Men objectified as sex objects

[kenny]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/humanplanetexplorer/life_events/courtship#p00bp1w1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/humanplanetexplorer/life_events/courtship#p00d8tt5

 

[iLander]

Yup. As it should be!

 

[MonkeyPie]

Yup. As it should be!

Darn straight.

 

[ksinger]

LOL! And where, exactly, is the newsflash on this? It's just men jumping through their own butts to attract female attention and get laid. As usual. Where do you think the perennial "Hey guys! Watch THIS!" originates? Women reward men with sex for taking risks and wearing silly outfits/uniforms and being flashy....

 

[davi_el_mejor]

We're all objects of sex. We are sexual beings. One could trace daily routines to sex; work, food, hygiene etc all of it for sex.

Thousands of people are having sex right now. Some for love, for fun or even money. The rituals world cultures put into finding a partner are diverse as the cultures themselves. There must be a pursuer and the pursued.

 

[kenny]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated how this is a problem and is unfair.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

 

[kenny]

We're all objects of sex. We are sexual beings. One could trace daily routines to sex; work, food, hygiene etc all of it for sex.

Thousands of people are having sex right now. Some for love, for fun or even money. The rituals world cultures put into finding a partner are diverse as the cultures themselves. There must be a pursuer and the pursued.

So true.
I love that saying, "Human beings are just DNA's tools for making more DNA."

 

[davi_el_mejor]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

 

[kenny]

Plus in gay culture men are often objectified as sex objects too.

I also thought thought the sheer pageantry of that tradition was beautiful!
It is just a visually stunning thing, like the rose parade.

 

[canuk-gal]

We're all objects of sex. We are sexual beings. One could trace daily routines to sex; work, food, hygiene etc all of it for sex.

Thousands of people are having sex right now. Some for love, for fun or even money. The rituals world cultures put into finding a partner are diverse as the cultures themselves. There must be a pursuer and the pursued.

HI:

Indeed. Since when are men and women other than men and women?

cheers--Sharon

 

[ksinger]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

False equivalence. You see a lot of that these days.

Much of the Chippendales phenomenon is reaction: tit-for-tat, not necessarily because women have been secretly longing to objectify or ogle men. The mindset, was "Ha, now WE can do it!" with little actual consideration of whether or not that was what women really wanted to be doing. I would put forth for your consideration the still vastly disproportionate number of "Gentlemen's" clubs/seedy strip bars for men, versus those for women.

Any human is capable of any particular human behavior. Some women can lift men (see the women in combat thread) but most women can't and don't feel a need to. Same here. My take is, OK, so women can do the same thing. Doesn't mean they are ever going to become as spectacular as men at it, and no amount of trying to ram radical "equality" down anyone's throat will change that. Men are sight hunters, and always will be. Women are looking at different things, in general, when attempting to breed, since breeding for a women is potentially FAR more costly. There are other indications of "fitness" besides sheer physical attactiveness, and any not-so-good-looking guy with a good sense of humor and fat bank account and a flashy car, will tell you just how true that is.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

False equivalence. You see a lot of that these days.

Much of the Chippendales phenomenon is reaction: tit-for-tat, not necessarily because women have been secretly longing to objectify or ogle men. The mindset, was "Ha, now WE can do it!" with little actual consideration of whether or not that was what women really wanted to be doing. I would put forth for your consideration the still vastly disproportionate number of "Gentlemen's" clubs/seedy strip bars for men, versus those for women.

Any human is capable of any particular human behavior. Some women can lift men (see the women in combat thread) but most women can't and don't feel a need to. Same here. My take is, OK, so women can do the same thing. Doesn't mean they are ever going to become as spectacular as men at it, and no amount of trying to ram radical "equality" down anyone's throat will change that. Men are sight hunters, and always will be. Women are looking at different things, in general, when attempting to breed, since breeding for a women is potentially FAR more costly. There are other indications of "fitness" besides sheer physical attactiveness, and any not-so-good-looking guy with a good sense of humor and fat bank account and a flashy car, will tell you just how true that is.

