Thread: How do I objectify women?

But in the end it doesn't seem like it's really anything that you can judge in anyone but yourself.
I mean, people fall in love, they get picked up, have sex, have families, raise their children. It could be argued that this is pretty much the 'purpose' but in the end it's just down to the individuals and what they had in mind. Or even just the arbitrary interpretation of these events by themselves or others. Do humans mate and fall in love in order to have children? Well, I would doubt it. But eventually they still do have children, so it could be argued that men just use women to satisfy their sick pleasure and then hijack their bodies as breeding stations. However, this could really only hold true if that's what the individuals involved actually had in mind when performing the aforementioned actions.
So for an outsider to judge this... isn't cool but pointless. Chauvinists just have different desires from properly socialized men. Nobody forces women to go out with them so what's the big issue then?

Originally Posted by Korittke

Hey, that actually makes sense. I think this might be the first time in history that an opinion has actually been changed over the internet.

But I don't really see what's wrong with a guy going out to bang chicks, so long as he doesn't lie to them or treat them in ways that the woman would object to. I might not agree with his views on women but I disagree with a lot of things anyway, so in the end that's more a matter of discussing personal differences than it is a matter of moral or political relevance. Hey, some women probably even like that, so why should I smash the judgehammer on those people?

It seems they're just acknowledging a very narrow scope of possible purposes for women, so narrow in fact that it is detrimental to their own enjoyment of them. Still, the same might apply to me as well, in a lot of areas, so I don't really see the big "issue". That scope of purposes is probably closely tied to our own personality and needs so it's only natural that we would approach people based on that scope of purposes.
In the end, if I'm not objectifying women as sources of sexual pleasure, I'm objectifying them as sources of sexual pleasure, plus sources of love plus sources of information, plus sources of children, plus targets of pleasure-giving plus plus plus so I don't really see the big difference, save for the the raw amount of possible purposes. It's exactly for these reasons that encompass the whole of womanity that I'm attracted to women, not some weird non-reason or non-purpose.

Some guys seem to forget all about the sexual aspect and leaving that out of the equation, how is that not leaving out relevant aspects of human interaction? Yet, nobody talks about how these guys objectify women as non-sexual objects with mere non-sexual purposes.

I suppose the most important point to highlight, after your post, is that the barrier between "using someone for a bunch of purposes" and "just accepting someone for who they are, knowing that there are possible purposes they may serve" is arbitrary. It's not something that can really be quantified, so some people will see it differently than others.

I'd suppose that a great deal of what separates one from the other is that the latter is looked at as a whole, looking at those "possible purposes" more as "benefits" than anything else. Those that see in terms of the former don't see the entire scope. They only see "Well, women are just good for this:" and "pssh. She's just a woman." Etc. There is a fundamental difference between someone who accepts a woman yet is conscious of what advantages their company could provide, and someone that reduces a woman to those advantages. See what I mean?

The "big issue," like many things, is subjective. Not everyone is going to see it, because it's not always right out there in the forefront. The main idea is that, for all intensive purposes, women should be seen as (in terms of "role") no less dynamic than men. They should not be reduced to this or that, for doing so is nothing short of ignorance and degradation. Women take themselves just as seriously as men take themselves (if not more) and it is only without that sort of awareness that someone could try to reduce a woman to "nothing but a sex/culinary/laundry slave," there to perform at the man's whim.

Even as a man, if someone (or, especially, an entire group of people) short-change you and see you as less than you are really worth, are you not going to stand up for yourself? Are you not going to defend yourself and what you know you really represent? Are you just going to let them talk down to you, and tell how little you are actually worth?

For your sake, I hope not...and that is "the big issue," when it comes to why women should not be objectified. It is no more or less complex than the issue of why any individual should not be treated like less than they are worth.

Originally Posted by Korittke

But in the end it doesn't seem like it's really anything that you can judge in anyone but yourself.

