at just the PERFECT TIME....and the Dept of Corrections refused to give the Lawyer the permit....we all feel we dodged a bullet. But some people wanted it here.. I just wasn't one of them... 



> *Cosmos said*:* Prevention is difficult, because children are very often molested by people they know*.


 Yep...this is the truth....one of our closest friends...... I remember her calling me telling me about her sisters Husband , there was an incident in his past, but she believed he was cured, trusted her sister ..after all she married him.. they had a son... all seemed on the up & up.. I told her POINT BLANK.. I would NOT allow my kids to spend the night there..... NO WAY....don't do it.... she didn't listen... 2 of her girls did get molested...if it wasn't for the little brother saying something it might have went on even longer...because he threatened them....

The younger started to draw pictures with a lock on her mouth, she got them both into therapy... they published a book with her pictures aimed for children who were molested.....she became an advocate ...the statistics are overwhelmingly higher when it is someone they know and trust... Her husband wanted to kill him... the anger there was fierce, they were very open with us about the whole ordeal... this was years ago and the girls seem to be doing fine...

I don't feel they can be fixed... another man in our church, he was a known Molester...served his time...he did it again.. Expecting these people to report themselves is also a JOKE on our society....


----------



## jld

Sorry not to have responded to your post to me yesterday, SA. It was a busy day, and I meant to get back to you, but just went in so many different directions. Sorry again.

I don't know what to think, in some ways, about porn and prostitution. It's not what I want for my daughter, that is for sure. And I feel like if it is not what I want for my daughter, it is not what I want for anyone else's daughter, either.

But these things have always existed. How do you confront things that have always existed?

I am an idealist more than a realistic tackler of problems. I don't have the solution to porn or prostitution or the high cost of college or how to get past someone's past. I guess I have this idealistic notion that if we can all seek to understand one another, through things like active listening and transparency, we can make the world a better place. That is what I am pushing for.

I am sorry not to be more insightful, SA.


----------



## Jellybeans

SimplyAmorous said:


> *I don't feel they can be fixed...* another man in our church, he was a known Molester...served his time...he did it again.. Expecting these people to report themselves is also a JOKE on our society....


That's because they can't. 

And no magic pill or science is going to change that.


----------



## ConanHub

Lust. Lust is like a shark. Unchecked, it does not care what it eats, just so it eats.

I have looked directly into the eyes of pedophiles while they were doing their "business " with me and my sisters. I was maybe 6, sisters 5 and 3. There was lust, unchecked desire, not rational thought, behind their actions.

I have done years of research on sex, sexuality, and the thought process behind it.

Desire in humans is usually regulated by our conscious will. Even our dreams are a little influenced by our self determined path in life. However, dreams are more subject to the naked desires that exist in all of us.

You will have sex with people in your dreams that make you wake up feeling sick over. But in the dream, you might have been comfortable.

Naked desire is like a shark. It does not care what it eats, just that it does eat.

I believe sexual deviants have simply allowed their thoughts to start following their naked desires. Anyone who has experienced overwhelming emotions can relate to the feeling of losing control to rage or maybe despair. It can control you.
Make you do things that aren't rational. You could harm yourself or others in that state, where if you were in control, you wouldn't hurt anyone.

Lust is similar. Left to its own devices, it could easily go down a dark path. Desire doesn't care about repercussions or even if someone else is getting hurt. Desire just wants sated.
Our higher functions are supposed to keep our lower ones in check. All too often, our lower ones are "let lose" without a leash.

Our lower functions are valuable and necessary, but without control they destroy.


----------