Objectification has nothing to do with the outcome of sex. You're talking about reproduction. I'm talking about sex. There's a huge difference.

You're correct, men are far more visual than women. But that's not to say women cannot be turned on sexually by visual stimuli. That would be naive.

Tit-for-Tat objectification is still objectification. Disproportionate or not those establishments for the enjoyment of women still exist and are patronized (or should I say matronized? )

 

[ksinger]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

False equivalence. You see a lot of that these days.

Much of the Chippendales phenomenon is reaction: tit-for-tat, not necessarily because women have been secretly longing to objectify or ogle men. The mindset, was "Ha, now WE can do it!" with little actual consideration of whether or not that was what women really wanted to be doing. I would put forth for your consideration the still vastly disproportionate number of "Gentlemen's" clubs/seedy strip bars for men, versus those for women.

Any human is capable of any particular human behavior. Some women can lift men (see the women in combat thread) but most women can't and don't feel a need to. Same here. My take is, OK, so women can do the same thing. Doesn't mean they are ever going to become as spectacular as men at it, and no amount of trying to ram radical "equality" down anyone's throat will change that. Men are sight hunters, and always will be. Women are looking at different things, in general, when attempting to breed, since breeding for a women is potentially FAR more costly. There are other indications of "fitness" besides sheer physical attactiveness, and any not-so-good-looking guy with a good sense of humor and fat bank account and a flashy car, will tell you just how true that is.

Objectification has nothing to do with the outcome of sex. You're talking about reproduction. I'm talking about sex. There's a huge difference.

You're correct, men are far more visual than women. But that's not to say women cannot be turned on sexually by visual stimuli. That would be naive.

Tit-for-Tat objectification is still objectification. Disproportionate or not those establishments for the enjoyment of women still exist and are patronized (or should I say matronized? )

OK....we've established that women are capable of objectification. Wow. Big newsflash there. And so the point of this entire post would be exactly what......? A simple statement of the obvious?

 

[davi_el_mejor]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

False equivalence. You see a lot of that these days.

Much of the Chippendales phenomenon is reaction: tit-for-tat, not necessarily because women have been secretly longing to objectify or ogle men. The mindset, was "Ha, now WE can do it!" with little actual consideration of whether or not that was what women really wanted to be doing. I would put forth for your consideration the still vastly disproportionate number of "Gentlemen's" clubs/seedy strip bars for men, versus those for women.

Any human is capable of any particular human behavior. Some women can lift men (see the women in combat thread) but most women can't and don't feel a need to. Same here. My take is, OK, so women can do the same thing. Doesn't mean they are ever going to become as spectacular as men at it, and no amount of trying to ram radical "equality" down anyone's throat will change that. Men are sight hunters, and always will be. Women are looking at different things, in general, when attempting to breed, since breeding for a women is potentially FAR more costly. There are other indications of "fitness" besides sheer physical attactiveness, and any not-so-good-looking guy with a good sense of humor and fat bank account and a flashy car, will tell you just how true that is.

Objectification has nothing to do with the outcome of sex. You're talking about reproduction. I'm talking about sex. There's a huge difference.

You're correct, men are far more visual than women. But that's not to say women cannot be turned on sexually by visual stimuli. That would be naive.

Tit-for-Tat objectification is still objectification. Disproportionate or not those establishments for the enjoyment of women still exist and are patronized (or should I say matronized? )

OK....we've established that women are capable of objectification. Wow. Big newsflash there. And so the point of this entire post would be exactly what......? A simple statement of the obvious?

To rebut your condescending establishment that women aren't culpable in the objectification of men because it was done to them first.

 

[ksinger]

If you and/or Kenny want to find it refreshing, and feel self-satisfied that women are capable of such things, go for broke.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

If you and/or Kenny want to find it refreshing, and feel self-satisfied that women are capable of such things, go for broke.

