|
The Female gamers have had a bit of fun poking at men and blaming us for the woes of womanhood, but let's face it the biggest offenders of female objectivity is females themselves.
Who buys Vogue, Cosmo, and all the other magazines on the market that are some of the biggest offenders? If these products were gone tomorrow it would not effect me one bit. Make-up? Not something heterosexual men care about sorry. Don't like dresses? Stop wearing them, I could care less.
Yes some comic and gaming artist put woman in bikini armor, but is this something they invent or are they just copying what they see. How many females do you see at a convention in "cute" costumes. If you hate it so much approach them about it.
Yikes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dear... I think the only safe thing here is:
Smile, nod your head and slowly back away.
Man, that horse has been beaten to death. I don't see this thread lasting long...
|
|
Oh dear... I think the only safe thing here is:
Smile, nod your head and slowly back away.
And that's what most men do since they are not willing to have this honest discussion about the subject because it is easier to just take the beating than to listen to woman rant and rave, when in reality if they want change they are completely capable of doing it themselves.
"Never believe that a few caring people can not change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever has"-Margaret Mead. I am willing to submit to the change, but if you think its coming from men you are mistaken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nimon - no, my point is that there are so many holes in the colander that you seem to think is a bucket that I wouldn't know where to start in refuting it. Plus the attitude put forward in the initial post didn't seem to intimate that you were really looking for a reasoned debate...
So just as when accosted by the ranting homeless guy with no pants who seems to think the apocalypse is approaching... it's easier to leave you with your delusions and move away.
Actually, I meant that I assumed mods would shut this down. Not that people wouldn't post.
There is some research that both men and women tend to objectify women. How valid that research is may be another question.
|
I did not mean to convey an negative attitude other than my disappointment that females seem to want to blame men solely for their objectification. If you think that statement has holes, lets hear it.
To me, your statement implies that <most> females feel that men are solely to blame for objectifying women. I may concur that a VERY small demographic of women might feel this way, but it is not something I have observed in women throughout my 40 years of life.
In this instance, I believe "objectifying" is a two way street.
If you would like a serious response from the community you could addressed the fact that females play as much a "negative" role as men. After all, if I was to pick between products completely equal in quality other than one having a beautiful woman to look at versus some other picture. I would be more likely to select the former.
|
|
Might it be that the 'women must be beautiful' archtype has to do with it being everywhere in media, where not fitting into it gets women mocked by both genders?
Not terribly far off from guys who don't want to go the gym to be MMA Fighters/Football (I'm citing American version) players. (somewhat of an oversimplification).
^^Two bits from a semi-straight male.
|
I did not mean to convey an negative attitude other than my disappointment that females seem to want to blame men solely for their objectification. If you think that statement has holes, lets hear it.To me, your statement implies that <most> females feel that men are solely to blame for objectifying women. I may concur that a VERY small demographic of women might feel this way, but it is not something I have observed in women throughout my 40 years of life.
A great deal of the time, (most) that people claim about being objectified, they site things like pornography, barbie-doll models, skimpy/revealing clothing, or a lack of talent in the field that is made up for by being sexually attractive. The cause is because that's obviously what men (as a whole) want. Thus it's almost always men that are to blame, even though most of the time it is women that make the financial bulk by far of all entertainment purchases, clothing, and magazines.
For example, when a woman (in general) looks for and buys a dress, they tend to do so because on the way it makes them feel. More attractive, gains more attention over other women, and they like the way it looks and feels. At the same time, men are usually blamed for setting some sort of standard on which sorts of dresses and appearances are sexy or attractive and which are not, even though for most men, they couldn't care less about dresses and make-up. That's what, I think, Nimon was saying.
What is the difference though? (Not being snarky, honestly want to see). For you personally, or just in general, where does one stop and the other begin?
Let me try to define this, although I feel like I'm traversing a minefield.
Let's use hugging as an example. There are some times and certain people that you are okay with giving this kind of physical show of affection. Siblings, family, good friends, maybe you're just in a good mood or a friendly person and don't mind hugs from strangers, whatever. Sometimes, though, you just really aren't in the mood to give hugs, or the person that is hugging you is a bit on the creepy, does-not-respect-physical boundaries side. At this point, you don't want any hugs, and anyone forcing a hug on you is being inappropriate.
And then, even if you are in a good mood for hugs, there is such thing as going too far with a hug to make it unwanted. Maybe the hugger sniffs you a bit, or grabs your butt while you hug, or just does something that is considered uncomfortable to you, even though you are normally okay with the hug. That, I feel, is when wanting to look sexy becomes unwanted objectification. When you are feeling uncomfortable.
Don't get me wrong, I love dressing up and looking mad handsome. Put on a suit, some cologne, and I feel like James Bond. And I do love compliments here and there. But, there've been times when compliments have gotten from somewhat uncomfortable to downright unsettling. And that is the line where things change. And that line really changes per person, depending on their personality and how close they are to the person complimenting them.