Actually, we have whole bodies of law addressing, to varying degrees, the objectification of women, including very heterogeneous regulations on pornography and obscenity, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. It's something we're actively grappling with as a culture. Of course there are gray areas and always will be, but there are also behaviors that are clearly unacceptable, and others that we haven't addressed as strongly that seem to be holding us back.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I suppose the most important point to highlight, after your post, is that the barrier between "using someone for a bunch of purposes" and "just accepting someone for who they are, knowing that there are possible purposes they may serve" is arbitrary. It's not something that can really be quantified, so some people will see it differently than others.

I'd suppose that a great deal of what separates one from the other is that the latter is looked at as a whole, looking at those "possible purposes" more as "benefits" than anything else. Those that see in terms of the former don't see the entire scope. They only see "Well, women are just good for this:" and "pssh. She's just a woman." Etc. There is a fundamental difference between someone who accepts a woman yet is conscious of what advantages their company could provide, and someone that reduces a woman to those advantages. See what I mean?

The "big issue," like many things, is subjective. Not everyone is going to see it, because it's not always right out there in the forefront. The main idea is that, for all intensive purposes, women should be seen as (in terms of "role") no less dynamic than men. They should not be reduced to this or that, for doing so is nothing short of ignorance and degradation. Women take themselves just as seriously as men take themselves (if not more) and it is only without that sort of awareness that someone could try to reduce a woman to "nothing but a sex/culinary/laundry slave," there to perform at the man's whim.

Even as a man, if someone (or, especially, an entire group of people) short-change you and see you as less than you are really worth, are you not going to stand up for yourself? Are you not going to defend yourself and what you know you really represent? Are you just going to let them talk down to you, and tell how little you are actually worth?

For your sake, I hope not...and that is "the big issue," when it comes to why women should not be objectified. It is no more or less complex than the issue of why any individual should not be treated like less than they are worth.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Actually, we have whole bodies of law addressing, to varying degrees, the objectification of women, including very heterogeneous regulations on pornography and obscenity, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. It's something we're actively grappling with as a culture. Of course there are gray areas and always will be, but there are also behaviors that are clearly unacceptable, and others that we haven't addressed as strongly that seem to be holding us back.

All those things might be the result of objectifying views in some cases, but they are not clearly tied to them. I'm specifically talking about objectification here, not anti-feminist thought as a whole. I always thought American obscenity regulations were ridonculous. Free country and all. Germany might be less free in some areas, but at least if you want to see someone get defecated on, you just go to your nearest video store and dive right into the fun (lulz).

Originally Posted by Ynot

I agree
there's also the cooking & ironing

Nice.

If you are attracted to someone physically, it does not take their subjective perspective in to account, therefore they are a thing. A physically beautiful female body is attractive regardless of whether or not it is also a part of a conscious human being.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you are attracted to someone physically, it does not take their subjective perspective in to account, therefore they are a thing. A physically beautiful female body is attractive regardless of whether or not it is also a part of a conscious human being.

That sounds like a blow up doll fetish if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If you are attracted to someone physically, it does not take their subjective perspective in to account, therefore they are a thing. A physically beautiful female body is attractive regardless of whether or not it is also a part of a conscious human being.

Well, psychological aspects also play a role in determining attractiveness.

Originally Posted by Korittke

So basically guys being sexually attracted to women is a big issue?

I think she means, guy's who treat women like an object are causing a big issue, not men who really truly respect and honor women. If your attracted to a woman, you don't hound her and beg like some kind of animal, you treat her with dignity, respect AND YOU LOOK IN HER EYES WHEN YOUR TALKING NOT HER CLEAVAGE!

Ya know, stuff like that, I don't see how you think objectifying women is impossible, its not impossible, far from it. Men objectify women on a daily basis, and its disgusting and degrading to all people, and if you don't realise this, you don't deserve a woman.

My 2 cents, to be honest, guys like you never deserve a woman because you aren't mature enough to respect and really truly love a woman for who she is.

Although I don't entirely know you, you come off as a guy who would be the typical lazy husband, watching tv and drinking beer telling the wife to cook dinner, I despise people like that and their manhood should be removed

( I swear, im like the only male feminist here lol )

I don't "respect and honor" women any more than I respect other sorts of people (it leaves men and transsexuals). If she doesn't want people looking at her cleavage, perhaps she shouldn't be wearing that just-enough tank top. Nobody is forcing women to do anything, so what's the big deal? We're not talking harassment here, just different ways to interact with one another. I can look wherever I want and if that means I can't score, so be it. It's my fault, I take the consequences, so what's all the fuss about? IF YOU DON'T WANNA BE LOOKED AT STAY INSIDE THE HOUSE - that's the basic lesson. It should say that in the constitution.