So you're saying women aren't capable of such things? Or are you saying they're incapable of doing such things without men doing them first?

 

[iLander]

I think it'a odd that in the animal kingdom, the male is usually the embellished one, but in humans, it's the opposite.

Why is that?

 

[davi_el_mejor]

I think it'a odd that in the animal kingdom, the male is usually the embellished one, but in humans, it's the opposite.

Why is that?

I always found that odd too iLander. I think it's because a male can impregnate many females while (in most animals) a female can only be impregnated by one male. The male has a greater chance of passing along its own genetics with the more females it can attract and successfully copulate.

 

[kenny]

If you and/or Kenny want to find it refreshing, and feel self-satisfied that women are capable of such things, go for broke.

What an ugly, negative, nasty post of misandry.
Shame on you Ksinger.

I have nothing but equality in my heart.

 

[Imdanny]

I think it'a odd that in the animal kingdom, the male is usually the embellished one, but in humans, it's the opposite.

Why is that?

Because no man could be as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. Duh!

JUST KIDDING!!

I don't know the answer to your question.

 

[Imdanny]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated this for us.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

I just thought it was refreshing to see some blatant and shameless objectification in the other direction.

Women blatantly and shamelessly objectify men even in our culture. Look at Chippendales, Thunder From Down Under, Firemen/Cop calendars etc. One just has to see past all the male pigs to find the sows digging up truffles too.

(By no means am I implying women are sows, it just happened to be what a female pig is called)

False equivalence. You see a lot of that these days.

Much of the Chippendales phenomenon is reaction: tit-for-tat, not necessarily because women have been secretly longing to objectify or ogle men. The mindset, was "Ha, now WE can do it!" with little actual consideration of whether or not that was what women really wanted to be doing. I would put forth for your consideration the still vastly disproportionate number of "Gentlemen's" clubs/seedy strip bars for men, versus those for women.

Any human is capable of any particular human behavior. Some women can lift men (see the women in combat thread) but most women can't and don't feel a need to. Same here. My take is, OK, so women can do the same thing. Doesn't mean they are ever going to become as spectacular as men at it, and no amount of trying to ram radical "equality" down anyone's throat will change that. Men are sight hunters, and always will be. Women are looking at different things, in general, when attempting to breed, since breeding for a women is potentially FAR more costly. There are other indications of "fitness" besides sheer physical attactiveness, and any not-so-good-looking guy with a good sense of humor and fat bank account and a flashy car, will tell you just how true that is.

Objectification has nothing to do with the outcome of sex. You're talking about reproduction. I'm talking about sex. There's a huge difference.

You're correct, men are far more visual than women. But that's not to say women cannot be turned on sexually by visual stimuli. That would be naive.

Tit-for-Tat objectification is still objectification. Disproportionate or not those establishments for the enjoyment of women still exist and are patronized (or should I say matronized? )

OK....we've established that women are capable of objectification. Wow. Big newsflash there. And so the point of this entire post would be exactly what......? A simple statement of the obvious?

That was kind of rude, frankly. The person you were talking to was not being aggressive or rude with you.

 

[AGBF]

ksinger...I understood every word you said.

Deb


Diamonds Are A Woman's Best Friend

 

[iLander]

I think it'a odd that in the animal kingdom, the male is usually the embellished one, but in humans, it's the opposite.

Why is that?

Because no man could be as beautiful as Elizabeth Taylor. Duh!

JUST KIDDING!!

I don't know the answer to your question.

I don't know, George Clooney is a good comparable in my book!

Hi Danny I was JUST starting to worry/wonder where you went off to! Good to see you back.

 

[iLander]

I think it'a odd that in the animal kingdom, the male is usually the embellished one, but in humans, it's the opposite.

Why is that?

I always found that odd too iLander. I think it's because a male can impregnate many females while (in most animals) a female can only be impregnated by one male. The male has a greater chance of passing along its own genetics with the more females it can attract and successfully copulate.

Well, do you think that's true for humans as well?