I am also bad at metaphors :|
it's easier to leave you with your delusions and move away.And yet here you are.
Purely an example of the Greater NASCAR crash theory at work. Aka, watching for impending disaster, nothing else.
|
|
There is some research that both men and women tend to objectify women. How valid that research is may be another question.
I think the fact that we se a lot more almost naked (bare chested) men than women, and generally the areas that we look on the male vs female body differs might have much more to do with that than the fact it happened to show males and females at different rotations. In general, men like to see the areas that are covered, (the breasts, the downstairs, the rear, and certain curvatures of the lower back) on women. In general, womn ike to see the area's that are often more exposed in sexy art, (shirtless guys with strong shoulders, the hips and the pubis rather than the penis, and a strong rear, but usually partially covered) on men.
There's also the fact that in the media, women are generally presented in a "come get me" sort of sexy pose while men are generally presented in a "I'm coming to get you" pose, (despite that most men actually prefere women to come and get them) plays into this. Again leading back to the question who is actually doing the objectifying, and are women really even more objectified than men at all? Statistically speaking, women have a love/hate relationship with women presented in strong positions of poer or aggresively, while most men really don't like them. There's this idea that such women intimidate men, but it's usually that men just can not view them as worthy candidates for anything except for a sort of competition that they know they are going to have to handle with kids-gloves. Women like that women are shown in a powrful, (empowered) position when they imagine themselves there, but soon begin to falsly believe thses images are competition.
There's also the other fact that everyone is their own prson, and absolutely equally neither men nor women universally agree on anything. :)
You are being watched.
|
|
What is the difference though? (Not being snarky, honestly want to see). For you personally, or just in general, where does one stop and the other begin?Let me try to define this, although I feel like I'm traversing a minefield.
Let's use hugging as an example. There are some times and certain people that you are okay with giving this kind of physical show of affection. Siblings, family, good friends, maybe you're just in a good mood or a friendly person and don't mind hugs from strangers, whatever. Sometimes, though, you just really aren't in the mood to give hugs, or the person that is hugging you is a bit on the creepy, does-not-respect-physical boundaries side. At this point, you don't want any hugs, and anyone forcing a hug on you is being inappropriate.
It's not a bad metaphor at all. But lets say that you put a kick-me sign on that says "I love hugs!". It kind of changes things, right?
It really reminds me a bit of when I went out to a gay bar with some of my gay friends. I went, and got hit on a lot. I don't mean that to brag, but even I was amazed. Not being gay at all, (I don't know what it was, the way I dressed, maybe I'm just a gay magnet, or that I was quiet, kept to myself for th most part, and talked to individuals rather than hanging out in the crowd). I wasn't interested in any way, but I could have been a jerk and treated all those "creepy" guys a certain way or I could take it as a complement, and understand that to a point we just where not speaking the same language, (in that they just didn't get I wasn't gay). I find that, (and I mean this purely as discussion, not a fight or accusation), a lot of times that women complain about being sexualized or objectified, they take away any sort of personal responcibility, condemnation, or possibility that they way they dressed or acted could have lead others to do things they recieve as bad. It's not that the other people (usually) are doing anything wrong as much as following the bread crumbs that are left.
Now, that doesn't mean that there are times when the other person(s) are being a too pushy or more, but I think that that it almost always does take two to tango, and for a lot of pople, men and women, the first place they should look if they really want to fix their situation is at their own actions, personality, and demeanor they are putting on display, essentually what they are causing other people to see. It seems, and I could be wrong, but it seems like the focus is much more about trying to punish or make others feel guilty for seeing, well what they do infact see.
|
|
So many assumptions going on in this thread. I am out.
Well, being that you essentually just walked out, this is probably pointless, but it might be better if you explain what you think these assumptions are, why you think the assumptions are incorrect, and actually discuse it than basically saying "I'm taking my toys and going home until everyone agrees only to play my game with my rules".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.
E. T. Bell
|
|
What is the difference though? (Not being snarky, honestly want to see). For you personally, or just in general, where does one stop and the other begin?
Honestly if you don't know the difference I am not sure i could explain it.
For one where the line is, is not clear as it depends a lot on the person and where their limits are. But really there is fairly safe ways to handle it, borderline ways and then obviously over the top ways. It is the middle group that is grey and varies.
But in the short term.
Looking sexy is about looking good and feeling good about yourself. If men or women check you out great, if they don't who cares. You are dressing for yourself.
Being objectified is when you are seen solo as a sex object or eye candy with no other aspect of me taken into account.
A example of how they can be in public. I am dressed up well and looking good. I walk by a guy who obviously checks me out and he says something along the lines of "Damn" and thats it.
While another guy starts making comments like wanting to wear my rear as a hat and other such comments etc.
These are not great examples just quick and easy ones to make a point, but to me there is a very big difference in them.
It goes a lot deeper than this of course.
|
|
It's less that I don't see the difference as much as I'd like to discuse more where that line is drawn. For a lot of people, who is looking is the point. As long as it's the right person(s) looking. I guess wahat I was getting at is for everyone that says something like what you did, there are two others that want the opposite, or some variation. So at what point does it become bad/wrong?