Also, what's wrong with couch potatoes commanding their women around? It's not like they are actually forced to do that shit. This is why we have feminism, so that women can freely choose.

I'm actually also a feminist and a sexist, so you're not the only male feminist here.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I don't "respect and honor" women any more than I respect other sorts of people (it leaves men and transsexuals). If she doesn't want people looking at her cleavage, perhaps she shouldn't be wearing that just-enough tank top. Nobody is forcing women to do anything, so what's the big deal? We're not talking harassment here, just different ways to interact with one another. I can look wherever I want and if that means I can't score, so be it. It's my fault, I take the consequences, so what's all the fuss about? IF YOU DON'T WANNA BE LOOKED AT STAY INSIDE THE HOUSE - that's the basic lesson. It should say that in the constitution.

Also, what's wrong with couch potatoes commanding their women around? It's not like they are actually forced to do that shit. This is why we have feminism, so that women can freely choose.

I'm actually also a feminist and a sexist, so you're not the only male feminist here.

You're joking, right?

You say you don't "respect and honor women" any more than you respect and honor others? The real question is, do you respect them as much? Do you stare at them all with the intention of one or two things (as guys) than through different-colored goggles for each individual? Is there one factor about all guys that you focus on, so that each conversation with them is nothing more than an exercise in finding that one thing?

Are you basically saying that any woman who doesn't want to be treated like nothing but a pair of tits is obligated to walk out of the house wearing a turtleneck sweater or a thick winter coat?

If a guy was to go out to a club and treat women like objects that are there to do nothing but serve him, is he not in the wrong, when it comes to equality? Is he not lacking some sociological awareness (common sense) that should teach him not to reduce his interaction with someone as not much more than a chance to stare at her tits? Sure, I can walk up to a really hot chick and strike up a conversation with her, for no other reason but to stare at her rack, but do I have ANY sort of vindication whatsoever if she gets upset with me when it's apparent that the only reason I'm talking to her is to stare at her rack? Seriously. How can you possibly defend that?

Basically, you are saying (in your last post) that you don't "respect and honor" strangers - that have done nothing to deserve otherwise - on a default level. "Respect and honor" implies a cognizance of what that person might find offensive, even if only in its most simplistic of terms. Do you think some guy would feel "respected" if you called him "Pee-wee, kid or junior" at every chance you got? Would you do that to someone that could obviously kick the shit out of you, at any moment? (Doubt it.) Why? Because you are aware that doing that may piss that person off, and you would not want to do that.

Respect is in the same vein as the above. It shows (at least) some awareness of where both you and that other person stand. Do you think some girl would feel respected if you, out of the blue, said "Hey, bitch. Come over here and shine my fucking shoes. As a woman, that's all you're good for anyway"? Would you just walk up to some random 7-foot tall, 250lb body-builder that you don't know and say something just as demeaning? (I'd bet on "no.") Why? Because you are aware of the fact that this person probably wouldn't like it. In this manner, respect and caution are not far apart from each other.

How about bringing into question Pavlov's dog theory? Do you see nothing wrong with taking some impressionable young person, making them believe that you are there to guide them into Zen, and then using every chance you have to manipulate them and turn them into your slave? Is that "cool?" Do you truly see this as a world of "manipulate who you can. People are sheep, and the more you trick into serving you, the better?" Or do you understand that taking advantage of someone, purposefully, shows how callous you are to that person's interest? What if that person was your daughter? Would you corrupt her with the sole purpose of gaining more for yourself? If so, you are probably beyond any sort of redemption or justification. If not, then you are in contradiction with your own argument.