Do you think that perhaps portraying women as sex objects an attempt for human society to maintain monogamy? In some weird way? To make females the object of admiration, does that celebrate her ability to become pregnant only once? I don't know, I'm tired and I don't think my logic is working . . .

Just wondering why the switch in humans.

 

[ksinger]

If you and/or Kenny want to find it refreshing, and feel self-satisfied that women are capable of such things, go for broke.

What an ugly, negative, nasty post of misandry.
Shame on you Ksinger.

I have nothing but equality in my heart.

LOL! Refreshed was your word, not mine. And I'm not the one who continually starts gender-related threads dearie.
And I'll be sure to let my husband know how much I hate men.

For the record, he gets as much of a honk out of these threads as I do. I told him about this one.

Me: Hon, you're a straight guy, right?
Him(very dry): Yes, last I checked.
Me: And you were a young straight guy once right?
Him(dirty look askance): Cheap shot, but yes....?
Me: If someone had told you that women were going to objectify you - you know, ogle you, catcalls, try to have sex with you without caring one iota WHO you were, or even care to know your name, and just generally use you for their own pleasure, what would you have thought?
Him: God, where ARE these women?? Point me to them!!!

 

[ksinger]

ksinger...I understood every word you said.

Deb


Diamonds Are A Woman's Best Friend

Thanks Deb. For some reason I kinda suspected you'd show up here. AND that YOU'D get it at least.

And as for hating men, if I can (and did in my younger days), plough through a vast swaths of feminist works and darn near everything Mary Daly wrote and not want to vaporize every human with a Y chromosome, I feel I have a pretty large affection in my heart for men.

 

[AGBF]

And I'm not the one who continually starts gender-related threads dearie.

ksinger-I think you are missing something when you call these simply, "gender related threads". These threads are not simply related to a discussion of differences between the sexes, they are often about which people are sexual objects. I started to notice this when I found myself angered at Kenny's threads about Hugh Hefner. There is an underlying desire to point out that very old men cavort with scantily clad women decades younger than they are and, conversely, that women are capable of sitting in an audience and watching a buff young man take off his clothes while lewdly whistling and sticking dollar bills in his G-string. There is a desire to show that people are base, that sex is base, that sex goes along with "Playboy" magazine and Chippendale dancers. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is a dynamic at work that goes way beyond a desire to deiscuss differences between the sexes.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[AGBF]

In our culture objectifying women as sex objects has been common for a long time.
The women's movement has illuminated how this is a problem and is unfair.
Struggle and adjustment has resulted.
The battle rages on.

But Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem didn't protest by opening a male strip club to show that women could exploit men, too. Instead they burned their bras, freeing themselves of men's shackles, and decided to do things in an entirely different way. Women in the women's movement wore loose, comfortable clothes or blue jeans and didn't bother with make up and they tried to be friendly, not catty, with other women. It was good stuff.

Deb


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[iLander]

And I'm not the one who continually starts gender-related threads dearie.

ksinger-I think you are missing something when you call these simply, "gender related threads". These threads are not simply related to a discussion of differences between the sexes, they are often about which people are sexual objects. I started to notice this when I found myself angered at Kenny's threads about Hugh Hefner. There is an underlying desire to point out that very old men cavort with scantily clad women decades younger than they are and, conversely, that women are capable of sitting in an audience and watching a buff young man take off his clothes while lewdly whistling and sticking dollar bills in his G-string. There is a desire to show that people are base, that sex is base, that sex goes along with "Playboy" magazine and Chippendale dancers. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is a dynamic at work that goes way beyond a desire to deiscuss differences between the sexes.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

I would like to point out that I started reading between the lines of Cuso's threads and everyone got mad at me for it. I developed a grudge towards him because of my perception of his racism/elitism.

I'm just pointing out that what you're doing is very similar and not any nicer than what I did.

Just sayin . . .

 

[princesss]

AGBF and Ksinger, I just want to say I love your posts (on this thread, and in general).