What is the difference though? (Not being snarky, honestly want to see). For you personally, or just in general, where does one stop and the other begin?Let me try to define this, although I feel like I'm traversing a minefield.
Let's use hugging as an example. There are some times and certain people that you are okay with giving this kind of physical show of affection. Siblings, family, good friends, maybe you're just in a good mood or a friendly person and don't mind hugs from strangers, whatever. Sometimes, though, you just really aren't in the mood to give hugs, or the person that is hugging you is a bit on the creepy, does-not-respect-physical boundaries side. At this point, you don't want any hugs, and anyone forcing a hug on you is being inappropriate.
It's not a bad metaphor at all. But lets say that you put a kick-me sign on that says "I love hugs!". It kind of changes things, right?
It really reminds me a bit of when I went out to a gay bar with some of my gay friends. I went, and got hit on a lot. I don't mean that to brag, but even I was amazed. Not being gay at all, (I don't know what it was, the way I dressed, maybe I'm just a gay magnet, or that I was quiet, kept to myself for th most part, and talked to individuals rather than hanging out in the crowd). I wasn't interested in any way, but I could have been a jerk and treated all those "creepy" guys a certain way or I could take it as a complement, and understand that to a point we just where not speaking the same language, (in that they just didn't get I wasn't gay). I find that, (and I mean this purely as discussion, not a fight or accusation), a lot of times that women complain about being sexualized or objectified, they take away any sort of personal responcibility, condemnation, or possibility that they way they dressed or acted could have lead others to do things they recieve...
Continuing the metaphor, even with the "I love hugs!" sign taped on your back, it's not necessarily an invite for more hugs, nor is it an invite for that creeper stuff I mentioned above (ass grabbing, sniffing, etc.). Certainly, one could ask you for a hug and chances are, since you like hugs, you'd be welcome to give them a hug.
Okay, enough of this hugging metaphor. When you dress nice, whether you are a man or woman, you can expect to have people comment on your appearance. People tend to prefer more positive comments ("Hey man, you're looking sharp today!" or "Wow, you look absolutely stunning today!") rather than more negative, crude comments. And as what Dark Mistress said, at least for most people, even if no one makes a remark on your outfit, it doesn't really bother you. Sometimes just knowing you look good is enough for you. Except me, because I'm a narcissist ;)
It's less that I don't see the difference as much as I'd like to discuse more where that line is drawn. For a lot of people, who is looking is the point. As long as it's the right person(s) looking. I guess wahat I was getting at is for everyone that says something like what you did, there are two others that want the opposite, or some variation. So at what point does it become bad/wrong?
When it makes the person feel uncomfortable. Certainly, it's better to err on the side of caution and politeness. It's best to avoid crude remarks.
|
|
And yet, my wife almost demands I tell her how sexy she is, that I want to F the C out of her, and all sorts of dirty stuff to be honest I'm not really all that comfortable saying. Just not my nature. A lot of women (and men for that matter) do, which leads us all back full circle to the double standard issue, and back to th above questions. Is it that the "creepy" is actively doing something or is it more the way it is recieved, (in particular from who is or is not doing it)?
On the other hand, with how DM is mentioning that she dresses for her, I hear this all the time, but at the same time it's practically a cardinal sin among the church of women-shopping-for-cloths to say "yes it does. . . " or "Nah, it looks like trash". :) Women tend to put a lot more care into their prsonal apparance, particularly when it comes to being reaffirmed by others.
|
|
Well there is a BIG and I mean BIG difference between "bedroom play" with someone you know and trust and complete strangers. Your wife KNOWS you don't think of her as only a sexual object.
For shopping it depends on the women, but just like with men. Like minded people tend to hang out as they share common interest. So women who shop together will often have very similar fashion senses on what does and does not look good. If if they don't dress the same. If that makes sense.
But it is pretty much what Odrande said, best to error on the side of caution.
But objectification in it's most basic form is when you look at or treat someone as nothing more than a sex object, to be used and discarded at will. Least in my mind that is what it means anyways.
|
|
I'm just saying that different people have different ideas where the line is, if there is a line, and even what objectification is. :) I think that the way men and women view sex has a bit to do with it as well, but even that is not universal.
I fall more in line with what you said, I just really don't like to be touched generally. As a medic, I have run into an issue a few times treating a female or practicing with women. One straight-up said, "they are tits, your going to need to touch 'em when you wrap me up so just do it". Damned if I do, damned if I don't. (I didn't, by the way, just saying).
|
It's less that I don't see the difference as much as I'd like to discuse more where that line is drawn. For a lot of people, who is looking is the point. As long as it's the right person(s) looking. I guess wahat I was getting at is for everyone that says something like what you did, there are two others that want the opposite, or some variation. So at what point does it become bad/wrong?
It is sexual harassment when she says it is. that seems to be the standard.