If your 12 year old daughter goes outside, are you automatically giving your consent to every sick fucking pedophile on the planet to come up to her and start trying his best to get her into bed? Is that the way you look at the world? Like "Oh, well (daughter's name), if you didn't want those guys to hit on you, you should have locked yourself away in a cave. But, now that you've gone out and seen the sun, I have no problem with those guys - knowing you are 12 - coming up and trying as hard as they can to get into your Supergirl panties. In fact, I'll applaud the first man that does, because that's how the world works!!!1111"

If so, then there probably isn't much that anyone can say to make you realize how fucked up that is. If not, then pretty much everything you've said so far gives evidence to the contrary, and shows that (part of you, at least) gives legitimacy to that rationale.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That sounds like a blow up doll fetish if you ask me.

If they made them breathe sweat and moan, I'm sure many men who objectify women would prefer it to the real thing. More so if they made sandwiches and cleaned the toilet.

There are many people I don't get along with or connect with on a personal level, and some of those people are women who I find very attractive. Should the fact that people don't connect on a personal level mean they can't connect on a sexual level? Overt prejudice aside, it seems to me that our culture separates the sexes so much it's difficult for many people to find much in common with people of the opposite sex other than mutual(or not) sexual desires. Is it any wonder then that in many situations women are "objectified"? Can we really blame men for valuing certain women only in a sexual role when they find football and nascar more interesting than celebrities and relationship problems? You would certainly have a hard time finding a man who has never had a meaningful relationship with a woman in his entire life. I think what it really boils down to is that women complaining of "objectification" are usually just complaining of unwanted sexual advances or their own inablity to engage a certain man on a non-sexual level.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

There are many people I don't get along with or connect with on a personal level, and some of those people are women who I find very attractive. Should the fact that people don't connect on a personal level mean they can't connect on a sexual level? Overt prejudice aside, it seems to me that our culture separates the sexes so much it's difficult for many people to find much in common with people of the opposite sex other than mutual(or not) sexual desires. Is it any wonder then that in many situations women are "objectified"? Can we really blame men for valuing certain women only in a sexual role when they find football and nascar more interesting than celebrities and relationship problems? You would certainly have a hard time finding a man who has never had a meaningful relationship with a woman in his entire life. I think what it really boils down to is that women complaining of "objectification" are usually just complaining of unwanted sexual advances or their own inablity to engage a certain man on a non-sexual level.

"Objectification" is (the way I understand it) much less about how you treat Julie or Kim or Dana, it's about a sweeping generalization about how certain men see women in general. There is a difference between just talking to one girl because she's hot, and thinking that "women are just here to be do for man and/or be treated like nothing more than sexual outlets." People can rationalize reasons to treat them as such, but what they can't do is skate around the fact that such is objectification. Call it what you want; the perspective is the same.

Women are cool.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Okay, so...? If it weren't for that, humanity would soon cease to exist.

dude.....wow......I feel bad for you......o__O


uhhhh

love is the reason why humanity exists, not sexual attraction. men and women fall in love, and pop out children. they made love, not just humped each other like animals.

Originally Posted by juroara

love is the reason why humanity exists, not sexual attraction. men and women fall in love, and pop out children. they made love, not just humped each other like animals.

There is no such thing as sex without love? It is the most common kind.

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

Women are cool.

They sure are!


They're the best listeners too, unlike most guys

Originally Posted by guerilla

They sure are!


They're the best listeners too, unlike most guys

Sexist.

lol being sexist against my own sex, so what?

Originally Posted by guerilla

lol being sexist against my own sex, so what?

It doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative. Aside from the fact that listening isn't as important when you got something interesting to say. *hint*

I don't get the hint...hmm

I implied that men have something interesting to say whereas women do not. Which is, of course, hilarious.

Oh, I didn't get that because its not true

I think its the opposite, most guys I talk to at work or in public chat about sports, or how many 'chicks they banged' or didn't probably, typical boring talk if you ask me.

Where as women I chat with at work or strangers are:

#1 alot more friendly
#2 smile alot more
#3 actually look you in the eyes when talking

To me, most women I speak to are like 1000 times more interesting to speak to then most guys, I have alot of awkward moments of silence in most of my convo's with straight guys, theres just nothing to talk about with em for me most of the time.

I do however admit, there are some great guys to talk to, some who listen and look you in the eye, but they aren't very plentiful